20061692 Ver 1_Application_20061027

F
.~`°
e ". STAT~n
`~ w°~
~y ~ :_ >
,a,~.@~~. ~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 2$801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
Cc: David Baker
NCDOT Coordinator
October 23, 2006
~-st,°.-~ ..
...
'
C
~
~
~2 1 ~ S
7~
y.~
.
~ ,
.•~!
tYh Y ~' «.
~~9
~ ~®
'T ~
J, <..
p
m
~~
~ N
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
061692
Subject: Nationwide Permit 6 Application for replacement of Bridge No. 211 on
SR 1519 (Old Crabtree Road) over Richland Creek, Federal Aid No. BRZ-
1519(2), State Project No. 8.2942601, WBS Element No. 33493.1.1,
Haywood County, Division 14, TIP No. B-4144.
Dear Mr. Lund:
The Geotechnical Unit is planning a foundation investigation for the above-referenced
project. The NCDOT is providing written application because a portion of this work (two
borings) is to be conducted within Richland Creek [DWQ Index No. 5-16-(16)], Class C,
303d Impaired Water. A private engineering firm (PEF) will be conducting the
geotechnical investigation performing a maximum of six (6) borings, with four (4) borings
to be located on land in the proposed roadway, and two (2) borings to be located within
Richland Creek. The temporary surface water impacts total < 0.01 acre. Although listed as
a commitment in the CE, puisuant to comments received from the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) September 1, 2006, no trout moratorium is required. Please see
attached CE, Plan Sheet showing location of borings and PCN for reference.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604

r.
The location of each boring is as follows:
Boring Designation Station Offset Location Description
30001 ~ 14+OS -21.0 in proposed roadway
30002 14+OS 16.0 in proposed roadway
30003 14+85 -16.0 in Richland Creek
30004 14+85 11.0 in Richland Creek
30005 15+65 -21.0 in proposed roadway
30006 15+65 16.0 in proposed roadway
The two (2) borings to be installed in Richland Creek (Boring Designation 30003 and
30004) will be performed from a barge or by an ATV depending on water depth. The
barge (if used) will be no larger than 19 feet by 25 feet in size. It will be held in place by
steel spuds driven into the river bottom or steel cables attached to trees.
The total area within jurisdictional waters that maybe disturbed by performing the two in-
waterborings is estimated to be < 0.01 acre (8 ft2 per boring). The in-water borings will
consist of turning or driving 3-inch to 6-inch diameter steel casing into the river bottom
creating minimal disturbance. The consultant will use casing to advance to borings and
rotary-wash techniques. The borings will be backfilled with. the cuttings and then sealed
with bentonite hole plug. When the boring is completed, the steel casing. will be removed
from the river bottom. The borings will be drilled within 20 feet of the proposed locations
and will be.moved only as the design is revised or due to site accessibility.
AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation
of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Specific measures taken to minimize
impacts are as follows:
• Limiting the number of borings within Waters of the United States to two (Z).
• Utilizing casing to advance the borings'to contain all drilling fluid and cuttings.
• Implementing and strictly enforcing Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for
Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B.0024)
• Implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Protection of Surface Waters.
MITIGATION
As the project impacts are temporary, no mitigation is proposed.
2

l~

FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), are protected under provisions of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of October 16, 2006, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists ten federally protected species for Haywood
County (Table 1). The biological conclusion for nine of the ten listed species remains "No
Effect". A survey for Bald eagles was conducted September 14, 2006. No individuals,
nests or potential nesting trees were observed within the project study area. It can therefore
be determined that this project will have No Effect on Bald eagles. The one species with
habitat present, Small-whorled pogonia, was last survey in May 2004. Another survey for
this species maybe required prior to construction of the project.
Table 1. Federally protected species of Haywood County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status Survey
Notes Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T(PFD) No Habitat No Effect
Clemmys muhlenber ii Bog turtle T S/A Not Required N/A
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus Carolina northern
flying s uirrel E No Habitat No Effect
Puma concolor cou ar Eastern cougar E No Habitat No Effect
Myotis risescens Gray bat E No Habitat No Effect
Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat E No Habitat No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana A palachian elktoe E No Habitat No Effect
Microhexura mondiva a S race-fir moss spider E No Habitat No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled pogonia T Habitat No Effect
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E No Habitat No Effect
Endangered (E) - is defined as a taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened (T) - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range."
T(S/A) - "Similarity of Appearance" (a species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare
species).
T(PFD) - A taxon "Proposed for Delisting".
REGULATORY APPROVALS
The NCDOT anticipates that these activities will be authorized by a Nationwide Permit No.
6 and the associated 401 General Certification No. GC3376. A completed PCN form and
appropriate drawings are attached for your review. All General Conditions of the Water
Quality Certification will be met. Therefore, written concurrence from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
3

Jr

not required. In accordance with 1 SA NCAC 2H.0501(a), we are providing two (2) copies
of this application to DWQ for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Erin Schubert at [phone].
Sincerely
~•
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Attachments: Pre-construction Notification
Project drawings
Categorical Exclusion (February 2005)
cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Njoroge W. Wainaina, State Engineering Geologist, P.E., Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. B. Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Joseph Miller, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
4

r•
~t
Office Use Only• Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 6 1 6 9 2
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "loot P.ppi~cabie" or "N~A".~
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 6
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: NCDOT -Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: ekschubert(a~dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the .property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation~to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by l7-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 211 over Richland Creek on SR 1519 (Old Crabtree Road)
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4144
3.' Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Haywood Nearest Town: Clyde
' Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Please refer to attached
maps.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35°32'50.84" °N 82°56'43.44" °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Pigeon River
8. River Basin: French Broad
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The land uses surrounding and within the project study area
are mainly agricultural and woodland with scattered residential homes.
Page 2 of 8

M
rt
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Subsurface geotechnical investigations will be performed. The two in-water borings will be
performed by a drilling barge or ATV. The four land borings will be performed with a
rubber tired or tracked ATV drill rig.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To determine foundation potential.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
A NWP 23/33 and associated approvals from the NCDWQ will be requested for the. replacement
of Bridge No. 211 over Richland Creek on SR 1519 (Old Crabtree Road).
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: No permanent wetland or stream
impacts will occur with this action. Please see cover letter for more details.
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
No Wetlands

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization, activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
30003 Richland Creek Temporary Perennial 45 ft N/A < 0.01
30004 Richland Creek Temporary Perennial 45 ft N/A < 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
No open water

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
Page 4 of 8

.'
.'
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): < 0.01 (Temporary-borings (16ft2))
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) < 0.01 (Temporary-borings (16ft2))
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area:
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Only 2 borings will be in
Richland Creek. Casings will be used to advance the borings to contain all drillins fluid and
cuttings. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines as well as Best Management Practices
will be followed.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8

USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state.nc. us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide. a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is pro osed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Page 6 of 8

r
J
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? ~ Yes.. ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^ .
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ).
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact I Multi lier I Required
i..,....._,. r ,..~ P ~,r:..,.,,.,,..,
1 ~ 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
Page 7 of 8

r

the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
Impervious surface will not significantly increase as a result of this project.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

,~
i
Haywood County
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
~,/~ Opp
RE~ErO~ED
,1lIN ~ 200b
FDEA-OFFICE ~ ` FNUIRONMEI~T
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519 over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1519(2)
State Project 8.2942601
WBS # 33493.1.1
TIP Project No. B-4144
APPROVED:
bZ- of O5- ~ ~~ ~ 'eQ~-c.~~~~
DATE Gregory J. Thom, h.D.,
J' ~ Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
c~ ~ ~ f~0~
DATE
~Q John F. Sullivan III, P.E.,
-" _ _ Division Administrator, FHWA

1
Haywood County
Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519 over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1519(2)
State Project 8.2942601
WBS # 33493.1.1
TIP Project No. B-4144
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 2005
Document Prepared by:
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
t7,., Gl.~~-
onal G. Hairr
Project Manager ~„~,
Russell H. Dalton, P.E.
Project Engineer
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~ ~ ~,~
sled Al-Akhdar
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

~ •

i
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Haywood County
Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519 over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1519(2)
State Project 8.2942601
WBS # 33493.1.1
TIP Project No. B-4144
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development aKd Environme~ztat Analysis Branch:
Approval under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act will be
required. A copy of the approved Categorical Exclusion (CE) will be provided to the
TVA.
A jurisdictional determination for Richland Creek will be required prior to pernutting.
Division Construction/Project Services Unit:
There will be an in-stream and 25-foot buffer work moratorium from October 15 to
April 15.
The "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing
Trout Waters in North Carolina" (October 27, 1992) will be adhered to throughout design
and construction of this project.
NCDOT .will implement Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive
Watersheds (15A -NCAC 4B .0024) prior to any ground disturbing activities and follow
the stormwater rules (15A NCAC 2b.0216 (3) (G)). Richland Creek is listed on the .
303(d) list of impaired surface waters in the project area.
Green Sheet
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
January 2005
Page 1 of 1

k
Ha} _. od Couunty .;
Bridge N~ 211 an' ~ , der ~ch~~d~reek
Federal-Aid ~?:~.~1 S„~2).
`State ~, ~~~;"~9436Q1 3 .
WB X3493.1.1. ~~~. _ _ _
TIP Project No. B-4144
...
~. .:
~, 4
•~E2t 4 ..
~ ~~`Y~ ~~
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 211 is included in the 2004-2010
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement
Program (TIl') and the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 43.4 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The replacement of an inadequate structure will result in safer and
more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 211 is located on SR 1519 (Old Crabtree Road) in Haywood County. SR
1519 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use in the project area is woodland, farmland and residential. A private residence
and maintained yard is located in the southeast quadrant. SR 1519 is atwo-lane roadway,
with 16 feet of total pavement width and four-foot grass shoulders on both sides. The
bridge is located in the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) oversight.
Haywood County is designated as a trout county by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
There is underground cable and utilities that run along the south side of the bridge.
Aerial power lines are also located to the south of the bridge and can be seen in the
attached photographs (Figure 4). Utility impacts are expected to be moderate.
Bridge No. 211 was constructed in 1958. The existing structure is 71 feet in length and
consists of two spans. The longest span is 35.8 feet in length. The clear roadway width
is 19.2 feet, providing two 9.6-foot travel lanes .with no effective shoulder width. The
existing right of way width is 60 feet. The superstructure of Bridge No. 211 consists of a
timber floor on I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface and timber railing. The
substructure of the bridge consists of end bents and one interior bent. End bent 1 consists
of a timber cap with timber piles and sheeting. Abutment 2 consists of Yount Masonry.
The interior bent consists of a timber cap on timber piles with concrete sills. The bed to
crown height is 18.4 feet. The normal depth of flow is 2.8 feet. The posted weight limit
is 15 tons for single vehicles and 19 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 1

Y
The roadway from the northeast approaches the existing bridge in a horizontal compound
curve of 244 feet in length using radii of 170 feet and 80 feet. The approach roadway
from the northeast is also on a horizontal curve with a length of 91 feet using a radius of
250 feet. There are two adjacent driveways within 50 feet of the east end of the bridge
approaching from the south and southeast. The speed limit in the vicinity of the existing
bridge on SR 1519 is posted at 15 nules per hour (mph) due to the roadway curvature
through the project study azea. Outside of the project area, the roadway is posted at 45
mph.
The estimated 2004 average daily traffic volume is 1,100 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 3,300 vpd by the design yeaz 2030.
The volumes include 4 percent TTST and 4 percent dual tired vehicles.
This section of SR 1519 in Haywood County is not part of a designated bicycle route and
is not listed in the TIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. Two school buses
cross this bridge twice daily.
There is one single-vehicle accident reported for the three-year period of September 1,
2000 through August 31, 2003. No injuries were reported.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The drainage area for the bridge is 68.4 square miles and is located in a FEMA
Detailed Study azea. The channel geometry is such that there is a lazge floodplain
on the West side. The East side has a steep mountain slope with no floodplain.
The crossing is 0.2 miles upstream of the confluence with the Pigeon River so
there is substantial backwater in Richland Creek. The length and opening size of
the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows, as determined by a detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during
the final design phase of the project. The proposed right-of way width is 60 feet.
The design speed will be 20 mph.
B. Build Alternatives
Two (2) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described
below. The typical roadway sections are shown in Figure 3.
Alternative 1 (Figure 2A) replaces the bridge in place with no approach roadway
improvements. It is anticipated that the bridge length will be approximately 80
feet. The final bridge length will be determined during final design. Alternative 1
was not selected as the preferred alternative because it requires anoff--site detour
exceeding the detour guidelines. The detour exceeds six miles of travel and
includes NC 209, SR 1649, SR 1512 and SR 1513.

r
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 2

'r
Alternative 2 (Preferred -Figure 2B) replaces the existing structure with a bridge
on new alignment. It is anticipated that the bridge length will be approximately
130 feet. The final bridge length will be determined during final design. This
structure is 280 feet downstream. The proposed bridge will consist of two 12-foot
travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders. Wider shoulders are proposed to provide
additional sight distance on the bridge and for driveways in the vicinity of the
curved bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge.
This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1519.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
Alternative 3 replaces the existing structure with a bridge on new alignment. The
bridge will be in a curve, shifting the west end approximately 10 feet upstream
and shifting the east end approximately 30 feet downstream. It is anticipated that
the bridge length will be approximately 110 feet with a severely skewed vertical
abutment 12 feet behind the existing abutment on the east side and a sloping
abutment on the west side. The proposed bridge will consist of two 12-foot travel
lanes with 8-foot shoulders. Traffic will be maintained with anoff--site detour.
Alternative 3 was eliminated from further study because the bridge hydraulic
opening would be decreased and the low steel would be lowered below the FEMA
50-year event water surface elevation.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative because it provides
improved roadway geometry and hydraulic efficiency, and does not require an
off-site detour.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
3

x
x
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on 2004 prices, are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) ~ $14,200.00 $14,200.00
Structure (proposed) $256,000.00 $341,250.00
Roadway approaches $58,935.00 $211,200.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $66,745.00 $148,350.00
Engineering and Contingencies $79,120.00 $110,000.00
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities $41,000.00 $62,000.00
Total $516,000.00 $887,000.00
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $635,000 including $60,000 for right-of--way and $575,000 for
construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Field investigations were conducted along the project study area during the month
of October 2003. Pedestrian surveys were undertaken to determine natural
resource conditions and to document natural communities, wildlife, and the
presence of protected species or their habitats.
Published information regazding the project study area and region was derived
from a number of sources including: USGS 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle
map (Clyde, North Carolina), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
database reviews, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, NCDOT aerial
photography (1" = 200'), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
soil survey mapping of Haywood County.
Surface waters within the project study area were evaluated in the field to
document their physical characteristics and jurisdictional status. Water resources
information was obtained from publications of the North Cazolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-
DWQ).
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 4

a ,
Approximate boundaries of plant communities were mapped in the field utilizing
aerial photography of the project study area. Dominant plant species were
identified in each strata for each plant community, Plant community descriptions
are based on the classifications utilized by Schafale and Weakly (1990). Plant
names follow the nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Wildlife occurrences were detemlined through visual field observations,
evaluation of habitat-types within the project study area, secondary indicators of
species (tracks, scat, and burrows), as well as a review of supporting literature
(Coe, 1994, Martof, et al, 1980, and Webster, 1985). Field observations and
literature reviews (Bogan, 2002, Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993, Voshell, Jr., 2002)
were utilized to assess aquatic life.
Information concerning the potential occurrence of federal .and state protected
species within the project study area and project vicinity was obtained from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species (updated
February 24, 2003 -current update as of January 25, 2005) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (updated January 2004 -current update as of January 25, 2005). Field
evaluations of the project study area were conducted to identify suitable habitat
for protected species. If suitable habitat was identified, field surveys were
conducted for Federally listed endangered or threatened species.
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified and delineated based on the methodology
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetland systems were classified based on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States (Cowazdin, et al., 1979). Wetland boundaries were
located in the field using GPS methods with sub-meter accuracy.
B. Physiography and Soils
Haywood County is situated in the southwestern portion 'of the Mountain
physiographic province in North Carolina. The geography of the county consists
predominantly of very steep uplands, with gentler slopes in the major river
valleys. Bridge No. 211 is located in the central portion of the county. Narrow,
nearly level floodplains aze along most of the streams in the region; however,
steep gorges are not uncommon. Elevations in the project study area range from
approximately 2,500 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 2,530 feet above MSL
as depicted on the Clyde, North Carolina, USGS topographic quadrangle map
(Figure 1). The land uses surrounding and within the project study area is mainly
agricultural and woodland with scattered residential homes.
The geologic features underlying the project study area are associated with the
Blue Ridge Belt, specifically, muscovite-biotite gneiss which is sulfidic and
interlayered with mica schist, minor amphibolite, and hornblende gneiss rock
(North Carolina Division of Land Resources, 1985). The project study area is
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 5

depicted as a formation of biotite gneiss which is, migmatic and interlayered with
biotite-garnet gneiss and amphibolite. Quartz and aluminosilicates are locally
abundant throughout this formation. The project vicinity is located within the
Oconee Supergroup.
Soil associations are classified as a group of defined and- named taxonomic soil
units occurring together in an individual and characteristic pattern over a general
region. Based on information contained in the soil survey data for Haywood
County, the soils within the project study area are composed of two soil series:
Rosman fine sandy loam and Fannin loam.
Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is occasionally flooded and
consists of very deep, well- drained to moderately well drained, moderately
rapidly permeable soil on the floodplains in the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Rosman series soils are formed in loamy alluvium. In the Haywood County soil
survey, Rosman fine sandy loam located along floodplains within the study area
are listed as having hydric inclusions of Nikwasi soils especially along drainage
ways (MRCS 1995).
Fannin loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, is eroded and consists of very deep, well-
drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes of the Blue
Ridge region. Fannin series soils are formed in residuum that is affected by soil
creep in the upper part and is weathered from high-grade metamorphic rocks that
are high in mica content such as mica gneiss and mica schist.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project vicinity are part of
Richland Creek watershed within the French Broad River basin. The
French Broad River basin covers approximately 2,842 square miles.
Richland Creek accounts for the surface waters in the project area. The
project study area is situated just upstream of the confluence of Richland
Creek and the Pigeon River. It is located in NCDWQ Subbasin 04-03-OS
and USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010106. This section of Richland Creek
from the Lake Junaluska Dam to the Pigeon River, which includes the
project area, has been identified by the NCDWQ Stream Index # 5-16-
(16).
NCDWQ defines a perennial surface water as a clearly defined channel
that contains water for the majority of the year. These channels usually
have some or all of the following characteristics: distinctive streambed
and bank, aquatic life, and groundwater flow or discharge. Richland
Creek was identified as a perennial stream in the project study area. '
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 6

NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best
uses. Richland Creek from the Lake Junaluska Dam to the Pigeon River is
classified as "C" waters. Class C denotes waters suitable for all general
uses including aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
primary recreation, and agriculture. Richland Creek is not designated as
essential fish habitat and does not contain anadromous and warm water
fish species.
Several tributaries of Richland Creek upstream of the Lake Junaluska Dam
are classified as water supply (WS-I) waters. WS-I waters represent water
supplies in natural and undeveloped watersheds, in which no point source
discharges are allowed. No other Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
HQW, or Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) occur within Richland Creek
watershed in the project vicinity.
North Carolina's 303(d) -report is a comprehensive public accounting of all
impaired water bodies in the state. Richland Creek is listed on the DWQ
2004 Draft 303(d) list of impaired waters for impaired biological integrity.
Special measures for sediment control will be required by NCDWQ during
construction.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) determines the "use support"
status of waterbodies, meaning how well a waterbody supports its
designated uses. The waters in the project study area are currently rated as
Partially Supporting.
While the upper portions of Richland Creek show water quality impacts
from agriculture and urban development, only the section below the Lake
Junaluska Dam is currently rated Partially Supporting and has shown
signs of improving water quality in recent yeazs.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Richland Creek is a perennial stream that flows northeast to west-
northwest. The top of bank width is approximately 45 feet wide with a
wetted width of 25 to 35 feet. One to two feet of moderately flowing
water was observed within the channel during the site visit. Richland
Creek has a bankfull depth of 3 feet throughout the project study area.
The 3 to 6 feet tall stream banks appeared stable. The substrate consists of
sand and gravel with cobble and boulder riffle sections. The water was
clear with moderate sediment deposition. Excellent habitat conditions
exist within the channel for numerous aquatic species. The stream
received a NCDWQ stream classification of 53.25.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion

Based on Rosgen classification, Richland Creek is an "F" channel. It is ~
slightly entrenched with a meandering, riffle/pool channel on a low
gradient with a high width/depth ratio
A benthic macroinvertebrate sampling study consisting of sixteen sites
within the basin was conducted in 1997 and included a sampling site
approximately one mile downstream of the project location on Richland
Creek. The 1997 sampling event gave Richland Creek a "fair" rating. No
other sampling sites are in the vicinity of the project study area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are regulated
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. There are 20 permitted NPDES dischargers in the subbasin,
with three of those being major dischargers (>0.5 MGD). Only one major
discharger is located within Richland Creek watershed, the Waynesville
Wastewater Treatment Plant, located approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km)
south and upstream of the ~ project study area. There are six minor
dischargers within Richland Creek watershed, which are located
approximately 2.5 to 10 miles upstream of the project study area.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through stormwater, snowmelt or atmospheric deposition. Land use
activities such as land development, construction, mining operations, crop
production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills,• roads and
parking lots are contributors of non-point source pollutants. The land use
surrounding and within the project study area are mainly agriculture with
forest and some residential development.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) General Impacts
The proposed project is expected to impact both soils and
topography. No adverse long-term impacts to soils and
topography are expected from the proposed bridge replacement.
The primary sources of water-quality degradation in rural areas
are agricultural operations and construction. Aquatic organisms
are very sensitive to discharges and inputs resulting from
construction. Potential impacts associated with construction of
the proposed project include: increased sedimentation, scouring
of the streambed, soil compaction, and loss of shading due to
vegetation removal. Increased sedimentation from lateral flows
is also expected. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 8

guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stages
of the project.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The superstructure of Bridge No. 211 consists of a timber floor on I-beams
with an asphalt wearing surface and timber railing. The substructure of the
bridge consists of end bents and one interior bent. End bent 1 consists of a
timber cap with timber piles and sheeting. Abutment 2 consists of Yount
Masonry. The interior bent consists of a timber cap on timber piles with
concrete sills. The bridge has 2 equal spans that total 71 feet in length.
It should be possible for the superstructure and substructure elements to be
removed without resulting in any temporary fill in "Waters of the United
States" during demolition and removal. The superstructure and
substructure elements noted above can be cut'and removed without any
temporary fill falling into Richland Creek during demolition.
D. Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife that occur
within the project study area. The project study area is composed of three
different vegetative communities based on topography, soils, hydrology, and
disturbance. Scientific nomenclature and common name (when applicable) are
provided for each plant and animal species listed. Subsequent references to the
same organism only include the common name. .
1. Plant Communities
Three plant communities were observed in the project study area: montane
alluvial forest, montane oak-hickory forest, and maintained-disturbed land.
a) Montane Alluvial Forest
Montane alluvial forests are found within stream and river
floodplains at moderate to high elevations. Vegetation within
this community is dependent upon occasional flooding. This
community is found within the project study area as a strip
approximately 20 feet wide along Richland Creek.
The canopy is dominated by a diverse mix of black walnut
(Juglans nigra), yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria), red maple (Ater rubrum),
river birch (Betula nigra), yellow birch (Betula lutea), and
yellow poplaz (Liriodendron tulipifera). The sub-canopy and
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
9

a
understory species include mulberry (Morus Yubra), hazelnut
(Corylus alnericana), sweet shrub (Calycantlzus floYidus var.
laevigatus), musclewood (Carpinus caYOliniana), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), silky
dogwood (Corpus amomum), black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia), American ash (Fi-axinus americana), American holly
(Ilex opaca), willow (Salix nigra), spicebush (Lindera belzzoin),
and hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Groundcover and
herbaceous species that are present include doghobble
(Leucothoe axillaris), greenbriar (Smilax Yotundifolia),
muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.),
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), thorn bush (Rosa rugosa), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodelzdron
YadZCanS).
b) Montane Oak -Hickory Forest
The montane oak -hickory forest developed along dry-mesic
slopes and partly sheltered ridgetops at moderate to fairly high
elevations, typically in the southern mountains. A mature
montane oak -hickory forest is naturally uneven-aged, with
reproduction occurring in canopy gaps. Fires, strong winds, and
ice storms cause the majority of the natural tree felling, which
result in these canopy gaps.
Within the study area, red maple, black cherry, _ white oak
(Quercus alba), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra) dominate the
canopy. The understory consists predominately of sumac (Rhus
sp.), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), 'black locust, and red
maple. Vines dominate the groundcover stratum within this
community and include muscadine, honeysuckle, and leather-
flower (Clematis spp.).
c) Maintained-Disturbed Land
The maintained-disturbed areas of the project study area lie on
either side of the .existing bridge and SR 1519 and will be
impacted. These azeas include maintained lawns, maintained
roadsides, and agricultural land. Agricultural lands represent
areas used for the cultivation of row crops and disturbed lands
aze azeas which are maintained to grow very little to no woody
vegetation. Agricultural lands are harvested on a particular
rotation and provide limited habitat diversity for wildlife. This
community is the most •prevalent community within the project
study area.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 10

s

Vegetation within the maintained-disturbed area includes various
grasses (Poaceae), Fescue (Fescue sp.), Johnson grass (Sorghum
,1lalepelzse), nightshade (Sola11un1 sp.), poison ivy, clover
(Tr~oliunl spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), bamboo
(Phyllostacllys aul~ea), privet (Ligustrzlm sinense), phlox (Phlox
spp.), daisy fleabane (EI-igelron spp.), mimosa (Albizia
julibrlsstll), sassafras (Sassafras albidum) and blackberry.
2. Terrestrial Wildlife
The alluvial forest community in conjunction with open agricultural lands
and other disturbed areas offer high plant diversity and water availability;
thus providing high quality wildlife habitat. These conununities provide a
variety of habitat for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
The maintained roadsides, lawns, and agricultural areas provide rich
ecotones for foraging, while the Montane Alluvial Forest and Montane
Oak-Hickory Forest provide foraging and cover. White-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor), tracks were
observed along Richland Creek. Beaver (Castor canadensis) activity was
observed in the alluvial forest. Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)
scat was also observed along the field edge. Wildlife accustomed to
human activity was sighted such as the American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata).
Common mammals, which could be expected to utilize the project study
area habitat, include Virginia opossum (Didelphis VirgIT11a71a), smoky
shrew (Sorex fumeus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), woodchuck
(Marmota nlonax), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolilzensis), eastern harvest
mouse (Reitllrodontomys humulis), muskrat (Ondatra zibetl?icus), coyote
(Canis latrans), and mink (Mustela vison).
Common birds, which could be expected to utilize the project study area
habitat, include hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker
(P. pubescens), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus vireos), eastern phoebe
(Sayor~lis phoebe), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater). Game species such as woodcock (Scolopax minor) and
wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) may also be present. Predatory birds
such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and eastern screech owl
(Otus asio) are also likely to be found in the project vicinity.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
11

Common reptiles and amphibians, which could be expected to utilize the 1
project area habitat, include brown snake (Storeria dekayi), timber
rattlesnake (Crotalus port-idus), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedotz),
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporzts undulatus),
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), Broadhead skink (E. laticeps),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina).
3. Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
Richland Creek provides aquatic habitat within the project study area. The
physical characteristics (size and water quality) of the stream, as well as
the adjacent terrestrial community, directly influence faunal composition
of this aquatic community. The quality of aquatic habitat within the
project study area is expected to be high due in large part to a natural mix
of riffles, runs, and pools. Woody debris located throughout the stream
provides habitat, shade, and concealment pockets for several aquatic
species.
Insects typically found in this type of community include mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera),
dragonflies (Odonta sp.) and aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). Whirligig
beetles (Gyrinidae), Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea), planorbid snails
(Planorbidae), little stout .crawler mayfly (Leptohyphidae), and darner
dragonflies (Aeshnidae) were collected in Richland Creek.
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), brown trout (Salmo trutta),
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) aze small gamefish that typically occur in this community.
Small non-game fish in the area that inhabit Richland Creek include the
following: Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), Hiawassee shiner (Notropis scabriceps), logperch (Percina
caprodes), blacirnose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (R.
cataractae), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker
(Catostomus commersoni), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans),
and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi).
A freshwater mussel survey was conducted on September 9, 2003 from the
confluence of the Pigeon River to 328 feet upstream of the bridge
crossing. No freshwater mussels were found except for Asian clams.
Other aquatic species likely to be found in the project vicinity include
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon
subrubrum), sliders (Chrysemys scripta), and painted turtles (Chrysemys
pitta).
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 12

s .
r
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Corrununities
a) Terrestrial Communities
Table 1 describes the acreage of plant communities within the
proposed construction limits that would be impacted by each
alternative. Impacts to plant communities associated with
construction activities include the removal of vegetation, soil
compaction, damaging andlor exposing root systems, as well as
potential impacts associated with petroleum spills.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
Percentage
Alternative 1 Percentage of
Community Type Impact Alternative Alternative 2 of
Impact Acres Alternative
Acres Area
Area
Montane Alluvial
0.04 21 % 0.12 10%
Forest
Montane Oak-Hickory
N/A N/A ~ 0.02 2%
Forest
Maintained-Disturbed
0.17 79% 1.01 88%
Land
Due to the minimal disturbance of plant communities anticipated
as a result of the bridge replacement, substantial impacts to
terrestrial wildlife populations are not expected. The proposed
right of way width is 60 feet.
b) Aquatic Communities
Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their
environment, and environmental impacts from construction
activities may result in long term or irreversible effects. Impacts
usually associated with in-stream construction include alterations
to the substrate and impacts adjacent strearnside vegetation.
Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation,
which can clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Siltation may also cover
benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment
that inhibit their ability to obtain oxygen.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
13

The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill
material during construction enhances erosion and possible
sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce
the impacts by supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and
•sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash, and other
materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site.
As a result, bars may form at and downstream of the site.
Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside
vegetation may increase water temperatures. Warmer water
contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends on
high oxygen concentrations.
Stream crossing lengths have been determined for the two
alternatives (Table 2).
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS
(LINEAR FEET WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS)
Jurisdictional Stream Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Richland Creek 41 40
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of dischazges into
"Waters of the United States." The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative agency of the
Clean Water Act; however, the United States Army Corps 'of Engineers
(USAGE) has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and
enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USAGE regulatory
program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies, including lakes, rivers, and streams, aze subject to
jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. Wetlands are
also identified as "Waters of the United States." Wetlands, defined in 33
CFR 328.3, are those areas that aze inundated or saturated by surface water
or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas fall under the jurisdiction of the
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 14

s
F
USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). No
jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project study area.
2. Perniits (as applicable)
a) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under the
jurisdiction of the USACE. Permits will be required for highway
encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The
Nationwide Permit 23 should cover the impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands and streams in the project study area. Nationwide
Permit 33 may be needed for temporary construction access.
b) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is also
required for any activity which may result in a discharge into
"Waters of the United States" or for which an issuance of a
federal permit is required. The issuance of a required Section
401 certification is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404
perniit.
Final determination of permit applicability lies with USACE.
NCDOT will coordinate with the USACE to obtain the necessary
permits.
c) TVA
Richland Creek is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's
(TVA) land management district. Approval pursuant to Section
26a of the TVA Act is required for all construction and
development involving stream or floodplains in the Tennessee
River drainage basin.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of
wetlands" and project sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore
and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "Waters of
the United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts
has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
15

W
aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered in sequential order.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters of the United States." It is not
feasible for this project to completely avoid Richland Creek and still meet
the purpose and need for this project.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to "Waters of the United States."
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) and 40 CFR 1508.20,
mitigation will be required for impacts to jurisdictional streams requiring
mitigation when these impacts are equal to or greater than 150 linear feet
per stream. In addition, mitigation may be required for wetland impacts
exceeding 0.10 acre. It is anticipated that the bridge replacement over
Richland Creek will impact less than 150 linear feet of stream. No
wetlands are located within the project study area. Therefore, no stream or
wetland mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final
perrnit/mitigation decisions will be determined by -the USACE and
NCDWQ.
NCDENR has adopted permanent Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy rules to protect and maintain 50-foot wide riparian buffers in
several watersheds across the state. At this time, surface waters in the
French Broad River Basin are not subject to NCDENR's Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Management Strategy rules.
Currently, the buffer protection regulations in the French Broad River
Basin apply in watersheds classified as Water Supply Watersheds, which
would not include Richland Creek. Public projects such as road crossings
aze allowed to encroach upon the buffers when no practicable alternative
exists. A 25-foot trout work buffer has been requested by NCWRC.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Federal law under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended, requires that any action likely to adversely affect a
federally-protected species be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species
may warrant protection under separate state laws. Plants and animals with federal
classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE),
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. According to the February 24, 2003 updated Internet list
(current update as of January 25, 2005), the USFWS lists nine federally protected
species for Haywood County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species
and unique habitats shows no occurrence of federally protected species within 1.0

B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 16

mile of the project study area. Table 3 shows that six federally protected species
are listed as endangered and three federally protected species are listed as
threatened for Haywood County (NCNHP, January 2004 -current update as of
January 25, 2005).
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR HAYWOOD COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Conclusion
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta Endangered No Effect
raveneliana

Bog turtle Clemmys Threatened (Similarity of ,~
N/A
muhlenbergii Appearance)
Carolina northern Glaucomys sabrinus Endangered No Effect
flying squirrel coloratus
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Threatened(Proposed for No Effect
leucoce halus delistin )
Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered No Effect
Eastern cougar Puma concolor Endangered No Effect
cou ar
Spruce-fir moss Microhexura Endangered No Effect
spider montivaga
Small whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened No Effect
pogonia
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered No Effect
*Species not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
The species does not require a biological conclusion due to similarity of appeazance.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta ravelneliana)
The Appalachian elktoe is akidney-shaped freshwater mussel endemic to the
upper Tennessee River system in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
The adult shell reaches 3.5 inches (9 cm) in length and is usually dark brown with
prominent to obscure greenish rays. This mussel inhabits relatively shallow
medium-sized creeks and rivers with moderate to fast flowing water. It is
generally found in gravelly substrates mixed with cobbles and boulders or
occasionally in silt-free, coarse sandy substrates. Reproduction is similar to that
of other freshwater mussels, and the banded sculpin (Cottus carolinea) has been
identified as a host species for developing glochidia. Historically, this mussel was
found in the French Broad River system, including French Broad main stem and
the Little River in Transylvania County. Surveys conducted in the French Broad
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
17

r
River system from 1986 through the spring of 1992 failed to locate any specimens
of the Appalachian elkfoe.
Suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe consisting of shallow medium-sized
creeks with fast flowing water and clean, silt-free, gravel substrates is readily
available in the project study area. Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known
populations of this species within one mile of the project. A mussel survey was
conducted on September 9, 2003 and no individuals were found. This species
will not be impacted as a result of project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Bog turtles are small (3 to 4.5-inch) reptiles with a weakly keeled carapace (upper
shell) that ranges in color from light brown ~to ebony. This species is easily
distinguished from other turtles by a large, conspicuous, bright orange to yellow
blotch on each side of its head. Bog turtles are semi-aquatic and inhabit muddy,
bog-like habitats. They can be found during the spring mating season from June
to July and at other times from April to October when the humidity is high and
temperatures are in the 70s. Bog turtle habitat consists of bogs, swamps, marshy
meadows, and other wet environments, specifically those which exhibit soft,
muddy bottoms.
In the November 1987, the northern population of the bog turtle (from New York
south to Maryland) was listed as federally threatened, and the southern population
(from Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as federally threatened due to
similarity of appearance. The southern populations are not protected under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; however, the T(S/A) designation bans
the collection and interstate or international commercial trade of bog turtles from
the southern population (USFWS 2004).
This site contains no wetlands; therefore, suitable habitat for the bog turtle is not
present. No bog turtles were observed in the project vicinity. NCNHP has no
records of any known populations of the bog turtle within cone-mile radius of the
project area, This species will not be impacted as a result of project construction.

B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 1 g

r

Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucolnys sabrinus colo~~atus)
The northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal mammal that inhabits the high
elevation ecotone between coniferous and northern hardwood forest. This high
elevation habitat usually occurs above 5,500 feet above MSL. These squirrels are
10 to 12 inches long and weigh 3 to S.ounces. Adults are gray with alight brown
to reddish cast on their backs and light gray to white or buff undersides. The
broad tails and folds of skin between the wrist and ankles form wing-like surfaces
that enable these animals to glide downward from tree to tree or tree to ground.
These mammals eat a wide variety of foods such as lichens, mushroom, seeds,
nuts, insects, and fruits. These squirrels nest in tree cavities such as woodpecker
holes and usually produce one litter in the early spring (USFWS 2004).
Suitable habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, consisting of nuxed
deciduous/coniferous forests located above 5,500 feet above MSL, does not exist
within the project area. Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known populations
of this species within one mile of the project area. This species will not be
impacted as a result of project construction.
.Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The mature bald eagle (usually 4-plus years in age) can be identified by its large
white head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-
brown in color. Bald eagles can easily be distinguished from other birds by their
flat wing soar. They are primarily associated with large bodies of water where
food is plentiful. Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (usually
within 0.5 mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an
area, with an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause
nest abandonment. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December
and January. Fish are the major food source, although forage items include coots,
herons, wounded ducks, and carrion (USFWS 2004).
As of July 6, 1999, this species is currently under consideration by the USFWS
for a proposed de-listing of their threatened status. However, this raptor will still
be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, and populations will continue to be monitored for at least another
five years under provisions of the Endangered-Species Act.
Suitable habitat for the bald eagle consisting of large bodies of water is present
within the project area. Subsequently, a survey for the presence of any bald eagle
nests was conducted within the study area in July 2001. No bald eagles or their
nests were observed within study area; this is likely due to the moderate amount
of human activity and disturbance within and around the project area.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
19

Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known populations of this species within
one mile of the project area. This species will not be impacted as a result of
project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Gray bat (Myotis grisescens)
The gray bat is the largest of its genus in the eastern United States. It weighs
between 0.25 and 0.56 ounces and has a forearm that reaches from 1.6 to 1.8
inches in length. This bat can be distinguished from other eastern bats by its uni-
colored dorsal fur and by its wing membrane that connects to the foot at the ankle.
Other eastern species of bats have bi- or tri-colored dorsal fur and have a wing
membrane that connects to the base of their first toe. The gray bat's fur is dark
gray for a short time after it molts in July or August and then turns to a russet
color in between molts. It is known -to feed on aquatic insects, especially
mayflies.
This bat inhabits only caves or cave-like habitats. They are very selective about
which caves they will inhabit. The caves aze usually located within 0.62 miles of
a river or reservoir and have a specific temperature in both the summer and the
winter.
Suitable habitat for the gray bat consisting of caves or cave-like structures does
not exist within the project study area. A memorandum dated July 2, 2002 serves
as a programmatic screening/survey for the project. The results of the habitat
evaluation indicated poor roosting habitat and no evidence of bats. Review of
NCNHP maps indicated no known populations of this species within one mile
(1.6 km) of the project azea. This species will not be impacted as a result of
project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Eastern cougar (Fells concolor couguar)
The eastern cougar is described as a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat. Its body and
legs are a uniform fulvous or tawny hue, and its belly is pale reddish or reddish
white. The inside of this cat's ears are light-colored, with a blackish color behind
the ears. Cougars feed primarily on deer, but their diet may also include small
mammals, wild turkeys, and occasionally domestic livestock, when available.
Cougazs begin breeding when two or three years old and breed thereafter once
every two to three yeazs. Atypical litter size is three, with the newborn kittens
weighing 8 to 16 ounces.
The primazy habitat appears to be large wilderness areas with an adequate food
supply. Cougars avoid human-developed areas and have been considered by
some as extirpated for this reason. Male cougars typically occupy a range of 25
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 20

or more square miles, and females from 5 to 20 square miles. Sightings have
been reported in three North Carolina areas including the Nantahala National
Forest, the northern portion of the Uwharrie National Forest, and North Carolina's
southeastern counties. The remaining population of this species is extremely
small, with exact numbers unknown (USFWS 2004).
Suitable habitat would be available in the project study area because of the close
proximity to the Nantahala National Forest's large expanse of relatively
undeveloped lands. However, cougars are not likely in the project area due to the
frequency of human activity within the~study area and localized development near
the study area. The NCNHP has no records of any known populations of the
eastern cougar within aone-mile radius of the project area. This species will not
be impacted as a result of project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga)
It is one of the smallest members of the primitive suborder of spiders that are
often popularly referred to as "tarantulas." Adults of this species measure only
0.10 to 0.15 inches with ayellow-brown to a darker reddish brown color. The
most reliable field identification characteristics for the spruce-fir moss spider are
chelicerae that project forward well beyond the anterior edge of the carapace, a
pair of very long posterior spinnerets, and the presence of a second pair of book
lungs, which appear as light patches posterior to the genital furrow.
The spruce-fir moss spider is known from only Fraser fir (Abies fi~aseri) and red
spruce (Picea rubens) forests on the highest mountain peaks, located at and above
5,400 feet above MSL in the southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina
and Tennessee. The typical habitat of this spider is found in damp, but well-
drained, moss mats growing on rock outcrops and boulders in well-shaded
situations within these forests. The moss mats cannot be too dry (the species is
very sensitive to desiccation) or too wet (large drops of water can also pose a
threat to the spider). The spider constructs tube-shaped webs in the interface
between the moss mat and rock surface. The abundant springtails in the moss
mats provide the most likely source of food for the spider. Populations of the
spruce-fir moss spider have declined, due in large part to the declining numbers of
stands of Fraser fir and red spruce forests (USFWS 2004).
According to the Federal Register on July 6, 2001, critical habitat for the spruce-
fir moss spider has been designated in portions of Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell,
Swain, and Watauga counties in North Carolina and became effective on August
6, 2001. These designated critical habitats include areas within the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, the Pisgah National Forest, the Cherokee National
Forest, and Grandfather Mountain (managed by The Nature Conservancy). None
of these locations are within the project vicinity.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
21

Y
Suitable habitat for the spruce-fir moss spider is not present in the project study
area due to the lack of spruce-fir forest and the relatively low elevation of the
study area. NCNHP has no records of any known populations of the spruce-fir
moss spider within aone-mile radius of the project area. This species will not be
impacted as a result of project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
The small whorled pogonia is a slender perennial herb approximately 4 to 10
inches tall, with a single, green, hollow stem. At the apex of the stem is a whorl
of five or six pale, dusty green leaves with parallel veins. Flowering occurs in
May and June. The flowers are yellowish-green in color with long, thin sepals,
and rounded petals. The lip of the flower is greenish white, veined with green,
and three-lobed.
Populations of this plant are known to have extended periods of dormancy and
bloom sporadically. This small, ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the
spring growing season. The small whorled pogonia is typically found as colonies
in young or maturing deciduous forests that have open and dry areas along
streams. It also grows in rich, mesic woods with acidic soils, typical of white pine
and rhododendron stands (USFWS 2004).
Suitable habitat for the small whorled pogonia consisting of open, deciduous
woods with acid soils is available in the project area. The NCNHP has no records
of any known populations of the small whorled pogonia within aone-mile radius
of the project area. A survey of suitable habitat was conducted on May 12, 2004
during the flowering period. A reference population located in South Mountain
State Park was used to confirm the flowering state. No• plants were observed
within the project study area at the time of the survey. This species will not be
impacted as a result of project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderrna lineare)
Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen of the reindeer moss family. This
species is the only member of its genus occurring in North America. It occurs in
small (usually less than one square yard), dense colonies of narrow, strappy, leaf-
like pads. These strap-like lobes are usually blue-gray on the upper surface and
generally shiny white on the lower surfaces. The fruiting bodies are borne at the
tips of the strap-like lobes and are black, in contrast to the red to brown fruiting
bodies of other reindeer moss lichens. These lichens fruit from July through
September. The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the southern Appalachian
Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. They primarily inhabit vertical rock
faces in areas of high humidity•such as river gorges or areas frequently bathed in
fog. Most populations occur above an elevation of 5,000 feet (USFWS 2004).
i
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 22

r
r
The study area lacks suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen consisting of high
humidity envirorunents such as deep river gorges or other seepy wet rock faces.
The highest elevation in the study area is approximately 3,050 feet above MSL,
well below the elevations (> 5,000 feet above MSL) preferred by this species.
Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known populations of this species within
one mile of the project area. This species will not be impacted as a result of
project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There are 31 federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Haywood
County (Table 4) as noted in the February 24, 2003 list (current update as of
January 25, 2005). Federal species of concern (FSC) are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7. NCNHP records indicated no recorded
occurrences of FSC within one mile of the project study area.
TABLE 4
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR HAYWOOD COUNTY
ame urvame
Requirement
tat Present
Southern egolius T spruce-fir forests or mixed hardwoodlspruce forests No
Appalachian acadicus (for nesting)
saw-whet owl
IlCerulean IlDendroica Ilsx Ilmature harawooa forests; steep slopes ana coves m Iljvo II
warhlPr rerufea mountains
Olive-sided Contopus SC montane conifer foresu (mainly spruce-fir) with No
flycatcher borealis ~ openings or dead trees
IlHellbender II CryptobranchusllSC I (large ana clear fast-uowtng streams I I Y es II
allevanien.ci.c
i SC preferably spruce-fir
coniferous forests N
Southern ox
a , o
Appalachian curvirostra
red crossbill
Southern rock Microtus SC rocky areas at high elevations, forests or betas No
vole chrotorrhinus
carolinensis
Southern eOtOtna SC rocky places in deciduous or mixed forests Yes
Appalachian oridana
woodrat haematoreia
Y
places and abandoned buildings in deciduous or IIYes
foresu in the northern mountains and adjacent
elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir [breeding Ilj~jp
~n only]
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
23

Southern water SoJ'ex palustris SC stream banks in montane forests Yes
shrew unctulatus
Southern Splryrapicus SC mature, open hardwoods with scattered dead trees
Appalachian varius [breeding season only Yes
yellow-bellied appalaciensis
sapsucker
Appalachian 77rryomanes E Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy
BewiCk's wren bewiCkii altus ~ fields, at high elevations [breeding season on1Yl No
Tawny crescent Phyciodes SR rocky ridges, woodland openings, at higher elevations;
butterfly batesii host plants -asters, mainly Aster undulatus j~o
maconensis
Diana fritillary Speyeria Jana SR Rich woods and adjacent openings; host plants are
butterfly ~ Viola sPP . l~(p
Fraser fu bies fraseri SR-L Spruce-fir forests No
Piratebush Buckleya ~ bluffs, dry slopes, forests on lower slopes NO
disticophylla
MOUntaln Cardamine SR-T high elevation seeps, shaded outcrops, and streambanks NO
bittercress clematitis
Tall larkspur elphinium E-SC grassy balds, glades, woodlands, mostly over mafic
exaltatum rock No
Glade spurge uphorbia SR-T forests, especially over mafic rock No
urpurea
Smoky Glycerin T high elevation seeps No
Mountain nubigena
manna grass
Butternut uglans cinerea Not listed Cove forest and rich wood No
Fraser's ysimachia a forests, roadsides Yes
loosestrife aseri
Torrey's ycnanthemum SR-T dry upland forests and woodlands, over mafic rocks No
mountain-mint torrei
Rugel's ragwort ugelia ~ spruce-fir forests
nudicaulis o
Carolina Sax~aga 5R-T high to middle elevation moist cliffs and rock outcrops
saxifrage caroliniana llo
Mountain Silene ovata SR-T rich slopes, cove forests, montane oak-hickory forests
catchfly o
Alabama least Trillium E nch cove forests No
trillium usillum var. 1
A liverwort lagiochila SR-L damp rockfaces in humid gorges, high elevation rocky
sharpii summits jlp
A liverwort lagiochila SR-T on moist rocks, in spray canes of waterfalls and in
ullivantii var. spruce-fir forests No
ullivantii
A liverwort Spenolobopsis ~ on bark of Fraser Firs in spruce-fir forests No
earsonii
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 24

r
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on
properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment
on such undertakings.
B. Flistoric Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for Bridge No. 211 was
conducted on June 7, 2002. All structures within the APE were photographed,
and later an NCDOT staff architectural historian reviewed -these photos. There
were two structures within the APE over fifty years of age, Bridge No. 211 and
Property #2 -House, and both were determined to be ineligible for the National
register of Historic Places by the NCDOT staff architectural historian. The
photographs were shown to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) in a
meeting on July 8, 2003. At that meeting, HPO staff concurred that neither
Bridge No. 211 nor Property #2 was eligible for the National Register and a form
was signed that reflects these findings.. Therefore, there are no National Register-
listed or National Register-eligible properties within the APE for this project.
Copies of all aforementioned correspondence are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
An archaeological survey was conducted in the project APE and the findings were
transmitted in a letter dated September 17, 2003. No archaeological deposits
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified
within the boundaries of the proposed APE, and no further azchaeological work is
recommended unless design plans change prior to construction. In a
memorandum dated October 17, 2003, the State Historic Preservation Officer
concurs with the recommendation that no further azchaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project. A copy of the memorandum is
included in the Appendix. Copies of all- aforementioned correspondence are
included in the Appendix.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
25

f
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of
substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
substantial change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on the community is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations are expected with the implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or
important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Farmland
Protection Policy does not apply.
The project is located in Haywood County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards with the exception of areas
within .the Great Smoky Mountairis National Park. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area outside the
national park. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attainment area.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. The project's
impact on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
7
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion 26

t
r
15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway
traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no
additional reports are required.
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project and based on
the survey, there are no anticipated underground storage tank (UST) impacts with this
project. Research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur
within the project limits, and no superfund sites were identified in the vicinity of the
project. .
Haywood County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project
site on Richland Creek is included in a Detailed FEMA Study area. A copy of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map is shown in Figure 5. The project is not anticipated to increase the
level or extent of the upstream flood hazard and no practical alternatives exist to crossing
the flood plain. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize harm to the flood
plain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process (January 2003) to contact local
officials to involve them in the project development with scoping letters. Please refer to
Project Commitments. No additional project specific comments have been identified.
B-4144 Categorical Exclusion
27

FIGURES

J
i
__ ____-- ~' ~ -~ 61 ~~~ 1513 ~~
1 1653 = -_ \_ ~ (.04) ~~
i - ~.
~~ ---- . ' - - -------` 9~~R'~e. ,~ \ 1654 ~~~
/./ ~ R ~~ \ ~ ti1cC/cue .
y / Gcab~ee d •~ \ \
/! ~ ~
'pq ~~a (~ 1519 1533 \ `• ~ : 2.04
_-~ ~ ~
a~ , ., .
G~0 ~30 ~
~~\iac~% i '_
0
Rl / ,/ .
~~, ~ ~~ 1647 ~
i
\ Meadow 1648-~•
209 ~ 10 ~i tea.
/ {tathb°^e/
i
~ ~ ?0
(,j ~~\, ~° 1520 ~,
i ~ ' Ro. ~
0 1000 2000 FEET

0
4
N
u
a
w
m
0
'o
M
0
0
a
0
N
0
i
i
0 0.25 O.SOKILOMETER
N
w ~ s
s
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT fy
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
HAYWOOD COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.2110N SR 1519
OVER RICHLAND CREEK
TIP N0. B~144
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1

• -- t
4%ft sr'tEts
I ~ t. _
' r 11 ..fir ~ j
~

.

.. i .~~ w
iu ~ C~
t C.. ~+ ~ ~ ~
1~
d ~
+n C'} ~ ~
P
I h
~
n ~
k ,4

~
v
t
I, ,$ µ 1i /
~ q ~~ 5 x
~
ti n~ ~.a ~
~ ~ ,
` ,
I ~ ~
m n /~ »
rn r ~~
YJ

II
1 y
~ ~ t.. a .l '~
r S`^n~ pt!!r
r~ ~ ` et ~
t ~
Y;
' l .' ~
.
f
L ~.
1T Y V .
.rk ,
`p
.
~
_ rly
II
i _ i
t ~ ~ ~
~~y ~~ ~ `
F gyp •~~`'
~
.~ ~
'~ ~84r`j ~" ~'•, ~.n*.'...

I ~ i
~ ?
X''`
al
~t3
r
~r s O
II( ,
~ ° , l
~ ~ ~ ~
' I I ~ _r ni ~ a o
~~ ~ N~fTl~1 .' ~ ~ ~~~] '~ r
"
I . 1 c•~~
A^' ~' .~, T ~
1 ~ e:
~ JJ .~ ltl. i
I

i~ 1. ~;;
~ ~ C +
'
., i. 'r j.
~. `I I. ly''_`
1 I
(
' r
`~'ttmr
{ii~~L
~~_r r
i
Sit
~

r,,..~a
~tnU;
r t e.
'
~~ ~
t
51 (~ G1 L;~ r
i r t
~ 1 . u
ut~rr.~
m _
ra px
C•~
ls
...,Vra t
E! 1 1
5] irCiG Tlr~
u.',-; + ~" v m3 ~ , ~~ ~ I I'1 I C.vdO qty ~1
~ ,IS ti~ ~ ,i y •r' .I r,

tt 1.',7~{tr-~ 1 ~ ~~~I sue.` ~ ..
4 t 1 I >1
r~ ~ ~, "1 ;1'r7 r^- .~;t° SX 4: f~_ ~r ,MU.~~,t~ 4e.:"r-,Y'r!ienf~an.*~=.'ii71'F~
~', ~ ~ 1 r ~ ~ ~ 1 y
1 ,~ ~ ~,
t}a l ~ ~ I4 1 ~~'~1~ 1 l r`.;
1 Gy ~;~, 1 .JIB II_ r (" t , ^~„t 1 .~/ (\~~ ~ t I~ t r'. Jt t" ~,tw
~ ~ : ;.''.a ~, C ~ ~ t 1% ~ pia Ur ' ,- ! ~'L.1 :-~.~~ ~ r ~ ylr°t yt.. '~1'
+ r . #,I ~', II ~'ti 1151 it I~ a' . ir' AI t1~~ }~ ....-,-.~_.-In7~X~ ~~ ~-'' ~,; ,r 4 ~-1 , ~..
`' ~,11 t ~t kJ 1 '~i ~+w ,
:.i; r ~... I' r ( .n ` I i~ Q r'S''{- ~e+~i:~ r' t _ 5'ct ~... tr ' e
(- Ylv
~. ~ {lilt .j1 ..''1 _~'1.,/ t~~'i r~tisr-~i,l4 , ~f:. ~~/V~, ~ .. _ .~~tStr :,y..r:.: •-.t ~ r
t ..r!
~r - `
..=
.
~~ :,,,
.
r~
l~1
r7

r r_I
CU
Ll
7 U~
~i t
`'
U y ~'1
rh
r
I CI
=Z IJ
._~I~1
tt
1
1
x f
li
nl
~ ~ -.
Jt
U; VI fh cC
'nn,Ih
I r=. h
~
l
'i ~r
•
1
t~~ ~ hl
~lnln a
~I ~ ~ ti
~.L 31 ~ ?t
C'1 ?
L I I r
n~ zt 7~
x '
r
-
r !
ti.
y
~

~,
:t ,
O
y1` '
A
a
~ 'r,
-r..
v ~\

t `
!ti
.
1`
j~ __ ~ r
_ .
s ~ 1- 'ly?:
' ~-n I

,
,r - :
~
~
~ . : ~
~. r~ ',
~, _ - ,
'•I ~ '-
1 ~ 1 ~ r .~ rl
~ ~ t~. ~ I`
Ut'~7-, y ,U `
rr l ~ V ] `l~ 'tn
~1 ~r3. ~ E,~[.
:1. r' l~1V1 tr j;
c t +.
^I ,~',, ~rj ~ ~f/ ~'r'r
ik r i +~ ii r~;t
' 4 rJ ~ '~i' ~,.
i ,~ Y ~' ~ ~
1;i' ~'. f 5'r
t' , r 1 Ft ~r ,.
~'r , I
r r+ ~
~ y.` P, n .
~ , ~ .,,,*f f ; J
r. Y .,T, r y J iti.''
s F i~` • f
e~rt '/
+1. l
r
ti~~/.z ~ ~ FI ~~~ w~
a ~ ~'~ f
.., ~~k~n, t~~ is~~a,"~p/O ~y
r i r '~

Gn n7~ Ir6 1712
4F Yi» pr'.NI ri I-1('1 II 111 Ik Il:t
>w~:
!i.. ~ ~
t ~, .S.I~ c.' "I
~1
r
,

~.`_.. _ .. r
I
'S
S
` r -I
~
1 11
,
,
~'
r r _
1
'w
~
^
~
it Iv
II
-'Ir
r nib t ~ ~ t'U
l
.
` I
~
x
i
i 13~T
1 L ~1~ ~' ,
i 'I
1
'
-
o
D
t r
1 ~ 1
'~
I
p
r
r
..
~ ta_t J r"~ -r
~ ,
.
'
`

GS
C -,
° l
`, 11
^
i
~
F t
1
1
`
-
:
Il z • 1
t
1~
r 1
~ 11?
'
t
~
t '
~l
~
ti
I
i
i
5
J

J.
. S'
I' ' }
~` ~,
~ 3 ~~;.
;,
' ;.
r
~
~.
~~
~
'r

`
Ii
.
J
i' •' ,
t f
:~
~.
`
t+
.
(
+
~
~
.
t
':
;
I
r,
~ n
'r
I.
~ ~P ~-.
~~
,~ - 1~
~~ ~
~~ ~~~~'
~~
~~
I~ 7 ~ ?

~ . _. ,.
~'

~ i
a
`
~, ~ ~x
~

a
~
,
~
q~ ~Jl f~
3 t ~ p `"
<,~ _„~_
t
s ~~~.y
4
~~~'
~ ~,
3 . `.,
~',
,,:,`
_, f
~~;
''~i
C.)
C?
~: 4 ~~-::
f
A ~. f '. N- '~ _ ~ ,,
~ ~~ „t` ~c
~ GN~'t ~z.I~~
i~ r e ~ .~ ,
v ~ . C
C ~ _.
.,
~~: ~ .
4 ~z: ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~` ;~~~i "«
~~'. ~ ~~~ ~, xtiA ~F~` _ ~ ~~ ~ ~~.~ ~ ape i r~} y .~ ~ ,
tV~ I i 7 S ~ ~ ; ~'r °t ~ fj~~';
T' ' ~ ~ ~ ~
~, ~ ~ ~ s ~ r ' ' ~. ~ t r ~~ , ~° ~, ~ ~ . ~_ ,,
'i
~~~ ~
d 1 r~ ,r,
.~,,
~~'•
'r ,

~~ `
~ ; ~,

£- _ ` Y ~:.
w
.
~ Po ~.~ ,
;7 . ~
µ~
' f
~ '
.
_ (y.
h
~
' a r A
f
ti l 1
" '~
~_
J
~k~ ~ ~ ~
a

~ ~i
y
{~~' T ~u J\ r-
r
~tk{' ~~y zr ~~
~-
v
t
~~ C t ~
.
~
+
~, K
. ,
f

-~y; ~
~ it
~ _ e
~ ~
~~~ ~
~
~
t~r- ~ ~ t
~~ f~'
~ ? 1.~
- ~
;- ~~
'S
e. f ~. ?`,

~k~ ` 1
f ; :
,
~ ~ ~~ ~r1 S
~
~
.,
yh
F. ~

•
r ' ~
~
p
~
~
~ a:
~~
k
~
~ Je •is it - ~ - r -
h
.
4
7 iT ~~
-
'~'`' .:.I ~~
~ { ~~ 4
~ ~
4 1
~`
.
ry
~ r }
}
{~, t t~:
' ~
F"
~ .,t., 4
~ i

i
t
l
hi 1 ~
t~>
~
`
~

p~~
k
~~
~'~ -~ f h '. r
i
tb ~~~
~
~~
Lt
~
~
{,
,i
.n ~ 1 * c 4 r C- Y ,'

~ ~ ~~kP-
r ~ +~tun-~
y
~~..~A. ~.,
~ A+
~
~
Af ~'n fin,.
iv~
~

b~. .~ ~' .. ~ - ~~ H -
..~'~ '% rb~h •, :,. -
.
.
t ~~(' I hk,~e
.~~F ~ -ESN d ,
~~ ~'~z.
_. ~+-
~Yti-w
\. ry
9~~z
c'
~~ R
s
~} 7 `
W v~j }
"~ ~
z ~
t j : r ~s
w~ ~ ~~
u v !~ t
~~'~~~,
k ~
3 {~ _
.,`
i-
4 i
n~ ~ , ~',
~y~ t~ .i
M5 1
7r,; ` f
~~ ~:
I
?p i
'^~~ tal'LLe.~S
~ Y ~ K "
l V ` S +~
~~yiJi 1 x 7
YN~ ( Ih ~
i
~ ~~~
~~
F,,
i~~~ ~ ,
..

~_i

Z
O
s
~
o
a
(--' ~
~
ti Q Q. ~f'
Q N N ~ ~ ~
g ~ p O N
V rM
aa~~ ~~
U

N
w Z
cnF-t-
~ ~ 0 0 ~
ZQQ i
p ~, J
v ~~o-~
Z ~ NOM Q
~~LUOO~
LL.~ONN~
(3-1
~ O
~~
W ~
20 I
O
~~ 1
W ~
_zo ,
`,' o
~~
w~ 1
-~
o~
_~

a`~w
~gy~

~

~.
n~i
~v~
~oqe U OZ q

z ~
CU
1
~°atio

O N-! O

ZV 4
Q

~o
m

~ W
` Q N
d O
O
4I
~ °

~ W
~~
V
Z~
O
V
w p
N w
~ O
V °-
~O
a.

-.... - _ a
-..i Y},,

p '#Ttlr°~ u _

- ~ ~. .~.
r . ~ _ i ~ !
~.
~ ~,<
.- ~~
~ ~~
~o ~
_, it
~ ..
~W

t,

FIGURE 5
FLOODPLAIN MAP
HdTIOHAL FLOOD IidSORAi9t;E I'ROGRn'
FLOODAY
F100D BOUNDARY AHD
FLOODWAY M9P
~1~~~~~ C~~1~y
~0~~ C~D~~~~,
~tmm~rco~o~~.nA~s~
LEGEND
•ZONE C 500 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY
ZONE B __ _-100 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARY
£ONE A5 _ ~--FLOODWAY FP.IhIGE
o ~ FLOODWAY
--~---~
ONE A8
E FLOOD ELEVATION \ ~CRO55 SECTION
(100 YEAR FLOOD) ZONE BREAK
NOTES --
A THIS MAP lS INTENDED FOA USE IN DEFINIh;;,•I-LOOD4VAi'
AND FLOOD 'BOUNDARIES. ZONE AND• eIaSE_- F600D
ELEVATION IBFEI DATA MAY NOT BE CORRECT InSkJAVYN.
REFER TO THE SEPARATELY PRINTEC FL000 IN,SI>•AAitiCE ,_,.
' RATE MAP.:-FO'A` CORRECT ZONE .ANL BFc DATA. ••
B~ •REFER TO THE_ FLOOD INSURA:VC'c RATE MQP~-FGA
,;1 DESCRIPTION OF ELEVATIOPJ AEFERENCE ,Y1.ARK5.
C TFIIS MAP MAY NOT •SHOW ALL FLOOD 9JlINO.ARIES.
REFER TD THE FLOOD INSURANCE ~/d?~ ii,Ar FOR
'; ADDITIONAL FLOOD BDUNDARIFS.
' D WHERE THE 700 & 500 YEAR FLOODS SRE CCO.^,c
_f
TOGETHER. ONLY THE 100 YEAR FL000 l5 SMO'vVN.
'i
I -
• _ t.
SHEET 13 OF 21
'~ - ~ CIJ'~11~1 ll >`>7 !TY- S N f fT Pd U ~~1 gf P•.
~ (70120 D013
~Y MAN ~FF~CTI'~~ ~,~~~.
~`'t ~''"'"~~F JULY 15.,_J,934
• o:
I ~I Federal Emec envy ~tal'a:eiz.~ent Aenc
E
.y
r '_ ~ •t~.r.. a w
,r- -.l y.
_ ~ ~ .

` j%"~ ~
i ~ _ ~% .~ AIN M
' ~~ _
i .' ~~s.
I f / F/ /:/ r'~ ~ . {t ~ Syr. Y;
v
2Ggo ~ ° / ~ ~\'1
g E C~ 1 ~
f~
~`

~~ ~ ,
~',
„~ ~ ,.~ ~,
,1 ~
t ~ ~ ~ f~
~ t~ ~ , .
~ ~t: BRIDE, E !'' Rhf;`42
' L ` No. 21) ~ C~~~''F
~: ~~~V- ,(- ~
~~ ~~
'G %"
~ / ~ /~¢1 //,:
/ ~ ~ RE~i~-i ~e_iaF~ 1 ~
/ ~ ti
` it - 0.5
~ ~~ C
~ g
B ,~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~'
!.~ 2507- ~ '~ ~ ~` 1 ~ ® ~ ~\~ .
1 ~ . @'
~3 ~ ~ p ~.
~- ~_ ~
•~ l .~

Appendix

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO
ATTEN710N OF'
Regulatory Division May 31, 2002
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development & Enviroxunental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge replacement projects
scheduled .for construction in CFY 2005; Distribution Group 2
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
' Reference your letters February 18, 2002, Mazch 1, 2002, Mazch 18, 2002, and
Apri124, 2002 regarding our scoping comments on the following proposed bridge
replacement projects:
'~ 1. TIP Project No. B-2988, Bridge No. 13 on SR 1890 over East Fork Pigeon
River, Haywood County.
2. TIP Project No. B-4067, Bridge No. 47 on SR 1325~over Shuler Creek,
Cherokee County.
3. TIP Project No. B-4123, Bridge No. 117 on SR 1123 over West Buffalo Creek,
Graham County.
~ 4. TIP Project No. B-4144, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519 over Richland Creek,
Haywood County.
5. T1P Project No. B-4161, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1132 over West Fork
TuckasegeeRiver, Jackson County.
6. TlP Project No. B- 4179, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1513 over Rabbit Creek, Macon
County.
7. TIP Project No. B-4180, Bridge No. 323 on SR 161 lover Clear Creek, Macon
County.
Although it does not appear that any of these proposed bridge replacement projects
will impact jurisdictional wetlands, Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean.Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for
the dischazge of excavated or fill material in waters (and wetlands, if applicable) of the

United States, including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will
depend on design of the projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States,
construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning
report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does
not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. All activities, including temporary construction, access, and dewatering
activities, should be included in the project planning report. Our experience has shown
that replacing bridges with culverts often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider
the work as having more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly,
the following items need to be addressed in the project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected by
the proposed project.
b. Off-site detours are generally preferable to on-site (temporary) detours which
impact waters or wetlands. If an on=site detour is the recommended action, justification
should be provided that demonstrates that alternatives with lesser impacts are not
practicable. Please note that an onsite detour constructed on a spanning structure can
potentially avoid permanent impacts to waters or wetlands and should be considered
whenever an on-site detour is the recommended action. For projects where a spanning
structure is not feasible, the NCDOT should investigate the existence of previous onsite
detours at the site that were used in previous construction activities. These areas should
be utilized for onsite detours whenever possible to minimize impacts.
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
waters or wetlands, an approved restoration and monitoring plan will be required prior to
issuance of a DA nationwide or~Regional general permit. For proposed projects and
associated on-site detours that cause more than minimal losses of waters or wetlands, an
individual DA permit and a compensatory mitigation proposal for the unavoidable
impacts maybe required.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills
from waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream
work if recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
d. All restored azeas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees,.if
appropriate. For projects proposing a temporary onsite detour, the entire detour area,
including any previous detour from past construction activities, should be removed in its

entirety.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
d. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts to the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. The work
must also not alter the stream hydraulics and create flooding of adjacent properties or
result in unstable stream banks.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled `Bridge Demolition and
Removal in, Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.
h. Lengthening existing bridges can often benefit the ecological and hydrological
functions of the associated wetlands and streams. In some cases bridge approaches are
connected to earthen causeways that were built over wetlands and streams. Replacing
these causeways with longer bridges would allow previously impacted waters, wetlands
and floodplains to be restored. In an effort to encourage this type of work, mitigation
credit for wetland restoration activities can be provided to offset the added costs of
lengthening an existing bridge.
i. Based on the information provided and the recent field investigations of the
referenced project sites, the replacement of the subject bridges, most over high quality,
mountain trout waters, has the potential for significant adverse impacts to those aquatic
resources. Also, the presence/status of at least one federally listed species identified in
the natural systems report for each project remains unresolved, and will require further
study before an effect determination can be made:
j. You have requested that the referenced projects be given a designation of
"Red", "Green" or "Yellow" as explained in your letters. At this time, all the projects
listed above would receive a "Yellow" designation by our office for the reasons specified
in the preceding paragraph.

REPLY TO
ATTEN'ifON OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
Regulatory Division ~ January 27, 2003
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1548
Subject: Comments on Bridge Replacement Projects B-2988, B-4144, and B-4291
Dear Mr. Wadsworth:
Reference your letter under signature of Gregory J. Thorpe, dated January 6, 2003,
regarding a request for comments on the following proposed bridge replacement projects:
r 1. TIP Project No. B-2988, Bridge No. 13 over East Fork Pigeon River, Haywood
County.
~ 2. TlP Project No. B-4144, Bridge No. 211 over Richland Creek, Haywood
Courity.
3. TIP Project No. B-4291, Bridge No. 193 over Davidson River, Transylvania
County.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or
fill material in waters (and wetlands, if applicable) of the United States, including disposal
of construction debris: Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the projects,
extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, construction methods, and other
factors.
Additional comments were provided on these projects to Mr. William T: Goodwin,
of the Bridge Replacement Planning Unit on May 20 and 31, 2002. Copies of those
comments are attached and constitute the extent of comments which the Corps can
provide based on the information available to' date.

Should you have any questions please call Mr. John W. Hendrix in the Asheville
Regulatory Field Office at 828-271-7980, ext. 7.

a1~ENt OF Iy
r ~.
o . ~.
0
"+~ , ~°
[N RFPLY REF1?R TO
L7619
PIN 1280
February 1 1, 2003
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.
Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development 8c Environmcri~~ii i~iialysi5 Brun::;;
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina ?7699-1548
~~C ~I ~i1
z
G ;4
~~ ~ ~r~ ~~
d~ ~ i~ "~~~ ~~
"'L .yNPd.'{S~
Subject: Request for comments on Bridge Replacement Projects B-4032, B-4036, B-403",
B-4258, B-426;, B-2988, B-4144, B-4291
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced projects. Parkway staff
reviewed the scoping document and the potential impacts of the proposed project on resource
values that may be present on National Pazk Service (NPS) lands and have the following
comments:
The proposed projects should have no impact to park natural resources.
In reference to Bridge Number 262, over south Hominy Creek on SR 3=152 connecting to State
Route 151: SR 1 SI is an important connecting road to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Would this
bridge construction in any way delay SR 1 SI traffrc or reroute vehicular traff c on the Blue
Ridge Parkway from SR 1 Sl ? If so what would be the delay duration? We would want to review
detour sign planning, if applicable. Otherwise, we have no visual impact concerns to the Blue
Ridge Parkway, as this bridge is located out of the park viewshed area.
3 G~88 In reference to Bridge Number 13, on SR 1890 and near SR 276, crossing over the East Fork of
the Pigeon River: SR 276 is an important connecting road to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Would
this bridge construction in any way delay SR 276 traffic or reroute vehicular traffic on the Blue
Ridge Parkway from SR 276? If so what would be the delay duration? We would tivant to
review detour sign planning, if applicable. Otherwise, we have no visual impact concerns to the
Blue Ridge Parkway, as this bridge is located out of the park viewshed area.
3
United States Department of the Interior
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these important bridge
replacement projects. If you have any questions, please contact Suzette Moiling, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at 828/271-4779 ext. 219.

State ofi North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
June 3, 2002
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, UniYHead
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~~
Through: John Dorne
NC Division f Wat r Q ality, 401. Unit
From: Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water Quality, 401 Un
Subject: ~ Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B-2988, B-4032, B-4038, B-4039,
B-4044, B-4045, B-4180, B-4179, B-4161, B-4144, B-4123,
B-4067, B-4047.
In future reports, an Executive Summary Paragraph would be helpful. This should include brief
description of the work intended (i.e., replace bridge with another bridge or with a culvert), the
amount of impact to wetlands and streams, and types of possible permits needed.
On all projects, use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed. Sediment and erosion
control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream. Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024) must be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream
aquatic resources. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation must be planted on all bare
soil within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control. -
This office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and 1501inear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. While the NCDWQ
realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i.e. the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Wetlands/401 Unit 2321 Crabtrce Blvd. Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]

Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert
extensions.
For permitting, any project that falls under the Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permits 23 or 33
do not require written concurrence by the NC Division of Water Quality. Notification and
courtesy copies of materials sent to the Corps, including mitigation plans, are required. For
projects that fall under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 or Regional General Bridge
Permit 31, the forma1401 application process will be required including appropriate fees and
mitigation plans.
Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Additionally,
vegetation should not be removed from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary.
NCDOT should especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut
trees must be removed, then the trunks should be cut and the stumps and root systems left in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization must be minimized; rather, native vegetation should be
planted when practical. If necessary, rip-rap must be limited to the stream bank below the high
water mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water.
Rules regarding stormwater as described in (15A NCAC 2b.0216 (3) (G)) shall be followed for
these projects. These activities shall minimize built-upon surface area, divert runoff away from
surface waters and maximize utilization of BMPs. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed
in order to allow it to be most effectively utilized for storm water sheet flow.
Special Note on project B-4144: these waters are classified as 303(d) waters. Special measures .
far sediment control will be needed. '
Also note that projects B-2988, B-4032, B-4038, B-4180, B-4179, B-4161, B-4144, B-4123, and
B-4067 occur in Trout waters. Any trout-specific conditions that would be determined by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from
sedimentation during construction, would be required on any 401 certifications.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost.

.-~ ~!
~_ _North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fulln~ood, Executive Director ~ -
MEMORANDUM
:, .,.
<- ~-
TO: William T. Goodwin, P.E., Unit Head ~ -
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit ~` _
Project Development and Environmental Anal sis Branch; NCDOT
FROM: Owen F. Anderso Motintain Re ion C
n, g oordmator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 24, 2002
SUBJECT: Scoping and Natural Resources Technical Report, Replace Bridge No. 211 on SR
1519 Over Richland Creek, Haywood County, TIl' No. B-4144
Fish and Wildlife Project Status: GREEN to YELLOW
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission familiar with the
project area have reviewed the technical report for the subject project to assess the potential for
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves the replacement of bridge number 211 on SR 1519 over
Richland Creek. Construction impacts on fish and wildlife resources will depend on the extent of
disturbance in the streambed and surrounding floodplain areas. A narrow riparian corridor within
the project area is characterized mostly as montane alluvial forest. The surrounding land outside
of the riparian corridor is primarily disturbed agricultural land. The forested riparian area should
be considered as good quality wildlife habitat that provides a travel comdor for wildlife.
The Division of Water Quality classifies this reach of Richland Creek as C. This reach is
not designated as trout water by the NCWRC. This reach is somewhat transitional water and may
or may not support some trout. We are of the opinion that this project could result in adverse
impacts to trout.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Teto.,t,,,.,>• 19191 7~-i-~F,'i3 Px[. 281 • Fax_ (9191 715_7F,43

Tip No B-4144, Bridge 211 on SR 1 S I9 2 June 24, 2002
Haywood County, Richland Creek
According to the technical report suitable habitat exists for the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana), a state and federally listed species. The Appalachian elktoe is known
to occur in the West Fork Pigeon River and the Pigeon River. An aquatic survey is proposed for
the project area: The findings of this survey will need to be considered in the alternatives analysis
and design of the project.
A survey will also be done during the flowering season for the small whorled pogonia
(Isotria medeoloides). The results of this survey also will need to be considered in the
alternatives analysis and design of the project.
We prefer bridge designs that do not alter the natural stream morphology or impede fish
passage. Efforts should be made during design to place bridge supports outside of the bankfull
channel. Bridge designs should also include provisions for the deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the subject surface waters. Correction of altered stream
morphology at the road crossing should be considered during design.
Streams and riparian zones provide connectivity of the landscape; and thus, are natural
movement corridors for terrestrial wildlife species. Bridge designs should consider leaving
sufficient corridors under the bridge to encourage movement of wildlife under the bridge rather
than across the highway. The movement of animals, especially larger animals (e.g., deer and
bear), under the bridge may reduce automobile crashes involving wildlife. Where feasible,
increasing the riparian corridor width under the bridge is recommended.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream
banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the
approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain.~ Approach fills should be removed down to
the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with native herbaceous species and
planted with native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT
should restore the area to y+etlands. If successful, the site maybe used as wetland mitigation for
the subject project or other projects in the watershed.
Listed below are our standard recommendations on this project. Because the Corps of
Engineers (COE) recognizes the project county as a "trout water county", the NCWRC will
review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the proposed projects and will likely request the
following as conditions of the 404 permit.
1. This bridge should be replaced with another spanning structure.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
Water that has inadvertently come in contact with live concrete should not be
discharged to surface waters but should be disposed in an upland area.

Tip No B-4144, Bridge 211 on SR 1519. 3 June 24, 2002
Haywood County, Richland Creek
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately~upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
8. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
9. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
10. Heavy equipment. should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into surface waters.
11. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construEtion is completed:
12. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained
to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic
fluids, or other toxic materials. -
13. Wastewater from drilling operations should not be discharged to surface waters but
should be pumped to upland areas.
14. If surveys indicate usage by trout, instream construction and construction within
the 25-foot buffer is prohibited during the trout-spawning period of October 15
to April 15 for brook and brown and/or January 1-April 15 for rainbow to
minimize impacts on trout reproduction.

Tip No B-4144, Bridge.211 on SR 1519 4 ~ June 24, 2002
Haywood County, Richland Creek
15. Discharge of materials into surface waters from demolition of the old bridge should be
avoided as much as practicable. Any materials that inadvertently reach surface waters
should be removed.
16. Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in
or adjacent to surface waters is strictly prohibited.
17. Suitable mussel habitat exists at this project site and rare mussels are known from this
drainage; therefore the project area should be surveyed for fish and freshwater
mussels. NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. If survey results
reveal the presence of listed species, special measures ~to protect these sensitive species
may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project
Thank you for the opportunity to review and continent during the early stages of these
projects. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452-
2546. .
cc: Mr. John Hendrix, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms. Marella Buncick, Biologist, USFWS Asheville
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, Highway Coordinator, Division of Water Quality

r

Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Wadsworth, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: March 21, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects B-4032, B-
4036, B-4037, B-4258, B-4261, B-2988, B-4144, B-4291 in Buncombe,
Rutherford, Haywood and Transylvania Counties.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does-not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 Fax: [phone]

Bridge Scopings Page 2 March 21, 2003
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the.soil and nativ° tree species should be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat
intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam
underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the I~1.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting
additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the
project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, Mr. Hal Bain with the NCDOT
- ONE should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information
on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all baze soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13.. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work azea.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.

Bridge Scopings Page 3 ,March 21, 2003
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should'
be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other
than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain
bench elevation (similaz to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the
upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be
filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious or mosquito breeding conditions.
Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or
notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This
should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by
maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish
and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide a
continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain
dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts
aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should
be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed

"' Bridge Scopings Page 4 March 21, 2003
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed
was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may
be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B-4032, Buncombe Co., Bridge No. 130 over the Broad River. The Broad River is
classified as C-Tr and rainbow trout are present. An in-stream and 25-foot buffer work
moratorium from January 1 to April 15 should apply. .
2. B-4036, Buncombe Co., Bridge No. 220 over Reems Creek. Reems Creek is classified as
C-Tr and is hatchery supported trout water. An in-stream and 25-foot buffer work
moratorium from October 15 to April 15 should apply.
3. B-4037, Buncombe Co., Bridge No. 262 over South Hominy Creek. South Hominy
Creek is classified as C-Tr and rainbow and brown trout are present. An in-stream and
25-foot buffer work moratorium from October 15 to April 15 should apply.
4. B-4258, Rutherford Co., Bridge No. 7 over the Broad River. The Broad River flows into
Lake Lure just downstream of this bridge and is classified as B-Tr and C-Tr in the project
vicinity. The site is downstream of Hatchery Supported Trout Water and an in-stream
and 25-foot buffer work moratorium for rainbow trout; from January 1 to April 15, is
most appropriate for this project.
5. B-4261, Rutherford Co., Bridge Nos. 39 and 37 over Fork of Cathey's Creek. The Santee
chub (Cyprinella zanema), a state listed significantly rare fish species, occurs both
upstream and downstream of the project. An in-stream work moratorium to protect
smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish, from May 1 to July 15, is most appropriate for
this project.
6. B-2988, Haywood Co., Bridge No. 13 over the East Fork of the Pigeon River. The East
Fork of the Pigeon River is classified as WS-III Tr in the project area and rainbow and
brown trout are present. Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), a federal and
state listed endangered mussel species and the olive darter (Percina squamata), a state
listed special concern fish species, are present in the Pigeon River downstream of the
East Fork Pigeon River confluence. An in-stream and 25-foot buffer work moratorium
from October 15 to April 15 should apply. Special precautions should be taken to
prevent sedimentation downstream.
7. B-4144, Haywood Co., Bridge No. 211 over Richland Creek. Trout are present in
Richland Creek, class B waters, which joins the Pigeon River not far downstream of the
project site. Longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), a state significantly rare fish species,
has been observed in Richland Creek upstream of the project. An in-stream and 25-foot
buffer work moratorium from October 15 to April 15 should apply.

Bridge Scopings Page 5 ~ March 21, 2003
8. B-4291, Transylvania Co., Bridge No. 193 over the Davidson River. Rainbow and brown
trout are present in the project area of Davidson River, class C water; which joins the
French Broad River not far downstream of the project site. The creeper (Strophitus
u~zdulatus), a state listed threatened mussel species, is present in the French Broad River
immediately downstream of the confluence of the Davidson River. Two amphibian
species, the common mudpuppy (~zecturus maculosus), state special concern, and the
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiezzsis), federal species of concern and state special
concern, have been found in the Davidson River upstream of the project site. An in-
stream and 25-foot buffer work moratorium from October 15 to April 15 should apply.
Special precautions should be taken to prevent sedimentation downstream. In addition, a
public access area should be incorporated into the plans for this project.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in.or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Sarah Kopplin, NHP

r
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE SECTION
North Carolina Department ojTransportation
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Wadsworth, Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Richard Silverman, Office of Human Environment
SUBJECT: B-4144, Haywood County
DATE: August 11, 2003
CC: Project File
Attached is a signed concurrence form which states that NCDOT and SHPO, agree that:
^ There are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based on
the historical information available and the photographs of each property, none is considered
eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
^ There are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
^ The bridge itself is not eligible for the National Register.

Since there are no historical properties affected by the proposed project, compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act is complete. Please notify us in writing if the scope of this project
changes. A change in scope may necessitate a new survey of the APE.

A
Federal Aid # BRZ-119(2) TIP# B-•1=14 County: Haywood
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES• NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519, Hayta-ood Count~~
On Jule 8, 2003 representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA}
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other .
Reviewed the subject project at
^ Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session consultation
^ Other
All parties present agreed
^ There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area ofpotential effects.
_ There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property/ies identified as # 1 -Bridge No.
211: #2 -House is/are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it/them is/are
necessary.
® There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
® All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project
® There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
[Richland Mill outside of A.P.E.)
Signed:
~~~
epresentative, NCDOT Date
FHWA, fo the Division dministrator, or o r Federal Agency ate
J d
Representative, HPO Date /
''~ i~ ~G 3
State Historic Preservation Officer Date

If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Ctvw, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
January 29, 2002
MEMORANDUM
~v
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S. Brook, Administrator
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
NCDOT, Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook 1~.,~,~~~.e~
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge 21 on SR 1519, Haywood County, ER 02-8513
Division of Historical Resoun:es
David 1. Olson, Director
~~ ~ ~~
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2001, regarding the above project. The proposed undertaking is at
or in close proximity to preciously recorded archaeological sites 31HW65 and 31HW10.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an archaeologist to identify and evaluate the
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the project. Potential effects on
unknocvn resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report,•as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or e~cpressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at w-~v-~v.azch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists listed, or any other archaeologist,
maybe contacted to: conduct the recommended survey.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of historical or
architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Richland Mill, north side of SR 1519, just east of NC 209
An azchitectural historian for the Department of Transportation should inventory and evaluate this property
and any others, that aze fifty years old or older and located within the area of potential effect
The above comments art: made pursuant to Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act and Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 10G codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. IF you have questions concerning the above comment, ~ ~ _
contact Renee Gledhill-Eazley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Fun, NCDO~~ •
Matt Willcerson, NCDOT ~ _. ;=i
- ~=
LocaBon Mailing Address Telephoae/Fu
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 (9l9) 733-4763 •733-8653 _
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699613 [phone] •715-4801
Survcy & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Cents, Raleigh 27699~t618 [phone] •715ji801

T
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
October 17, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Project Development and FnvironmentaLAnalysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ~ ~. ~2~~.
~~
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519, TIP B-4144, Haywood County, ER 02-8513
Thank you for your letter of September 17, 2003, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Paul Mohler for the above project -
During the course of the survey, one site was located within the project area. Mr. Mohler has
recommended that no further azchaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions conceming the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking
number.
~c: Paul Mohler, NCDOT
www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Faz
ADM[NISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919) 733763 •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699618 [phone] •715-4803

fi ~~E.r~OCATIQN REPORT ~
North Carolina!'[~p~h`ne'Ht~df Transportation
' AREA RE 0 N OFFICE
E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN M,G, pEPT. DF' 1-~/~N!
PROJECT: COUNTY Ha ood Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
I.D. No.: B-4144 F.A. PROJECT 8.2942601
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519 Richland Creek Rd. Over Richland
Creek

.ESTIMATED DlSPLACEES _ , .
..
INCOME. LEVEL
:
_:.
.

Type of . .
..
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M ' S0 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BUSIneSS@S 0 0 0 0 `VALUE OF DVYElL1NG <. ~ DSS DWELUNGAVAILABLE.
Farms 0 0 .0 0 owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM 0 s o-DSO 0 o-2oM 0 S o-DSO p
'ANSWE R ALl. QUESTIONS :: 20~tOM Q 150-250 Q 20-40h1 Q 150-250 0
Yes No Explain al! "YES" answers. 40-70M p 250-400 0 40-70M 0 26000 0
x • 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 7o-10oM 0 400600 p 7o-1o0M 0 40000 0
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 0 s0o uP 0 10o uP p 600 uP 0
_ displacement? TOTAL ~ ~ ~'
.:,: __ - `

x
3.
Will business services stilt be available after
`
REIkAARK

S' Res _

and ~ N

umber
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, This project was inspected and no displacees appear to be
- - indicate size, type, estimated number of involved. Therefore it is considered a negative study.
- employees, minorities, etc.
•x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
-ina~ 6. Source for available housing (list).
na 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
na 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
na 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
na 10. Will public housing be needed for project? -
na 11. Is public housing available?
na 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
na . 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
= financial means?
na 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
- 15. Number months estimated to complete
_ R~ocanoN? 0 Months ...
~30_
~~~
Rel n A ent Date A roved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 0 d Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
7 (:nrni 6ano ReIMalinn fl~nu

I,~ r~Eit.OCATlO[~! REPORT ~'

a E.1.5. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN

North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: COUNTY Ha Od Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
LD. No.: 8-4144 F.A. PROJECT 8.29426Q1
DESCRIPTtoN of PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 2 11 on SR 1519 Richland Creek Rd. Over Richland
Creek

ESTiMATEQ f7lSPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of - - -
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
Residential ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 O O VALUE pF OWilE1.LING : DSS DYifELLNVG AYAILA6LE
_

Farms

0

0 0

0

owners Tenants
_ __
For Sale For R _

ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM p s o-150 p o-2oM p i o=~50 --
0

.. ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS

_. 20~OM
p 150-250
p
20-40M p 150-250
- p .
Yes No Explain al! "YES" answers. 40-70M p 250400 p 40-TOM p 250x400 p
X ~ 1 • Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M p 40000 p 70-100M p 400$00 _ p
X 2.
_ Will schools or churches be affected b
y 100 uP -
p 60D uP p 100 uP p 600 uP p ,
_ _ displacement? TOTAL --
'

X 3.
Will business services still be available affer _
- - --
REMAFtICS ReS and b . NUmber
_
,
<

project? ..
.
.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
~ This project was inspected and no displacees appear to be
indicate size, type, estimated number of involved. Therefore it is considered a negative study.
employees, minorities, etc. ..
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
n8 6. Source for available housing (list).
na 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
na 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
na 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
- families?
na 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
na 11. Is public housing available?
na 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
na 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
na 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
- - source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
~LOCAnoN? 0 Months '_`
~rm- 5-3c~ -0 3
.:-. ,: __

elocution A ent Date A roved bar Date
r u~m i~r ev~sea u[.yfo a _-
Original 8 7 Copy: State Relocation Agent
7 f:nnu Groo RalMatinn !1!+firv

f
Haywood Couniy School
Rodney Buiiock Telephone [phone]
Transportation Director Fax 8286-2~2
Transportation Department
401 Farmview Drive
Waynesville, NC 28786
June 18, 2001
Mr. Davis Moore
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environment Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Moore:
This letter is in reference to the Bridge Replacement Projects in Haywood County. I
would like to take this opportunity to explain the impact replacing this bridge would have
on our school bus transportation .
1. Bridge 329 on SR 1369 at Fox Run Road over Jonathan Creek (TIP 3854).
We have 2 school buses that crosses that bridge twice a day.
2. Bridge 211 on SR 1 ~ 19 over Richland Creek (T1P B-4144).
We have 2 buses that cross that bridge twice a day.
3. Bridge 13 on SR 1890 over East Fork Pigeon River (T1P B-2988):
We have 1 bus that crosses that bridge twice a day.
If these bridges are closed to traffic the parents would have to bring their children to a
designated bus stop. This would cause a tremendous inconvenience for the parents to be
at a bus stop at approximately 7:15 a.m. in the morning and 3:45 p.m. in the afternoon.
Please consider doing this bridge project during the months of June through August
when school is out for the summer.
~cerely, _
Rodne ullock
Transportation Director

f
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
'roject Name B-4144 River.Basin French Broad River Coun
ry Ha
ywood
Evaluator ~
DNW
~~WQ Prj Nearest

lumber
Stream Richland Creek Latitude
Signature
'
date 10/9/2003 QUAD Clyde, NC Longitude Location Bndge no. 21 1 on

- J eva uator an an owner agree t at t e feature is a man-ma a SR 1519
tic , t en use o t is orm is not necessary. A so, t tote est pro essiona
udgement of the evaluator, the eature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this ratin system should nor be used *
Prima ""~Fie1d Indicators' ' ~- ' - "'` ~ ~ _
' ,
' ,
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
I) Is There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? p 1 2 3 _-~=-=~3;.~::~:
2) is The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding ~-"~ -~-~--
Terrain? 0 1 2 3 ,
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 I 2 ~
,
r

4) Is The Channel Sinuous?
0
1 3 ;~,~
.~~,I
_~
'a
~

5 Is There An Active Or Relic) Flood lain Present?
0
1 2
~ 3
3 -
2~~:
~~
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 I 2 3 s(
7) Are Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 I 2 3 ~.~„-~2~,~=-.,
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 ~ ~~.
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I Z 3 ~~
(' 1VOTEri Bed Jc:BanFC Cdused'By~itrhing`And; WITHOUT"Sinuoilly.37ien.Score=0.•) '':- , +;: , ',,.~ c ,;°_ ~,,, ,r, ~ !
4
10) Is A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map ~ ,
And/Or In Field Present? Yes 3 No 0
cj
~~#
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
-
II. Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
]) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 z 3 ~r~
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: -
r
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
])Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 ~ -2;;=~?,
2) Are Rooted Plants Present 1n Streambed? 3 2 ] 0
x~:_Lc•
:'
fem
=
3) Is Peri h on Present? 0 I 2 3 .
....
,"`~,"';~-
4) Are Bivalves )'resent? 0 1 2 !
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3 _ ~
Seconds ;rFieldandicatorsr ~ ~_ - -~-+r fi:: ~~- ~ ~ 4
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 ] 1.5 ~0
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0.5 1 ].5 .
~i
3) Does Topography indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 I l.5 ...
.
~'.r' a~.•.
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
•
II. H drolo Absent Weak Moderate S[ron
1 Is This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 0.5 0 .~[~
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debtis) Present? 0 0.5 1 1
5 u(r7~it "'
3.) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 l .
1.5 ~~~;
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
0
0.5
1
1,5
-
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing - - --
Season ? 0 0.5 1 L5
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes 1.5 No 0 ~'S
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDlCATOR POINTS:

- III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? 0 0.5 ] 1.5 _-~
r~
~':
2) Are Am hibiaru Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 ,.
-
,
1113-1~..
3) Are A uatic Turtles Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~0.~'
4) Are Cra rsh Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 °'`
~~~.
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0.5 1 l.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bactetia/Fun Present? 0 0.5 I 1.5 ~Q,':
7) Is Filamentous AI ae Present? 0 0.5 l 1.5 '•~~=ate;;
8 ) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mos[ly FAC Mostly
FACUNPL
2 1 0 75 0 5 0 ~7~~.
; (':NOTE: 7fTot6l~:AbsenceOJ'AIIP/anulnStnambeti;AaNbiedA6oue~Shp;77us'Step:fJNZESSStIVPrarnt±Ji-; ~ r.:- ~ ;d-
,
M
; '; ,
w
ct
;~~~~4
~~

S
ECONDARYBIOLOGYlNDICATOR POINTS: _
, _
,
, „:
r....:
.
,
TOTAL POINTS (Prirnaty +Secondaryl rea er an r qua o oin s e reams eas
Intermittent 53.25

u
A AIDS D~VQ ~_ Site T (indicate on attached map)
;,,,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT. WORKSHEET
_~ ;:
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: t~1C~o ~ 3-`1144 2. Evaluator's name: tJ• W c~s•4w
3. Date of evaluation: l o ~05 ~ 0 3 4. Time of evaluation: q : oo a..h
S. Name of stream: f~ic.~nt~,.~~. C~~e~c. 6. River basin: F~u..~c~ '3~o~.rl tL.:vw
7. Approximate drainage area: Soo + cLc
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3 0 0 ~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex )4.872312): 3 $. SS o 0
8. Stream order: 3 f
10. County:- 1'}''~'iwood
12. Subdivision name (if any): t.s / W
Longitude(ex.-77.556611):_ ~ 1.9333 '
Method location determined (circle): GPS To o Sh ,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):
"13.oolg~ ru. 2tl ar, scC,slS , S ol= Lh•4wi~~1-c yo
14. Proposed channel, work (if any): ~r. i dy ~ r c y(,g.c.r.~,,,,,,,,.,,~
15. Recent weather conditions: 0 w~c~.s ~- a,.; ztl,~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Dv~-cas ~- d.; zzl~ '
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? ~ NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: t..a1~ ~hv~usk~
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad•map?. YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? `~E~S NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 40 % Residential ~% Commercial _% Industrial 30 % Agricultural
~S %.Forested _% Cleared /'Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 7S ~ 23. Bank,.height (from bed to top of bank): ~ -~ r
Z4. Channel slope down center of stream: ?C Flat (O 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): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a.guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in'
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps 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

.

a

~

~
r _
's-.

„tom

U

ti~

~~
~
~,
- ~ #

.

- 1
~
-

2

_
n

~ 3
', y
i ` 4

5

~~

6 ~

-y ~'`,

~~
- "" ` ~ ~ ` 5~ '~w " ~ ECORE
,~ ~A ~ ~' CHARACTERISTICS • ~' ~ r 4 ~ ~ ,
..
-_ ~.-- .- :. ~ ~ :_ __ ~ ^, ,., : a Coastal ~-
r, Presence of flow f Persistent pools in stream ,
:d _,~ _,. ~ a 0 5,
- -
- (iio flow or saturation .;-0 str~nl; flow max points)
~` t~ ~ E_vtdence of past human alteration ' ~ ~ -, k~-
"' • . -
F fr
r' .-(extensive alteratton O;~no=alteratton ='inax-points) Kr~~ 6 _::
4z= ~ , .: Riparian zope ~~ ~ ex .. ' ~ ~
_ ~ ~ y ~.,. ~ _ ,. ~ r t ~, ~" 0 6 ~,
..= ~;(no buffer 0; conttauous, wide buffer.=.: maacpoints) ~ ~•~• ~ r ' ,
_` ~_; Evidence ofnutnentor chemical discharges ~ ; ^ ~~ ~ T

- extenstVe'dlscFiac' es O,no dischar es ~,= max ` o.ints) , .y~ ,r-~ ~ 5 ~:
-
~ ~ - t ~- Groundwaferdischarge ~ _~ 4 w~ ~ r , ,,r,r } F r, ~
sy k ,, ~- ~ ,. t ~- W ~ ,. ?<4 ~, ~ ,0 3 1 ~
- 1- -
r (no dtschar~e-= 0 spun sleeps, -wetlands, 'etc.... max pomts); •.•:.~~~ s , nos
-
~ -,``~r :`~ -~; :Presence-ofadjacentfloodplain , _ ' ` a ; ~- ~ ~*~,~ w4 7y
~.-'r (no~loodplatn-- 0" extensive floodplatn Truax points} ~~~ ~' ~ ~,~`
,~ ~'~ i~~~`z~G entrenchment/ floodplaTn access ~ ~"~'~~r }, .~.~,,~y ~ ~~, ~
~ } , y 1, , ~, ~,_,.}- ~, ~_;: ,~ ~ 4 ,., •~ mac -~,~ ,~, t.~ 0 S rM `-;
_ ('deeply entrenched 0 fequent floodtn -= max points) ~~y "~ rrt ~~bt~ a GION POINT RANGE ~

. .:
r Piedmonf:'s~ ~M -
~ ~ . .~ ~

`c
0 4 ~~ ~
r `_ .~ uS ~a ~,

` , ~' 0 f S - ~ Q S~ } '

, w ~ *r ~ t-r
~ p 4 T
';"' ~ , „ J ..~6 „S.~ k _
,' ~H~-` l~ ~ 'a ~~~'
~ `~ p 4 -~
~ ~ ~r ¢'~` ~ ,, n;;M,, -~ ~_

y .> ,. ~ ~ ,ice
G `~ 0 ' 4 .~r -~-~ ' 0. •"4'- ~r"';

1, 1-~~ : _, r,,,, J,,,m ~ ~ .. c~ 4 ~~ ,,;=

.,,,~ _ ~,~ '~ 1 ~ -~
~~'`~' ~ ~~' `~ ~-'~' `~``~ ;~ ~,,~ ~~-
,~t.._ ,~- ~~ ~a~, ~. y~ -~ r ~}~.•
", -~ 0 4 i~ u~r~ ~, ``~'~ ~ `J ~~•~~~
r~ ~ -~ {J ~~ +~~,, ~,~sa ~- ~s~;~`~a ' ~ ~,

CORE
~~~
S

3

3

a

f

2

2-
,
m
1 ~F
~ ~p+
SO
-~ ~ , ~- ^ ,' presence of ad 1scent wetland's -~ ,`~ a~ ~ .~'-, ~"•~' ~ '' ~,
R'RS- r. ~• . 1 J - T t .. I ( 'Y~i, _ ~ lf" 0 t ~Y
'
'
t
-
~r
~_, ~ ~- +fl ~~ , ,~,,, ,r < a t~ :.
Y}~~ ~ ~~_ ]y, ,~ ~'R' >)4.1 rf A~
~
~
'
,~~, n, T~ , (no-wetland
s 0, laroe
adjacen~:we
lands -^max
potnts)~
- ~
' ;T„ti
,,
rtwr
.. T
^;~. ~;
;
' ~
~i„
a ~' ~
lr ~
'r ~
'
i .
..
.
-
A c .,
.:
W
,
.
H57,~
a,tK
~~4 :
)
!.~ ~ ~
-r:~' t fl r
. ac-44 r..~° Nn` ~ y"s-.,-
a 7 i*r3~
L..,,b ~.. .t•'!`~. ~r-„~y,Channel;stnuosity~ ~, t , y. ~ - ,r s „ "i,
E r~ 7C ~, . t ,~ .. m . ~ ~ .~ ~~7~~' :
, ~ -'~, ~ S ~ 0; 'S -'~ ~ ~ ti Sr-:` a• ;a - y t.... e 2
~~~yy k g ~ ,f,.n ~, _ -i+~j- '-n.?,,~-
k~ O
3 ~ s .
`~~' 0 '4i ~ ~

>'>< ,
~ .
,
,. .• extensrve<channeliiation 0 natural meander max otnts) .~ ,~ ~i4a~1., ~'4- ~ ~y
F
~:.~•,
t,~ ~*:r '~`~i'~w
~`' 3

'~.~`'~_
_`[
l~
K~10~,`
rr'xr
t_ .~ ~ kr ~,-••' Sediment in ut ~ .°- --"'~-~k .~. ~ i, , ~ ~,~~~ , ~:
y3`F!k 7',' nl ifs ..nay-•0.r~t. - p., A J1. ~Y', ~,. y, ~ .il"1 '~'(~,li ~1'\L
P ~
YY' ~S~•: --ll -._.lf
~{
ft' ~ i ~
~ a
+c
w
~ «~a~,` ~,~.r w ~, .,.;~ ' 4-' ~'s
I 5 , (, 74 ~ ~r ~)4~' ~:
4
_}~
~o ~
~
~
'
4
r
,,~ L ,
:. ~ e
'c^
6...,_
l.4 ~
-
'!QC"
extensivve deposthon:-0 littla orno sedlmen~ -max obits t~~~~~~~- ,,f 7+~
`
~,j 3~
c
~~K4 V
-.5-
tya~'~•y
l~7-~ r~~h
U ~~. Nr 7q~,,~~~;-;~
3
~.~`: " ~., r' ~, ~~ Size &.d-versi of'channel~bed subsfrate; "` 7~'' ~~'•'i~-°r,~'°"~`~' '~ `''' } ~' '=
.~ : E->x ~ =_ ,(fine; homogenousr:-~0;31ar e„dtversestzes•- maxi omts)r _,~ ~ <f ~~i~,,,~s'~•,;-r ~-t.
x~~
~~~;~~,a a,;,~~,
.~y~~~~
`~~; S
t
,~*, xil-+-,~ ,

.,
~
:' 1,2 ~ ~''µ rsa Y- `c- T a r t~ .•h;, ~ ~ i .;s a .w Y , ~ .,t--- t
~-~~~ ~~~1i~ndence of]channel inciscon or widening. s ~' ' ~ h ~ ~~'•'

s~f ~ ~~"'-ti ~~.,~"'~' r
`~~~~7
ary ~
.~.~"~~
r '-
e
~
~0
~ 5 ~
` ,
,
.
,
~ r - kl;' :c~
:,,~ ~ ~~ at } ~ `
,."~:~`~
,..~t ~-r~5
0
~4

'
~ ~
~~ ~d~. --~~
'
~
.
.
rr
p y
•
r;~~,'-.~, dee C
'mT;tsed? stable bed& ba ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "y-:~r.~
n1CS;L .
:coax pacnts~,..,~~ ,~ ~ ;rte ~ ~
~
~ `
~
.
~ ^~' ~ x'-I '`s 4
a[~.r~,S~A
r?~ s->`~ro~#
~ '7

ri-E{.
~...,:
i~"~+
)ff-~~-It
ti
-a
~ 13 h
, a~ ~~

A~ ~ .
~1-~ s'~,. r q. Et#y~-~ [ur .,es -•-e ,y ~ Y s- 3.~ ~ ~uau7 ;2 ~ +w,ys' ,yikr
~•+3~,~~,,;, '~ ~,,,- ~ presence ofli~aTorbanlc failures LL, ~~~~~~~ t~;,. ~-~(~~~,-c~~~

..~-,
~ ~~ 2.{''F,.r..~ i e3"O ~I; rr ~.Y.rt .. . r r-',~,..~ ~. 's,=t'~Y''s,'•r~f..,,F, ?~ "iA~.¢ • t ,lY ~~/~"~.1t}-i
,~ (severe erostorl:-,- ri3eroston sable-battIcs~=maxpouttsl.~.:~, _~ ~~sl_~';~ ..
~
~. .
-
„~ ,s~ ,~ .+.~.w 1' l ~
~t--~.~~ ~~~;IC~~;~;~~~r ~ ~i~,~~~` r~~-~'
~e~~~i Q~•' ~JL~'~z~S~ ~r V -~~~~14
~ ~~~~ ~~
~'
"~~"~?±
~-w~
3~~'<?='r~`,~s-mot
3-
i~*[ ~="
14-"~7~
x
~~ __
i'..e--r~r Y ~f r Z t - dL . _ ,, ,. ~h~a r u t -~ii- ~1 3 4+s _
~,~.° ~,I~~ ,~,~t ~~ookdepth anddensity ~on banfC"sa~.;, "~'~~t~' ~'~'':~ ~''`~-~`~ ,~~~. ~~~:
~3b
.
~
~ ~~'~0 •
~
"n
c
~
~
e
o
s
~t
~
'
x
n ,.
.
,
_
...
,~-c~~,;-~r~s~;w'.- x,~t,~_~~•~~,•.;
` ~",,, ~'•~' `l-` '`
' ti
'~"~ ~ ~
~

.

+ -~
~ A
~x,
~
~
:~ (
o,~utstb)
~ro
~sr
-, 0;-
d
n
e~no~
Fir u
hour;
ts ~.`
=_ ma
ot
r• ) { I u ~ra'3a ~ ~,~,Ly ~
~..
;
°{ tT~ krti; ~e
~ ~ 0~~' dc-ti. ~~.:
S
~? ~,t~-~
,~1"~ ~~Impact-b~agnculture alt estock~orttmber° prodiict>,on w" ~;~~~"n~~ 7v~~~
~ ~"w~'.a'k'- h~_.f".y aT°rt ~+-~,+ G`?y'- ~. i.-..~:L'T~d ,~'r'.~"~.r_.-~`~ti .f ,y{ ~''- E 'fit. ll =f ~
°
` '~
` ~ ' ~ ~'.Y -'~~~''~'°V~..~~-:may
Sri, ,~,~,,,,t`..
~L}S'~ ~ 0',.
~'y`d~~..f}.~
Y
`*
~
' ~
,,,,, -~~ ~::,~ r r t~ subs
tarittal im ac evtdence,._;tnax Dints t~
~^~
~ •
,
--,~ <
~
y `
*
~ 3

1, ,
~~~+~
:
~ ? M-J f" aa' ,~ L ~ ~ •~- .~s..~ -;s.4 r Y~.T'F~,... F iF~; '•~,~ C~xj•~ _ "fix
~,~~ ~~,~.~'1?~reseace~ofrlffle poollstpple-pooFcornplexes< .~~~>~~~ ~y r~..;,
, ~. N , ~, ,€~~+ ~ A -^~
t~ ~., G~~-`~
:~
~
tr ~
0
3
` ,~ ALr1Y`~ /'T ~°uLTi~ti ~~ ~~ 4,J"'':t~ '"",-i'
r~,~ ~ ~ ~, ,~.~~ .~ ~i ~
~
0
1
~
~ ~ (} 6
a
p ~.
~- ~ ;~
, .~
,
.
,
t
:
,~.
~
„~(no nffles~nppres olxpools O;tweIl developed Inaxpoints) 5 `~'~.~~.,~~~ ~~r~:; s
-~
_
r
.
~.~,~ ~~,~'r ~ ~,~' ~.~ s~.~~~',
y

E" i" s ,.
'„' ~ R,
.,
: , f , z, ~~' ~• H`abttat~com ]exi ~ is ~ f~ ~, ~ ~ kH~n rh~,k ~. ~
'-r',. r~:~~4 , a , n-xkF r y,F-. -... S -j9~ >r +' + f, ~T~' ~ n 5 ~` ~ s 0~-7 ~7E i^',
~• , 'Y 4 ~..-.,1'1.> , rl~^Yy ~
(T
ifl
habi
'1
0 'fr
nt
~
~
`~' 6 ;~~ ~ ~,;, ,~- ~ 3,
t '{~a 0'. as '~ M Ca~"itr~~+3f v,
1 y t~t~',^~3
, o. 6~G k
'

~
, ~
h r
e or nn,
ta
~
eque
, vaned ha
itats maxi. omt
s•) ~ ;~.~ ~t,~"~ F
~~~ ~ ~.T,~< ,~-~~
n u ~ ~. ~~~- ,
~t

` ~
P
wg10' {fib J+Tk• ~"'Nv"7 ~, PY 4 -~- g.r ~ ~ `^,~irt a>z,~,r t ,~ ro ,~- ~~ti `}~i~.y~'~'.. r
~1 r~ Cano covers a oversfreambed r -+.. -~ ~~ ~ ~
~ fG m-. J! yh.t-'.. 3.1 ~f +"~a~ 7i~`Y~~xy .amt- ^I f Tl 'IC v1S 't?'lt {'tt`.`.1
1Y'S n '~d~o _'~ JS"
' < ~,~,~ ,~, '~ ~' ~"'' •~ ~-
0 ° ~ ~~ ~s ~`
p Y ,~- ~y ~~ ,'3r~K~
t
~ y:~ .
e7 ~nD shadm ve
etafton,,,, O,, contmuouscanop ma>r points} :, "` f"" ~ ~a~ s~'X; ,
~ 1~;~,~~
~6~,~~, ,~J
, ,~ ,;,~ nv~~:~ y
+s ~," ;."- (-~'
~ ~`r,t } ~ d,R~~.t, `~~ Substrate embedd_ edn ess°L`~.,5,~ ' Y ~` , ` ~F`'~" .,'.->wm~'~a 3~
~~'7'~
~
i `
~~i ~
~~
~
a
~
;
x
'
~
F
F
~ ,
,
„~ ~s ~.~ ..~~ z 1, d,~ .}
,.
~r
aa
' ~
d
~
~
4
,y~~
T' I
7
_ ,
y
,
f'~..
LJ
f
"~r,.
e~~-. ~
{
~.,7 A:~ t_ ,~e'_Y~Y h
f.~.t
~ 'E ~N.~ 1.CA~~'4,~7 q*
.ti kU
1k
z.; ,v mot.-.,. dee 1'r-.embed'ded`, 0 :loose~structure.
-max)
r=,^~~i~
-.
,.~ :
,,~~
~---~
t~;~t+
~
~
r^ ~{y' ~'
¢
OJNAf
1"1~--'1
W~
~
'~-
}
am
~:~
~~±~-
'~"~C
'
'~}
t
~
~~~``L
+
~

~~~,
„.,,,
S
L
~2[]a~^, ,
.
_
.
,
-
.
.
.
~
~>,~ ,~ ,~PFresence o~fstream invertebrates, (see page.4)~;'~-a-.i~~;ry, a ~'y i~~' ~•.~
~. -...k+~,a ..+~ ~~,-GI
4~~ ~ v-: ti. ..-.~r.~c 5~;1.~'^ r ~-,~,.~ti r- -txi
0
4
:
~
~`
" >
_
-..
e
~
~
4,
lr<i
~
:
`~ ~ ~~;'~*~~*~,". ~~~r~'~X~~" ~.
t~ ,7 X33" ,'+.C '~.~`~
D=
~
9
"--
S
A {
~ ~ „
~
,f,.
~ no evidence - 0 ebmmon '.numerous; es =maxi: olnts
~ ~
~ ,~;
,
t
~w
;L
~
~U''" " '~ZL
~_ Xn ~ v'fi~-~~~s-~,,~, ;-'zPresence oE.amphtbians~~~~ F~, t7~~~t'~'~;"~i-~~~ ~~i~o _~4r`~t~~;
'',:11; a'te' ~ d~~ ,y~.• $xc mot, P':tF'F ~?• t}... ~~~a~r.
n
'
~ ~r?~°-x~~~~'",~ ~~u~-;`~7F-'°~~,~~'c
~`
Q ,
M:, (no evidence--• 0 comi
otri+-numerous, pest maaepomts)~; ~
~;
,~'~t•.;~
t
~~~~-
~~
~
~~
~
~t~ ~;,~'~~,
~~
3
~ ` ` _
~~
`
~
~`•~-~1
'
~
'
~
~~
~ P.r
~ ,
,
„
,
,
,n
~
"~
'~' {
'
'

~~+- F
~~ ZZ~•

.: ry: ,
~
~
'
, l
~ ~''
,.~.
~t. n ±x?:°f-~ r.s. ~~ ~s i,-~ .'?~~!. Y r
~,: ,
LZ"
'~~~~_~`.4`_
Yr: (naevldence=D common;numerous= es~-=max.pom~s~~~ `~~ ~~' ~, t
~;a ~
, ~~ ~ ~
iv
;~:1;~
~>~'
,,, ~, _
fi„a~,,~~`~~~'' r4 k~~

y
~
~'-~~ +
`
~~k _$ ~ ~
Z3~ ~
~ ~,} N Cr- i !F'~,.~ F mss-, ~ v ,may f,'~,-a! k~ c., +'4. . )b ,.t Fyn ~ ,t-Ulc~
~~ ~~~ ,r'~;~-E"v}dence of~ t~dl~fe;:use ~1y. T .~r{ ~.(, ~ ,-~ rr- ~rt.~~a
(Y ( G ,['~.~ ~ ~ '1S )1..-N-.^.~~.~F•l,~hk'.J,',u-}A~ •M.Y~ tt-.4 0 6 j~1'Y.1
no evrde
b
0'
b
d
d
~
~ /S LY i- ~.r-+ T l 1 1 ~.'C- 1,,
~, ~ ~ ,~ {, ~,>', ~~c~
~~J~Q- G~.~
-yq~~+~i{11' ~N (~(~-y~ A'
J
'
~
`
~ `
~
r . ~ ~ ~
n
e_.
_a
u>z
an evi
ence ,matt pouits]1 +~~~ tiN<
-:, ,r
~~ ,
kt~~,~ L~ p:;,~
~
~j
J
~' Pl ~
/~y~]
~5
~"
~'
y t 9F
li'
~ ~:r)~.+. Y
4 'Y+~7e
f .~:~`7~~!7 i :~ .7v S~ u:~ L y`... ~~ i\ ,~ 4.1Sr'YSJb+''J"c`n~ ~ ,C L 11 ~
-~q '2^.+,2c .~ ~ . t Y Y ,^~
,•m ~+I o f ui°-• u7{~k~-R~
`~+ f ~ '~~ ~
' w,,i.., , t .$
Sr,
,•
v'~i°
~' ~
l•~: F~'k"»fi-~:
i~ -.. )iM
rFt
~'
~•j~~
'

~'M-~~
~
.ti
;•. ,~z2
, .
i
~
r~w '~, ,,.~, "^~''.;, otal Points Foss>bfe~:I',-~~~',~''
+~~~'"~~ 4~ ~,~I00"~ `~ ~
.., ,
1~; fi
"
~ •
' , s c
~`
~"
~
.
.
'
~'~- ~ ~` ,r'
, .~~r~'~ 00 ;
1 Oi ~2
a{?''
~
~
;~~
t
+
.N
~k~ ;~. ~•,;~,
~~'
hG
_",y,1
i, Mt,,
'gt r< ,.
.
±
,(
r
b 1 ~
,yy.~y
,
y
~E.-. ~.f N..~4a`~o5T.~3 P inY~ 4.i~`'aAGa
7
-r
~F~4SICy:.f~+gjy ~'~74t~M lY~~~ `
J'~~~~: ~9++".~
'~7`
~'G "
~ ~
~
,t
~T^ ~
,117ii-•L a~.'f,
'~~,+,
~
~
~
~
' ~
P",{ lS ~
~~.-
1+ ,.,~y
,h .'` t
,w 'T~irr,~. Y~~
'•~ ~, fi
~, 4"~
~
'~
S'`
? ,
.
1
i
a
,.
i6R4
-
--,Y,~,ii •t ~VTQ„W~rFP ~ 5d~`?~h~,~r751yh'C :_~r+n.* v A~ ` -'+ 1 , ~. ~u;a•
' f ~ M,.~,.'y cp I'Ir ~1 L N ~Y .f. ]. :1Y`~'~ i`~Y •~i~ n~ ~'~ •~'~.~~~~If d~~'.:`~~h'4.Yyl~~r s'~a'.`1 ~'~1~ ~_-i4~
i?',n.t~~yJ~FV1,-,~~~.:; h~ T01aAIr.CSC.O,RE. aTso~ente~' on f t~ aae~ -Sf'IL
r
{ f
'r~
~'"~
`
'
~ ~ ~
'
~
~
~ ~
~ ~ .
~•
.I:;
F? +~C79 •~e~
~'
N- +1tU~..
~~~~~'~~}l'j~ ~ ~,'~P',..~~jiF ~?FL~~:t K.
'N),~.A'z(~q Ji~7S( ,w ~~ ;~
3M
° ~
~
~~ .r
m-,~.~. -.:~. -.L.....
--7 p
.w. F,_.
y .
,
. _ . ~ ,, ~
,.; , „~
~3, ~, ~: =,
t,,, . rti.: ,~ ~
l.i
~,..~. c
t a
~
~•
r-ir~ ,rs.,(~H
.~s ~
..t,Y~~~ ry
~~. ~
„
u+r 1 1
1neSC CnardCLerIST1CS arC nOT aSSCSSeQ to Coastal Streams.