20240642 Ver 1_Clay County - B79 - MCDC (Final) 12.11.23_20240503

MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
The following questions provide direction in determining when the Department is
required to prepare environmental documents for state -funded construction and
maintenance activities. Answer questions for Parts A through C by checking either "Yes"
or "No". Complete Part D of the checklist when Minimum Criteria Rule categories #8,
#12(i), or #15 are used.
TIP Project No.:
State Project No.: BP14.R010
Project Location: Bridge No. 79 on SR 1171 (Dick Jones Road) over Eagle Fork Creek
in Clay County, North Carolina.
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 79 a 20' W x 40' 6" L timber deck on steel T-
beam structure on existing location and replace with a 30' W x 65' L x 24" H cored slab
bridge near Hayesville, North Carolina. The project will utilize temporary work bridge
construction traffic during construction.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer - Regional General Permit 50.
N.C. Division of Water Resources - 401 Certification.
Special Project Information:
The bridge and surrounding area were surveyed on 6.6.2023 and no listed species were
observed nor are there any records 1.00 mile from project area. The bridge is too low to
support bat roosting (lack of bat roosting will be confirmed before construction). Tree
clearing will occur from October 16t' to March 31 st to protect roosting of tree dwelling
bats. The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission has recommended a trout moratorium
(January 1 to April 15) to protect reproducing populations of Rainbow Trout near the
bridge.
12/11 /23 1 of 4

PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
YES NO
the Eng
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under �X ❑
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? (9) Reconstruction of existing crossroad or
railroad separations and existing stream crossings,
including, but not limited to pipes, culverts, and
bridges.
If either category 48, 412(i) or 415 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts'?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative impacts
❑
that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health or the
environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
❑ FN
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
Divisio
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; ❑
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts'?
12/11 /23 2 of 4

YES NO
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on ❑
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
If any questions 2 through 8 are answered "yes ", the proposed project may not qualify as
a Minimum Criteria project. A state Environmental Assessment (EA) may be required.
For assistance, contact the Environmental Policy Unit at [phone] or
EPELd ncdot.gov.
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
m leted by ,nviroA&ptal Officer. AL YES NO
9. is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent ® ❑
fill in waters of the United States? RGP 50 & 401 Certification
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12. is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
e Eng�
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Project Manager and the Division
Environmental Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or
federal resource agency may be required. If any questions in Part "C" are answered
yes ", fbllow the appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project
construction.
12/11 /23 3 of 4

PART D: (To be completed when either cate2ory #8, #126), or #15 of the rules are
used.
LItems 16- 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
20. Total acres of wetland impacts:
21. Total linear feet of stream impacts:
22. Project purpose:
Reviewed by:
DocuSigned by:
�AwtLS �ib�tlni�SWbvTu, 12/11/2023
C4COE2BDF26C425... Date:
James Hollingsworth, P.E.
Assistant Bridge Management Engineer
NCDOT Division 14
EDocuSigned by:
afvi& bru ktw, 12/11/2023
A2DAC8979C7943D... Date:
Patrick J. Breedlove
Division PDEA Engineer
NCDOT Division 14
12/11 /23 4 of 4

Bridge Replacement Bridge 79
SR 1171 (Dick Jones Road) over Eagle Fork Creek
near Hayesville, N.C. (Clay County)
BP14.R010
Pre -Construction
USACE Regional General Permit 50 will be required and a NCDWR 401
Certification.
Construction
A trout moratorium (January 1 st —April 15t") will be required for the project.
Construction
Trees will be cleared from October 161" to March 31 st to avoid potential roosting
impacts to tree dwelling bats.
Construction
Project will adhere to NCDOT best management practices. Avoidance of erosion
and sedimentation into Eagle Fork Creek (Class C; Tr.) and downstream
habitats.
Construction
NCDOT will contact NCWRC several weeks prior to construction so that the
bridge area can be surveyed for the Eastern Hellbender (N.C. Special Concern).

plvecl Tivding NO.:
E-L02-0080 _]
,oG NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
_y
A�
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not _: o
�•�4g
, valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the s i7 4
a o
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Pro jec! No: Bridge 79
fYBS No: 17BPA4.11.168
FA. No:
Federal Permit Required?
County: Clay
Document: MCDC
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP3/14-TVA-401
Project Description: Replacement of Bridge 79 on SR1 171 (Dick Jones Rd) over Eagle Fork Creek in
Clay County, North Carolina. Tire archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) is centered on the
bridge structure and measures 600ft in length (300ft from the bridge end -points) and 15011 in width (75ft
from each side of the SR1171 center -line).
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Permitting and funding information was reviewed for determining the level of archaeological input required by
state and federal laws. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will apply because federal permit
acquisitions will be necessary. Next, construction design and other data was examined (when applicable) to define
the character and extent of potential impacts to the ground surfaces embracing the improvement work. As
currently proposed, the project appears to constitute an in -place replacement utilizing an off -site detour during
construction activities. To account for any temporary or permanent easements, the APE was widened an additional
90ft beyond the current 60ft. wide right-of-way.
Once an APE was defined, a map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) on Friday, March 4, 2016. No previously documented archaeological sites are located within the APE.
Examination of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SLR, Locally Designated (LD),
Determined Eligible (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources available on the NCSHPO website
is crucial in establishing the location of noteworthy historic occupations related to a perspective construction
impact area. A cross-check of these mapped resources concluded that no meaningful historic properties with
possible contributing archaeological elements were located inward of the archaeological APE margins. In addition,
historic maps of Clay County and the project area were appraised for evidence of former structure locations, land
use patterns, or other confirmation of historic occupation at this locale.
Further, the APE was referenced on topographic, geologic, flood boundary and NRCS soil survey maps (RhA, DgB,
ThC) for the evaluation of environmental, geomorphological, hydrological, and other correlatives that may have
resulted in past occupation in the project corridor. Finally, aerial photographs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer & other
on-line sources) were examined and the Google Street View map application was utilized (when amenable) for
gaining a virtual, first-hand perspective of the overall study area and for assessing disturbances, both natural and
human induced, which compromise the Integrity of archaeological sites/deposits.
"Na ARCHAEOLOGY SUP *.'y 2lsQU11i! D"rams jar the Amendal Ahl, oT2ranspo'rarfon projects nO1jo ;Jied in rl+e 2015 prugnrnwurlrc Agremneru.

Project Tracking No.:
16-02-0080
Brief Explanation of wiry the available inforination provides a reliable basis for reasonably predieling
that 11:ere Tire no nnidenlifred hislorie properties in the APE:
The project APE is absent of NRHP listed historic properties, previously documented archaeological sites, and
cemeteries. The proposed bridge replacement work is unlikely to affect areas outside the margins of the largely
impacted existing right-of-way. In addition, the overwhelming majority of the APE is distinguished by poor land
surfaces marked by residential development which hold little potential for the presence of archaeological
resources. NRHP eligible archaeological deposits are unlikely to be present or preserved within the currently
defined APE. No further archaeological input or work will be necessary for this state -funded NCDOT project. A
finding of "no archaeological survey required" is considered appropriate.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) N Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
O,4RCHMEOLOGYMRYEYRE UIRE
m
NCDOT
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVGY REQUIRED "fa7n far the Anieirded �Llirrw• 7ransp01101011 Pr0Jec1r nsQ,,a4f10d h1 the 201.5 Progrnunuatfc Agreetnrnl.
2 of 2

,.,�.
.,� , ,.
-; � � M
,. � jjjj
1. :i�
y' - `+ ' i
�.,
;�
.:, \\ lr
1 ' � .: �. �� J .
l�`�� / � J
. a+�T /
� � �
v
��
.fir
t�
,' ��
`� t. �
is � �«
' � �
,r _',�
:� - ; ��,
,. � ���
. ;,
'' r •,.
n }�
.ti
�-�r
r�
�.
. �,
,. , ._.
.,
• {� .
. -�
;,
�.� � .
�,
�, r
b
r S

RhA—Reddies foam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
• National map unit symbol: lbm4
• Elevation: 1,200 to 2,000 feet
• Mean annual precipitation: 45 to 70 Inches
• Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
• Frost free period: 116 to 170 days
• Farmland classification: Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing
ific
season
Map Unit composition
• Reddies, frequently flooded, and similar soils: 80 percent
• Minor components: 5 percent
• Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Reddies, Frequently Flooded
Setting

• Landform: Flood plains
• Dawn -slope shape: Linear
• Across -slope shape: Concave
• Parent material. • Loamy alluvium over cobbly and gravelly alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
• AP - 0 to 14 inches: fine sandy loam
• 8w -14 to 26 inches: fine sandy loam
• C - 26 to Winches: very gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
• Slope: 0 to 3 percent
• Depth to restrictivefeature: 20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification
• Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
• Runoff class: Very low
• Capacity of the most limiting foyer to transmit water Oat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
• Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches
• Frequency of flooding: Frequent
• Frequency of ponding: None
• Available waterstorage in profile: Low (about 3.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
® Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
• Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w
• Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Minor Components
Ela, undrained
® Percent ofmap unit., 5 percent
• Landform: Depressions on flood plains
DgB—Bellwood gravelly fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
• National map unit symbol. lb kw
• Elevation: 1,340 to 2,840 feet
• Mean annual precipitation: 52 to 68 inches
• Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
• Frost free period: 116 to 170 days
• Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
• Dellwood, occasionallyflooded, and similar sails: 90 percent
• Minor components: 10 percent
• Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Bellwood, Occasionally Flooded
Setting
• Landform: Flood plains
• Down -slope shape: Linear
• Across -slope shape: Convex
• Parent material. Gravelly and cobbly sandy alluvium
Typical profile
• Al - 0 to 8 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
• A2 - 8 to 16 inches: extremely gravelly sand
• C -16 to 80 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand
Properties and qualities
• Slope: 0 to 5 percent
• Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
• Natural drainage class: Moderately well dralned
• Runoff class: Very low

• Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
• Depth to water table: About 24 to 48 inches
• Frequency of flooding: occasional
• Frequency of ponding: None
• Available waterstorage in profile: Very low Jabout 2.9 inches)
interpretive groups
• Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
• Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
• Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Minor Components
Fla, undrained
• Percent of map unit: 5 percent
• Landform: Depressions on flood plains
• Down -slope shape: Concave, linear
• Across -slope shape: Concave
Cullowhee, occasionally flooded
• Percent of map unit: 2 percent
• tandfarm: Flood plains
• Down -slope shape: Linear
• Across -slope shape: Concave
Reddies, occasionally flooded
• Percent of map unit: 2 percent
• Landform: Flood plains
• Down -slope shape: Linear
• Across -slope shape: Convex
Dillard, rarely flooded
• Percent of map unit: I percent
• Landform: Stream terraces
• Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
• Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
• Down -slope shape: Concave
• Across -slope shape: Linear
ThC—Tate loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
• tlational map unit symbol, Ibmr
• Elevation: 2,050 to 3,200 feet
• Mean annual precipitation: 42 to 50 inches
• Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
• Frost -free period: 124 to 170 days
• Farmland classification, Farmland of statewide importance
Map unit Composition
• Fate and similar soils: 95 percent
• Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mopunit.
Description of Tate
Setting
• Landform: Coves, dra€nageways, fans
• Down -slope shape: Concave
• Across -slope shape: Concave
• Parent material: Colluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
• Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam
• 6t - 7 to 46 inches: clay loam

• C - 46 to 80 inches: cobbly loam
Properties and qualities
• Slope: 8 to 15 percent
• Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
• Natural drainage class: Well drained
• Runoff class: Medium
• Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksar). Moderately bigh to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
• depth to water table: More than So inches
• Frequency of flooding: None
• Frequency of ponding: None
• Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
• Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
® Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
• Hydrologic Soil Group: g

a
a r;,
`IY94
it �Y�41'�__� f
, .I I
Cl� 2 a . r 1
., 11 g
/+
1 -
,Cy1 •'
C15.1Z3
` 'f1
�C'Y124 ..�
.
I CY115CY126 ,j '
ek
Soot�f� Y92
�
LAY
r Ir
C 7 a ✓ •,
i - cYs3 _
?�
t
'
.'gfa'f� Gd '
= S' P
,
Y�1
__
CY'129
Macedonia

r
vi
d
m
Q
0
a
a
c
m
IA
SU
m
u
L
N
U
L
(7
1!]
t
Q�
C
c
W
n.
Q
u
v
a,
a
c
0
m
U
O
al
r
0
c
CIL
7
ra
E
v
O
a
S
to
u
Cove'? vs rl
u I a
e1 t 15? D O'
lffn ,ri,,.a
4r On

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
16-02-0080
HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
N/A
County:
Clay
WBS No.:
17BP.14.R.168
Document
T e:
MCC
Fed Air! No:
NIA
Funding:
® State Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e(:
NWP3/14-TVA-MOA
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 79 over Eagle Fork Creek on SR 1171 (Dick Jones
Road).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on February 18, 2016. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE,
or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is 300' from each end of the bridge and
75' from the centerline each way. Clay County GIS/Tax information indicates that all structures
within the APE are under fifty years of age, and Bridge NO. 79, built 1964, is not eligible for
National Register listing. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no
survey is required. If design plans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably redictin that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the proiect
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Clay
County survey, Clay County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered valid for the
purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There are no National
Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required.
' SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Histo •ic -chitecture.ai d Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED
(Az� -- 2 ?-v
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Hisloric Arehflecrru'e and Lanelveopes NO SURVFI'RlQUIRIii) form fa' iLIiaar 7ninsparruriou Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Pr•ograminalic Agreenxnl,
Page 1 of 3

Qe
Velhrl!:hhrch�d� �y
" a vn>eya,d
I l l^ei Greek
s
a :fk .
hor^•Ery JneMpLave ��� _ _ _ _.
mW10 rnll IIml
"Liapllsl chwh
I I n, * tlmm l fen hblkel
8;
�r3
r''G^Fong
v
are.
L'fyya rr��r
III,^I
{xj3�
�S
0^III•lhnrrl Cl,ulcr, �^� "Jd"y Va'�N`^
u',hve v, G�wVynJ Sri
s �tl
Illal Cv�3 '1% o
0., Vryl^>Al
Lyl, A Branch
I"aa l.y�l
e'
P
kYyn^^.IIO Oak AMEL
V' ltiT rW p�tlh
fa
laffr m saley Ul p
G;7 ylc
Project Location.
Hisloric Arcldleclure and Landscapes ND SURYCY REQUII)Dforrn for Xpiror 'I'rarisparlrrrion Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Prograrruualic Agreement
Page 2 of 3

004
4't
f
Ik It
fy4'4.,. �. �� ";J �i.}lig •(� TTTyr CL i ' " r 1 _ '%
r`
�,� rs °F .• f k��,7i��C��•s�v 1h. �� Y^ ` r 7�}, 'ir -r . �
.pia 'j � Y � '�, f � �i -� ,.� r`�• ..'. � Y
iv
t..
,�r 'ir � '"�.� � �:•�� - Via` �!
.It r'
f
i! Al E�
Vt
Al
iv
•! - 4 ti ff �fy j•

ease
)maze
\/
k
\ /
\
( ®
@ .
r
�
\
@ )
q \<
\
E
n
@ )
q
(
( ®
@
»
)
3
@
/k
f�
(
\j
n
=
\\
/
�
(
-
l
--
c
coy
`)
- --
e
\
a
` `
t
=co
%
2
/
2
a
e
e \ /
\
a
a)
)_ }
+
z
k
)
/
,\
]3
&
zaz a
)
«az a
(�

G
Z
W
W
J
Sa
G
a
a) 'p
L) O o a
C U N N
� 2 E
O
C U (6 (6
6 n M
-ffi0- E c6
U E m
U)N C
N O Q) O
w O c w
a) 'Q �
as f6 O- O C
_0 U M L a)
In u) 9
as
> C >
� O t
o
N -O >.0a
c � � n �
T w o
E E E E
E n o
(6 L
6 E N
Q C t
O C @ N N
co (i) ` E zm
Q)
O a) U N
f6 C .N Q) C f6
W E c o N
Q)
OZ
U
m
as
n
N
a)
) U,)m
a) R5 0
-0
U)i
a)
a)
3
n
O U O
O
N
U) Q
E
(Q)
E
pN -O U) 6
_
U)
N
c�E
—
f6 N
O
N
@
O
Y
— U a)
.
0
O a) 7
U
E
M
N O O
C f6 a) a)
of
N
-r- cm>
a)
to
a) CD
U) cn
O > O N
-O N -O C6
Z
Q
O
f6 N
to
o
L E U)M
U
E
m
E
c a
W
m .D, 6)
um, O 2
U
m
as
s
co)
n
c U)
o n
T
Q)
U m
RS
m t� 0 O
2�
Z U)
Q
p
Nas
C
O
T N C .— U
O
w 0
U
O
E �' C6 E
O
a)
> -O .D N M
p mo
7
@
n
a) E
U
U) .O O 'O
p"
O
U
O O '6
�
U
a)
>
7
j o
O a) U O
a
Q) —
C6 —
N
N
�j
a)
a)
Q)
�
N
a)) a Z)
w c
'O
J
O
� N C
O Q OU
_m
U
O
N
� C O
O
N
O
Z
O C
a7
C �.
m
-
O O
.O
Z
U
T
O- >
�j L a) N C6
U
M as 7
O) l6
U)
O
O
�
.—
O N O
p T
c6 n
C
p c
>,
RS U)
a) �
w -O U
p
Q
Q@
N O
'-'
O
16- a RS
2, E
U) m
E 0� L)
D
m
= o
a)
n c� E
� a)
0— RS
O C
O O a) N a)
0 0
>
> Q
n 0
O O
O
=0 - L O
O)
O
-0 p
� Ra) 7
.
p
a>
E
OLQas
E
N
> Up
O y O U
aO Q RS
'
Z
Q:
co co
Q L
co r
C) N
COEU)
U .— chi)
w
a)
w
o
�
LL
C
U
m
a
L
zr
n
m
`o
o
Q
T
C
C
m
2
a)
a
m
a
m
O
U1
` �_
a)
J
U
m
to
N
N
it
O
O
m
U) U)
> 3:
O
U)
7 U)
�
O 0
R
5
7
it
J
Q
C
A)
is
<
()
�
m
OImaa)
C
O
C
N
0
_
m
a
U)
N
m
d J
d
N
a
T
a)
a)
O
= =
7CC`
m m
=
m
H
d
C
d
m
3;cO�
0
a)
c
m
to
O
O
U
_a
O
U
?O
W
'
Ua)
o
aa
a
LL
o T)
ow>
�
m
cm
O
y a)
Q
'0 'Q
U) co
'Q
u)
=
'a
O
m
m
m U
O
U
(7
0
W
J
N @
C
N
`y
m
O
Cs�
<a
cn
ccN
cn
cn
C '0
in co
O
cn
d
c
a
m
CL
a
U)
U)
T
>
U)
a�
R y
3 N
r r_
f6 O
Z fU

Soil Map —Clay County, North Carolina
Clay County Bridge 79
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
DgB
Dellwood gravelly fine sandy
0.9
86.2%
loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
EvD
Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to
0.1
6.9%
30 percent slopes
NkA
Nikwasi fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
0.0
0.1 %
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
ThC
Tate loam, 8 to 15 percent
0.1
6.8%
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
1.0
100.0%
1JSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/11/2023
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

Roy Cooper, Governor
�■■■■■ NC DEPARTMENT OF
_■■■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■■■1
December 11. 2023
Patrick Breedlove
NCDOT-Division 14
25S Webster Road
Sylva, NC 28779
RE: Clay County Bridge 79, BP14.R010
Dear Patrick Breedlove:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-24296
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact the NCNHP at natural. heritaaeCo)dncr.nc.gov.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPAR7HENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 w. JONES STREET, RALEIGH, INC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

\
%
3~
Co
2 \
\
/
2
/
u
e ±
0
3 a
a
%
a=
+
a
a
e
c
/
/
/
j
\
\
t
a/
g E
.=
y
s o
y
s a
t
e a}
$
°
\
/ %
a/
/ /
c o
/ %
p ±
/ %
p 3z
/ %
3z
S
e
® e
9
9
\
ƒ
j
/
3
3
3
0 :
0
\
V)
29
�
\ \
\
/ƒ
cos
2
,
z
° z
\
�LO
7
z
x
E
ro
2
±
±
�\
D
/ 0
\
/ 0
\
r-
§
/
3^#
3^
\ 5
2
/
4
s
/CD
~
�\
/
ae
/ \
22
ru
jia
C\
\
\ \
/ /-
ƒ g s
c e
�
\
\�\0�
r
�
/
»
/
±
*4§
mw\o»
c
»
c
9� ~�
�»®
±/2%c
%
c
¢
ƒ
% U u \
® e(D
c
%
o
©
0
/
\
y
©
a
m
%
\
ƒ ƒ 0 / ®
\ 9
©
p
\
j
\S&
ƒ
D
/
_
\
\
a
a
±
e
g
\
a
/
s
E
o
®
2
°
%
a
c
o
a
0
c
®
^~
/
\
±
/
\
\
�
\
\
_ �
z
\
2
%
\
\ \
}
/
_
\
2
/-
./
E
\
\ /
\
\
\ /
\CD
\ }
Ij
\
\
0
E
%
�\
(
\
\
\
y a
s
Ln
(
_
\
\
\ (
U 3
3 \
\
m
_0 ®
g =
_ «
\
3
2
y
\
\ /
\
\ /
\ \
\ /
/
9
0
/
&
( u
\
\
/
\
\
\
0
0
\
_
/ \
U %
% /
/
/
%
C)Cc
/
\
E
2 /
%
^
®
2
_
»
2
/
° /
/
\
\
/
\
e
o
E -
-
\
/
c
/ /
x
%
2
y
\
®
\
Co 0
\
4
4\
\ \
\
% «
\
\ ®
a z c
2
0/>
o
%
3
t
a
s\ u
-
» } o
~
/ E
\ 6
o
®
/
/ 2 3
\ \
//\
\
/
2///
/
///\
\\
s
\
\
z

AVJ
W
.M
1 1`1
O
U
a
m
U
00
N
N
W
0
Z
U
Z
a
r
M

IQ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
October 31, 2023
Robert Lepsic, PWS
Embedded Environmental Specialist
NCDOT Highway Division 14
253 Webster Rd
Sylva, NC 28779
Subject Scoping Comments on Replacement of Bridge 79 over Eagle Fork Creek on Dick Jones
Road (SR 1171), Clay County. BP14.11010
Dear Robert,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) invited comments on the subject bridge
replacement from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The NCWRC offers
the following comments on the project to conserve the affected wildlife resources and to promote
wildlife -based recreation in accordance with the applicable provisions of the state and federal
Environmental Policy Acts (G.S. 113A- 1 through 113-10; 1 NCAC 25 and 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c),
respectively), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Standard Comments (NOTE specific recommendations follow these standard comments)
NCWRC standard recommendations for bridge and culvert replacement projects of this scope include:
1. New bridges or other channel spanning structures are recommended over culverts because they
typically require minimal if any stream impacts. The clearances of bridges allow for human access
and wildlife passage, fish passage, and navigation by boaters. Unlike bridges, culverts can prove
difficult to dewater during construction, which can lead to extended periods of channel instability and
erosion.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into streams.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact water in or discharge to streams.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in stream channels.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

BP14.R010
Clay County
Page 2 October 31, 2023
Applicable measures from the current NCDOT Erosion and Sediment Control Design and
Construction Manual should be implemented and maintained during construction. Matting used in
riparian areas should not contain nylon mesh because it entangles and kills wildlife. Coir matting
should be used on unstable stream banks that are steep or susceptible to high water and matting
should be securely anchored with wooden stakes according to NCDOT specifications.
6. Temporary detours and access roads should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, to
minimize clearing, and avoid destabilizing stream banks. Tree stumps and root mats should be left
where possible under and along temporary access roads to limit streambank disturbance and promote
regrowth of vegetation. Temporary fills should be removed to original ground elevations upon the
completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded, or mulched, and native tree species
should be planted with a spacing of 10'x10'.
7. A clear strip of streambank (rip rap free) of 10 feet in width should remain on each side of the
channel underneath bridges to facilitate wildlife passage. Smaller widths are also beneficial where
there are narrow abutment setbacks. Alternatively, a "wildlife path" can be constructed with a top -
dressing of finer stone if full bank plating is required. These measures should also incorporate any
ditch line plating.
NCDOT biologists should be notified about streams that contain threatened or endangered 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.
9. All work in or adjacent to streams should be conducted in dry work areas. Sandbags, cofferdams, or
other clean diversion structures should be used where possible to avoid excavation in flowing water.
10. Heavy equipment should be operated from the banks rather than in stream channels to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
11. Only clean, sediment -free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways) and fill material should
be removed with minimal disturbance of the natural stream bottom when construction is completed.
12. During geotechnical investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent
contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids.
The following recommendations apply to corrugated pipes, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box
culvert structures:
1. Culverts and pipes must be designed to allow for aquatic life passage in accordance with current
NCDOT Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design. This typically includes burial of a
single low flow barrel at least 1 foot below the natural streambed and backfilling with native material.
If multiple barrels are required, then the high flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near a bankfull
elevation. These "flood" barrels should be reconnected to benches and include sills on the upstream
ends to restrict or divert base flow into the low barrel. Barrels with sills should be filled with
sediment to avoid standing water. If rip rap is used for backfilling, then it should also be topped with
native or other finer material to facilitate wildlife passage. In accordance with NCDOT Guidelines

BP 14.R010
Clay County
Page 3 October 31, 2023
for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design, alternating or notched baffles should typically be
installed in base flow culverts that are steep or longer than 40-50 linear feet in a manner that mimics
the existing stream flow pattern and profile.
2. Riprap should be minimized on banks and avoided on streambeds except where bed scour may be
expected. Rip rap placed on the streambed should be embedded or "keyed -in" to prevent or shorten
the duration of subsurface streamflow.
3. If multiple pipes or cells are used, then at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry
during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
4. Culverts or pipes should be aligned with the existing channel alignment whenever possible. Channel
widening should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically
decreases water velocity, disrupts aquatic life passage, and causes sediment deposition that requires
increased maintenance.
Replacement of the existing bridge or culvert in the same location with road closure is typically
recommended to minimize impacts. If road closure is not feasible, then a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing, and avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, then the old structure and the approach fills
should be removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural
ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. NCDOT
should restore the area to wetlands if the area reclaimed was previously wetlands.
Specific Comments
Eagle Fork Creek (C Tr) is trout habitat that supports naturally reproducing populations of Rainbow Trout
(Oncorynchus mykiss) near the bridge. The January 1 to April 15 trout moratorium for stream and buffer
disturbance should be followed with this project to protect trout spawning. To help further protect trout
habitat, design and construction measures from Design Standards in Sensitive Waters (see part (d) of 15A
NCAC 04B .0124) should be incorporated, as practical.
In addition to trout, Eastern Hellbender (Cryptohranchus alleganiensis, NC Special Concern) are found in the
portions of the Shooting Creek watershed and may be found at the bridge site. The NCWRC would
appreciate being apprised of the construction schedule, once known, so that the bridge area can be surveyed
for hellbenders and any animals moved, as needed. A notice a few weeks before construction, or an invitation
to any preconstruction meeting, is requested. My contact information can be used in any communication with
construction staff (e.g., green sheet commitments, contract notes).
Please contact me at david.mchenry a,ncwildlife.org or [phone] if you have any questions about
these comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. The NCWRC
looks forward to assisting as needed as the project develops further.

BP14.R010
Clay County
Page 4 October 31, 2023
Cordially,
Dave McHenry, NCWRC Western DOT Coordinator
Cc: Patrick Breedlove, NCDOT Division 14 PDEA Engineer

/cfir�Th---\
_o.
North Carolina Department of Transportation — Division 14
Botanical Survey
Project Name:
Project Location: L nr3es
f?.2ael CSR.
//71
Observers: Rrccd/o '7 /dz
Date:
County: Cla
Streams Presents: Yes
No
Stream Name:
LA-r ! I✓41 lc
Wetlands Present: Yes
No
Wetland Name:
Canopy Description: Poelar
l-OCUSA, ChtyrA
� beech
WdL4- walndCJJ7rwd
Understory Description: /-/ h /
.;. J�4.;4u
i`
USFWS iPAC Threatened & Endangered Species List:
❑ Bunched Arrowhead
Habitat Present:
Yes
No
Species Present:
Yes
No
Green Pitcher Plant
Habitat Present:
Yes
Species Present:
Yes
'v o
❑ Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant
Habitat Present:
Yes
No
Species Present:
Yes
No
Rock Gnome Lichen
Habitat Present:
Yes
0
Species Present:
Yes
UP
❑ Small Whorled Pogonia
Habitat Present:
Yes
No
Species Present:
Yes
No
❑ Spreading Avens
Habitat Present:
Yes
No
Species Present:
Yes
No
❑ Swamp Pink
Habitat Present:
Yes
No
Species Present:
Yes
No
❑ Virginia Spiraea
Habitat Present:
Yes
No
Species Present:
Yes
No
❑ White Irisette
Habitat Present:
Yes
No
Species Present:
Yes
No

NCDOT Bat Bridge Habitat Assessment Form Updated 3/23/21
0*19 Bat Habitat Assessment Form
NCDOT Bridges
Observers: f7 Seeeol/oyC jcgO/kn N bc. TIP or DOT project number:
Date: G . 4. Z023 Bridge Road (Name of facility carried)��'��c- pinto-
County: �%Qy Bridge Number: ?9
Crossing (Name of the feature intersected): a / .k yr J`
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commercial o'/• Suburban/Residential 30
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland C7'/ . Agricultural 0
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest so %►
Woody Wetland/Herb Wetland/Open Water O'Z
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? N/A __ es 1 no
Complete this section for Indiana bat counties (Avery: Cranberry Mine area only, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood,
Jackson, Macon, Rutherford: Bat Cave/Lake Lure area only, Swain)
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH? N/A es no
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive during the day? N/A 1-3 hours -6 hour 7+ hours
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh VJal P,0- ja Y-
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location. J
Presence of: In project footprint In vicinty (0.5 mi)
Caves yes � yes
Abandoned mines yes yes
If 'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description, and location.
Major water source in project footprint N/A river ream/creek on lake swamp
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non -stagnant, smooth or slack water? ye no N/A
Structure specific questions:
Artificial lighting unknown
yes
no
Guard rails none
concrete
timb
metal
Deck type concrete
metal(Ti
r
open grid
Lead- Pq+ 4
Beam type none
concrete
to
timber
End/back wall type concrete
imb
masonry
Creosote evidence
QU)
no
Suitable roosting crevices present (%: - 1%" wide)
yes
Deck drains
yes
n�
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water (ft):
Co -S '
Bridge alignment N/S
E/W
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge high
med
low
none
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed)
yes
�o
Below section completed only if bats/evidence of bats observed:
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page)
yes
no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?
yes
no
Type of Evidence (circle all that apply)
guano
staining
bats observed
Roost Type
crevice
open area
Roost Material
metal
concrete
Bat species present (list all species):
Notes (list each species locations and estimated number of each species):