20080939 Ver 1_Reports_20020215

1
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Proposed Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 202 over First Broad River
Rutherford County
State Project Number 8.2891301
TIP Project Number B-4265

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Prepared by
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers
December 2001
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Project Description 1
1.2. Methodology 1
1.2.1 Resources 1
1.2.2 Investigations 3
1.2.3 Area Description 4
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 5
2.1 Physiography 5
2.2 Soils 5
2.2.1 Soil Series 5
2.2.2 Forest Productivity 6
2.3 Water Resources 9
2.3.1 Water Resource Characteristics 9
2.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers 12
2.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts 12
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES 13
3.1 Terrestrial Communities 13
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
and Ecological Relationships 16
3.3 Aquatic Communities 16
3.4 Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Aquatic Communities
and Ecological Relationships 17
4.0 PERMIT ISSUES 18
4.1 Description of Permits Required 18
4.2 Wetland Avoidance 20
4.3 Minimization of Wetland Impacts 20
4.4 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts 21
4.5 Identification of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites 21
4.6 Bridge Demolition into Waters of the U.S. 22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.7 Buffer Rules 22
5.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ISSUES 23
5.1 Federal Listed Species 23
5.1.1 Federally-Protected Species 23
5.1.2 Federal Species of Concern 26
5.2 State Listed Species 31
6.0 REFERENCES 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.0 Soil Descriptions 6
Table 1.1 Forest Productivity 8
Table 1.2 Stream Channel Classification 10
Table 1.3 Bioclassification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates 11
Table 1.4 Land Use Impacts 14
Table 1.5 Federally Protected Species 24
Table 1.6 Federal Species of Concern 27
Table 1.7 State Listed Species 31

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 202 at SR 1733 (Jones Town Road) over the First Broad River (See Figure 1).
The present Natural Systems Report is intended to provide detailed descriptions of the
natural systems located within the alternative corridors. Specifically, the tasks performed
for this study include: 1) an assessment of natural resource features within the project
1 study area, including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species habitat,
jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands, and water quality issues; 2) mapping of
specific resources, including plant communities, jurisdictional surface waters and
wetlands, and potential habitat for federally protected species; 3) an evaluation of
probable impacts resulting from construction; and 4) a preliminary determination of
permit needs and conceptual mitigation needs.
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project study area was gathered and reviewed.
1.2 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources.
1.2.1 Resources
A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of Dysartsville, NC was consulted to
determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape characteristics. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map was
consulted before commencing field studies. Baseline information on soils was obtained
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rutherford County Soil and Water
Conservation Office. A Rutherford County Soil Survey through the United States
' Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service is available at
http://www.mol4.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/.
A copy of an aerial photograph mosaic provided by NCDOT provided an overview of
baseline features in the project study area. This photograph served as the basis for

1

t

mapping plant community patterns and wetlands. Plant community patterns were
identified from available mapping sources and verified in the field. Primary components
of each community were examined and the species composition of each was recorded.
Plant community descriptions are based on the classification system developed by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968).
The most current list of federally protected species for Rutherford County was provided
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and was reviewed prior to initiation of
field studies (list date February 26, 2001). USFWS Federally Protected Species
Recovery plans provided information on the distribution and ecological requirements of
each species. This information was noted for mitigation purposes. Records maintained
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) (list date July 2001) were
consulted for documented presence of federal-listed and state-listed species before
commencing the field effort.
Surface waters intersecting the project study area were visited and evaluated to
ascertain physical characteristics. Water quality information for streams and tributaries
within the project study area were derived from available sources provided through the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, internet update May
2000). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing published data.
The DENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ) provides water resources information on the
project study area within the Broad River Basinwide Assessment Report (list date
August 22, 2001) and the Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (July
1998).
Wildlife distribution and habitat use were determined through field observations,
evaluation of habitat-type distributions, and a review of supporting literature (Peterson
1980, Burt and Grossenheider 1980, Martof et al. 1980, Lee et al. 1982). Techniques
used to document terrestrial fauna include visual observations, identification of bird
songs and frog calls, and identification of tracks and scat. Dip nets and seines were
used to document aquatic life. Consultation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) provided information on designated proposed critical habitats for
aquatic species. Locations of public parks, historic properties, natural system
2

occurrences, and hazardous material sites are layered in the Global Information System
(GIS) database.
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three-parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) as outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). Preliminary determinations of the jurisdictional status
of vegetated areas were made to aid in alternative planning. Wetland values for
representative areas within the project study area were evaluated using the Fourth
Version of the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina (DEHNR
1995).
Correspondence was sent requesting comments or unique concerns relating to these
proposed projects to these proposed projects to the following:
Mr. Steve Lund, COE
Ms. Maryellen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. Owen Anderson, NCWRC
Ms. Susan Giles, NCNHP
Mr. S.A. Moor, District Engineer, NCDOT
Mr. W.D. Smart, Division Engineer, NCDOT
Any response received to this correspondence is included in the Appendix.
1.2.2 Investigations

The project study area was visited and visually surveyed for significant features.
Jurisdictional wetlands and open waters were field delineated on August 7, 2001. The
jurisdictional delineation was reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) during an on-site visit on (pending date). The fieldwork for this
investigation was conducted by Rummel, Klepper and Kahl personnel, namely Kim
Leight, Elizabeth Mack, Nancy Daly, Pete Stafford and Kevin Nunnery.
Ms. Leight has a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering and is an Environmental
Project Manager responsible for natural resource investigations including soil
evaluations, wetland identification and delineation, preparation of environmental
documents, and regulatory/permitting requirements. Ms. Mack, who has a Bachelor's
degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, is an Environmental Specialist responsible for
3

' the preparation of environmental documents and assistance in field surveys. Ms. Daly
has a Master's degree in Biology. Ms. Daly serves as a GIS technician, a GPS surveyor,
and an Environmental Scientist. Mr. Pete Stafford has a Bachelor's degree in
Environmental Biology with two years of fieldwork experience in wildlife habitat
' restoration and endangered and threatened species habitat analysis. Dr. Kevin Nunnery,
a Project Scientist, has a Ph.D. in wetland restoration ecology and is a licensed soil
' scientist. His responsibilities include design, coordination and execution of wetland,
stream and natural resource evaluation efforts.
1.2.3 Area Description
' The project study area denotes the area bounded by the proposed construction limits
and encompasses the various alternatives under consideration. The study area is
' approximately 1,500 feet (457 m) long and 350 feet (107 m) wide at its widest point
along the stream channel. Impact calculations are based on the NCDOT pre-determined
study area; actual impacts will be restricted to construction limits and will be less than
those shown for the study corridors. Special concerns evaluated in the field include
potential habitat for protected species, streams and riparian buffers, wetlands and water
quality protection. The project study area lies within the Broad River drainage basin.
The project vicinity, an area extending 0.5 miles (0.8 km) on all sides of the project
study area, is a mixture of natural forest vegetation, agricultural fields, pine stands,
' residential sites, churches, a cemetery, First Broad River and several state roads (See
Figure 2).
The project region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS
' quadrangle map with the project study area occupying the central position. The project
region extends north to the South Mountains Management Area in Burke County and
east to the Cleveland County and west to McDowell County. Nearby facilities include
schools, churches, and cemeteries. Also within the project region is the First Broad
River, natural heritage occurrences, WRC gamelands, historical sites, and a water
supply watershed.
1
1

i
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect
to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly
influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible
construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the project
area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and
the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Physiography
Rutherford County lies within two physiographic regions of southwestern North Carolina.
The northeastern portion is mostly steep mountainous terrain. However, in the region of
Bridge No. 202, the southeastern portion of the county is mainly upland Piedmont
landscapes. Dominant soils include mostly deep red clays. Elevation ranges from 1,100
feet (335 m) above mean sea level (MSL) in the project study area along First Broad
River to 1,200 feet (366 m) above MSL at the corners of the study corridor. Tributaries of
the First Broad River drain this northeastern portion of Rutherford County.
2.2 Soils
The project study area crosses four soil series and four soil mapping units:
2.2.1 Soil Series
Bethlehem series consists of gravelly sandy clay loam, ranging from 2 to 25 percent
slopes. It is not listed as hydric soil in Rutherford County. It is well drained and found on
convex summits and side slopes. Permeability is rated as moderate. The surface layer is
0 to 7 inches (0 to 18 cm) of brown gravelly sandy clay loam.
Chewacla series consists of Chewacla loam, ranging from 0 to 2 percent slopes with
occasional flooding. It is not listed as a hydric soil in Rutherford County. However, if
Chewacla has inclusions of Wehadkee soils, then it is classified as hydric. It is a
somewhat poorly drained soil found on floodplains along streams. Permeability is rated
as moderate. The surface layer is 0-8 inches (0 to 20 cm) of slightly acidic brown loam.
5

1

1

1
1

1

Dogue series is not listed as a hydric soil in Rutherford County. However, if inclusions
are poorly drained soils, it is classified as hydric. Dogue soils are listed as prime
farmland soils. It is moderately well drained. It is found on planar to slightly concave toe
slopes. Permeability is rated as moderately slow. The surface layer is 0.11 inches (0 to
18 cm) dark brown, slightly acidic loam.
Pacolet series is not listed as a hydric soil in Rutherford County. It is a well-drained soil
with moderate permeability found on side slopes and summits. The surface layer is 0 to
5 inches (0 to 13 cm) of dark reddish brown, slightly acidic, sandy clay loam.
Toccoa series is not listed as a hydric soil in Rutherford County. It is listed as a prime
farmland soil It is moderately well drained to well drained and is found on planar to
slightly convex slopes. The surface layer is 0 to 12 inches (0 to 30 cm) dark, yellowish
brown and slightly acidic. Its permeability is moderately rapid.
Four soil mapping units are found within the project study area. Each units' description,
slope, prime farmland and hydric status are included in Table 1.0. Hydric soils are
defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Table 1.0 Soil Descriptions
Prime Hydric
Type Description Slope
Farmland (inclusion)
Yes (if
ChA Chewacla 0-2 percent slopes (Wehadkee)
dr aimed)
1 to 6 percent slopes,
DoB Dogue loam Yes No
rarely flooded
PaD2 Pacolet sandy clay loam 15 to 25 percent slopes No No
ToA Toccoa sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes Yes No
2.2.2 Forest Productivity
Forest productivity of common, merchantable trees on a soil is expressed as a site
index. Table 1.1 displays site index numbers for the types of soil located in the project
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
study area. These numbers indicate the average height, in feet, that dominant and co-
dominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years. The site index
applies to fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stands.

M M M M M M M M M M M M M i s M M M M
Table 1.1 Forest Productivity
Common Site Common Common Common
Soil Name Trees Index Soil Name Trees Site Index Soil Name Trees Site Index Soil Name Trees Site Index
ChA: DoB: PaD2: ToA:
Chewacla Dogue Pacolet Toccoa
Southern --- Loblolly 95 Loblolly 79 Yellow- 107
Red Oak Pine Pine poplar
Red Maple --- Southern --- Shortleaf 68 Loblolly 90
Red Oak Pine Pine
Blackgum --- Sweetgum --- Yellow- 90 Southern ---
poplar Red Oak
Loblolly Pine 95 Yellow --- Virginia 71 Sweetgum 100
Poplar Pine
Yellow- 96 White Oak --- White Oak ---
poplar
Willow Oak 90
Sweetgum 100
Water Oak 90
Eastern ---
Cottonwood
Green Ash 78
Southern ---
Red Oak

I 2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources and means to minimize impacts are discussed.
Most federal government agencies use a system of defining watersheds that is different
from that used by the DWQ. Under this approach, a nationally uniform hydrologic unit
system was developed in 1974 by the USGS Office of Water Data Coordination. This
system divides the country into 21 regions, 222 subregions, 352 accounting units and
2,149 cataloging (hydrologic) units based on surface hydrologic features. Under the
federal cataloging system, the Broad River hydrologic unit is 03050105. Each unit is
defined by an 8-digit number.

1

1
1
t
By contrast, DWQ has a two-tiered system in which the state is subdivided into 17 river
basins, and each basin is subdivided into subbasins. The Broad River basin is
subdivided by DWQ into six subbasins and the proposed project is located in the DWQ
Subbasin 03-08-02 of the Broad River. The basin encompasses a 1,506 square mile
(3,901 square km) watershed drained by 1,472 miles (2,369 km) of streams and rivers.
The headwaters of the Broad and its major tributaries are located within the mountains
and flow towards the foothills before entering the piedmont, then onto South Carolina on
its way to the Atlantic Ocean. The basin includes 29 municipalities with a total population
of 169,001 people, according to the 1990 census data. Agriculture is an important
industry in the basin. The Broad River basin is home to 97 rare plant and animal species
and five NHP Priority Areas.
2.3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Best usage classifications and stream index numbers are assigned to each stream and
segment, starting with a node common to a main river in the basin and adding additional
nodes to allow for all streams and segments to be uniquely identified. Stream Index
Numbers (SIN) are used to keep streams and segments in downstream order.
9

Best usage classifications follow Classifications and Water Quality Standards, published
by DENR (May 2000). Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North
Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or
segments of streams in the basin. Water resources within the study area are located in
the Broad River drainage basin. There is one sampling site in the project study area on
the First Broad River.
First Broad River has been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects
water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The classification for First Broad
River [DEM Index No. 9-50-(01), 03/01/63] is classified as "WS-V Tr" from its source to
Cleveland County SR 1530 (Moriah Church Road). The "Division of Water Quality's Red
' Book of Rules" defines "WS-V" as waters that are protected water supplies; the waters,
following treatment required by the Division of Environmental Health, shall meet the
' Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for drinking, culinary, or
food-processing purposes. "Tr" is defined as (DWQ) designated trout waters.
ct
th
d Ri
ithi
Fi
t B
i
t
th
N
2 d
i
e proje
ver w
n
rs
roa
ns
n
o
e
o. 20
ra
A ditch located west of Bridge
study area. The ditch is neither classified as a jurisdictional wetland or stream because it
jurisdictional waters
tif
h
d t
id
t
COE th
t
t th
did
.
y
use
o
en
ree-parame
er approac
mee
e
no
No SIN has been assigned to the ditch located on the southwest side of Bridge No. 202.

No water classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the project study area.
The First Broad River is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River or
' a National Wild and Scenic River.

1

Table 1.2 Stream Channel Classification
Average Width Average Depth in
Best Perennial
Channel in Feet Feet
Usage /Intermittent
(Meters) (Meters)
Ditch N/A Perennial 4(1.2) 0.8 (0.3)
First Broad River WS-V Perennial 26(7.9) 1.4 (0.4)
10
1

1

1
1

1

1

t
1
1

First Broad River at SR 1733 (Jones Town Road) averages approximately 26 ft (7.9 m)
wide and is approximately 1.4 feet (0.4 m) deep. Width ranges from 20 to 35 feet (6.1 to
10.7 m) across and depth ranges from 2 to 24 inches (5.1 to 60.1 cm) deep. Its substrate
is composed primarily of silt and some rocks. The ditch located to the southwest of
Bridge No. 202 averages approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) wide and 0.8 foot (0.3 m) deep.
Width ranges from 1 to 8 feet (0.3 to2.4 m) wide and depth ranges from 1 to 24 inches
(2.5 to 61 cm) deep. The substrate consisted primarily of silt.
Benthic macroi nverteb rates, especially aquatic insects, are used as indicators of
environmental water quality in streams and rivers. Analysis of faunal assemblages is one
way to detect water quality problems. Different kinds of stress will often produce different
benthic macroi nve rteb rate communities. Increasing levels of pollution gradually eliminate
the more sensitive species, leading to lower and lower species richness, or diversity.
Guidelines and quality control procedures for sampling benthic macroi nverte b rates are
outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures Guide compiled by the DENR Biological
Assessment Group. The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ,
monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples
are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups Fhemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)]. A taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. Taxa
richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure
of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There are no benthic monitoring
stations on the First Broad River in the project study area.
Sampling sites are on the First Broad River upstream of the study area. Site B-2 is
located on the First Broad River at SR 1726 (Valley Road), approximately 2.1 miles (3.4
km) upstream of the study area. In July 1989, site B-2 waters received a bioclassification
rating of Good. S/EPT S values were 83/36, respectively.
Table 1.3 Bioclassification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the Project Study
Area
Site Site # Date S/EPT S Bioclassification
First Broad River and B-2 07/89 83/36 Good
SR 1726
11

2.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a permit. No NPDES dischargers are located in or directly
' upstream from the project study area.
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater, snowmelt or atmospheric deposition. Land use activities such as land
1 development, construction, mining operations, crop production, animal feeding lots,
failing septic systems, landfills, roads and parking lots are contributors of non-point
source pollutants. In agricultural and construction areas, sediment and nutrients are
major polluters. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are
susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most
widespread cause of non-point source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides, chemical
fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to
receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
' nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a source of bacterial contamination and elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils
contributes to the influence of stormwater pollutants into surface water.
2.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Anticipated impacts are clearing of streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement installation.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas
1 12

• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns
I In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced
during the construction phase of the project. Limiting in-stream activities and
revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading can further
reduce impacts. No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result
from the bridge replacement project being considered.

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the
biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these communities. Descriptions of the terrestrial plant community
systems are presented through descriptions by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Some
differences between actual field surveys and Schafale and Weakley are noted in the
plant community sections. Natural land disturbances such as fire, hurricanes, and
1 tornadoes result in uneven-aged vegetative stands or a patchy mosaic within even-aged
communities. Anthropogenic disturbances such as logging, farming, selective cutting,
and road construction have also contributed to the present landscape. Representative
l
t
th
bli
h
d
d
animal species that are like
y
o occur in
ese habitats (base
on pu
s
e
range
distributions) are also cited.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area. Acreage
impacts for each terrestrial community were derived from aerial photography and GIS
mapping. All terrestrial community area figures are based on the mapped project study
area boundaries and are approximate. These communities are described in Table 1.4
and mapped on Figure 3.

13
Table 1.4 Land Use Impacts - Acres (Hectares)
Land Use Project Study Area Percentage
Disturbed/Residential Land 1.1 (0.4) 20
Pine Stand 0.6 (0.2) 10
Pasture/Agricultural Land 2.2 (0.9) 40
Piedmont Bottomland 1.6 (0.6) 30
Disturbed/Residential Land
This irregularly maintained community is located on along SR 1733 (Jones Town Road)
on either side of the existing bridge and will be impacted. Approximately 1.1 ac (0.4 ha)
(approximately 20%) of maintained roadside and urban areas in the project study area
will be impacted by construction. These areas have been subjected to severe
anthropogenic changes and include maintained residential yards and maintained
roadsides. Vegetation within these areas is generally limited to both ornamental trees
and shrubs combined with various residential grass species. Within the maintained or
mowed area, planted fescue (Festuca spp.) is the primary plant species.
Pine Stand
Two pine stands occur along SR 1733 (Jones Town Road) within the project study area.
A Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) stand located just north of the SR 1730 (Hudson
Road)/SR 1733 intersection and a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stand located southeast of
the project study area cover approximately 0.6 ac (0.2 ha) (approximately 10%).
Pasture/Agricultural Land
An overgrown pasture and agricultural field lie in the project study area to the east of SR
1733 (Jones Town Road). Approximately 2.2 ac (0.9 ha) (approximately 40%) of pasture
and agricultural land will be impacted by construction. Both pastures are overgrown with
early successional plants like a variety of grasses, sedges (Carex spp.), asters (Aster
spp.) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).
14

Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Community
The riparian community is composed of typical piedmont bottomland hardwood
vegetation and is located on either side of the First Broad River. Approximately 1.6 ac
(0.6 ha) (approximately 30%) of pasture and agricultural land will be impacted by
r construction. The following tree species are dominant in the project study area:
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and river birch (Betula nigra). Shrubs include thickets
of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and swamp rose (Rosa palustris). The herbaceous
layer is composed of bamboo (Phyllostachys spp.), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and
false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica).
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may utilize all biotic communities
previously discussed. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt, with little
1 transitional area between them.
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial fauna. Bird species
observed were the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and the turkey vulture (Cathartes
1 aura). Mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc.) observed include the white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), and woodchuck (Marmota
monax).
Expected wildlife species are those that are opportunistic and well adapted to the
ecotone between the maintained roadsides and adjacent natural forest. Bird species
expected within and around the project study area include the great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Carolina chickadee (Parus
1 carolinensis), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos). Game birds species found on and in the surrounding areas
are the Canadian goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), wood duck
(Aix sponsa), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and bobwhite (Colinus virginianus).
Mammals expected include the northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), deer
' mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodland
1 jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), eastern red
1 15

i bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes),
' muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), and
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Reptiles expected in this area are eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), copperhead (Agkistrodon
' contortrix), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and the rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities and Ecological
Relationships
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the acreage of each
plant community present within the study corridor of 150 feet (42.7 m) on each side;
' actual impacts within construction limits will be less. Woodland impacts are related to
damage of trees outside of the study corridor due to construction (skinning of tree trunks,
compacting soil, exposing root system, spilling petroleum, etc.).
1 Due to the limited extent of infringement of natural communities, the proposed extension
l
ti
t
i
l
i
l
di
l
t
f k
t
ill
t
lt i
i
ifi
t l
ons.
nown
erres
r
a
an
ma
popu
a
oss or
acemen
o
w
no
resu
n s
gn
can
sp
However, a small loss of forested habitat will occur due to construction activities of the
' limited right-of-way. This loss will impact wildlife and their habitat, including the loss of
potential nesting and foraging areas and displacement of wildlife populations.

3.3 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic faunal community of First Broad River depends largely on the physical
characteristics (size and water quality) of the river, as well as the adjacent terrestrial
community. Variance in habitat from leaf packs to riffles and pools influence the variety
of aquatic macroi nverteb rates, crustaceans, amphibians and fish adapted to live in First
Broad River. RK&K staff searched the stream bank, vegetation, debris, leaf packs, under
rocks and logs, and in slow-moving water. Aquatic insects found in this community are
I identified to the Order and include the following: water boatman (Hemiptera), caddisfly
(Trichoptera), snail (Physidae) and mayfly (Ephemeroptera).
Due to the shallow water and vegetation around the First Broad River, the project study
area is expected to provide a suitable breeding habitat for an array of frogs, toads, and
1 16

salamanders. The eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) was spotted in the ditch.
Other amphibians expected to be found in the project study area include the spotted
salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),
Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), northern
spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), red salamander
(Pseudotriton ruber), green frog (Rana clamitans) and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
' Piedmont/mountainous riverine habitats found in Rutherford County provide suitable
habitat for very few aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles, such as the northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon) and painted turtle (Chrysemys picta).

1

t

1
1

Small non-game fish in the area that inhabit the First Broad River include the following:
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius), and
margined madtom (Noturus exilis). Deeper portions of the First Broad River may include
some larger species like white suckers (Castomus commersoni), red-breasted sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus) and northern hog suckers (Hypentelium nigricans). Game fish like brook
(Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow (Onchorychus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta)
may occasionally travel into the study area from the Broad River. WRC anticipates
requesting a moratorium on any in-stream work and land disturbance activities within
trout waters during the trout-spawning season of October 15 through April 15. The WRC
stocks these trout in the Broad River at the Henderson/Rutherford County line at US
64/74 bridge (Phone conversation with WRC District 8 Biologist, Mr. Doug Besler, phone
# 828-659-8684).
3.4 Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Aquatic Communities and Ecological
Relationships
Impacts to the aquatic community of the First Broad River may result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 202 and/or improving the alignment of SR 1733 (Jones Town
Road). Impacts may result from the physical disturbance of aquatic community
composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats.
Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities.
17

1

1
1

• Inhibition of plant growth
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations
• Loss of benthic macroi nve rteb rates through scouring resulting from an increased
sediment load
Due to potential trout impacts, a moratorium is anticipated to protect trout spawning.
Bridge No. 202 should be replaced with another spanning structure. Stringent erosion
control and best management practice measures* should be implemented to protect
water quality for aquatic organisms. Some measures are outlined below:
• Use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff
during construction. Regular maintenance and inspection for these structures is
recommended to insure effectiveness.
• Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams and
tributaries will help reduce the potential for petroleum contamination or discharges of
other hazardous materials into receiving waters.
• Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites to help alleviate sediment loading and reduce
runoff. Increased runoff from new roadway surfaces can be partially mitigated by
providing for grassed road shoulders and limited use of ditching.
• Avoid direct discharges into streams whenever feasible. Runoff effluent should be
allowed to filter through roadside vegetation in order to remove contaminants and to
minimize runoff velocities.
*Refer to Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specification for Roads
and Structures) for more information.
4.0 PERMIT ISSUES
4.1 Description of Permits Required
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. No
jurisdictional wetlands were found in the project study area. The ditch located west of
Bridge No. 202, draining into the First Broad River within the project study area, is not
classified as a jurisdictional stream because it did not meet the COE three-parameter
approach used to identify jurisdictional waters. However, open water impacts to the First
Broad River are expected, but should be minimal. As a result, construction activities will
1 18

require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of
protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23)] is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
r whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
• that the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect of the human environment, and;
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Actrequires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allow
surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other
land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and
associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit
#31 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is
required if this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be used if temporary structures,
work and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary for this project. Bridge
replacement or construction over navigable waters used for commerce or that have a
maintained navigation channel may require United States Coast Guard (USCG)
authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-115.
19

1
1

1
1

A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit. Since
the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a
nationwide permit by COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC).
The COE has adopted through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
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: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.2 Wetland Avoidance
According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology
and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
4.3 Minimization of Wetland Impacts
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. The study
corridor presented was developed in part to fulfill the purpose and need for the project
and to minimize wetland and stream impacts.
No jurisdictional wetlands were found in the study corridor. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that are located
20

1

1

1

1
1

within the study corridor. Open water impacts for the replacement of the existing bridge
over First Broad River are approximately 350 linear feet (106.7m) and 0.13 acres (.05
ha) of stream channel. The ditch located west of Bridge No. 202, draining into the First
Broad River within the project study area, is not classified as a jurisdictional stream
because it did not meet the COE three-parameter approach used to identify jurisdictional
waters.
4.4 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the United States, including wetlands, are subject to regulation by
the COE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act, approved March 3, 1899, and Section 404 of the Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended. Permits issued by the COE for placement of fill in
wetlands are often conditioned with mitigation requirements, in accordance with the
Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines. The objective of this policy is to restore and maintain the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Waters of the United States.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved
in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be under taken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Linear feet of stream impacts do not accurately describe construction impacts to Broad
River since calculations are based on the width of the study corridor. Once alternatives
and right-of-way widths are established, calculations can be revised and mitigation
requirements can be determined. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.5 Identification of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites
Due to the minimal impacts, mitigation is expected to be minimal. A mitigation search
was completed on August 22, 2001 which utilized the Rutherford County Soil and Water
21

l
hi
maps,
ca
Conservation Office-Prior Converted Wetland search, USGS topograp
1 Geographic Information System mapping, NWI maps and Natural Heritage Program
roject
it
d t
within the
ti
l
iti
ti
it
Th
h
li
h
t
id
tif
t
p
m
ga
on s
e searc
was
m
e
o
searc
es
o
en
y po
en
a
es.
study area. No records were found of prior converted wetlands in the area of the First
Broad River and SR 1733 (Jones Town Road). No agricultural practices are currently in
operation in or near the project study area. (NRCS-Rutherford Soil and Water
Conservation District, conversation with Mr. Michael Jones, Soil Conservation
Technician).

4.6 Bridge Demolition into Waters of the US
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). According to Section 402-2 of NCDOT's
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, the chapter titled "Removal of
Existing Structures" outlines restrictions and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs). It includes guidelines for calculating maximum
potential fill in the creek resulting from demolition.
With the exception of structures which are all steel/timber structures, all spans over the
' creek are considered potential fill. The decks and curbs for the superstructure of Bridge
No. 202 are timber on kbeams and the substructure consists of timber piles and bents.
Bridge No. 202 contains no reinforced concrete structures, negating the need to include
the span over First Broad River as a potential fill impact. The superstructure and
substructure of Bridge No. 202 are slated for removal in a manner which will avoid
dropping any bridge components into First Broad River.

4.7 Buffer Rules
' Although the Clean Water Act of 1999 authorized the N.C. Environmental Management
Commission to adopt temporary rules to implement a basinwide water quality
' management plan for the Broad River basin, no buffer rules are in place at this time.

22

1
1
1

1

1

5.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ISSUES
5.1 Federal Listed Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federallyprotected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
5.1.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. According to the February 26, 2001 list and March 22, 2001 updated internet
list, the USFWS lists four federally protected species for Rutherford County. The small
whorled pogonia is not listed as a federally-protected species according to the USFWS.
However, NCNHP lists it as federally threatened. Therefore, its consideration was
included in the following surveys and biological conclusions. Also, brief descriptions of
the characteristics and habitat requirements are included. Biological conclusions of "No
Effect" were found for three protected species. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats shows no occurrence of federally protected species within
1.0 mile (1.6 km) the project study area. Table 1.5 shows that three federally protected
species are listed as endangered and two federally protected species are listed as
threatened for Rutherford County (NCNHP, July 2001).
23

1
1
1

Table 1.5 Federally Protected Species for Rutherford County

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Biological

Conclusion
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis E Unresolved
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare E No effect
White Iris Sisyrinchium dichotomum E No effect
Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides T Unresolved
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T No effect
Note:
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
Indiana Bat
Myotis sodalis - Endangered
The Indiana bat is 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) long with mouse-like ears, plain nose, dull grayish
fur on the back and lighter cinnamon-brown fur on the belly. Its wingspan is 9.5 to 10.5
inches (24.1 to 25.7 cm). They hibernate in limestone caves and abandoned mines,
usually near water. Large dense clusters hibernate from October to April in caves where
temperatures average 38 to 43 degrees F (3 to 6 degrees C). In the summer, single
offspring are raised under loose tree bark, primarily in a wooded streamside habitat.
Foraging ranges consist of approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of a creek anywhere from six
to 95 feet (1.8 to 29 m) vertically. Biologists believe that they feed primarily on moths.
Biological Conclusion: RK&K biologists surveyed the area on August 6, 2001 and
found no caves in the project study area. However, summer habitat is present along
creeks and bouldery bluffs occur in the western portion of Rutherford County.
Sightings of the Indiana bat have been recorded in the northwestern portion of
Rutherford County. A biological survey by a bat specialist is recommended.
UNRESOLVED

1
Rock Gnome Lichen
Gymnoderma lineare - Endangered
The rock gnome lichen consists of a dense colony of narrow, strap-like lobes, with tips of
blue-gray on the upper surface and usually shiny white below. Near the base of the lobe,
24

the color darkens to black. The rock gnome lichen is a type of reindeer moss. It fruits in
July through September. It lives on rocks in areas of high humidity either at high
' elevations above 5,000 feet (1,524 m) where there is fog or on boulders and large rock
outcrops in deep river gorges at lower elevations.
' Biological Conclusion: RK&K biologists surveyed the area on August 6, 2001
and found no rock gnome lichen species. The project study area consisted of a
lower elevation shallow river with no rocky outcrops or boulders. Neither habitat
requirement nor rock gnome lichen species were found during the survey.
Therefore the biological conclusion of no effect was determined. NO EFFECT.
White Irisette
Sisyrinchium dichotomum - Endangered
' The white irisette is a perennial herb with branching stems 4 to 8 inches (10.1 to 20.3
cm) tall. Leaves at the base of the plant are pale to bluish green and grow 1/3 to 1/2 the
' height of the plant. The flowers occur in clusters of 4 to 6 at the tops of the winged
stems. It flowers in late May to July and prefers rich, basic soils. It occurs in clearings
' and the edges of upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where downslope
runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these sites.
Biological Conclusion: RK&K biologists surveyed the site on August 7, 2001
' and found no white irisette species. The project study area consists of a thin
hardwood stand next to First Broad River and relatively close to a slope.
Downslope runoff is capable of removing much of the deep litter layer; however,
most leaf litter has accumulated along the slope and remains to decompose. The
i soils on-site are slightly to strongly acidic. Therefore, the biological conclusion of
no effect was determined. NO EFFECT.
Small Whorled Pogonia
Isotria medeoloides - Threatened
The small whorled pogonia is a slender, perennial orchid, usually found in colonies. It
' has a greenish or purplish tinged stem that is 3.7 to 8.8 inches (9.5 to 25 cm) tall with
drooping glaucous leaves. The leaves are 0.8 to 3.3 inches (2 to 8.5 cm) long and 0.4 to
1 1.6 inches (1 to 4 cm) wide. At the apex of the stem is a whorl of five to six pale dusty
green leaves with parallel veins. Its flowers are yellowish green. It flowers from May to
June. It may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows in open, dry
25

' deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soils. It also grows in rich mesic
woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
' Biological Conclusion: RK&K biologists surveyed the project study area on
August 7, 2001 and found no small whorled pogonia species. Although no
' sightings of the small whorled pogonia occurred, the area is favorable due to its
diversity of habitat requirements. This area supports acidic soils, deciduous
1 woods and First Broad River. Surveys for this species will take place during the
flowering season from May to June 2002. UNRESOLVED.
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf

1
1
1
Hexastylis naniflora - Threatened
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low-growing, spicy-smelling, evergreen perennial herb.
Each leaf is supported by a long, thin stalk that rises directly from the subsurface
rhizome. It has cordate to orbicular-cordate leaves, 1.6 to 2.3 inches (4 to 6 cm) long or
wide, with lobes usually '/4 or less the total length. It flowers from April to early May. It
lives in acidic sandy loam soils along north facing bluffs and nearby slopes, hillsides and
ravines, in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and stream of deciduous woods. Soil
type is the most important habitat requirement (Pacolet, Madison or Musella types). This
species requires sunlight in early spring for maximum flowering and seed production.
Biological Conclusion: RK&K biologists surveyed the area on August 7, 2001
and found no Hexastylis spp. NO EFFECT.
5.1.2 Federal Species of Concern
There are ten federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Rutherford County
(Table 1.7). 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, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for
consideration. Federal Species of Concern are defined as species that are under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In
addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
26

1

1
1

Table 1.6 Federal Species of Concern for Rutherford County

Common Name
Scientific Name NC

Status Habitat

Present
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea SR No
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus SC No
Green Salamander Aneides aeneus E No
Diana Fritillary Speyeria diana SR Yes
Eastern Small-footed Bat Myotis leibii SC No
Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana SC Yes
Sweet Pinesap Monotropsis odorata C No
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana C No
Divided-leaf Ragwort Senecio milliefolium T No
Mountain Catchfly Silene ovata C No
Note: NU Status
SR - Significantly Rare
C - Candidate
PT (PSC) - Proposed Threatened (Special Concern)
T - Threatened
W5 - Watch Category 5
SC - Special Concern
' Cerulean Warbler
' Dendroica cerulea - FSC
The cerulean warbler is 4.5 inches (11 cm) in length. The male is blue above and white
' below. From below, a narrow black ring across the chest can be spotted. Females are
blue-gray and olive-green above and white below. The cerulean warbler lives in mature
' hardwood forests, near steep slopes and coves in the mountains, especially in river
valleys.
The project study area consists of relatively low elevations in the foothills of
northeastern Rutherford County. Although there are hardwoods in the project
study area, steep slopes, coves, and river valeys are not present.

27

1
1

1
Northern Pine Snake
Pituophis melanoleucus - FSC
The northern pine snake has black to dark brown spots on a white to yellowish
background. It lives underground but hunts in the early mornings or late afternoons. It
prefers sandy and dry soils typically found in pine-oak sandhills.
The project study area consists of mainly of pasture lands and hardwoods. Two
small areas were used to grow Virginia and loblolly pine. These pines grow in
Dogue and Pacolet soils, neither of which are sandy, dry soils. Therefore, the
northern pine snake is not expected to occur within the project study area.
Green Salamander
Aneides aeneus - FSC
It appears to have yellowish green lichen-like patches on a background of dark brown or
gray. The belly is pale yellowish white. Green salamanders inhabit damp, shaded
crevices of cliffs or rock outcrops in deciduous forests at elevations between 1,200 to
4,400 feet (366 to 1,341 m). They are occasionally found on trees.
The project study area consists of hardwoods in moist soils along a creek
channel. The area is shaded and damp; however cliff crevices and rock outcrops
are not found on-site. The elevation is between 1,100 and 1,200 feet (335 to 366
m) with thickets of privet and swamp rose on a steep river bank. The habitat
requirements of the green salamander are not satisfied.
Diana Fritillary
Speyeria diana - FSC
The Diana fritillary is relatively large. The underside of male wings are black at the base,
with outer portions of orange. The female has black with blue on the outer part of the
hindwing. The underside does not have the typical Speyeria spot pattern. Caterpillar
host plants are mostly violets (Viola spp.). Adult food sources are dung and flower nectar
from plants including common and swamp milkweeds, ironweed, red clover, and butterfly
bush. It prefers fields, edges, and openings in moist, rich, forested mountains and
valleys.
The overgrown pastures in the project study area provide potential habitat for the
Diana Fritillary. Many early successional flowering plants cover the pasture and
provide food sources and host plants for insects.
28

1

Eastern Small-footed Bat
Myotis liebii - FSC
The eastern small-footed bat is the smallest member of the genus Myotis and similar in
appearance to the little brown bat, but is smaller in size. The eastern small-footed bat
measures approximately 3 inches (7.6 cm) in total length. Its fur is chestnut brown above
and grayish brown below. The small ears and face are black, giving it a masked
appearance. It occurs in small dry caves usually found in hemlock forests. It roosts in
inconspicuous places such as under boulders, in crevices in rock falls and quarries, or
around the entrances of caves and mines.
The project study area consists of low elevation streamside hardwoods. RK&K
staff found no caves nearby. Therefore, habitat for the eastern small-footed bat is
not satisfied by the piedmont bottomland hardwood community.
Eastern Woodrat
Neotoma floridana - FSC
The eastern woodrat has a large muscular body ranging from 12 to 17 inches (4.6 to 6.6
cm). The fur color is usually gray-brown above and somewhat darker hairs along the
midline. Its head is gray; its feet and underparts are white. It is a woodland species that
occurs in deciduous forests, with a dense cover of palmetto. In the mountains, it is
associated with talus slopes, rocky outcrops, bluffs along river valleys, cliffs with
boulders, crevices or caves.
The project study area is similar to the mountainous habitat requirements of the

eastern woodrat. Sightings have occurred in the mountainous regions of
Rutherford County. The eastern woodrat may survive in the deciduous forest
found on-site.
Sweet Pinesap
Monotropsis odorata - FSC
Sweet pinesap is yellow, tawny, pinkish, red or a combination of these. The stems are
glabrous and 1 to 3.1 inches (3 to 8 cm) tall with sessile leaves that are bract-like, widely
lanceolate and 0.2 to 0.3 inches (0.4 to 0.8 cm) long. These little inconspicuous plant is
either quite rare or easily overlooked. It occurs in a chestnut oak/rhododendron minus
community on a northern slope. It has also been spotted in a Virginia pine stand. It is
29

typically only found when it flowers in April and is usually keyed in on by its odor, a
sweet spicy smell, since it flowers under rotten logs and leaves.
Sycamore and river birch dominate the buffer zone of the First Broad River. No
chestnut oak/rhododendron minus communities were found in the area.
However, a Virginia pine stand lines the study corridor along SR 1733 (Jones
Town Road) and faces southeast. Preferable habitat is not present on the project
' study area.
Carolina Saxifrage
Saxifraga caroliniana - FSC
Carolina saxifrage is 3.9 to 19.5 inches (10 to 50 cm) tall with ovate to slightly ovate
leaves, glabrous above and pubescent to glabrate beneath. The petals have yellow
1 spots, clavate filaments and 0.1 to 0.2 inches (0.4 to 0.5 cm) long capsules. It flowers in
May to June and occurs on woods with rock outcrops and seepages.
Woods with rock outcrops and seepages are not present on the project study
area. Therefore, the Carolina saxifrage is not expected to live in the area.
' Divided-leaf Ragwort
Senecio (Packers) milliefolium - FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort is 11.7 to 27.3 inches (30 to 70 cm) tall with hollow stems. The
leaves are mostly basal, lanceolate to elliptic, and 1.6 to 5.9 inches (4 to 15 cm) long. It
usually has 20 or more heads. It can be found on or near rock outcrops and flowers in
late April to early June.
Rock outcrops are not present in the project study area. Therefore, the divided-
leaf ragwort is not expected to live in the area.
Mountain Catchfly
' Silene ovata - FSC
Mountain catchfly is a coarse, erect perennial to 5 feet (1.5 m) tall from a rootstock. Its
' leaves are primarily cauline, ovate 2 to 4.7 inches (5 to 12 cm) long, 0.8 to 2 inches (2 to
5 cm) wide, with a rounded base. It blooms in August to September and is found in rich
' slopes, cove forests and montane oak-hickory forests.
NHP's record on mountain catchfly is based on a pre-1900 herbarium specimen
that has vague information on location of Rutherford County. The project study
1 30

does not resemble a cove forest or montane oak-hickory forest. Therefore,
habitat requirements for the mountain catchfly are not satisfied by the piedmont
bottomland forest found in the project study area.
5.2 State Listed Species
Table 1.7 lists North Carolina rare species. The common name, scientific name and
' state status are displayed.

1

Table 1.7 State Listed Species
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status
Eastern Small-footed Bat Myotis leibii SC
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis SC
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis E
Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia SC
Southern Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi winnemana SC
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus E
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus SC
Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis SC
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus SC
Green Salamander Aneides aeneus E
Crevice Salamander Plethodon yonhlossee SC
Broad River Stream Crayfish Cambarus lenati S3
Santee Chub Hybopsis zanema S3
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare T
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T
Piedmont Quillwort Isotria medeoloides E
Single-flowered Sandwort Minuartia uniflora E
Divided-leaf Ragwort Senecio millefolium T
White Irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
SC - Species Concern
S3 - Rare
31

1

1
1
Per correspondence with DENR and WRC, RK&K has considered habitat impacts to the
Santee chub and Broad River stream crayfish. Both species are highly vulnerable to
siltation and pollution. Neither species were found on site.
32

1

1
1
1

1
6.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources;
Raleigh, North Carolina 88 pp.
Bolen, E.G. and W. L. Robinson. 1995. Wildlife Ecology and Management. 3rd ed.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 620 pp.
Burt, W.B. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. Peterson Field Guide - Mammals. 3rd ed.
Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. 289 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
FWS/OBS 79/31. U. S. Department of Interior; Washington, D.C. 83 pp.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DENR) 1995. Fourth
Version, Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. DEHNR,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section; Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 1998. Broad River
' Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Water Quality Section, Division of Water Quality;
DENR; Raleigh, North Carolina.
' DENR 2001. The Division of Water Quality Red Book of Rules. Division of Water Quality;
DENR; Raleigh, North Carolina. 112 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp.
Gregory, J.D. 2001 Hydric Soils and Growing Season: Wetland Delineation Data for
North Carolina. Department of Forestry; North Carolina State University; Raleigh,
North Carolina. 104 pp.
' Hunter, M. L. Jr. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry- Principles of Managing Forests
for Biological Diversity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 370 pp.
Justice, W.S. and C.R. Bell. 1968. Wildflowers of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 217pp.
33

Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert. 1993. Inland Fisheries Management in North America.
' American Fisheries Society, Maryland. 593 pp.
' Lee, D.S., J.F. Funderburg Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey
1982-10.
' Leithead, H.L., L.L. Yarlett, and T.N. Shiflet. 1976. 100 Native Forage Grasses in 11
Southern States. Soil Conservation Service; United States Department of
Agriculture; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 216 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation; Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; Raleigh, North Carolina. 93 pp.
Little, E.L. 1995. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees -
Eastern Region. Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York. 714 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 264 pp.
i
S
f N
h C
aro
na
North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 1982. A Distributional
urvey o
ort
Mammals. North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina. 70 pp.
'
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1993. North Carolina Wild
' Places - A Closer Look. Division of Conservation Education, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission; Raleigh, North Carolina. 73 pp.
I Owen, O. S. and D.D. Chiras. 1995. Natural Resource Conservation- Management for
a Sustainable Future. 6th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 586 pp.
' Peterson, R.T. 1980. Peterson Field Guides - Eastern Birds. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York. 383 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
1183 pp.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast
' (Region 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.2). 124 pp.
1 34

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, A.G. Lindquist and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
1 Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 222 pp.
' Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
li
A
f N
h C
na-
ort
aro
Russo, M. 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests o
Guide to Assist with Forestry Activities. The Nature Conservancy. International
Paper Company. 183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, DENR; Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
1 t
7
il S
f G
ilf
d C
S
oun
y,
urvey o
u
or
5.
o
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 19
North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 77 pp.
th
ed. USDA, Fort
USDA. 1998. Field Indicators of HYdric Soils in the United States. 4
' Worth. 30 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Guide to Environmental
' Issues. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 84 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 26 February 2001. Endangered,
' Threatened and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern by County
in North Carolina. USFWS; Raleigh, North Carolina. 51 pp.

1
1
USFWS. 22 March 2001. Internet update of Federal Protected Species List for North
Carolina Counties. Last update to this page by USFWS, 22 May 2001. Internet
address: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1962. Dysartsville, N.C. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. 255 pp.
Wetland Training Institute. 1991. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation - 1987 Corps of
Engineers Manual. WTI, Inc., Maryland. 133 pp.
35

Winborne, F.B. 1994. A Guide to Streamwalking. Division of Water Resources; North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh, North
' Carolina. 35 pp.

1
1
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EXHIBITS
r \

4t

"q C

a ?
???

~-?°y°
C, a) CA
-
CL

g ti w
?>
N Z
W D ?n
cn C)
M
cr-

0
LL.
o?
?a Z
5o o
?0 m
? c 20 C14 6
a. U. 1- Z
0 C/)

w W Z I
v J
W? F-
D Ix 0W
Q co O

4Y

J

s
rf•c ? 1
N
(D

EE
n o E
O o0
U Q

c
a?i m
+• 'o cLv -a

c
C c o
E 3 v cn
J C
-0-p
L

`

Q1
? ai Q 'a

?j .

r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

E !'? ?O?,E'I `? ro
V " '" rt'ik< 410 r
0 i 4 9gfg4jNS
0 0 W r! E f E °?
1 wa, va.r r 's t , I +»?
fly
?ILKEY FbW I .` u,N . 4 1 ?N\\y Nv ctsa+.m
a ?"'N (\ d r7
? I
o? ? ?' _. r 'r J aak.oMO .5 o,a?v
a
MW AP \
N°
1 _`,. ,o 1f I.
B2 G ? a L
Irr
,
I n. ,
L ?:u k/Y£p . of T 3 Z3 ? 5
•? YYY ? a N ? ,N - „, ,+
p + X9;9 I:CppK ?,,Aq1 1i.
- AUIIRII(gDf(EI a SY f _ _ " NT
i
L
u _ ,y SPINE l4
¢ ,,,,, o , ?„ BBwois ? ?, `k '? ?r•, p ik ? ? :.? ,y'an ?? s >w?
a.
+ a °
"
-1
i
F s- F
x ?* /s t4 d"ew Np?.. W
v )i Lt
I
1 E\/ b
- ? ?/ .118~ ` 1 f Iq V
I 1 /
I
Ys is eu ? ? ,
B-4,59 t - AI
?f Sp. 1. ?-? BRDAD ? r
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
., <DU N„ Figural
r .. I 1 ? C f10k![ ? CO IIN lY
o?
rML
0?
?o
L
E
N
L
o?
N
Lo
O
O
mN
Z
0
L
L
0
L
0
L
c?
V
s
0
Z
1P • N01Ik
L 0
o
?iylr . DEQpF?J
a
J
J
Y
06
d
a
d
C

Ir-
Q
Q
N
d
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1732
8_42 1731

?/ . 1728
J.
1
30
...'1809 j
? `
n ' f 1726
Golde
,
Valley 172
Ch.
-
1
°
co
_
-
j
25 \ 11/

1723 L
JIV

1723 1006

?o.
• t
I
OP?Q
173
1733
4
61
BRIDGE No. 202

1

1

1

1

APPENDIX

1
1
1
1

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
e1_11% Ogg
I D110 W
June 11, 2001
JUNI Z 2001
RUMMtL,.KLEPPER & KAHL
Kimberly S. Leight RALEIGH, NO
Project Manager
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
Reference: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects in Rutherford County
In response to your June 04, 2001 letter, this office has no comments or unique concerns
as it relates to these projects.
Sincerely,
.GGy .G?
G.R. Spangler
District Engineer
GRS
3931 NC 226 S. Marion, North Carolina 28752

kim leight
From: MaryEllen Haggard <[e-mail]>
' To: 'kleightrkkengineerscom' <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June*13, 20018:34 AM
Subject: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
' Here are a few of the bridge projects that I have special concerns about:
1. B-4258: Trout waters; runs of fish ascend from Lake Lure every spring
' Stream size and frequent floods preclude culvert use here
replace bridge w/bridge
1

2. B-4261: Cathys Creek- Natural Heritage Database shows Santee Chub in this creek.
Santee Chub has a S3 ranking = rare or uncommon, SR = significantly rare
3. B-4266: Hills Creek- Water Supply Watershed; Santee Chub
4. B-4264: Webbs Creek- Water Supply Watershed
5. B-4265: First Broad River- Trout waters; Broad River Stream Crayfish
replace bridge w/bridge
I am not sure yet what kind of protection Santee Chub will require.
Maryellen Haggard
DOT Permit'Coordinator
PO Box 387
Elkin,. NC 28621
Phone: [phone]
Fax: '[phone]
1
1
1
7/6/01
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources ` • ,
1 Division of Parks and Recreation-
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
1 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Philip K. McKnelly, Director
i o?oggg
June 13, 2001 D
1 JUN A .8 2001
RUMMEL,.KLEPPER & KAHL
1 Ms. Kimberly S. Leight RALEIGH.- No
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
1 Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
Subject: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects, Rutherford County
1 Dear Ms. Leight:
.
1 The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the site, for any of the following seven
bridge sites: B-4258, B-4259, B-4260, B-4261, B-4264, B-4265, and B-4266.
1 The Natural Heritage Program has a number of records of a state. endemic, and newly'described,
crayfish - the Broad River stream crayfish (Cambarus lenati) - from tributary streams off the
1 Broad River in the northeastern corner of Rutherford County. It might occur in the river near the
bridge site. This species is known only from this area and from neighboring Cleveland County.
If a stream survey is to be conducted for this project, we suggest that biologists be aware of the
1 possibility of -this rare crayfish being-present near Site B-4265, and our Program would want to
obtain information on records of the species, if found.
1 You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/nh?/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and anim
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Plea
ation.
1 contact me at 919-715-8687 if you have questions or need further inform
1 Sincerely,
als and significant
se do not hesitate to
1 .
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
1 Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
1 Phone: [phone] \ FAX: 919-7.15=3085 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.\ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER- 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER

1
1

1

1
®North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission k?N
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
August 2, 2001
Ms. Kimberly S Leight
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Farringdon Place - Suite 105
Raleigh NC 27609
Subject: Natural Resources Technical Reports, Seven Bridge Projects, Rutherford County
Dear Ms. Leight:
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding any unique natural,
resources issues in the vicinity of the proposed bridge projects. I have reviewed available information for
the proposed projects.
The proposed work involves seven bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina*on State
roads and/or US highways within Rutherford County. Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries
resources will depend on the extent of disturbance in the streambed and surrounding floodplain areas. We
prefer bridge designs that do not alter the natural stream morphology or impede fish passage. Bridge
designs should also include provisions for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior
to reaching the subject surface waters. We are also concerned about impacts to trout habitat.
Environmental documentation for these projects should include description of any streams or wetlands on
the project site and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by construction.
B-4258 -Bridge No. 7 on US 64-over the-Broad River -at Lake-Lure - - - -
The Broad River at the crossing is classified as C trout; a short distance upstream the stream
becomes designated trout water. We do not have records of endangered, threatened or rare species
in the vicinity of this project. We are concerned about the potential for adverse impacts to trout
and other aquatic resources with the Broad River and Lake Lure. We would anticipate requesting
an in-water work and buffer moratorium between October 15-April 15 to minimize impacts to
trout. This structure should be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-4259 - No. 342 on SR 1135 over Richardson Creek
1
1
Richardson Creek is classified as C. The stream is not designated as trout water and landscape
position limits the potential for trout. We do not have records of endangered, threatened or rare
species from the immediate project _area. _ Wehave no_c_oncerns .o-ther-than minimization ofimpacts
to water quality and aquatic habitat.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 - Fax: [phone]
1
Natural Resources Scoping
Rridge Replacements, Rutherford County
August 2, 2001
B-4260--Bridge No 350 on SR 1352 over West Branch Mountain Creek '
West Mountain Creek is classified C. The stream is not designated as trout waters. Landscape
position limits the potential for trout. We do not have records for endangered, threatened or rare '
species. We have no concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic
habitat.
B-4261- Bridge No. 39 on SR 1520 over a tributary of Cathey's Creek '
This stream reach is classified WS-V. The stream is not designated as trout water. Landscape
position limits the potential for trout. We do not have records of endangered, threatened or rare
species at the project area. We have no concerns other than minimization of impacts to water
quality and aquatic habitat.
B-4264 - Bridge No. 351 on SR 1596 over Webb Creek
Webb Creek is classified WS-IV. The stream is not designated as trout water. Landscape position
limits the potential for trout. We do not have records of endangered, threatened or rare species.
We have no concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat.
B-4265 - Bridge No.202 on SR 1733 over the First Broad Creek
First Broad Creek is classified as WS-V trout. The stream is not designated as trout water. We do '
not have records of endangered, threatened or rare species. We are concerned about the potential
for impact to trout. We would anticipate requesting moratoriums to protect trout spawning. We '
also request that bridges in trout waters be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-4266.- Bridge No. 110 on SR 1991 over Hills Creek '
Hills Creek is classed WS-IV. The stream is not designated as trout water. We do not have
records of endangered, threatened or rare species. We have no concerns other than minimization of
impacts to water quality and habitat. '
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early planning stages of these I
projects. If you have any questions regarding-these comments; -please- contactmie-at (828) 452=2546."- -
Sincerely, '
Owe F. Anderson
Mountain Region Coordinator ,
Habitat Conservation Program
1
1