20090256 Ver 1_Application_20090311

..: c (Y 2009
D Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
ALIyy
Please provide ttiBYbllowing info:
1. Project Name TIP Project No. B-3430, Bridge 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: N/A
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: Hanging Doe Road
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City:
8. County:
9. Lat: 35.168028 Long: -84.045444 (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: McDaniel Bald
11. Waterway:. Hanging Dog Creek
12. Watershed: Hiwassee River
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # NW 23 ® 9 ® It
56
General Permit #
- Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Begin Date
.Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
February 20, 2009
Mr. David Baker, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
Subject: Nationwide Permit 23 Application
Bridge Number 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek
Cherokee County
TIP Project No.: B-3430 (DWQ Notification Only)
Dear Mr. Baker:
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR..
SECRETARY
090256
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace Bridge
Number 43 on SR 1331, Hanging Dog Road, over Hanging Dog Creek in Cherokee County.
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing structure with a 70-foot long, two-span, cored-slab
bridge on existing location.
The two cored-slab spans will be 25 and 45 feet in length with vertical abutments outside the
ordinary high water level. Traffic will be detoured by employing a staged construction
process allowing traffic on half of the bridge during construction. The new bridge is designed
to minimize impacts by implementing longer spans and increasing hydraulic capacity. The
removal of the existing structure shall be performed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods
such that debris will not fall into the water. All work will be performed in a dry environment.
Sandbag cofferdams will be used if necessary to ensure a clean, dry work area, and to
minimize impacts to aquatic habitats.
Enclosed are a PCN application, Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, plan sheets, USGS
topographical map, a marked county map and photographs for your review.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was checked for records of threatened and
endangered species. There are no records of threatened and endangered species for the entire
Hanging Dog Creek watershed. There is a 1981-record for the sickle fin redhorse
(Moxostoma sp.), a federal candidate species, in Hanging Dog Creek approximately seven
`Q
;..,, miles downstream of the project within the backwaters of Lake Hiwassee. There were no
sicklefn'edhorse found in Hanging Dog Creek during surveys from 2005-2007. A North
Carolina State University student studying the movements of sicklefin redhorse with radio
telemetry recorded a sicklefin redhorse using the lower reaches of Hanging Dog Creek for a
short period of time (see attached email). Given the recent negative surveys and the distance
from the project to the documented record, we believe there is insufficient evidence to warrant
a survey. The adverse impacts to habitat from the construction of a spanning structure should
be minimal. NCDOT has also committed to using sediment and erosion control measures for
sensitive watersheds. Additionally, NCDOT will extend the January 1-April 15 trout
moratorium for in-stream work and land disturbance activities within the 25-foot trout buffer
until May 15 to provide additional protection to downstream habitat. The stream at the bridge
site is a cold water trout stream and is not suitable for freshwater mussels. For these reasons,
we believe this project will have "no effect" on threatened and endangered species or the
sicklefin redhorse, a federal candidate species.
This project has been reviewed for impacts to historic or cultural resources. The State
Historical Preservation Office has stated (CE document) that there are no known
archaeological sites and that the project is unlikely to have significant effects on
archaeological resources since the project is being built on existing alignment without an on-
site detour. NCDOT staff checked the area for properties of historical significance and/or
eligibility for listing on the National Register. The investigation concluded that there were no
significant historical properties.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Hanging Dog Creek (DWQ Class: C) is shown on the USGS topographic map as a perennial
stream The stream is of sufficient size to support fish, including trout, and other aquatic
organisms. The stream channel is composed of boulder, cobble and gravel and lacks
vegetation. Hanging Dog Creek flows approximately 7.5 miles from the project site to the
i Hiwassee River and Hiwassee Lake. Hiwassee Lake meets the definition of a Traditional
Navigable Water. For these reasons, we believe that Hanging Dog Creek is a Relatively
Permanent Water and is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order
to replace bridge 43, it will be necessary to temporarily impact waters of the United States in
the Hiwassee River Basin. Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to replace Bridge No. 43 with
a two-span cored-slab structure. Listed below is a summary of the proposed impacts.
Site No. Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net Impacts

Site 1 Southern End Bent-Free Temporary Sandbag Coffer
Flowing Channel Dams to Maintain Dry Work 40 feet
Environment
Total Temporary Impact 40 feet
The new bridge will be longer and there will be no bridge bents within the ordinary high
water mark. The new bridge will improve hydraulic capacity and reduce environmental
impacts. The only impacts for this project are for placement of temporary sandbags to create
a dry work environment. Therefore, we do anticipate that mitigation will be required for this
project.
The best management practices for sensitive waters will be used to minimize and control
sedimentation and erosion on this project. The construction foreman will review all erosion
control measures daily to ensure sedimentation and erosion is being effectively controlled. If
the planned devices are not functioning as intended, they will be immediately replaced with
better devices.
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to
proceed with the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Mr.
David McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator, of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to comment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit
request. Additionally, I am asking Mr. McHenry and Mr. Ed Ingle, Roadside Environmental
Field Operations Engineer (NCDOT), to comment directly to me concerning this permit
request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (828) 497-
7953. Your early review and consideration will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Christopher D. Lee, PE
Division 14 Bridge Maintenance Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Ar. Brian Wrenn, DWQ, DENR, Raleigh (2 Courtesy Copies)
Mr. Mike Parker, DWQ, DENR, Asheville (1 Courtesy Copy)
Mr. Troy Wilson, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator, NCWRC, Waynesville
Mr. Joel B. Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer, NCDOT, Sylva
Mr. Mark S. Davis, Division Environmental Officer, NCDOT, Sylva
Mr. E. L. Ingle, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
h
o -mac
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification, (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
tb. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 23 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ?No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ? No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Bridge # 43 on SR 1331
21b. County: Cherokee
2c. Nearest municipality /town: Murphy
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B_3430
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: N/A
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
31h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. , Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Bridge Management Engineer
4b. Name: Chris D. Lee; P.E.
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
North Carolina Department of Transportation
4d. Street address: 178 Henry Bird Road
4e. City, state, zip: Whittier N.C., 28789
4f. Telephone no.: 828-497-7953
4g. Fax no.: 828-497-6095
4h. Email address: cdlee?ncdot.gov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: N/A
5b. Business name
(if applicable): N/A
5c. Street address: N/A
5d. City, state, zip: N/A
5e. Telephone no.: N/A
5f. Fax no.: N/A
5g. Email address: N/A
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.168026 Longitude: -84.045444
1c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Hanging Dog Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Hiwassee
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Landscape is a mixture of forest and openland with single family residences.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
100' in total project area
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To upgrade the existing structure to current NCDOT standards.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Stage construction of a new cored slab bridge to replace the old bridge. Track hoes, dump trucks, bulldozers, water
pumps, sheet piling, various hand tools will be used to accomplish the work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: N/A

? Yes ® No . ? Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
? Preliminary
? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): N/A Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? open waters ? Pond construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T N/A N/A ? Yes ? Corps N/A
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts N/A
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ® T Sandbag Coffer Hanging Dog Creek ® PER ® Corps 25 40
Dams ? INT ® DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 0
3i. Comments: Total Temporary Impact for Sandbag Coffer Dams is 40 feet
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number - waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Temporary T
01 ? P ? T N/A N/A N/A N/A
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts N/A
4g. Comments: N/A
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
P2
5f. Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no: N/A
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): N/A
51. Size of pond watershed (acres): N/A
5k. Method of construction: N/A
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? N/A ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact re uired?
131 ? P ? T N/A N/A ?? Nos N/A N/A
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts N/A N/A
6i. Comments: N/A I
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
This bridge is being stage constructed to avoid impacts to Hanging Dog Creek from an on-site detour. The new structure
spans the creek allowing approximately 10' of space between the creek and the bridge. The structure will be placed on
driven piles to prevent any large excavation.
11b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Any in stream work will be performed in the dry using coffer dams and pumps. No need for in stream work is anticipated
with this project. Appropriate BMPs according to the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be installed on
the project prior to bridge work.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ®No
21b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

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

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type N/A Quantity N/A
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ? cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ? Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation. required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 N/A N/A 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: N/A
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
61h. Comments: N/A
Page 7 of 10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
El Yes No
?
Comments: N/A
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Project is Covered by Individual NPDES
Permit NCS000250
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
El USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
S. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
11b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ®No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a rural secondary road. The bridge is being upgraded to standard load limits and width. The road is not being
upgraded and development patterns are not anticipated to change significantly.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ®yes E] No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
?
Raleigh
Sc. If yes, indicate the USFW S Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database and CE Document
Page 9 of 10
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ®No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
N/A-There are no marine or estuarine communities within the Blue Ridge Province
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
This bridge project has been screened by archaeologists with the NC Department of Transportation and the findings have
been approved by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: FEMA requirements were taken into consideration by the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit during the design of the bridge.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Fooodplain Mapping Program
Chris D. Lee 03?? /?9
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
Y
a)
N
i
O
C
CCfj W
G
C ?
O >
?0
C?
J CY)
C'7
m
C )
? v
CU ?
0 O
O
C'7
,It
C?
m
O
Z
a-
F-

ev- 0
D
k ?6 Oue?g 60l )nu
G`e
o B °
ca
G`hd 7 a40 ye
ae ? ssa
°`?a
o I
B
?a ° on
oµ0 rm ? G t
v
ave ` ? as a?
MolS
O U w
U
pUP?9

-f9.
a0

?
p
8 a{/ v r ? Goa

m Branch
m
.O
q
l
4 aJ
w 03 m ?

\
s
' -00
m
i?va
a Go
r
c°
a
a \G e
\ ??
a \d??aa
ee? v 5y?`o°
S'p F

O ?6
?m e
JOJJ
?
°'O °'m a
?.? OO
A6 d SJii
m
,
9

c Grgeµ
tp\e w 'yo
9e{
S Pa AoospM
p l?a S m
r
co 4oua ii
G)
CY) ;mm 9 UP4J
o
O J
'?
'?a ah h
°'
[ O mJ a a ?
av\e Gceelc
O m
u 6p
?s lmB
`?Jaioa -
? °'rn
°
Oi
Uah,

1
' m
a 4
'6
Qa Jap?O
9VJA' La O
?a`
e sa
e

a
?O0
1 ce

nald Fd

'Ob+ m
J
0
0 McDo ?
U° p
m t
N
C
N
W ?O
Dockery

m

Ise +a
!x
a,
A
tae- Re
aG G
Qa 6
JS
os
P Q
wa
`ea m{
Be umo1 alS
O
Qa
a
W
Z+ CO
u,
d
? R
IM
I N
0
0
P84" 04' p0.00' V? I I I 984'03- 0.00- N( p84- 02' §0.00• V4
7
'i?` 9 (?j?? \ ?
\i(f
o -•
?? ? , P
S ?N
S ;?
1?? t,
/(
y
z :? l
L ?
?'?.
/J )Z .,?-( .v<,1? r??
1l ?'a,`??`--<es\?%J ??
?
`??
_7 ?? 17
?,
`I /??f I
?
J
rZ%J
?,? 1
n
`I'? /s , •
? 1?
(3 \ '
o f
S \l
?
4?t` `
?
°-
`? j
o
??
? /
r1
? \
L \/'.
G
,
) ; `
"11??\ .•
L
i`
?
` ? ?-
_l ?'
( .t?? M
W
..
N ?' 1 ?/?\ 1r? ? (C^ ./\J ? ( ?,.C\I p ? `,`/?\? \i`0• I\ ij \\-? ??? r••?r' in

/ '?- ? ! °
'
/r . , ?._ Bntlge as \
t?_-+. ?\.\ ;. .1\•
'a

WISP--

:
z
Magnetic Declination _1` r-J < JJ
l t / ?r , ? } 1///01 z
8 * CJ ??%r,fi yt ?t? ??<???6 , t 7 f/!?LII?. $

SCALE 1:24000

'
' 1 MILES
0
`?` • 0 1000 YARDS
,
=1 J
0 1 KILOMETER
5°W

vw w rv.w vv
Name: MC DANIEL BALD
Date: 2/18/2009
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
uov- w vu.uU- W I I I U84" 02'P0.00" W
Location: 0350 09'59.71 " N 0840 02'41.17" W NAD 27
Caption: TIP No B-3430, Bridge No 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog
Creek, Cherokee County, NC
TIP B-3430, Bridge 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek, Cherokee County,
North Carolina
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
TIP B-3430, Bridge 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek, Cherokee County,
North Carolina
LOOKING UPSTREAM FROM TOP OF BRIDGE.
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM FROM TOP OF BRIDGE.
Page 1 of 1
Davis, Mark S FED 17 20/J9
From: Medlin, Kenneth N
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:04 PM
To: Davis, Mark S
Cc: Williams, Logan; [e-mail]
Subject: B-3430
Mark,
I have received a response from Steve Fraley with NCWRC concerning the potential for having sicklefin redhorse
using Hanging Dog Creek in the vicinity of this bridge replacement project (B-3430, Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331).
Included in his response was the following paragraph:
"There was further work in Hanging Dog in 2005-2007 by us, Dr. Jenkins, and Cantrell and no sicklefins were
found. Scott Favrot (NCSU Kwak student who studied SFRH movements and spawning) did track a radio tagged
sicklefin that used the lower reach of Hanging Dog for a short time, but we have no data to support their use of
the stream that far up. I advise proceeding with the understanding that the immediate project area is considerably
upstream from sicklefin habitat and no survey is necessary."
It appears from all of the current information, that completion of this project will have no effect on this candidate
species. If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Neil
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the 1D Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: TIP No B-3430 on SR 1331
State:NC County/parish/borough: Cherokee City: Murphy
Center coordinates of site (laUlong in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.168028°Lq, Long. 84.045444° fi.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Hanging Dog Creek (DWQ Class C)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TN W) into which the aquatic resource flows: Hiwassee River/Lake
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06020002110010
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
09 Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 2/17/2009
Q Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There =FFM "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
Therelffir "waters of the U.S.° within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
kt. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 150 linear feet: 25 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RP W is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous now at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
'Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TN Ws. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TN W
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section I11.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 'is
Drainage area: Pick, 5s
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationshiowith TNW?
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through ektISi tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Fidk;UM river miles from TNW.
: a •,,.
Project waters are ick'Lrs1 river miles from RPW.
Project waters are iZk, W-1
i
l: s?l aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow mute can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
N General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply)-
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: t ,
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands
? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability[e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/ ool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: c i .
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ck [:i's
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: RLis . Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: .icktli . Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
? l
f li ?
ea
tter disturbed or washed away ?
?. sediment deposition ?
? water staining
? other (list): ?
? Discontinuous OHWM ' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
JE High Tide Line indicated by: Q
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (Foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWAjurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics: .
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow. directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is:' a'+L';is" . Explain:
Surface flow is: =ic t 's
Characteristics:
Subsurface Flow: Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
?. Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TN W
Project wetlands areie river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ; ektLis aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from; 1cktGis .
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the ac Li floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian butter. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatidwildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if ally)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: r iek+Lis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN Ws, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly. or indirectly into
TN Ws. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section 111.13:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
. presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III. D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
s5 TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent' to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
nm-, Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: . linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
E5 Waterbody that is not a TN W or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TN W is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 150 linear feet 25 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
10 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
{ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adiacon:
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C. -
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
M Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TN Ware jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.
As a general rule, the impoundment of ajurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
1 Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
?r! which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
FM Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors.. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote g 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
El Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
M If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001- Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). . .
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
?udgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
M Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
t;t Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: _
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date): Project Site, Unknown Date.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Ei Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1331
Bridge No. 43 over Hanging Dog Creek
Cherokee County
Federal-Aid Project No. PFH-1331(6)
State Project No. 8.2910801 (WBS PE 33053.1.1)
T.I.P. No.`B-3430
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds, Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines for Contract Construction,, Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions
of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division I4
-Both in-stream and land, disturbance activities within the 25-f6ot trout buffer are
prohibited from January 1 through April 15 in order to prevent sedimentation from
impacting fish eggs and fry downstream of the project site.
Due to the reported presence of a Federal Species of Concern; the sicklefin redhorse, iii
Hanging Dog Creek: the moratorium on in-stream and land disturbance-activities within
th'e.25-foot trout buffer will be extended to May 15 to prevent impacts to the fish, its eggs
and fry downstream of the project site during the spawning season.
Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to design standards for sensitive
watersheds.
Bridge Maintenance Unit
No special commitments.
Green Sheet
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3430
State Project No. 8.2910801 (WBS PE 33053.1.1)
Federal Project No. PFH-1331(6)
A. Protect Description:
This project replaces Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek in
Cherokee County. The existing three-span, 45-foot long bridge will be
replaced with a new two-span, cored-slab bridge, 70 feet in length and
approximately 27-feet wide. The two cored-slab spans will be 25 and 45 feet
in length with vertical abutments outside the ordinary high water level. Staged
construction will be required on the dead-end roadway so that traffic can be
maintained on-site during the construction period.
B. Purpose and Need:
The e xisting b ridge w as b uilt in 1920 and i s functionally o bsolete. It h as a
sufficiency rating of 15.0. The two-lane bridge is 45 feet in length and has a
clear roadway width of 20.1 feet. The superstructure is comprised of a
reinforced concrete deck on steel 1-beams. Moderate rust and splicing is
evident on several I-beams. The substructure includes reinforced concrete
abutments and crutch bents to reinforce the deteriorated original timber bents.
Cracks are found throughout the concrete abutments and the,concrete deck.
The replacement of bridge No. 43 is necessary due to deteriorating
components and the functionally obsolete status.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type H improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through
lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and
pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or
realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
O Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest area.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
2
S. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
D.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage an maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 255,000
Right of Way $ 0
Total $ 255,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current 2003 - 500 vehicles per day
Year 2030 - 1100 vehicles per day
TTST - 2%
Dual - 2%
3
Accidents: According to crash records for the two-year period from
12/01/1999 to. 12/31/2002, no crashes were reported in the vicinity of the
bridge.
Design Speed: 35 mph
Functional Classification: Rural Collector Route
School Buses: According to the Cherokee County School System, six (6)
buses cross Bridge No. 43 twice daily.
Division Office Comments: Road closure will not be possible on this
project. Staged construction should be used so that traffic can be maintained
on-site during the construction period.
Bridge Demolition: In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in
the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all potential contractors will
follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These
guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal, Policy: Bridge
Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States, and Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR) (all
documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge demolition and
removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs-PS W).
The proposed project is a Case 2 category as defined in the NCDOT's BMPs -
BDR. Case 2 allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery
areas. The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) has
identified Hanging Dog Creek as significant aquatic habitat for the hellbender
(Gyptobranchus alleghaniensis), a Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and
State Special Concern (SC) and the sicklefin redhorse (moxastoma sp.1), also
an FSC. Prohibitions against in-stream activities for the project area have been
designated for the project site in order to protect the egg and fry stages of
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Both in-stream and land disturbance
activities within the 25-foot trout buffer are prohibited from January 1 through
April 15 in order to prevent sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry
downstream of the project site. To minimize impacts to the sicklefin redhorse
during its spawning season, the construction moratorium will be extended to
May 15.
Offsite Detour: The new bridge will be stage constructed so that traffic can
be maintained on-site throughout the construction period.
4
E. Threshold Criteria:
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique
?
or important natural resource? X

(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed

endangered or threatened species may occur? ?
X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
?
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable x
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of U.S. Forest Service ?
lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding ?
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in Waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ? X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?

5
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U.S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(16) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned

growth or land use for the area? ?
X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ?
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any ?
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is

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

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

land use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local

traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? , ?
X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of ?
X
1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic

volumes? ?
X
6
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using ?
existing roads, staged construction or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the

bridge be replaced at its existing location (along the ?
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in X
association with the bridge replacement project be
contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy.on social, economic, or
?
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic X
Places?
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which ?
are important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in X
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as X
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and X
Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Agency letters in response to the project scoping letters are provided in
Appendix A. Although no unfavorable responses were indicated above,
additional supporting documentation is provided for informational purposes in
Appendix B.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
B-3430
8.2910801
PFH-1331(6)
Project Description:
This project replaces Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek in
Cherokee County. The existing bridge will be replaced with a new two-span,
cored s lab b ridge 7 0 feet i n I ength and approximately 2 7-feet w ide. S taged
construction will be used so that traffic can be maintained on-site during the
construction period.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Approved:
0
TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
and Consultants
///1
Date
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date
Bridge Maintenance Unit
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
IM
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
September 9, 2003
Mr. Mike Summers
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, B-3430
and B-3431 IN CHEROKEE COUNTY; B-4348 AND B-4349 IN JACKSON COUNTY;
B-4690 AND B-4691 IN TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, AND B-4692 IN HAYWOOD
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the elevation and plan drawings provided in your letter of July 8, 2003,
on the proposed bridge replacements. Based on the plans provided, the following bridges
would not require Section 26a approval because they do not create a new obstruction and
are within the same alignment:
B-3430, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Hanging Dog Creek, tributary to
Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County
B-3431, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Cook Creek, tributary to Hiwassee
Reservoir, Cherokee County
B-4348 and B-4349, SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road) over Dicks Creek,
Tuckasegee River tributary, Jackson County
B-4692, SR 1334 (Max Patch Road) over Wesley Creek, Pigeon River tributary,
Haywood County
The following projects would substantially widen the existing bridge by addition of lanes
and would still appear to require Section 26a approval:
B-4690 and B-4691, SR 1324_(Tanasee Gap Road) over Tucker Creek, French
Broad River tributaryryrsylvania County
Mr. Mike Summers
Page 2
September 9, 2003
We will confirm these determinations when we review the Categorical Exclusion
documents and the final selected alternative during our permit review. If merger teams are
established for any of the projects, please include TVA in the coordination for the
project. In addition, if an environmental assessment is to be prepared for any project,
please contact TVA for consideration as a cooperating agency in the project.
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
YN??onM. ney, M nager
EPA Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning
cc: Mr. John Sullivan, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Federal Aid # PFH-1331(6) TIP # B-3430 County: Cherokee
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek
On 11/25/2003, representatives of the
/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Lam' Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? j Scoping meeting
l Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
IT There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
! 3 f i GLA e_ -?- Li -.2? is considered not eligible for the National
Register and further evaluation of it is necessary.
LJ There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
[tom All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
?icu h L lI Z5 2Uo3
Representativ, NC OT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
Representative, HPO c Date
51? C X7 7
Leza Mundt
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:55 PM
To: Lisa Warlick
Subject: Re: FW: Response to scoping letter for bridge replacement projects B-3430 and B-3431
Ms. Warlick:
There are six (6) buses which cross bridge no. 43 twice daily. There are three buses which continue on and cross bridge
no. 45 also twice daily. If you need further information, please contact me and I can assure you of a more timely
response. Thank you Tim Coffey
> Mr. Coffey,
> I sent you a request in May, and another in September (see below) for
> some information on two bridge replacement projects. We are in need of
> the number of school bus crossings for each bridge in order to
> complete our projects and turn them in to the client. Could you take a
> few minutes to respond? Thanks for your time.
> Lisa Warlick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Warlick
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:03 PM
> To: '[e-mail]'
> Subject: Response to scoping letter for bridge replacement projects
> B-3430 and B-3431
> Mr. Coffey,
> My firm is working on two bridge replacement projects in your county
> for the NCDOT. We sent you a letter in May to request your comments on
> the projects and also to provide us with the total number of school
> bus crossings over the bridges each day. We are not aware of a
> response. Could you take a few minutes to provide a written reply with
> your comments and the number of bus crossings? An email response will
> be fine. The projects replace Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 (Beaver Dam
> Road) over Hanging Dog Creek, and Bridge No. 45 on SR 1331 over
> Beaverdam Creek (Beaverdam Creek name in our records has since been
> revised to Cook Creek at same location). If you need assistance in
> locating the projects I can fax you a map or will be glad to speak
> with you by phone. Thanks for your help and I look forward to your
> response.
> Lisa Warlick
> Lisa Warlick
> Planner
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson. Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 6, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 4v
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek, B-3430,
Cherokee County, ER03-1334
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 2003, concerning the above project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment and there is no on-site detour, it is
unlikely that significant archaeological resources will be affected and no investigation is
recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be in a new location, or an on-site detour
is proposed, an archaeological survey is recommended.
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and
evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings
to us.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
DB:bjs
www.hoo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location ;Nailing Address Telephone/Fa=
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2 7 699-46 1 7 [phone] • 7333-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount SL, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-5613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 [phone] • 715-4801
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 25, 2003
Mr. Mike Summers
Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
Subject: Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects in Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, and
. Haywood Counties, North Carolina
As requested in your letter of May 1, 2003, we have reviewed the subject projects and provide
the following comments in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The maps included with your letter frequently did not contain adequate landmarks to be able to
easily find the project locations.. Future maps or project descriptions should portray or reference
notable landmarks to enable the projects to be easily located. Additionally, there was reference
to demolition information in your cover letter, but it was not enclosed with our package.
The information we received for these eight projects does not include descriptions of the
structures that will replace the existing bridges nor` does it include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of these projects. Therefore, our comments are limited primarily to the known
locations of listed species and federal species of concern. When the categorical exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects, we can offer more
substantive comments.
Enclosed is a species list for the four counties included in this package. This list provides the
names of species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as well
as federal species of concern. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed
or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you
advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found in the
vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
Cherokee County:
In general, while there are no known locations of the Indiana bat in the vicinity of
these projects, if trees will be cleared for these projects, habitat should be assessed
for this species; if suitable habitat is present, further surveys may be required.
Project B-3430 (Log No. 4-2-03-343) - Our records indicate known occurrences
of the sicklefm redhorse (Moxostoma sp.1) in Hanging Dog Creek. Although the
sicklefm redhorse currently is a federal species of concern, its status is under
review. This species may be elevated to candidate status for federal listing. We
recommend surveying the project area for this species prior to any further
planning or on-the-ground activities. We also strongly recommend that this
bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
Project B-3431 (Log No. 4-2-03-344) - Our records indicate no known locations
of listed species in the project area. However, we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for these species
prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse
impacts occur.
Jackson County:
Project B-4347 (Log No. 4-2-03-345) Our records indicate that there are known
locations of the green salamander (Aneides aeneus), a federal species of concern,
near the proposed project. We recommend conducting habitat assessments and
surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for this species prior to any
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts
occur.
Project B-4348 (Log No. 4-2-03-346) and Project B-4349 (Log No. 4-2-03-347) -
Dick's Creek is a tributary to the Little Tennessee River, and it flows into
occupied habitat and designated critical habitat for the endangered Appalachian
elktoe (Alasmidonta raveniliana). Given the proximity of these projects to the
Little Tennessee River, we recommend surveying for listed mussels in Dick's
Creek prior to any on-the-ground activities. If mussels are located, additional
consultation will be required.
Transylvania and Haywood Counties:
Project B-4690 (Log No. 4-2-03-348), Project B-4691 (Log No. 4-2-03-349), and
Project B-4692 (Log No. 4-2-03-350) - Our records indicate no known locations
of listed species in the project areas. However, we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project areas for these
species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no
adverse impacts occur.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. In addition, off-site detours are
preferable to temporary on-site crossings in order to reduce stream-bank disturbance. We look
forward to reviewing the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference the log numbers assigned with our comments about each of them.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, CHEROKEE, JACKSON, TRANSYLVANIA,
AND HAYWOOD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, and Haywood Counties, of North Carolina's federally listed
and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a
complete list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program).
The information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated or
proposed.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent
counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
CHEROKEE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC
Hellbender . Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Blotched chub Erimystax insignis FSC
Junaluska salamander Eurycea junaluska FSC
"Sicklefin" redhorse Moxostoma sp. 1 FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
(summer habitat)
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC*
Invertebrates
Hiwassee crayfish Cambarus hiwasseensis FSC
Parrish crayfish Cambarus parrishi FSC
Tan riffleshell Epioblasmaflorentinawalkeri FSC**
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia FSC*
Knotty rocksnail Lithasia christyi FSC
Littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered**
Tennessee clubshell. Pleurobema oviforme FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana FSC
Cumberland bean Villosa trabalis Endangered
Vascular Plants
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia CI *

January 29, 2003 Page 1
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Hairy blueberry Faccinium hirsutun: FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little Tennessee River system), from the N.C. State
Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North Carolina.
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Green salamander
Rosyside dace
Hellbender
Wounded darter
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
"Sicklefin" redhorse
Indiana bat
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Olive darter
Northern pine snake
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Whitewater crayfish ostracod
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Mountain bittercress
Radford's sedge
Cuthbert's turtlehead
Aegolius acadicus FSC
Aneides aeneus FSC
Clinostomusfunduloidesssp.I FSC
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Etheostoma vulneratum FSC
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Loxia curvirostra FSC
Moxostoma sp. I FSC
Myotis sodalis Endangered
(winter records)
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Poecile atricapillus practices. FSC
Percina squamata FSC
Pituophis nielanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
Thryontanes bewickii altus FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Cambarus reburrus FSC
Dactyloctythere prinsi FSC
Phycoides batesii maconensis FSC
Speyeria diana FSC
Abies fraseri FSC
Cardamine clematitis FSC
Carex radfordii FSC
Chelone cuthbertii FSC
January 29, 2003 Page 2 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Tall larkspur ..
Glade spurge
Swamp pink
Gorge filmy fern
Small whorled pogonia
Butternut
Fraser's loosestrife
Sweet pinesap
Torrey's mountain-mint
Carolina saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Mountain catchfly
Granite dome goldenrod
Mountain thaspium
Lobed barren-strawberry
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss
Rock gnome lichen
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Helonias bullata Threatened
Hymenophyllum tayloriae FSC
Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lysin:achia fraseri FSC
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Pycnanthemum torrei FSC*
Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Senecio millefolium FSC
Silene ovata FSC
Solidago simulans FSC
TBaspium pinnatifidum FSC*
Waldsteinia lobata FSC*
Bryocrumia vivicolor
Gymnoderma lineare
Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the Little River (French Broad River system), from the Cascade Lake
Power Plant, downstream to its confluence with the French Broad Rivera
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living; foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Green salamander
Bog turtle
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Hellbender
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Aegolius acadicus FSC
-Aneides aeneus FSC
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC*
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Loxia curvirostra FSC
Neotoma,Jloridana haematoreia FSC*
Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC
January 29, 2003 Page 3 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC*
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus FSC
Oconee crayfish ostracod Cymocythere clavata FSC
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered,
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC*
Transylvania crayfish ostracod Waltoncythere acuta FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Alexander's rock aster Aster avitus FSC
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii FSC
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
Smoky Mountain mannagrass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata - FSC
Flatrock panic grass Panicum lithophilum FSC*
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii Endangered
Southern oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia FSC
Lobed barren-strawberry Waldsteinia lobata FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: Spruce-fir moss spider, Microhexura montivaga -
Critical habitat designated (seethe July 6, 2001, Federal Register, 66:35547-35566).
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River system), from the
confluence of the Little East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the confluence of the
East Fork Pigeon River, and the main stem of the Pigeon River, from the confluence of
the West Fork Pigeon River and the East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 215 Bridge crossing, south of Canton, North Carolina.
January 29, 2003 Page 4 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates .
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Bog turtle
Olive-sided flycatcher
Hellbender
Cerulean warbler
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Bald eagle
Aegolius acadicus
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Contopus borealis
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Dendroica cerulea
Glaucomys sabrinus col oratus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
FSC
T(S/A)'
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
Threatened
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Southern rock vole
Gray bat
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Alleghany woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Eastern cougar
Southern water shrew
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail
Appalachian Bewick's wren
invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
Spruce-fir moss spider
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Piratebush
Mountain bittercress.
Tall larkspur
Glade spurge
Smoky Mountain mannagrass
Small whorled pogonia
Butternut
Fraser's loosestrife
Torrey's mountain-mint
Rugel's ragwort
Carolina saxifrage
(proposed for delisting)
Loxia curvirostra FSC
Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Myotis grisescens Endangered
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Neotoma magister FSC
Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC
Puma concolor couguar Endangered*
Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis- FSC
Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Microhexura montivaga Endangered
Phyciodes"batesii maconensis FSC*
Speyeria dana FSC
Abies fraseri FSC
Buckleya disticophylla FSC
Cardamine clematitis FSC
Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Glyceria nubigena FSC
Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Pycnanthemum torrei FSC*
Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
January 29, 2003 Page 5 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. 1 FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.".
C 1 A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing.
FSC A Federal species of cbncem--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the souther
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
January 29, 2003 Page 6 of 6
?9 - Michael F. Easley, Governor

Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?
(r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
IWO y Division of Water Quality
Y Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
MOP, Division of Water Quality

July 10, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mike Summers, Project Manager
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit
Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator ((U 0•W
Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-3430, B-3431, B-4347,
B-4348; B-4349, B-4690, B4691, and B-4692 in Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania and Haywood
Counties.
In reply to your correspondence dated May 1, 2003 (received June 19, 2002) in which you requested.comments
for the referenced projects, the NC Division of.Water. Quality has the.following comments:
L General Comments•ReeardinQBridre:RenlacementProiects.
1; If. corrugated: metal pipe: arches; reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts-aresused to replace the
bridge, thewDWQ recommends': the use,of Nationwide:Permit No,: 14 rather:thanNationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed using Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures-usually do not require-work within the stream and do
not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for
human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage,•and does not.block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.!,-..:.,
,
4. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is mostly
made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very
soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete or cement will change the
pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other macroinvertebrate kills.
6:1 If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately. upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to
stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If
possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with
chain saws, mowers; bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact,
allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil:
8.. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the
bridge.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (hU://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1.877-623-6748
R
NVP
III. Proiect-Specific Comments
B-3430 Bridge 43 over Hanging Dog Creek; Cherokee C&.1"'
Although this stream is listed as Class C, there are significant aquatic resources (Federal and State listed species
of concern). DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs (particularly for
sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
B-3431 Bridge No. 45 over Beaver Dam Creek, Cherokee Co.
This stream contains several significant aquatic resources (Federal and State listed species of concern, threatened
and endangered species). DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs
(particularly for sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
Bailey Fork Creek is listed as WS-IV. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition
to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC.2B
.6216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).
B-4347Bridee N&.3 over Norton Mill Creek, Jackson Co.
NortonMill.Creek is classified, as-C• Tr.+_..The + sign indicates,that this drains to Outstanding Resource Waters.
Since ORWSrepreseri the;StaWs highest water quality' classification; DWQ.would hope that:a:spanning structure
is planned forthis crossing.,; In addition, there are numerous Federal and State listed. species in the project
vicinity.- Finally, we would stress that NCDOT should use the highest possible BMPs for-protecting this resource.
B-4348 Bridge No. 156 and B-4349 Bridge No. 36 over Dicks Creek, Jackson Co.
DWQ is aware that there may be mussel populations on this site as well as Federal and State listed species of
concern. We recommend a spanning structure and maximizing the use of BMPs to minimize damage to these
aquatic resources. If NCDOT is replacing these structures with culverts, you should be aware that this involves
two impacts to the same stream-impacts must be added together and mitigation may be required.
B-4690 Bridge No. 55 and B-4691 Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek, Translyvania Co.
If NCDOT is replacing these structures with culverts,.you should be aware. that this:involves two. impacts to the
same stream-impacts must be added together and mitigation may be required.
B-4692 Bridge 283 over Wesleys Creek, Haywood Co.
DWQ does not have any. special concerns. Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit, NCDOT n ?/
FROM: Marla.Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator ? OA4,7 ??a-
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: June 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review ofNCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects B-3430, B-
3431, B-4347, B-4348, B-4349, B-4690, B-4691; B-4692 in Cherokee, Jackson,
Transylvania and Haywood Counties.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
Bridge Scopings 2
Cherokee, Jackson; Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s June 26, 2003
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat
intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam
underneath the bridge.
In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting
additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the
project require an individual `404' permit.
In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, Mr. Hal Bain with the NCDOT
- ONE should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information
on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should
be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
Bridge Scopings 3
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s
June 26, 2003
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other
than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain
bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the
upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s).. Silled barrels should be
filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious or mosquito breeding conditions.
Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or
notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This
should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by
maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish
and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide a
continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain
dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts
aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should
be professionally designed, sized; and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year. floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed
was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may
be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.
Bridge Scopings 4
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s June 26, 2003
Project specific comments:
1. B-3430, Cherokee Co., Bridge No. 43 over Hanging Dog Creek on SR 1331 (Beaver Dam
Road). Hanging Dog Creek is classified as C and is listed as significant aquatic habitat. The
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), federal species of concern and state special
concern, has been observed downstream of the project area. A moratorium prohibiting in-
stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from
January 1 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout. Sediment and
erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
2. B-3431, Cherokee Co., Bridge No. 45 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 1331 (Beaver Dam
Road). Beaver Dam Creek is classified as C'-Tr. The Hiwassee headwaters crayfish
(Cambarus parrisht), federal species of concern, is potentially present in the project area.
The knotty elimia (Elimia interrupta), state endangered, is potentially present downstream.
A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout
buffer is recommended from January 1 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of
rainbow trout.. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards
for sensitive watersheds.
3. B-4347, Jackson Co., Bridge No. 3 over Norton Mill Creek on SR 1107 (Whiteside Cove
Road). Norton Mill Creek is classified as C-Tr +, Numerous federal and state listed plant
and animal species have been found in the vicinity of the project. Coordination with the
resource agencies is expected. A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land
disturbance withind1he-25-foottroutbuffer is recommended from January 1 to;April 15 to
protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout. Sediment and erosion control measures
should.adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
4. B-4348, Jackson Co., Bridge No. 156 over Dicks Creek on SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road).
Dicks Creek, classified as C-Tr, flows to the Tuckasegee River. Potentially present in the
project area are the smoky dace (Clinostomus funduloides), state special concern, and the
Little Tennessee River crayfish (Cambarus georgiae), state. significantly rare. The olive
darter (Percina squamata), federal species of concern and state special concern, has been
observed near the mouth of Dicks Creek. Present in the Tuckesegee River are the
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), federal and state endangered; wavy-rayed
lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola), state special concern; and wounded darter (Etheostoma
vulneratum), state special concern. A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land
disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from January 1 to April 15 to
protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout. Sediment and erosion control measures
should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
5. B-4349, Jackson Co., Bridge No. 36 over Dicks Creek on.SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road).
Same as B-4348 above.
6. B-4690, Transylvania Co., Bridge No. 55 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap
Road). A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot
Bridge Scopings
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s
June 26, 2003
trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of
rainbow and brown trout. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds.
7. B-4691, Transylvania Co., Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap
Road). Same as B-4690 above.
8. B-4692, Haywood Co., Bridge No. 283 over Wesleys Creek on SR 1334. No special
concerns indicated. Standard requirements should apply.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Sarah Kopplin, NHP
DEPARTMENT .OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE; NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO
ATTEN] ON OF: -
Regulatory Division June 10, 2003
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1565
Subject: Scoping comments for proposed Division 14 bridge replacement projects
Dear Mr. Summers:
Reference your letter of May 1, 2003 regarding our scoping review and comments
on the following proposed bridge replacement projects:
1. TIP Project No. B-3430, Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek,
Cherokee County.
2. TIP Project No. B-3431, Bridge No. 45 on SR 1331 over Beaver Dam Creek,
Cherokee County.
3. TIP Project No. B4347, Bridge No. 3 on SR 1107 over Norton Mill Road,
Jackson County.. .
4. TIP Project No. B-4348, Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek, Jackson
County.
5. TIP Project No. B-4349, Bridge No. M on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek, Jackson
County.
6. TIP Project No. B-4690, Bridge No. 55: on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek,
Transylvania County.
7. TIP Project No. B-4691, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek,
Transylvania County.
8. TIP Project No.. B-4692, Bridge No. 283 on SR 1334 over Wesleys Creek,
Haywood County.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, Department
of the Army (DA) permit authorization will be required for the discharge of excavated or
fill material in waters (and wetlands, if applicable) of the United States, including disposal
of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the projects,
-2-
extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, construction methods, and other
factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning report
should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does not have
more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic environment. All
activities, including temporary construction, access, and dewatering activities, should be
included in the project planning report. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges .
with culverts often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having
more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items
need to be considered and addressed in the planning and environmental studies for the
subject projects:
a. The studies/report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary
impacts to waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that
will be affected by the proposed project.
b. Off-site detours are generally. preferable to on-site (temporary) detours which
impact waters or wetlands. if an on-site detour is the recommended action,
justification should be provided that demonstrates that alternatives with lesser
impacts are not practicable. Please note that an onsite detour constructed on a
spanning structure can potentially avoid permanent impacts to waters or
wetlands and should be considered whenever an on-site detour is the
recommended action. For projects where a spanning structure is not feasible,
the NCDOT should investigate the existence of previous onsite detours at the
site that were used in previous construction activities. These areas should be
utilized for onsite detours whenever possible to minimize impacts. For proposed
projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of waters or
wetlands, an approved restoration and monitoring plan will be required prior to
issuance of a DA nationwide or Regional general permit. For proposed projects
and associated on-site detours that cause more than minimal losses of waters or
wetlands, an individual DA permit and a compensatory mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable impacts may be required.
c. Project commitments should includeethe removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
-3-
appropriate. For projects proposing a temporary onsite detour, the entire detour
area, including any previous detour from past construction, should be removed
in its entirety.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams and wetlands, or other waters resulting from construction of the project.
If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts to the aquatic
environment, specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including
fish. The work must also not alter the stream hydraulics and create
flooding of adjacent properties or result in unstable stream banks.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the
impacts of constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the
bridge demolition policy recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy
entitled "Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States" dated
September 20, 1999.
h. Lengthening existing bridges can often benefit the ecological and hydrological
functions of the associated wetlands and streams. In some cases bridge
approaches are connected to earthen causeways that were built over wetlands
and streams. Replacing these causeways with longer bridges would allow
previously impacted waters, wetlands and floodplains to be restored. In an effort
to encourage this type of work, mitigation credit for wetland restoration
activities can be provided to offset the added costs of lengthening an existing
bridge.
Projects should be screened to determine possible effects on federally protected
species, or cultural and historic resources known to occur in proximity to or
within counties of the project areas, and appropriate consultation/coordination
initiated with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act) or
the State Historic Preservation Officer (Historic Preservation Act) to comply
with the provisions of those regulations.

-4-
Should you have any questions please call Mr. John W. Hendrix in the Asheville
Regulatory Field Office at 828-271-7980, ext. 7.
Sincerely,
John W. Hendrix
Project Manager

Tennessee Valley Authonry, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
May 23, 2003
Mr. Mike Summers
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS,
TENNESSEE RIVER WATERSHED, CHEROKEE, HAYWOOD, JACKSON, AND
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the maps provided in your letter of May 1, 2003, on the proposed
bridge replacements at 8 sites:
• *B-3430, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Hanging Dog Creek, tributary to
Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee.County
• *13-3431, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Beaver Dam Creek, tributary to
Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County
• 134347, SR 1107 (Whiteside Cove Road) over Norton Mill Creek, Jackson
County. No TVA approval is needed for this action in the Chattooga River
(Savannah River) watershed.
• *B-4348 and *13-4349, SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road) over Dicks Creek,
Tuckasegee River tributary, Jackson County
• *13-4690 and *B-4691, SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap Road) over Tucker Creek,
French Broad River tributary, Transylvania County
•. *B-4692, SR 1334 (Max Patch Road) over Wesley Creek, Pigeon River
tributary, Haywood County
*Depending on final design and alignment, TVA approval may be needed.
Based on the information provided, we are not aware of any unique environmental
features at the bridge replacement sites. The categorical exclusion documents
prepared for these projects should note that an approval under Section 26a of the TVA
Act may be needed for bridge construction (except for the B-4347 project). If merger
teams. are established for any of the projects, please include TVA in the coordination

Mr. Mike Summers
Page 2
May 23, 2003
for the project. In addition, if an environmental assessment is to be prepared for any
project, please contact NA for consideration as a cooperating agency in the project.
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon M. L ey; Manager
NEPA Administration .
Environmental-Policy and, Planning
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Sullivan, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh,. North: Carolina 27601
North Carolizia Department of
Enzrironment and Nat?zral Re6ource6
Dizrision of Soil and S?Yater ConS.erzration.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
NVilliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director
MEMORANDUM: May 19, 2603
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison 22 "Z?
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
The NC Department of Transportation is preparing the planning and environmental
studies for 16 bridge replacement projects in Buncombe, Burke, Cherokee, Haywood, Jackson,
McDowell, Rutherford, Stanly, Surry, Transylvania and Yadkin Counties.
If construction is restricted to existing right-of-ways, there should be no impact to Prime
or Statewide Important Farmland. Any acquisition of additional right-of-ways for increase size,
capacity or changes in approach could affect Prime or Statewide Important Farmland. In that
case, the environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland. -
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
Cc: Mike Summers, NCDOT
2614 Mail Sersrice Ceriter, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1624
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: 929 -i'2 S-??559
ZaterD.et: wzevw-enr state_ac_us/EA'"R/D SYYC/
AN EQUAL OQPORTVTTZTY \ AFFZRMATZY£ ACTION £MFZ.OYER
50°o RECYCLED / 10°e P06T GON6VM£R pApEg
Enclosure
Typical Interactions During Project Development
• Send scoping notice to NEPA Administration. TVA will reply to scoping
notices and indicate that a Section 26a approval is needed, there is other
potential TVA involvement in the project, or explain that there is no TVA
involvement.
• Include TVA as a member of Section 404 Merger Teams for the
Tennessee River Watershed.
• Include TVA NEPA Administration on invitation list for monthly
Interagency Coordination meetings.
• Send monthly 13-month let list to NEPA Administration
• Include TVA as a "cooperating agency" in NEPA and SEPA documents
that require TVA permits or land use approvals
• Send a copy of the preliminary draft of the EA or EIS to TVA NEPA
Administration for comment prior to public release and approval. TVA will
reply within the specified time frame, generally within three weeks.
• TVA will reply to merger team correspondence and environmental
documents with comments or reply that all the environmental issues are
addressed and that it has no comments.
• Send a copy of the publicly released EA or EIS to TVA.
• TVA may comment. If no comments are received during the review
period, NCDOT will assume that TVA has no further comments.
• Include TVA in Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultations. Notify
TVA if formal consultation is undertaken, including a Biological
Assessment and Biological Opinion. This will allow TVA to ensure that
the incidental take permit is issued in the name of TVA as well as FHWA.
• Include TVA in consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. If a Memorandum of Agreement is prepared, provide
TVA an opportunity to be a signatory.
• Send a copy of the CE, FONSI, FEIS or ROD to TVA when completed.
Natural Systems
Site Assessment
T.I.P. B-3430
Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331
over Hanging Dog Creek
Cherokee County, North Carolina
September 2003
Introduction
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants (MULKEY) has been retained by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to prepare a programmatic categorical exclusion
for a bridge replacement project located in Cherokee County, North Carolina. The NCDOT
proposes to replace Bridge No. 43 over Hanging Dog Creek on SR 1331 (Beaver Dam
Road), which is identified as Transportation Improvement Project (T.I.P.) B-3430 (Figure 1).
This assessment report briefly describes the natural systems associated with the bridge
location. Field investigations at the project site were conducted by a qualified biologist from
MULKEY during April 2003. The field survey was undertaken to determine natural resource
conditions and to document natural communities, wildlife, and the presence of protected
species or their habitats. Published information regarding the project area and region was
derived from a number of resources. Information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species within the project vicinity was gathered from the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service list of protected species and the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats.
Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Cindy S. Carr, Biologist
Education: B.S., Natural Resources (Ecosystem Assessment Concentration),
North Carolina State University
ASBA, Business Administration, Calhoun State College
Experience: Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, November 2002 to present
Biologist, ARCADIS, May 2000 to November 2002
Sample Manager, CH2M HILL, October 1989 to June 1996
Certifications: Wetland Professional-In-Training, Society of Wetland Scientists.
Stream ID and Buffer Rule Applications Program, NCDWQ
Benthic Collection Protocols for Stream Restoration, NCDWQ
Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 field investigations, wetland determination
and delineation, stream determination and delineation, stream and wedand
restoration, habitat assessments, Rosgen stream assessment and classification,
404/401 permit applications, and USEPA HAZWOPER training.
Page 1 of4

T.I.P. B-3430
Cherokee County
Natural Systems Assessment
Water Resources
The project site occurs in the Hiwassee River Basin. This basin encompasses 640 square
miles in portions of Clay and Cherokee Counties. The waters of the basin flow north to
northwest into Tennessee, and many of the streams are located within the Nantahala
National Forest. Hanging Dog Creek is located within Subbasm 04-05-02. The North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stream index number for the creek is 1-57,
and the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit is 06020002. The project is situated in the Grandview
community, which is northwest of Murphy.
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses.
Hanging Dog Creek is designated a Class "C" stream from its source to Hiwassee Lake. A
Class "C" designation denotes freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and other uses. There are currently
no 303(d) listed streams in the project area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-
quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical
water-quality data. The type of water-quality data or parameters collected is determined by
the waterbody's classification and corresponding water quality standards. The AMS
determines the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how well a waterbody supports
its designated uses. There are two AMS monitoring stations in this subbasin; however, there
are no AMS monitoring stations along Hanging Dog Creek near the project site. The most
recent use support rating for Hanging Dog Creek is "fully supporting." A fully supporting
rating is given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and generally has good
or excellent water quality.
Non-point sources of discharge are considered to be primary sources of water quality
degradation. These sources may include surface water runoff and construction activities.
Short-term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include increased
sedimentation and turbidity. Long-term construction related impacts to water resources
include substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and
possible temperature fluctuations within the channel due to removal of streamside
vegetation.
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from
construction. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. Such
measures should include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for waste
materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road maintenance
measures. NCDOT's Bert Management Practices forProtection of Surface Waters (BMPs - PSW) and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced during the construction stages
of the project.
Page 2 of 4
T.I.P. B-3430
Cherokee County
Bridge demolition activities to remove the existing bridge are included as part of the build
alternatives. The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will follow
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR). As per the
BMPs - BDR, all methods of demolition shall be considered and implemented where
practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water.
The proposed project is a Case 2 category as defined in the NCDOT's BMPs - BDR. Case
2 allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. The NCWRC has identified
Hanging Dog Creek as significant aquatic habitat for the hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleghaniensis), a Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and State Special Concern (SC).
Prohibitions against instream activities for the project area have been designated for the
project site in order to protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout (Oneorbynebus mykilr).
Both instream and land disturbance activities within the 25-foot trout buffer are prohibited
from January 1 through April 15 in order to prevent sedimentation from impacting fish eggs
and fry downstream of the project site.
Biotic Resources
Vegetative communities immediately adjacent to the bridge are indicative of rural residential
and agricultural uses. These areas appear to be used for livestock grazing and consist mainly
of grasses. Riparian vegetation along the stream channel is sparse and typical of areas that are
frequently impacted by man. Species along the stream include Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Ater rubrum), sweetgum (la'quidambar
styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and wild rose. (Rosa mulliflora).
Existing Stream Conditions
Channel widths averaged 20 to 25 feet (6.1 to 7.6 meters) at top of bank. Water was flowing
moderately fast over a coble substrate with some sand and fine sediment deposition
immediately upstream of the bridge. Average water depth was 1 foot (0.3 meters) in the
riffle and run segments above and below the bridge. Pool depth averaged 2 feet (0.6 meters)
and few were noted at the project site. Vegetation surrounding the site is primarily grasses.
The confluence of a small unnamed tributary occurs approximately 150 feet (45.7 meters)
downstream from the bridge.
Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate laws. As of the 05 February
2003 Cherokee County species list, the USFWS identified three Endangered (E) species, one
Threatened (T) species, one Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance [T(S/A)], and 17
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) as occurring in the county. A review of habitat
requirements for species listed as threatened or endangered was completed prior to the field
Page 3 of 4
T.I.P. B-3430
Cherokee County
visit (Table 1). A search of the project site found neither evidence of appropriate habitat for
these species nor any evidence of these species occurring at the site.
The USFWS has identified the sicklefn redhorse (Moxortoma sp. 1) as occurring in Hanging
Dog Creek. This species is currently a FSC but it may be elevated to candidate status for
federal listing. The USFWS has recommended that a survey for this species be completed at
the project site prior to any further planning or on the ground activities. They also
recommend that the bridge be replaced with another spanning structure. Correspondence
with Dr. Robert Jenkins, professor of aquatic biology at Roanoke College and redhorse
specialist, indicates that he conducted a survey in 1999 for sicklefin redhorse well
downstream of the site and no specimens were found.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists of May 2003 included the federally listed
species referred to above as well as additional species receiving protection under state laws.
Natural Heritage Program maps were reviewed on February 10, 2003 to determine if any
protected species have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that
no protected species are known to occur within a one mile radius of the project site.
Page 4 of 4

/? ? ? ?' 1? 1' } 1 I ' 1 ?? , Imo-, `•.
fr
t o
??` ? ?? Y may' t
e \..1 rl t\ o = B 3430
9
de- -S 5LD
1r• -
„-`mac .??
-`Z j?
11 ?T
?_ ;? 1 i Whr ur?t} j <
azt
r r 1r r?y j 4t.
Feet Ct?ta Source:
• ° Wiz, , > eo 2.100 -,!*G USG S 7 5 -Mn ute
Figure No.
-; MULK EY 'Topographic Quadrangle: Mo Daniel, NC
0 100 :]0 4000 rj0 0)0 Com°ur trnero l40 Feet
Prepared For 1
&343C
Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek
Cherokee County, North Carolina
41
Table 1. Protected Species Listed for Cherokee County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Preferred Habitat Habitat Available
Status In Study Area

Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) Slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of No
sphagnum bogs, calcareous fens,
marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring
seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub
swamps; habitat usually contains an
abundance of grassy or mossy cover. The
turtles depend on a mosaic of microhabilats
for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation,
and shelter. Nests in open and elevated
ground in areas of moss, grassy tussocks,
or moist earth (see Bury 1979). Digs shallow
nest or lays eggs in the top of a sedge
tussock. Found in bogs, wet pastures, wet
thickets of Mountain and Piedmont habitats.
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E Hibernation caves with temperatures No
between 38 and 43'F and humidity of 66 to
95 percent. Wooded streamside habitat
under loose tree bark is used for summer

Invertebrates
Cumberland bean Villosa trabalis E Small rivers and streams in fast riffles with No
gravel or sand and gravel substrate. Fantail
and striped darters are known to be hosts.
Little-wing pearlymusselPegias Tabula E" Cool, clear, high-gradient streams. Found in No
riffles in headwaters of high-gradient
streams, and also in transition areas
between pools and riffles. Resides
underneath large, flat rocks, and in gravel
substrate adjacent to willow beds. Hosts
include greenside and emerald redline
Vascular Plants
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medooloides T White pine forests throughout Mountain and No
Piedmont regions and open, dry, deciduous
woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat
where there is relatively high shrub coverage
or high sapling density
Notes
E Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
T Threatened A taxon'likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range."
T/SA Threatened due to A species listed due to similarity in appearance with other rare species. Not biologically threatened or endangered.
similarity of appearance.
' Historic Record The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure Record The date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain.
Page 1 of 1