20180896 Ver 1_401 Application_20180618

' United States Forest National Forests in 160A Zillicoa Street
— Department of Service North Carolina P.O. Box 2750
V
Agriculture Asheville, NC 28802
N.C. Division of Water Resourceo y;
Wetlands Branch �
1617 Mail Service Center .�
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1617
To whom it may concern,
20180 8
Date: June 18, 2018 8
RJUNkoLg 9 2 g 2018 f t
This letter is to request Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality for U.S. Forest Service project: Cheoah River Access (Mile Post 5.1).
Located on the Nantahala National Forest in Graham County, North Carolina, this project is
situated on the Cheoah River at river mile 5.1
This project proposes the existing boating/fishing access point would be improved by installing
concrete launch ramp as shown on the drawings. Also included is downsizing the existing
aggregate parking area and adding planting features to keep the parking area smaller than it
currently is. Native trees and shrubs will be planted as shown on the proposed drawings. The
boat launch would be placed above the base flow level but below the high flow levels to avoid
construction within the wetted perimeter of the river channel during high flow events.
A copy of the 404 permit application has also been sent to the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review.
Enclosed are the following materials:
• One copy of the Pre -Construction Notice (form 12-10-2008 version 1.3), application for
404 permit (Nationwide Permit #42).
• One copy of the project Decision Memo
• A check made payable to the Division of Water Quality for $240.00 since activities
cumulatively account for less than 150 feet of stream channel.
If you require any additional information, please contact me at 828-257-4835.
S;kLna
J1\
Public Services Staff Officer
Caring for the Land and Serving People
PWPrinted on Recycled Paper

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 42 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
1 e.
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
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Cheoah River River Mile 5.1 River Access
2b. County:
Graham
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Robinsville
2d. Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
USDA - United States Forest Service - Nantahala National Forests - Cheoah District
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Allen Nicholas, Forest Supervisor
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A
3d. Street address:
Asheville, NC 28801
3e. City, state, zip:
(828)-257-4200
3f.
Telephone no.:
(828)-257-4200
3g.
Fax no.:
(828)-257-4263
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
® Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
James Barry Jones, Forest Engineer - Public Services Staff Officer
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
US Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina
5c. Street address:
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A
5d. City, state, zip:
Asheville, NC 28801
5e. Telephone no.:
(828)-257-4835
5f. Fax no.:
(828)-257-4884
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
USDA US Forest Service Cheoah Ranger District
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.40650 Longitude: - 83.885756
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c.
Property size:
204,300 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Cheoah River Mile 5.1 Access Improvements
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C Trout
2c.
River basin:
Little Tennessee River Basin
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:
Nearly 20 days of release flow is required each year by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which attracts
hundreds of users each day on the Cheoah River. the project site - River mile 5.1 is a popular resting area and access
area for boaters thus serving as a stopping point along the Cheoah River for rafters and fisherman. The existing access
area is steep and does not provide adequate access for users. The stream bank at this location is constructed out of
adjacent road fill from US 129 and the blasted rock fill provides an unsafe egress for recreation users. Stream banks are
eroding due to concentrated user paths along this corridor from both rafting recreation and fisherman use.
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:
N/A
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To provide safe boating access & parking facilities along the Cheoah River.
Santeetlah Dam is located in Graham County North Carolina on the Cheoah River. The Dam and facilities was
construction in 1928 and consists of a dam, pipe line and powerhouse. In 2005 the Forest Service produced an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Biological Assessment (BA) for the Cheoah River Recreation Projects as part of
the licensing agreement by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to Brooksfield Power Generating Company. The
project was designed to provide recreation opportunities along the Cheoah River for hikers, boaters, anglers, and other
forest visitors. Currently the Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower releases down the Cheoah River flow events totally
20 days of varying flow releases. The increased flow brings in recreation users from all over the world for a unique
recreation experience. The existing access area is unsafe and does not provide adequate access to recreation users.
Access is always eroding and movement of sediment into the stream channel is very likely during any rain event.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Due to user caused bank erosion and safety access concerns the project proposal includes a complete upgrade to the
existing small parking lot & boat launch access ramp to the Cheoah River. The project is to provide a hardened and safe
access to the Cheoah River from North Carolina State Road US 129. USFS has coordinated with US Fish and Wildlife
due to the proximity of the Appalachian Elk toe Muscle.
Project includes paving parking area up to 9 spaces including bus and single vehicle parking to serve those stopping in at
the popular access site. Installation of a hardened area for temp. portable toilets and installation of an concrete access
launch with a retaining wall and handrails. This access launch would be placed below the high flow levels to avoid
construction within the wetted perimeter of the river channel during release flows. Equipment used will be excavators,
dewatering, concrete form work and hauling equipment.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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:
El Yes ®No El 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):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
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 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. 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
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ 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
2h. Comments:
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
Fill (Stream)
Cheoah River
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
50
50
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
3i. Comments: Project includes improving river access for boaters and fisherman. Amount of concrete to be placed below high
water mark is 3-5 CY which includes the access slab and ramp footing.
Page 5 of 11
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 individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond 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
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ 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
im act
required?
61❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
F1 Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
While a formal sediment & erosion control plan is not required for this project, the USFS will incorporate sediment & erosion
control practices into the construction drawings & specifications. Standard practices will include: Construction Scheduling —
work shall be accomplished when water level is low. Stabilization — temporary & permanent seeding shall be required during &
after grading operations, riprap outlet protection shall be constructed for stormwater structure. Structural Controls — temporary
diversions, silt fence, hay bales, silt traps & ditch checks shall prevent sediment from entering the Cheoah River. All erosion
control structures shall be inspected after any storm event & repaired if necessary.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Contractor will not be allowed to start construction until the erosion control measures are in place per contract specifications
and drawngs. USFS personnel will make routine site vists along with the National Forests in North Carolina Engineering Staff.
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
2b. 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:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
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):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
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.
Page 7 of 11
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
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
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.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
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).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
75-80%
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 smaller than 1 acre.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ 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
❑ 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
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
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 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
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
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments: NEPA Documentation has been attached to submission
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):
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.
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.
Contractor is responsible to provide port-a-john throughout the life of the project. Facilities will be maintained weekly to
avoid any discharge on the project site.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 ❑ No
habitat?
5b.
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS 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?
We have met and hosted multiple meetings with local USFWS Felid Office Staff - Mr. Allen Ratzlaff - Fish and Wildlife
Biologist. Biologist have surveyed the site multiple times and have cleared the project, see attached letter of support.
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?
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?
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:
8c.
What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC One Map - NCEM Flood Risk Information Center
James Barry JonesOt
6/18/2018
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Ct,
Date
n 's ignatu
Applicannifa
(Agent's sig ture is valid onlyauth rization letter from the applicant
vid
Page 1 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

L North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
June 5, 2018
Mr. David Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Cheoah River RM 5.1 River Access
Cheoah River, Graham County
Dear Mr. Brown:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed an
application to construct a parking lot and boat launch access ramp on the Cheoah River,
impacting 5,0 ft of river in Graham County. Our comments on this application are offered for
your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
This project should not affect trout and the activities do not need to be avoided during the trout
spawning moratorium. However, numerous rare and listed species are found in this portion of
the Cheoah River, including Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana, US and NC
Endangered), Spotfln Chub [Erimonax monachus, US and NC Threatened (T)], Virginia Spiraea
(Spiraea virginiana, US and NC T), Junaluska Salamander (Eurycea junaluska, US Federal
Species of Concern (FSC), NC T), Wavyrayed Lampmussel [Lampsilis fasciola, NC Special
Concern (SC)], and Wounded Darter (Etheostoma vulneratum, US FSC, NC SC]. The project is
within two NC Natural Heritage Program natural areas—the Cheoah River Floodplain (rated
Exceptional) and the Cheoah River Aquatic Habitat (rated Very High).
The project involves the construction of a parking area of up to 9 spaces, a hardened area for
toilets, and a concrete access launch with a retaining wall. The concrete slab will be poured in
place. The launch will be placed above the baseflow water level and will not come in contact
with the stream bottom. Two rain gardens will treat stormwater from the site, which will be
discharged to the Cheoah River over a Class B riprap apron.
There are multiple older records of Junaluska Salamander in the vicinity of the project, and we
are concerned about direct impacts to this rare species. We recommend that both visual night
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Cheoah R RM 5.1 Access Page 2 June 5, 2018
Cheoah R, Graham Co
surveys and snorkel surveys be conducted in the project area before any tree clearing and ground
disturbance occurs. Please coordinate with NCWRC biologist Lori Williams
(lori.williamsnncwildlife.org) about these surveys. In addition, the site should be surveyed for
Virginia Spiraea before the project begins; these surveys should be conducted in coordination
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
We offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources:
1. Be vigilant with sediment and erosion control during site staging, construction, and cleanup.
Disturbed areas should be seeded, mulched and/or matted as soon as possible, at least at the
end of each work day.
2. Any erosion control matting used should be free of nylon or polypropylene mesh, as this
frequently entangles wildlife and is slow to degrade, resulting in a hazard that may last for
years.
3. Concrete must be poured in the dry and allowed to cure at least 24 hours in order to avoid
toxic pH levels in the contact water.
4. Minimize the footprint of disturbance within the riparian area, avoiding the removal of
riparian vegetation as much as possible when mobilizing equipment and during construction.
If needed, replant the disturbed area with native riparian trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses.
5. Surveys for Junaluska Salamander and Virginia Spiraea should be conducted before the
project commences.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at
[phone] if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Barry Jones, USFS
Kevin Mitchell, NC Division of Water Resources
Byron Hamstead, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Lori Williams, NCWRC

United States Department of the Interior run
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 7, 2018
Barry Jones
U.S. Forest Service
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Dear Mr. Jones:
Subject: Cheoah River RM 5.1 River Access Project; Graham County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-18-299
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in the draft
PCN, and project design plans. We submit the following comments in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the proposed project would entail the construction of a
parking area (nine spaces), retaining wall, concrete launch ramp, two rain gardens (discharging
into the Cheoah River via a riprap apron), and hardened area for temporary portable toilets. The
proposed work activities would not require streambed excavation, would be accomplished under
low flow conditions, and the access ramp would be placed above baseflow water levels.
Additional impact avoidance/minimization measures include temporary and permanent seeding,
silt fencing, silt traps, and temporary diversions. Construction activities would not begin until
proposed erosion control measures are in place, and USFS staff would make routine site
evaluations. The proposed project would require grading and minor tree clearing (<20 trees).
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, occurrences (net capture) exist in the project vicinity, and suitable
summer roosting habitat may be present within the project area for the federally threatened
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, based on the information provided,
the project (which would require minor tree clearing) would occur at a location where any
incidental take of northern long-eared bat that may result from associated activities is exempt
under the 4(d) rule for this species.
Service records indicate that the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) and its designated critical habitat occurs in the proposed project's receiving waters
(Cheoah River). The federally threatened spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus) also occurs in the
project receiving waters (approximately 0.6 river miles downstream). Like many fish and most
mussels, these species are highly sensitive to perturbations in water quality and physical habitats.

Sedimentation linked to the degradation of instream and riparian habitats are among the primary
threats to these species. Sedimentation may disrupt feeding, respiration, reproduction, and direct
mortality of individuals. Additionally, live (uncured) concrete is caustic and toxic to these
species and other aquatic animals.
Provided that the proposed impact avoidance/minimization measures are employed and that
uncured concrete does not contact Cheoah River waters, we believe the probability for take of
these species would be reduced to a level we would consider insignificant and discountable. We
would therefore, concur with an action agency (USACE) effect determination that the proposed
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect these species.
Service records indicate multiple records of the federally threatened Virginia spiraea (Spiraea
virginiana) in the proposed project vicinity. Biologists with USFS and the Service have
evaluated the site for this species on multiple occasions in the past 18 months, but have not
detected it. Most recently, USFS and Service staff evaluated the project site on June 6, 2018,
and also did not find evidence for this species at that time.
Service records do not indicate the presence of any other federally protected species in proposed
project area and we do not require any further information at this time. Please be aware that in
accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal agency or its
designated representative to review its activities or programs and to identify any such activities
or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If it is
determined that the proposed activity may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated.
Junaluska salamander (Eurycea junaluska), eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis),
and wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum) also occur in the project receiving waters. These
are federal species of concern and are not currently afforded legal protection under the Act.
However, incorporating proactive conservation measures on their behalf may preclude the need
to list them in the future. We believe the impact avoidance/minimization measures outlined
above would also be protective of these species. Additionally, we support the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission recommendation for surveys on behalf of Junaluska salamander
prior to site disturbance.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-18-299.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
Nearby reference populations were also evaluated on June 6, 2018, indicating that this species' flowers and
vegetative parts are readily identifiable at that time.

0, Ib
E.c David Brown; USACE
Kevin Mitchell NCDWR
Andrea Leslie; NCWRC
Lori Williams; NCWRC

USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
June 2013
Biological Assessment
Cheoah River Recreation Project
Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest
Graham County, North Carolina
For Additional Information Contact:
Cheoah Ranger District
1070 Massey Branch Road
Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
[phone]

V
Table of Contents
PROPOSEDACTION......................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES........................................................... 7
1.1 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Botanical Resources............................................................................................................ 19
1.3 Wildlife Resources............................................................................................................... 23
1.4 Effects Determination for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ..................... 25
1.5 Consultation History ........................................................................................................... 25
2.0 PREPARERS.............................................................................................................................. 26
3.0 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES.......................................................................................... 27
4.0 Attachments............................................................................................................................ 32
Attachment 1: Endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species ................................... 32
Attachment 2: National Forests in NC Rare Plant Species filtered for Graham County.......... 34
Attachment 3. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Terrestrial
Animal Species, Nantahala National Forest.............................................................................. 34
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 2

PROPOSED ACTION
Alternative A: No activities would be taken under this alternative.
Alternative B:
The proposed project is to construct recreation facilities along the Cheoah River in northern
Graham County, North Carolina. This project would modify the previous project designs for the
Cheoah River Recreation Project (2005). Boating access areas may be upgraded at two locations
(River Mile 5.1 and 2.3). These existing boating access points would be improved by installing
concrete boat launch areas approximately 12 feet wide between the base flow elevation and the
high flow elevation. One in -stream boulder structure may be added to the river at River Mile 2.3
to create an eddy for boaters at the boat access area. An accessible trail will be constructed along
the west side of the river from Joyce Kilmer Bridge downstream approximately 0.6 mile in
length, terminating at an accessible fishing pier (cantilever construction). A fishing access point
would be constructed downstream of the existing commercial put -in facility using rock steps
anchored into the river bank. This access point would include a small parking area for
approximately 2 vehicles. An accessible parking area would be constructed at the Joyce Kilmer
Bridge to provide access to the river trail and fishing pier. This parking area would be located on
the west side of the river in the previously disturbed old bridge location. An existing
gravel/paved pull -off at the intersection of US 129 and Yellow Creek Road would be redesigned
to provide pull-through temporary parking and an informational kiosk. An existing fishing
access point at River Mile 3.4 would be upgraded by adding gravel or grasscrete pavers for
parking and some additional crusher -run gravel for the trail. Parking areas may utilize gravel,
grasscrete pavers, and/or asphalt depending upon project costs. A short segment of fishing
access trail would be constructed on the west side of the river upstream of the Big Fat Gap Road
Bridge (River Mile 1.8) for approximately 0.2 mile. This trail construction would also include
designation of parking areas for 2 -3 vehicles using gravel. The upper panel (metal grate) of the
existing commercial put -in would be removed and the concrete supports would be broken off
flush with the stream bedrock to improve the hydraulics and reduce maintenance of this launch
facility. A short segment of metal grating may be used at River Mile 2.3 to span the bankfull
channel of a tributary to the Cheoah River.
Project design features to protect the biological resources include:
• Mussel surveys would be completed 6 months prior to in -stream construction followed by
mussel surveys within 1 month of in -stream construction (within the area affected by in -
stream construction).
• Large trees within the riparian area would not be removed during construction to the
extent practicable. No trees suitable for the Indiana bat would be cut during the period of
April 15 through October 15.
• Construction areas would be designed to minimize soil and vegetation disturbance within
the riparian area. Sediment control techniques would include constructing put -ins during
base flow periods and sand bagging these areas during high flow events to prevent
sedimentation of the river.
• Project designs would be developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Conceptual designs have been discussed with the USFWS. Designs
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment

would be shared with the USFWS at the 20%, 50%, and 90% of completion phases to
ensure protections for federally listed species.
• Parking areas would be designed to direct storm water runoff away from the river and
into vegetated filter areas and/or engineered wetlands or storm water collection basins.
• The accessible trail and fishing pier near the Joyce Kilmer Road Bridge would terminate
prior to reaching an area containing Virginia spiraea to avoid potential effects to this
species.
Specific actions for each alternative are listed in the following table:
Table 1. List of proposed actions.
Summary of Proposals
Alt.
Alt. 2
1
Proposed Action
Day Use Put -in just below
0
River Access Area — modify
Santeetlah Dam
existing put -in structure to
improve hydraulics of put -in
and reduce maintenance.
Downstream of put -in
0
Construct steps from parking
area to river for fishing
access using native stone.
Gravel parking area for
approx. 2 vehicles.
Joyce Kilmer Road
0
Construct 0.3 mi accessible
Bridge
trail and 1 accessible fishing
pier. Construct accessible
parking area on west side of
bridge and improve parking
area on east side of bridge.
Pull -off at intersection of
0
Pull through temporary
US 129 and Yellow Creek
parking and informational
Road
kiosk.
Access and recreation
0
❑ Roadside pull -off
amenities for river mile
❑ 20 parking spaces
5.1
❑ Concrete kayak launch
Fishing access at river
0
Improve existing parking by
mile 3.4
graveling or placing
grasscrete pavers. Gravel
existing trail.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 4

Access and recreation
0
[]Roadside pull -off
amenities for river mile
1112 parking spaces
2.3
❑ Concrete kayak/raft access
Install boulders to create
eddy in river.
Fishing access for river
0
2-3 parking spaces
mile 1.8 (Big Fat Gap
❑ Construct approx. 0.2 mi
Bride)
fishing access trail.
River miles are cumulative and begin at the center of the bridge on Highway 129 where it crosses
Calderwood Reservoir.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment

Figure La. Proposed river access areas and handicapped accessible trail
VV Recreation DevelopmentLofts;
n►.� ^� ��. 1.
Faft
r
B,dp Sir s_ '
IMUfMQw
79. Innifts
a� �N.
..
1
�'N_
SOOT" LM WMA f
Mai
. i. tI A Y i N M .� L • 4 d f I t ■` � r
i
Legend
• 1'i!QPraOM P -.11J*
• FW" Pier
- T1315
A... »r arp oofl
a� •
MPM" _
1 � tflM 1.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 6

1.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
1.1 Aquatic Resources
Boundaries of Aquatic Analysis Areas
This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Cheoah
River Recreation Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-
specific impacts (direct and indirect effects) on aquatic habitat and populations, and do not
necessary overlap effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to project area waters,
the analysis area encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project
activities when considered within the watershed context (cumulative effects). The aquatic
analysis area for this project consists of the following watershed: the Cheoah River.
Existing Conditions
The aquatic resources of the Cheoah River have been extensively monitored since the
implementation of the new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license agreement.
Following gravel addition, the proportion of gravel in the streambed was significantly
higher at all gravel sites. However, comparisons of sites to reference stream reaches
suggested that sand, gravel, and cobble were still extremely deficient. Additionally, the
volume of gravel was inadequate to create gravel depths that provided suitable habitat for
catostomid spawning (McManamay et al. 2010).
Additionally, the river flows, temperatures, and fish communities are responding well to the
increased discharge from Santeetlah Dam. Monitoring data have suggested that the Appalachian
elktoes are reproducing in the river. The federally threatened spotfin chub has been introduced
to the river and is extending its range upstream. Additional mussels and the wounded darter
have been introduced and are persisting within the river. Much of the instream vegetation has
been scoured from the channel, which has provided a source of finer substrates for mussels.
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Four aquatic federally threatened or endangered species are either known to occur or may occur
on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1 a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Database was queried for occurrences of T & E species in Graham County. Two aquatic T & E
species remained after this initial filter (spotfin chub, Cyprinella monacha, and Appalachian
elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana). These species were then filtered based upon habitat
information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Based upon
the results of this filtering process both species were evaluated for this analysis (Attachment lb).
Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 7

analysis. The spotfin chub and Appalachian elktoe were considered in this analysis because both
species occur within the area affected by the project.
Previous Survey Information
Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including threatened and
endangered aquatic species is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for threatened
and endangered aquatic species have been conducted within the Cheoah River Recreation Project
aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area
waters by the NCWRC and the USFS.
Table 1.1.1: Known and potential endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species in
Graham County evaluated for the Cheoah River Recreation Project (see also Attachment 1).
Species I Type I Habitat Occurrence
F derally Listed Threatened and Endangered Specie
Little Tennessee River,
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Mussel
Tuckasegee River, Cheoah
Known to occur
River, Nolichuck River
Erimonax monachus
Fish
Little TN River; French Broad
Known to occur
Rivers stem
New Surveys or Inventories Conducted
The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management
Standard for T & ES Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National
Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for T & E species were
conducted for this project because existing data were available to describe current distributions
and additional surveys would be completed prior to construction to avoid effects to the
Appalachian elktoe. Existing data were used in this analysis because previous surveys for
federally threatened and endangered aquatic species have been conducted and the Cheoah River
Recreation Project would be implemented to prevent visible sediment from entering analysis area
streams.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 8

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species
Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
The Appalachian elktoe is a rare freshwater mussel that is native to streams and rivers of the
southern Appalachian region. It has a thin, but not fragile, kidney -shaped shell, reaching up to
about 3.2 inches in length and 1.4 inches in height. Little is known about its habitat requirements,
though the species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers
with cool, clean, well -oxygenated, moderate -to -fast flowing water. The species is most often
found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt -free, coarse sand and
gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock. According to the USFWS, the
species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or
cobble.
Mussel searches conducted by Pennington and Associates, Inc. (PAI) in the Cheoah River in
2000 found one live specimen of the elktoe. The live individual was located just downstream of
the confluence with Gladdens Creek, in a shallow run with a substrate of silt and sand flanked by
aquatic vegetation. A single relic shell of the Appalachian elktoe was found at a beaver dam just
downstream from the confluence of Cochran Creek. No other individuals were found and no
other mussel species were found in the Cheoah River.
In August 2002, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in conjunction with
the USFS and the USFWS conducted a mussel survey of the Cheoah River in preparation for the
planned replacement of Bridge Number 70, which crosses the Cheoah River on Joyce Kilmer
Road. The NCDOT survey found 10 live specimens and 5 relic shells in several different
locations in the river.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel surveyed five sections of the river in 2003 and found
Appalachian elktoe in two sections of the river (Cantrell, pers. comm.). The population between
Gladdens Branch and Cochran Creek was well established with "lots of mussels" present.
Another site between Half Mile Creek and the bridge at River Mile 1.8 had "some mussels"
present.
Fish species that serve as hosts for the Appalachian elktoe (Dr. Jim Layzer, Tennessee
Technological University, unpublished data) which have been collected in the Cheoah River
include warpaint shiner (Luxilus coccogenis), northern hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans), river
redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum), greenfin darter (Etheostoma chlorobranchium), tangerine
darter (Percina aurantiaca), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), and black redhorse (Moxostoma
duquesnii). The elktoe population appears to be reproducing and individuals persisting in certain
areas of the river.
The proposed project potentially affects the Appalachian elktoe by possible sediment inputs to
the river during construction of adjacent recreational facilities. Specific design features to
eliminate or control sediment have been developed under informal consultation with the U.S.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 9

Fish and Wildlife Service due to concerns about sedimentation effects to the Appalachian elktoe
and critical habitat within the Cheoah River.
Direct and indirect effects:
At the Existing Put -In Site: Construct a trail and hardened river access for fishing to the west
(downstream) of the existing put -in and its associated parking. It is located at river mile 9.0.
The largest population of Appalachian elktoe is located between RM 7.0 and 8.0, well
downstream of any direct impacts that could occur at this site.
At Joyce Kilmer Road Bridge: Includes trailhead parking on both sides of the bridge, a trail on
the west side of the river (left bank looking downstream) with an accessible fishing pier. An
existing parking area (right bank looking downstream) would have wheel stops installed,
accessible parking signage installed, and an approximately 60 foot long fence installed for safety
at the top of the old bridge abutment. Accessible parking spaces would be constructed on the
north side (left bank looking downstream). Approximately 0.6 mile of accessible trail would be
constructed along the old road bed (left bank) leading to an accessible cantilevered fishing pier.
At Intersection of Yellow Creek Gap Road and US 129: An existing gravel pull -off between
US 129 and the river would be upgraded to a paved pull -off with temporary parking and an
informational board. Additional shrubs and/or trees would be planted within this area.
River Mile 5.1: Upgrade existing river access and put-in/take-out with parking. Expansion of
the parking area to accommodate 20 vehicles using grasscrete pavers or gravel and inclusion of a
group gathering area. Installation of an approximately 12 foot wide concrete boat launch with a
retaining wall and handrails. This boat launch would be placed above the base flow level but
below the high flow levels to avoid construction within the wetted perimeter of the river channel.
all located in areas where no elktoe have been found. Development of access at these sites will
not impact any Appalachian elktoe individuals.
River Mile 3.4: Additional gravel would be applied to the existing parking area for angler
access.
River Mile 2.3: Upgrade existing river access and put-in/take-out. Expansion of existing
parking up to 12 spaces and a group gathering area using grasscrete pavers or gravel. Installation
of a hardened area for portable toilets and installation of an approximately 12 foot wide concrete
boat launch with a retaining wall and handrails. This boat launch would be placed above the
base flow level but below the high flow levels to avoid construction within the wetted perimeter
of the river channel. Boulders would be installed within the river to create an eddy for boaters.
This would involve disturbing part of the river bed and banks to anchor the boulders into place
River Mile 1.8 (Big Fat Gap Road Bridge): FS 62, at RM 1.8, is proposed for the west side of
the Cheoah upstream of the bridge. This site is located at a river section where Appalachian
elktoe have been found.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 10

River access area construction: Two river access areas would be improved, including foot paths
to the river for kayak or raft access, and boat launch areas. Project design features would
minimize the potential for sedimentation in the vicinity of these access sites. These design
features include installation and maintenance of silt fences around the construction areas,
hardening trails. These design features would prevent the majority of the construction site
sediments from entering the Cheoah River. Five reaches were surveyed for Appalachian elktoes
in 2003 and an additional reach immediately below Santeetlah Dam was surveyed in 2004. The
river access site at RM 6.1 and the put -in site were surveyed in 2003 and 2004, respectively. No
mussels were found at either of these sites. The remainder of the access sites have not been
surveyed. These access sites will be surveyed prior to any construction activities. The nearest
occurrence of an Appalachian elktoe to a proposed access site is at the Bridge site (Table 1.1.2).
This site does not have any river access proposed; this site would be a trailhead for the proposed
trail. Given the distances between the proposed access sites and the known occurrences of
Appalachian elktoe (Table 1. 1.2) it is unlikely that any mussels would be affected by the
construction or by foot traffic within the river (foot traffic at the put -ins would occur at higher
elevations than the base flow elevation; therefore these actions would not occur within suitable
habitats for the Appalachian elktoe). A small amount of sediment may be released into the river
after water is allowed to flow into the dewatered construction site, but would have an
immeasurable effect upon the Appalachian elktoe and the designated critical habitat.
Table 1.1.2. The distance between proposed access sites and known occurrences of Appalachian
elktoe within the Cheoah River, Graham County, North Carolina.
Nearest Occurrence (mile)
Site Downstream Upstream
Put in site (Dam) 1.16 -
Fishing Access near Put -in 1.05 -
Joyce Kilmer Fishing Pier 0.05 0.07
Pull -off at Yellow Creek Rd 4.95 0.23
RM 5.1
RM 3.4
RM 2.3
3.47
1.76
1.56
3.60
0.46
4.71
Big Fat Rd Bridge site 0.05 0.06
Trail construction: The 0.8 miles of trail construction would involve removal of the existing
vegetation, and hardening. The accessible trail would follow an existing woods road which
would only require some drainage improvements, installation of wooden landscaping timbers,
and hardening with crusher -run gravel. The vegetation on the cut and fill slopes would not be
disturbed, which would provide a filter for storm runoff. The trail segment located at Big Fat
Gap Bridge would consist of a foot path only large enough to accommodate fishing access.
Ground disturbance would be seeded and mulched after construction. Sediments carried by
storm runoff would likely be deposited within the first 20 feet below the constructed trail
segments. Sediments from trail construction and subsequent runoff are not likely to enter the
designated critical habitat of the Cheoah River in measurable quantities since project design
features would distribute runoff to sediment basins and vegetative filters. The average distance
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 11

between the trail and the Cheoah River would be approximately 50 feet. This distance would
provide a buffer large enough to filter trail runoff.
The effects of access area construction, minor sediment inputs after erosion control is
implemented, would only occur in approximately 0. 16 acre (0.20% of the river surface area) of
the Cheoah River. These activities are not likely to adversely affect the Appalachian elktoe or
the designated critical habitat.
Water Quality: Water quality should not be affected because LRMP and NC-FPG standards
would be followed. New trail construction areas would be seeded and hardened within 30 days
of site disturbance. Silt fences, sediment basins, and rolling dips would be used around
construction areas to prevent visible sediment from entering area streams. Sediment impacts
would be minimized by the application of LRMP standards and NC-FPG compliance and erosion
control precautions incorporated into the project.
Effects of parking area runoff. The Forest Service will use a combination of engineered
sediment basins, asphalt, grasscrete pavers, vegetative filters, and artificial wetlands (where
practical) that trap or filter various hydrocarbons but allow the water to permeate or filter
through the soil. These design features would likely prevent hydrocarbons from reaching the
Cheoah River. Visitor use of these parking areas is expected to be low throughout most of the
year with occasionally high usage occurring on approximately 20 days annually (historical use
indicates that future use would be low). The sporatic nature of this usage would likely preclude
the accumualation of large amounts of hydrocarbons in parking areas. This would result in a low
probability of hydrocarbons occurring in runoff through most of the year. Any hydrocarbons
that might enter the Cheoah River after passing through sediment traps, vegetative filters, or
constructed wetlands would be of such low concentrations that potential effects of these
compounds to the aquatic organisms would be immeasurable. These compounds would be
unlikely to cause adverse effects to the aquatic organisms because of the high volatility of fuels
and the relative low toxicity of motor vehicle lubricants (Crabtree, 2004).
Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mussels below bridges over piedmont
North Carolina streams were found to be higher than concentrations in mussels upstream of
bridges. However, these concentrations were low, despite the lack of filtration of
runoff, and are unlikely to to create adverse effects on adult mussels (Levine et. al, 2004; page
71). Runoff from bridges is largely unfiltered whereas the runoff for the proposed parking areas
for access sites will be filtered; therefore, the potential concentrations of hydrocarbons in the
Cheoah River are expected to be extremely low (possibly indetectable by analytical methods).
Riparian vegetation/Large Woody Debris: Except for the boat access sites and the one fishing
pier site, shoreline vegetation would not be cut; therefore, there would be no reduction in
potential large woody debris recruitment. The few locations where vegetation would be cut
would be small (less than 50 feet long). The new flow regime should provide large woody debris
recruitment from shoreline vegetation, which would more closely mimic the pre -impoundment
condition of the river. Some large woody debris would be sawn within the river channel and
allowed to drift downstream to improve boater safety. Some of this woody debris would drift
into backwater areas and some would drift completely out of the river or be deposited onto the
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 12

floodplain. This activity would have no effect on the Appalachian elktoe or the designated
critical habitat.
Effects of Past, Ongoing and Foreseeable Actions:
Previous actions. Previous actions within the Cheoah River watershed include the
Barker/Belding/Blackgum Project EA and Goldmine Salvage. These activities occurred between
1996 and 2000. These sales included timber harvest (clear cutting, shelterwood, two -aged
regeneration, salvage cutting, and intermediate thinning), construction of approximately 3.5
miles of roads, and reconstruction of approximately 1.6 miles of roads. Additional activities
associated with these timber sales included: pre -harvest herbicide treatments, herbicide site
preparation, chainsaw site preparation, hand planting pine seedlings, prescribed fire for wildlife
habitat and site preparation, vine control, wildlife habitat improvements, large woody debris
placement for fish habitat, and recreational trail improvements. As a result of the length of time
since completion of these sales, any effects to the aquatic resources are reflected in the current
affected environment.
Previous operations at Santeetlah Dam have had negative effects upon the aquatic organisms and
the aquatic habitat. The dam has interrupted the Cheoah River's hydrological processes, creating
a degraded habitat situation. The current condition of the Cheoah River habitat and its aquatic
species abundance and diversity is a reflection of the effects of river impoundment (See Alcoa
Power Generating, Inc., Tapoco Division, 2003, for a complete discussion of the effects of river
impoundment). There are no other previous actions on private lands within the analysis area that
are known to be affecting the aquatic resources of the Cheoah River.
The Hazanet Timber Project was implemented from 2003 through 2008. Portions of this project
occur within the Cheoah River watershed. The Hazanet Project included two -age timber harvest,
thinning, regeneration, burning, group selection harvest, oak midstory preharvest treatment, vine
control and timber stand improvement, and wildlife habitat improvements. This project also
included construction of 0.5 mile of road in the Sarvis Branch drainage (Compartment 33);
construction of 0.25 mi. system road in Compartment 35; construction of 0.4 mile of temporary
haul road in Compartment 35; reconstruction of approximately 0.2 mile of road in Compartment
33. Best management practices and forest plan standards were implemented for these activities
and no measurable adverse effects have occurred to the aquatic resources in the Cheoah River.
The FERC relicensing of Santeetlah Dam has resulted in implementation of a new schedule of
high water flow releases from the dam and the addition of gravel to the river. An additional
action, separate from the relicensing, is the construction of the new bridge #70 (Joyce Kilmer
Road).
1) High water flow releases
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 13

The Cheoah River historically did not receive sufficient flushing flows to keep the rocks and
substrate clean of silt. As part of the settlement agreement for the Tapoco Relicensing,
additional minimum flow releases are being made. The higher flow year round assists in moving
any minor increases in sediment through the system. The minimum flow regime (with scheduled
high flows) would facilitate the recovery of the aquatic community and scour sediments from the
channel.
2) Gravel additions
The fishery agencies are concerned that spawning habitat in the Cheoah River for a number of
fish species is limited by lack of suitable gravel substrates. To enhance conditions in the river,
the fishery management agencies have suggested the addition of gravel to create more suitable
spawning habitat. Approximately 162 tons of gravel were experimentally placed at four
locations within the Cheoah River in 2008. Subsequent monitoring showed that these gravels
improved habitat conditions immediately downstream of the four locations but lacked sufficient
fines to be biologically significant (McManamay et al. 2010). McManamay et al. (2010) also
recommend that additional locations and larger volumes of gravel containing coarse sands be
added to the river. Subsequent gravel additions have supplied finer grained substrates for
improvement of mussel habitat.
High flow events are expected to mobilize these particles and distribute them throughout the
river channel. Some fines would likely be introduced from the gravel addition activities but
would likely be inconsequential to the overall river sediment budget. This section of the Cheoah
River has not had a natural supply of new substrate since the construction of Santeetlah Dam.
The addition of small amounts of fines with the coarse sand and small gravels would not
measurably alter habitats. The small amount of sediments that may be introduced during gravel
augmentation would likely be inconsequential to the overall river sediment budget. Gravel
additions also occurred in 2010 and 2012 at five additional locations within the river. This
substrate material was obtained from the Tuckasegee River following the Dillsboro Dam
removal; therefore, it contained a broader range of particle sizes. Mussel habitat has been
somewhat improved within the immediate vicinity of the gravel additions due to the presence of
coarse sands within these gravels.
3) Species Introductions
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the USFWS have
introduced the wavy -rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola) and the Rainbow (Villosa iris) into
the Cheoah River. These agencies have also introduced the spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus)
and the wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum) into the river. Appalachian elktoe individuals
have also been translocated from the Tuckasegee River to the Cheoah River.
4) Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS) Treatments
NNIS have been treated annually within the Cheoah River corridor since 2007 to control kudzu,
privet, Oriental bittersweet, mimosa, Paulownia, Chinese yam, Japanese honeysuckle, and
multiflora rose. These treatments involved spraying triclopyr 3A within the riparian areas.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 14

These herbicides were sprayed directionally away from the river to minimize contamination of
the river.
Cumulative effects: The only effects anticipated would be those described in the proposed
actions because there are no effects from previous actions.
Ongoing actions. There are no ongoing actions on private lands within the analysis area that are
known to be affecting the aquatic resources of the Cheoah River.
Cumulative effects: Since no measurable effects are occurring, the cumulative effects of this
project would be the same as the effects described for the proposed action
Future actions.
These agencies also have tentative plans to introduce the following species: spike (Elliptio
dilatata), stonecat (Noturus flavus), yellowfin madtom (Noturus flavipinnis), smoky madtom
(Noturus baileyi), and the olive darter (Percina squamata). These introductions would have no
effects upon the Appalachian elktoe or its critical habitat.
Cumulative effects:
The proposed actions should prevent effects from user created trails by directing users to
developed access sites. Implementation of the new flow regime will began in the fall of 2005,
further minimizing the short-term impacts of the access area and trail construction.
The planned minimum flow regime (with scheduled high flows) would facilitate the recovery of
the aquatic community and scour sediments from the channel. The sediment dilution as
additional streams enter the watershed would minimize the effects of project activities.
Cumulative effects: The only effects anticipated would be those described in the proposed
actions because no effects are anticipated from this future action.
Construction of bridge #70 over the Cheoah River by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation involved removal of existing vegetation, construction of new bridge abutments,
realignment of the road approaches, and removal of the existing bridge. Effects to the aquatic
resources were minimized or mitigated under consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Cumulative effects: The only effects anticipated would be those described in the proposed
actions because no effects resulted from this action.
Approximately 13% of the Cheoah River shoreline is under private ownership (excluding Alcoa
Power Generating ownership). There are no known projects planned for the Cheoah River on
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 15

private lands. No potential effects to the project area aquatic resources are expected to occur
from future actions on adjacent private lands.
Summary of Cumulative Effects:
The effects of the trail, access site construction, parking area construction, and construction of a
fishing pier have been described above and would be minimal because the project design features
would prevent or contain sediments, avoid inputs of hydrocarbons, and maintain a source for
large woody debris. The small amount of sediments that may be introduced during gravel
augmentation would likely be inconsequential to the overall river sediment budget. The
sediment dilution as surface water from Santeetlah Lake enters the watershed would minimize
the effects because these waters contain very low sediment volumes. The cumulative effects of
the proposed project would only occur in 0.02 acre (approximately 0.03%) of the Cheoah River
for the duration of installation activities. These effects would be immeasurable in the Cheoah
River. The minimum flow regime (with scheduled high flows) would facilitate the recovery of
the aquatic community and scour sediments from the channel. The effects of gravel
augmentation and minimum flows will likely have long-term positive effects on the Cheoah
River and its aquatic community.
The effects of this project to the Appalachian elktoe and its habitat are evaluated above.
Additionally, any effects that may occur to the 7 Primary Constituent Elements of the
Appalachian elktoe critical habitat are likely to occur as a result of the new flow releases and not
as a result of the access areas because the USFS has taken the necessary measures to prevent
sediments from entering the river in measurable quantities. Any possible effects to the Primary
Constituent Elements from the new flow regime were disclosed in the Tapoco Project FERC EA
and its supporting documentation. Therefore, the cumulative effects of this project on the 7
Primary Constituent Elements of the Appalachian elktoe critical habitat are:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water. The new flow regime has provided more
flowing, cooler water. Reservoir releases would mitigate any minor (and
immeasurable) temperature increases that might result from the riparian vegetation
removal at the existing boat access points. There would be no effects to the Cheoah
River flow, water temperature or water quality resulting from this project.
2. Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks. The new flow regime will
inevitably alter the stream channel and banks as substrates and large woody debris are
rearranged by the flows. These rearranging actions are restoring the river to a more
natural condition which should provide better habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. The
river access sites would be stabilized to prevent erosion and bank instability.
Approximately 30 linear feet of stream bank per boat access site would be hardened.
There would be no effects to the stream channel or banks from this project.
3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel. The pool, riffle, run complex
within the Cheoah River is largely determined by the underlying bedrock.
Installation of the access sites will not affect these attributes.
4. Stable sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more than low
amounts of fine sediment. The new flow regime is rearranging substrates, depositing
some fines in backwater areas and sequestering some substrate particles from old
deposits. Additional gravels will be supplemented to enhance the habitat within the
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 16

river. Project plans would prevent visible sediment from entering the river; therefore,
there would be no effects to this habitat element.
5. Moderate to high stream gradient. The stream gradient of the Cheoah River will only
change over time as the mountains erode away. Installation of the access sites would
not affect the stream gradient.
6. Periodic natural flooding. While the dam may have some cushioning effects to the
natural flooding patterns, it cannot prevent major floods from affecting the river.
Additionally, high flow events are scheduled for the new flow regime. These events
were scheduled based upon the hydrographs for similar streams and the tributaries of
the Cheoah River. Installation of the access sites would not increase or decrease the
incidence of floods or high flow events (natural or otherwise).
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them. The
improved minimum flows and gravel augmentation should improve habitats for the
fishes within the Cheoah River and invertebrates (Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.,
Tapoco Division, 2003). Fish species that serve as hosts for the Appalachian elktoe
(Dr. Jim Layzer, Tennessee Technological University, unpublished data) which have
been collected in the Cheoah River include warpaint shiner (Luxilus coccogenis),
northern hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans), river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum),
greenfin darter (Etheostoma chlorobranchium), tangerine darter (Percina
aurantiaca), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), and black redhorse (Moxostoma
duquesnii). Project plans would prevent visible sediment from entering the river, thus
there would be no impacts to any of these fishes. The minor reduction of shoreline
habitat associated with the access area construction would not affect the overall
foraging habitat for any fish species.
Effects to the spotfm chub:
Spotfin chub "habitat includes cool and warm, typically clear, large creeks or medium-sized
rivers of moderate gradient, in upland and montane areas, generally in or near moderate and
swift currents over gravel to bedrock, rarely over sand or silt (Lee et al. 1980, Burkhead and
Jenkins 1991). Eggs are laid in stone cracks, crevices, or in the narrow interface of two touching
rocks (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) reported breeding sites in
moderate current of shallow portions of runs, in areas strewn with unsilted rubble and boulders"
(Nature Serve 2009).
Meyer and Sutherland (2005) found that spotfin chubs in the Little Tennessee River spawned
over crevices within bedrock riffles with very little fine sediment. Spawning has been reported
from mid-May through early September (Jenkins and Burkhead 1984; in Meyer and Sutherland
2005).
The Cheoah River at the proposed boat access areas does provide suitable habitat for the spotfin
chub. These sites could be occupied by individuals of the spotfin chub during the construction
phase of the project. The proposed location of the fishing pier is not likely to provide suitable
habitat for spotfin chubs because it is within a pool area.
Direct and Indirect Effects:
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 17

The effects of the proposed boat access areas would be minimized by the project design features
to protect the Appalachian elktoe. Spotfin chubs that occur within the vicinity of the boat access
areas would be able to relocate to areas outside of the construction zones; therefore,
implementation of this project is not likely to adversely affect spotfin chubs.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 18

Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effects of the Cheoah River Recreation Project on the spotfin chub would be the
same as those described for the Appalachian elktoe above.
Determination of Effect
Implementation of the Cheoah River Recreation Project is not likely to adversely affect the
Appalachian elktoe because project design features would be incorporated to avoid direct and
indirect effects to the species and its critical habitat. Implementation of the Cheoah River
Recreation Project is not likely to adversely affect the spotfin chub because project design
features to protect the Appalachian elktoe would also benefit the spotfin chub. Furthermore, the
spotfin chub would be able to relocate to undisturbed areas of the river during instream
construction.
Consultation with the USFWS is necessary for this project.
Table 1.1.3: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered, and
threatened aquatic species.
Species I Alternative A Alternative B
Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
Appalachian elktoe No effects Not likely to Adversely Affect
S otfm chub No effects Not likely to Adversely Affect
1.2 Botanical Resources
Boundaries of Botanical Analysis Areas
The analysis area includes the proposed activity area for the direct effects analysis. For indirect
and cumulative effects, the analysis area includes a two kilometer aerial buffer surrounding the
activity area. This area was chosen to account for potential genetic exchange between any rare
plant subpopulations within the proposed activity area and within the buffered area. In the
absence of species specific interacting population and subpopulation boundaries, Natureserve has
established a decision tree to delineate separate populations based on the habitat and a two
kilometer buffer (Natureserve 2013). The buffer area also provides the area with the greatest
likelihood of spread of invasive plant species.
Species Evaluated and Previous Survey Information
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Eleven federally threatened or endangered (T&E) species are either known to occur or may occur
on the Nantahala or Pisgah National Forests. The Biotics database maintained by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program was queried for occurrences of these species in Graham
County. Two plant T & E species remained after this initial filter (rock gnome lichen,
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 19

Gymnoderma lineare, and Virginia Spiraea, Spiraea virginiana). Based on habitat preferences
and known occurrences, Gymnoderma lineare was eliminated from further analysis. While it has
been located within similar large rivers such as the Chattooga and Pigeon Rivers, it has never
been located below 2200 feet elevation. The Cheoah River recreation project activity area
ranges in elevation from 1200 to 1800 feet across a seven mile stretch of the river. The elevation
gradient is less along the Cheoah River than other river occupied habitat for Gymnoderma
lineare also. Spiraea virginiana has been located within 19 discrete subpopulations along a
nine -mile extent of the Cheoah River extending from just below Santeetlah Dam to just upstream
of the Tapoco Lodge. Virginia Spiraea will be analyzed for impacts from this project.
Previous Surveys or Inventories Conducted
Five subpopulations of Spiraea virginiana were relocated in 2000 for the first time in 50 years
along the Cheoah River. Additional subpopulations have been located along this river corridor
through 2011. Portions of the area have been surveyed in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, and
2011. These additional surveys located 19 subpopulations, including the five first located in
2000.
Existing Conditions
Table 1.2.1: Known and potential Federally threatened or endangered plant species in the
Cheoah River Recreation Project Creek Botanical Analysis Area
Species
Natural Community/Habitat
Local Occurrence
Spiraea virginiana
River scour zone, Rocky bar and
shore, roadside edge
19 subpopulations along Cheoah
River
New Surveys or Inventories Conducted
A survey was conducted in October of 2012 and April of 2013 visiting all the sites within the
proposed activity area. The activity areas are roadside edge, highly to moderately disturbed
montane alluvial forest, and acidic cove forest. The eastern edge of the area is highly fragmented
with NC primary highway 129 within 50-150 feet of the river's edge. As such high quality
montane alluvial forest is not present. Invasive plant species are present although have been
dramatically reduced, except for Microstegium vimineum, with the recent intensive control work
completed from 2009-2012. The western edge of the Cheoah River is primarily dominated by
acidic cove forest with varying densities of Rhododendron maximum. No new populations of
Virginia Spiraea were located during the most recent survey within the proposed activity areas.
Effects of Alternatives on Federally Listed Plant Species
Spiraea virginiana is a perennial, clonal shrub with arching, upright stems. The roots are a
complex system of horizontal rootstock with mats of small fibrous roots. Its root structure and
vegetative characteristics allow it to establish in new sites under appropriate disturbance regimes
(Ogle 1991b). This species grows 2 -10 feet in height. Virginia spiraea flowers from late May to
late July, producing bright to creamy white flowers in a terminal corymb.
Primarily endemic to the southern Appalachian mountains, Virginia spiraea ranges from southern
Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia, south to Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia, and is
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 20

disjunct to Louisiana (Ogle 1991, Natureserve 2013). Twenty-four extant populations occur in
North Carolina in Ashe, Buncombe, Macon, Mitchell, Swain, Yancey, and Graham counties. The
Buncombe County population is considered extirpated. Three populations are documented on
the Nantahala or Pisgah National Forests - one along the Nolichucky River (Pisgah NF), one
along Whiteoak Creek at the confluence to the Nantahala River, and one large population the
Nantahala NF along a nine -mile stretch on the banks of the Cheoah River (NC Biotics database,
G. Kauffman, personal observations).
Virginia spiraea is typically found in disturbed sites along rivers and streams in the mountains,
along the banks of second and third order streams and on point bars and braided sections of
larger streams, where it forms dense thickets around boulders and in rock crevices. Occasionally
these areas are scoured during storm events, and this recurrent disturbance helps to keep Virginia
spiraea individuals free of overtopping trees and shrubs. This species depends on flood scour to
eliminate woody competitors and to create suitable early successional habitat. Federally listed in
1990, the current threats to Virginia spiraea include reservoir construction, severe flooding or
inundation, highway & railroad maintenance and construction, dumping, and extensive clearing
(USFWS 2001). Virginia Spiraea is known to occur throughout the nine -mile length of the
Cheoah River downstream of Santeetlah Dam. Table 1.2.2 indicates how close any of these
subpopulations are to the proposed activity areas.
Table 1.2.2: Locations of Spiraea virginiana subpopulations near the proposed activity areas.
Summary of Proposals
Spiraea vir iniana occurrence
Day Use Put -in just below Santeetlah Dam
One river scour zone subpopulation upstream — 250 feet
Downstream of put -in
One river scour zone subpopulation upstream — 0.1 mile, one
road bank subpopulation downstream — 400 feet
Joyce Kilmer Road Bridge
River scour subpopulation on east bank — 100 feet north of
existing parking lot, other river scour subpopulation on west bank
—250 feet downstream of proposed fishing access pier
Pull -off at intersection of US 129 and
Road bank subpopulations —600 to 1200 feet downstream of the
Yellow Creek Roadpull-off
Access and recreation amenities for river
Forested subpopulation — 350 feet upstream of site
mile 5.1
Fishing access at river mile 3.4
Road bank Subpopulation — 0.2 miles upstream and river scour
subpopulation — 0.3 miles downstream
Access and recreation amenities for river
Subpopulations not documented within 0.5 mile of location
mile 2.3
Fishing access for river mile 1.8 (Big Fat
One river scour and road bank subpopulation on the east side of
Gap Bridge)
the river
Effects of Alternatives on Virginia Spiraea
Alternative A & B: Neither the no -action (A) or action (B) will directly affect Virginia Spiraea.
Since no changes are proposed for Alternative A, there will be no effect to this federally
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 21

threatened shrub. And since the species was not located within the proposed activity areas, there
will be no effect to Virginia Spiraea.
Alternative B:
Indirect Effects
Currently very little suitable habitat occurs within the proposed activity areas given the highly
disturbed sites or the presence of denser Rhododendron maximum shrub layer. Construction of
the put -ins and fishing access trails may prevent future improvement in suitable habitat for
Spiraea virginiana at these sites. These new sites with newly disturbed soils may also provide
habitat for new non-native invasive plant infestations, however this can be curtailed by
monitoring and controlling any new non-native invasive plant outbreaks. Given the small
amount of habitat alteration with the proposed activities there will be only be a discountable
amount of Virginia Spiraea habitat potentially affected for the long-term within the Cheoah
River corridor.
Cumulative Effects
The following table lists the previous activities that have occurred within the Cheoah River
project area.
Table 1.2.3: Potential effects to Spiraea virginiana from past and on-going actions within the
Cheoah River area.
Prior or on-going Actions
Duration
Location
Effects
Santeetlah Dam dewatering
1928 -present
Upstream of all occurrences
Long -term -modification of
suitable habitat
Long-term effect in
NC 129 construction
1967
Parallel to Cheoah River
modifying habitat, both
negative and positive
Barker BeldingBlackgum
1996-2000
West of Cheoah River
No Effect
vegetation removal Project
Goldmine Salvage Project
1996-200
Southern edge of Cheoah River
No Effect
Hazanet vegetation removal
2003-2008
East of Cheoah River
No Effect
project
River Vegetation Clearing
2000 & 2005Uppermost
headwaters of river
Short-term impact on one
sub o ulation
High Flow Releases
2005 -present
Ten annual releases per year
Long-term improves
for 19-20 days
suitable habitat
Gravel Augmentation
2008, 2010, 2012
Dispersed across nine locations
No Effect
American Recovery and
Throughout corridor,
Reduced competition from
Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
2010-2012
concentrated within 100 feet of
NNIS shrubs, trees, and
NNIS control work
all documented sub o ulations
vines
Aquatic Species
2008
Throughout corridor
No Effect
Reintroduction/Augmentation
Woody plant control along
July 2010
Swinging Bridge downstream
Short-term negative effect
bridges
of penstock along NC 129
on one sub o ulation
The improved minimum water flow and the periodic high water releases should provide greater
opportunities to improve or create new suitable habitat for Virginia Spiraea. These ongoing
changes should be greater than the small amount of potential habitat that will be altered with
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 22

implementation of the proposed activities. The past impacts from either cutting or herbiciding of
individual Virginia Spiraea clumps either from periodic road or bridge maintenance or removal
of shrubs prior to the whitewater use has not resulted in the loss of any single subpopulation nor
resulted in the significant loss of stems within any single subpopulation. As such the proposed
project will not result in any cumulative reduction in habitat or subpopulations for Virginia
Spiraea.
Determination of Effects for Federally Listed Species
The Cheoah River project is not likely to adversely affect Spiraea virginiana. Informal
consultation is required for this species. Implementation of the proposed project will have no
effect on any other federally listed plant species.
1.3 Wildlife Resources
Boundaries of Wildlife Analysis Area
For the purposes of direct effects, the analysis area would be the areas purposed for development
in the Cheoah River Recreation Project. For the purposes of indirect and cumulative effects, the
analysis area would include downstream habitat that may be affected by indirect effects and
adjacent terrestrial upland habitat where activities may or have occurred comprising of effects
that may overlap in space or time with effects from the proposed project. The wildlife analysis
area consists of the riparian zone along the Cheoah River and the adjacent in stream habitat and
upland terrestrial habitat that borders the riparian zone.
Species Evaluated and Rationale
All endangered and threatened terrestrial wildlife species, listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 3), were considered for this analysis. The
NCNHP database was queried for T&E species in Graham County. Species with only incidental,
migrant, or historic occurrences in Graham County were not considered further. The remaining
species were further filtered by habitat preferences and the availability of that habitat within the
wildlife analysis area.
Previous Survey Information
Generally, the distribution and range of rare terrestrial wildlife is well known in North Carolina.
The NCNHP Biotics Database was queried for T&E wildlife species in Graham County. The
database contained records for two endangered wildlife species: the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
and the Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus).
Table 1.3.1: Known and potential proposed, endangered, and threatened species in Graham
County.
Species Type Habitat Occurrence
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
Myotis sodalis I Mammal I Roosts in hollow trees and under loose May occur
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 23

Indiana bat
bark and snags (warmer months); in
caves (winter months)
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
Mammal
High elevation forest, mainly spruce -fir
Does not occur
Carolina northern flying
and northern hardwood above 4,000'
squirrel
New Surveys or Inventories Conducted
A site visit was made to the proposed activity areas on October 15, 2012 by Le'Andra Smith, the
Nantahala National Forest wildlife biologist. No special habitats except for the streamside habitat
were noted that could be adversely affected by project activities. The need for additional surveys
was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for TES Species Inventory, as
interpreted by the Interim Guidance for the Nationals Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No
additional surveys were conducted for the Indiana bat in the wildlife analysis area, because
habitat is not limited across the forest. In addition, the restriction to cutting any potential roost
trees to between October 15 and April 15 obviates direct effects that would incur take.
Effects of Alternatives on Terrestrial Wildlife Species
• Indiana.Bat (Myotis sodalis)
Alternative A: There would be no effects to the Indiana bat resulting from implementation of this
alternative, because the existing conditions would not change.
Alternative B:
Direct/Indirect Effects
No currently suitable roost trees will be cut between April 15 and October 15. Thus, there will be
no direct effects to the Indiana bat. Indirectly, felling of trees may remove potential foraging
habitat for the Indiana bat or if necessary potential roost trees. However, large trees within the
riparian area would not be removed during construction to the extent practicable, and most of the
proposed areas are in disturbed sites that would require only a small amount of tree cutting. In
addition, during the site visit, it was determined that roosting habitat did not currently occur
within the proposed activity areas. Due to the small amount of habitat to be altered, the proposed
actions would be unlikely to affect the availability of habitat within the wildlife analysis area.
Cumulative Effects
Past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have been described above in the
Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources section (Section 1.1). Due to the
small amount of trees to be removed, the Cheoah River Recreation Project would not add
appreciably to the cumulative amount of habitat that has been harvested in the wildlife analysis
area or the Cheoah River watershed. Furthermore, because of the length of time that has elapsed
since harvest took place in the wildlife analysis area, the effects from this past activities have
ended; the areas that were previously harvested would currently be suitable habitat for the
Indiana bat. Other actions that have taken place along the riparian corridor and in the stream
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 24

channels of the Cheoah River watershed would not have affected the Indiana bat, and thus would
not add to cumulative effects of this project on the bat.
Determination of Effect
Implementation of the Cheoah River Recreation Project is not likely to adversely affect the
Indiana bat.
Consultation with the USFWS is necessary for this project.
Table 1.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and
threatened wildlife species.
Species I Alternative A Alternative B
Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
Indiana bat I No effect Not likely to Adversely Affect
1.4 Effects Determination for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species
Implementation of the Cheoah River Recreation Project is not likely to adversely affect the
Appalachian elktoe because project design features would be incorporated to avoid direct and
indirect effects to the species and its critical habitat. Implementation of the Cheoah River
Recreation Project is not likely to adversely affect the spotfin chub because project design
features to protect the Appalachian elktoe would also benefit the spotfin chub. Furthermore, the
spotfin chub would be able to relocate to undisturbed areas of the river during instream
construction.
The Cheoah River project is not likely to adversely affect Spiraea virginiana. Informal
consultation is required for this species. Implementation of the proposed project will have no
effect on any other federally listed plant species.
Implementation of the Cheoah River Recreation Project is not likely to adversely affect the
Indiana bat.
1.5 Consultation History
On July 22, 2005, the Cheoah Ranger District received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for the "Revised Biological Assessment for the Proposed Addition of, and
Improvements to, Recreational Facilities on the Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National
Forest, Graham County, North Carolina."
Barry Jones, NFsNC engineer, Le'Andra Smith, Nantahala NF wildlife biologist, and Jason
Farmer, Nantahala NF fisheries biologist meet with Allen Ratzlaff, USFWS biologist, on March
21, 2013 to discuss the Cheoah River Recreation Project. We discussed the proposed project in
generalized terms and agreed upon a process for ongoing communication regarding the proposed
project.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 25

2.0 PREPARERS
Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest
Gary Kauffinann, Botanist, National Forests in North Carolina
April Punsalan, Botanist, National Forests in North Carolina
Le'Andra Smith, Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest
June 10, 2013
Jason Farmer
Fisheries Biologist
Nantahala National Forest
Cheoah Ranger District
1070 Massey Branch Road
Robbinsville, NC 28771
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 26

3.0 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES
Aquatic
Berner, L. and R.K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus
Seratella (Ephemerella: Ephemerellidae). Florida Entomology 44:149-158.
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka (editors). 1982. Aquatic insects and
oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises,
Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pages.
Cantrell, Mark. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC, 28801.
Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four
road surface types in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 27: 100-106.
Dillon, R.T. 1992. Status survey of the knotty elimia, Goniobasis interrupta (Haid.)
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission contract No. 92-Snai-01. 20
pages.
Dodd, B.N. and D. Jones. 2011. Two decades of forestry best management practices monitoring
— Executive summary. USDA, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. 4 pp.
Georgian, T.J. and J.B. Wallace. 1993. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild or
periphyton-grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64:1236-
1248.
Grace, J.M., III. 2002. Effectiveness of vegetation in erosion control from forest road
sideslopes. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
45(3): 681-685.
Hillis, R.E. and E.D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender,
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of
Herpetology 5(3-4):121-126.
Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Number 480. 236 pp.
Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 1987. The exopterygote insect community of a mountain
stream in North Carolina, USA: life histories, production, and functional
structure. Aquatic Insects 9:229-251.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to
evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 27

Alaska. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division,
EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA. 166 pages.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of
North America, third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
962 pages.
The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by
USDA Forest Service under Grant no. 97 -CCS -230.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Biological Conservation Data.
Computerized database.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh -water invertebrates of the United States: protozoa to
mollusca. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 628 pages.
Ridout, S. 2003. Unpublished data. Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth
University. Richmond, Virginia.
Scientific Council Report on Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation
status of North Carolina's freshwater fishes. Annual report prepared in
accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes of North
Carolina. 17 pages plus appendices.
Scientific Council Report on Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna. 1990. A report on the
conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan
fauna. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of
the General Statues of North Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices.
Swank, W.T., J.M. Vose, and K.J. Elliott. 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water quality
responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern
Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 163-178.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest road design to minimize erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In:
Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings of forestry and water quality: a mid -south symposium.
Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas. 141-151.
Terwilliger, K. (editor). 1991. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a
symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg,
Virginia. 672 pages.
U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Management indicator species habitat and population trends -
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Draft internal document, National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville, NC. 817+ pp.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 28

Williams, G. G. 1996. A watershed approach to assessing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
distribution and ecological health in the Hiwassee watershed. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Hiwassee River Action Team. Norris, Tennessee.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control.
American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages.
Botanical
Biotics Database. 2011. As maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Franklin, Misty A., and John T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare plant
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. 136 pp.
Godfrey, R. K., J. W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States:
Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 712 pp.
Goff, F. Glen, Gary A. Dawson and John J. Rochow. 1982. Site examination for Threatened and
Endangered plant species. Environmental Management 6(4):307-316.
Hicks, M. L. Guide to the Liverworts of North Carolina. 1992. Duke University Press, Durham,
North Carolina. 240 p.
Hicks, M. L. and J. L. Amoroso. 1996a. Bryophyte status survey: Megaceros aenigmaticus
Schuster: Brief report recommending 3C status. NC Natural Heritage Program and
Endangered Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh and Asheville,
North Carolina. Revised 1997. 16 pp.
Hicks, M. L. and J. L. Amoroso. 1996a. Bryophyte status survey: Plagiochila caduciloba
Blomquist: Brief report recommending 3C status. NC Natural Heritage Program and
Endangered Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh and Asheville,
North Carolina. Revised 1997. 6 pp.
Hicks, M. L. and J. L. Amoroso. 1996b. Bryophyte status survey: Plagiochila sharpii Blomquist:
NC Natural Heritage Program and Endangered Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife
Service. Raleigh and Asheville, North Carolina. Revised 1997.10 pp.
Hicks, M. L. and J. L. Amoroso. 1996c. Bryophyte status survey: Plagiochila sullivantii (Sull.)
Howe: Brief report recommending 3C status. NC Natural Heritage Program and Endangered
Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh and Asheville, North Carolina.
Revised 1997. 5 pp.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 29

Hicks, M. L. and J. L. Amoroso. 1996c. Bryophyte status survey: Porella wataugensis Gottsch
ex. Evans: Brief report recommending 3C status. NC Natural Heritage Program and
Endangered Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh and Asheville,
North Carolina. Revised 1997. 25 pp.
NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life (web application). 2012. Version 1.2. Arlington,
Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available:
http://www.natureserve.org/.
Radford, Albert E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1967. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Schuster, R. M. 1980. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America east of the hundredth
meridian, volume IV. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. 1334 p.
Weakley, Alan S. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States (Working Draft of 11
May, 2011). University of NC Herbarium, University of NC at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. 994 p.
Wildlife
Biotics Database. 2012. As maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Braswell, Alvin L. 1989. Conservation status of North Carolina amphibians and reptiles.
Scientific council report to the Nongame Advisory Committee.
Clark, Mary Kay, ed. 1987. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part 1. A
reevaluation of the mammals. Occ. Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey
1987-3. 50 pp.
Erdle, S.Y., & C.S. Hobson. 2001. Current status and conservation strategy for the eastern small -
footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Natural Heritage Technical Report #00-19. Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, VA. 17pp +
appendices.
Gatrelle, Ronald R. 1998. Two new Nymphalidae from western North Carolina: New
subspecies of Speyeria aphrodite and Phyciodes batesii. The taxonomic report of the
international lepidoptera survey. Volume 1. Number 3.
Hedin, M.C. 1997. Speciational history in a diverse clade of habitat -specialized spiders
(Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus): inferences from geographic -based sampling. Evolution,
51(6):1929-1945
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 30

Lee, David S. and James F. Parnell. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina.
Part Ill. A re- evaluation of the birds. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological
Survey 1990-1.
LeGrand, H.E. et al. 2012. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning,
and Community Affairs, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Revised
February 27, 2013.
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, and Julian R. Harrison 111. 1980.
Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, U.N.C. Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
264 pp.
Petranka, J.W., & C.K. Smith. 2005. A functional analysis of streamside habitat use by southern
Appalachian salamanders: implications for riparian forest management. Forest Ecology
and Management, 210:443-454
Petranka, J.W. et al. 1993. Effects of timber harvesting on southern Appalachian salamanders.
Conservation Biology, 7(2):363-370.
Sever, David M., H.A. Dundee, and C.D. Sullivan. 1976. A new Eurycea (Amphibia:
Plethodontidae) from southwestern North Carolina. Herpetologica 32:26-29.
Vanderah, Glenda C. and Scott K. Robinson. 1992. Distribution and habitat selection of the
Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) in s. Illinois. Report submitted to the Audubon
Council of Ill. 10 pp.
Webster, Wm. David, James F. Parnell, and Walter C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. U. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.
255 pp.
Williams, Lori. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 177 Mountain Laurel Lane,
Fletcher, NC 28732
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 31

4.0 Attachments
Attachment 1: Endangered and threatened aquatic species.
Attachment la: Endangered and threatened aquatic species, Nantahala National Forest.
USFS Status
Type
Species
Habitat/Distribution
Endangered/
Threatened
Bivalve
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Little Tennessee River drainage and
Tuckasee ee River; Nolichucky River
Bivalve
Pegias_fabula
Lower Little Tennessee River; historic
record from Valley River, Cherokee
Co.
Bivalve
Villosa trabalis
Hiwassee River, below Appalachia Dam
Fish
Erimonax monachus
Little TN River; French Broad River
system
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 32

Attachment lb: Endangered, threatened, and proposed, aquatic species evaluated for the
Cheoah River Recreation Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring rare
aquatic species from Graham County, NC, and the Little Tennessee River system. Potential
occurrence is based on known distributions of the species and the presence of suitable habitat.
Type
Name
Likelihood of Occurrence in
Analysis Area
Threatened and Endangered S ecies
Mollusk
Alasmidonta raveneliana Known to occur
Fish
Erimonax monachus Known to occur
Notes:
1 = No suitable habitat present or vicinity records in the analysis area, but the species may be present in the county.
2 = Suitable habitat present, but no vicinity records.
3 = Vicinity records, in or downstream of the analysis area, but not necessarily in project area.
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 33

Attachment 2: National Forests in NC Rare Plant Species filtered for Graham
County.
Federally Listed Plant Species
Species Common Name Tvpe Natural Communities, habitat
Attachment 3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened, Terrestrial Animal
Species, Nantahala National Forest.
Species I Type I Habitat
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
Microhexura montivaga
High Elevation Rocky Summit, Moist Rock Outcrop
In moss of spruce -fir forests (endemic to NC &
Spruce -fir moss spider
in Acidic Cove in Gorge, High Elevation Granitic
G mnoderma lineare
Rock Gnome Lichen
Lichen
Dome
S iraea vir iniana
Virginia S iraea
Vascular plant
I Riverside scour zone
Attachment 3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened, Terrestrial Animal
Species, Nantahala National Forest.
Species I Type I Habitat
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
Microhexura montivaga
Arachnid
In moss of spruce -fir forests (endemic to NC &
Spruce -fir moss spider
adjacent TN)
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
High elevation forest, mainly spruce -fir and northern
Carolina northern flying
Mammal
hardwood above 4,000'
squirrel
Mvotis grisescens
Mammal
Roosts in caves; forages mainly over open water
Gray bat
Mvotis sodalis
Mammal
Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and
Indiana bat
snags (warmer months); in caves (winter months
Patera clarki nantahala
Terrestrial Gastropod
Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site in Swain Co)
Noonday lobe
Cheoah River Recreation Project Biological Assessment 34

0
N AN TAH ALA NATIONAL FOREST
CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT
CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA
RIVER MILE 5.1
RIVER ACCESS RAMP 8c PARKING CONSTRUCTION
Project Site
• 'i
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
REGION 8 RECOMMOM BY. Bandon Hauck — Acting District Ranger
Date
SHEET DESCRIPTION
1 COVER SHEET
2 EXISTING SITE PLAN & DEMOLITION PLAN
3 EXISTING SITE PLAN & PROJECT LAYOUT
4 LAYOUT COORDINATES & ELEVATIONS
5 P. LOT DIMENSIONING & PAINTED STRIPING LAYOUT
6 RAMPS & RETAINING WALLS PROFILES
7 FOOTINGS & RETAINING WALLS SECTIONS
8 SAFETY RAILINGS LAYOUTS & PROFILES
9 SURFACE RUN-OFF MANAGEMENT
10 SIGNAGE & EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
11 LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS LAYOUT
RECOMMENDED BY. James B. Jones — Eng/Rec/Heritage/Lands Staff Officer Date I 1
APPROVED BY Man Nicholas — Forest Supervisor

D
35'24'29" N 83.53'11" W
REFERENCE OBJECTS FOR BENCHMARK (1000.00'):
1. HIGH POINT ON ROCK BEARS N 4728' W 27.6'
2. TRIPLE SYCAMORE BEARS N 78'59'W 20.2'
3. 14" MAPLE BEARS S 04'04' W 20.4'
REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACING
AND RE—USE TO BACKFlLL RETAINING WALL
a
0
C,
AWCUT EDGE OF c0
EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP.) O 4
0 00
100
o
/ Tell A t
Z_ 1
m ~
x
00
-_2t a. N
O o+ QiY a o / W a
99500
L) 3 / i i 9 4
Fn 99
m m a
e y W
90
o w _
fe
I -
W GHEE A�Tom in
999
AM jt2 m /
0 99 0 ®5 Bm966 L) CL
\\ �' / _ — — — ' — aMAGNETIC NORTH (FEBRUARr zolo)�
m
°ss ® /
F, o
_ _\ -- 0 / i
06 �-
CHEOAH
— /ow
0"
/ xa w006 orn
/ &o< �o
ax
957 _
i
TBM's COORDINATES & ELEVATION
TBM #
COORDINATES
ELEVATION
1
5187.5783, 4888.8707
1000.0
&PARKING CONSTRUCTION
4870.0137, 4877.2400
998.0
E32
5459.9042, 5009.4318
1002.77
INSTALL SILT FENCE TO THE
DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET 9
AND AS DIRECTED BY THE COR
LEGEND
0° REBAR WITH I.D. CAP (SET)
TO BE USED AS CONTROL POINTS
Q TREE (SIZE AND SPECIES AS NOTED)
TREE LINE
fogE5T5ENCE U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
S REGION 8
NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST
CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT
PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1
RIVER ACCESS RAMP
EXISTING SITE PLAN & DEMOLITION PLAN
U
&PARKING CONSTRUCTION
"t�NTOF NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C.
CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA
SCALE. 1" - 20'
1

LEGEND
O° REBAR WITH I.D. CAP (SET)
TO BE USED AS CONTROL POINTS
Q TREE (SIZE AND SPECIES AS NOTED)
TREE LINE
35'24'29" N 83'53'11' W
REFERENCE OBJECTS FOR BENCHMARK (1000.00'):
1. HIGH POINT ON ROCK BEARS N 4T28' W 27.6'
2. TRIPLE SYCAMORE BEARS N 78'59'W 20.2'
3. 14" MAPLE BEARS S 04'04' W 20.4'
a
0
� o PSPNALS
0
0
SILT FENCE TO THE DETAILS
ON SHEET 9 AND AS
D BY THE CDR
fopEST
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 3
[JCRs REGION 8 CHECIAH RANGER DISTRICT RI PARKING LOT LAYOUT
q,WE�1DA VER ACCESS RAMP & PARKNG CONSIRUC110N SCALE: 111= 20
NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C. CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA 1 y
_1004
MWNLTC nOwrN (FESR r 2010)
—
TOM IL 1
• 113+52
12 9
;
�.
X 001
NV�Y
, ; .. _ _ -��`
i.i
3+28 r t�
o
-'p o 6
6
3 2 -' ��� X994 .�
4 -'� \ �i�/ /%i�� 992 _ pF
2+88 // 20 -PW �/ j EORNE
8
ur wv0+00
990
• ..
..
—\
\
I\
—� .( LONER
1+46.—._._._._.—
•
✓
� \
1' \•SEDIMENT POOL
EARGEaLNP
_98 9
- __ _. _ - -
\ \
\}�G+47 --� / /
^
PARA' r
. �! 'HtO FN R '
- - -
/
'--•.\\
/
,au'
88
/ / 9
gg9-
0+93
/
TSM #2
966\
r pop,
1
994\
tz- TME sc
99
990\
EDGE OF RIVER
FT. WIDE HANDICAPPED
ACCESSIBLE RAMP
g88 _ — — —
f— CHEOAH RIVER
� / /
TOP OF EXPOSED ROCK
ELEV.991.30
/
TBM's COORDINATES & ELEVATION
TBM #
COORDINATES
ELEVATION
1
5187.5783, 4888.8707
1000.0
2
4870.0137, 4877.2400
998.0
3
5459.9042, 5009.4318
1002.77
SILT FENCE TO THE DETAILS
ON SHEET 9 AND AS
D BY THE CDR
fopEST
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 3
[JCRs REGION 8 CHECIAH RANGER DISTRICT RI PARKING LOT LAYOUT
q,WE�1DA VER ACCESS RAMP & PARKNG CONSIRUC110N SCALE: 111= 20
NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C. CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA 1 y

TBM a
O
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
W04
REGION 8
NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C.
a
O
TOW p
LAYOUT COORDINATES & ELEVATIONS
POINT
COORDINATES
REMARKS
TBM #1
5187.5783, 4888.8707
ELEV. 1000.0
TBM #2
4870.0137, 4877.2400
ELEV. 998.00
TBM #3
5459.9042, 5009.4318
ELEV. 1002.77
0+00
5059.0016 - 4933.8968
F.E. 1000.00
0+47
5090.7883 - 4898.9261
F.E. 1000.00
0+93
5132.5996 - 4891.2936
F.E. 1000.00
1+34
5169.2139 - 4909.9819
1+46
5180.8557 - 4914.2332
F.E. 1001.50
2+88
5319.2531 - 4946.3935
F.E. 1001.50
3+28
5341.7122 - 4975.3461
3+52
5341.1650 - 4999.1835
1001.00
1
5289.0025 - 4950.6570
2
5284.4756 - 4970.1380
F.E. 1000.90
3
5198.7594 - 4950.2196
F.E. 1000.90
4
5203.2863 - 4930.7387
5
5298.4854 - 4930.2745
F.E. 1001.70
6
5297.1429 - 4917.5962
BEGIN RET. WALL
7
5161.4258 - 4875.9843
RET. WALL A.P.
8
5138.6293 - 4853.5942
END RET. WALL
9
5096.9951 - 4866.9673
CULVERT OUTLET
10
5116.6880 - 4922.4677
LOWER SED POO
11
5312.6801 - 4974.6796 j
UPPER SED POO
NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST
PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1
4
CHECIAH RANGER DISTRICT TIOLAYOUT COORDI RTS & ELEVATIONS
CMG STRUC
SCALE. 1" = 20'
CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA 11

PLASTIC NHEEL STOP - BLUE COLOR (HC) WHITE COLOR (NON -HC)
CS -33-8 w/ CS -AK ASPHALT HARDWARE KIT AS SUPPLIED BY
2:1 FIN. SLOPE (TYP. -1 8' 24'� T@S EQUIPMENT CO. 600-348-0860 " "
SHOULDER "
(TYP.) 2' COMPACTED DEPTH
BITUMINOUS SURFACING (TYP.)
4 -WIDE SOLID WHITE
STRIPING (TYP.)
i
WHEELSTOP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
O+Dom
6' MIN. DEPTH COMPACTED
ABC STONE BASE (TYP.)
4' NIDE SOLID BLUE
STRIPING (TYP.)
J 24' O.C.
3+52 _
rDRE5T 5ENCE U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 5
U S REGION 8 C H E 0 A H RANGER DISTRICT RIVER ACCESS RAMP & PARKING CONSTRUCTION PARKING [01 DIMENSIONING & PAINTED STRIPING LAYOUT
E�� NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C. CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA SCALE: 1" 1 y

r
990.0
PROFILE
TOP OF WALL
1001.0
TOP OF WALL
/ -998.0
_--
I. ELEV. FIN. ELEV. - - - - - - - - - - -~-- - - ---- -
FIN. ELEV. FIN. ELEV.
993.2 993.3 _ - _ -
FIN. ELEV. 7 1------
990.7
2X SLOPE __--------
_____ 5'-0'
LANDING -
5' -0'
LANDING
39'-0' RIVER ACCESS AREA 30'-0' RAMP AT 8.33X GRADE 30'-0' RAMP AT 8.33% GRADE 30'-0' RAMP AT 8.33X
-6' TO END OF WALL
.TOP OF WALL
1001.0
.LEV. FIN. ELEV.
8.4 998.55-A
�1000
SPECIAL PLANTINGS
SEE SPECIFICATIONS
990
SECTION A
PROFILE ALONG RETAINING WALL
-0' RAMP AT 8.33X GRADE
TOP OF WALL
IFIN. ELEV. 1005.05
1 1001.0
12'-0' RAMP--51-0"-______--� r---�
AT 5.42X SLOPE LEVEL _ _ _ r_ -- _ _
2' DEPTH BITUMINOUS IN. ELEV.
SURFACIN 1001.70 /-{IN. ELEV. 1001.05 = I 30'-0' RAMP AT 8.33X GRADE ' -0' LANDING
----- --- ---
,DDD ------- ��--
993
PROFILE ALONG RAMP CENTERINE
LAYER PLACED COMPACTED FILL
(USE SELECT EXCESS EXCAVATION
,-EXISTING
--E GROUND PROFILE 77
_
/ LEEXCAVATION
OFF SITE IN A LEGAL MANNER _ 7777777
-
GROUND PROFILE ALONG ACCESSIBLE RAMP OUTER EDGE
5'-0'
STRIP FOOTING &
-0' RAMP AT 8.33X
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 6
S
REGION 8 CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT ACCESS RAMPS &RETAINING WALL PROFIEES RIVER ACCESS RAMP & PARKING CONSTRUCTION SCALE: 1 -5'
NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C. CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA 11

_6• 29'
PROFILE - SAFETY RAIL ON RETAINING WALL
�12'-0'
BITUMB.JOUS
PAVEMEW,- 3 -RAIL I I LANDING
HANDRAIL
PLAN VIEW F.N
HANDRAIL
--I H2" LEVEL
DETAIL A
PROFILE - HANDRAIL ON RAMP
1.90. O.D-
SCH. 40 ALUMINUM PIPE
RAILINGS h POSTS (TYP.)
1.90
ALUM
1.50' O.
A
PART NO. 5827 BY SHARPE PI
3/B• DIP
S.STEEI
SUB 6' MIN. AND SET POST
'OXY ADHESIVE (TYP.)
POST SPACING NOT TO
EXCEED 7'-0. O.C. (TYP.)
DETAIL B
DETAIL 6
998.50
GTHS
\�- DETAIL A SINGLE HANDRAIL DETAILPOSTS IG NOT TO
EXC EDS6AON D.C. (TYP.)
37'-0
40'-0'
40'-0'
22'-4'
--- - -- zr- - PROFILE - HANDRAIL ON RAMP
S
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 7
REGION 8 CHE0AH RANGER DISTRICT RIVER ACCESS RAMP & PARKING CONSTRUCTION SAFETY RAILINGS LAYOUTS & PROFILES
NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C. CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA SCALE. 1" = 5' 11

0
F P.: "F;
,.I]F.,Fi '.J,
�._''.: F F.. pl
4_ ..-
-HEC _TNIF
FI FFE'F :,T
fFl I:F.:!II F
RET. WALL DRAIN
RAMP AT 5.4K
Pt. F_ E - -I J_
._ G T14 ,:
STEMWALL/RAMP SECTION
1000
\
\
5'-0'
1X12 PT (GROUND CONTACT) OTMw 85R(�)12' O.C. STABLE
EXPANSION BOARD (TYP. CUT SLOPE \
SAW CUT 1-1/4' DEEP
/8' DIA. X 16- LONG HOG SMOOTH BAR
3—PER JOINT — GREASE TO PREVENT
BONDING TO CONCRETE (TYP.)
EXPANSI❑N JOINTS DETAIL CONTROL J❑INT DETAIL
RAMPLLANDING JOINTS DETAIL
E.I1F
L: ELE:
LE: Et: E•:E=: E`. C:..r T!Ou
CCP.+FACT is TIL
3 � �
993
#5 TIE—BAR AT 48' O.C.
I,_,�, EF 001' ri..,...C,,t LIFE TE DF CI�i
999
RETAINING WALL SECTION
11

LASS B
1000
20'-0' DIA
TOP OF SEDIMENT POOL (RAIN GARDEN)
1001
22'-0' ROAD 00
GRAVEL 2% IN -SLOPE (TY
SHOULDER (TYP.)
II=lN.
1001
_ED
NC DOT ABC STONE BASE
EROSION BLANKET LINED
DRAINAGE DITCH
UPPER SEDIMENT POOL PROFILE
F
M
F IVER BANK UPPER SEDIMENT POOL p o
(RAIN GARDEN) Op ,
ENERGY DISSIPATOR CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE DITC
1 SEE TAIL THIS SHEET •. 1 1
NOT TO SCALE P�[. AN VIEW '13+52 "I
i
LOWER SEDIMENT POOL
(RAIN GARDEN) 3+26
1.
0 COY,_�-•-•�' p -
1 FUTURE
' • • '•<' p 2 VAULT TOILET
6 2+88
1+46--
1+34
47
0+93
l -
-
18 rSHOULDER (TYP.)
z
NOT TO SCALE 4• m
EROSION BLANKET
QUICK GRASS PRO
DRAINAGE DITCH SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
-{ 12- �-- ---{ 12 }-
CULVERT INSTALLATION DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
22'-0- ROAD WIDTH
/-2* DEPTH CPACTED
2:1 FILL SLOPE 2X IN -SLOPE (TYP.) BITUMINOUS SURFACING
LASS B RIPRAP
ENERGY DISSIPATOR APRON
998 �000
RIVER 990
f0AE5T SERykF
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
US REGION 8
YERtOf NATIONAL FORESTS IN N•C
OUTLET INVERT
ELEV. 994.92
CLASS B RIPRAP
ENERGY DISSIPATOR APRON
30' DIA. X 54 FT. LONG
MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH GALV. DRAINAGE CULVERT
DOT ABC STONE BEDDING
INLET INVERT
ELEV. 996.00
LOWER SED VENT POOL PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
,RAIN GARDEN PLANTINGS
BY THE FOREST SERVICE (TYP.)
9988
N AN TAH ALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 Q
CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT RP ACCESS RAMP & PARKING COU NCION SURFACE RUN-OFF MANAGEMENT `J
CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA SCALE. 1" = 20' 1
EITCTPLACED OR ABC STONE
\ \
\
.:..
5IL
•=•
• ,l'oz
ABC STONE UACKFILL. i
its? i
-{ 12- �-- ---{ 12 }-
CULVERT INSTALLATION DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
22'-0- ROAD WIDTH
/-2* DEPTH CPACTED
2:1 FILL SLOPE 2X IN -SLOPE (TYP.) BITUMINOUS SURFACING
LASS B RIPRAP
ENERGY DISSIPATOR APRON
998 �000
RIVER 990
f0AE5T SERykF
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
US REGION 8
YERtOf NATIONAL FORESTS IN N•C
OUTLET INVERT
ELEV. 994.92
CLASS B RIPRAP
ENERGY DISSIPATOR APRON
30' DIA. X 54 FT. LONG
MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH GALV. DRAINAGE CULVERT
DOT ABC STONE BEDDING
INLET INVERT
ELEV. 996.00
LOWER SED VENT POOL PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
,RAIN GARDEN PLANTINGS
BY THE FOREST SERVICE (TYP.)
9988
N AN TAH ALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 Q
CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT RP ACCESS RAMP & PARKING COU NCION SURFACE RUN-OFF MANAGEMENT `J
CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA SCALE. 1" = 20' 1

4
2X2 POSTS (TYP.)
EXIST. .:
GROUND—
— LLL VA
ROUN
—LLLVA IIUN—
MIRAFI 10OX WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
OR APPROVED EQUAL
NOTE: SILT FENCE FABRIC SHALL
BE ANCHORED AS SHOWN FOR THE
LENGTH OF THE INSTALLATION.
HAND—TAMPED
—SECTION—
SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
NOT TO SCALE
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
18"X30"
RV- PARKING TYPE III REFLECTIVE ALUM.
ONLY
REGULATORY SIGI
SCALE: 3/4" = V-0"
DETAIL
9X12
VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGN
12X7 R7-8
RESERVED PARKING SIGN
3 LBS./FT. GREEN ENAMEL
DIRECT BURIAL W/ SPLICE
U—CHANNEL STEEL POST (TYP.)
o NOTES:
1. ALL HARDWARE ITEMS SHALL BE
HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED.
2. BOLTS SHALL BE TAMPER PROOF.
z
0
n
ACCESSIBILITY SIGN DETAIL
TEMPORARY
STRAW BALES SILT CHECKS
NOT TO SCALE
8. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM BEHIND TEMPORARY SILT FENCES
WHEN THE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT REACHES SIX (6) INCHES.
9. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED
WITHIN TWO (2) MONTHS AFTER THE FOREST SERVICE HAS RELEASED
THE PROJECT.
B STOP SIGN DETAIL
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1
tGgES?SEgyl�t REGION 8 C H E 0 A H RANGER DISTRICT RIVER ACCESS RAMP & PARK NG CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE &EROSION CONTROL DETAIES
U�S
�BEYENf OFAGR NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C. CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA
10
11
1.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED
\ r\ / SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS PRIOR TO BEGINNING EARTH DISTURBING
ACTIVITIES. ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES
KEY 8" INTO
MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.
THE GROUND
2.
TEMPORARY DIVERSION BERMS AND/OR DITCHES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED
AS NEEDED TO PROTECT WORK AREAS FROM UPSLOPE RUNOFF AND/OR
I
III 11'
TO DIVERT SEDIMENT TO APPROPRIATE TRAPS OR STABLE OUTLETS.
!III
'III
STOP
I l \ III=iI
3.
STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
30"X30" STOP R1-1
i
IN PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HAVE
BUT IN NO CASE MORE THAN
TYPE III REFLECTIVE ALUM.
TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED,
14 DAYS AFTER WORK HAS CEASED, UNLESS ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION
OF THE SITE WILL RESUME WITHIN 10 DAYS.
_'"'=I
-
4.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 18"
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. THE SKIRT SHALL BE ANCHORED IN A TRENCH
2X2 X 3 FT. ANCHOR STAKES
8" DEEP BY 4" WIDE AND BACKFILLED WITH COMPACTED
2 FT. ON CENTERS
MATERIAL.
10®/
I
5.
SILT FENCE SHALL BE PREFABRICATED MIRAFI 10OX SILT FENCE WITH
I
r
1-1/2" X 1-1/2" HARDWOOD POSTS (W/ 8" MIN. EMBEDMENT INTO FIRM
EDGE OF
®,
\
NATIVE SOIL), OR EQUAL.
PAVEMENT 24" MIN.
BALES TO BUTT
TOGETHER
6.
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT END OF
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE
DIVERSION DITCHES.
8" AND COMPACTED BY HAND TAMPING.
/ I
GROUND TO A DEPTH OF
AND
SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE PLACED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION
EMBANKMENT. REMOVE ALL TRAPS AS DIRECTED BY C.O. AFTER
PROJECT COMPLETION. SEDIMENT TRAP CONSTRUCTION
®
SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO BID ITEM EROSION CONTROL.
7.
ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INSPECTED
NOTES: RECOMMENDED SOURCE FOR STANDARD AND CUSTOM SIGNS IS
— PLAN
—
EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS OR AFTER EACH RAINFALL OCCURANCE THAT
ALPHABET SIGNS, 800-582-6366 OR www.olphobetsigns.com
EXCEEDS ONE—HALF (1/2) INCH. DAMAGED OR INEFFECTIVE DEVICES
ATTACH SIGNS TO POST W/ (2) #8 X 3" LONG
SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED
STAINLESS STEEL PAN HEAD WOOD SCREWS (TYP.)
TEMPORARY
STRAW BALES SILT CHECKS
NOT TO SCALE
8. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM BEHIND TEMPORARY SILT FENCES
WHEN THE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT REACHES SIX (6) INCHES.
9. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED
WITHIN TWO (2) MONTHS AFTER THE FOREST SERVICE HAS RELEASED
THE PROJECT.
B STOP SIGN DETAIL
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1
tGgES?SEgyl�t REGION 8 C H E 0 A H RANGER DISTRICT RIVER ACCESS RAMP & PARK NG CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE &EROSION CONTROL DETAIES
U�S
�BEYENf OFAGR NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.C. CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA
10
11

G
,5ERV,CL U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
bOpE5T4s REGION 8
'RIMENT OF NG NATIONAL FORESTS IN N.0
COVER W/ LANDSCAPE FABRIC
AND MULCH (SEE NOTES)
SEED 5' MADE MOWING STRIP ALONG U.S. 129
1*
SEE NOTES FOR GRASS SEED DETAI
RAIN GARDE
See Rain Garden Plant Liet
SEED DITCH W/
EXTEND RAIN GARDEN PLANTINGS INTO
`.
NATIVE GRASS MIX (SEE NOTES
5' MADE RECTANGLE BETWEEN PARKING
SPACES 1-8. COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FABRIC
AND MULCH
II
l� ,RM SYC
RAIN GARDE
CC
SEE RAIN GARDEN PLANT LIST
-
COVER W/ LANDSCAPE FABRIC AND MULCH,
/
`J "
syc MULCH ES
PLANTING
COVER W/ LANDSCAPE FABRIC
AND MULCH - SEE NOTES-'� 29 1
_
®
1 O RM
\ OUTSIDE
BEDS AS NOTED
/_ �.,.•�� ®
O
���
%4
�' 4 b 2
1 l -.- —
.i� O 6 5
1lJ
_
TP
SYC
l EES
OUTSIDE PLAP
BEDS AS NOT
B
K .i I
RM
.i SYC O
'� \J / — — — -
\
C� •,//� RB nn _ /R jK LXNDSGAPE- -_ ` Y
CF (� ' I ' I I ' �i /' SB i //_FABRIC-
A r RB
RM RR RB / \ II '0Cc IG �� rJ'r� r�OPi
,, / , - i LwGEE P ARK
\_ R9 {� PLR ;% •�.,^,/ // ` ' T"'Or `
Hv)
ST K TP
CUSS B RIPRAP
I - NERG`DIS�SLP� j
- LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS LAYOUT
NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT: RIVER MILE 5.1 11
CHEOAH RANGER DISTRICT RIVER ACCESS RAMP & PARKING COORUCIM LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS LAYOUT
CHEOAH RIVER RECREATION AREA SCALE. 1' = 20' 11