United States 

Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Environmental Assessment

2014 Tallaseehatchee Bridge

Talladega Ranger District, National Forests in Alabama

Clay County Alabama

T21S R5E S15

For Information Contact: Gloria Nielsen

1001 North Street

Talladega, AL 35160

(256) 362-2909 ext.121
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer.
iv

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................1

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................................................3

1.3.1 Detailed Proposed Action..................................................................................................................4

1.4 DECISION FRAMEWORK..........................................................................................................................7

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...........................................................................................................................7

2.0 Alternatives..................................................................................................................................................8

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION.................................................................................................................8

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: (PROPOSED ACTION) .....................................................................................................8

2.2.1 Project Design Criteria..................................................................................................................8

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Detailed Analysis.............................................................11

2.3.1 Alternative 3: Remove bridge and not have a through road.........................................................11

2.3.2 Alternative 4: Removal of bridge and let vehicles ford the creek. ................................................11

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND .................................................................................................................12

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................................................................12

3.1 Water Quality and Soil Resources.........................................................................................................12

3.1.1 Affected Environment .....................................................................................................................12

3.1.2 Direct/Indirect Effects .....................................................................................................................13

3.1.3 Cumulative Effects on Water Resources – All Alternatives............................................................14

3.2 Vegetation andWildlife, Including Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, andSensitive (PETS) Species & 

Designated Critical Habitat...........................................................................................................................14

3.2.1 Management Indicator Species (MIS) & Demand Species.............................................................14

3.2.1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................16

3.2.1.2 Selected Species.......................................................................................................................16

3.2.1.3 Effects by Alternative ...............................................................................................................17

3.2.1.4 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................................17

3.2.2 Sensitive Species..............................................................................................................................18

3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................22

3.2.2.2 Selected Sensitive Species.......................................................................................................22

3.2.2.3 Effects by Alternative ..............................................................................................................24

3.2.2.4 Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives .......................................................................................25
iv

3.2.3 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Candidate & Designated Critical Habitat.............................26

3.2.3.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................29

3.2.3.2 Selected Species.......................................................................................................................30

3.2.3.3 Effects by Alternative ...............................................................................................................31

3.3 Health andHuman Safety........................................................................................................................32

3.3.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................32

3.3.2 Effects by Alternative .............................................................................................................................32

3.3.3 Cumulative Effects onHealth andHuman Safety..............................................................................33

3.4 Heritage Resources ..............................................................................................................................33

3.4.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................33

3.4.2 Effects by Alternative .............................................................................................................................33

3.4.3 Cumulative Effects onHeritage Resources....................................................................................34

4.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................................................35

5.0LISTOFPREPARERS ........................................................................................................................................37

TABLES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

Table 1 Project Design Criteria......................................................................9

Table 2 Management Indicator Species selected for use in the Tallaseehatchee

Bridge EA from MIS species listed in the Long Range Management 

Plan.............................................................................................15

Table 3 Sensitive Species Included in Analysis and Rationale............................18

Table 4 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species Considered 

and Included/Excluded from Analysis in EA/BE– Talladega Division..........27

Table 5 List of Preparers.............................................................................39

 
iv

MAPS

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

1.2-1 Vicinity Map for Project Area ............................................................................. 2

1.3-1 Proposed Action Project Area Map...................................................6
v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BA Basal Area

BMP Best Management Practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CCF 100 Cubic Feet

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

HMA Habitat Management Area 

KV Knutson-Vandenberg

MIS Management Indicator Species 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFA National Forests in Alabama

NFSR National Forest System Road

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

PILT Payments in Lieu of Taxes

PETS Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive

RCW Red-cockaded Woodpecker

ROD Record of Decision

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIO Scenic Integrity Objectives

SPB Southern Pine Beetle

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WMA Watershed Management Area
v

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental assessment (EA) documents the results of an analysis of the potential 

environmental impacts of actions proposed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Forest Service (USFS) to replace the multi-span Tallaseehatchee Creek bridge on NFSR 607 with a

single span bridge on the Talladega Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest, which is part 

of the National Forests in Alabama.

This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969 (42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.) which requires an environmental analysis for

Federal Actions having the potential to impact the quality of the human environment; the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 

through 1508) for implementing NEPA; Forest Service Procedures for Implementing CEQ 

regulations (Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 1950); and the Forest Service Policy and 

Procedures Handbook (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15).

A key objective of NEPA is to help Federal agency officials make well-informed decisions about 

agency actions. The District Ranger on the Talladega Ranger District is faced with a decision as to 

what, if anything, the USFS should do to replace the current failing bridge. This decision will be 

made within the overall management framework already established in the:

• 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama 

(RLRMP NFA), and its accompanying EIS and Record of Decision (ROD).

The Forest Plan establishes overall rules and guidance for actions taken within the Talladega Ranger 

District. Therefore, the alternative courses of action considered in this EA were crafted to be 

consistent with the concepts established in the above documents.

1.1 BACKGROUND

During recent bridge inspections on the Talladega Ranger District, engineers recommended 

replacement of the bridge structure located on NFSR 607. This multi-span bridge was constructed in 

1939. NFSR 607 is open year round for public traffic and provides access for people recreating, 

hunting, and accessing private land.

1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The project area is located on the Talladega Ranger District of the Talladega National Forest in Clay 

County, Alabama approximately 0.6 miles east of Rocky Mountain Church on NFSR 607. The 

specific area being analyzed is a corridor extending out from the centerline of the existing structure, 

100 feet in the downstream direction and 100 feet in the upstream direction. The project area also 

extends east and west of Tallaseehatchee Creek for approximately 500 feet each direction along 

NFSR 607 to allow for possible road re-alignment and staging of construction equipment. 
2

Figure1.2-1

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product

accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing

accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS

products for purposes other than those for which they were created may

yield inaccurate or misleading results. This information was released on

7/03/2014. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, 

modify or replace GIS products without notification.
3

The stream banks upstream and downstream of the bridge are stable and have mature trees and 

shrubs growing on them. There is no indication of recent or historical bank erosion, stream 

widening, down cutting or aggradation on either side of the existing structure. The mature trees and 

shrubs on the stream banks help to retain appropriate channel dimensions at this time, and the Forest 

Service has created barriers adjacent to the structure to prevent vehicle access to the stream to help 

protect riparian vegetation. The vicinity map, Figure 1.2-1 shows the project location in the center 

of the map near the junction of NFSR 601 and 607. Figure 1.3-1 shows a more detailed project area 

view.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The construction of a new bridge is necessary to replace a multi-span bridge that was constructed in 

1939. The proposed project is an activity implementing the NFA Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan and is subject to pre-decisional objection process at 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and 

B. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2004 RLRMP NFA, and helps 

move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan. Goals and objectives 

established by the 2004 RLRMP NFA met by this proposal are:

● Goal 8: Riparian ecosystems, wetlands and aquatic systems are managed and/or restored to 

protect and maintain soil, water, vegetation, fish and wildlife associated resource values. 

● Goal 9: Provide riparian and aquatic ecosystem conditions that are suitable to maintain well 

distributed viable populations of all aquatic species native to the planning area. Manage for diverse, 

balance, integrated, and adaptive aquatic/riparian communities, and provide habitat conditions to 

support desirable population levels and distribution of selected species (e.g. species with special 

habitat needs such as shoal, cave or spring obligates; recreationally important species; threatened or 

endangered species; or species of special interest). 

● Goal 11: Substantially contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, and provide for the conservation of sensitive species so as to minimize the need 

for additional federal listings under the Endangered Species Act. 

● Goal 35: Provide a transportation system that supplies safe and efficient access to forest 

users while protecting forest resources. 

● Objective 35.2: Prioritize road maintenance and reconstruction projects in accordance with 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species recovery and conservation efforts. 

Federally listed aquatic species are known to occupy the stream in the project area. Replacing the 

multi-span bridge with a single span bridge will make debris dams less likely during high water

events. Debris dams resulting from high water events eventually cause passage issues during the 

subsequent low water times. 

In addition, a new bridge will correct safety concerns associated with accessing the existing structure 

during high flow conditions. Several times a year Tallaseehatchee Creek will flow over the top of 
4

the existing bridge presenting a hazard to those driving the road. The existing structure, due to its 

design, is also prone to log and debris jams after flooding. 

In 2011, the Talladega Ranger District completed its Travel Analysis. The purpose of this analysis is 

to continually provide decision makers with critical information to develop road systems that are 

safe and responsive to public needs and desires, are affordable and efficiently managed, have 

minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and are in balance with available funding for needed 

management actions. All roads on the Talladega Ranger District were analyzed and rated by an 

interdisciplinary team based on their benefit and risks. NFSR 607 was rated as a moderate benefit, 

low risk road. The principle benefit, and purpose, of this road is timber management access. NFSR 

607 also provides numerous ancillary benefits including access for wildland fire suppression, fuels 

management, public recreation access, plus ingress and egress to a local church. The decision was 

made in the Travel Analysis process to continue to maintain NFSR 607 as a maintenance level 3 

road. The current structure at MP 0.643 on NFSR 637 is load rated at 6 tons. Recent bridge 

inspections have revealed structural deficiencies that limit the capacity of this structure to fulfill the 

intended purposes of NFSR 607 as listed above. 

1.3.1 Detailed Proposed Action

a) Clearing of less than 50 trees and associated underbrush and shrubs. 

Connected actions: Implement erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) 

consisting of silt fencing and straw wattles in accordance with Alabama Handbook for Erosion 

Control, Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas. 

The project area is located within a corridor that extends from the centerline of the existing crossing, 

100 feet downstream and 100 feet upstream and extends east and west of Tallaseehatchee Creek for 

approximately 500 feet each direction along NFSR 607 to allow for possible road re-alignment and 

construction staging. Trees and shrubs within the construction limits would be removed using heavy 

equipment. The potential impact area of the project would be less than 200 feet wide and 

approximately 1000 feet long with actual disturbance area estimated at 0.75 acres. 

b) Remove the existing bridge. The removal of the existing bridge would include a temporary 

diversion of water. 

Connected actions: Mussels will be removed prior to starting to demolition of the existing structure 

(See project design criteria). Removal of the existing structure will be performed during the summer 

months when creek volume is low; temporarily dam half of the stream channel during demolition 

and facilitate excessive stream flow using a pump; following the removal of the existing structure 

no additional work will be done to the stream bed or stream bank. The stream will be allowed to 

naturally revert back to a state in which no obstruction exists. Construction equipment in the stream 

shall be limited to 100 lineal feet (50 feet each side from centerline of low water crossing) measured 

along creek during demolition operations; limit construction equipment to this area.

c) Construct a single span bridge, a minimum of 20 feet wide, across Tallaseehatchee Creek, 

within a corridor that extends from the centerline of the existing bridge, 100 feet downstream and 

100 feet upstream and extends east and west of Tallaseehatchee Creek for approximately 500 feet 

along NFSR 607 in each direction to allow for possible minor road re-alignment and construction 

staging.
5

The new structure will be designed to clear a minimum of 50 year flood event with 5 foot of 

freeboard. Subsequently, the roadway approach elevations will have to be raised. It is anticipated 

that the approach elevation change will increase from 3 feet to 20 feet. The approach lengths should 

not extend more than 110 linear feet on the east approach and 300 linear feet on the west approach.

Guardrail shall be installed to improve safety, if necessary.

Connected actions: 1) Install erosion and sediment control BMP’s. 2) Clear and grub adequate 

area to construct bridge, and associated roadway (to stage material and equipment). 3) Excavate 

foundation for bridge abutments; all turbid water accumulated inside excavated area shall be pumped 

into sediment filter bags located a minimum of 50 linear feet from the BFW of Tallaseehatchee

Creek. 4) Form and pour reinforced concrete footings, abutments, and wind-walls. 5) Use a 

lowboy to deliver a crane to install precast concrete beams, or form and pour cast–in-place beams. 

6) Backfill behind abutments and wing-walls. 7) Raise road-way elevation to facilitate safe 

transitions onto and off of the new bridge. 8) Re-grade slopes and road prism, as necessary. 9) 

Replace road aggregate surfacing. 10) Seed native grasses in areas of disturbed soil. 11) Remove 

temporary erosion control measures. 12) Install guardrail if needed.
6

616D

601L

616C

615P

601M

616E

601I

691

TALL 142

680

601J

601H

616

601

607

SH 148

16

3

10

15

2

11

14

9

8

5 4

21

28

22

23

Tallaseehatchee Creek Bridge EA 

Project Area Map

Tallaseehatchee Creek Bridge Project Area

FS Ownership

NFSR 607

86 7 9.389W

33 12 21.619N

T21S R5E S15

Clay County

Bull's Gap Quadrangle

Talladega Ranger District

Created by AH on 4/22/2014

μ1:24,000

Figure 1.3-1

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product

accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing

accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS

products for purposes other than those for which they were created may

yield inaccurate or misleading results. This information was released on

7/03/2014. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, 

modify or replace GIS products without notification.
7

1.4 DECISION FRAMEWORK

Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official (Talladega District Ranger) will review the 

Proposed Action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decision:

• Select the No Action Alternative (deferring action); or

• Select an action alternative; or

• Select a modified action alternative.

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

On February 25, 2014 a scoping letter with site specific information explaining the proposal to 

replace the Tallaseehatchee Creek bridge by constructing a new single span bridge was mailed to 61

individuals and organizations that had previously expressed interest in the management of the 

Talladega Ranger District. In addition, the proposed action appeared in both print and Internet 

versions of the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions for the National Forests in Alabama in 2014. 

A legal notice requesting comments was also published in the Talladega Daily Home on February 

28, 2014 and the Clay County Times on March 6, 2014. One written response was received before 

the end of scoping period on March 28, 2014 pursuant to 36 CFR 218.

The purpose of the scoping is to involve the public in the process. After specialist reports were 

completed a copy of the draft EA was placed on the National Forests in Alabama web site. No 

issues were identified, however during content analysis we identified resource areas to analyze and 

have addressed them in Chapter 3. Only one response from the public was received during the 

scoping period for this project and they requested to receive a draft EA when completed.
8

2.0 Alternatives

This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Tallaseehatchee Creek

Bridge Replacement project. Two alternatives are examined in detail in this EA, and are described 

in Sections 2.1 through 2.2. 

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

Consideration of the No Action alternative is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations for

implementing NEPA. Under Alternative 1, the existing bridge would stay in place but the weight 

limit would be reduced. Regular routine maintenance would continue to occur and increase in 

magnitude as the structure ages, but no major improvements would be made to the multi-span 

bridge or roadway. The No Action alternative serves as a basis for comparison of the 

environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and its alternatives, and is a viable alternative. 

However, it does not address or provide a solution for the potential T&E passage issues or current 

safety concerns with vehicles utilizing the bridge in high water events. If the bridge fails, users 

will have a long detour to go around.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: (PROPOSED ACTION)

The following is a general description of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). A more 

detailed description of each activity and connected actions can be found in Section 

1.3.1.

a) Clearing of less than 50 trees and associated underbrush and shrubs. 

The action area of the project would be less than 200 feet wide and approximately 

1000 feet long with an estimated 0.75 acres of actual clearing.

b) Remove the existing bridge. 

The removal of the existing bridge would include temporary diversion of water and 

translocation of any mussels. 

c) Construct a single span bridge, a minimum of 20 feet wide across 

Tallaseehatchee Creek, within a corridor that extends from the centerline of the 

existing bridge, 100 feet downstream and 100 feet upstream.

2.2.1 Project Design Criteria

During activities, standard best management practices (BMPs) and Forest-wide standards and 

objectives would be implemented as provided in the revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Note on Reported Acreages – For the purposes of this assessment, all acreages for specific

treatments, landscape analyses, etc. are calculated using GIS (Geographic Information System)

based data sources. GIS based calculations of acreage and distances are made from an aerial

perspective, and do not take into account topographic effects on area and length measurements. 

As a result, reported acreages in this document are considered to be approximate, and may vary

slightly from acreages determined by ground-based methods.
9

and the Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management 

on Construction Sites and Urban Areas. Implementation of these BMPS would control or reduce 

potential adverse impacts from soil erosion, surface water runoff, and sedimentation. In addition to 

these, other measures would minimize or avoid adverse impacts to environmental resources during 

the proposed activities. Table 1 lists these other measures according to the resource area affected.

Table 1 Recommended Design Criteria By Resource Area

Resource Area Project Design Criteria

Soil & Water

• Implement the “Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and 

Stormwater Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas” during all phases of 

construction. http://swcc.alabama.gov/pages/erosion_handbook.aspx

Water 

Quality & 

Aquatic 

Species

• The USFS would stipulate that the contractor avoid use of heavy equipment 

when soils are wet, such as after a storm event.

• Heavy equipment will be restricted from entering the bankfull width of the stream 

channel, until mitigation measures for mussels have been implemented.

• Resource activities that may affect water quality will implement State Best 

Management Practices at a minimum, and Forest Standards that exceed State 

BMP’s will take precedence. (Forest Wide Standard 39)

• Bridge demolition will occur during low flow stream conditions.

• Heavy equipment will be restricted to 100 lineal ft. area during the demolition

 phase of the project.

• All disturbed soil must be stabilized. Two rows of silt fence will be installed

 adjacent to the stream to provide a secondary containment to trap any 

 sediment that gets past the first silt fence. This will provide an additional

 barrier between construction area and the stream channel.

• All areas requiring re-vegetation for erosion control will be treated within 6 

months of the completion of ground disturbing work. (Forest Wide Standard 37). 

Temporary vegetation will also be required if disturbed ground is left exposed 

for greater than 14 days.

• Ensure that approach sections are aligned with the stream channel at as near a 

right angle as possible.

• Locate riparian corridor crossing to minimize the amount of fill needed and to 

minimize channel impacts.

Vegetation 

& Wildlife

• 30-45 days prior to beginning the demolition phase, all mussels within 100 feet 

downstream and 100 feet upstream from the centerline of the existing low water 

crossing will be translocated by a fisheries biologist to suitable habitat upstream 

of the project area. Since mussels move through the substrate of the stream 

bottom it may take more than one trip to depopulate the project area of T&E 

mussels. The fisheries biologist will notify the construction project leader when 

the site has been cleared and construction activities can then commence.

• Clean equipment prior to bringing it on site to prevent the spread and/or 

introduction of any non-native plant species.

• Straw from a known source will be utilized when needed for stabilization or 

erosion control.
10

Cultural

Resources

• The bridge itself is a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) site with the main artifact 

being the bridge. Though it is not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion 

A, C or D. The 607 road was constructed by the CCC. Portions of CCC constructed 

roads in the Talladega National Forest are considered Historic Transportation Routes. 

However, the 607 road has been heavily modified through routine maintenance by 

the NFA and the Clay County Engineering Department and does not maintain its 

original integrity, thus it is no longer historically significant. No other cultural 

resources are associated with this project. 

Human 

Health 

and 

Safety

• NFSR 607 will be closed to traffic for approximately 3 miles during construction between 

the intersections of NFSR 601 and NFSR 607 and NFSR 607 and NFSR 616 except for 

thru traffic. 
11

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Detailed Analysis

The following alternatives were considered but dropped from detailed analysis because they did not 

meet the purpose and need of improving T&E habitat while increasing public safety.

2.3.1 Alternative 3: Remove bridge and not have a through road.

This alternative would have the road dead end (from both directions) on NFSR 607 at mile marker 

0.6 after removing the existing bridge. This alternative would decrease access to USFS land and 

may encourage users to attempt to ford the creek in their vehicles.

2.3.2 Alternative 4: Removal of bridge and let vehicles ford the creek. 

This alternative would remove the safety hazard of the failing bridge structure, but would allow

vehicles in the stream which would result in mortality for the T&E mussels, increase sedimentation 

downstream, and cause a potential public safety hazard.

.2
12

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section has been organized according to environmental components, or resource areas. Each 

resource section contains information on the affected environment (existing conditions), direct 

and indirect environmental consequences of each alternative, and cumulative impacts.

The interdisciplinary team (see Section 5.0, List of Preparers) first identified the specific 

activities, tasks, and subtasks involved in the Proposed Action and its alternatives. The full 

range of direct and indirect effects that could potentially occur as a result of the Proposed Action 

and its alternatives were then identified and analyzed. Direct effects are impacts caused by the 

alternative(s) at the same time and in the same location as the action. Indirect effects are impacts 

caused by the alternative(s) that occur later in time or farther in distance than the action.

A cumulative impact is an impact on the natural or human environment resulting from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of which agency, organization, or person undertakes assessed by 

combining the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives with the potential impacts of 

known projects that have occurred in the past, are currently occurring, or are projected to occur in 

the future within the region of the Proposed Action. 

3.1 Water Quality and Soil Resources

3.1.1 Affected Environment 

The bridge and road realignment of NFSR 607 proposes to cross Tallaseehatchee Creek which is 

within the Upper Tallaseehatchee Creek 6th level HUC or watershed. The Upper Tallaseehatchee

Creek Watershed encompasses 35,139 acres that is predominately forested with over 50 percent of 

the land use being forest. The watershed is very rural as exhibited in the low percentage of 

agricultural land use and the low road density. Approximately 19,209 acres within the watershed is 

under public ownership. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has designated 

the use of Tallaseehatchee Creek as Public Water Supply and for Fish and Wildlife, there are no 

listed impairments and these designations are currently fully supported. Tallaseehatchee Creek, 

similar to most creeks on the forest, has a moderate to low gradient, is moderately confined, and has 

a cobble/gravel substrate with some coarse sands, bedrock may also be evident in places. The 

stream is a rainfall driven fluvial system with insignificant snow contributions, average annual 

rainfall is about 53 inches, average annual runoff is between 20 and 22 inches and the basin 

response is moderately rapid. Tallaseehatchee Creek at the project location is subject to infrequent 

backwater flooding from Tallaseehatchee Lake, a PL566 lake, during periods of high rainfall as 

well as normal flooding form rainfall events.
13

Soil types found within the project area will affect the types of sediment that will reach the stream 

and impact water quality. An Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory of the Talladega Division, Talladega 

National Forest at a 1:24,000 scale identified 2 soil map units within the proposed project boundary 

and is listed below. Three primary soil series are identified within the map units listed below. 

Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each map unit identified. This project 

is almost entirely located within the floodplain of Tallaseehatchee Creek. A small portion (roadway 

approaches) is located on upland soils. 

Soil Resource Inventory Map Units

Fruithurst-Chewacla soils, 1-3% slopes

Fruithurst-Tallapoosa complex, 25-40% slopes

Fruithurst and Tallapoosa soils are located on steep side slopes. Fruithurst soils average surface 

horizons have a sandy loam texture 4 to 8 inches thick over loam and silt loam subsoils. The 

shallow Tallapoosa soils have sandy loam surface texture with thickness ranging from 2 to 4 inches 

over subsoils consisting of clay loams. Chewacla soils are located on floodplains. The Chewacla 

soil has a loam to silt loam surface 4 inches thick over a loam subsurface. Sandy and loamy 

deposits of soil from recent flooding events can also be found in close proximity to and along the 

edges of the stream bank. 

3.1.2 Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1: No Action (Current Management)

Alternative 1 or the No Action Alternative proposes no new action and would have no effect on the 

water or soil resource. Effects from the existing road and bridge would continue to occur. 

Alternative 2: Construct New Bridge within existing r-o-w and Remove Existing Bridge.

Alternative 2 proposes to build a new bridge, designed to clear a minimum of 50 year flood event 

encompassing raising the existing road bed 3 to 20 feet high and not more than 110 linear feet on 

the east approach and 300 feet on the west approach, and removal of existing bridge and structural 

supports adjacent to and within Tallaseehatchee Creek. Potential effects of this alternative would be 

soil erosion and sedimentation derived from construction activities and a potential for oil based 

pollutants entering the stream from mechanical equipment operating within the streambed. 

Exposure of soil within the road bed and associated right of way, construction of the bridge 

abutments and construction of cofferdam(s) re-routing the stream during the removal of the low 

water crossing will be the source of sediment entering the stream. The potential for soil erosion and 

sediment entering the stream can be expected to last for the duration of the project construction. 

Once the project is completed, the potential for soil erosion and sediment into the stream will be 
14

greatly reduced as the site becomes stabilized. Stabilization is expected within a year post project 

completion. Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for construction as outlined and 

recommended by the State of Alabama found in the Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, 

Sediment Control and Stormwater Management on Construction and Urban Areas, March 2009 will 

be implemented to minimize the effects from soil erosion and sediment entering the stream. 

Implementation of Construction BMP’s must at a minimum meet the standards as outline under 

“Road Stream Crossings” on 3-68 and 3-69 of the Riparian Prescription of the Revised Land 

Management Plan. This alternative helps alleviate flooding problems, thru raising the clearance 

from the stream to the bridge, thus reducing the damming effect from debris. Alternative 2 best fits 

these criteria and is the preferred alternative for the long term support of the Public Water Supply 

and Fish and Wildlife designated use. 

In addition, this alternative would not result in the loss of soil productivity since no new land will 

be cleared during construction. Removal of the existing bridge and support structures will disturb 

the soil where anchored into the ground adjacent to the stream channel. Soil erosion will occur 

during road re-construction, bridge construction and restoration of road right-of-way. Quantity will 

be based on the length of time for construction. Placement and maintenance of construction best 

management practices will reduce soil erosion and assist with maintaining the soil on site. 

3.1.3 Cumulative Effects on Water Resources – All Alternatives

The cumulative effects on the water resource from implementing the action alternative would be 

insignificant provided that the BMP’s are followed. The potential for sediment entering the stream 

is expected to be less than a year upon completion of the project. Road re-construction will not 

result in loss of soil productivity since construction will occur within the original road right-of-way 

and no additional land will be used.

3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife, Including Proposed, Endangered,

Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species & Designated Critical Habitat

3.2.1 Management Indicator Species (MIS) & Demand Species

Under the 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is charged with 

managing National Forests to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities consistent 

with multiple use objectives. Management Indicator Species (MIS) are one tool used to accomplish 

and monitor these objectives. MIS and their habitat needs are used to set management objectives 

and minimum management requirements to focus effects analysis and to monitor effects of plan 

implementation. 

The Forest Service has collected population data specifically for Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) for the Forest Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Report as part of the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement. To estimate the 

effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, the RLRMP identified certain vertebrate 

and/or invertebrate species present in the area as MIS (RLRMP, Table 2-10, pg, 2-48 to 2-49).

Population trends for all Forest MIS are monitored at the forest level and are reported annually in 

the M&E Report. Annual forest-wide validation monitoring evaluates the cumulative effects of 

planned actions combined with past management actions on MIS populations and trends and 
15

provides a context for evaluating the effects of management on future MIS trends.

Project-level selection and relationship to Forest Plan

The RLRMP states (2-48): MIS indicator species are to be selected “because their population 

changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219(a)(1)). The 

MIS are to be used during planning to help compare effects of alternatives (36 CFR 219.19 (a)(2)), 

and as a focus for monitoring (36 CFR 219.19 (a)(6)).

MIS Selection:

MIS species were selected for analysis if potential suitable habitat was identified during the field 

survey of the project area or individuals were present. Aquatic species were analyzed if they were 

present during the project area stream survey in 2014 or prior surveys in the vicinity. 

Table 2. Management Indicator Species selected for use in the Tallaseehatchee

Bridge EA from MIS species listed in the RLRMP.

Common 

Name

Reason for Selection & Applicable Management 

Unit

Selected 

for 

analysis

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

To help indicate management effects to mid- and

late- successional pine and pine-oak forest. 

Applicable to Talladega and Conecuh National 

Forests.

No

Pileated 

woodpecker

To help indicate management effects to snag 

dependent wildlife species. Applicable to all NFA

management units.

No

Wood thrush To help indicate management effects on wildlife 

species dependent upon mature forest interior 

conditions. Applicable to all NFA management 

units.

No

Acadian 

flycatcher

To help indicate management effects within mature 

riparian forest community. Applicable to all NFA

management units.

No

Swainson’s 

warbler

To help indicate management effects within the 

early successional riparian forest community. 

Applicable to all NFA management units.

No

White-tailed 

deer

To help indicate management effects on meeting 

hunting demand for this species. Applicable to all 

NFA management units.

Yes

Eastern wild 

turkey

To help indicate management effects on meeting 

hunting demand for this species. Applicable to all 

NFA management units.

Yes

Northern 

bobwhite quail

To help indicate management effects on meeting 

hunting demand for this species. Applicable to all 

NFA management units.

Yes

Hooded 

warbler

To help indicate management effects on mesic 

deciduous forest and mesic oak and oak-pine 

forest communities Applicable to all NFA

management units... 

No
16

Scarlet tanager To help indicate management effects on xeric oak 

and oak-pine forest communities. Applicable to 

Bankhead NF and Talladega Division. 

No

Brown-headed 

nuthatch

To help indicate management effects on the pine 

and pine-oak forest community. Applicable to 

Bankhead and Tuskegee National Forests. 

No

Prairie Warbler To help indicate management effects on creating 

and maintaining early successional forest (low 

elevation) communities and other early 

successional habitats. Applicable to all NFA 

management units. 

No

3.2.1.1 Existing Conditions

The project area consists of several different habitat types ranging from bottomland hardwoods to 

upland longleaf pine habitat. The sandy flood plain along Tallaseehatchee Creek frequently is 

flooded during large rain events. The small project area is highly disturbed due to road 

maintenance activities through the years.

3.2.1.2 Selected Species

1. White-tailed deer (MIS & Demand)

The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is an important game species in Alabama and on the 

Talladega Ranger District. This species is an opportunistic herbivore, but prefers early-seral 

conditions. Year-round access to browse in close proximity to escape-cover and availability of hard 

mast during the fall/winter is key factors for the success or stability of this species. This species is 

monitored through surveys (i.e., spotlight and harvest) that are conducted in order to identify 

population trends which aid in species management. Populations of white-tailed deer exist in and 

around the stands proposed for treatment. This species is abundant on the district, but as many 

other wildlife species, deer would benefit more from landscapes of greater habitat diversity. Whitetailed deer survive and prosper in areas with mixed habitat or forest conditions. 

[Deer numbers inside wildlife management areas (WMA) are in line with habitat capacity projected 

in the Forest Plan. Although early successional habitat has declined on the National Forest in 

Alabama in the last 15 years, there appears to be an overall increase in the number of deer on the 

forests.] (M&E Report, 2006)

2. Eastern Wild Turkey (MIS & Demand)

The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) is an important game species in Alabama and on the 

Talladega Ranger District. The eastern wild turkey population has exponentially increased in the 

United States and especially in the southeastern states in the last fifteen years. By managing habitat 

appropriately, populations in Alabama can increase or be maintained as desired. Year-round access 

to small openings and edge plant species in close proximity to cover are key factors for the success 

of this species. This species is monitored through bird point surveys that are conducted yearly to 

assess the presence or absence, frequency of occurrence, and habitat conditions across the Talladega 

Ranger District. Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries monitor their abundance 

and identify population trends through hunter harvest information. 

[Trends in wild turkey numbers are stable on all national forests in Alabama. Yearly variation in 

reproduction caused primarily by weather causes some short-term decreases. Statewide, wild 
17

turkey populations are increasing.] (M&E Report, 2006)

3. Northern Bobwhite Quail (MIS & Demand)

The northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) is a game bird species that is closely associated 

with early successional plant communities which once were common in the fire-maintained longleaf 

ecosystem. Throughout its range, bobwhite quail provide important ecological, recreational, and 

economic values. Overall the population of bobwhite quail within its range has declined in the last 

twenty years. Habitat degradation has been attributed for this decline. Quail primarily feed in 

fields and open forests and their diet is mainly vegetative and composed primarily of small fruits, 

seeds, and green forage. Year-round access to edge plant species in close proximity to cover are 

key factors for the success of this species. Northern bobwhite quail cannot survive in mature closed 

canopy forest with no ground cover. Quality habitat for bobwhite quail, in forests within its range, 

can be maintained by controlling ground-cover and mid-story species with prescribed fire on a 

strategic rotation (1 to 3 year). Like many wildlife species, they would succeed in habitats of more 

diversity. This species is monitored through bird point surveys that are conducted yearly to assess 

the presence or absence, frequency of occurrence, and habitat conditions across the district.

[Quail numbers continue to be quite low in the general forest area; however, breeding bird survey 

routes indicate fairly good abundance and low variability, yet declining populations on all districts. 

Bobwhite quail harvests (based on hunter success) display a more variable population level.] (M&E 

Report, 2006)

3.2.1.3 Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Implementing the no action alternative will not have any direct or indirect effect on white tailed 

deer, eastern wild turkey, or northern bobwhite quail. Habitat conditions would not change.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Implementing the proposed action alternative will not have any direct or indirect effects on white 

tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, or northern bobwhite quail. Habitat conditions would not change 

and these highly mobile species will leave the project area during construction. Construction 

activities in the project area would be a minor disturbance for these species.

3.2.1.4 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Effects For MIS & Demand Species

Cumulative effects for the white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, and the bobwhite quail include 

those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may affect their habitat. 

Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) or Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will result in no 

additional cumulative effects for white tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, or the northern bobwhite 

quail. This project, which will temporarily disturb approximately 0.75 acre around the existing low 

water crossing, will not cause any short or long term population trend changes. Past, present, and 

future activities on national forest lands have been, and will continue to be, planned under the 

guidance of our 2004 RLRMP and The Revised Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Recovery 

Plan. Foreseeable activities analyzed as part of this project include: continued implementation of 

the 2004 Forest Health/RCW Environmental Impact Statement, prescribed burning on a 1-3 year 

rotation, SPB suppression, wildlife opening establishment and maintenance (when other actions 

create suitable areas), and timber management for longleaf ecosystem restoration. These activities 

will continue to improve the quality and quantity of the habitat as well as improve the structure. 
18

3.2.2 Sensitive Species

Table 3. Sensitive Species Included in Analysis and Rationale

USFS Sensitive 

Species

Global 

Rank 

(*)

State 

Rank 

(**)

Habitat

Occurrence on 

Talladega 

Division

Considered 

but 

Excluded 

from 

Analysis

Considered 

in EA/BE

Terrestrial Animals

Rafinesque’s big-eared 

bat (Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii)

G3G4 S2

Roosts in caves, hollow trees 

and forages over open water and 

riparian areas

Potential 

occurrence, no 

known locations

X

Eastern small-footed bat 

(Myotis leibii) G3 S1

Roosts in caves, hollow trees 

and forages over open water and 

riparian areas

Potential 

occurrence, no 

known locations

X

Bachman’s sparrow 

(Aimophila aestivalis) G3 S3 Open pine woods with thick 

groundcover of native grasses Known to occur X

Peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus) G4 S3

Undisturbed areas near water 

with wide view and close to prey, 

tall cliffs & rock outcrops

Potential nest 

sites, no known 

locations

X

1

Diana fritillary (Speyeria 

Diana) G3 S3

Hardwood woodlands, and mixed 

pine/hardwood woodlands Known to occur X

Frosted elfin (Callophrys 

irus) G3 SU Early-successional forests and 

woodlands, and savannas

Potential 

occurrence, no 

known locations

X

Plants

A liverwort (Plagiochila 

echinata) G2 SNR

Cliff habitat, late-successional 

riparian forests, & bases of cliff 

bluffs

Known to occur X

1

Little Georgia moss 

(Tetrodontium 

brownianum)

G3 SNR

Rock outcrops, cliffs, spray cliffs, 

and late-successional riparian 

habitat

Known to occur X

1

Small-flowered buckeye 

(Aesculus parviflora) G2G3 S2 Open woodlands, often in a 

mesic hardwood community Known to occur X

1

Georgia aster (Aster 

georgianus) G2G3 S2S3

Roadsides, open woods, barrens 

and glades, utility rights-of-way. 

Prefers dry, open habitats 

independent of soil type.

Known to occur X

1

Alabama Grapefern 

(Botrichium jenmenii) G3G4 SH

Canopy gaps in moist woods & 

open woodlands and grasslands 

on drier sites

Known to occur X

1

Kral’s Indian paintbrush

(Castilleja kraliana) G2 S2 Dry sand hills and montane 

longleaf pine communities

Potential 

occurrence, no 

known locations

X

1

Whorled horsebalm 

(Colinsonia verticillata) G3 SNR Well drained, moist substrates Known to occur X

1

Large witchalder 

(Fothergilla major) G3 S2

Ridgetops, dry & rocky longleaf 

forests and open woodland 

settings often over sandstone

Known to occur X

1

Longleaf sunflower 

(Helianthus longifolius) G3 S1S2 Glades & barrens as well as 

rocky ridgetops Known to occur X

1

Smith’s sunflower 

(Helianthus smithii) G2Q S2 Dry rocky ridgetops & mountain 

longleaf slopes. Known to occur X

1

Harper’s wild ginger 

(Hexastylis 

shuttlesworthii var.

harperi)

G4T3 S2 Moist shaded hardwood slopes 

and rich soils Known to occur X

1

Carolina spider lily 

(Hymenocallis 

caroliniana) G2Q SNR

River corridors, sandbanks, 

cobbles, stream scours and 

riparian habitat

Known to occur X

1
19

USFS Sensitive 

Species

Global 

Rank 

(*)

State 

Rank 

(**)

Habitat Occurrence on 

Talladega Unit

Considered 

but 

Excluded 

from 

Analysis

Considered 

in EA/BE

Alabama warbonnet 

(Jamesianthus 

alabamaensis)

G3 S3

Moist shaded-to-partially-sunny 

riparian forest, alluviall deposits, 

basic mesic or circumneutral 

soils

Known to occur X

1

Butternut (Juglans 

cinerea) G3G4 S1

Moist shaded-to-partially-sunny 

riparian forests, alluvial deposits, 

basic mesic or circumneutral 

soils, streambanks, bluffs

Potential 

occurrence, no 

known locations

X

1

Fraser’s yellow 

loosestrife (Lysimachia 

fraseri)

G2 S1

River corridors, sandbanks, 

cobbles, stream scours and 

riparian habitat

Known to occur

X

1

Broadleaf Barbara’s 

buttons (Marshallia 

trinervia)

G3 S3

Open canopy with little to no 

shrub competition in bogs, 

seeps, and streamsides

Known to occur

X

1

Alabama snow-wreath 

(Neviusia alabamensis) G2 S2

Canopy gaps in basic mesic 

forests and late successional 

riparian forests

Potential 

occurrence, no 

known locations

X

1

White fringeless orchid

(Platanthera integrilabia) G2G3 S2

Wet, boggy areas, streamheads 

or seepage slopes in acidic muck 

or sand in flat or sharply sloped 

streamside areas

Known to occur

X

1

Clammy locust (Robinia 

viscosa) G3 SU Dry sandy soils, rocky slopes 

around small drain heads. Known to occur X

1

Eared coneflower 

(Rudbeckia auriculata) G1 S1

Moist shaded-to-partially-sunny 

riparian forests, alluvial deposits, 

basic mesic or circumneutral 

soils, streambanks

Known to occur

X

1

Pinnate-lobed blackeyed Susan (Rudbeckia 

triloba var pinnatiloba)

G5T3 S2S3

Moist shaded hardwood slopes & 

rich soils as well as overlap into 

the late-successional riparian 

forest

Known to occur

X

1

Appalachian rose 

gentian (Sabatia capitata G2 S2 Dry sandy soils, rocky slopes 

and moderately open stands Known to occur X

1

Alabama skullcap 

(Scutellaria 

alabamensis)

G2 S2

Light to deep shade in fine sands 

or sandy loams, well drained 

moist substrates.

Known to occur

X

1

Nevius’stonecrop

(Sedum nevii) G3 S3

Moist shaded-to-partially-sunny 

riparian forests, alluvial deposits, 

basic mesic or circumneutral 

soils, streambanks, bluffs and 

rises in rich coves

Known to occur

X

1

Piedmont meadowrue 

(Thalictrum 

macrostylum)

G1G2

Q

SNR Moist shaded hardwood slopes 

and rich soils Known to occur

X

1

Lanceleaf trillium 

(Trillium lancifolium) G3 S2S3

Moist shaded-to-partially-sunny 

riparian forests, alluvial deposits, 

basic mesic or circumneutral 

soils, streambanks, bluffs and 

rises in moist sandy bottoms

Known to occur

X

1

Southern nodding trillium 

(Trillim rugelii)

G3 S2?

Moist shaded-to-partially-sunny 

riparian forests, alluvial deposits, 

basic mesic or circumneutral 

soils, streambanks, bluffs and 

rises in moist sandy bottoms

Known to occur

X

1
20

USFS Sensitive 

Species

Global 

Rank 

(*)

State 

Rank 

(**)

Habitat Occurrence on 

Talladega Unit

Considered 

but 

Excluded 

from 

Analysis

Considered 

in EA/BE

Loggerhead musk turtle 

(Stenotherus minor) G5 S5

Big rivers or creeks, low gradient, 

medium river, pool, spring/spring 

brook Rare

X

1

Holiday darter 

(Etheostoma 

brevirostrum)

G2 S2

Clear cool, moderate to swift 

currents over cobble-bouldergravel substrates within relatively 

shallow portions of runs, pools 

and sometimes riffles of medium 

to large streams

Locally common X

1

Coldwater darter 

(Etheostoma ditrema) G1G2 S1

Shallow slow currents over wellvegetated, coarse organic debris 

substrates within springs and 

spring-runs of small streams

Rare X

1

Lined chub (Hybopsis 

lineapunctata)

G3 S3

Flowing currents over gravelsand-rubble substrates within 

riffles and pools of small to 

medium streams

Rare X

1

Coal darter (Percina 

brevicauda) G2 S2

Swift currents over gravelcobble-sand substrates within 

bedrock troughs at the foot of 

rapids or riffle heads of large 

streams and rivers

Near X

1

Freckled darter (Percina 

lenticula) G2 S3

Deep swift currents over sand 

substrates within runs and rapids 

of main channel large streams 

and rivers

Near X

1

A crayfish (Cambarus 

englishi) G3 S3 Various substrates within riffle 

and pool habitats of streams Near X

1

Alabama spike (Elliptio 

arca) G3 S2

High gradient swift currents over 

gravel substrates within lateral 

bars and riffles of large streams 

and rivers

Potential X

1

Tennessee heelsplitter 

(Lasmigona holstonia) G3 S2

Shallow water of various currents 

over sand and mud substrates 

within riffles of small headwater 

and tributary streams and small 

spring runs, and occasionally 

backwaters and side channel 

pools of large rivers

Locally common X

1

Ridged mapleleaf 

(Quadrula rumphiana) G3 S1S2

Moderate gradient slow to fast 

currents over sand-gravel 

substrates within medium sized 

rivers and reservoirs

Near X

1

Alabama creekmussel 

(strophitus 

connasauganesis)

G3 S2

Small streams to rivers in areas 

of moderate current and sandgravel substratesLocally Common X

1
21

USFS Sensitive 

Species

Global 

Rank 

(*)

State 

Rank 

(**)

Habitat Occurrence on 

Talladega Unit

Considered 

but 

Excluded 

from 

Analysis

Considered 

in EA/BE

Alabama rainbow

(Villosa nebulosa) G3 S3

Small streams to rivers in areas 

with some current and sandgravel substratesUncommon X

Coosa combshell 

(Villosa umbrans) G4T2 S2

Small streams to medium rivers 

in areas with moderate current 

and sand-gravel substrates

Locally Common X

Helma’s net-spinning 

caddisfly 

(Cheumatopsyche 

helma)

G1G3 S1 Bottom dwellers within small 

headwater streams Rare X

1

A caddisfly (Hydroptila 

cheaha) G1 S1 May inhabit springs and small 

spring-fed streams Sparse X

1

A caddisfly (Hydroptila 

choccolocco) G1 S1 May inhabit springs and small 

spring-fed streams Locally common X

1

A caddisfly (Hydroptila 

patriciae) G1 S1 Presumably they inhabit small 

streams Near X

1

A caddisfly (Hydroptila 

setigera) G1 S1

Primarily inhabits small 

headwater streams of the lower 

Appalachian Mountains

Near X

1

Alleghany snaketail 

(Ophiogomphus 

incurvatus 

alleghaniensis)

G3Q S1S2

Primarily inhabit flowing currents 

over cobble-gravel-mud 

substrates within shallow riffles 

of spring-fed small to medium 

sized “pristine” streams

Common X

1

Carlson’s polycentropus 

caddisfly (Polycentropus 

carlsoni)

G1G3 S1 Benthic dwellers in very small 

streams Rare X

1

X

1 = Species not found during survey of the proposed area during the summer of 2014 or during previous surveys of 

project area.
22

Species Considered & Evaluated

There are over 182 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species known or suspected to occur on or near 

one or more of the management units comprising the National Forests in Alabama. This list can be 

found on page four of the “National Forest in Alabama Appendices Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Plan.” Sensitive species known to occur on or near 

the Talladega Ranger District are evaluated in this document. Table 2 is a subset of plants & 

animals from the Regional Forester’s list that are found/potentially exist on the Talladega Ranger 

District. Table 2 also displays species considered and those excluded /included in detailed analysis 

for this project based upon whether they occurred in the action area or were potentially affected by 

the action. Plant species were analyzed if they were found during the plant survey, or if historic 

records exist for plants near project vicinity. Aquatic species were analyzed if they were found 

during the 2014 stream survey of the project areas or during other stream surveys in the vicinity.

Evaluated Species Survey Information

Field reviews of the project area have been conducted by Art Henderson (wildlife biologist) and 

Lesley Hodge (botanist), and John Moran (fisheries biologist). Surveys for Sensitive and Proposed, 

Endangered, Threatened, & Candidate (PETC) species were conducted during the spring of 2014. 

During the conducted surveys eleven sensitive, Villosa umbrans, and four threatened, Hamiota 

altilis, mussels were located. Another sensitive aquatic species, Villosa nebulosa, had been 

collected near the bridge in the past but was not found during this survey but was considered in this 

EA. No sensitive plants or animals were found during surveys of the project area.

No additional surveys for sensitive species were necessary to analyze and disclose effects or to 

provide protection adequate for maintaining viability of sensitive species that may occur on the 

district. For those species not already covered by inventories for the affected areas, either the 

proposed action would have beneficial effects or more information on the number and location of 

individuals would not improve the project design or reduce effects.

3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions

The project area consists of several different habitat types ranging from bottomland hardwoods to 

upland longleaf pine habitat. The sandy flood plain along Tallaseehatchee Creek frequently is 

flooded during large rain events. The small project area is highly disturbed due road maintenance 

activities through the years.

Tallaseehatchee Creek is a direct tributary to the Coosa River. The reach of Tallaseehatchee Creek 

in the project area is within the 6th level HUC 031501070102, Clay County, Alabama (Table 1). 

The Tallaseehatchee Creek drainage on the Talladega Division is fragmented by 2 mainstem 

impoundments and 2 tributary impoundments.

3.2.2.2 Selected Sensitive Species

1. Bachman’s sparrow, Diana fritillary, Frosted elfin, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, Eastern 

small-footed bat, Alabama rainbow, Coosa combshell.

[Once a common inhabitant of southern pine forests, the Bachman’s sparrow is now very local. 

The species is known from point counts and bird surveys on the Talladega and Oakmulgee 

Divisions of the Talladega National Forest, and the Tuskegee and Conecuh National Forests. This 

species uses open pinewoods with a thick ground cover of native grasses, maintained by frequent 
23

growing season fires. These habitats are generally in longleaf pine stands with low tree densities.] 

(Appendices FEIS RLRMP, p.14)

[The Diana fritillary has been found recently primarily in the mountains of central Virginia and 

West Virginia through the western Carolinas and eastern Tennessee into extreme northern Georgia 

and adjacent Alabama (NatureServe Explorer, 2003). This species is known to occur on the 

Talladega Division and has the potential to occur on the Bankhead. Occurrences are counted by the 

number of breeding demes. This species uses a variety of habitat components including hardwood 

woodlands and mixed pine-hardwood woodlands and forests. Caterpillars of this species feed on 

plants of the genus Viola: however, females lay eggs seemingly at random among grasses. Adults 

feed on nectar producing flowers in meadows, glades, and woodlands.] (Appendices FEIS 

RLRMP, p.19)

[Southern populations of the frosted elfin are referred to as Baptisia feeders, meaning they feed 

chiefly on plants of the Baptisia genus. This species may occur in Alabama, and if it does, it is 

most likely to occur on the Talladega Division. They use a variety of habitat components including 

early-successional forests and woodlands, and savannas.] (Appendices FEIS RLRMP, p.20)

[The Rafinesque’s big eared bat is widespread over the southern states, but generally at low 

densities and in scattered locations; it is thought to be declining in many areas (NatureServe 

Explorer, 2003). This species has not been documented on any management unit of the National 

Forests in Alabama, despite numerous attempts to find it during documentation of federally listed 

bat fauna. In Alabama this species is state ranked as S2, Imperiled. For viability analysis it was 

given the ranking of FP, a potential resident of any of the management units on National Forests in 

Alabama. Viability evaluation indicates this species uses a variety of habitat components, roosting 

in caves, hollow trees, and other structures, and foraging over open water and in riparian areas 

(Attachment A). Caves and open wetlands are the habitat components most likely to be limiting 

due to their rarity on the landscape. Protection of roosts from disturbance is a primary need 

(NatureServe Explorer 2003).] (Appendices FEIS RLRMP, p.10)

[Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) is fairly widespread in southeastern Canada and eastern 

U.S., but very spotty in distribution and rarely found in large numbers (NatureServe Explorer, 

2003). In Alabama, the species’ range includes the northernmost tier of counties, and the species is 

considered S1, or Critically Imperiled. This species has not been documented on any management 

unit of the National Forests in Alabama. For the viability analysis, it was ranked as FP on the 

Talladega Division, whose northernmost lands may reach the species’ southern extent. Viability 

evaluation indicates this species uses a variety of habitat components, roosting in caves and mines, 

cliffs and rock fissures, and other structures, and foraging over open water and in riparian areas 

(Attachment A). Caves and open wetlands are the habitat components most likely to be limiting 

due to their rarity on the landscape. Protection of roosts from disturbance is a primary need 

(NatureServe Explorer 2003).] (Appendices FEIS RLRMP, p.12)
24

[Alabama rainbow (Villosa nebulosa) is considered at risk of population decline according to 

Williams et al. (1992). Globally the species is ranked as “vulnerable” (G3); within Alabama, the 

species is ranked as “vulnerable” (S3) (NatureServe 2003). This species has been identified as a 

priority 3 species of moderate concern (i.e. limited info &/or fairly secure) within the State of 

Alabama (ADCNR 2003). Alabama rainbows range across five Appalachian southeastern states 

(NatureServe 2003). Within Alabama, Alabama rainbows are found within the Mobile River Basin 

above the fall line (ADCNR 2003). Currently, the species potentially inhabits eight watersheds 

associated with the Bankhead National Forest and the Oakmulgee and main division of the 

Talladega National Forest (Table C.41). Alabama rainbows also occur on the Cherokee National 

Forest in Georgia and Tennessee. The National Forests represent approximately 10 percent of the 

species’ range within the State of Alabama. Alabama rainbows are generally scattered in their 

distribution. Where encountered, they are uncommon and in low abundance (Metee et al. 1996, 

Smith et al. 2002, ADCNR 2003). Alabama rainbows primarily inhabit small headwater streams 

(ADCNR 2003). This species appears to utilize a number of bass species as their glochidial host 

(Haag & Warren 1997). Freshwater mussels are filter feeders taking organic detritus, diatoms, 

phytoplankton, and zooplankton from the water column (Neves et al. 1996). Predation is normally 

a minor mortality factor, with the exception of localized areas where muskrats, otters, and some 

types of turtles and fish may limit population growth. Parasites and disease are not normally 

limiting factors or viability concerns; however mussels under environmental stress may be at 

greater risk for decline in health, growth, longevity, and fertility (Zale & Neves 1982). Most 

mussels are long-lived and late maturing, potentially masking evidence of population declines and 

viability problems (Neves & Moyer 1988). As with many other freshwater mussels, this species 

probably requires clean gravel riffles, low turbidity, and some water flow.] (Appendices FEIS 

RLRMP, p.174) 

[Coosa combshells, Villosa umbrans, are endemic to the Mobile River basin and range across 

Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee above the fall line. Currently, the species potentially inhabits 

four watersheds associated with the Oakmulgee and main divisions of the Talladega National Forest 

(Table C.42). Coosa combshells may occur on several other National Forest management units 

within the southeast. The National Forests represent less than 5 percent of the species’ range within 

the State of Alabama. Coosa combshells are widespread in their distribution within tributaries 

above the fall line (ADCNR 2003). Where encountered, they are generally rare and in low 

abundance (Metee et al. 1996, Smith et al. 2002, ADCNR 2003). Coosa combshells inhabit large 

tributary and headwater streams and rivers (ADCNR 2003). Freshwater mussels are filter feeders 

taking organic detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton from the water column (Neves et 

al. 1996). Predation is normally a minor mortality factor, with the exception of localized areas 

where muskrats, otters, and some types of turtles and fish may limit population growth. Parasites 

and disease are not normally limiting factors or viability concerns; however mussels under 

environmental stress may be at greater risk for decline in health, growth, longevity, and fertility 

(Zale & Neves 1982). Most mussels are long-lived and late maturing, potentially masking evidence 

of population declines and viability problems (Neves & Moyer 1988). As with many other 

freshwater mussels, this species probably requires clean gravel riffles, low turbidity, and some 

water flow.] (Appendices FEIS RLRMP, p.175)

3.2.2.3 Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1 (No Action): The no action alternative would leave in place the existing 

Tallaseehatchee Creek/NFSR 607 bridge and not change the current conditions and its impacts to 

stream habitat and aquatic organisms. 
25

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): The proposed action would construct a single span bridge that 

spans the entire bankfull width of Tallaseehatchee Creek, and demolish and remove the existing 

bridge structure. The bridge construction phase of the project will not directly disturb the stream 

channel as these activities will occur outside of the bankfull width channel. Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines and road/bridge construction best management practices (BMPs) will be 

implemented during this phase to restrict sediment transport to the stream channel and minimize 

indirect effects to aquatic organisms and their habitat (See section 3.1.1.2). 

The demolition of the existing structure will cause short-term (four to eight weeks), temporary, and 

small-scale disturbances to the stream channel and could potentially directly effect stream habitat 

and individual aquatic organisms. The area around the existing structure will be dewatered during 

the demolition phase by an upstream temporary dam and a pump to divert the stream water from 

behind the dam and around the site. Heavy equipment will be required to facilitate the manual 

placement and removal of the temporary diversion dam, demolish the existing structure, and 

remove demolition debris from the stream channel while the site is dewatered. Heavy equipment 

access to the stream channel will be restricted to a 50 lineal feet area upstream of the existing 

structure and 50 lineal feet area downstream. This 100 ft. restricted area and temporary extent of the 

disturbance will minimize the direct and permanent effects to overall stream habitat. A potential 

direct effect to individual mussels could come from heavy equipment crushing and killing or 

injuring mussels during the demolition phase. To prevent direct impacts to mussels, a removal and 

relocation effort will be conducted prior to start of all demolition activities. All mussels will be 

removed from the stream channel in the demolition affected area in addition to a 50 foot buffer 

outside that area. The mussels will be relocated upstream of the project site outside the influence of 

the project in suitable habitat indicated by specific habitat parameters and the presence of other 

mussels. Replacing the existing multi-span bridge with a single span bridge will greatly reduce the 

potential for debris buildup during rain events. This will prevent debris from blocking water flow 

during low water periods which will enhance habitat for mussels.

Implementation of the proposed action is unlikely to have any direct impact on sensitive terrestrial 

animals because none of the species were observed during project area surveys. Due to the small 

size of the project area it is unlikely that these species would pass through during construction 

activities. Even if individuals were present during construction activities, overall disturbance and 

habitat changes are discountable due to small size of affected area.

3.2.2.4 Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Cumulative effects, in addition to the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and organisms 

from alternatives 1 and 2, could occur from any past, present, or foreseeable future actions that 

would: increase sediment transport to stream channels, restrict the migration of aquatic organisms, 

increase stream temperature, reduce large woody debris and organic material input to stream 

channels, modify stream channel geomorphology, and degrade water quality from point and 

nonpoint source pollution. Cumulative effects could come from the management actions that have 

occurred or will occur in this 6thlevel watershed including prescribed burns, recreational lake area 

management, and vegetation management. The cumulative effects from on-going Forest Service 

management activities are minimized by the implementation of the standards and guidelines 
26

outlined in the 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in 

Alabama. Very little private ownership of land occurs in this watershed upstream of the project area 

and no measurable cumulative effects are expected from past, current, or foreseeable future actions 

there. Implementing the proposed action will not cause any cumulative effects to occur.

3.2.3 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Candidate & Designated Critical Habitat

Table 4. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species Considered and Included/Excluded 

from Analysis in EA/BE– Talladega Division. (List derived from Final EIS, Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan PET Species List, NFA, 2004)
27

Table 4

Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, 

& Candidate Species 

USFWS 

Status Habitat Occurrence on 

Talladega Unit

Considered 

but 

Excluded 

from 

Analysis

Considered 

in EA

Red-cockaded 

woodpecker (Picoides 

borealis)

Endangered Open pine forests with large, 

old trees

8 Potential 

Breeding Groups X

3

Gray bat (Myotis 

sodalist) Endangered Roost in caves, forages over 

streams/bodies of water

Outside of known 

distribution in 

state

X

1

Indiana bat (Myotis 

grisescens) Endangered

Roosts under loose bark 

summer, caves winter, 

forages on winged insects

Outside of known 

distribution in 

state

X

1

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Threatened Near large bodies of water

Outside of known 

distribution in 

state

X

1,2

Tulotoma snail 

(Tulotoma magnifica) Threatened Large rivers on rocks in 

moderate current

Outside of known 

distribution in 

state

X

1,2,3

Blue shiner (Cyprinella 

caerulea) Threatened

Sand/gravel substrates of 

riffles in mid-order medium to 

large streams

Outside known 

distribution in 

state

X

1,3

Pygmy sculpin (Cottus 

pygmaeus) Threatened Springs, and spring run 

creeks

Found off of Shoal 

Creek R.D. X

1

Coosa moccasinshell 

(Medionidus parvulus) Endangered

Sand/gravel substrates of 

riffles in various sized 

streams & small rivers

Extirpated from 

Alabama X

3

Southern pigtoe 

(Pleurobema 

georgianum)

Endangered

Coarse gravel/sand substrate 

in moderate current in small 

rivers/large tributary streams

Historic records 

for Hatchet Creek X

3

Fine-lined pocketbook 

(Hamiota altilis) Threatened

Sand/mud mixture with gravel 

in moderate currents & 

depths

Uncommon, small 

disjunct 

populations on 

Talladega & Shoal 

Creek R.D.

X

Upland combshell 

(Epioblasma 

metastriata)

Endangered

Stable sand/gravel substrates 

in riffles of small/medium size 

rivers

Extirpated from 

Alabama X

3

Southern acornshell 

(Epioblasma 

othcaloogensis)

Endangered

Fine gravel substrates in 

riffles of rivers & large 

tributaries above the fall line

Extirpated from 

Alabama X

3

Alabama 

moccassinshell 

(Medionidus 

acutissimus)

Threatened Sand/gravel/cobble in shallow 

water of small streams

No known 

population on 

district

X

1

Southern clubshell 

(Pleurobema decisum) Endangered

Coarse gravel/cobble in 

riffles/runs of large streams 

/small rivers

Found off district 

Hatchet creek X

3

Georgia pigtoe 

(Pleurobema 

hanleyianum)

Endangered

Coarse sand/gravel within 

riffles of small/medium rivers 

& large tributaries

Historic collections 

from Hatchet 

Creek 

Extirpated from 

Alabama

X

3
28

Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, 

& Candidate Species 

USFWS 

Status Habitat Occurrence on 

Talladega Unit

Considered 

but 

Excluded 

from 

Analysis

Considered 

in EA

Flat pebblesnail 

(Lepyrium showalteri) Endangered

Clean, smooth cobble, 

boulder or bedrock substrates 

within high gradient swift 

current riffles or shoals.

No known 

population on 

district X

3

Painted rocksnail 

(Leptxis taeniata) Threatened Cobble/slab rapids/shoals in 

medium to large rivers

Historic records 

on Shoal Creek 

R.D.

X

3

Cylindrical lioplax 

(Lioplax 

cyclostomaformis)

Endangered

Mud and shell fragment 

interstitial spaces among 

tabular boulders and bedrock 

slabs in moderate to fast 

current shoals

Locally extirpated X

3

Lacy elimia (Elimia 

crenatella) Endangered

Underside of rock slabs or 

gravel/cobble of 

medium/large tributary 

streams

Found off district 

in Cheaha Creek, 

& Tallaseehatchee

Creek

X

3

Mohr’s Barbara’s 

buttons (Marshallia 

mohrii)

Threatened

Moist prairie-like openings in 

woodlands along shalebedded streams

Found on private 

lands near district X

3

Alabama leather flower 

(Clematis socialis) Endangered Mesic flats near intermittent 

streams in silty/clay soils

Found on private 

lands near district X

3

Harperella (Ptilimnium 

nodosum) Endangered

Seasonally flooded streams, 

coastal plain ponds, and low 

savannah meadows

Found on private 

lands near district X

3

Green pitcher plant 

(Sarracenia oreophila) Endangered Moist upland areas or boggy, 

sandy stream edges

Historic records & 

Found on private 

lands near district

X

3

TN yellow-eyed Grass 

(Xyris tennesseensis) Endangered Moist to wet areas yearround, little shade

No known 

population on 

district

X

3

Georgia aster (Aster 

georgianus) Candidate

Roadsides, open woods, 

barrens and glades, utility 

rights-of-way. Prefers dry, 

open habitats independent of 

soil type

3 known 

populations on 

district

X

3

White fringeless orchid

(Platanthera 

integrilabia)

Candidate

Wet, boggy areas, stream 

heads, or seepage slopes in 

acidic muck or sand in flat or 

sharply sloped streamsides

1 known location 

on district X

3

Notes:

1- No record of occurrence in or near project area

2-Suitable habitat doesn’t exist in or near project area

3-Not found during survey of project area.

(**) State Rankings are determined by the Alabama Natural Heritage program and are based on extant populations 

occurring within the state borders. S4=apparently secure in Alabama with many occurrences, S5=demonstrably 

secure in Alabama, S? unranked.

(***) Global ranking estimates are established by the Association for Biodiversity Information (ABI), in partnership 

with the Nature Conservancy. Rankings are based on the number of extant populations. G5=demonstrably secure 

globally. 

(3) Primary habitat listings obtained through the Association for Biodiversity’s Natureserve website: 

http://www.natureserve.org. 

(4)
29

Species Considered & Evaluated

All Forest PETC species were considered for this project. See Table 4 for species considered and 

those excluded/included in detailed analysis for this project based upon whether they occurred in 

the action area or were potentially affected by the action. Plant species were analyzed if they were 

they were found during the plant survey or if historic records exist for plants near project vicinity. 

Aquatic species were analyzed if known populations exist in or near the project area or they were 

found during stream surveys.

Evaluated Species Survey Information

Field reviews of the project area have been conducted by Art Henderson (wildlife biologist) and 

Lesley Hodge (botanist), and John Moran (fisheries biologist). Surveys for PETC (Proposed, 

Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate) species were conducted during the spring of 2014. Mussel 

distribution and habitat condition information collected on 04/02/2014, along with a review of 

historic survey information, indicates there is the potential for one threatened and two Forest 

Service sensitive aquatic species to occur within the project area and vicinity. One federally 

threatened mussel, H. altilis, was found within the project area during surveys on 04/02/2014. A 

Forest Service sensitive mussel, Villosa umbrans was found in the areas surrounding the project 

area on this date and could potentially occur near the existing bridge as habitat there is suitable. A 

search of historic surveys found records of occurrences of another FS sensitive mussel, V. nebulosa, 

in Tallaseehatchee Creek in the vicinity of the project area but none were encountered on 

04/02/2014. No other TES aquatic species have been recorded within or near the project area. 

Designated critical habitat for aquatic species does not occur within or near the project area. There 

were no PETC terrestrial animals or plants identified during the project area survey.

The need to conduct site-specific inventories of PETC species for this project was based upon 

potential habitat and known locations of these species. Aquatic species were analyzed if they were 

found during the stream survey of the project area. Terrestrial species were analyzed if they were 

found within the project area. Based on this assessment, it was concluded that no additional surveys 

for PETC species were necessary to analyze and disclose effects, and to provide protection adequate 

for maintaining viability of PETC species that may occur on the District. For those species not 

already covered by inventories for the affected areas, either the proposed action would have 

beneficial effects or more information on the number and location of individuals would not improve 

the project design or reduce effects.

3.2.3.1 Existing Conditions

Tallaseehatchee Creek is a direct tributary to the Coosa River. The reach of Tallaseehatchee Creek 

in the project area is within the 6th level HUC 031501070102, Clay County, Alabama (Table 1). 

The Tallaseehatchee Creek drainage on the Talladega Division is fragmented by 2 mainstem 

impoundments and 2 tributary impoundments.
30

Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels 

in the Mobile River Basin and Fine-lined pocketbook (T).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule in the Federal Register designating critical 

habitat for 11 mussel species in the Mobile River Basin of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and 

Tennessee. The 11 mussel species with critical habitat are the threatened fine-lined pocketbook, 

orange-nacre mucket and Alabama moccasinshell; Endangered Coosa moccasinshell, ovate 

clubshell, southern clubshell, dark pigtoe, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, upland 

combshell, and southern acornshell.

Critical habitat refers to the specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a 

threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Section 

7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

The project area is not in designated critical mussel habitat. The closest designated critical mussel 

habitat is located eight miles to the southeast and is in a different watershed.

3.2.3.2 Selected Species

[Fine-lined pocketbooks are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 

1993b). Fine-lined pocketbooks historically occurred in the Alabama, Tombigbee, Black Warrior, 

Cahaba, Tallapoosa, Coosa River systems, and their tributaries. Currently, this species is limited to 

small streams above the fall line within the Cahaba, Coosa, and Tallapoosa River Basins (USFWS 

2003c). Critical habitat has been proposed for 12 watersheds including portions of the Uphapee and 

Chewacla Creeks on the Tuskegee National Forest, Cane Creek, and the Tallapoosa River 

downstream of the Shoal Creek District of the Talladega National Forest, Hatchet Creek 

downstream of the Talladega District, Shoal Creek tributary to the Upper Choccolocco largely 

within the Shoal Creek District of the Talladega, and Cheaha Creek tributary to the middle 

Choccolocco largely within the Talladega District (USFWS 2003c). Fine-lined pocketbooks are 

typically found in a sand-mud mixture with gravel in moderate current and depths (Parmalee and 

Bogan 1998). It is a fairly ubiquitous species, inhabiting both rivers and headwater streams. 

Largemouth (Micropterus salmoides), redeye (Micropterus coosae), and spotted bass (M. 

punctulatus), as well as green sunfish have been identified as suitable fish hosts for the glochidia 

(Haag et al. 1999). As for most freshwater mussels, this species is likely long-lived, and not 

reproductively mature until attaining 8 or more years of age (Neves and Moyer 1988). The primary 

constituent elements identified as of importance for proposed critical habitat include: stable 

channels, appropriate flows, necessary water quality, clean substrates, available fish hosts, and lack 

of competitive non-native species (USFWS 2003).] (NFA FEIS RLRMP, p.3-227) 

Four fine-lined pocketbooks were located during the survey of the project area.
31

3.2.3.3 Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1 (No Action): The no action alternative would leave in place the existing

Tallaseehatchee Creek/NFSR 607 low water crossing and not change the current conditions and its 

impacts to stream habitat and aquatic organisms. The ability to move freely through a stream 

network is an important aspect of a fish species long term viability. Debris commonly builds on the 

current structure after rain events on the concrete pilings needed to support the existing multi-span 

bridge structure. This debris buildup can dam up water during dry times and cause a barrier to 

passage and reduce the amount of flowing water. A barrier to that movement could create 

population fragmentation, prevent population recovery following disturbance, and restrict access to 

specific habitats (spawning, nursery, cover, overwintering, flow and thermal refuges, etc.) required 

to complete various life stages. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): The proposed action would construct a single span bridge that 

spans the entire bankfull width of Tallaseehatchee Creek, and demolish and remove the existing 

bridge structure. The bridge construction phase of the project will not directly disturb the stream 

channel as these activities will occur outside of the bankfull width channel. Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines and road/bridge construction best management practices (BMPs) will be 

implemented during this phase to restrict sediment transport to the stream channel and minimize 

indirect effects to aquatic organisms and their habitat (See section 3.1.1.2). 

The demolition of the existing structure will cause short-term (four to eight weeks), temporary, and 

small-scale disturbances to the stream channel and could potentially directly affect stream habitat 

and individual aquatic organisms. The area around the existing structure will be dewatered during 

the demolition phase by an upstream temporary dam and a pump to divert the stream water from 

behind the dam and around the site. Heavy equipment will be required to facilitate the manual 

placement and removal of the temporary diversion dam, demolish the existing structure, and 

remove demolition debris from the stream channel while the site is dewatered. Heavy equipment 

access to the stream channel will be restricted to a 50 lineal feet area upstream of the existing 

structure and 50 lineal feet area downstream. This 100 ft. restricted area and temporary extent of the 

disturbance will minimize the direct and permanent effects to overall stream habitat. A potential 

direct effect to individual mussels could come from heavy equipment crushing and killing or 

injuring mussels during the demolition phase. To prevent direct impacts to mussels, a removal and 

relocation effort will be conducted prior to start of all demolition activities. All mussels will be 

removed from the stream channel in the demolition affected area in addition to a 50 ft. buffer 

outside that area. The mussels will be relocated upstream of the project site outside the influence of 

the project in suitable habitat indicated by specific habitat parameters and the presence of other 

mussels. A suitable site was identified by the fisheries biologist who completed the aquatic survey 

for this project during the spring of 2014. Replacing the existing multi-span bridge with a single 

span bridge will greatly reduce the potential for debris buildup during rain events. This will prevent 

debris from blocking water flow during low water periods which will enhance habitat for mussels.
32

3.2.3.4 Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Cumulative effects, in addition to the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and organisms 

from alternatives 1 and 2, could occur from any past, present, or foreseeable future actions that 

would: increase sediment transport to stream channels, restrict the migration of aquatic organisms,

increase stream temperature, reduce large woody debris and organic material input to stream 

channels, modify stream channel geomorphology, and degrade water quality from point and 

nonpoint source pollution. Cumulative effects could come from the management actions that have 

occurred or will occur in this 6th level watershed including prescribed burns, road management, 

recreational lake area management, and vegetation management. The cumulative effects from ongoing Forest Service management activities are minimized by the implementation of the standards 

and guidelines outlined in the 2004 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National 

Forests in Alabama. Very little private ownership of land occurs in this watershed upstream of the 

project area and no measurable cumulative effects are expected from past, current, or foreseeable 

future actions there. Implementing the proposed action will not cause any cumulative effects to 

occur.

3.3 Health and Human Safety

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The recreational opportunities that are available to the public in the project area include, but are not 

limited to: hunting, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, fishing, mountain biking, and camping. Of 

these recreational uses, driving, hunting, hiking, camping and horseback riding are the most

common activities in this area. The existing crossing presents a safety hazard to forest users due to 

water topping the low water crossing during moderate rain events and potential bridge failure due 

to currently leaning pilings. Users have to turn around in the road or risk crossing the flooded 

stream. 

3.3.2 Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1: No Action

Hunting, fishing, horseback riding and wildlife viewing opportunities would continue and the 

safety hazard of the flooded low water crossing would still exist.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The proposed action would temporarily reduce some recreational opportunities or the quality of 

recreation in the project area, but would be of short duration (estimated 2-3 months). The 

construction of new bridge facilities and road would have short-term (less than 6 months) effects 

on scenery and access in the project area, and this impact could be viewed as positive and/or 

negative by some forest users. Safety of forest users would increase because water would be 

unlikely to top the bridge that will be higher up than the current low water crossing.
33

3.3.3 Cumulative Effects on Health and Human Safety

We just started the analysis process for replacing the low water crossing on NFSR 601 with a large 

culvert. It is located about 0.6 miles from this bridge. However the combined effects with this 

project would not cause any adverse effects on health and human safety. Implementing the 

proposed action would improve the safety of forest users travelling NFSR 607.

3.4 Heritage Resources

3.4.1 Affected Environment

The National Forests in Alabama (NFA) is proposing to replace a historical bridge located on NFSR 

607 spanning Tallaseehatchee Creek. Improving the safety of the Tallaseehatchee Creek crossing, 

as well as elevating the crossing above flood level is the rationale for this decision. This bridge was 

constructed in 1939 according to the 1974 NFA bridge inspection record, the earliest record in the 

files for this structure. Thus it is assumed that the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) built this 

bridge as they are believed to have constructed NFSR 607. Research indicates that CCC Company 

3478 stationed in Talladega, Alabama may have built the NFSR 607 as they were working on the 

Sky Way Motorway, now NFSR 600-1; the southern terminus of which is scant meters away from 

the intersection of NFSR 607 and Alabama Highway 148 (Pasquill 2008:52-55).

An archaeological field inspection for the bridge spanning Tallaseehatchee Creek on NFSR 607 of 

the Talladega district of the Talladega National Forest was conducted on Thursday June, 14 2013. 

As constructed the bridge is a trestle concrete slab with three distinct spans, each 9’4” in length, 

though the bridge is 32 feet in total length considering the approach abutments. This bridge is an 

example of an expedient CCC construction, as aesthetically pleasing fieldstone construction was 

utilized for their more important bridge crossings. This bridge is cast in place concrete; there are 

still numerous representations of this type on the Talladega District that served as expedient 

structures to facilitate rapid transportation for CCC enrollees across the forest (Pasquill 2008B; 

Ridley 2008).

Limited maintenance of the bridge was conducted by the district throughout the decades. However, 

in some cases this maintenance modified and downgraded the historic integrity of the bridge. Case 

in point is that the historic mortared fieldstone wingwalls, the only indication of CCC master 

craftsmen level construction on this bridge, were noted in a 1996 bridge inspection as failing and 

allowing erosion under them thus undercutting the abutments. By 2000 the wingwalls were 

removed and replaced by riprap. 

A report to the Alabama SHPO and consulting tribes is in preparation for their review as part of the 

NFA Section 106 consultation program. 

3.4.2 Effects by Alternative

Alternative 1: No Action

With no action taken to repair the leaning bridge support, eventually the structure would fail,

resulting in a loss of historical artifacts which diminishes the legacy of the Talladega National 

Forest. 
34

Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

The replacement of the bridge is an effect to the existing historical structure, though the structure is 

not in itself eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, or 

D. However, any loss of historical artifacts does diminish the legacy of the Talladega National 

Forest. To this end the district will offset the effect of the bridge removal by producing an 

architectural report noting the limited history of the bridge, as well as detailed photographs and 

drawings so that if future research on this artifact class is needed, it is still available for study. Also, 

to ensure that this artifact class does not physically disappear completely, several examples are 

preserved in place on the district within sections of the still existing Sky Way Motorway, a Historic 

Transportation Route, which is now known as NFA FSR 600-1, 600-2 and 600-3 (see above 

references). 

NFA FSR 607 at the Tallaseehatchee Creek crossing, also historical in nature but not eligible to be a 

Historic Transportation Route due to continued maintenance and modifications of the road bed by 

the NFA and the Clay County Engineering Department, will not suffer an adverse effect from this 

bridge replacement. 

3.4.3 Cumulative Effects on Heritage Resources

Currently there is a low water crossing replacement near this project area which will occur in the 

near future. The combined effects of these projects would not cause any adverse effects on 

heritage resources as a whole for the Talladega National Forest. 
35

4.0 REFERENCES CITED

Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management on 

Construction Sites and Urban Areas. 

Albright, Ray and Kevin Leftwich. 1999. A Watershed Analysis for the National Forests in

Alabama.

Angermeier, P.L. 1995. Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes 

of Virginia. Conserv. Biol. 9:143-158.

Alexander, G. R.; Hansen, E. A. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. N. Am. J. Fish. 

Manage. 6:9-23.

Beasley, R. S.; Granillo, A. B.; Zilmer, V. 1986. Sediment loses from forest management;

mechanical vs chemical site preparation after clearcutting. J. Env. Qual. 15:413-416.

Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin and T. Merril. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the 

Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range 

Policy Analysis Group. Report No. 8 Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 35pp.

Brown, Charles J. and C. Phillip Weatherspoon. 1990. Sustaining site productivity on forestlands: 

a user’s guide to good soil management. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources; 

University of California. Publication 21481: 13-18.

Brown, Charles J. and D. Binkley. 1994. Effect of Management on Water Quality in North

American Forests. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report RM-248.

Burr, B. M., and R. L. Mayden. 1992. Phylogenetics and North American freshwater fishes. Pages 

18-75 in R . L . Mayden, ed. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater 

fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Coats, R. N.; Miller, T. O. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on watershed: A hydrologic and 

regulatory dilemma. Environ. Manage. 5:147-160.

Coffman, S., M. Minter, and C. Roghair. 2006. Fish Passage Status of Road-Stream Crossings on 

Selected National Forests in the Southern Region, 2006. Technical Report. US Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. Blacksburg, VA.

Dissmeyer, G. E.; Foster, G. R. 1984. A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest

Land. USDA-Forest Service, Southern Region. Technical Publication R8-TP6. 40 pages.

Dissmeyer, G. E.; Stump, R. F. 1978. Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Management Activities in 

the Southeast. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. State and Private Forestry, 

Southeastern Area. Atlanta GA. 39 pages.

Douglass, J. E.; Van Lear, D. H. 1983. Prescribed burning and water quality of ephemeral streams 

in the piedmont of South Carolina. For. Sci. 29:181-189.
36

Elliot, W. J., Hall, D. E., and D. L. Scheele. December, 1999. WEPP:Road (Draft 12/1999) WEPP 

Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. U. S.

Department of Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San

Dimas Technology and Development Center, Moscow, Idaho.

Golden, M.S., C.L. Tuttle, J.S. Hush and J.M. Bradley, III. 1984. Forest Activities and Water

Quality in Alabama. AL Agric. Exp. Stn. Bulletin No. 555. 87p.

Gordon, A.E., S.C. Harris, and P.K. Lago. 1986. Descriptions of New Species of Cheumatopsyche 

(Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) and the Presumed Female of C. helma ross from Alabama. The 

Florida Entomologist, Vol. 69, No. 2 (June 1986). pp 314-318.

Harris, S.C., P.E. O’Neil, and P.K. Lago. 1991. Caddisflies of Alabama. Geological Survey of 

Alabama Bulletin 142. Tuscaloosa, AL. 442 pp

Judy, R.D., P.N. Seeley, T.M. Murray, S.C. Svirsky, M.R. Whitworth, and L.S. Ischinger. 1984.

1982 National Fisheries Survey. Vol. I Technical Report: Initial findings. USFWS FWS/OBS84/06. 140 pp.

Kopaska-Merkel, David C. and James D. Moore. 2000. Water in Alabama. Circular 122O. 

Geological Survey of Alabama.

Lubchenco, J.A., and 15 coauthors. 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological 

research agenda. Ecology 72:371-412.

McKinney, M.L. and J.L. Lockwood. 2001. Biotic homogenization: a sequential and selective 

process. Pp. 1-17 in J.L. Lockwood and M.L.McKinney, eds. Biotic homogenization. Kluwer 

Plenum/Academic Press, New York.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummings. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North 

America. Kendall /Hunt Publishing Company. Dubuque, Iowa. 722 pages.

Miller, James A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Segment 6. Hydrologic

Investigations Atlas 730-G. U.S. Geological Survey.

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2009. Version 7.1. 

Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 

February 2010).

Nicolo, Mike. 1982. Analysis of the Management Situation. National Forests in Alabama. Land

& Resource Management Plan.

Noel, J.M., W.J. Platt, and E.B. Moser. 1998. Structural characteristics of old- and second-growth 

stands of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) in the Gulf coastal region of the U.S.A. Conservation 

Biology 12:533-548. 

Pasquill, Bob. 2008B HRM Report 2008-6-001:Survey of Forest Service Road 600-2, National 

Forests in Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama.
37

Pasquill, Bob. 2008 The Civilian Conservation Corps in Alabama, 1933-1942. University of 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Ricciardi, A., and J.B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. 

Conserv. Biol. 13:1220-1222.

Ridley, Marcus. 2008 HRM Report 2008-06-004:Cheaha Blacktop Timber Sale, Jacksonville 

State University-Archaeological Resource Laboratory, Jacksonville, Alabama.

Roehl, J. W. 1962. Sediment source areas, delivery ratios, and influencing morphological factors. 

IASH Comm of Land Eros, Pub 59:202-213.

Scharf, F.S., F. Juanes, and M. Sutherland. 1998. Inferring ecological relationships from the edges 

of scatter diagrams: comparison of regression techniques. Ecology 79:448-468.

Scott, M.C., and G.S. Helfman. 2001. Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of 

integrity of fish assemblages. Fisheries 26(11):6-15.

Shalaee, A.K., W.L. Nutter, E.R. Burroughs, Jr. and L.A. Morris. 1991. Runoff and Sediment

Production from Burned Forest Sites in the Georgia Piedmont. Water Resources Bulletin.

27(3):485-493.

Terrell, J.W., B.S. Cade, J. Carpenter, and J.M. Thompson. 1996. Modeling stream fish habitat 

limitations from wedge-shaped patterns of variation in standing stock. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 125:104-117.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Designation of critical habitat for three threatened 

mussels and eight endangered mussels in the Mobile River Basin; final rule. Federal Register 

69(126): 40084-40171.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 

borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta. GA. 296pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final environmental impact statement vegetation management in the 

coastal plain/piedmont. Volume 1. 89-91

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Final environmental impact statement Forest Health and RCW 

Initiative, Talladega National Forest, Talladega Division. 21-30

USDA National Forests in Alabama. 1993, 1994, 2005, 2008. Watershed monitoring reports on 

file at Supervisor’s Office.

USDA National Forests in Alabama. 2004-2006, 2007-2008. Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2004. Final Land and Resource Management Plan of the Talladega 

National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2004. National Forests in Alabama Appendices
38

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2004. National Forests in Alabama Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Plan.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2002. Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. Southeastern Region, 

Atlanta, GA.

Ware, S., C. Frost, and P.D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf 

pine forest. Pp. 447-493 in W.H. Matin, S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of 

the southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New 

York, NY.

Warren, M.L. Jr., and B.M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes of the United States: Overview 

of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries 19(1):6-17.

Warren, M.L. Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, 

B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, 

distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. 

Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American

Fisheries Society Monograph 7.
39

5.0LISTOFPREPARERS

The following people contributed to the preparation of this EA:

Name Title

Lesley Hodge District ORA

David Rasmussen Zone Engineer

Erika Davis Engineering Unit Leader

Art Goddard Forest Soil Scientist

John Moran Forest Fisheries Biologist

Marcus Ridley Forest Archeologist

Art Henderson Wildlife Biologist
 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK