20210555 Ver 1_BR-0029_Final_CE_Checklist_Signed_20211129

BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 1 July 2019

Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form

STIP Project No. BR-0029
WBS Element 67029.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A

A. Project Description:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 550026 on NC 106 (Dillard Road) over Middle Creek in Macon County, North
Carolina, for an approximate length of 0.40 miles (see Figure 1 – Vicinity Map). The
proposed action is listed in the Bridge Program as Project Number BR-0029.

The existing bridge is 88 feet long, with a clear roadway width of 18.75 feet. The project
is located in a rural area southwest of the unincorporated community of Scaly Mountain
with a few single-family residences and open land nearby. The bridge is approaching
the end of its functional life and has a sufficiency rating of 37.9. The purpose of the
project is to replace a functionally obsolete bridge with a structure that meets current
NCDOT standards.

B. Description of Need and Purpose:

The purpose of this project is to replace a functionally obsolete bridge. Bridge No.
550026 was constructed in 1938 and is in need of replacement. Records indicate
Bridge No. 550026 has a sufficiency rating of 37.9 out of 100. In 2018, NCDOT bridge
crews welded ½” plates to the bottom flanges along the outside beams of Span 1 and 3.
Beam end plating was added to Beam 1 along Span 3, to strengthen the beam. The
maintenance performed was only a temporary improvement and does not remove the
need to replace the bridge.

C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)

☒ TYPE I A

D. Proposed Improvements

28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the
constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-6).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 2 July 2019

E. Special Project Information:

Environmental Commitments:
Greensheet commitments are located at the end of the checklist.

Estimated Traffic:
Traffic volumes were provided in a December 2017 Traffic Forecast Report.

Current Year (2017) 3,200
Future Year (2040) 5,600
TTST 2%
Dual 5%

Design Exceptions:
There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.

Alternatives Evaluation:
No Build Alternative – A No-Build Alternative would not replace a deficient bridge and
would result in eventually closing the road.

Build Alternative – The Build Alternative proposes to replace the existing 88-foot long
structure on NC 106 (Dillard Road) with an approximately 107-foot long bridge with the
roadway approach widened to 40-feet; with two, 12-foot travel lanes and eight-foot
shoulders along the outside of each travel lane (see Figure 2 – Proposed Build
Alternative). No off-site detours are anticipated for this project. The replacement bridge
will be constructed directly to the north of the existing structure and is expected to
implement staged construction. The two travel lanes on the existing bridge are anticipated
to remain open during construction to allow for full movement of traffic. Deconstruction of
the existing bridge will transpire to allow construction of the replacement structure to be
completed. One-lane traffic operations may be necessary during final pavement tie-ins,
but those operations would be kept at a minimum as traffic movement will shift to the
replacement structure and the existing bridge is removed. The speed limit will be 45 miles
per hour (mph).

Estimated Costs:
Current cost estimates were provided by the NCDOT Contracts and Standards group on
May 2019, for the Preferred Alternative:

Right-of-Way Acquisition $TBD
Utilities $TBD
Construction $2,800,000
Total $TBD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 3 July 2019

Bridge Demolition:
The existing structure is made of concrete and steel and NCDOT anticipates being able to
remove the structure with no debris falling in the water based on standard demolition
practices.

Protected Species:
As of April 27, 2018, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 11
federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Macon County.
Based on a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records and
biological field surveys, a total of six species were found to have a biological conclusion
rendering of “No Effect.” The bog turtle was “Not Required” to have a biological
conclusion and the Rusty-patched bumble bee does not require a Section 7 survey or
conclusion at this time.

The biological conclusion for the Gray bat, Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat is
“Unresolved.” As the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead federal
agency for this state-funded project, the USACE will render biological conclusions for all
species.

Jurisdictional Resources:
One jurisdictional stream, Middle Creek; was identified in the project study area. The
project proposes a replacement bridge to the north of the existing structure. The
approximately 107-foot structure will span over the stream as support columns will not be
needed within Middle Creek. Riprap will be extended to the top of the banks for
stabilization and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be followed during construction.
There were no other surface water ponds or jurisdictional wetlands identified within the
project study area.

Cultural Resources:
NCDOT Cultural Resources staff determined there are no significant historic resources in
the Area of Potential Effects (APE); which covers an area measuring 2,130 feet east and
2,220 feet west along NC 106 from the center of the bridge and extends 250 feet to either
side of the road. Bridge No. 550026 is not eligible for national registrar (NR) listing based
on the NCDOT historic bridge inventory.

NCDOT Historic Architecture Staff identified no National Register listed or eligible
properties within the APE. A No Historic Architecture Survey Required form was
submitted on January 8, 2018.

NCDOT Archaeology staff identified no previously recorded archaeological sites or
cemeteries within the APE. An Archaeological Survey Required form was submitted on
February 15, 2018. An intensive archaeological survey was conducted on May 3-4, 2018.
Field investigations did not locate any new archaeological resources, and it was
determined no significant archaeological sites are present. A No National Register Eligible
or Listed Archaeological Sites Present form was submitted on August 21, 2018.

No further architectural or archaeological investigations are required for this project.
However, should the project expand outside of the defined APE, additional work will be
necessary. NCDOT Cultural Resources determination can be found in Appendix B.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 4 July 2019

Public Involvement:
A Public Meeting was held on Thursday, November 29, 2018, at the Sky Valley – Scaly
Mountain Volunteer Fire and Rescue building in Scaly Mountain. Approximately 27 people
attended the public meeting with seven comments being received during the comment
period. The majority of comments were in support of the project, and included requests for
improved visibility of traffic along NC 106 (Dillard Road) from Happy Hill Road (existing
structure), accommodating truck traffic, and replacement of the existing structure.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 5 July 2019

F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:

Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
If any of questions 1-7 are marked “yes” then the CE will require FHWA approval. Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? ☐ ☒
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)? ☐ ☒
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
reason, following appropriate public involvement? ☐ ☒
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to
low-income and/or minority populations? ☐ ☒
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a
substantial amount of right of way acquisition? ☐ ☒
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ☐ ☒
7
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
☐ ☒
If any of questions 8 through 31 are marked “yes” then additional information will be required for those
questions in Section G.
Other Considerations Yes No
8
Does the project result in a finding of “may affect not likely to adversely affect”
for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
☒ ☐
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ☐ ☒
10
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas,
303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)?
☐ ☒
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout streams? ☒ ☐
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
Section 404 Permit?
☐ ☒
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensed facility? ☐ ☒
14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains? ☐ ☒
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 6 July 2019

Other Considerations (continued) Yes No
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills? ☐ ☒
16
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a
regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood)
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
☐ ☒
17
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and
substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC)?
☐ ☒
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ☐ ☒
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? ☐ ☒
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ☐ ☒
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands? ☒ ☐
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control? ☐ ☒
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness? ☐ ☒
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ☐ ☒
25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
applicable)?
☐ ☒
26
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in
fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or
covenants on the property?
☐ ☒
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐ ☒
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☒ ☐
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? ☐ ☒
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by
the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? ☐ ☒
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
affected the project decision? ☐ ☒

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 7 July 2019

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F

Response to Question 8:
The biological conclusion for the Gray bat, Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat is
“Unresolved.” As the USACE is the lead federal agency for this state-funded project,
the USACE will render biological conclusions for all species.

Response to Question 11:
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) has identified this area of
Middle Creek as an area where brown and rainbow trout occur. Per a Memorandum
dated September 17, 2018, a moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land
disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15,
to protect the egg and fry stages of trout. Sediment and erosion control measures
should adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (Appendix C).

Response to Questions 21 and 28:
In order to construct the proposed project, NCDOT will need to acquire right-of-way and
easements from the Nantahala National Forest, which is managed by the US Forest
Service. This acquisition has been reviewed by FHW A and USFS and deemed by a
programmatic 4(f) evaluation that will not adversely affect the Forest's access or use,
per the letter in Attachment D.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 8 July 2019

H. Project Commitments

Macon County
Bridge No. 550026 on NC 106 over Middle Creek
WBS No. 67029.1.1
TIP No. BR-0029

NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit

Section 7: As the USACE is the lead federal agency for this state-funded project, the USACE
will render a Biological Conclusion for all species.

Brown and Rainbow Trout Moratorium: At the request of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, NCDOT will adhere to an in-stream and 25-foot buffer work
moratorium from October 15 to April 15, to protect the egg and fry stages of trout. Sediment
and erosion control measures will adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.

NCDOT Division 14 Right-of-Way

Section 4(f): The NCDOT and FHWA do not anticipate that the proposed project will have an
adverse effect on the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the Nantahala National
Forest for protection under Section 4(f). NCDOT right of way agents will coordinate with the
USFS to appraise the right of way required for the project prior to construction.

NCDOT Division 14

Section 4(f): NCDOT Division 14 staff will coordinate with the USFS regarding project
developments associated with the Nantahala National Forest.

BR-0029 Final CE Checklist Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
July 2019
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
BR-0029 Final CE Checklist 9 July 2019

I. Categorical Exclusion Approval

STIP Project No. BR-0029
WBS Element 67029.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A

Prepared By:

Date Shawn Blanchard, Transportation Planner
DRMP, Inc.

Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation

Reviewed By:

Date Philip S. Harris III, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Environmental Analysis Unit

☒ Approved
If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered “no,” NCDOT approves this
Categorical Exclusion.

☐ Certified
If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered “yes,” NCDOT certifies this
Categorical Exclusion.

Date Kevin Fischer, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Structures Management Unit

FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature
required.

N/A
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Structures Management Unit
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
7/30/2019
7/30/2019
8/6/2019

FIGURES

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
^_MiddleCreekWatkinsCree
k
JakeBranchProject Vicinity Map
Nort h Carolina Department of TransportationSturctures Managem ent Unit Project Vicinity Map
Bridge No. 550 026, NC 106 over Middle CreekTIP NO. BR-0029Macon County, North Carolina
Preliminary & Subject to Change
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Legend
Figure 1
July 2019´Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia,NGCC, © OpenStreetM ap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Macon County
Mi
d
d
l
e

C
r
e
e
k
^_Bridge No. 550026
River & Stream s
BR-0029 Study Area
Nantahala Forest
106
106
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
Prelim inary & Su bjec t to Change ±
106
0 100 20050
Feet
Bridge No. 55026 NC 106 over Middle CreekTIP No. BR-0029Macon County, North CarolinaProposed Build Alternative
Nort h Carolina Department of TransportationStructures Managem ent Unit
106
Figure 2July 2019
Happy Hill RoadHi
g
hl
a
nd
Ga
p Ro
a
dH ig h la n d G a p R o a d
Middle Creek
Proposed Edge of Travel
Proposed Shoulder
Proposed Bridge
BR-0029 Study Area
Nantahala Forest
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C

APPENDIX A

Section 7 Survey Results for the Northern Long-Eared Bat, Indiana
Bat and Gray Bat

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

WEBSITE:NCDOT.GOV
Location:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING B
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

September 25, 2018

TO: Bill Barrett, Environmental Senior Specialist
Environmental Coordination & Permitting Group, EAU

FROM: Melissa Miller, Environmental Program Consultant
Biological Surveys Group, EAU

SUBJECT: Section 7 survey results for the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) , Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and gray bat (Myotis grisescens)
associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 26 over Middle Creek on NC
106 in Macon County, TIP No. BR-0029.

On June 20, 2018, NCDOT biologists assessed Bridge No. 26 for potential northern long-
eared bat, Indiana bat and gray bat habitat. Shallow top-sealed crevices suitable for
roosting were present. Evidence of bats in the form of guano was observed in multiple
places under the bridge. No mines or caves were detected in the project area.

Bridge No. 26 is approximately 10 miles to the nearest red HUC.

Final design, tree clearing and percussive activities information will be provided in the
permit application.

If you need any additional information, please contact Melissa Miller at 919-707-6127.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C

APPENDIX B

Cultural Resources Determination

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
Project Tracking No.:
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 7
17-12-0040

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: Bridge 26 County: Macon
WBS No: 67029.1.1 Document: Minimum Criteria
F.A. No: na Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP# 3 or 14

Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 26 on NC 106 (Dillard Road) over Middle Creek in
Macon County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as a
4,350 foot (1,325.88 m) long corridor running 2,130 feet (649.22 m) east and 2,220 feet (676.66 m) west
along NC 106 from the center of Bridge No. 26. The corridor is approximately 500 feet (152.40 m) wide
extending 250 feet (76.20 m) on either side of the road from its present centerline.

SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEY REQUIRED

Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Bridge No. 26 is located southwest of Highlands in Macon County, North Carolina. The project area is
plotted at the southern edge of the Scaly Mountain USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).

A site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on January 11, 2018. No
previously recorded sites are recorded within or adjacent to the APE, but six sites (31MA276–31MA280
and 31MA282) are identified within a mile of the bridge. According to the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2018), there are no known historic architectural
resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits. Topographic maps, USDA soil
survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map), historic maps (North Carolina maps website), and
Google Street View application were also examined for information on environmental and cultural
variables that may have contributed to prehistoric or historic settlement within the project limits and to
assess the level of ground disturbance.

NC 106 and Bridge No. 26 run slightly east to west, while Middle Creek drains to the northwest into the
Little Tennessee River. An unnamed tributary to Middle Creek also falls within the APE, west of the
bridge, with the confluence just outside. The APE consists mostly of steep side slopes, but sloping
terraces are present at the western end (Figure 2). The project area is typically forested with some
residential properties and open spaces. It appears the U.S. Forest Service may own property northwest of
the bridge, but this has not been confirmed. Disturbance appears light except for hillsides that have been
cut back for the road. Other disturbance from soil erosion and grading are likely.

The USDA soil survey map for Macon County records four soil types within the APE (USDA NRCS
2018) (see Figure 2). The side slopes are made up of the Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex (CuD) and the
Edneyville-Chestnut complex (EdD; EdE; EdF). Although well drained, these soils have a slope of 15
percent or more and are not usually tested for archaeological resources. However, they may contain rock
shelters that can be visually identified. The Tuckasegee-Cullasaja complex (TsC) composes the sloping
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
Project Tracking No.:
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 7
17-12-0040
terraces to the west. This series is well drained with a slope of 8 to 15 percent. Being dry and fairly level,
it is well suited for early settlement activities. Finally, a small area to the northeast is reported as
Udorthents loam (Ud). This is a disturbed area where the natural soil characteristics have been altered by
earth moving activities. The actual disturbance at this location is unknown, but it may be related to
hillside grading.

A review of the site files shows only one previous archaeological investigation in the region. This work
conducted by the U.S. Forest Service included properties north of NC 106 mostly along ridge tops outside
of the current APE (Raddisch et al 1989). Testing consisted of a fire rake survey and not subsurface
testing. Six prehistoric sites (31MA276–31MA280 and 31MA282), one (31MA282) of which yielded
historic resources as well, were identified. These sites were lithic scatters that were determined ineligible
for the National Register. In general, further work in various settings other than ridge tops is needed in
this section of Macon County to better understand settlement patterns.

A historic map review was also conducted for the project area. The 1907 USGS Cowee topographic map
was the earliest in which an accurate location for the project could be determined (Figure 3). It shows a
road with a similar alignment as NC 106, but Middle Creek is plotted further towards the northeast. This
location is probably incorrect as it does not appear that the creek has been moved during the 20th century.
Two structures are also depicted either within or near the APE, but it appears neither is still standing. The
circa 1910 U.S. Post Office map also illustrates the road but with a distorted alignment (Figure 4). This
distortion is likely due to the schematic nature of the Postal map. Structures are plotted as well; however,
they seem to be outside of the project limits. The 1933 Soil Map for Macon County shows a more
accurate and modern road layout with structures on either side of the bridge (Figure 6). Although it is
very likely that structures found on these maps are no longer standing, remains could still be present.
Further work is needed to determine if any of these are significant to the early historic occupation of the
region.

A preliminary background investigation suggests that subsurface testing is necessary within particular
portions of the APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 26 on NC 106 in Macon County. These
areas are at the western end of the APE along the stream terraces. Although most of the project area is
steeply sloped and will not require testing, it should be visually inspected for rock shelters. Historic maps
also suggest that remnants of households from the early 20th century or earlier may be present. Lastly, the
U.S. Forest Service will need to be consulted if there property is to be effected. Additional work in the
form of a reconnaissance and field survey is recommended in order to record and evaluate archaeological
sites that might be impacted by this proposed project in Macon County.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other: images of historic maps
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST – SURVEY REQUIRED
2/15/18
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
TBD
Proposed fieldwork completion date

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 20
17-12-0040

NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: Bridge 26 County: Macon
WBS No: 67029.1.1 Document: Minimum Criteria
F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP#3 or 14

Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 26 on NC 106 (Dillard Road) over Middle Creek in
Macon County (Figure 1). The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined
as a 4,350-foot (1,325.88 m) long corridor running 2,130 feet (649.22 m) east and 2,220 feet (676.66 m)
west along NC 106 from the center of Bridge No. 26. The corridor is approximately 500 feet (152.40 m)
wide extending 250 feet (76.20 m) on either side of the road from its present centerline.

SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:

There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
present within the project’s area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed)
No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological
resources.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and
all compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 20
17-12-0040
RECOMMENDATION

New South Associates, Inc. conducted an intensive archaeological survey and evaluation for proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 26 in Macon County on May 3 and 4, 2018, under the direction of James
Stewart and the supervision of Shawn Patch (see Figures 1 and 2). During the course of the survey, no
archaeological resources were identified. Based on these results, no further archaeological investigations
are recommended for this project as currently defined. I concur with this recommendation as the
proposed project will not impact significant archaeological resources. However if the project expands
and impacts subsurface areas beyond the defined APE, further archaeological consultations will be
necessary.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Other: Cultural Review
Signed:

8/21/18
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C

APPENDIX C

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Trout Moratorium Memorandum Dated September 17, 2018

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C

APPENDIX D

Section 4(f) Programmatic Agreement Concurrence

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6073849B-EB66-48C5-87A9-8AE95D46704C