20140468 Ver 1_Application_20140207

PAT NICCRORY
GOVERINOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
February 7, 2014
Ms, Lori Beckwith, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
U. S. Artuy Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
ANTHONY J. TATA
SECRETARY
Subject: Nationwide 14 Permit Application
TIP Project No. B-3458
Replace Bridge No. 114 on SR 1237 (Everett Jenkins Road) over Stecoah Creek
Graham County
State Pi-ojeet No. 33078.1 (DWQ Minos— Permit Fee $240.00)
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace the subject
bridge. The existing 18'W x 40' L timber and steel bridge needs to be replaced due to
deterioration and insufficient width. The proposed replacement structure will be a single span
30' W x 55' L x 21"D cored slab bridge ona90 degree skew. The bridge will be phased
constructed in order to maintain traffic on this dead end road during construction. The new
bridge will be constructed slightly upstream of the existing bridge and will require a sinall
channel relocation, as well as, the removal of an existing driveway pipe and removal /replacement
of one other existing driveway pipe,
I am enclosing a PCN application, Rapanos Jurisdictional Determination Forn-t, SHPO Forms,
plan sheets showing the proposed work, a marked county inal), a USGS quad map and
photographs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USE S) County List and the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Database were checked for records of endangered and threatened species. The USFWS
lists 31 species with federal status that are known front current or historic records or have
potential to occur in Graham County, The bog turtle (G1j)p1emjs nuthlenbei-gii) is listed as
threatened due to similarity to the listed northern bog turtle, Five species, Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmiclonta raveneliana), Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomj)s sabrinus coloratils),
rock gnome lichen (G),mnoclei-ma fineare), Indiana bat (M) olis socle'dis) and Virginia spiraea
(Slfiraea Orginiatia) are listed as either threatened or endangered. Spotfin chub (Er anion
armor aches) was released into the Cheoah River in 2009 and has been supplemented with
subsequent releases; therefore, the Clicoah River downstream of Lake, Santeetlah Dam is
considered occupied habitat. The spotfin chub is a federally threatened species. Additionally,
rourteenth Division Office
Telephone: [phone] Webster Road, Sylva, North Carolina 2877 9 Rm [phone]

0
the bald eagle (Hciliaeetus leucocelMahts) is known from Graham County and has special
protection under the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act.
The only listed species within a five mile radius of the project is for the Indiana bat. There are
several records for this species with the nearest records occurring in the Stecoali Creek watershed
approximately, 0.6 miles downstream of the project.
The area in the vicinity of the bridge has been highly altered by agricultural activities, farms
buildings an(] a single family residence. The overall landscape would be characterized as
primarily deciduous forest. The vegetation at the project site consists mainly of grassed areas
with forest limited to trees along the streanibank.
Stecoah Creek at SR 1237 is approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Fontana Lake. The habitat
immediately Lip and downstream of the project area has been altered significantly due to removal
of riparian buffers. The stream is approximately 20 feet in width and is not characteristic of the
Appalachian elktoe or the spotfin chub.
Terrestrial habitat at the bridge site is highly altered with the dominate vegetation type being
open fields. The stream gradient is relatively gentle through the bridge site and lacks gravel bars.
The habitat does not appear characteristic of the Virginia spiraea.
The lack of forest and riparian habitat also limits roosting habitat for the Indiana bat. There may
be sonic potential that the area provides feeding areas for the Indiana bat. There may be some
potential that one of the few trees near the bridge site could provide roosting habitat for the
Indiana bat. Some species of bats use bridges as roost sites. The existing bridge is steel with
timber decking and lacks the thermal characteristics and crevices preferred by roosting bats.
There was no staining or guano observed during the field scoping process. The lack of trees, the
roads and houses limit the potential for bald eagle nesting,
This project is limited in scope to replacement of a bridge with another spanning structure.
Habitat appears to be lacking for the listed species and the bald eagle with the exception that
trees in the area could potentially provide roosting habitat for the Indiana bat. If construction
rewires the removal of trees, the trees will be removed during the winter months prior to April
15t". No listed species were observed during the field scoping process. For this reason and those
listed above, we recommend a "no effect" determination for threatened and endangered species.
This project was reviewed by NCDOT's Human Environment Unit in 2013. It was determined
that no survey was required for archaeology; however, an historical architecture survey was
conducted with a determination of no effect (see attached SHPO forms).
NCDOT best management practices will be used to minimize and control sedimentation and
erosion on this project. The construction foreman will review all erosion control measures daily
to ensure sedimentation and erosion is being controlled effectively. If the devices are not
ftuictioning as intended, they will be replaced immediately with better devices.

3
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Stecoah Creek (DWQ Class: C, Tr) is shown on the USES topographic map as a perennial
stream. The channel is approximately 20 foot wide with asubstrate of boulders, cobble, gravel
and sand/silt., Stecoah Creek flows approximately 1.3 miles to Lake Fontana, which meets the
definition of a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW). For these reasons, we believe Stecoah
Creek is a Relatively Permanent Water (RPW)and is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. In order to construct the project, it will be necessary to impact waters of the
United States in the Little: Tennessee River Basin (HUC 06010202). Specifically, NCDOT is
requesting to replace Bridge No. 114 with a single span cored slab structure. Listed below is a
summary of the proposed impacts.
Site No.
Station
Existing Condition
Proposed Condition
Net
Impacts
Site I
18'W x 40'L
30'W x 55'L x 21" D
Timber Bridge
Cored Slab Bridge
05
Site 2
Existing Stream Channel
Charniel Relocation
(85 linear feet)
(85 linear feet)
85'
Site 2A
Free Flowing Stream
Impervious Dike and Flow
150'
Diversion
Site 3
30" x 20' CMP
Remove
0>
12" x 30' CMP
24" x 3Q' CMP
01
Total Permanent Stream Impacts for Bridge 01
Total Permanent Stream Impact for Channel Change 85'
Total Pernialient Stream Impact for Culverts 0'
Total Temporary Stream Impact for linpervioits Dikes all(.] Flow Diversion 1503
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to proceed
with the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Ms. Maria
Chambers, Western Region NCDOT Coordinator, of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to comment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit
request.
I am also requesting authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the North
Carolina Department of Environnient and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water
Resources (DWR). In addition, I am asking Ms. Chambers and Mr. Ben DeWit, Roadside
Environmental Field Operations Engineer (NCDOT), to comment directly to me concerning this
permit request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Josh Deyton at
[phone] or me at (928) 586 - 21X41. Your early review and consideration will be greatly
appreciated.

4
Sincerely'
Mark S. Davis
Division 14 Environmental Program Supervisor.
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Any Chapman, Division of Water Resources — DENR, Raleigh
Mr. Kevin Barnett, Division of Water Resources — DENR, Swamianoa
Mr. Jason Mays, Biologist, US, Fish and Wildlife Serviee, Asheville
Ms. Marla Chambers, Western Region NCDOT Coordinator, NCWRC, Oakboro
Mr. Josh Deyton, PE, Division 14 Bridge Management Engineer, NCDOT, Bryson City
Mr. Ben De Wit, El, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1of1i
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
I&
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number�
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
D Yes
NNo
1 cl,
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all!, that apply)::
0 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular El Non-404 JurisdictionM General Permit
El 4011 Water Quality Certification — Express El Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification so,lely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit
1 f,
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation �
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
El Yes
No
11 g:.
Is, the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer I h
D Yes
No
1h,
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
D!Yes
No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Replace Bridge No, 114 on SR 1237 (Everett Jenkins Road) over East Stecoah Creek
2b.
County:
Graham
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Robbinsville
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. State
Project No:
TIP Project No. B-3458
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
N/A
3c.
Responsible Party (for LILC if
Mark S. Davis, Division Environmental Supervisor
3d.
Street address:
253 Webster Road
3e
City, state, zip:
Sylva, N�C 28779
3f.
Telephone no.:
828-586-2141
3g.
Fax no.:
828-586-4043
3h.
Email address:
markdavis(5)ncdot,aov
Page 1of1i
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
El Agent
4b. Name:
N/A
4c. Business name
(if applicable)�:
N/A
4d. Street addres&
N/A
4e� City, state, zip:
N/A
4f. TMephone no.:
N/A
4g. Fax no.:
NIA
4h. Email address:
N/A
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5,a, Narne:
N/A
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
N/A
5c. Street address,
NIA
5d. City, state, zip:
N�IA
5e, Telephone no..
N/A
5�f. Fax no.:
NIA
5g. Email address:
N/A
Page 2 of 11

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
Ia. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
N/A
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.39526 Longitude: -83.67836
1c. Property size:
N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Stecoah Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
DWR Class: C, Tr
2c. River basin:
Little Tennessee River Basin (HUC 06010202)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Landscape is primarily forested; however, much of the land in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is open field with single
family residences.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
N/A
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace the existing Substandard timber bridge with a 30'W x 55' L x 21" D cored slab bridge on vertical abutments.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be installed. The project will be phased constructed in order to maintain
traffic during construction on this dead end road. A portion, of the new bridge will be constructed slightly upstream of the
existing bridge and traffic will be diverted. The old bridge will then be removed and the bridge completed. An 85" channel
change in an unnamed tributary to Stecoah Creek will also be required to complete the project. Track hoes, dump, trucks,
bulldozers, cranes, water pumps, sandbags, diversion pipe and various hand tools will be used to accomplish the work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetiand or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained! for this property /
0 Yes 0 No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: N/A
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
Q Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A
Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
El Yes M No ©' Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? El Yes Na
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Surnmary
I a. Which sections were completed below for Your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands 0 Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Welland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non-404, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
N/A
N/A
❑ Yes
[I No
❑ Corps
E] Dl
N/A
W2 ❑ P FIT
❑ Yes
[:1 Corps
[_1 No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P [:1 T
Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
0 Yes
❑ Corps
El No
El DWQ
W5 E]PnT
[] Yes
El Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 OPEIT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts N/A
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g,
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
1 DWQ — non-404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 NPE:1T
Bridge
Replacement
Stecoah Creek
0 PER
[_1 INT
0 Corps
0 DWQ
20
0
S2 MPE]T
Channel
Relocation
UIT to Stecoah Creek
0 PER
❑ INT
0 Corps
0 DWQ
1
85
S2A [:1 P 0 T
Flow Diversion
UT to Stecoah Creek
0 PER
❑ INT
0 Corps
DWQ
1
150
S3 F1 P Ell T
Culvert
Replacement
UT to Stecoah Creek
0 PER
[:1 INT
Corps
DWQ
1
0
S4 E] P ❑T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
[-I INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total 11eriainent Stream and Tributary Impacts — Bridge
0)
Total Permanent' tream Impacts for Channel Change
85'
Total Permanent Stream Impact for Culvert Removal and Replacement
03
Total Temporary Stream Impacts for Impervious Dikes and Flow Diversions
1501
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1,3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of
impact number —
waterbody
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
(if applicable)
Temporary (T)
01 ❑ PEI T
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
O2 E] P E] T
O3 [--] P El T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
N/A
4g, Comments: N/A
6. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, I en complete the chart below,
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Welland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond I'D
Proposed use or
(acres)
number
purpose of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Pi
N/A
N/A
N�/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
P2
6f. Total
N/A
N�/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5g. Comments. N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
Yes No If yes, permit ID no: N/A
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
NIA
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
NIA
5k. Method of construction:
NIA
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts, require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
El Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Other-.
Project is in which protected basin? N/A
❑ Catawba ❑ Randl'eman,
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f,
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
I for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary (T)
impact
required?
B1 ❑ P F-1 T
N/A
N'IA
El E] No Yes
N/A
N/A
B2 El PEI T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 F1 PEI T
n Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
N/A
N/A
6i. Comments: N/A
Page 6 of 11

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The bridge is being replaced with another spanning structure that is longer, which increases the hydraulic capacity
through the bridge opening. The bridge is basically being reptaced on existing location; thus, avoiding the need to impact
additional aquatic and/or terrestrial habitat.
1 b, Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
In-stream work will be performed in the dry using an impervious, dike and pipe to divert the water around the work area.
Appropriate BMPs according to the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be installed on the project prior
to culvert installation.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compe * nsatory Mitigation for
OYes 0 No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
Eli DWQ E]Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
F-1 Mitigation bank
Payment to in-lieu fee program (NCEEP)
El Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type N/A
Quantity N/A
3c, Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a, Approval letter frorn in,-lieLl fee program is attached.
Yes
4b. Strearn mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
El warm El cool' 0 cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
N/A acres
4f. Nlon-riparian wetland mitigation requested:
N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation! requested: NIA acres
4h. Comments:
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If usinga permittee responsible mitigation plan:, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7of11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 1O.2QQ8Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project resul't in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that reqWres
[:1 Yes No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e�.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone I
N/A
N/A
3 (2 for Catawba)
NIA
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
N/A
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieU fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comiments� N/A
Page 8, of 11

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why,
❑ Yes No
Comments: N/A
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
N/A
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
Project is Covered by Individual NPDES Permit No. NCS000250.
Certified Local Government
2e,
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
N/A
❑ Phase 11
3b.
Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMIP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
El ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
6. DWQ 4,01 Unit Stormwater Review
5a,
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
n Yes No
L 5b, Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes El No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2000 Version,

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does, the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/statellocal) funds or the
Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental: document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPAISEPA)?
1c.
It you answered "yes' to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (if so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEP,A final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: NIA
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetiand Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Welland Standards,
❑ Yes No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
❑ Yes No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
Yes No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If You answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a rural secondary road. The bridge is being replaced to standard specifications. The road is not being:: upgraded.
This bridge maintenance activity is not anticipated to have any significant impact on development.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4&
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
5.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical! Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a.
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b.
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office You have contacted.
Raleigh
Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database and onsite investigations conducted during the field s,coping meeting.
Page 10 of 11

6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
ED] Yes 01 No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
N/A—There are no marine or estuarine Communities within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or Cultural preservation
El Yes No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
This bridge project has been reviewed by N'CDOT's Human Environment Unit in 2013. It was determined that no survey
was required for archaeology, however, an historic architecture survey was conducted with a determination of no effect
(see attached SHPO forms).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 1010 -year floodplai�n?
[9 Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The project was reviewed by NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit in
coordination with FEMA and an MOA with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Mark S. Davis
Division 14 Environniental Supervisor
Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
,4pplicant/Agenvs Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the
applicant is provided.)
Page 11 of 1' 1

u 0
E
Qrr
(U
S-
U
0
u
(1)
4�J
V)
Cqi
0
r-
(Y)
0
I.
rl
biD
_0
5—
CIO
Q)
to
12
0-
Q)
100
LO
Irt
rn
m
CIO
NVI
'N
I
C)
LO
U
22 3g://
+ u
Ln c4 L
D -c3 i r" + .) LI) -
(D
C) CL N
E V)
> 0
a� OLI
co Q a-
r--
Wes.
U C:j
Z.<
C) CL L J
u
LLJ
"g
LL],
�o t-- tT
00
C3,
Z, CId
Ln
0
xa
fi
V)
�
LLJ
30-
t.j m
-j
J
01 zn
Let (n
:D
CAI..
+ co
(U
Do
4'
GO (n
00
< cV
Ln
rn ko Ln
ry m- ryj
tw,
W
V)
co c)
h.
cc
CL tr <
d
S
C)
6
03
ViLira N'
0
Q)
z
I
<
0
Z:J
4.f
T
u
L
o Li
Q>
,
Q�
J.
Q
C)
LO
U
22 3g://
+ u
Ln c4 L
D -c3 i r" + .) LI) -
(D
C) CL N
E V)
> 0
a� OLI
co Q a-
r--
Wes.
U C:j
Z.<
C) CL L J
u
LLJ
"g
LL],
�o t-- tT
00
C3,
Z, CId
Ln
0
xa
fi
V)
�
LLJ
30-
t.j m
-j
J
01 zn
Let (n
:D
CAI..
+ co
(U
Do
4'
GO (n
00
< cV
Ln
rn ko Ln
ry m- ryj
tw,
W
V)
h.
cc
CL tr <
2!
MIC4,21
4P
Cil
b.0
NO
'u-
co Lu
cl)
c"
z Oo
06
N z
Ip
C)
LL
0
II - Ib
+ a z
1. 1,<1
I--
G
'J�
+
11211
J:
u
L�
in
C%4
LU
LLJ t
ne
z
Ln
o
C! Cb
II CI 0
LL
z
V
z
tn
C, c a rn
LL i
01 zn
V) 0 a:,3
CAI..
+ co
(U
Do
4'
GO (n
00
< cV
r
w c ro � cLJ
fir
ir
tw,
W
V)
CL tr <
,7,-
S
C)
z
ViLira N'
11211
J:
u
L�
in
C%4
LU
LLJ t
ne
z
Ln
o
C! Cb
II CI 0
LL
z
V
z
LL i
Lq c
00
fir
c
w F --
U)

North Graham County,

Bridge 114 — Graham, December 9, 2010

Bridge 114- Graham, December 9, 2010

Bridge 114•Graham, December 9, 2010
Looking at Upstream Side on
F 4x
East End

Bridge 114 — Graham, December 9, 2010

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDI CTIONA L DE TER INI INATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bridge No. 114 on SR 1237 over Stecoall Creek
State: NC County /parish /borough: Graham City Stecoall
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.39526' N, Long. -83.67836'W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest Nvaterbody: Stecoah Creek (DWR Class: C, Tr) and U'r toSlecoah Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lake Fontana (Little Tennessee River)
Name of watershed or I lydrologic Unit Code (I IUC): 06010202070020
Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas islare available upon request.
Check if Other sites (e.g" offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: February 7,2014
Field Detennination. Datc(s):
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There �il( "navigable watem of the U.&" within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA)jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
ro,iew area. [Requirerij
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be Susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:! .
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There fir' "waters qf1he U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33, CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of mters of U.S, in review area (cheek all that apply):
:t] TNWs, including territorial seas
X Wetlands acljaccrit to TN%Nls
Relatively perniancrit xvaterS2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non -RPWs (It,
at flow directly or indirectly in T
to NNN's
Wetlands direelly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNNNfs
Wetlands acUlacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWS
Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
1). Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waiters: 200 linear fee(- Nviddi (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based oil: 040i ' k"40'1"bY11'00WM"�
Elevation of established O1111 M (if known): .
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):"
Poten tial ly i it risd i ctiona I waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not ju risd ictiona 1.
Fxplaiii: .
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III belo%%%
For PLItPOSCS Of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not TNNN'and that typically flows year-round Or has COntiflUOUS flow it least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting docturientation is presented in Section 11I',

SECTION Ill. CWA ANALYSIS
A, TmmN'w AND WETLANDS ADJACENTl07NW^
7beogu`ciesniUmwort jurisdiction over TNWswmV wetlands adjacent mwTNTYo If the aquatic resource isoYM#,complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D 1. only; iI the aquatic nsuonr isnxr hndmdjacemwvnINW,,onmplemSections IMA.1 and 2
and Section DlJp.1./ otherwise, see Section llI.Bbelow,
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
%. YYc|omdwu]vceox&vTNYv
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that nrUum4is`a(�Iwcm(':
B. CHARACTERISTICS 0FTRlBU7ARYp'8ATl9NuT&TMV) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding rh^rwoc,is ties of the h|b"tm,yvnd its adjacent wetlands, if any, and ifhelps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established tinder Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs)' i,. n|bmtnd,, that ty»|,uNy flow year-round or have continuous flop at Kmmt acnm`xnUy (e.g., typically
monihm).A wetland that directlynbuts an RPW isalso jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not I TNW, but has year-round
(pumniw|)flvw^ skip xo Section }I1.V.17ythexqrxtio resource isnx,nundUi,*uMymhu#ingu tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section lII.D.4.
A Nvefland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abutan RPW requires a significant nextis evaluation. Corps districts arid
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nextis between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (arid its adjacent wetlands if any) arid a traditional navigable water, even
|k^wghn significant xcx"^ finding [* not required :*o "latter uylaw.
If the wmbrbnd»/i» not nmRyW.oro wetland directly ohmtdngonDyy/ uJD will require additional data m determine |ythe
vmcrh*dy has x significant omm"w with u7NW.Ny the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary io combination with all ^JWtsadjocmt wet|ondm. This significant nmmim evaluation that combines, for
analytical PUI-POSCS, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the reviciv area itlentified in theJD request is
the tributary, or its adjacerot wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
(lie tributary, Section |D.13.2 for -aoyexoNu wetlands, and Section |D.B.3 for all w*Womdy adjacent w that tributary, both onui(o
and offsite. The determination whether u significant nexus exists is determined {u Section DI.Cbelow,
1. Characteristics vruvn-TNn's that flow directly vr indirectly into TNu/
0 General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area: k
Arero&*mum�|m6u�U� �che,
Ave rage ,in nual snowfall: inclies
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Rclationship with TNW:
El Tributary nvms di,uutyim*'Mel
LJ
Tributary flows through tributaries before nmtorimgTNY/'
Project waters are river miles front TNW.
Project waters are river miles from kPW.
Project waters are aerial (onnigh|) miles GmrnTNV/.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPY/.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route mT0W5: .
Tributary strearn order, if knowm
^»ote diat the InstructionaGuideboDk contains addmionalmforniation regarding swaks,4�hes, waslies, and erosional features generally and mthe and
West.
1 11ow route can be described by idenfirying, e.g., tributarya, which flows t1irough the re6ew area, to flow into tributary b, whicli then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that app1q.
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (nian-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties Nvith respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average Nvidth: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Y)Ok,:104,
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel n Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation, Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Triblimr), condition/stability [e.g,, highly eroding, sloughing batiks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary gconictry: P, L (
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for. Fick L wl
Estimate average 1111mber of flow events in review area/year: P1"4j
Describe flow regirne, .
Other information oil duration and volume:
Surface now is: Cliaracterimics:
Subsurfacc flow: _4,( Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
El Bed and batiks
E] OH1NIM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed oil the bank
❑
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
❑ shelving
❑
❑ vegetation matted down, Not, or absent
❑
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
❑ sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑
❑ other (list):
Discontinuous 0I-lWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the 01-IWM were used to deterin
❑ High Tide Line indicated by
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings /characteristics
❑ tidal gatiges
F-1 other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWAjurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datuni;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types,
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., Nvater color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
ldentily , specific pollutants, if known:
`A naltual or man-made discontinuity in the OIIWM does not necessarily sewer jurisdiction (e.g., where tile street temporarily flows underground, or where
the 01 MINI has been removed by development or agricultural Practices). Where there is a break in the O�HWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., 11ow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below tile break,
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (cliecic all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Weiland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ I lahitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish /spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other craviromneratally- seiasitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2,. Clinracteristics of wetlands adjacent to noo -TNW that flown directly or indirectly into TNW
(l) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Weiland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) Ceaaeral Flow\, Pclatiorislrip wvith Non- "I "'N'W:
Flown is: Pic )�is�, Explaio:
Surface flown is: PIazk "(
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: 'rk Iyr ". Explain findings:
Dye (or other) test perrorraaed:
(c) Weiland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNXV:
❑ Directly abutting
Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ 'Separated by berm /harrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project ww ^etlarrds are , c / (51 river raailes from TNW.
Project waters are *reek his( aerial (straight) miles from Tide.
Flow is from: 'ack
Estimate approximate location of "wetland as within the'i;Li floodplain,
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics„ etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants„ if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (clrecic all that apply),:
❑ Riparian buffer, Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ 'Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species, Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ..
❑ Other eraviroruaaent4ally- sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aafuaatic /wvildlife diversity. Explain findings .
d�. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: W;W
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each welland, specify tile following:
Size (in acres) Size (in acres
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C, SIGNIFICANT NEXUS
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent w the tributary w determine ifthey significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
ofuTNW. For each vf the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than : speculative o,im,"h,|nxUx| effect *n the d/em|m|, physical and/or biological integrity "[xTW
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency ofthe flow
vf water in the tributary xu(]its proximity to a TNW, and the functions perfornied by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nextis based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or- between .9 tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact -in adjacent wetland lies within or
outside vrv8vvdoh1mb not solely determinative ,f significant nexus.
Dram, connections between the features documented and the effects oil the TNW, as identified in the Ropallos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its a(�acerit wetlands (ifany), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
IN\Nls^urtv reduce the ummmmznf pollutants mr flood waters reaching oTNYY?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish, and
other species, such ,m feeding, nesting, spawning, *r rearing young for species (lint are present imN.eTNW?
• Does the tributary, iwommhi/auiom with its adjjwoemv wetlands (if umy), have the capacity \o transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support dovmstuarnb,udxebs?
• Does the tributary, im combination with its adjacent wetlands (if omy) have other relationships to the physical, chemical, m
biological integrity m[ the TNW7
Note: the above list mf considerations i, not inclusive noV other functions observed ,, known to, occur should hedocumented
uuvv:
l. Significant nexus findings for uvm-BpYv that has u" adjacent wetlands and flows directly vr indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence m absence mf significant ucsus below, hme�d oil the tributary itself, then gum Section [0.n: .
%. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
IN\Yn. Explain findings uf presence mr absence ofoign|Omumxuexumhdow, based oil the tributary in combination with all mfits
m8nc*ou"`oivmdo, then Xotv Section I0D:
3. Significant nextis findings for wetlands adjacent to ,in RPW but that do not directly abut the RPN8'. Fzylain findings of
presence n, absence ol significant nexus be|*vx based vm the: tributary iu combination wiV, all o[itsmQmonm,nel|xods, then g^om
Section III.D:
� DETERMlNATmNS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. TH E SUBJECT WATERSAVETLANDS ARE (0ECK ALL
I8ATAPPLY);
|.TNWs in(] Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet widili(11),Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to I 'NWs: acres.
2. RPWo that flow directly mbndirceMy into TNWs.
Tributaries vyTMWs where tributaries typically flow ),cnammndmeju,isdiuiomnL Provide data and rationale indicating that
tribritaD, is perennial: There is a well-defined channel and (lie stream is shown as a perennial stream on the USGS topograhic
map.
Tributaries a/J0m/ where tributaries have continuous flow -scauux0y`(e.g, typically three m"uU`x each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion io provided m Section Ul.8. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 240 linear feet width (fl).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
3. Non- RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TMV or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
"fNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusions is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet wvidth (P).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
ldcntify, type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting in RPW that flown directly or indirectly into TN1Ws.
C Wetlands directly abut RPW and tints are. jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Ej Wetlands directly abutting all RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and ratiotaaie
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section Ifi.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting. an 1ZPW: .
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flown "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section I11.13.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting. an I&IN:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that 0owv directly or indirectly into TNNVs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut all RPW, but when considered in combination wvith (lie tributary to which they are ad]acent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nextns wvith a Tlei1'W are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wvetlands in tlae review area: acres.
G. 'Wetlands adjacent to non -R;PWs that flow directly or indirectly into Ti's \'t's.
Wetlands adjacent to suc11 waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a "1 "TwlW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: .acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment ofa jurisdictional tributary remainsjurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment wvas created from "waters oft heILS ,"or
p Denionstra'te that venter meets tine criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-b), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated wvilli a nextis to commerce (see F below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] NVATER'S, INCLUDING ISOLATED `VETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE CO1%I1%IERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL `I "HAT APPL'1'),no
wvhich are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial ptirposes lay, industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain: ..
",See I- ootnote # 1
'To complete the analysis refer to the key 'in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
i"' Prior taw asserting or declining CNVA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA IIQ for
review consistent wvith (lie process described in (lie CorpslEP'A Memorandum Regarding CIP :f Act Jurisdiction Folloivi ig Rapaxas.

Identity water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in tire review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (11).
Other non-Nvetland Nvaters: acres.
Identify (ype(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres,
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential Nvettands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Welland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements,
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
[] Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SilANCC," the review area would have been regulated based 591ell, on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR),
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required far jurisdiction, Explain:
Other.- (explain, if not covered above): .
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (fit).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for iron jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
finding is required fiver jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakc-s/ponds: acres,
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres,
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data revicived for JD (chuck all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and:, where checked
and requested, appropriately refierence sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: August 2013
Data sheets prepared/submilted by or on behalf of the applicant /consultant.
❑ Office C011CUrs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur Nvith data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study: .
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
1) SGS NI ID data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1/24,000; Tuskeegee
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey, Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite nanic:
Slile/Local welland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: R, Aerial (Name & Date): .
or 0 Other (Name & Date): August 2013
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law: .
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): .
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

% 10
sece-JIVE
DIVIS10% 14
Pyqj­1 Tfo&, gNa (Ahmal Use)
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTE D FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group,
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
B-3458
C01111ty
Ciraharn
JVBS No.:
33078 1 J
Document
Txpe:
MCC
F, ed. Aid No:
N/A
Funding:
State El Federal
Federal
Perini t(s):
M Yes LJ No
Permit
T e (s):
NWP14 and TVA
Prpject DaaLyiffl:
Replace Bridge NO. 114 on SR 1237 (Everett Jenkins Road) over Stecoah Creek.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES RE, VIEW
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of
potential effects.
15� There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
El There are no properties within the project's area of potential effects,
• There are properties over fifty years old within the area of potential effects, but they do not
meet the criteria for listing on the National Register.
• There are no historic properties present or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed.)
Date of field visit:
Descri �tono re�vieiv activities, restilh, and conchislon
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS infinnnation, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on November 15, 2013. Based on this review, there is a Study Listed and Determined Eligible
property within tire APE, which is 200' from each end of the bridge and 50' from the centerline each way,
including 50' from the centerline of the new bridge location. The site is the Jenkins Log Barn (GH3), a
late nineteenth or early twentieth century cantilevered double-pen tog barn with V-notching. A survey
and further coordination was necessary.
After review of the property, design plans, and the APE, it Nvas determined that there would be no adverse
effect to the Jenkins Log Barn as it falls outside of the APE. The two-story barn immediately south of die
pavement, and north of the log barn, is note eligible for NR listing.
In addition, there are no other National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE. The house on
the north side of the road south of the bridge is an early 20'h century bungalow that has been heavily
altered and is unremarkable. The house immediately north of the bridge, a one-story frame house built
mid-twentieth century, is also unremarkable and not eligible for NR listing. The structure to be replaced,
Bridge No. 114, is not eligible for National Register listing, if design plaits change, additional' review wil
lac rerttaired.
NO Almor Mmpnflalhm Pro)aft to (hadiflMin 1hr 207
Page I of 2

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
MMap(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. MPlioto.s E]Correspondence ElDesign Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
and Landscapes - NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Im
Date
ffivoricArchave-lure anelLundwapes NO for A linor b-anvImPlalimp Imir(ftm Quolifled On Ille 2007
Programmofle Agivement.
Page 2 of 2

13-3458
Replace Bridge No. 114 on SR 1237 over- Stecoah Creels
Grallant County
Barn on South Side of Road Beyond Bridge
Joultim Log Barn on South Side of Road Beyond Bridge

B -3458
Replace Bridge No, 114 on SR 1237 over Stecoah Creek
Crsrhain Comity
Jenkins Log Darn - West End
I-douse on North Side of Road Beyond Bridge

C
QY2

Project 7'),ackitig Aaro.:
1311 -0005
04c NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
1'* T; A; �, This foram only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project It is not
4kif�i
valid for historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with tlue
'. Historic Architecture and landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No':
i~YBS No:
Fri!. No:
13 -3458
33078.1.1
County.
Document:
Funding
Graliaam
MCS
M State F] Federal
Federal Permit Requiied? ® Yes E] No Perndl Type:• NWP14
Project Description: This projeci proposes to replace Bridge 114, which carries 5111237 (l vereft Jenkins Rd)
over Stecoah Creek in Graalaann County, North Carolina, .According to floe era vironiiient(al inl)aat realoiest, tine
undertaking involves the in Enlace replacement of the structure along the e- risting alignment, thereby minimizing
potential srnfaace and subsurface disturbances at dais location. An off4ife detour route is anticipated. Vie
archaeological Area of 11ofenfial LWffecls (APE) is centered upon Bridge 114 and measures 500ft in lengili (250ft
frown each bridge end point) and 150ft in ividth (75fi frown each side of the 5111237 center - line).
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RE SOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions;
The project area is located in the northeastern portion of Graham, directly south of Lake Fontana and west of
Meetinghouse Mountain. Stecoah Creek, included within the Little Tennessee River Drainage Basin, constitutes a
second order stream trending south to north through the APE. it empties into Fontana Lake a couple of miles north
of the project location. This section of Graham County is characterized by steep, niQUntainous terrain dissected by
relatively narrow stream valleys which provide excellent drainage. The APE contains occasionally flooded and very
poorly drained underlying soil types, residential home sites, agricultural plots, and the SR1236/SR1.237 T- junction.
First, construction design data and other pertinent project information was examined for determining the
character and extent of potential impacts to the ground surfaces surrounding. Bridge 114. According to the
engineering design plans, only the southeastern quadrant will be subjected to minimal subsurface impacts beyond
the exiting right -of -way. A temporary construction easement has been proposed in this area to remove and
replace a culvert and for flow diversion /channel change work.
Once an APE was defined, a snap review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology
(GSA). This background work determined that no previously documented archaeological sites are located In the
archaeological APE. Three archaeological sites have been documented In the Stecoah Creek flood'plain a short
distance to the north and south of the project area. Two of these sites were noted as Archaic /liithic sites, and the
third, an unknown ceramic- lithi'c site. All of these locations of past prehistoric activity were documented by UNC
archaeologists at some unspecified paint Ili time. The in -field investigation of the sites was likely relegated to the
surface collection of artifacts from plowed agricultural fields. The North Carolina archaeological site forms basically
contain no information (as is the case with the majority of UNC recorded archaeological sites in western NC) and
the three sites remain unassessed for NRHP eligibility.
An Inspection of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated (LD),
Determined Eligible (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources available an the NCSHPO website
demonstrated the presence of one (SL) property, the Jenkins Log Barn (GH0003), situated adjacent to the APE
within the southwestern quadrant. No other historic properties /structures with potential archaeological elements
are mapped in the area. In addition, historic maps of Graham County were appraised for former structure
locations, land use patterns, or other confirmation of historic occupation in the Bridge 114 vicinity and
archaeological! /historical reference materials were inspected as well. to general, the cultural background review
"No ARC'nAL'oLOGYSURVLiY REQ,UIRFD "forma for Minor Transportation Projects as Qaaniij "?era In rase 2007 Frogs nonatic Agreement.
I oft
Owe
Em C
NO V 1 t? 3

Project Iracking No.:
established an absence of NRI-IP listed properties, archaeological sites, or cemeteries within the APE. Rased solely
on cultural - historical factors, undisturbed land surfaces surrounding the APE are considered to have a moderate to
high potential for the recovery of both prehistoric and historic archaeological artifacts, features, or deposits.
Further, topographic, geologic, environmental, and NRCS soil survey maps (EtA) were referenced to evaluate
pedeological, g,eomorphol'ogical, hydrological, and other environmental determinants that may have resulted In
past occupation at this location. Aerial and on- ground photographs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer /D -14 EIR) and the
Google Street View map application (when amenable), were also examined /utilized for additional assessment of
disturbances, both natural and human induced, which compromise the integrity of archaeological sites,
Fundamentally, ecological factors suggest a somewhat heightened archaeological site potential in the general
project area.
Brief Explanation of why the available Information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The project APE contains no NRHP listed historic properties, previously documented archaeological sites, or
cemeteries. Predicated oil soil data, aerial imagery, and other information, both modern construction Impacts and
very poorly drained ground surfaces dominate the APE. However, the overall Stecoah Creek flood'plain Is
considered to have a high potential for artifact recovery, particularly to the prehistoric end. If an on -site detour,
alignment shift, or other new location scenario becomes applicable, additional archaeological consultation will be
necessary,. As currently proposed as an In -place replacement with little Impact on the areas beyond the existing
right -of -way, no further work is recommended.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: M Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos ❑Corresponclence
El Photocopy of County Survey dotes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
�uuiumuw t " 1�..,.M111I
lW'f"1 �1fiCiclrfTC)I C7t:�Y SCIRL'��` . � I�CI�
1/
-No ARCH.-0P01 OGYSUR)EY REQUIRED "forni ftr Minor Tramporlatio a Projects at Qu aliflyd lit Me 2007 ProgralmnaticAgaeement.
2 of 2

EtA—Ela silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
• Elevation: 1,460 to 2,350 feet
• Mean annual precipitation: 60 to 72 Inches
• Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
• frost free period., 116 to 170 days
Map Unit Composition,
• Eta, occasionally flooded, ondsimilar soils: 80 percent
• Eta, undrolned. and similar soils: 10 pe rce nit
• Minor components: 10 percent
Description of Ela, Occasionally Flooded
Setting
• Landform: Depressions on flood plains,
• Landfoi position (three-dimensional): Mountainibase
• Down-slope shape: Concave, linear
• Across-slope shape: Concave
• Parent material., Loamy alluvium over sandy and gravelly alluvium
Properties and qualities
• Slope: 0 to 3 percent
• Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to abrupt textural change
• Drainage class: Very poorly drained
• Capacity of the most limiting toyer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 Ini
• Depth to water table: About 0 inches
• Frequency of flooding: occasional
• Frequency of ponding: Occasional
• Available water capacity: Low (about 4.8 Inches)
Interpretive groups
• Forinland classification; Not prime farmland
• Land capability (nonirfligated): 7w
• Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D
Typical profile
• 0 to 16 Inches: Silt loam
• 16 to 32 inches: Fine sandy loam
• 32 to 80inches: Extremely cobbly sandy loam

DeB—Dellwood•Reddles complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
® Elevation: 1,090 to 4,000 feet
0 Mean annual precipitation: 60 to 80 inches
0 Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
0 Frost-free period: 1.1.6 to 170 days
Map Unit Composition
0 Dellwood, occossionally flooded, and similar soils .-60 percent
a Reddles, occassionallyflooded, and similar soils: 20 percent
0 Minorcomponents: 20 percent
Description of Bellwood, Occassionally Flooded
Setting
0 Landform: Flood plains on valleys
a tandform, position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
a Down-slopeshope: Linear
a Across-slope shape: Convex
a Parent material. Gravelly and cobbly sandy alluvium
Properties and qualities
0 Slope: 0 to 5 percent
9 Depth to restrictivefeoture: More than 80 inches
0 Drainage class: Moderately well drained
0 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksot): High (1.98 to 5.95 In/hr)
0 Depth to water table: About 24 to 48 1 ric lie s
0 Frequency offlooding: Occasional
0 Frequency of ponding: None
0 Available water capacity. Very low (about 2,9 Inches)
Interpretive groups
a Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
0 tand capability (nonirrigated): 3s
0 1 lydrologic Soil Group: B
Typical profile
0 0 to 8 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam
0 8 to 15 inches: Extremely gravelly sand
0 16 to 80 inches: Extremely gravelly coarse sand

� it r'� � „,�l
/Ir Vii. ' a
r
rr r
4
r /� rr
r � lyr oar >l�' �
h
ri�rro /i y % r
u
At// �� I 4, ��7�UCUlj��rr,"�' /�✓,�y r r
W/,r
ce i ✓n
✓ rlw , ,; "er � m e (4� r�r��� � rW (;"
n a �rii 7r
r �1
/;
r
,'ail [
N,
w � N lj I e ", G ✓ � n r; r � m
„� /lWw6 % �✓; °
'm -,a
Av
%- so g/1
r
n % r r ^Irl( //r l y lif tol
rs /a
A r
mmm
a 2 ✓
'o n
II PO d�
/aw
AW
Ah
Al ID
Ir
f rN: ✓ u %r r r% rib' �1 n / �O'in,,, p�
t ✓, �u9
,
,�' �'�4i>Uf � one I� � _ "✓ er