20140489 Ver 1_Application_20140519

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1, Project Name Bridge 261 on SR 1597
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: NC Department of Transportation
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: N/A
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s):
5. Site Address: N/A
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City:
8. County: Henderson
9. Lat: 35,477660 N —Long: 82.353080 W (Approx Project Center)
10. Quadrangle Name: Bat Cave (35082-D3-TF-024)
11. Waterway: Hickory Creek (C Tr),, ......... . ..
12. Watershed:— Broad River
11 Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 14
General Permit H
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Sectioii 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project PLUPOSe:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT MCCRORY
GONTRNOR
May 19,2014
Mr. Lori Beckwith, NCDOT
Regulatory Project Manager
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
ANTHONY J. TATA
SECRETARY NcDOT
Subject: Nationwide 14 Pennit Application
Replace Bridge No. 261 on SR 1597 (Little Bearwallow Road) over
Hickory Creak
Henderson County, North Carolina
WBS Element No. 17BP.14.R.18 (DWQ Minor Permit Fee $240.00)
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace the subject
bridge. The existing timber floor on tiniberjoist Structure needs to be replaced due to
deterioration and insufficient width. The proposed replacement Structure will be a 55' L x 22'W
x G' -11" H structural plate arch (bottomless Conspati) on a 70 degree skew. The bridge will be
closed for the duration of the project because a short offsite detour route exists.
Enclosed is a PCN application, a Rapanos Jurisdictional Determination Form, EEP Mitigation
acceptance letter, plans sliects, a vicinity map, a USGS topographical map and photographs.
EEP mitigation will not be required for this pi-oiect due to the installation of a bottoniless
structural plate arch (Conspan) structure.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists 35 species with federal status for Henderson
County that are known fi-om current records or were known to occur in the county historically.
One species, white fringeless orchid (Plolowhei•ci integ•ilcibia) is a candidate species and is
knowti fi-oni historical records, The bog turtle (Glypeiprys muldenbergii) is listed as threatened
due to similarity of appearance with the northern bog turtle. Seven species, Carolina northern
flying squirrel (Glcntcom)�s sabrinits coloiwlus), Appalachian elktoe (Alcismiclonla rai,enelicinq),
swarnp pink (Helonias bullcita), small whorled pogonia (Isoli-ict inecleoloicles), bunclied
arrowhead (Scigillai-ici.f(iscicitl,-ita), mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarraceniajonesii) and white
irisette (Sisjrinchiunt (lichotonnim) are listed as threatened or endangered. The small whorl
pogonia is known from historical records.
Fourleenth Division Offic,e
IQIQ IZQI' I I'l I ltl-l-- 0-4 Q-1- M-1,

Bridge No. 261 — Henderson County Page 2 May 16, 20114
There are no federally threatened and endangered species records listed in the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Database for the Hickory Creek watershed. None of the above listed species
have records in the database within a five mile radius of the project.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant and swanip pink are associated with wetlands. Bunched arrowhead
is considered a submerged aquatic plant that is associated with very low flow seepage areas.
Wetlands and seeps are lacking at the bridge site.
White irisette habitat is found on mid - elevation slopes with open dry to mid-moisture oak
hickory forest. The habitat is typically on rocky steep terrain with shallow soils. The habitat at
the bridge site has been highly disturbed by the bridge, road, and driveways. The soil at the
project site is acidic and white irisette is associated with basic soils.
Small whorled pogonia habitat is considered variable in North Carolina. Typically, it OCCLIFS in
open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. However, it is also known to occur in a variety of
habitats in North Carolina, including on slopes along streams. It is also known to occur ill rich,
mesic forest in association with white pine and rhododendron. The area to be affected is highly
disturbed and much of the area in vicinity of the project is maintained grass. Habitat at the site is
not characteristic of the small whorled pogonia.
Hickory Creek is not of sufficient size to support the Appalachian elktoe. Additionally, there are
no records for the species within the Broad River basin.
Due to the limited scope of this project and the proposed BMPs, the potential for adverse impacts
to downstream aquatic habitat should be minimal. Terrestrial habitat does not appear to be
characteristic of any of the listed terrestrial species and has been highly disturbed in the vicinity
of the project. There were no threatened or endangered species observed during the field scoping
process. For these reasons and those discussed above, we recommend a determination of "no
effect" for threatened and endangered species.
This project was reviewed for cultural resources by the NCDoT's Human Environment Unit in
2012. It was determined that no survey was required for archaeology. A survey was performed
for historic architecture with a determination of no effect (see attached forms).
The construction foreman will review all erosion control measures daily to ensure sedimentation
and erosion controls are being effectively controlled. If the devices are not functioning as
intended, they will be replaced immediately with better devices.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Hickory Creek (DWR Class: C Tr) is shown oil the USGS topographic map as a perennial
stream. The channel is well defined with a substrate of cobble, grave, sand/silt and is
approximately 9 feet in width. The stream has sufficient flow to support fish and other aquatic
life. Hickory Creek flows approximately 4.5 miles to the Broad River. The Broad River meets
the definition of a Traditional Navigable Water. For these reasons, we believe Hickory Creek is
a Relatively Permanent Water 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

Bridge No. 261 — Henderson Count), Page 3 May 16, 2014
Broad River Basin (HUC 03050105). Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to replace Bridge No.
261 with a bottornless structural plate arch (Conspan). Listed below is a summary of the
proposed impacts.
Site No.
Existing Condition
Proposed Condition
Net
Impacts
Site 1
18' W x 20'L
55'L x 22'W x 6' -11" 1.-1
01
Timber Bridge
Structural Plate Arch (Conspan)
Site 2
Free Flowing Stream
Slope Streambanks and Rip-Rap
29'
Existing Strearnbanks
Batik Stabilization
Site 2A
Free Flowing Stream
Slope Streambanks and Rip-Rap
21'
Existing Streambanks
Bank Stabilization
Site 3
Free Flowing Stream
1
Impervious Dike and Flow Diversion
1
140'
Total Permanent Stream Impact for Bridge Replacement - Conspan 05
Total Permanent Stream Impact for Bank Stabilization 50'
Total Temporary Stream Impacts for Impervious Dike and Flow Diversion 1405
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization tinder Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to proceed
with the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Ms. Marla
Chambers, Western NCDOT Review Coordinator, of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to coniment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit
request.
I am also requesting authorization tinder Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the North
Carolina Department of Environment 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 ine concerning this
permit request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone] or
Mr. Josh Deyton, PE, at (828) 488 -2131. Your early review and consideration will be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mark S. Davis
Division 14 Environmental Program Supervisor
Enclosures

Bridge No. 261 — Henderson COLInty Page 4 May 16, 2014
cc: Ms. Amy Chapman, Division of Water Resources, DENR, Raleigh
Mr. Kevin Barnett, Division of Water Resources, D,ENR, Asheville
Mr. Jason Mays, Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Ms. Marla Chambers, Western NCDOT Review Coordinator, NCWRC, Albemarle
Mr. Joshua B. Deyton, PE, Division 14 Bridge Management Engineer, NCDOT
Mr. Ben DeWit, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no,
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page I of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant hifoi-nation
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
0 Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.,
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c,
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? [E] Ye
ED No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply);
0 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
0:: 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
I e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification,
❑ Yes 0 No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes 0 No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
01 No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
0 No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
E)Yes
No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Replace Bridge No, 261 on SR 1597 (Little Bearwallow Road) over Hickory Greek
2b,
County:
Henderson
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Bat Cave
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or State
Project No:
=17BP.14.R.18
3.
Owner Information
3a,
Name(s) on Recorded Deed.,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
NA
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mark S. Davis, Division 14 Environmental Supervisor
3d.
Street address:
253 Webster Rd.
3e.
City, state, zip:
Sylva, NC 28779
3f.
Telephone no.:
828.586.2141
39.
Fax no.:
828.586.4043
3h,
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page I of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (If different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
El Agent [:1 Other, specify:
4b. Name:
N/A
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
N/A
4d. Street address:
N/A
4e. City, state, zip:
N/A
4f. Telephone no.:
N/A
4g. Fax no.:
N/A
4h, Email address:
N/A
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
N/A
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
N/A
5c. Street address:
N/A
5d. City, state, zip:
N/A
5e. Telephone no.:
N/A
5f. Fax no.:
N/A
5g. Emafl address:
N/A
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN' or parcel 113):
N/A
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.47766 Longitude: -082.35308
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
NA acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Hickory Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
DWR Class: C Tr
2c, River basin:
Broad (HUC 03050105)
1 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:
The overall landscape is forested. The imr"nediate vicinity of the bridge is primarily grassed areas with a few trees along
the stream and a small forested area to the west. The general land use includes single family residences and agriculture.
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 a structurally deficient, obsolete timber bridge with a bottomless structural plate arch (Conspan) on existing
location.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used,:
The traffic will be detoured. The erosion and sedimentation control measures will be installed. The impervious dike and
diversion will be installed as needed to divert flow around the work area. The old bridge deck and abutments will be
removed and the new structural plate arch will be installed. The road will be reconstructed and repaved. Track hoes,
dump trucks, bulldozers, graders, small crane, paving equipment, water pumps, diversion pipe, and various hand tools
will be used to accomplish the work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State, been requested or obtained for this property
El Yes ED No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: N/A
4b, If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
AgencylConsultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A
Other: NIA
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation,
N/A
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5,b. If yes, explain, in detail according to "help file" instructions.
N'/A
Page 3, of 11
PCN Form -- Version, 1.3 December 10, 2006 Version

6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes No
6b,
If yes, explain.
NIA
C.
Proposed Impacts Inventory
1,
Impacts Summary
1 a.
Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
El Wetlands [9 Streams - tributaries Q Buffers
[:1 O)pen Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form -- Version 1.3, December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
I 2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Welland 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
El No
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
NIA
W2 ❑ PEI T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
[:] DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
[-] No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P❑ T
El Yes
[:1 Corps
[:] No
El DWQ
W5 ❑ P [:IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 EI!PFIT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland Impacts
NI/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.
3,b,
3c.
3d.
3e,
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type Of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non-404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 0 P [--] T
Bridge Replacement
Hickory Creek
PER
Corps
9
0
Plate arch - Conspan
❑ INT
DWQ
S2 0 P ❑ T
Bank Stabilization
Hickory Creek
PER
Corps
9
21
(upstream)
INT
DWQ
S2A 0 P [JT
Bank Stabilization
Hickory Creek
PER
Corps
9
29
(downstream)
❑ NT
0 DWQ
S3 El P' 0 T
Impervious Dike &
Hickory Creek
Z PER
0 Corps
9
140
Flow Diversion
[:1 INT
M DWQ
S4 [:1 P, ❑ T
PER
❑ Corps
❑ IINT
❑ DWQ
S5 nP,nT
PER
❑ Corps
❑ I'NT
❑ DWQ
3h, Total Permanent Stream and Tributary Impacts — Conspan
01
Total Permanent Stream Impact for Hank Stabilization
so,
Total Temporary Stream Impacts for Impervious Dike and Flow Diversion
1401
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.
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
4b,
Name of waterb,ody
(if applicable)
4c,
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e,
Area of impact (acres)
01 [] PEI T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
02 EIPEIT
03 El P [:1 T
04 nP❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
N/A
4g. Comments: N/A
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then com plete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose of
pond
5c,
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
F1 Yes El No If yes, permit ID no: N/A
5i, Expected pond surface area (acres):
N/A
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
N/A
5k. Method of construction:
NIA
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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.
Eli Neu:se ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
Eli Catawba El Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P)
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
or Temporary
impact
required?
(T)
B1 ❑ P ❑ T
N/A
N/A
❑ Yes
❑ No
NI/A
NIA
B2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
[J No
B3 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h, Total buffer impacts
NIA
N/A
6i. Comments: N/A
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.
A structural plate arch, will be used. This bottomless structure will allow a natural and coarse stream bed under the crossing,
and thereby facilitate fish and aquatic life passage. Stabilized floodplain benches upstream and downstream of the structure
should maintain a stable channel width/d'epth and thereby facilitate fish passage, particularly during low flow conditions.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impervious dikes and flow diversions will be used to provide a "dry" work area to minimize sedimentation to downstream
aquatic resources. Effective erosion: controls will be used and maintained during construction,
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S, or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ED No
impacts to Waters of the U.S, or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
E] Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project?
El Payment to in-lieu fee program
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name, of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) I
Type N/A 7
Quantity N!/A
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — 'Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3c. Comments: N/A
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
Yes - However mitigation is not required due to the
installation of a bottomless structure (Conspan)
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
N/A linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm 0 cool Elcold
4d'. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
N'/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested:
N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
N/A acres
4h. Comments: N/A
S. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan,
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
NIA
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes M No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required,
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone I
N/A
N/A
3 (2 for Catawba)
N/A
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
N/A
6g, If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund),
N/A
6h. Comments: N/A
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
Ia.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
Yes No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Ib.
If yes, then, is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why,
0 Yes No
Comments: NA
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 Storrnwater 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. NCS00025,0.
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who wilill 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
[I Phase 11
3b.
Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
El coastal counties
❑ H'QW
4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version, 1.3 December 10, 2003 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
0 Yes El No
use of public (federallstate) 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 0 No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPAISEPA)?
1c. If you answered 'yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (if so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
0 Yes El No
Comments: N/A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes 0 No
or Riparian, Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
❑ Yes N 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.
The project is for the replacernent of an existing obsolete bridge on a rural secondary road. The road is not being
upgraded. Therefore, the project would not be expected to result in any siginificant secondary or cumulative impact.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
NA
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
El Yes No
habitat?
5L Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
0 Yes ❑ No
impacts?
E] Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
I N 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 field scoping, meeting.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish ha
s 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 habitats in 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
r_1 Yes No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeolog:y)?
7b. What data sources did YOU Use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The project was reviewed by the NGDOT Human Environment in 2012. Based on the review and/or surveys, it was
determined that the project would have no effect on historic or archeological resources (see attached: forms).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 1 00-year flloodplain? —10
—yes El No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The project design was coordinated with FEMA by NCDOT
Hydraulics Section
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodpiain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Mark S. Davis
Divisioii 14 Erivirotunejital Supervisor
/Applicant/Agent'� Signature
Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the
applicant is provided.)
Page I I of 1' 1
PCN Form –Version 1.8 December 10, 2008 Version

PROGRAM
August 13, 2013
RECEIVEU
AUG 15 1.013
Mr. Mark S. Davis pi
NCDOT Division 14 Environmental Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation
253 Webster Road
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
Dear Mr. Davis:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
Division 14 Project, Replace Bridge 261 over Hickory Creek on SR 1597, Henderson
County; WBS Element 17BP. 14.R. 18
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that tile Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide the
compensatory stream mitigation for the subject prcLiect. Based oil the information received on August 8, 2013, the
impacts are located in CU 03050105 of file Broad River basin in the Southern Mountains (SM) Eco-Region, and are
as follows:
Broad
Stream
Wetlands
Buffer (Sq. Ft.)
03050105
Sm
Cold
Cool
Warill
Riparian
Riparia n
—Constal
Marsh
—
Zone I
Zone 2
Impacts
(feet/acres)
55.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
This impact and associated mitigation need were under projected by the NCDOT in the 2013 impact data.
EEP will commit to implement sufficient compensatory stream mitigation credits to offset the impacts associated
with this project as determined by the regulatory agencies rising the delivery timeline listed in Section F.3.0.iii of tile
N.C. Department of Envirorrment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee instrument
dated July 28, 2010. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, tile" this ',litigation acceptance letter will
no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at 919-707-
8420.
Sincerely,
James B. Stanfill V,
EEP Asset Manacirient Supervisor
cc: M& Lori Beckwith, USAGE — Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Ms. Arny Euliss, Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Office
Mr. Josh Deyton, P.E, NCDOT — Division 14 Bridge Program Engineer
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT— PDEA
File: SR 1.597 — Bridge 261 — Division 14
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Nlail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-707- 8976 / http:gportal.ncdenr,org/e�ieb/eep

H 4.1
Z.
lz
b Z-
04 u-
0 w
D
W C) Cr
uj 411 Ld
"I'll L -IT r--)
w i- LU U,
�-
0 U LLJ W Cr 7F
<
z z
U- LU LU
C)
U, N
z
0
ALd LU
U U-
PQ
ce
S - <—
0 � Ln
A
CL A.
o
ce z
w R 03
W ui uj
I
LO V) U
CL
tic!,
n C,
'n
C)
CL w
Ln lvlj9
o
U
74
0 0
-01
1�8
C�
V
tu I,
uj
Aw LL
L
0
Ln w 0 Fes- F W LL I,
Z "D
Q. 0,
'<
01 "13
tu il
WI
u ¢ -a < —
in C) En
Cr) U, if
ILI
a.
to:
rn

SS
12 A G
z44
boo
ac
12
oz:57
<
9
7 v!
dMTMOO
u
o
z
of
r
II
z
10
o
Z'
iA
CN
QZ
u
t:
r
II
z
10
o
Z'
iA
CN
QZ
u

V-
CD
04
0
M
C:
0
E
0 e
>
m
>
0
"a/ƒ
®(#
0 c
oz
z
cli
l
\E\ 04
X
2z± m 0 r-
C
0
c')
u
w 0- 0 0
Mm
N ol99T9'GE N 40005"GE N oEEE78E'Sc- N ol999Z!'SE N cOOOST'SE N c-ESECO"GE

N * UE U t S'k N oU0001i'SE N ol999t, 7 N6 7
I
I
C%I'
.1 c
ol .0
Z'
E0
>
C
N
> Ql�
0 :3 C\j
0
/\
:3
0/*
C, 0 z
z
(R\
04
m It
ƒk/LL
o
(\/
/}/
0
CL
.F M
C3
ce)
LO
Cl?
CL/
®2/
Z
Q) L. 0
O)oL.
0 0 Lf)
rL Cl)
0
Nr
LO
CC)
N oEEEES'SF N oOOOOS'SE N 2999V7 N oZECC17"7

l aw
� -
■ �
.. y
} �
,r ■
£ �
\ {
y. .
« /
! �
�
c
O
V-
(0
C\j
$
�
�
'c
�
\o
?
\
\
I
2
IE

.r.
CD
N
6 a
z
C)
E0
>
C:
a)
/R®
0 D CN
im
U-)
0)
E2
-F! 0/\
ca
6z
z
■
cq
�r
C)
r-
x
cu
U-

6 § co:
zft
E0
(D >
M C:
L)
> C,4
0 0
Lo
0 0 C:
Z
z
0)
0
o
Lu
x
m
LL
§

C*4
6 o oc
Fft
a)
20
0
u
04
0 2
> 0 D
r� W
0) CD
0/
not
O
z
SGC\j
o N C)
=
CL a
2
W
U)
C>
LL
Nr

ka
6
F/$
E 0
0) -Y
JjjC\j
0 cz
00
L)
z
o0
o 0
04
C-
2
UJ
U)
x
co
LL

T-
(0
04
6
z
E 0 >
w -�e
2
> 0 n
0
2\E
U)
0 c
0
La z
x
m
LL
CD

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Carps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook..
SECTION[: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bridge No.. 261 oil SR 1597 over Hickory Creek
State: NC County /parish /borough: Henderson City: Certon
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.47766° N, Long. - 82..35308° i .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest w,aterbody: Hickory Creek (DWR Class: C, Tr )
Name ofnearest Traditional Navigable eater (TNtW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050105040020
Check if nrap /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., ofTsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated wvith this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REV[ENV PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: May 19, 2014
Field Determination, Date(s): November 29, 201 'I.
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERNIINA °PION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are 1, "navigcable rrcaters aaf1he U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (11:1IA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) In the
review, area. [Required]
Waters subjectto Clue ebb and ifoxv 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,
F,xplain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There r , "waters df'the US." within Clean Water Act (CWw'A) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the revicw, area. [Rec /heel]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review, area (check all tlrnt apply): r
'Al TN'iWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TN1Ws
Relatively permanent w,atersz (RPNVs) that tllowv directly or 'indirectly into TN1Ws
r Non- IRI'tiWs that flow, directly or indirectly into °l- NMs
Wetlands directly abutting RP1Ws that flow, directly or indirectly into'LN4Ws
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RP'aWs that flow, directly or indirectly into TN'4Ws
1Wetlands adjacent to non -RPNVs that flow, directly or indirectly into "IT tWs
hrrpottndments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review, area:
Nort- wetland waters: 150 linear feet: 8 -9 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of, jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and /or wvetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
'Boxes checked below, shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below,.
i For purposes of this forna, an RP'1W is defined as a tributary that is not a "fN W and that typically flows year -round or has continuous (low, at least " se asoawatly"
(c.g., typically 3 months).
' Suplw+wrting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION IH: CXVA ANALYSIS
A. TNWm AND WETLANDS ADJACEN7nJTNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNAVs arid wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the nquxdr,esvmcnisaTNW,no ill y|,(e
Section IKK~4.|xmA Section DI.D.|, only; |[ the aquatic resource isn wetland adjacent mmTNNV, complete Sections IlI.&.1 arid 2
and Section DLn.l.; otherwise, see Section DiDbelow.
1. TNNY
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. WetlandodjacenttoTNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that Nvctland is —,u�lacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS 0y Till B0TA RY(THATlS NOT ATINIAN') AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANl0:
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary qnd itsadjacent wetlands, if any, arid hhelps
W,(u,m|muvvhxoher*, not the mmndardo for jurisdiction established under Rmpxnoy have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries vyTNWswhere the odbumrbomre"n,|ndp,}yye,mxnunt
waters" (11PNI's), 1'e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or, have continuous flowat least seasounlly (e.g., typically 3
months). A wethind that directly abuts oil RPW is also jurisdictional. if theaquatic resource is nota TNW, but has year-round
(ymc"mim|) flow, skip ouSection l|l.D.% If the aquatic resource isnwwUnnd directly abutting o tributary with pc,rnn|x| Omv,
skip to Section |ILDA.
&na(mm8 that b adjacent on but that does not directly abut all RPW requires n significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA re8h.* will include ill the record artynvailable information that d0CUr1lelltS the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent hibmiry that io not perennial (and its adjacent x,W:ud*ifomy) and u(mN(ivuu| navigable water, even
though u significant nox"m finding |y not required amo matter o[law.
If the waterbody 4 is not an RPW, or a Nvefland directly abutting ,in RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNNNI. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary ill combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nextis evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, (lie tributary arid all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the mibmta,y, Section Dl.D.2 for any ondm wetlands, arid Section IMn.3 for all wetlands xWUx,mtw that tributary, both °m*itc
and offs1te. The determination whether .9 significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
Characteristics ofmm`-TNWs that flow directly vr indirectly into TNW
0 General Area CwVNwm
Watershed sim
Drainage area:
AvcragemnnvuimiokxU: inches
Average annual snow,fall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a)
n Tributary flows directly hxoTNn[
nTributary flows through Pf i, tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river mileshmrnTNV!
Project waters are river miles fromKPW.
Project waters are aerial (amaigx)moi|oabvmTN\v.
p��1p�o�� aerial (xtraight)miles from RPW.
Prqject waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route mlNW\
Tributary stream order, if knoww
^mte that [lie Instructional Guidebook contains addifional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
1 Flow route can be described by identifying, e,g,, tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tribLitary b, which dien floNNrS into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply—)
Tributary= is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (ratan - made). Explain:
El Manipulated (man- altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: 0 lik"IISI,
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
] silts ❑ Sands, ❑ Concrete
❑, Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. 'I'ypc /% cover:
❑
Other. Explain:
Tribunary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing batiks], Explain:
Presence of run /riffle /pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry pi« "Lis
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow,:
Tributary provides for: ?ik I Is
Estimate average number of flow, events in review areaa/year. Fick ""LA
Describe flow, rcgirnc:
Other information on duration and volumc:
Surface flow, is: Prc(t L 14. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: P io. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
'tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and batiks.
❑ OII WN,16 (check all indicators that apply):
r] clear„ natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed awvay
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (..list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWNI.7 Explain:
If factors other than the 01 MINI were used to determ
High Tide fine indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
El fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings/characteristics
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other(list):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines/cl'uanges in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film„ water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
f'A natural or Haan -made discontinuity in the OHNNIM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream lemporaarily flows underground, or where
the 01 I1M M has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWIM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow,
regime (e.g,, flow, over a rock outcrop or through, a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'lbid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (cheep all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average Nvid(h):
"retland fringe, Characteristics:
❑ I labitat for:
Federally Listed'' species. Explain findings:
❑ Fislrlspawn areas, Explain findings:
❑ Other environnientallyr- sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Adnatielwildlife diversity, Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlawls adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into T'N'W
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Welland Characteristics:
Properties:
INIctland size: acres
R4'etland type. Explain:
44'ctland duality. Explain
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General. Flow Relationship with Non- TPv?W:
Flow is: �rck Q . Explain:
Surface flow is: Pigli t"W
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: rk q Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting;
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection.. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) ,Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick Lrsf river miles from TN W,
Project waters are 'tCk L t aerial (straight) miles from T'NXV.
Flow is from: 'tit ll as .
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the'fe lids flootdplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics-
Characterize wetland system (e,g., water color is clear, 'brown, oil film on surface, water duality, general watershed
characteristics; ctc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (cheep all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally listed species, Explain findings:
❑ Fislu'spawn areas. Explain findings;
❑ Other environmentally- sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ AduaticAvildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (ifalty)
All wetlands) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Wklli
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? ()'/N Size (in acres Size (in cres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical ftnictions being performed: .
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by ally wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
afwTNW. For each mf the following situations, m significant mrmom exists if the tributary, im combination with all nf its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect oil the chemical, physical and/or biologieql integrity ofa TNNV.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency vftbeflow
vf water im the tributary and its proximity ("oTNn\ and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
v,Uund,. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between :
Wb"m,yxnd its adjacent ivetland or between a tribatary and theTNW). Similarly, the fact all adjacent ivefland lies within or
outside ofmflnodp|niuis not solely determinative vf significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on (lie TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, |o combination with its actiacent Nvetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry IMMItantS or flood waters to
TN\9s orm reduce the uowmu^f pollutants ur flood waters reaching uTNNV?
• Does (lie tributary, im combination %vi0' its xJj^ceut %vc,|um4r (if ouy),provide habitat and |ite«?m|; support K`xn/ioos for fish and
other species, such m feeding, nesting, spawning, m rearing young for species that are present im,ke't'NW?
• Does the tributary, im combination ,vit\` its a(tiuomut wetlands (if mmy)^ have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
Swpp*rt downstream fomdu,ebs?
• Does (lie tributary, in combination Nvith its a�acent wetlands (ifany), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity * the T0W?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be docurriented
xe[vw'
}. Significant nexus fiodingsfor mou-&rVV that has mn adjacent wetlands and flows dimreMyn, indirectly into TNWm.Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant uxmubelow, based umthe tributary itself, then gom Section ]KLD: .
2. Significant nexmw findings for nvu-RpW And its adjacent wc{|wud^, where the ww-RPYf0uvs directly "r indirectly into
TNNVs^ Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tribUtary in combination with all ofits
adjacent wetlands, then goto Section D[D: .
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to aii IZPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence mr absence nf significant nexus below, based uothr|dhmmyiuuomb[mmtb/ovvitha||mfdwmd.jaceutnu\onds,Umugmm
Section III.D:
[\ DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
L TNNN's and Adjacent Wetlands, Check all that apply and provide size estimates im review area:
H TN\Ya Umcu �� nidNbVV,0c ocmu Wet|ands*(ti*cem/to1NW^: acres.
2. uyNVs that flow directly or indirectly into ]lNos,
�'t-ribularies of TNWs where tributaries typicalKyflow year-round arejwrisdictional, Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary iupeve^wk&The stream iw shown ou (lie [XS08 topographic map mperennial.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (c,g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion i` provided ut Section |U8. Provide rationale indicating Umtxrihvm,yflows

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
1 "ributary waters: 2001 linear feet 8-9 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non- RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TN1Ws.
wWaterbody that is not a T "N\V or an RPtW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TN\W, and it has a significant nextis with a
TN1W is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 1II.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the reviewv area (check all that apply):
Tributary wvaters: linear feet wvidth (tl).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
d. " wetlands directly abutting an RP`uW that flow directly or indirectly into T'N'tWs.
Wetlands directly abut RP"I and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
1Wetlannds directly abutting aii RP1W wvinere tributaries typically flown year- rorind. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section I1I.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abufting an RP'4W:
El Wetlands directly abutting an RP1W \%,here tributaries typically flow ".seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section H 1.13 and rationale in Section 11I.D.2, above, Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an 18P \W:
Provide acreage estimates for' jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
S. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TN1Ws.
E] Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW,, but Mien considered in combination with (lie tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nextis with a TN'4W are jurkidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates far jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to noon- RP'iWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNNVs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant news with a TN W are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section 111.0.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
T. Impoundments of jurisdictional wwaters.9
As a general nine, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "wvaters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
Dennonstratc that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see Ii below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED y1FETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COIL INIERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT° APPLY):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Nee Foomote # 3.
`1'o complete the analysis refer to the key in Section 111.D.6 of Clue hastruclional Guidebook.
" Prior to asserting or declining; CNVA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the Action to Corps and MIA HQ for
revicwv consistent wvilb flue process described iu the Corpsi'EPA �Wemorandum Regarding C IVA Act Jurisdiction Follo ring Retpunos.

Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (clieck all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear fee( Nvidth (ft).
Other noun - wetland waters: acres,
ldcnlif}, lype(s) of waters:
1Nlctlands.- acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlarid Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area induded isolated waters Nvith no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SRANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction 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 %vidth (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-welland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non - jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, strearns): linear feet, width (fl).
bakes /ponds: acres.
Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES,
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (cheek all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant,
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delincation report.
❑ Office does not concur %villi, data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable Nvaters' Mudy:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data,
[:1 USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Bat Cave; 1:24,000,
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citatioir:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
7 State/Local wethind inventory map(s):
FENIA/FIRM maps:
I00 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or E, Other (Name & Date): Bridge Site March 2012.
Previous determination(s), File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporling case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT ,ID:

I'mjed Troding No. (Intemal RJ, Eck,-#VE
12-08-0082
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE, AND LANDSCAPES MY I
4 T OR AFFECTED FOWh,
NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRE SE N
ri only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project, It
This fori V"S104 4
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJE CT. INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Henderson
JYBS No.:
17BP.14.R.18
Document
Ty p e:
MCC /Attachment G
Fed. d. Aid No:
Funding:
State [] Federal
Fiedet-al
Permits :
Yes No
Pet-mit
Typ e (s):
TVA
Replace Bridge No. 261 on SR 1597 (Little Bear Rd.) over Bearwallow Creek.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES RE' VIEW
El There are no National register- listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of
potential effects.
F1 There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
❑ There are 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:
Description of i-eview activities, results, and conclusions:
The Riley Wall House, within the vicinity of the bridge, was evaluated for eligibility and it was
determined that the structure was eligible for National Register listing.
The following proposed National Register Boundary was established: 20 feet from the west, south, and
cast walls of the Riley Wall Molise and across Bearwallow Mountain Road to 20 feet from the west, north,
and cast walls of the bankhoose on the north side of the road. White the historic boundary crosses the
road, it is not a contributing resource. The proposed National Register Boundary does not fail within (lie
APE for the project, which is 50" from the centerline (east and west) and 200' frown each end of the bridge
(north and south). Therefore, the Riley Wall House will not be affected by this project as the boundary is
over 100' cast of the bridge. Two properties south of the bridge, 94 Little Bearwallow Road and 24 Little
Bearwallow Road, as well as Bridge No. 261, are not eligible for National Register listing, There are no
National Register listed or eligible properties affected by this project and review is complete. If design
plans change, additional review will be required,
Hii(orie Archileefure anehlindscolm.91VO HISTORIC PROPrRTITS PRrVrNT OR D-ansporlation Projects as Qualifled it? the 2007
Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 4

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
D?rMaps) []1'revious Survey Info. ffPliotos ]Correspondence []Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES Pun NT OR AFFECTED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
a
Date
If
I elxf,J(hx4l VOCM it
AIZILN!�;
Project Location.
11hroric Archlwamre mull mulwalvs NO lflSJVRl('PR0Pl,.RTlh'S IThWANFOR A Fl,7,.*(,TA'DJ4mfor A finor Traniponallon Projeas as Qualifiedin the 2007
Progmimpalle Agreement
Page 2 of 4
Ca"') Kom'.
Project Location.
11hroric Archlwamre mull mulwalvs NO lflSJVRl('PR0Pl,.RTlh'S IThWANFOR A Fl,7,.*(,TA'DJ4mfor A finor Traniponallon Projeas as Qualifiedin the 2007
Progmimpalle Agreement
Page 2 of 4

Proposed National Register Boundary, Riley Wall House.
24 and 94 Little Bearwallow Road are located south of the bridge, highlighted Icy arrow.
Riley, Wall House, Eligible for National Register listing.
Milofic Archileclum midbmulicapes NO HNIORIC Trayuportalion Projeav as Qualified in Me 2007
I'toglumninfic Apremem,
Page 3 of 4

24 Little Beanvallow Road, e. 1939, Not Eligible.
94 Little Bearwallow Road, c. 1940, Not Eligible.
Historic Archileclure mad Lontrealms NO HISTORIC PROPERMYS PRESIN'r OR AFFAVII'li form foi, Almor Trmlipor(allon Projects at QuaIjiied In Me 2007
Ppoprammofic Apeement.
Page 4 of 4

NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
Project Tracking No. (Imernal Use)
12-08-0082
- - ­
Avg
Feeleral (U.SACF) Permit Requires!? Yes 0 No Permit Type: TVA, Attachment G
Project Description:
Thepi-qiecl calls,for the rel)lacement qfBrOge No. 261 on SR 1597 (Little Bem-imillow Roacl) over
Hickory, Creek i?iHeiiclei-sotiCotitir),. The archaeological Area qJ'Potential Effects (APE) .161. the project
is(kfinetlasa280 - .foot (85.34t)i)loygcotiicloi,i-tiiiiiiiigaloigSR]597. The P i-oject career isC-shapecl
following the curse in the mati. The corridor exten(tv 80ftel (24.38 m) north ond 200fieet (60.96 m)
south ond eastfiom the center ql'Briclge No. 73. The northern extent of the APE, is blockecl by the
intersection qf'Sl?'1597 with SR 1693 (Bearwallow Mountain Road). As ca result, the APE sloes Trot extencl
the, dl 2(111', feet north. The cori•itlor is cipproximatel), 100.feet (30.48 in) wicle extending 50,ket (15.24 m)
on either side ql',5R 1597ftom itspi*esent center.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Briqf elescrilition of review, activities, results qfret,iew, and conclusions:
Bridge No. 261 is just west of the community of Gcrton and north of Edneyville in the northeastern
portion of Henderson County, North Carolina, The prqjcct area is plotted in the northwest cot-tier of the
Bat Cave USES 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
A map review and site file search was conducted at (lie Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on August 9,
2012. No previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified within or adjacent to the APE,
and no known sites are reported within a mile radius of the bridge. In addition, no existing National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated (LD), or Determined
Eligible (DE) properties are within or adjacent to the archaeological APE, but the Raliey Wall House
(IIN12'74), a Surveyed Site (SS) property, is just outside the APE to the east (Figures 2 and 3).
Topographic maps, USDA soil survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map), and historic maps (North
Carolina wraps website) were utilized to gage environmental factors that may have contributed to historic
or prehistoric settlement within the project limits and to assess the level of ground disturbance.
Bridge No. 261 is located in a bend along SR 1597 near its intersection with SR 1693. The bridge crosses
Hickory Crcck roughly north to south as the road curves from the north to the cast. Hickory Creek runs
cast and southeast into the Broad River and is part of the Broad, River drainage basin. The APE is
situated within a narrow drainageway with hillside slope on either side (see Figure 2). The project area is
lightly wooded with residential properties at its edges. In general, ground disturbance appears minimal.
The USDA soil survey map indicates that the APE consists of two soil types (see Figure 3). The
drainageway is composed of TusqUitec loan' (TuE). This soil is characterized as well drained, but
Situated on moderately steep: slope of 15 to 25 percent. The upper portions of the drainageway to the
south are made tip of Brevard loam (BrC). This too is well drained with a more gradual slope of 7 to 15
percent. However, a review of the contour image suggests that slope on this soil series is still over 15

12-08-0082
percent. Generally, significant deposits are not found oil slope of 15 percent or greater. Therefore, it is
unlikely for an important site to be encountered on this soil series, and subsurface investigations are not
recornniended.
A review of the site files show very few archaeological investigations carried out in the vicinity of the
bridge with no sites being rcported. Additional work in needed in this portion of Henderson County
before any conclusions call be drawn on the predictability of archaeological sites. Ho%%lcvcr doe to Steep
slope within the APE, this project will not prOCILICC the data needed,
A historic map review was also conducted. The earliest maps to depict the project area with any great
detail are the 1889 arid 1907 USGS Saluda topographic maps (Figures 4 and 5). Although the 1889 map
does not show structures, it does illustrate a road following a similar aligiulient to SR 1693 running along
the nortliside of Hickory Creek. The current SR 1597 it not depicted arid no crossing ovcr Little Creek is
shown near the present bridge. The later 19017 map, however, shows a change in the layout of the major
road running along Hickory Creek. This road now crosses Hickory Creek on the east side of a structure,
which is very likely the Ralicy Wall HOLISC, and follows the creek along its southside. Subscquent early
20th century map provide no further information. The present road layout of SR 1597 and SR 1693 does
not appear c1carly oil any of the reviewed maps until the publication of the 1953 State Highway and
Public Works Conunission map of Henderson County (Figure 6). Although Hickory Creek is not
depicted, this neap clearly shows the curve on SR 1597 just south of its intersection with SR 1693.
Overall, it appears any historic archaeological sites in the area are located outside the APE and would not
be effect by the proposed bridge replacement. It also appears that any historic deposits associated with
the Ralicy Wall House are either outside the APE or have been previously impacted by road construction
activities.
Btle/'Explanation Qfwhj, the available hilbi-mation pi-ovicles a reliable hasisjbt- Y-easonablj, pi-eclicting
that there ai-e no iiiiideiitijied)iistoi-icpi-opei-ties in the,4PE:
The defined archaeological APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 261 is located within the
Hickory Creek drainage %vith steep hillside slope oil either side. It is unlikely intact and significant
archaeological deposits will be present in this area. This is primarily due to slope in excess of 15 percent,
which is not ideal for settlement activitic& In addition, the review of historic maps suggests that all
former historic structures and possible deposits associated with the Ralicy Wall House are outside of the
APE or previously impacted by past road work. As long as impacts to the subsurface occur within the
defined APE, no further archaeological work is recommended for the replacement of Bridge No. 261 in
Henderson County. If COnStrUCti011 should affect subsurface areas beyond the defined APE, further
archaeological consultation will be necessary.

12-08-0082
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attachcd: Map(s), PrcviOLIS Survey Info, Photos, Correspo tide nce, Photocopy of notes from county
survey.
FINDING BY NCDOTCULTURAL RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL NO SURVEY REQUMED
ARCHAEOLOGY nM m HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE, (CIRCLE ONE)
"A
P1
C. Damon Jones
NCDOT Cultural Resources Specialist
-01mm
Date

12-08-0082
Figure 1, Topographic Setting of Project Area, Bat Cave (1946; photorevised 1969; plio(oinspected
1987), NC, USGS 7.S' Topographic Quadrangle,

12-08-0082
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development and landforms within the project area and
the location of the adjacent Raliey Wall House.

12-08-00,82
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development and soils within the project area and the
location of the adjaccrit Ralicy Wall House.

12-08-0082
Figure 4, The 1889 USES Saluda topographic map showing the approximate location of the project area.
Figure 5, The 1907 USGS Saluda topographic map showing the project area,

12-08-0082
Figure 6. The 1953 State Higliway and PUblic Works Commission map of Henderson County showing
the project at-ca.