20220882 Ver 1_B-6018_Buncombe_CE_20220629

v2019.1 B-6018 Type Choose an item. CE Page 1
•
Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form

STIP Project No. B-6018
WBS Element 48213.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1296(003)

A. Project Description: Replacement of Bridge 100536 over Newfound Creek on SR 1296, Buncombe
County, NC.

B. Description of Need and Purpose: The project will replace a structurally deficient bridge with a multi-
barrel box culvert to improve the safety of the roadway.

C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:

Type I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action

D. Proposed Improvements: 28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction
of graded separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.

E. Special Project Information: Resource reports for threatened and endangered species are attached.
Tribal Consultation letter have been forwarded to three tribes (Cherokee, Catawba, Muscogee) and
any information received from them will be evaluated during the design phase.

Cultural Resource evaluations for Historic Architecture and Archaeology are also attached.

v2019.1 B-6018 Type Choose an item. CE Page 2
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:

F2. Ground Disturbing Actions – Type I (Appendix A) & Type II (Appendix B)
Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type I Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement,
Appendix A) including 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22 (ground disturbing), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &/or 30;
&/or Type II Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B) answer the project
impact threshold questions (below) and questions 8 – 31.

• If any question 1-7 is checked “Yes” then NCDOT certification for FHWA approval is required.
• If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions
in Section G.

PROJECT IMPACT THRESHOLDS
(FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked “Yes”.) Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? ☐ 
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)? ☐ 
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
reason, following appropriate public involvement? ☐ 
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-
income and/or minority populations? ☐ 
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial
amount of right of way acquisition? ☐ 
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ☐ 
7
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
☐ 
If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions in
Section G.
Other Considerations Yes No
8 Is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination unresolved or is the project
covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7? ☐ 
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ☐ 
10
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW),
High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed
impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)? ☐ 
11 Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout streams? ☐ 
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
Section 404 Permit? ☐ 
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensed facility? ☐ 
v2019.1 B-6018 Type Choose an item. CE Page 3
Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued) Yes No
14
Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological
remains? ☐ 
15 Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.? ☐ 
16
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory
floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a
water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart
A?
☐ 
17 Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially
affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ☐ 
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ☐ 
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? ☐ 
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ☐ 
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS,
etc.) or Tribal Lands? ☐ 
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or
construction of an interchange on an interstate? ☐ 
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness? ☐ 
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ☐ 
25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? ☐ 
26
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or
easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the
property?
☐ 
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐ 
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☐ 
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy? ☐ 
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? ☐ 
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
affected the project decision? ☐ 

v2019.1 B-6018 Type Choose an item. CE Page 4
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked ‘Yes’):

v2019.1 B-6018 Type Choose an item. CE Page 5
H. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form):

NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS

STIP Project No. B-6018
Bridge 100536
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1296(003)
WBS Element 48213.1.1

Project commitments will be developed and added during the design phase of the project.
v2019.1 B-6018 Type Choose an item. CE Page 6
I. Categorical Exclusion Approval:

STIP Project No. B-6018
WBS Element 48213.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1296(003)
Prepared By:

Date Roger D. Bryan, Division Environmental Officer
Division 13 Prepared For:

Reviewed By:

Date Mike Calloway, Bridge Program Manager
Division 13, NC Department of Transportation

 Approved • If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion.

☐ Certified
• If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
and 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval.
• If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.

Date Eileen Fuchs, Project Manager, Priority Projects Team/PMU
North Carolina Department of Transportation

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

Date for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see
Section VII of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details).

NC Department of Transportation
4/7/2021
4/7/2021
4/7/2021
COPIESOFTHISIIIN'AR!::..WAII.Afll..l:
TOTHE?U8LICATNOMINALCOST. =•·
/
J
ill
Ii
ij
-~
. if,, '
~
Thalaappjf'IIISedO'l's~~1opro,ido,llemosl.a:.nileonaQ.nenlnlarrninc.npo$1ibie.Mopdmis,;orr,pil.o
--wneswltn~clalesalpibijalllon..amo?acancySll!Mon!sAson!Slll.No......:y
~..:l~Oft,.,-p,OViCIIClwilwry.Ttumop.-.~-nloiMClrco011nCI
....,.ar11rt~em,_
n..---..."""""'"'"""'""wulul'-"""1.:l;,,.A.1~.20,aF«_a"llll..,_,\MII
!Pt.....,MK9ltt...,,W!ttt99'-dd<onOnPro,;omarCGill<l.,st,y~at(919J'35-8'4a0
l! I
\_
Ii
!I
' -~
..,
'1'
I
~
)Ii
A u, .., ---Ii
\_
I
Ji l ~
}/
-.., . ..
' ~
~
~·-····9
,,,
'" '" ....
Structure No:100536 5 of 5

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

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

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

May 31, 2019 TO: Jessica Earley, Project Executive Priority Projects Team, PMU FROM: Melissa Miller, Environmental Program Consultant Biological Surveys Group, EAU SUBJECT: Section 7 survey results for the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), and gray bat (Myotis grisescens) associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 536 over Newfound Creek on SR 1296 in Buncombe County, TIP No. B-6018. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT, Division 13) proposes to replace Bridge No. 536 over Newfound Creek on SR 1296 in Buncombe County, TIP No. B-6018. The existing bridge is a single span structure with steel beams, timber deck, guard rails and end walls. The overall length of the structure is 31 feet. Northern long-eared bat The project to replace Bridge No. 536 has been reviewed for effects on the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). As of May 4, 2015, NLEB is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As of May 31, 2019, NLEB is listed by USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html) as “current” in Buncombe County. USFWS also established a final rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act that provides measures for the conservation of NLEB. The USFWS has tailored the final 4(d) rule to prohibit the take of NLEB from certain activities within areas where they are in decline. This incidental take protection applies only to known NLEB occupied maternity roost trees and known NLEB hibernacula. Effective February 16, 2016, incidental take resulting from tree removal is prohibited if it 1) occurs within a ¼ mile radius of known NLEB hibernacula; or 2) cuts or destroys known occupied maternity roost trees or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known maternity tree during the pup season (June 1-July 31).

According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Biotics Database, most recently updated April 2019, the nearest NLEB hibernacula record is 18.5 miles north
of the project and no known NLEB roost trees occur within 150 feet of the project
area. NCDOT has also reviewed the USFWS Asheville Field office website (http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html) for consistency with NHP records. This project is located entirely outside of the red highlighted areas (12-digit HUC) that the USFWS Asheville Field Office has determined to be representative of an area that may require consultation. For the proposed action, NCDOT has committed to the conservation measures listed below: 1) No alterations of a known hibernacula entrance or interior environment if it impairs an essential behavioral pattern, including sheltering northern long-eared bats (January 1 through December 31); 2) No tree removal within a 0.25 mile radius of a known hibernacula (January 1 through December 31); and 3) No cutting or destroying a known, occupied maternity roost tree, or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known, occupied maternity tree during the period from June 1 through and including July 31.
NCDOT has determined that the proposed action does not require separate
consultation on the grounds that the proposed action is consistent with the final
Section 4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and effective February 16, 2016. NCDOT may presume its determination is informed by best available information and consider Section 7 responsibilities fulfilled for NLEB. Gray Bat The project to replace Bridge No. 536 has also been reviewed for effects on the gray bat (MYGR). As of April 28, 1976, the gray bat was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as “Endangered” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. According to the USFWS Buncombe County webpage (accessed May 31, 2019), (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html), the gray bat is listed by USFWS as “current” in Buncombe County. According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Biotics Database, most recently updated in April 2019, MYGR have been documented in Buncombe County. NHP data indicate that the closest known occurrence of MYGR is approximately 8 miles
south of the project site. On May 15, 2019 NCDOT biologists assessed the bridge project footprint for potential MYGR habitat. No evidence of bats (bats, staining or guano) was observed. No caves or mines are located within the project footprint or within line of sight of the bridge. Therefore, no suitable roosting habitat for MYGR is present. Based on the lack of evidence of bats during the bridge inspection, and lack of caves or mines in the project vicinity the proposed project will have a biological conclusion of No Effect for gray bats. If you need any additional information, please contact Melissa Miller at 919-707-6127.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE:
HTTPS://CONNECT.NCDOT.GOV/RESOURCES/ENVIRON
MENTAL/PAGES/DEFAULT.ASPX
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610
Memorandum to:
From:
Subject:
February 26, 2021
Jessica Earley, PE, Priority Projects Team, Project
Management Unit
Matt Haney, Biological Surveys Group, Environmental
Analysis Unit
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report for the Replacement of
Bridge No. 536 on SR 1296 (Brooks Branch Rd) over
Newfound Creek, Buncombe County. TIP # B-6018. WBS
Element # 48213.1.1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No.
536 on SR 1296 (Brooks Branch Rd) over Newfound Creek in Buncombe County.
Newfound Creek is in the French Broad River Basin (HUC# 06010105) and flows
approximately 9 river miles (RM) from the project location to the French Broad River. As
of January 26, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) webpage listed Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) as an Endangered species (under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) that
potentially occurs at the project location. The IPaC webpage indicated that the project
location does not overlap with Critical Habitat for this species.
Appalachian Elktoe has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized
creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. The
species is most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable,
relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders,
and/or bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian Elktoe,
and the species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting
sand, gravel, or cobble. Individuals that have been encountered in these areas are believed
to have been scoured out of upstream areas during periods of heavy rain, and have not
been found on subsequent surveys.
Newfound Creek is on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ)-Division of Water Resources 2018 303(d) list of impaired streams (Fair rating
for benthos). The closest NPDES facility to the project is French Broad River WRF
(Permit # NC0024911), which is located approximately 11 RM away from the project
along the French Broad River.

A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database (last updated in October
2020) was conducted to determine if there were any records of rare mussels within the
proposed project study area or receiving waters. The closest current occurrence of
Appalachian Elktoe is in the French Broad River approximately 16 RM away from the
project (EO ID 21150). This occurrence was last observed in 2017.

A mussel survey was conducted on October 8, 2020 by NCDOT biologists Jared
Gray (Permit No. 20-ES00314) and Matt Haney, along with Dewberry biologist Anne
Burroughs from approximately 400 meters downstream of the bridge crossing to
approximately 100 meters upstream of the crossing. Newfound Creek ranged from 4-8
feet wide and the water depth was 0.5-2 feet. The substrate consisted of silt, sand, cobble,
gravel and clay. Land use adjacent to the stream consisted of pasture and residential.
There were signs of streambank erosion. Although marginal habitat does exist for
Appalachian Elktoe, no live mussels or mussel shells were observed.

Due to the results of the mussel survey and that there are no known occurrences of
Appalachian Elktoe in Newfound Creek or near the project, this project may affect, but is
not likely to adversely affect this species.

Biological Conclusion for Appalachian Elktoe: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely
Affect

S
R
1
2
9
6
N e w fo u n d C re e kBUNCOMBE NC63I 4 0
U S 1 9
Bridg e 536
/0 1 20.5
MilesB-6018 Buncombe County
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 10
18-09-0016

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

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: B-6018 County: Buncombe
WBS No: 48213.1.1 Document: CE
F.A. No: BRZ-1296(003) Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE

Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 536 on SR 1296 (Brookes Branch Road) over
Newfound Creek in Buncombe County (TIP B-6018). The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE)
for the project is defined as an approximately 600-foot (182.88 m) long corridor running300 feet
(91.44 m) north and south from the center of the bridge. The corridor is approximately 100 feet
(30.48 m) wide extending 50 feet (15.24 m) from either side of the centerline.

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

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

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 10
18-09-0016
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:

NC DOT has conducted an archaeological investigation for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 536 in
Buncombe County, North Carolina. The project area is located west of Asheville and northeast of Canton
and plotted in the northwest corner of the Enka USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).

Background Research

A site files search was conducted by Casey Kirby at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on September
13, 2018. No known archaeological sites are identified within the APE, and no previous investigations or
reviews have been carried out within the project area. However, four sites (31BN64, 31BN65, 31BN255,
and 31BN511) are adjacent to the project and additional 56 sites are within a mile. Site 31BN64 is in the
field southwest of the bridge. 31BN65 is in the field to the northwest, and 31BN255 and 31BN511 are to
the northeast (Figure 2). Sites 31BN64 and 31BN65 were first recorded by the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill during their Cherokee Archaeological Project in 1964. They have subsequently
been revisited by a local collector (Gary Henry), who identified 31BN255 and 31BN511 as well as most of
the other sites in the region. Although none of the sites have been intensively surveyed, all contain a
precontact component and have yet to be assessed for the National Register. The placement of each site is
also uncertain, which necessitated the current investigation. As for the 56 other sites, nearly all are along
floodplain and stream terraces associated with Newfound Creek in settings like that of the current project
area.

According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2018),
there are no known historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological
deposits.

County and regional maps prior to the 20th century that were inspected provide only general details
concerning the region illustrating just major roads and settlements. The 1901 USGS Asheville topographic
map is one of the first to provide a reliable location for the project (Figure 3). This map depicts an
unimproved road/trail either at or near the current location for Brooks Branch Road. No structures are plot
in the vicinity except for those along Newfound Road, which will not be impacted. The 1920 Soil Map for
Buncombe County provides no new information as it illustrates the same road layout and structure
placement (Perkins et al. 1920). The later 1938 North Carolina State Highway Map for Buncombe County
clearly shows Brooks Branch Road with two new structures to the west (NCSTPWC 1938) (Figure 4).
Both are well outside of the project area.

The USDA soil survey map for Buncombe County depicts the project area composed mostly of the French
loam (FrA) (USDA NRCS 2018) (Figure 5). This soil type is subject to occasionally flooding and is
considered somewhat poorly drained. The adjacent sloping stream terraces are composed of Tate loam
(TaB) to the south and Unison loam (UnB) to the north. These are both well drained series with slope of 2
to 8 percent. While well drained soils are typically tested for archaeological resources, the poorly drained
soils are not since they are persistently wet. However, the presence of know sites on these soils in the
general area suggest that the soil survey may be incorrect and that the soils are drier than expected.

Fieldwork Results

The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the replacement of Bridge No. 536 was carried out
on October 3, 2018. This included systematic shovel testing at 15-meter (ca. 49.21 feet) intervals when
possible. A total of 15 shovel tests (STs) were excavated of which none yielded cultural material (see
Figure 5). Five shovel tests each were placed in the southeast and southwest quadrants. Another three
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 10
18-09-0016
were dug in the northeast and only one in the northwest. The limited number of tests to the north were due
to wet soils in the fields adjacent to the creek, steep slope at the northern end, heavy soil erosion, and
disturbance from landscaping. Surface visibility was good in the northeast, northwest, and southeast
quadrant, but no cultural material was identified during the surface inspection.

Bridge 536 and Brookes Branch Road run north to south along a floodplain with sloping stream terraces at
either end of the APE (see Figure 5). Newfound Creek drains to the northeast into the French Broad River.
An unnamed tributary to Newfound Creek is located in the southwestern quadrant and parallels Brookes
Branch Road. This unnamed stream has been modified to run straight and currently functions as a drainage
ditch. Agricultural fields to the north and southeast were under cultivation at the time of the survey
(Figures 6 and 7). The field to the southwest is grassed over and is being used as a staging area for aerial
brush clearing (Figure 8). Finally, a residential property is to the northwest (Figure 9). Overall, ground
disturbance is minimal south of the bridge, but it becomes moderate to heavy to the north. In the north, soil
erosion has exposed subsoil along the terrace, while the soils in the floodplain are wet. Soils south of the
bridge are dry and consistent.

In shovel tests north of the bridge, the soil stratigraphy has a surface layer of dark yellowish brown (10YR
4/4) loam or yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay loam. The clay loam appears to be soil from the terrace that has
washed into the floodplain. The surface layer is typically 25 to 30 cm (ca. 10 to 12 in) thick. It is followed
by either a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) wet sandy clay loam in the floodplain, which is hydric, or
yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay subsoil along the terrace. As previously mention, this yellowish red clay is
exposed at the surface along the crest of the terrace. In the shovel tests south of the bridge, the surface
layer is a 30 to 60 cm (ca. 12 to 24 in) thick dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6.) loam. Below this is a
yellowish brown (10Y 5/6) sandy clay loam that extends to at least 75 cm (ca. 30 in) below the surface.

Summary and Recommendations

The archeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 536 in Buncombe County
identified no archaeological resources within the APE. Subsurface tests and the surface inspection yielded
no positive results in the minimally to moderately disturbed areas. No tests were carried out in the heavily
disturbed location, since it was very unlikely for intact deposits to be present. Additionally, there is no
evidence that previously known sites extend into the current project area. No further archaeological work
is recommended for this bridge replacement project. However, if design plans change to impact areas
outside of the APE, then further archaeological work will be required.

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

12/5/18
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 10
18-09-0016
REFERENCES CITED

HPOWEB
2018 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service.
http://gisNCDCR.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed September 24, 2018.

North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC)
1938 North Carolina State Highway Map for Buncombe County, North Carolina State
Highway and Public Works Commission, Raleigh.

Perkins, Samuel, Robert Devereux, Samuel Davidson, and William Davis
1920 Soil Map for Buncombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Argiculture,
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. On file at North Carolina Collections,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA NRCS)
2018 Buncombe County Soil Survey. Available online at
http://webosilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed September 24, 2018.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1901 Asheville, North Carolina-Tennessee 30 minute quadrangle map. Reprinted in 1907.
2013 Enka, North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 10
18-09-0016

Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Enka (2013), NC, USGS 7.5′ Topographic
Quadrangle.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 10
18-09-0016

Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the APE showing development, contours, and soils.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 10
18-09-0016

Figure 3. The 1901 Asheville USGS topographic map showing the location of the project area.

Figure 4. The 1938 North Carolina State Highway Map for Buncombe County showing the location of
the project area.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 10
18-09-0016

Figure 5. Aerial View of the project area showing soils, contours, development, and ST placement.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 10
18-09-0016

Figure 6. View of the agricultural field in the northeast quadrant, looking north.

Figure 7. View of the corn field in the southeast quadrant, looking south.

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 10
18-09-0016

Figure 8. View of the grassy field in the southwest quadrant, looking south.

Figure 9. View of the residential property in the northwest quadrant, looking north.