20230477 Ver 1_More Info Received_20230707

F)R
hdrinc.com
June 16, 2023
Ms. Amanda Jones
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: RESPONSE TO USACE COMMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION (SAW-2021-01395)
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY —
CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Received via email. [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Jones,
On behalf of the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County (MSD; Applicant), this letter
and the appendices provided herein address the comments received and additional information
requested from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) via email dated May 16, 2023, for the
above reference project in Buncombe County, North Carolina. The requested information includes
the Applicant's responses to questions received in the May 16th email as well as questions
presented during the conference call between the Applicant, the USACE, US Fish and Wildlife
(USFWS), and HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) held on May 15, 2023.
This information is included in the following appendices:
- Appendix A — Applicant's Responses to USACE and USFWS Comments
- Appendix B — Applicant's Responses to Division of Water Resources (DWR) Comments
- Appendix C — Cultural Resource Reports and State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) Coordination for the Action Area
- Appendix D — River Crossing Depth Illustrations
- Appendix E — Updated Figures / Maps
- Appendix F — Anticipated Project Schedule Timeline Chart(s)
- Appendix G — IPaC D-Key Report
Based on the cumulative discussion, it is our opinion that the Applicant's responses contained
within this letter fully address questions and requests received from the USACE and USFWS
regarding the proposed Section 404 Nationwide Permit Pre -construction Notification (PCN)
submittal — USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395.
1201 Market Street
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
Please review the responses and additional project information included in the attached
appendices. On behalf of MSD, the information provided in this response should provide the
USACE and USFWS a complete application submittal and we respectfully request the continued
processing of the PCN submittal package SAW-2021-01395 as expeditiously as practicable. If you
have any questions, please contact me by email at [e-mail] or by phone at (704)
973-6878.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important planned utility project to accommodate the
regional growth for the project area.
Sincerely,
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
Eric Mularski, PWS, PMP
Environmental Project Manager
Cc: Darin Prosser — MSD (dprosser(d-)msdbc.org)
Hunter Carson — MSD (HCarson6d0sdbc.org)
Amanda Jones — USACE (Amanda.Jones(a)usace.army.mil)
Byron Hamstead — USFWS (Byron ham stead (a--)fws. gov)
Crystal Allgood, CEP, CPESC, CISEC — HDR (crystal.allgood(aD-hdrinc.commaiIto:)
Matthew Shultz, PE — HDR (matthew.shultz(abadrinc.com)
hdrinc.com 1201 Market Street
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
LA
Appendix A
Applicant's Responses to
10 USACE Email Request
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
The following outlines the inquiries made by the USACE and USFWS along with MSD responses. Additional
maps and project documentation is attached where applicable and is noted in the following responses.
1. [Division of Water Resources] DWR requested additional information dated May 3, 2023. We
[USACE] share these same concerns/questions so please copy us on your response to DWR.
As a reminder, we cannot issue a permit authorization until we receive the Individual Water
Quality Certification for this project.
On behalf of MSD, HDR copied Ms. Amanda Jones (USACE) and Mr. Byron Hamstead (USFWS) via
email on the DWR response for additional information submitted June 2, 2023. Additionally, a copy of
the submittal package to DWR is included in Appendix B of this response.
2. Coordination with USFWS — as indicated we have started informal consultation with
Byron/USFWS and will enter into formal consultation once we determine the Biological
Assessment (BA) is complete through coordination with Byron. In our call, Byron mentioned
some additional information he would need to complete his review of the BA. As a reminder,
we cannot issue a permit authorization until we complete consultation with USFWS.
MSD acknowledges and understands this requirement. Comments and additional information
requested from USFWS during the May 15, 2023, conference call have been included in this
response package following the USACE comments (starting at item number 5).
3. Cultural Resources/Coordination with SHPO and THPOs — Based on a review of the
application, the cultural resource survey included only covered a portion of the project area.
Please provide survey results/reports for the remaining sections so that information can be
forwarded to SHPO/THPO for review/concurrence. As a reminder, we cannot issue a permit
authorization until we complete consultation with SHPO/THPO.
The additional cultural resource studies have been located and are included in Appendix C of this
response.
4. Please provide clarification on the need for the South River Crossing, specifically why it can't
be constructed closer to the project timeline for use which is anticipated for > 10 years and
how this delayed timeline could affect how this crossing is constructed (i.e., could this
crossing be bored/tunneled at some point in the future and avoid in -river work).
As part of the construction efforts for the proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station project, a new wet
well is required. The depth of the new wet well is dependent on the depths of any gravity flow lines
connecting into the new pump station. For sufficient operation of the new pump station, it is better to
have a shallow wet well. A deeper wet well increases the overall project costs, requiring additional
funding towards excavation, rock removal, construction materials (i.e., concrete, piping), and larger
pumps and associated equipment that have higher energy demands to draw influent up from a
deeper wet well.
The future proposed South French Broad Relief Interceptor project (60-inch gravity sewer line) will tie
into the new Carrier Bridge Pump Station. Although it is proposed to begin construction at a later date
from that of the proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station, it is vital to identify what the maximum depth
will be for the future 60-inch gravity sewer line (which would operate under gravity flow conditions) in
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
order to adequately construct the new wet well at the appropriate depth since the future 60-inch
gravity sewer line will serve as the main influent line into the pump station (please refer to Appendix D
for river crossing depth illustrations). However, to determine what the depth would be for the future
60-inch gravity sewer line (and the corelating depth of the new wet well) it is important to determine
its measured depth at the proposed South River Crossing which can only be done once the open cut
operations begin and the 60-inch pipe is set appropriately beneath the river substrate. There is no
way to change the depth of the new wet well after construction is completed without incurring
significant costs for reconstruction. Construction of the proposed South River Crossing could occur at
a later date but it means running the increased risk of designing the pump station at an inaccurate
depth or excavating the wet well at a much greater depth than what might be needed resulting in
adding millions of dollars to the construction of the new Carrier Bridge Pump Station and to the future
proposed South French Broad Relief Interceptor project (both in terms of capital investment and O&M
costs).
If the river crossing for the 60-inch gravity sewer line is constructed at the same time as the new
Carrier Bridge Pump Station and the new wet well, it would save millions in overall costs, eliminate
any errors of speculation, and ensure an appropriate shallow depth is accommodated for the new
pump station. Collectively, these two projects already exceed $110M and the higher costs increase to
implement projects the greater it carries over to the rate payers, which MSD is attempting to minimize
those affects to the community.
As part of the assessment presented in the 2019 French Broad Interceptor -Carrier Bridge Preliminary
Engineering Report (PER) prepared by CDM Smith, MSD is following PER recommendations which
includes implementing the proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station project and the future proposed
South French Broad Relief Interceptor project (the referenced future 60-inch gravity sewer line), along
with several other improvement projects. MSD is actively implementing the PER recommendations for
the projected 50-year regional service demands and currently has several ongoing projects that have
stemmed from the PER. Plans for the future 60-inch gravity sewer line are proposed to be initiated
within the next ten years which will increase the hydraulic capacity through the Biltmore Estate
located on the south side of the proposed river crossing. The proposed future 60-inch gravity sewer
line is currently part of MSD's 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), however the future 60-
inch gravity sewer line project had to be pushed back to accommodate the increasing budget
associated with the proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station Project (and another regional pump station
slotted to be constructed at the same time) to address massive upgrades with solids handling and
biological treatment to meet discharge limits. MSD has no intent to postpone or cancel the future
proposed South French Broad Relief Interceptor project as the current need is oncoming to meet the
regional service demands. Anticipated initiation of construction activities for the proposed South
French Broad Relief Interceptor project would begin in 2030.
MSD is requesting approval to install the 60-inch South River Crossing (via open cut) as part of the
Carrier Bridge Pump Station project for the reasons outlined below.
Design Elevations: The 60-inch (gravity interceptor) river crossing dictates the depth of the
downstream pump station. Establishing the elevation of the crossing is critical to the proper
design and installation of downstream infrastructure. Installing the 60-inch river crossing now
will solidify these elevations.
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
Specialty Construction: An open -cut installation of the French Broad River will require the
expertise of a specialized contractor. The recommended installation method for the dual 36-
inch force mains leaving Carrier Bridge Pump Station is open cut, so utilizing the same
contractor for both installations adds value and experience to the project.
The following is provided in response to additional comments received from the USACE during the May
15, 2023 project conference call with the USFWS, MSD, and HDR.
5. USACE inquired about one potential stream connection to the French Broad River located on
the west side of the river near the North River Crossing (36-inch force main crossing), three
potential stream connections on the east side of the French Broad River along Lyman Road,
and one potential stream connection on the west side of the French Broad River located north
of Amboy Road located within the French Broad River Dog Park based on topo lines shown in
the plan set and other available online datasets. If these five potential features are
jurisdictional, USACE has requested that they are included into the project impacts for permit
coverage.
The following is provided for the five potential features being inquired on along with updates for one
intermittent stream (Map ID SA) presented in the PJD submittal by Three Oaks (PCN Attachment 5).
Updated maps are included in Appendix E of this response submittal to show the five features
inquired on by USACE and the extension of intermittent stream SA. Additionally, KMZ file(s) and
Shapefile(s) will be provided with this submittal as separate attachments.
The first noted feature (Feature 1; Appendix E — Figure 9A) located on the west side of the
river near the North River Crossing is an unnamed tributary to the French Broad River that
was identified immediately downstream of the North River Crossing on the west side of the
river during the site meeting with NC Department of Environmental Quality -Division of Water
Resources (DWR) and NC Wildlife Resources Commission on April 27, 2023. The proposed
site for the North River Crossing was relocated downstream (i.e., north) after the initial
delineation efforts were conducted and inadvertently was moved outside of the delineated
study area. As such this feature was unintentionally overlooked in the application submittal.
HDR has collected data for this unnamed tributary and determined it a jurisdictional feature to
be included in the project's potential impacts. The information presented in the PCN
application assumed the larger footprint of a rockfill cofferdam since the final decision for
selecting the cofferdam for the North River Crossing will be dependent on the contractor
selected to construct the project. Implementation of the rockfill cofferdam would require a
temporary culvert to be installed at the confluence of the tributary with the river to maintain
flow of the tributary and route flows away from the cofferdam structure. However, the
proposed sheet pile cofferdam was determined to be the preferred option as outlined in the
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report (Attachment 9 of the PCN package) in which it
would have a smaller footprint over that of the rockfill cofferdam. If the sheet pile cofferdam
can be used for the North River Crossing, it would be located approximately 30-feet upstream
of the noted feature and there would be no requirement for a temporary culvert. Impacts to
this surface water feature would be avoided and the top of banks will be clearly identified in
the field with bright orange safety fence or similar. Erosion control measures will be installed
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
to encompass the limits of disturbance prior to construction to prevent sedimentation and
preserve water quality.
As presented in the DWR comment responses (Appendix B; Response 7), MSD is open to
the option of implementing a contingency streambank stabilization plan approach for the
Project instead of the implementing the proposed temporary streambank stabilization
measures as presented in the USACE PCN application and supporting Hydrologic and
Hydraulic Analysis Report. Use of this approach would maintain the existing riparian
vegetation in place, avoid any disturbance to existing tributaries, and eliminate implementing
streambank stabilization measures prior to construction to reduce overall project impacts.
MSD will monitor streambank stability upstream and downstream of the proposed crossings
during construction and will contact the USACE and DWR should the streambanks require
treatment for active erosion observed during the construction activities. MSD will submit a
modification request to authorize impacts for streambank treatments or request verbal
authorization for emergency situations related potential catastrophic storm events. Impact
figures (Appendix C — Figure 8A and Figure 8B) have been revised to illustrate and calculate
the revised impact reduction solely related to the proposed footprints of each river crossing
which include the temporary cofferdam, de -watering, and excavation associated with the pipe
installation and permanent streambank stabilization. The preferred permanent stabilization
option will comprise of natural materials and re-establishing the riparian buffer with woody
native vegetation. MSD will notify and provide justification to the agencies if this option is not
viable and if permanent stabilization measures require incorporating materials that are non -
biodegradable.
Of the three potential stream connections (Features 2, 3, and 4; Appendix E — Figure 9A)
located on the east side of the French Broad River along Lyman Road, one was located
outside of the original study area (Feature 2) and two were located within the original study
area (Features 3 and 4). The feature located outside the original study area was evaluated
by HDR during field reconnaissance efforts on the east side of the river in February 2021.
There was no apparent drainage swale or flowing water observed in the area of Feature 2
and the riverbanks are steep along this side of the river and dense vegetation made it difficult
to determine if there was a direct outfall to the river from an underlying culvert. Similar to
Feature 1, Feature 2 is located immediately downstream of the proposed North River
Crossing and would not be impacted by the proposed cofferdam structures. Additionally, by
implementing a contingency bank stabilization plan of approach the existing riparian
vegetation would remain in place, the outfall for Feature 2 (if present) would be avoided
completely, and streambank stabilization measures would not be implemented prior to
construction to further reduce overall project impacts.
The two features located within the original study area (Features 3 and 4) were evaluated
during the December 2021 delineation efforts conducted by Three Oaks Engineering (Three
Oaks). The potential features did not exhibit characteristics of jurisdictional streams, instead
both were determined to be non -jurisdictional features and excluded from the Preliminary
Jurisdictional Delineation Request prepared by Three Oaks (PCN Attachment 5).
c. The potential stream connection (Feature 5; Appendix E — Figure 9A) located on the west
side of the French Broad River immediately north of Amboy Road (within the French Broad
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
River Dog Park) is located in the original study area and was evaluated during the December
2021 delineation efforts conducted by Three Oaks. The potential feature did not exhibit
characteristics of a jurisdictional stream, instead it was determined to be a non -jurisdictional
feature and excluded from the Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation Request prepared by
Three Oaks (PCN Attachment 5).
The initial study area for the delineation efforts conducted by Three Oaks did extend beyond
the immediate area of the pipeline alignment for the proposed South River Crossing. As a
result, only a portion of the unnamed tributary flowing into the French Broad River (PJD Map
ID SA) was delineated by Three Oaks and its connection to the river was unintentionally
overlooked in the application submittal (PCN Attachment 5). During the April 27, 2023 site
meeting with DWR, HDR verified the unnamed tributary's connection with the French Broad
River and collected data to be included in project's potential impacts. The extended limits of
this tributary (Map ID SA) are depicted in the revised maps presented in Appendix E of this
response submittal.
Similar to that of Feature 1 discussed previously under response 5a, the information
presented in the PCN application assumed the larger footprint of a rockfill cofferdam since
the final decision for selecting the cofferdam for the South River Crossing will be dependent
on the contractor selected to construct the project. Implementation of the rockfill cofferdam
would require a temporary culvert to be installed at the confluence of the tributary (Map ID
SA) with the river to maintain flow of the tributary and route flows away from the cofferdam
structure. However, the proposed sheet pile cofferdam was determined to be the preferred
option as outlined in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report (Attachment 9 of the PCN
package) in which it would have a smaller footprint over that of the rockfill cofferdam. If the
sheet pile cofferdam can be used for the South River Crossing, it would be located
approximately 15- to 20-feet downstream of the tributary (Map ID SA) and there would be no
requirement for a temporary culvert. Impacts to this surface water feature would be avoided
and the top of banks will be clearly identified in the field with bright orange safety fence or
similar. Erosion control measures will be installed to encompass the limits of disturbance prior
to construction to prevent sedimentation and preserve water quality.
e. A revised impact table is included here for the additional temporary impacts anticipated to the
unnamed tributary to the French Broad River (Feature 1) should the rockfill cofferdam be
selected for construction crossing the river (i.e., worst case scenario). Potential Features 2
through 5 would not result in any jurisdictional impacts.
Site #
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
3h
Impact
Impact
Impact
Stream
Stream
Juris-
Stream
Impact
Reason
Duration
Type
Name
Type
diction
Width
Length
Type
av ft
linear ft
S1
cofferdam
Temp.
Fill (Incl.
French
Perennial
Both
260
100*
Ri ra
Broad River
S2
Pipe
Temp.
De-
French
Perennial
Both
260
50
Installation
watering
Broad River
Open Cut
Excavation
S3
Cofferdam
Temp.
Fill (Incl.
French
Perennial
Both
230
100*
Ri ra
Broad River
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
Site #
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
3h
Impact
Impact
Impact
Stream
Stream
Juris-
Stream
Impact
Reason
Duration
Type
Name
Type
diction
Width
Length
Type
av ft
linear ft
S4
Pipe
Temp.
De-
French
Perennial
Both
230
50
Installation
watering
Broad River
Open Cut
Excavation
S5
Temporary
Temp.
Fill
Unnamed
Intermittent
Both
3
25*
Culvert
Tributary
to French
Broad
River
Feature 1
S6
Temporary
Temp.
Fill
Unnamed
Intermittent
Both
3
68*
Culvert
Tributary
to French
Broad
River (PJD
Map ID SA
3i1. Total jurisdictional ditch impact:
0 linear ft
3i2. Total permanent stream impacts:
0 linear ft
36. Total temporary stream impacts:
393 linear ft
34. Total stream and ditch impacts
393 linear ft
*Assumes the larger footprint of the rockfill cofferdam for the worst -case scenario on project impacts.
6. USACE requested the following:
a. A copy of the preliminary conceptual plans for the proposed future project (60-inch
gravity sewer line).
Preliminary conceptual plans of the proposed future 60-inch gravity sewer interceptor
extension are provided in Appendix B of this response with the Applicant's Responses to
Division of Water Resources (DWR) Comments.
The following is provided in response to additional comments received from the USFWS during the May
15, 2023 project conference call with the USACE, MSD, and HDR.
7. USFWS expressed concern on the overall timeline of construction activities and needing
additional information pertaining to when specific components of the project (i.e., in -water
work) would be conducted during the year and the duration of these activities in order to
provide a Biological Opinion towards potential species impacts.
Per the USFWS request outlined in the following Comment No. 6, a Gantt Chart has been prepared
to map out the anticipated project timeline(s) for the various construction components associated with
the proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project and associated in -water work.
Please refer to Appendix F of this response submittal.
8. USFWS requested the following:
a. A project Gantt Chart to show the overall project timeline (start/end dates) and
expected activities and durations (i.e., tree clearing, construction periods for various
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
project components, in -stream work, night-time activity periods, restoration, etc.).
Timeline options for alternate construction schedules can be submitted if precise
timeline is not yet determined.
Please refer to Appendix F for a copy of the anticipated project schedule(s) provided in the
requested Gantt Chart format.
b. Provide a written description of the proposed schedule timeline or timeline options (to
accompany the Gantt Chart[s]).
Please refer to Appendix F for a written description of the proposed schedule timeline
accompanying the included Gantt Chart(s).
c. Process the Project through the IPaC DKey (just a procedural step to make sure the
construction timing is good for the protected species anticipated for the area).
Please refer to Appendix G for the completed IPAC DKey.
d. Shapefiles for the Action Area boundaries.
The requested shapefiles will be included with the email submittal of this comment response
package.
e. Shapefiles for the proposed Tree Clearing Area.
The requested shapefiles will be included with the email submittal of this comment response
package.
f. Outline details of the proposed tree clearing efforts to include timelines, duration,
proposed areas, and any phased clearing efforts.
Tree clearing will be conducted for the construction of the new Carrier Bridge Pump Station
and associated work areas for the proposed open -cut trenching to install the new pipelines.
Please refer to Figures 10A-C (Appendix E) for project areas that will require clearing or
trimming of existing trees. The following outline details for each proposed construction area
with a summary table provided at the end of this response.
For construction of the new pump station, clearing activities are proposed for approximately
9,087 sq ft (0.21 acre) that would result in the permanent removal of marginal upland forest
habitat that is already heavily disturbed and currently providing low -quality habitat (Appendix
E; Figure 10A).
The upland areas along the proposed parallel 36-inch-diameter force main alignment existing
from the new Carrier Bridge Pump Station consist of upland woodland and open grassland
areas (i.e., French Broad River Park and overhead transmission line right-of-way).
Approximately 825 linear ft (0.98 acre) of upland woody vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs)
will require removal within the proposed alignment right-of-way (i.e., 50 ft easement on
centerline) (Appendix E; Figure 10A).
The upland areas along the proposed 60-inch-diameter gravity sewer interceptor alignment
feeding into the new Carrier Bridge Pump Station consist of open upland woodland, open
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
grassland areas (i.e., French Broad River Park and overhead transmission line right-of-way),
paved parking lot and park paths, and Amboy Road. Approximately 700 ft (0.86 acre) of
upland woody vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs) will be removed within the proposed
alignment right-of-way (i.e., 50 ft easement on centerline) (Appendix E; Figure 10A).
The segment of 48-inch and 54-inch gravity sewer lines proposed for rehabilitation on the
east side of the river is located between, and in some areas beneath, the Wilma Dykeman
Greenway recreational trail path and Lyman Road. The majority of this area is grass -covered
or paved. Only a small portion of the segment at the northern end of the right-of-way (i.e., 50
ft easement on centerline) would require tree clearing. The remaining existing riparian
vegetation along this segment would be left untouched. This would reduce the proposed total
of 667 linear ft (0.74 acre) of riparian habitat originally proposed within the PCN submittal for
this segment area down to only 300 linear feet (0.10 acres) for rehabilitation efforts at the
northern end of the segment (Appendix E; Figure 10A). Approximately 367 linear feet to 850
linear feet (0.64 acres to 0.88 acres) of bordering riparian and upland vegetation may
require tree trimming but would not require the removal of existing trees (Appendix E; Figure
10A).
The only riparian areas that would require tree removal would be at the North River Crossing
(36-inch force main) and South River Crossing (60-inch gravity sewer interceptor) to facilitate
equipment access and construction activities at the proposed crossings. MSD is planning to
implement a contingency bank stabilization plan of approach for the Project (as presented in
Appendix B; DWR Response 7) which would limit the riparian tree removal to the minimum
width needed to cross the river (i.e., a 50-ft wide work area). This would reduce the proposed
total of 2,317 linear feet (3.04 acre) of temporary bank stabilization originally proposed within
the PCN submittal down to only 200 linear feet (0.95 acre) for construction of the two
crossings (North River Crossing 0.45 acres, South River Crossing 0.50 acres, respectively)
(Appendix E; Figures 10A-B). Approximately 30 linear feet (0.08 acres) of bordering riparian
and upland vegetation may require tree trimming at the South River Crossing near the access
point on the south bank, no tree removal is proposed for this area (Appendix E; Figure 10B).
Potential tree clearing and/or trimming will be required along the existing access route on the
Biltmore Estate, west of the river, to allow for vehicle passing areas and adequate vehicle
turning radius for large supply trucks and construction equipment (Appendix E; Figure 10C).
Tree clearing or trimming would not be required along the access route east and south of the
river as there is adequate open space for vehicle movements with the adjacent agricultural
fields along this portion of the route. MSD intends to limit the amount of proposed tree
clearing along the access route (west of the river) to the minimum needed to establish
sufficient vehicle passing areas and turning radius along the existing road. Currently,
locations for passing lanes have not been finalized with the landowner and specific details on
location(s) and total length(s) have not been determine. As such, MSD is providing a worst -
case scenario for potential tree clearing impacts along the entire length of the Biltmore Estate
Access Route on the west side of the river. Up to 8,000 linear feet (2.60 acres) may require
tree clearing for a width of 15 feet to accommodate vehicle passing and a width of 50 feet to
accommodate vehicle turning radius at three existing turning points along the route (Appendix
E; Figure 10C). Once an agreement has been established with the landowner, tree clearing
would be limited to designated areas and only tree trimming of overhanging branched would
be conducted outside of the designated clearing areas to reduce overall impacts on the
existing trees.
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
Project staging and laydown areas have not been determined at this time but will be
implemented on an as -needed basis in areas that are void of tree and brush cover (i.e., open
grass fields, agricultural crops, parking lots, or open dirt fields) and, whenever feasible, within
existing right-of-ways. No tree clearing is proposed for staging and laydown area and any
tree trimming would be limited to overhanging branches and only on an as needed basis.
MSD will attempt to conduct the proposed tree clearing during the winter months between
November and February to avoid potential impacts to migratory birds and protected bat
species. However, the timeline for scheduled project activities is tentative at this point in the
project and proposed tree clearing activities may be required outside of the winter months
(i.e., November to February). MSD will follow the appropriate guidance from USFWS should
tree clearing activities be required between March and October. Overall, the proposed tree
clearing for the project is not anticipated to result in a long-term adverse effect on any
species habitat requirements or foraging resources available within the Action Area.
The proposed phased clearing schedule timelines for each construction area are presented in
the Gantt Chart included in Appendix F.
Summary of Proposed Tree Clearing and Tree Trimming Areas Presented in this
Response
Construction Area
Tree Clearing
or Trimming
Square or
Linear Feet
Acres
New Carrier Bridge Pump Station
Clearing
9,087 sq ft
0.21
New 36-inch Force Main Pipeline
Clearing
825 LF
0.98
New 60-inch Gravity Sewer Interceptor Pipeline
Clearing
700 LF
0.86
48-inch/54-inch Gravity Sewer Rehabilitation
Clearing
300 LF
0.10
North River Crossing 36-inch force mains
Clearing
100 LF
0.45
South River Crossing 60-inch gravity sewer line
Clearing
100 LF
0.50
Biltmore Estate Access Route (passing lane, turn
radius
Clearing
8,000 LF
2.60*
Staging and Laydown Areas
Clearing
n/a
0
Total Tree Clearing Area
5.70
48-inch/54-inch Gravity Sewer Rehabilitation
Trimming
850 LF
0.88
South River Crossing 60-inch gravity sewer line
Trimming
30 LF
0.08
Biltmore Estate Access Route
Trimming
n/a
0*
Staging and La down Areas
Trimming
n/a
0
Total Tree Trimming Area
0.96
*This provides a worst -case scenario for potential tree clearing along the Biltmore Estate Access Road
west of the French Broad River assuming a 15-ft wide clearing for the entire length to allow passing
vehicles and increases to existing turning radius at three locations along the route to facilitate turns for
larger supply trucks/construction equipment. Where feasible clearing will be limited to just tree trimming
and will be determined at a later date.
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
g. A better understanding of the potential night-time work that may occur during the
construction period to include timeline, duration, location(s), equipment use, etc.
Currently, construction activities are not anticipated and not planned to occur outside of
normal daylight hours and will not require means for additional artificial lighting (e.g.,
portable light towers, flood lighting). However, the potential need for night-time work and
associated artificial lighting in select areas cannot be completely ruled out and may occur
at some point during the 48-month construction period. Unfortunately, there is no way to
predetermine the need for potential night-time work at this point of the project or to be
able to provide an associated timeline, duration, specific location, or the types of
equipment that would be used during an unanticipated and unplanned incident of night-
time work, should it be required at some point during the construction period.
If there is a reason during construction of the project that night-time work is required and
cannot be conducted during normal daylight hours, MSD and its contractors will follow
the proposed artificial lighting measures as presented in the BA and/or any other night-
time work or artificial lighting measures determined by USFWS. Currently measures
include:
■ Night-time work would be limited to only a few hours after dark or preceding
sunrise (less than four [4] hours maximum) and would not extend through the
entire night.
■ Consecutive night-time work would be limited to no more than one (1) to two (2)
weeks within a 12-month period.
■ Artificial lighting will only be used if construction activities are conducted during
late evening or early morning hours when natural sunlight is not present so that
construction crews can work safely in well -lit areas.
■ Use of artificial lighting will be focused at the construction area only and directed
or shielded away from illuminating adjacent habitat areas.
Overall, if it is required during the 48-month construction period, any potential night-time
work and any associated artificial lighting would be temporary and conducted for short
periods of time and duration. Significant increases to the amount of light currently
present within the Action Area would not occur (the Action Area is currently influenced by
existing artificial lighting from the parks, residents, commercial businesses, and roadway
lighting from 1-40, 1-240, and Amboy Road).
h. Provide a written justification as to why the river crossings cannot be microtunneled.
What are the feasibility restrictions to construct by microtunneling that eliminated this
option from further consideration.
Microtunneling under the river could be a potential option for the proposed river crossings (of
the 36-inch force mains [North River Crossing] and the 60-inch gravity sewer line [South
River Crossing]). MSD evaluated this option for microtunneling during the project's initial
planning however, microtunneling is best performed in consistent subsurface conditions such
as solid rock or soil (not in mixed geology) and based on the geotechnical data gathered at
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
the proposed crossing locations, along with recommendations from microtunneling
contractors, the proposed river crossings would need to be installed at depths greater than 18
feet below the riverbed. It was determined that adequate space was not available to
microtunnel the North River Crossing (36-inch force mains) with constraints being present on
the east side of the river (i.e., recreational trail path, Lyman Road, railroad) the prevented
access for a sufficient exit point. And if implemented for the South River Crossing (60-inch
gravity sewer line), the overall depth requirements would be much deeper from that of an
open -cut installation and thereby would affect the required depth for the new wet well
associated with the new Carrier Bridge Pump Station (as previously outlined in Response
Item #4 of this appendix).
Since the future proposed South French Broad Relief Interceptor project (60-inch gravity
sewer line) will operate under gravity flow conditions it is vital for the South River Crossing to
be installed a minimal depth under the river and the open -cut method would provide that over
the microtunneling option (please refer to the sketches provided in Appendix D).
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]
is

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ���
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information
L A
Appendix B
Applicant's Responses to
Division of Water Resources
inIA►o\ ram,%v%,% v%+„
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

F)R
hdrinc.com
June 2, 2023
Mr. Andrew Moore
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
RE: RESPONSE TO INCOMPLETE 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
NOTIFICATION — DWR PROJECT #20230477
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY— CARRIER
BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Received via email: [e-mail]
Dear Mr. Moore,
On behalf of the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County (MSD; Applicant), this letter
and the appendices provided herein address the incomplete information notification received from
the Division of Water Resources (Division) via email dated May 3, 2023, for the above reference
project in Buncombe County, North Carolina. The requested information includes the Applicant's
responses to questions received in the notification email as well as questions presented during a
site visit between the Applicant, the Division, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), and HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) on April 27, 2023.
This information is included in the following appendices:
- Appendix A — Applicant's Responses to Division Notification
- Appendix B — Preliminary Conceptual Plans for Referenced Future Project
- Appendix C — Updated Figures / Maps
- Appendix D — Stream Stabilization Details
- Appendix E — Additional Photographs Collected During the April 27, 2023, Site
Meeting
- Appendix F — Meeting Minutes from April 27, 2023 Site Meeting
Based on the cumulative discussion, it is our opinion that the Applicant's responses contained
within this letter fully address questions and requests received from the Division regarding the
proposed Section 401 Water Quality Certification application — DWR Project No. 20230477.
Please review the responses and additional project information included in the attached
appendices. On behalf of MSD, the information provided in this response should provide the
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Division a complete application submittal and we respectfully request the continued processing of
DWR Project No. 20230477 as expeditiously as practicable. If you have any questions, please
contact me by email at [e-mail] or by phone at [phone].
Thank you for your time and attention to this important planned utility project to accommodate the
regional growth for the project area.
Sincerely,
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
Eric Mularski, PWS, PMP
Environmental Project Manager
Cc: Darin Prosser — MSD (dprosser(@_msdbc.org)
Amanda Jones — USACE (Amanda.Jones(a)usace.army.mil)
Andrea Leslie — NCWRC(andrea.leslie(@�ncwiIdlife. org)
Byron Hamstead — USFWS (boron hamstead(a)fws.gov)
Crystal Allgood, CEP, CPESC, CISEC — HDR (crystal.allgood(c)-hdrinc.com)
Matthew Shultz, PE — HDR (matthew.shultz(o)hdrinc.com)
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Appendix A
Applicant's Responses to
Division's Email Reauest
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
The following outlines the inquiries made by the Division and MSD responses. Additional maps and project
documentation is attached where applicable and is noted in the following responses.
1. Please provide a figure that depicts the future extension of the 60-inch diameter gravity sewer
interceptor pipe from the South River Crossing and extending upgradient/south. The Division
understands these plans may not be finalized at this time, so conceptual plans are acceptable.
[15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)].
Preliminary conceptual plans of the proposed future 60-inch gravity sewer interceptor extension are
provided in Appendix B of this response.
2. Please clarify if the current proposed plans include upgrading the 48-inch diameter South
French Broad interceptor from the South River Crossing to the Amboy Road Bridge (i.e.,
through Carrier Park, former Edaco junkyard, etc.). The PCN Supplemental Information
narrative indicates this is not part of the current plans. However, previous meetings and a
number of figures included with the PCN (e.g., Three Oaks PJD, Environmental Management
Plan) indicate this upgrade is part of the project scope. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)].
The current proposed plans for the Carrier Bridge Pump Station Project do not include upgrading the
48-inch diameter South French Broad interceptor pipe between the proposed South River Crossing to
the Amboy Road Bridge. Upgrading this section of the 48-inch diameter South French Broad
interceptor was included in MSDs initial project planning meetings and site evaluation efforts,
however due to increasing budget associated with the proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station Project
(and another regional pump station slotted to be constructed at the same time) and massive
upgrades to solids handling and biological treatment processes at MSD's wastewater treatment plant,
inclusion of this proposed upgrade was pushed back several years of the current project plans and
will be incorporated as part of MSD's proposed future 60-inch gravity sewer interceptor extension
project. Preliminary conceptual plans that include the 48-inch diameter South French Broad
interceptor upgrades is provided in the attached documents.
3. During a site meeting conducted on April 27, 2023, with staff from the Division, NCWRC, MSD,
and HDR, there we[re] discussions that indicated the rockfill cofferdam was still in
consideration for the project. The PCN narrative indicates a sheet pile cofferdam will be
implemented for the project. Please clarify if the rockfill cofferdam is still being considered for
the project. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)].
Yes, that is correct. The option to implement a rockfill cofferdam is still in consideration for the project
and will be determined upon selection of a contractor and determination of the feasible option that
can be implemented for either of the two river crossings. The proposed sheet pile cofferdam as
presented in the PCN was determined to be the preferred option as outlined in the Hydrologic and
Hydraulic Analysis Report (Attachment 9 of the PCN package). The impacts proposed within the
PCN application for placement of the cofferdam structures account for a worse -case scenario using
the largest footprint associated with the evaluated cofferdam options (i.e., the rockfill cofferdam). This
worse -case scenario footprint is represented in the figures provided with the application submittal and
included in the total impact calculations (Attachment 3 of the PCN package).
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
4. The PCN project narrative indicates either a sheet pile with king piles or the brace box sheet
pile construction will be implemented for the cofferdam.
a. The Division understands the king piles will require drilling into bedrock along the
riverbed prior to setting the sheet piles. Please provide a construction sequence that
details how this work will be conducted so that the river flow does not come in contact
with the disturbed area and/or how the river will be protected from turbidity during the
drilling process.
The construction sequence to install the king piles includes the following:
- Install the steel casings through the soft soils on the riverbed to sit on top of the
rock layer below and form a temporary seal. The soft soils on the outside of the
casing help to form the seal to prevent the river flow from coming in contact with
the disturbed area inside the casing. The casings will be pushed into the bottom
of the riverbed and are not anticipated to generate substantial turbidity or create
turbid conditions over an extended period of time beyond that of the installation.
Turbidity curtains will be considered if installation and anchoring are viable.
- Drill out the inside of the casing into the rock layer to the required depth creating
a rock socket. The spoils and water stay contained within the casing.
- Set the king pile through the casing into the rock socket created and grout the
socket via tremie pour methods to affix the pile (a method to pour grout/concrete
through a watertight pipe below the water level to prevent intermixing). Grout
applied via tremie pour methods does not require pressure, therefore there is no
applied force to push the external soils away from the casing and interrupt the
temporary seal or push the uncured grout outside of the casing. Contact with the
river flow is avoided by this method. Once placed the grout is allowed to cure and
set.
- Pump out the spoils and contained water from inside the casing after the grout
has cured/dried and then dispose/treat off -site.
- Lastly, after everything is set, remove the casing leaving the king pile in place.
b. Both the sheet pile with king piles and brace box sheet pile construction are likely to
require grouting to seal the sheet piles from seepage. Please note that cement that
contains lime and comes in contact with water can have detrimental effects on aquatic
life due to changes in pH. Please explain how the grouting will occur to preclude contact
with the river flow. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)].
Once the king piles have been installed the construction sequence to install the sheet piles
includes the following:
- The sheet piles are installed between the king piles. The sheet piles have tips
along the bottom that will penetrate through the soft soils down to the riverbed.
The sheet piles will be pushed into the bottom of the riverbed and are not
anticipated to generate substantial turbidity or create turbid conditions over an
extended period of time beyond that of the installation. Turbidity curtains will be
considered if installation and anchoring are viable.
- Once all sheet piles are installed to form the cofferdam perimeter, the soft soils
inside are excavated. Water inside the cofferdam structure would remain. The
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
soils on the outside of the cofferdam form a temporary seal along the base of the
sheet piles.
Grout is applied via tremie pour methods against the base of the inside of the
cofferdam structure to form a seal. Grout applied via tremie pour methods does
not require pressure, therefore there is no applied force to push the external soils
away from the sheet piles and interrupt the temporary seal or push the uncured
grout outside of the cofferdam area. Contact with the river flow is avoided by this
method. Once the grout is curried/dried and the seal is created, the water within
the cofferdam is pumped out and disposed/treated off -site.
The sides of the sheet piles are interlocking and can be further sealed by
welding, applying sealant, or placing waterstops in the interlocks during
installation to prevent leaks from coming into the cofferdam area after
dewatering.
5. Will the proposed South River Crossing cofferdam block or impede flow from stream SA's
channel with its confluence with the French Broad River? [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1) and (2)].
No. Installation of the proposed cofferdam for the South River Crossing (60-inch gravity sewer line)
would not impede flow from the adjacent unnamed tributary located immediately upstream of the
proposed pipeline crossing. Based on the potential cofferdam options presented in the French Broad
River Crossing — Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, only the proposed rock slope protection (RSP)
cofferdam option would have a wide base footprint that may potentially impede flows from this
connecting tributary. However, if the RSP cofferdam option is selected a temporary culvert would be
installed at the confluence of the tributary with the river to route flows away from the cofferdam. The
sheet pile cofferdams would have a much narrower footprint from that of the RSP cofferdam and
therefore would have no impact on flows from the tributary or require a temporary culvert installed to
mitigate potential impact to flows.
6. There is a stream in the vicinity of the North River Crossing that is not depicted on any of the
figures or in the PJD request package. Please revise the figures to include the stream. Please
also clarify if any impacts, temporary or permanent, to the stream will be required to complete
the North River Crossing. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)].
Please refer to Appendix C for the updated figures that include the stream immediately downstream
of the proposed North River Crossing. The proposed site for the North River Crossing was relocated
downstream (i.e., north) after the initial delineation efforts were conducted and inadvertently was
moved outside of the delineated study area. As such this stream was unintentionally overlooked in
the application submittal. During the site meeting with the Division and NCWRC on April 27, 2023,
stream boundaries were sketched by HDR and the associate maps and figures have been updated
and included in Appendix C of this response package.
The proposed cofferdam footprint for the North River Crossing is located approximately 30-feet
upstream of the existing stream (tributary to the French Broad River). Impacts to this surface water
feature will be avoided and the top of banks will be clearly identified in the field with bright orange
safety fence or similar. Erosion control measures will be installed to encompass the limits of
disturbance prior to construction to prevent sedimentation and preserve water quality.
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
7. Based on the April 27, 2023 site meeting, the Division understands that rather than
preemptively installing the temporary streambank stabilization measures downstream of the
proposed cofferdam locations, which would involve extensive disturbance to the well -
established woody riparian buffer, the applicant is considering a contingency bank
stabilization plan approach in which permanent bank stabilization measures consisting or rip
rap would be installed only after indications of bank instability or degradation were observed.
Please provide a narrative description of the contingency bank stabilization plan. The plan
should include a qualitative evaluation of the riverbanks downstream of the two river crossing
locations as well as a routine assessment of the riverbanks during construction. [15A NCAC
02H .0506(b)(1) an (2)].
MSD is open to the option of implementing a contingency bank stabilization plan of approach for the
Project instead of the implementing the proposed temporary streambank stabilization measures as
presented in the USACE PCN application and supporting Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report.
MSD would prefer not to remove the existing riparian vegetation and trees beyond the minimum
needed for construction access and cofferdam placement and understand the aesthetic and
stabilization values the riparian vegetation provides along the French Broad River stream banks. The
recent Pratt & Whitney project (USACE Permit No. SAW-2019-01867) constructed upstream for the
Turbine Airfoil Production Facility utilized the contingency bank stabilization plan as their project
approach for open cutting across the river and as a result the actual erosion impacts were minimal to
those originally anticipated and the restoration efforts to mitigate required far less riprap placement
that what was originally planned. The company that worked on this project was WGLA Engineering
(WGLA).
Based on information MSD has received from WGLA, the Pratt & Whitney Project consisted of a river
crossing project to install piers for construction of a bridge which required the river width to be
damned up with a causeway in order to drill and install the piers. Similar to what MSD is proposing for
the Carrier Bridge Pump Station river crossings, WGLA installed the causeway a little over a third of
the river width approaching from one side of the river and then repeated the activity to install the
causeway from the opposite side of the river to install the piers across the entire width of the French
Broad River. The area in which the Pratt & Whitney Project was construction was a relatively straight
stretch of the river, both upstream and downstream of the bridge crossing. The in -water work was
completed in 8 months. A contingency bank stabilization plan of approach was implemented for the
project and there were no pre -construction erosion control measures installed along the riverbanks.
During the 8-month in -water construction period there where a few major storms that increased flow
volumes and velocity within the river, however by maintaining the existing riparian vegetation in place
along the banks only minor erosion occurred from the storm events and these areas were stabilized
with rip -rap after the storms. Pre -construction and post -construction visual surveys were conducted
for the Pratt & Whitney Project by Clearwater.
If all agencies, including USACE and USFWS, are in favor of implementing a contingency bank
stabilization plan of approach for the Project instead of the implementing the proposed temporary
streambank stabilization measures as presented in the USACE PCN application, then MSD will revise
accordingly to reduce the overall impacts along the riverbanks.
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
8. Please provide construction details for the permanent natural bank stabilization that will be
installed in the vicinity of the cofferdams after installation of the gravity sewer and force main
are installed. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)].
Based on the response provided in Item #7, MSD is open to the option of implementing a contingency
bank stabilization plan of approach for the Project. If this approach is implemented, permanent natural
bank stabilization measures would be determined based on the actual erosional impacts that occur
during the construction of the proposed river crossing. MSD will utilize bioengineering techniques to
implement permanent natural streambanks stabilization as needed instead of traditional hard
armoring approaches. Options implemented may include the installation of vegetative geolifts or
utilizing a Filtrexx Edgesaver Streambank Stabilization System. Rip -rap or boulders would be
installed at the toe to provide a foundation for additional streambank protection. Standard details for
these options are attached in Appendix D of this response submittal.
The following is provided for additional comments received from the Division during the April 27, 2023 site
meeting.
9. What does the hydraulic/cofferdam model use to calculate the stream flood levels, significant
rain events, and potential erosion/scouring effects?
The HEC-RAS model was used to evaluate existing conditions of the French Broad River. MSD
provided 1 D HEC-RAS model data that was previously developed for a portion of the French Broad
River as part of another project. The 1 D HEC-RAS model data was validated, georeferenced, and
additional cross sections added to develop a 2D HEC-RAS model for assessing the impacts of
installing temporary cofferdams within the French Broad River. The 2D HEC-RAS model conducted
for the proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project incorporated annual frequency
events within the vicinity of the proposed river crossings. Available recorded stream data from the
USGS flow gauge located immediately downstream of the proposed river crossings was used to
model the frequency of events within the river channel (i.e., normal flow levels, rain/flood levels). To
provide a conservative assessment of potential flows within the river for the proposed project
crossings, adjustments in discharge volumes were not applied for the downstream USGS flow gauge
data to account for the anticipated flows for the upstream areas within the evaluated action area. It is
anticipated that the flows within the French Broad River would be lower for the action area and the
proposed project river crossing locations than those recorded by the USGS flow gauge and
incorporated into the 2D HEC-RAS model assessment.
10. What are the baseline studies used to develop the algorithms for the model program and are
they equivalent to the French Broad River stream system?
The USACE HEC-RAS 2D User's Manual provides a list of the references studies that can be found
under this weblink https://www.hec.usace.armV.mil/confluence/rasdocs/r2dum/latest/references.
Several references are listed, and it is unclear on which reference(s) may have been used towards
the algorithm development used in the program that would closely resemble conditions similar to the
French Broad River stream system. Based on the USGS flow gauge data set used for modeling
conditions within the river, the 2D HEC-RAS model conducted for the project action area is expected
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
to be a conservative assessment of potential impacts associated with cofferdam placement within the
river channel.
11. What type of sediment barrier would be used in the stream with the initial construction
activities associated with installing the cofferdams (i.e., pilon drilling, placement of rip rap,
etc.)?
Turbidity curtains are being considered for the project if installation and anchoring are viable. If it is
feasible to install and anchor within the river for the proposed crossings, the turbidity curtains would
be floated around the cofferdam work area to reduce downstream sedimentation while the cofferdam
structure is being installed. The turbidity curtains would not be removed until disturbed sediments
floating within the water column could settle out and the disturbed waters within the curtained area
returned to normal conditions.
If it is not feasible to install and anchor turbidity curtains within the river, the overall expected
disturbance to the river substrate would be minimal from the installation of the cofferdam structures
as presented in the response to Item #4. Prior to the removal of the cofferdam structures all
equipment, construction material(s), and spoils would be removed and disposed of in an appropriate
off -site location. Riverbed elevations would be returned to preconstruction elevations. Water would be
reintroduced (pumped in from the adjacent river flows) to the completed construction area behind the
cofferdam. Once any disturbed sediments have settled within the cofferdam area and conditions are
clear, the cofferdam structure would be removed by gentle vibration to reduce generating any
substantial turbidity, Removal of the cofferdam structures is not anticipated to create turbid conditions
over an extended period of time beyond that of the removal efforts.
12. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requests a copy of the final mussel
survey report if available or a page reference on where this report can be located within the
PCN application submittal.
The Freshwater Mussel Survey Report prepared by Three Oaks Engineering (dated January 20,
2023) was included in the Biological Assessment Report submitted with the PCN application to the
USACE. The Biological Assessment can be found in Attachment 10 of the PCN application submittal
(beginning on page 330 of the PCN submittal PDF). The Freshwater Mussel Survey Report can be
found in Appendix C of the Biological Assessment and is the third report included in that appendix
(beginning on page 485 of the PCN submittal PDF).
On May 16, 2023, HDR provided the Division and NCWRC a copy of the Freshwater Mussel Survey
Report prepared by Three Oaks Engineering (dated January 20, 2023) via email along with the
meeting minutes from the April 27, 2023 site meeting.
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Appendix B
PrAliminnry ('.nnr Pnti m1 Planc
hdrinc.com 1201 Market Street
[phone]

CARRIER BRIDGE
PUMP STATION
kL
ifir.
0
0
n`
1000 0 500 1000
GRAPHIC SCALE
2000 3000
1 INCH = 1000FEET
4
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
OVERALL SANITARY SEWER PLAN
SCALE'. 1"=1000'
N.C. GRID NORTH
NAD83(2011) NAVD88
w
Q
0
9
!2L
o U)
a >
W
U
w
0
0

J Lo MH #21
a ('r — -\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 56+60.11 LINE "A"
LLB PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH L
Lu 11 GRASS
//2� ,
C/ )
w
\ S60° 50' 04"LLJ W 505.55 LF
co
W
Z � \ /
_ \ \ \ GRASS
gspy�� ,A
5 S q Ty
G \
\\
S\ \ MH 65-21372
RIM: 1'
\ �INV. 1,963.5'
s,�q NTFN �hjO��
��,cFFi1 ,T
\
\
2010
Q
J
199 c+o
�L�
� u
�U�
1980
P� 1
INV. IN = 1954.43' (SW)
IKIV 01 IT = 1Qc;d AT rnIl
1940
1930 '
56+50 57+00
0
0
O
` 50
s
0
25 50
0
nl C3KAF'HIU bUALt
f
i
57+50
60"DIP @0.02%
FLORA J. WILSON \
.} D.B. 5674, P. 195
� 4L P.B. 12, P. 28
/ PIN:9638-40-2229
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 56+5
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
58+00 58+50 59+00 59+50 60+00 60+50 61+00 61+50
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
MH #23 VENTED
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
I STA. 64+87.78
PRn\/inF NF\N in, ILIA RAH
MH #24
\ao \\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\\\ \ \ STA. 65+52.20 LINE "A"
N PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
PIN:9637944030
CULTIVATION \ BILTMORE COMPANY /
D.B. 0244, PG. 0056
\ \ \\ \ \
ILI
\\\\
\\\ OpOSF\
OS��A \ \ cods R
• \� \\\ \ \\ ANT \ \
04,
co
co
MH#25 \\��
\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 70+52.20 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH \
0.00 - STA. 71 + 00.00)
Q0
U
CD
� O �
Q �o
00+
OLU
m ter\
U
n� z W
VJ w O %� O N L� L N II
0
_ O
C� LL O Q U
� mow+ o�
O Z) w Lin
O O O�Q 2 Q
4� Y }
v
Y LU W
Z Y O
o U Q
co Co 16�
w
Q
E
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. --
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. Q ==200°
04
Lu ONLY. --
RIP RAP, TYP. � o �
Lo 00
z � o N LoM
ai
> 00 00 +' � 04 a -1990
+ d Lo EXISTING GROUND
FRENCH BROAD RIVER c) "t � N C° II
II � Q
co 0�
Lu,
Lu l/ — — — — _ _ _ — — —1980
J '
lY lLu
LUIU
RIVER BOTTOM —1970
— ELEV .1966.11'±
4 e A A ° A 4 a
a n
°d A 44n .4 _ - a C a
� 60 DIP @ 0.02%
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT, 241 LF
60" INV. IN = 1954.54' (SW)
60" INV. OUT = 1954.54' (NE)
62+00 62+50 63+00 63+50 64+00
60" DIP @ 0.200o 60" DIP @ 0.50%
w
z W
Z �
0
co
LLo M
rn It L0
II rn rn LO
F-
II rn
= II
O z D II
; ; O z
zz
-- zz
-
m m o 0
64+50 65+00 65+50 66+00 66+50 67+00 67+50 68+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 56+50-00 - STA. 71 +00.00)
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=101
68+50 69+00 69+50 70+00
MI5
N
M
Lo N
rn r-�
rn
Z n
O z
z Iz
gin
70+50
•.E
950
940
170 30 CJ�RICT• byi 9
N
G
O
�13 W

00*0
000010
0000
0000
Lu MH #26
Lu (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) MH #27
PIN:9637944030
STA. 73+76.20 LINE "A" BILTMORE COMPANY (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH D.B.0244, PG.0056 STA. 78+76.20 LINE "A" MH #28 —
`— PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) Z
STA. 81 +36.20 LINE "A"CULTIVATION _ J
Lu
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH m
CULTIVATION
S76° 24' 18" 24.00 LF NV=1974.17 L — — — _ _ _ _ — — 1 1 ,
W 3 _ _ CULTIVATION LINEAR
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Z= _— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —� — STREAM --- CULTIVATION -------_ m
LAND
S61° 35' 25 W 500.00 L — —
S7 Now
260.00 LF ,� —
— rn
rn
__/ -
------------------------------------------------
15" HDPE 1 I 1
INV=1972.92 w
`STREAM
INV =1975.08
0
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY"" —
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
�o
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 71 +00.00 - STA. 86+00-00)
SCALE: 1"=50'
2020
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
201d DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. f 2010
EXHIBIT ONLY.
200
2000
Q
Q
_
Q
J
J
C
O 60
J
199
m �
CO 00
+ rn
N �
(.0 ti
1990
Cfl m
� 0000
C\jII
+ d�
N �
� II
CO
�fn�
�fn�
2��
U) 0�
1980
1980
z 1970
1970
v
60" DIP @ 1.05%
v
1960
w
60" DIP @ 0.52%
w
1960
60" DIP @ 0.50%
..
60" DIP @ 0.50%
N
M
� cq
O
(0
0)
I I 0)II
r 195
60" INV. IN = 1958.82' (W)
z
o z
1950
n
60" INV. OUT = 1958.82' (E)
-
zz
zz
--
����
CD CD
194
1940
71+00 71+50 72+00 72+50 73+00
u
73+50 74+00 74+50 75+00
75+50 76+00 76+50 77+00 77+50
78+00 78+50 79+00
79+50 80+00 80+50 81+00
81+50
82+00 82+50 83+00
83+50 84+00 84+50 85+00 85+50 86+00
0
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE
(STA. 71 + 00.00 -STA.
86+00-00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
°
n
F
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
�I GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
LU
Q
0
z
0
a
U
U7
LU
0
6
z
Fmm
O��RICTo vlvlo6 ,I
01 b0
ti
s z
m O
'13 W •

w N
�\\ \Ro N G•3 l,Z�^,1l
\\
Q�, \
Row
MH #29
�� (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
!' \ STA. 86+36.20 LINE "A"
V PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
w\ `\T of �%
�o
am\ \ \ pR \ Ro
N\ \
��\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ OpOSFQ FMp ` \ \ \ \ \Row\
\ RCO
OpOS \ \ _ �STRUc \ \ \ \ \ Ro (n
BILT FO pFRM \ T/O'V Fq sIMORE COMPANY ` \ FMF D.B. 0244, PG. 0056 \ � � \ \\
PROPOSED COIR MATTING 40 /
\ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ SFMFNT \ EROSION CONTROL
STREAM 9� '
\ \ \ \ \ 38° \\ °
1g �49g 11
CUL/AuoN � MH #30 MH #31 \� \ \ \ \ \10 e `4o Spa°
/ WATERTIGHT I R
\\ \ \ \ i(LOCKDOWN ) (LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT) \'Y
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ STA. 91+36.05 LINE "A" STA. 95+26.20 LINE "A" ° \ \\ \ I /j�/
' PROVIDE NEW 10DIA. MH � \ /,
, PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH �qA \\ \, ego�-
\\olei
RO-I'/M
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH ---------'------------------------------ — —�\ Op - o
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ��� ��\ ��\ \ CULTIVATION ?; �qY
\�'�\ �\ C S17° 45' 00"W 390.15 LF
0
_ ----------------- --- ------------
\
TBM MAG NAIL - �j�\MH #32
EL=1979.76 / ' �\\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
CONC. ENDWALL V
STA. 97+16.70 LINE "A"
I
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH �1
/1041-1
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 86+00.00 — STA. 101 +00.00)
SCALE: 1"=50'
2020
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
'011 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 1'010
EXHIBIT ONLY.
200
¢
2000
Q
Q
J
C
=
J
r- Lo
J
p
a)
N �
�
00
C
J
o °°
O
N � —
°'
199
+ rn
+ 0)CO
II
1990
N 00
+
�
1—
II
M
Q
U) 0'
<
cco o 0) D
T of
Q'
Q
2
/
fol
-- . —
—
—
1980
1970
1970
60" DIP @ 0.02%
w 60" DIP @ 0.09%
60" DIP @ 0.25%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
w
z
z
z
z
z
00 CD
�
°�°
(0 N
1960-
o
1960
rn 06
0o
rn 00
0')11
-
- m
11
11
11
F-II
II
II
z
p z
0 Z
Z
0-
0-
zz
zZ
zz
zZ
195
1950
c
O O
O O
CD t0
O O
CD CD
CD CO
Cfl (0
v
Y
n
1940 '
1940
n
i 86+00 86+50 87+00 87+50 88+00
J
0
a
88+50 89+00 89+50 90+00 90+50 91+00 91+50 92+00 92+50
93+00 93+50 94+00
94+50 95+00 95+50 96+00 96+50
97+00 97+50 98+00 98+50 99+00 99+50 100+00 100+50 101+00
Y
O
n
SANITARY
SEWER PROFILE
(STA. 86+00-00 —STA.
101 00.00)
50 0 25 50 l00 150
0
n
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
V 00
I
O
m or'o
_ Lu
z Lu �, N
Lu
o u
O oC Z 0
LL O wbi
= LV O o U)
O
,—�
O ZD LU (.o
O O 00 me 00
Y
Y
m
IL
Z Y O
< w a
0 U <
0IIII 0
M C9
O / IIII0
O GO
IM 0
W
Q
0
12L
6
Z

V �
/ 1 NApg N.
' GR/p NO >1 0
3 (2011) N R� O+
a8 0 0 U)
- / 1 c� OLU
m
MH #33 I — PIN:9637OMPA / (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) 1
(LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT) - ---PASTURE i BILTMORECOMPANY / , STA. 114+20.72 LINE "A" 11�0 / < cL) ElZ o 0
D.B.0244,PG.0056
STA. 101+81.61 LINE "A" _ - . _ _ _ PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH �V / Lu I N
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH - — PASTURE RECONNECT EXISTING SEWER LINE I/ �� � O � z OO o II
MH #35 1 �, U � w
PIN:9637944030 l 1 (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) 1 (n C� � Q
BILTMORE COMPANY ` -� " / = w o U)
D.B. 0244, PG.0056 MH #34 � J STA. 110+80.58 LINE A � — _ _ _ 1 � �' � _ +
Lu PASTURE WHY DIES TCE END „ � (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) ui PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — O J
Lij HERE? _ - STA. 105+80.58 LINE "A" " - — _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — cam, O me o
(� PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH _ _ _ _ _ — —
_ _ / �1 �� O O cn Y
( S20° 11 26"E 340.14 LF 1 J Y =
/� _ _ _ I PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT _ — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ice m o
_ � � PASTURE _ _
�W/� _ I_—___r _____— v) Y o
vl — — — — — — — — _ J PASTURE _ — _ — — — - _ _ _ — —� — — / N / S `U 0
_ _ /
PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT NV=1975.77 / ABANDON AND PLUG / j o v Q
W _� °-------- ------------- S20° 11'26"E500.00LF _ -
EXISTING SEWER LINES
S 11 59 37 E 398.97 LF =` � J _ —� � � � � � ✓ / •
O
�RQtOS�D20 WIDE
TEMPORARY EASEMENTr—
Ile
— — — �_\ — — — — — — _------------------- — — T �J v-=
/ I --^�'ly1i� " � �- ABANDON
\ J PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH \ — _ _ \ I / I--� �r.-
` EXISTING MH
MSD SMH #50-45003
\_ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RIM=1980.68
�/ / 1. /—`_ �� �_ - ��.1/INV OUT=1973.38
•-:.._ ..-..-..� i.r�� • =-- =- �.� -1 `' -:`_ � �.- --- - -:-- INV IN-1973.68
ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER LINES
\ F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
-qqq� I
2020
201
20
1
1980-T—
1970
Q
J
O ti
� Co
M
O + 00
M O
M II
co of
Q
N
C
J
M
L
Oo
0000
t
Lo �
O
M II
2 U) Of
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 101 +00.00 — STA. 115+00.00)
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
2020
Q
C
J
Q
00
� O
�
O O
C
r;
1990
+
N
Lo
_
ti
co
II
r,-:
fn of
O
O
M
II
U) �
1980
0
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02% Z
60" DIP @ 0.02%
Z
Z
W
r
Z
M
ir)
U) Lo
fn
N
10
cn
ao
(.0-
Z
e
M
00
rnoo
Co
M
cJ
O O
1960
�M
-(o
0)00m
O
00 -
II
C II
O -
O It
u
O
II
f-
O
II
Z
II II
°
Z)Z
0—
Z
Ozz
z
z Z
Z Z
Z Z
i
1950
Z
--
Z
oo
p
(oc(o
oo-
(o
(o 80
C.0
CD
1940
n
101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 109+00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00 113+50 114+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 101 +00.00 — STA. 115+00.00)
114+50
970
•.1
1950
' 1940
115+00
N Gv
W
Q
0
A
12ce
6
Z
ISCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
IM 0

u '
e
50 0 25 50 100 150
//�� K
VJ BI
' D
Lu PASTURE ,
PROP Z
OSED TEMPORARY C NO CONSTRUCTION r o =� m
(� — _ N EASEMENT
W________- - m
� S34° 08 56' — — S46° 11' 28"E 52.43 LF cn
E 321.07 LF =
►u ____ m
Z_ 8"VCP> PRIVATE — — - m
�-S ----� S-----S}—
J
TB MAG NAIL
EC
POSSIBLE CONC. DECK
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 117+41.79 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 115+00-00 — STA. )
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
115+00 115+50 116+00 116+50 117+00
2020
2010
2000
1990
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
980 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1970
1960
1950
1940
117+50117+75
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 115+00.00 — STA. )
EXHIBIT ONLY.
U
cn
-'
4-
p
oC
Oo
o
o
O
O
O
m
m
c7l
=va
U
oC
(—'
I
N
O
L
L u
Z
O
N
II
Obi�--Iinro
LL
O
=
LL.
O
W
o
J
Q
Lu
O
0
r
O
O
(n
r
Y
�>
Q
J
Y
�V
m
Y
0
W
v
Z
Y
O
�
=
a
0
U
Q
M-jv
V di
W
Q
0
Z
O
a
U
W
0
O
Z
Lmm
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
'13 W •

STA. X+XX.XX END LINE "B"
10' x 15' JUNCTION BOX
(SEE SHEET PL-29)
S62° 42' 05"E 16.40 LF
S46° 11' 28"E 52.42 LF
PIN:9637944030
MH #34
_
BILTMORE COMPANY
D.B.0244, D.P.0056
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
MH #35
S43° 09' 18"E 480.00 LF
STA. 120+03.30 LINE "A"
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
MH #36 (VENT)
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
STA. 122+14.55 LINE "A"
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT)
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
STA. 127+44.55
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
=
—
—
_ — __—-----------
—______________
_�Z
_
®
S39° 29' 16"E 530.00 LF
_
—1_—__-- E211.25�F
56' 14"
mL
—�
g49°
—� ---
—s—
m
�/'� ,
__—
<36"RCP-- —S�
— —
-
---
s— — -- -- --- —
—S— —S— —S— —`36"RCP ---
-S - -S -
m
U)
--- _S
---
-S - --- --- ---
—S — —S —
—S
_
-- —S—
S
----
VJ
m=
-
_-
---
GRAVEL ROAD
------- - ------
2
mr_
�m
__----
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
___
i m
m ,
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
r
PERMANENT EASEMENT
L
_
MSD SMH #50-28075
'
/
a
I
RIM-1983.65MSD
INV-1968.46
RIM S 84.06MH 0-4500
- . _ • �- ' -
1
v�
NV=1968.81
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
N48° 41' 34"E 18.08 LF
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
I
MSD SMH #50-45004
EXMH MSD #50-462283
RIM=1984.35
(MH# B1)
INV=1969.50
STA. 0+00.00 BEGIN LINE "B"
EXISTING MH TO REMAIN
CONNECT NEW SEWER LINE
lSFF �HFFT PI -9Ql
F R E N C H B R 0 A D R I V E R
MSD SMH #50-462283
RIM=1982.18
INV=1968.01
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. - STA. 128+00-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 501
111
rz
U O � 0
�--' w O J
U p
� O O
00
0 u- N
Q
a� a�uJ
V) o
N
_ ^ < w Cl
O Ln
0 O ^^�11 N
W Q, O W
C,d
m i/i O Q U
= i O o �
o �4 z 4-J M
L--- pw[ c
0 0 LL. as Y =
4-1
}�
�_ m
Ln J LU W
0 v Z Y O
of
= a
U Q
A'
O�\\11111�/ O
co M C9
O �O
W
Q
0
z
aw P
wz =
z C7
J Q
CD z w 2000.00' 2000
� X rn Q VENT ELEV.
N
rn + rn � MH #36 (VENT)
X i z LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
* Q Q g + STA. 127+44.55 LINE "A"
U) U) Of �, p cc'j RIM = 1982.35'
co U II 1990
MH #34
STA. 120+03.30 1 F- - EXISTING GROUND -
RIM = 1982.35'
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.13%
_
z
w ? u
36" INV. IN = 1968.70' (SE)
v� o
36" INV. OUT = 1968.70' (NW)
c.0
Lo
LC
rn
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04%
oo rn
u
6
II D II
36" INV. IN = 1968.70' (SE) 0
z O
60" INV. OUT = 1968.70' NW
j
0
36" INV. OUT = 1968.81' (SW) z
z z
5
M
M M cy
60"DIP @0.02%
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. 36" D.I.P. "°°
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 125+00 126+00 127+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. - STA. 128+00-00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
0
F SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
is
-Lf
970
1960
1950
940
930
J 1920
128+00
W
CD
O �RICT � bN��66�
s
OO
cd
co
13W•

T N
O \
\\ \ -p
20
o
\ PASTURE
\ \ o
\ \ FENCE
PIN: 9637944030 () [] [] []
BILTMORE COMPANY F
\1 ¢ ✓\ PASTURE D.6.0244, D.P. 0056 PASTURE
MH #40 FENCE SHED
•— [1 [1 [1
° \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
J 1 MH #37 ` \' \ FENCE
STA. 138+73.39 LINE "A" 0 0
a / ` �— ° ° [[ FENCE
(LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH a o n n
N MH#38 °— ° o n o o n Z
o o n n n o o � n�n�n
PASTURE STA. 132+24.55 LINE "A" \ \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) MH #39 (VENT) m
W PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH \
W � \ � STA. 134+07.18 LINE "A" (LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT)
_, \ d PROVIDE NEW 6'DIA.MH STA.135+80.39 NE ---------------
_ _ o� o \ \\ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH ROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT — — — — — (n
_ \ P ___ ---- 480.00LF m
Lu S4 _ _ _ PROPOSE TD EM ORq_ ��/ \ ,� _ _ _ — — — — — D PERMANENT EASEMENT
3 09 RY C _ _ _ _ — — ROPOSE_ _ S57° 06' 31 E
18"E480.00LF — P ONSTRUCToI NEgSE i \\ \ _—____--------- P----s---- s _�
ROPpSEp PER _ MENT — — — — — — — — — — 136"RCP —s — — — — —s — — — F m
N1gNENTEAS i �\ S44°23'04„ —____------- ' --s-- _i
44' 23'E 293.00 LFrn
—s EMENT — �82 631"F \ F E 173.21 LF S56° —s — — — — —s — — Fnr—
Z, —S����ice'' 052'MJ OCR_—_ --S--- — _ F C
_; — _ _ _ _ S�`36"RC�SS64 .FOC_— — ® G -- --- — --S_ _
<3_—�� FOC—__ D-- S36"RCP —S— 4--r .--r-
..—.
(°RCP
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT —s <5��� --=FSOC--- — — —
— _ IiS ' ' ---5— — -_G� --FOC
��� _ _ s6 R �S
N
_ _
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
— — _...
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 --.-_ -"�• CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
MSD SMH #50-28072 —
'�--. ,-.•-" RIM=1984.32 —
••- INV=1970.17 — —
CONCRETE • _.-•—
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY TBMMAGNAIL BOAT RAMP
—•-•—.-.r--'-�... __... �••-�.,•J•--�" "-MSD SMH#50-28073
EL=1981.85 RIM=1984.14 — — — 84.50-431294
MH MSD S#
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT MSD SMH #50-45005 INV=1969.99 — — MSD S
MSD SMH #50-28074 RIM=1982.99 — — — INV=1984.78
RIM=1984.73 INV OUT=1969.84
70.10
INV=1969.90 INV IN, (8")=1974.24 — —'
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 128+00-00 — STA. 143+00-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
2010
2
(D
�
Q (D
2000
�
z �
j
J � z
Lo
Q W
00 g
>Z
>NM
EXISTING GROUND O
— —aoLU
M rn EXISTING o N Q
co Y
II FIBER OPTIC CABLE 0 ++ 00
1990
=p<
00�YM�U
co
J
co � EXISTING
OJ <
8" P.V.C. SEWER
1980
1970
2000.00'
VENT ELEV.
MH #39 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIG
STA. 135+80.39
RIM = 1983.68'
(MATCH PAVEMENT)
m-
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.43%
to
N
ti
Z
1960
r
aid
icy
Zo
rnrn
rn
rn
ai
C.0
C.0
0')CIDII
0')
II
II
II
II
0
z
p
z 0
Z
z
z
>
> z
z
° 1950
z_z_
_--
(o
co
i
Cfl
Cfl (.0
CO co
M
M
i
co
co
I 1940
I-
s,
$I 1930
1920 L-
128+00
50
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
0
F- Q
ww
Qz
J
>� o)
>Z co
+00
co
oc�
20<�
J in
a;;;;;;;i
z w
o �
� II
0
O Z
—
z z
M Ico
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
129+00 130+00 131+00 132+00 133+00 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 128+00-00 — STA. 143+00.00)
100 150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
1 INCH = 50 FEET
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
141+00
142+00
2010
is mm
..l
K - l
970
MI -El
950
940
930
1920
143+00
U
+,
DC
w
UU
w
N
{—
0
O
O
J
�
�
z
M
C�
°16
LLL
a
LU
fZ
I-
o
N
O
Q
O
�
W
m
l/1
Q
a
=
i
O
o
U)
O
Z
}-+
00
LLJ
O
O
ILL
rI5
T
2
Q
Y
m
J
W
W
O
`�
Z
Y
O
V)
=
a
U
Q
W
a
0
6
z

2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
I 1960
1
u
u
a
n
1950
0
I
L
1,
EI
�I 1940
L
31
gl 1930
1920 L_
143+00
50
T Q� N
U O
w r
,-I � � a� o
' p o O
z o0
CULTIVATION J fl%pxpy
J
ce: V) o
N _
MH #42 (VENT) Q I N
V V (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) O O O
MH #41 STA. 147+06.39 �' U pC N O U,
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH CO V) O w -1
STA. 143+53.39 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH CULTIVATION � r TM�' _ z � O o �
_ PIN:9637944030 I+1
ILTORE
P O BD.B M0244, D.P. 00 6Y n w r}
__---_------------------- OSEOTEMP ARY MH#43 �O O � Y =
S54° 15' 00"E 353.00 LF _ _ _ _ CpNSTRUCTION E SEMEN (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) CULTIVATION � < ISO
o
— — — — PROPpSEp PERNIA _ _ T STA. 152+34.39 LINE "A" D (n J 0 Lu >
NE EqS PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH O `� � � x
NT _
EME _—__
—s-----s-----s-- s�� NT Vl a L: a
� = a
S-----S-----S— <36"RCP ��S—_ S43°0 �� o U
—S — — — R=VEL ROAD 0 26"E
—FOC— — — FOC— — — — — FOC —__�� FOC S 528-00 LF
FOC—
--s F-c_ — — �
--S__
HEADWALL '---�---'� MH #44 (VENT) -��®� � �i`
U.P.L. 5��� •e
TBM MAG NAIL - ..... - - - - • � � � � _� — — — _ _ _ � � (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) =em s e J �•
EL=19s3.40 . - . F CAB — —s _ STA. 156+49.39
_ POSSIBLECONC.DECK EXISTING 20' EASEMENT �•--- — — — \ � —_ S41° PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH , e,y�� th
— — �� U.P.EBT CARD READER \ _S 47' 1 g'-E 4 J
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 F \ 15.
MSD SMH #50-28071 Oc S 00 LF `
_
�' RIM=1983.44 � ELECTRONIC GATE � � _ _ \ •e � �•\��
INV=1970.64 _ _- I E.JUNC E.
�
— — PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY FOCCABINET t, �s 136"RCP
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
INV=1980.63
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
<18"CMP
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT o '_ O
o\ �\ _ _s — S34° g 22 \ \ \ \
DI. GRATE=1986.15 C) _ ;
INV=1981.55 ' • _,
TBM MAG NAIL m m o INV=1979.77 - \ • - - \ \ _S _ \ 319'O0 4F \ \ \ \ ,L� Q
EL=1986.63 \
A TOP=1986.46 \ \ v
m 5 C.B.INV=1980.86 MSD SMH #50-28069 \ \ \ \S \
m O NIV=19781.100 \ \ \ \
F R E N C H B R O A D RIVE R � � •�• •_---� �� �S\ Z
— \ � co
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 \ �. c
\ �V Z
- - Z z0
O U)
MSD SMH #50-28068 d w RIM=1984.37
INV=1971.22 , co
W
FLOODyyAY SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 143+00-00 - STA. 158+00-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
2
O 2000.00'
Q VENT ELEV.
W LLl
Q Z_
J
rn
�c')8O
Z c,; cfl
3: +
M
ao
O
❑tea'
= 0 <
�J��
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
MH #42 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIG
STA. 147+06.39
RIM = 1983.13'
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
U
H Q
W W
H
Qz
J
>� rn
>Z ico
+ 00
co
CO❑ Ln O
L) II
20<�
J in Of
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
2010
2000.00'
VENT ELEV.
MH #44 (VENT)
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
EXISTING GROUND STA. 156+49.39
RIM = 1983.05' 1990
z
w z
w z
w Z LL
Ch
N U
LO
CD
f�
LO
"J O
I�
N
C�
co�
O
rn
o
I� 6)
O G7
r�
r
II
rn
� II
O II
O II Q
�
II
H
0Z
II
0?
0z
0z
Z
Z
Z t
Z
Z Z
Z
M
M M
M ce)
M Ch lc�
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 150+00 151+00 152+00 153+00 154+00 155+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 143+00.00 - STA. 158+00.00)
100 150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
1 INCH = 50 FEET
156+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
157+00
•:1
970
•.1
950
940
930
1920
158+00
6
z

201
200
199
198
197
gI 196
n
=1 195
51
o
m
E
nl194
L
2 L
=1 193
-
cj \IN,— p n
\ —
��(/\\ MH #45 �� O
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\\ \ STA. 159+68.39 LINE "A" \ — 0 2
\\ \\\ 7. \\ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH — ` 270��
\\\\ \ \\ SF46 \
-
-
S —
�—
. • \ \ \S\ S�oA�R\ \ ohs\ \
04 q
-
-
-
MSD SMH #50-431291 \ \\ \
RIM=1983.51 S, MH #48
INV=1971.46 \\ \ \ \ \ \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\\ \ STA. 170+92.39 LINE "A" �
\ \s \ 5z°A IN, PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH T
MSD SMH #50-28067 \ \\\ \ \ p,3�.
RIM=1985.10 \ \ \ r
_ INV=1971.54 \ \ , J
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY \s6R p0 \ MH #46
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT \\ \ �\ \ \ \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) (LOCKDOWN (VENT) _ — _ _ m
\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ STA. 163+60.39 LINE "A" PIN:9637944030 rP
+4.39 WATERTIGHT) — 75 48' 41"E
343.00 LF
\ \ \ \ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH BILTMORE COMPANY ° T
\ s\ \ \ D.B.0244, D.P.0056 TA
NEW 6 DIA. MH _ — S �36"RCP _ _ 1 "
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT \ \\ \ \ \ \ — _ _ _ —s — — _ DTI
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
\ \\ _ _ _ S78° 53 p4 — _ —s — —� m
rn
14.00LF -- _--
\ —
\ 136"RCP �— �� � � -. --- '— ...
--^.-------
\ ,� •,\ _ GRAVEL ROAp —� �— MSD SMH #50-28064
RIM=1984.17
O -. \ � � INV=197215
_ --�" PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
I
MSD SMH#50-28066 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RIM=1985.15 \ "-"— EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
INV=1971.68 \ /
�Q
ww
Q Z
J
c') 6,
ZOorn
N
Ln 0 Ln
=0��
J
— — PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
-- " � - MSD SMH #50-28065
RIM=1984.81
INV=1972.01
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 158+00.00 — STA. 173+00.00)
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
0
�Q
w
w 2001.00'
Q
Z VENT ELEV.
J
>�
O
Z
o
MH #47 (VENT)
0
CD+
000
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
EXISTING GROUND (o o
C°
II
STA. 166+74.39
ZI:t 0
20<�
-
RIM = 1983.75'
2 J
� Of
�Q
ww
Q Z_
� > J
rn
ZNa�
rn
N
co 0 O
=0��
J in of
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.11%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.03%
�
z
O
7
�
ti
O Cn
N
m
N
ti
rn II
rn
Z
Z
0_
z
»
oz
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z —
Z
-
Z
Z -
—
M
M
O
O co
M
(o
M
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
36" D.I.P.
2010
2000
m
U O
CD i
o �
v O
0 +
Z r
C r w
4.� LU
t4 o
N
QJ O O w
� m t/) O Q
O o �
p � z 000
O O = ul Q Y
D L J ❑ w
O v Z Y O
V) = a
❑ U Q
.�COO co
IWO
O �O
1990 '
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
1930
1920 ' 1920
Y 158+00 159+00 160+00 161+00 162+00 163+00 164+00 165+00 166+00 167+00 168+00 169+00 170+00 171+00 172+00 173+00
U!
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 158+00.00 — STA. 173+00.00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
13N0

U 0
w O J
UMINI o
—'�) OC — Lr,
T w
o 4� z 0000
Q w
p w rz
v°C V
y N
\ Q I o
N
Q O O N II
O
coO Lu a
Q U
STREAM PROPOSED - \ , /' 1 O
MH #49 PAVEMENT SURFACE REPAIR -� �J � M
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) �Ooo �� Lu
\ \ STA. 174+35.39 LINE "A" STREAM PIN: 9637944030 �"9Y \ � Q Q L.L r Y
/ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH BILTMORECOMPANY T-
MH #50 (VENT) D.B.0244, D.P.0056 \ = Q Y �
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) Z o
n , —
m
_ STA. 177+88.39 , D Ln J o w
O
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH PROPOSED COIR MATTING - Z O Q w a
of = a
CULTIVATION PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT MH #52 a PH RivERRoaD
Z ____-- :C------------------ CULTIVATION
� EROSION CONTROL ALTsu
_ _ _ _ _ _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
_ _ S65° 52' 43"E 353.00 LF MH #51 (n
Rj S75° 48' 41"E 343.00 LF PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT _ STA. 184+90.39 LINE "A" _
_ _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH m
��-- 1-®-s-----s---- STA. 181+08.39 LINE "A"
m _-s��—5-----5— <36"RCP— PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH _ -
-s �- - -s - -s _ _ p 46"E 320.00 - - _ - -�27 LF-„EGRAVEL ROAD �� --
V, BRIDGE \
S_� ---------------------
yT _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ —
�� \ �S � c3=„R=P ��
/ GRASS --36"RCP S — oy'`ca M
m ����� S67° 36' 21"E 382.00 LF —�--__s_-
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT ��� s ® ® �� -_s -.�
r PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
\ \ 19IN_ -S----S-----S--- `36"Rs-----S---- S
—S — — — _ <36"RCP — — —
—S —S
ASPHALT WALKING/CYCLING PATH
l \ O
MSD SMH#50-28062
RIM=1982.55
TBM MAG NAIL INV=1972.59 _ ' - - - - \ . / - H
EL=1982.91
POSSIBLE CONC. SLAB PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ,
••� 72"CMP
INV=1974.84 - • - - \ _
\
• ' • • , - - MSD SMH #50-28060
RIM=1985.65
\ INV=1973.97
\ MSD SMH #50-431288
R E N C H TBM MAG NAIL MSD SMH #50-28061 RIM=1985.22
EL=1984.18 RIM=1983.96 \ INV=1973.57
B R O A D RIVER POSSIBLE CONC. SLAB INV=1972.86
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 173+00.00 — STA. 187+50-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
202
2020
201
2010
STREAM CROSSING (SC-3)
STREAM CROSSING (SC-4)
C7
2001.00'
�Q
2000-
VENT ELEV.
w
Q
z
J
2000
Ch N
>�
+ CD
N
M
MH #49
MH #50 (VENT)
Lo
U
. II
EXISTING GROUND
1990
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
MH #51
= o
J
< �
1990
�
STA. 174+35.39
STA. 177+88.39
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
� 0-1\
RIM = 1984.02'
RIM = 1981.94'
STA. 181+08.39
RIM = 1982.13'
1980
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
1980
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
EROSION CONTROL
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
° 36" D.I.P. @ 0.29%
36 D.I.P. @ 0.09 /o
36" D.I.P. @ 0.13%
1970
1970
w
z
z
_
w
w
N
co
Lo
�
DD
(''�
�
r—
NLo
r
m
196
II
II
0)II
a'
II
-1960
g
O
II
z
II
„
z
§
o
z
o_
z
0>
zz
»
zz
--
;;
zz
zz
--
Eco
M
coM
coM
-
(o
`o
-
Cfl
co
zoZo
co
1950
n
z
-
1950
1950
i
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
g
194
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1940
n
0
EXHIBIT ONLY.
n
" 1930
1930
d 173+00 174+00
175+00
176+00 177+00 178+00
179+00 180+00 181+00 182+00 183+00 184+00
185+00
186+00 187+00 187+50
0
n
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 173+00.00 —STA. 187+50-00)
50 0 25 50 100
o
150
0
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
W
U)
Is co
O U)
F-
a- j
U
0
6
Z
oS-�Ricr. bN,��
s
z
13W•
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET

12020
12010
12000
11990
11980
0 O
�J 20
MH #54 PROPOSED COIR
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) - GRASS MATTING
STA. 191+47.22 LINE "A" / EROSION CONTROL
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
WALKING TRAIL �yF��/ BILPIN:96 COMPANY
PROPOSED PAVEMENT SURFACE REPAIR
�P���<JG� / FIOODWPY D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056
MH #55 (VENT) S44° 12' 25"E 125.00 LF
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) MH #56 eP°�
STREAM STA. 196+27.21 �SJ�
\ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH (LOCKDOWN W / ATERTIGHT) P,
STA. 201+07.21 LINE "A" PSQ�
_ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
i �' • VEET`EA PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
STREAM I- - - - - - - / •WETLAND • � GRASS -- -
•�S57° 07' 35 E 479.99 LF PROPOSED PERMANENT - - - - - _ / EASEMENT - - GRA � �
/ •DELINEATED 1(VETLAND ® /.'
D.I. GRATE=1983.03 -r_ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INV=1980.43 / i� .._.�.-.._ --- -T - - - . S56°31'21"-------------
E 480.00 LF - -
<36"RCP --- S-----S-----S-----S---
Q� EXISTING 20' EASEMENT -s s- =36"RCP s - - - - -----s----- -�
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
23
/ 1r+ s _
/ / / pgPHALT WALKINGICYCLING Pp 36„R P GRASS \�
S �/J
ASPHALT PATH
/
/s$2° ooll, -1 GRASS VER RO
r' AD
INV=1979.95 OLD
gI
INV=1976.56 ' \ lJ / STREAMf
MSD SMH #50-28058 MH #57
RIM=1984.51 " -' �
PpTM INV=1974.51 MSD SMH #50-45001 / (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
MASSIVE ROCK OUTCROP RIM=1982.1$ �- �. �- - STA. 202+32.21 LINE "A" ,
KNOWN AS "BIG ROCK" ON INV=1974.68 ` _- _-• -.. �" eRi PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
N _.... a
/ TBM MAG NAIL THE ESTATE - - - • - - •' - ' \ _ / •' cF - J
EL=1986.41
MSD SMH #50-28057 MSD SMH #50-28055
MH #53 (VENT)
_ RIM=1986.35
INV=1974.93 RIM=19 MSD SMH #50-28056 INV=1975.65
.93 (LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) F R E N C H B R O A D RIVE R RIM=1985.29 TBM MAG NAIL
STA. 187+65.39 INV=1975.39 EL=1987.14 \ S42° 32' 38"E 450.00 LF CONCRETE BRIDGE \ -
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
MSD SMH #50-28059
/ RIM=1985.37
INV=1974.31
�
PROPOSED VARIABLE ' • WIDTH TEMPORARY SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 187+50.00 - STA. 202+50-00)
CONSTRUCTION
` EASEMENT
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
-36" D.I.P. @ 0.13%
MH #53 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTI
STA. 187+65.39
RIM = 1985.75'
z 1970
�
�
w
�
�
M
u
�
�
II
d)
d
F-
=p
1960
Z
z_ z_
I
E cZoM M
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
STREAM CROSSING (SC-5)
2001.00' O -
VENT ELEV. Q
ww
I\ �
Qz
J
>� N
I N
>Z � N
�00
N
I O M
�o��
EXISTING = 0
Q
l \ 15 HDPE 2 zz�J U) 0�
n
1950
J
w
z
o
O
36" DIP DR-17 (125 PSI) DIPS
U
DIPS OUTSIDE DIA. = 38.300"
1940
INSIDE DIA. = 33.524"
z
AVG THICKNESS = 2.253"
w
WEIGHT = 112.13 LB/FT
m
1930 '
187+50 188+00
0
S
n
50 0 25 50
o
n
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
36"DIP @0.10%
54" DIA. x TBD WALL THICKNESS
STEEL ENCASEMENT PIPE,
MICROTUNNEL
STA. 187+65.39 TO STA. 191 +47.22
36" DUCTILE IRON PIPE
189+00 190+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
aok
z t
J
W
z
z
O
U
0
z
W
WETLAND IMPACT
(WI-4)
OIR MATTING
gTROL
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
2020
STREAM CROSSING (SC-6)
PROPOSEDEROSION CONTROL 2010
= C7
(D Q
2001.00' Q W LU
VENT ELEV. � Z W Q J Z 2000
QJ
MH #55 (VENT) Z C'4 b
N an
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT Z IN, �: Co �
STA. 196+27.21 EXISTING GROUND p o+ 0 Q o o')
RIM = 1982.69' (0 0 C) N II
UN II =O<� 1990
J In ol�
1980
_ 36" D.I.P. @ 0.10% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.21%
� � z
zw zw �c/) 1970
M� �U) (o
M LM(j d7
� M
II II T
II II � II
Oz OZ O? 1960
z z z Z Z Z
(D (.0 (.0 CO M M
co M M (y)
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. I1
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
191+00 192+00 193+00 194+00 195+00 196+00 197+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 187+5
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
EXHIBIT ONLY.
198+00 199+00 200+00
0.00 - STA. 202+50-00)
201+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.12%
202+00
1940
J 1930
202+50
a--� cC L.r1
U O ^
w O J
U =
O
+� ILI 4- +
a� z c
tA � w � N
4.) w M
I o
` N
V_ ^J < w O o Lo
O O O "
DC a O w
cld m �n
(_) i + cn
v l�
O z op
LLJ
0 LL � Q Y =
4� Z m o
O zLULu
a.
2 d
ol U Q
``��►►► I "`��i O
° ca co
O �O
LV
CD
w
Q
0
z
O �RICT o
n
s
o
13W•

PROPOSED COIR MATTING lit
EROSION CONTROL
STREAM
FLOODWAY F� ppD�
STREAM �j� / � , � �(�����
���J�C DWETLANDD
�GO / WELINEAR
TLAND \\
Lo GRASS
PIN:9637944030
BILTMORE COMPANY
J GRASS D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056 MH #59 IqROe �tx- Q0 / / �•Q��
1 MH #58 (VENT) (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) QQ-// O �j
1 (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) STA. 211+04.30 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
w STA. 206+82.21
w / ��
— — — PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH / / / / Q OQO�/
_
W —PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EAS / / / /
LU — — S42° 32' 38"E 450.00 LF — — — — — / GRASS
<36"RCP— — —S — PROPOSED
S42°13 33-7"E-4—22— — — — — --PERMANENT EASEMENT
9
/
/
- —UL)WAY
a
G:
Y
Z
O0
Ocp(9
JGRASS — — — — — — - —S — _ --- — — —
= MSD SMH #50-28054 — — — S — —S _ _ _ <36"RCP /
r 1 RIM=1976.18
f ) GRASS INV-1976.18-
-_ --- - --= EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
--------- GRASS \
--- ---- � PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 S— _
CC
_ — —S — _ _ _ <36"RCP TBM MAG NAIL "
— _S — — EL=1992.28
-- — -
- - \ <36"RCP
F R E N C H
MSD SMH #50-432660
RIM-1989.19
INV=1976.69
\ / " MSD SMH #50-28052 -
-.,� ••, _ .-- — . - RIM==1977.521991.88
MSD SMH #50-28053J INV
B R 0 A D R I V E R -••�-.------ RIM=1989.54
INV=1976.70
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 202+5
mJ6 SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
0.00 - STA. 215+00-00) "
---S-----S----is----
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
U
LU
�
=
O
CD
O
00
I
J
Z
M
a�
w
r
a
oc
C
Q
o
N
_ O
O
OIll
CV
i—I
J
LLI
m
V1
O
Q
U
=
i
O
cc)U)
O
Z
4 -+
00
�
O
O
r
2
ILA
Q
Y
�)
n `
VJ
Z2
}
m
J
W
O
Z
Y
O
w
=
a
0
U
Q
O 60
w
Q
z
Z 0
>
0_
W
W
0
6
Z
1930 ' 1930 y
202+50 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00 213+00 214+00 215+00 �� s
W s
Y � _
O
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 202+50-00 - STA. 21 5 + 00.00) - �g
50 0 25 50 100 150 �. oU j
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
13N0

IN
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
SURFACE REPAIR
ASPHALT SURFACE ^ T
Q
DELINEATE
WETLAND
A�
2020
STONE ARCH TOP CULVERT
"THE LAGOON"
P.L. 1989.7
co
PASTURE V
\
\� ��
�o
oow�
\ `o
\
yv
V�
�Q.
I
I
U
O I
w O J
c 00
LLI 4— 0�
z " N
W N
Lu
V) o
N
_ ^ < w Q O Ln
O O ^^�1 "
W Q, O W
C,d
m i/i O Q U
= i O o cl)
0�1 LLJ zV)
C , LI... ce c: N
o 0 L.L Y =
�00
0 o W
O �� Z
Y p
V) Q Lu a.
U Q
M C9
O �O
w
a
0
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 215+00-00 - STA. 229+00-00) 0
�. SCALE: I"=50'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
_
¢
2010
w
Q
�
2002.00' w
z
2010
1--z
w Q
z VENT ELEV. Q
J MH #63 (VENT -EXTENSION)
J 3:
00 _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
w
iv z
°' STA. 224+51.39 EXISTING GROUND z
� Q
�I�
N0++rn
00
RIM=1995.03' 0+��
2001.00' O
00 o
�
N °' (MATCH PAVEMENT)
N U
2000
VENT ELEV.
Y
N II U
<
II 1.-2000
��II
T_C-00
MH#60(VENT)����"��"
T_ o
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
_
—
STA.215+49.12
RIM = 1985.50'
199
_
1990
_
1
O w
1970- (.6 rn
CD
II C')
II
OZ
196 z z
co co
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
195
1940 '
215+00
0
0
n
d
50 0 25 50
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
216+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
-
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.05% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.51% > 36" D.I.P. @ 0.06% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.02%
Z Z W
M Z i:�_ in
C)En
M N:' aN6970
Oti N 0) 00 r-
ti
ti — II
II 0')
W d')
II F—
II II II Z) II
O z ? II O z O Z
» °Z >; zz
z z z z z z z
z
_ _ _ _ 1960
Co CO co (M M M
cM co (o <D
M M
1950
Jill
RICT o v/vy,
\` ti
1940
0
217+00 218+00 219+00 220+00 221+00 222+00 223+00 224+00 225+00 226+00 227+00 228+00 229+00 uj
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 215+00.00 - STA. 229+00-00) 0
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
' 3 W •

PROPOSED PAVEMENT
SURFACE REPAIR
\ S25° 31' 14"E 256.98 LF
\ STREAM /
C% INV= `
1989.50
l,00,0,
s�
INV-
♦�� 1988.81 1
36" BRICK
CULVERT \
2030
MH #65 I \\ CULTIVATION 2
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) s\ ABANDON AND PLUG /
STA. 230+14.85 LINE "A"
MH #C1 \ EXISTING SEWER /
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH y STA. 242+00.74 END LINE "C" \ / RHO NOR1H$$
¢Q� F�opO�P PROVIDE NEW 5' DIA. MH \\ / / �'S N C 3G N4N
��
LINEC�� g 201 1
(SEE SHEET PL-29)
\ PROPOSED COIR MATTING i d�
EROSION CONTROL \ 7
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) 40
wA STA. 242+00.74 LINE A
F�pOD
Y STA. 0 00.00 BEGIN LINE C
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
\ PIN:9637944030
BILTMORE COMPANY-
O� \ D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056�j
ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER
CULTIVATION / 11 !/a9r�(k�'
IN,
IN,
72" WIDE BY 54 STONE \
IN, TOP CULVERT \ \ �O/
MSD SMH #50-28004
GRASS / / / / / / / RIMINV=199. 146
LINE "A.. //
o� \ \ \ o� ff, / / / /S /
\ O \ SS�Q x PROPOSED COIR MATTING
GRAVEL \ SFO \ �'� \ yC'�^ EROSION CONTROL
PARKING GRASS IN,MH #67
�O /
\CO \ \ �� \ \ ��� / / / / / / / / (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) g
/ STA. 239+11.40 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH
I PIN: 9637944030 \�.9 \ \ / / / CJ1� / /`� / / ' • MSD SMH #50-28003
BILTMORE COMPANY S A \ / / /
\ I D.B.0244, D.P.0056 / RIM=1991.30 \'lij� \ / / ••'/ INV=1978.48
-\ \ \\ I \ � / // / •RCP/s / /.
36 /
s
\ GRASS / /
GRASS / /s/ PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
THE LAGOON CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
P.L. 1989.7 I � •I \, � \ \ � / / /
a \ IN, •• /s / / EXISTING 20' EASEMENT /
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 000�P�
\ —s
MH #66 (VENT) /
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) /
STA. 235+49.40 LINE "A"
/ c36 s / / MSD SMH #50-28002
RIM=1988.14 PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH /
/ / / • NV=1978.34
TBM MAG NAIL
Q/ EL=1988.55
BRIDGE WITH CONCRETE DECK SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 229+00.00 — STA. 244+00.00)
/ SCALE: 1 11= 50'
i
2030
w
Q
6
z
"111111111,
STREAM CROSSING (SC-8)
2020 2020
(D
w STREAM CROSSING (SC-9) =
2010 Q z O O 2010
-
� � g
Z co °r° Lu > LU LLI LU LLI
H Z Q Z
EXISTING O o °' 0-
36" BRICK �n 0 co 6' = Q J J
2002.00' � Z N
CULVERT 4t U N II VENT ELEV. Z ti o o
2000 =0��� p+rn ONE 2000
zz� U) 0 co °O
MH #66 VENT EXISTING GROUND m Y N II � U N II
PROPOSED COIR MATTING (VENT) U
EROSION CONTROL LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT O
STA. 235+49.40
= _
\ PROPOSED COIR MATTING RIM 1987.80' _
— — 1990
1990 EROSION CONTROL
L
Y
,1980 1980 •�
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.02% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.08% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.07% •�
u
d ZLo
Cn W
�ch cy) ��Z oo � o" 1970 U) 0ooo w �0-
rn 1970 yinI
rnr-
r,- V �J
mco — II II �IIIZ
II �z Ozz •�
O — nn ll
a Z) II z » z
1960 z z Z z z 1960
— — (o (o
co cor ) cy) 00
(O Co
L — — co co
I Co Co • r�
`o co
1.
8 36" D.I.P. @ 0.02% 60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. (�0
1950 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 1950 W
NCT o eN/6
EXHIBIT ONLY. �� �y
Es
1940 1940 WQ s %
229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 235+00 236+00 237+00 238+00 239+00 240+00 241+00 242+00 243+00 244+00 c }
s
cn
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE(STA. 229+00.00 TA. 244+00.00)50 0 25 50 100 150 6
O �0
n GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH - 50 FEET SCALE. HORIZ: 1 ��=50� , VERT. 1 ��=10' d��13W'��'�

U
O
N.C. GRID NORTH
O
NAD83 (2011) NAVD88
W
J
N O
w 4-O
O
z Lrn
C� r
w q� N
�—o
a� a.)w
f Q
0
QO
N
�
o
ow
02 �c
MH #69 (VENT) `//fI Clz� m O ~ Q
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) v� U O
STA. 247+23.32 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH W
MH #72 A* cC fV Y
PIN:9637944030 MH #70 (LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT)
0 0 L.L Cn Y =
BILTMORE COMPANY (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
D.B.0244, D.P.0056 STA. 257+83.32 LINE "A"
STA. 251+16.32 LINE A PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH / //'��� y ~ ~ 2 o w
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH �
� CULTIVATION / �� / `'^ �� Z Y �
CULTIVATION / / �� / / !� ` O Q w d
So — — _ _ _ _ Ropos � TEM p� MH #71 (VENT) / / 53 / / /5 ^ o Q
z _ _ — — — 9° 22' 30',w 3 — RARY CpNST (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) / / / Pe
m _ _ _ — — — _ — — 93.00 �F P _ _ RUCTIO EA � STA. 255+19.32 LINE „A„ — / 14),
_ N
— — ° 40' 38' - 522.58 LF _, —s _ RO OS— _ — _ _ _ SEMENT _ LINE A Q
S06 __------s-- s____��� P EDPERMANENTEgSE—PROVIDENEW6 DIA.MH--�_�„E26400LF
m _,—s— ---5 =_ _ _ _ — — _ _ _ s MENT _—�--- �— SOg°46'45 — --- / / �••• �\`\�1+°° �°
i
rn--S— <36"RCP ----------------------------------------- / O
V, —S — — 36°RCP o " / J
— — S00 18' 00 W 403.00 LF _
�� 'ter \ �S S <36"RCP / �' ELECTRIC RISER WITH flu
T _ / • " • • �/ •, _ _� _ ' / UNDERGROUND CABLE ee�gil\�6
,11 _ `
L
m �,. _ • - . _ �Et RpB� g 36"RCP n / e V
T
V MSD SMH #50-28005 - - MSD SMH #50-28007
r EXISTING 20' EASEMENT RIM=1992.43 RIM-1990.97 / / O O
•� INV=1979.35
INV=1978.91 �� / MSD SMH #50-28008
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH S09° 46' 45"E 264.00 LF RIM=1990.84
•• ' " -,• _ -•• _ •• — " • \ ' - INV=1979.00 58
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT _.-----
MSD SMH #50-431283 —
RIM=1990.71 �— +
INV=1979.11 —
MSD SMH #50-28006
RIM=1991.22
I INV=1979.20
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
2030
2010
2000
1990
�I 1980
�j u
1970
3
n 1960
i
�I 1950
1940 L_
244+00
50
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
245+00 246+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
2003.00'
247+00
MH #69 (VENT)
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT'
STA. 247+23.32 LINE "A"
RIM = 1992.87'
Z
C/
rn _
00 6
r
Cl) «
r
II 6
� II
D
O�
z 2
248+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
249+00
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 244+00.00 — STA. 259+00.00)
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
250+00
0
ww
Qz
J
>� N
Z C�6 (h
p + rn
U N =O<�
2iJU)0�
� r-
u a'
DII
Oz
z z
mm
EXISTING GROUND
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
251+00
EXHIBIT ONLY.
252+00
253+00
254+00
2003.00'
VENT ELEV.
MH #71 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 255+19.32 LINE "A"
RIM = 1990.29'
(MATCH PAVEMENT)
255+00
M _
6
� (r
rn
r
.. G
z Z
co I cc
co c•1r:
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
256+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 244+00.00 — STA. 259+00-00)
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
2020
= 2010
0
�Q
ww
H
Qz
J
z co
2000
3:00o
rn
N 0 L
* V N II
=O<�
�J��
1990
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
4-11
1970
1960
1950
' 1940
257+00 258+00 259+00
LU
Q
0
9
Z
y
}
13W•

PIN:9637944030
BILTMORE COMPANY
D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056
1 PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
r
Z f�
m --
m {
TANK iS c36�
V � g BR�DG
m � i
d
c9 MH #73
(LOCKDOWN / WA'
STA. 259+24.11 LIB
PROVIDE NEW 6'[
JLTIVATION
�yi> MH 474
STA. 263+24.11 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
i� f� (`(lnI NIC('T CYICTInI (_ CC\A/CD
MSD SMH #50-28010 ^' NIV=1984.87 'Vry� 3?f�IO,V�
I
. 1
GRASS
GRASS I ^
GATE 1 `3:
FENCE [] r
— — z
—-------------------------------- m
— — — — — — S21 ° 47' 31 "E 482.00 LF (n
SPIGOT m
POST POST 1 m
<36"RCP S — — — -
S — — — — —S — — — _ GRAVEL SURFACE
i
MSD SMH #50-28013
RIM=1992.03
INV=1981.41
1
1
R I V E R I
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 259+00-00 - STA. 274+00.00)
SCALE: I"=50'
2030
2020
STREAM CROSSING
FOURMILE BRANCH
_
(SC-10)
T-
201
of
2010
ww
�z
�z
Q
z
J
Q
J
¢
J
z��
zj°p
2003.00'
VENT ELEV.
zM"?
2000
�
+
p
N+,>
c❑
MH #75 (VENT)
O0
+ M EXISTING GROUND
2000
o
0) �
�
co
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
co ❑
cfl
M
� U
N I I
U
a I I
STA. 264+61.63 LINE "A"
� U
a I I
= O
<
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
=
RIM = 1992.39'
_
EROSION CONTROL,
1990
To
1990
1980
u
z
w
a
Op
1970
6
00
a')
0)
II
�
o
D
II
z
o
p
E
;
;
1960
z
z
9
co
co
a
a L36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
11 1950
1940
259+00
0
0
n`
50 0 25 50
°
n
GRAPHIC SCALE
36" D.I.P. @ 0.30%
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
260+00 261+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
�
z w
�
z
z
�
O
00 CV
O OR
00 0�
0') O O
!�2 0
6�
rno�
� d0)
moo
I I —
II
Z) II
� i i
� Z
O ?
p z z
O
z z
z z z
z z
z77
o
M co
co co
0
60 /o DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
co M
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
262+00 263+00 264+00
265+00 266+00 267+00 268+00 269+00
270+0
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 259+00-00 -
STA. 27
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= SO' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
0 271+00
4+00.00)
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
272+00
273+00
m
970
m
950
1940
274+00
cc o
0 N
Lu ^
� ) U a� O
T w
o +
w � N
Lurc
: V
Q N
' ^ O CD
v LI O O "
oC N O w
V _ O ❑ cn
—� Z + a1
Oi `•I �--� � '
O O LL M N Y
� U
4--) = Q Y
}
� CO
D Ln J o 0
O Y O
Q W d
0 U Q
d" \
O �O
IsL
6
z

MH #79
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
ui
STA. 281+20.63 LINE "A"
LL PIN:9637944030 PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH \
BILTMORE COMPANY
m D.B. 0244, D.P. 00-
z
co
m I t MH #80
' S21 ° 47' 31 "E 482.00 LF u (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
GRASS „
MH #77 (VENT) LINE A STA. 284+96.63 LINE "A"
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH c�
STA. 274+55.63 u GRASS m a
— PROPOSED COIR MATTING
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH GRASS ` EROSION CONTROL
------------- - - - - - - _
PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION — — — — — — — — — — — S06 35' 04"E 205.00 LF I
" 460 00 LF
c
_ _ _ _ — — — — —
EASEMENT
S12° 10 53 E
_ u _ —� h--�o
SEMI -PERMANENT
PARKED STORAGE
— — — PROPOSED PERMANENT
— — _—
_�r1�= TRAILER FOR RAFTING
OPERATIONS
/
Z
—�—
—
—S--—S —
— — —S — — — _ _ [1 SPIGOT 7`
— 5--- ---
—S— —SS— � W/V
��
—
— — — —
---
--_—S
---<36"R—CP Il
---
--- ��--S— ---5— <36"RCP
—S —
GRASS
—S—
.�,n ^ O
ECK
///
—5---
min
,
----�•------'� <d0 E —S
-- - -_-- —" "—
— PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
MSD SMH #5045000 �...� i s��
m
�_..--.---
—
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
RIM=1992.49
INV=1981.94
m
— -- EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
EASEMENT
fir"`
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
MSD SMH #50-28015
RIM=1992.07 \
� r
MSD SMH #50-28014 I
INV=1982.07 \
RIM=1993.30
INV=1981.68
TBM MAG NAIL \ •
MSD SMH #50-431280
EL=1990.96
\ `
r
� �•
RIM=1992.71
1
MSD SMH
RI
IN
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
y
N.C. GRID NORTH
NAD83 (2011) NAVD88CL
U
'—'
4—
O
W O
LLJO O
N
J
U
Z 00
N
Woa
Lu M I—
V
o
C
Q
<
N
Ln
O
N
o
OO
DC O
w
clz�a
= i O
o
Zcz
Q
C)-,
pw[ c
O O
N
LL �
Y
U
1
m
}
0]
I ^
v ,
J
0Lu
O �--
z
YLLl
O
(/1
�
=
a
0
U
Q
\\ j
\
'Tt V-1985.98 \ \ \ \ MH #81 PIN:9637944030 I
\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) BILTMORE COMPANY
\ \ \ \ \ \ STA. 288+41.45 LINE "A" D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056 /
\ \S\ S \ \ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
\
4F \\\ GRASS \
�N
\ \ \ \ \s \ \ \ \ \ \ SPIGOT I J
0-
\ \ \ \ PPOST `
I
� \ \ � • .. \ \ \ R Rom\ wvi\ � —Lij
Lij
co
W
Lij
co
SMH (NO MSD NUMBER) \ ' • \
RIM=1992.90
INV=1985.75, (APPROXIMATE)
(STANDING WATER IN BOTTOM)
(NO VISIBLE FLOW)
_ 1
I
MSD SMH #50-28017 �
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 274+00-00 — STA. 289+00-00) RN�V2:5° ,w-c7l
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
m
S05° 34' 24"W 531.12 LF
1
203
202
2030
2020
_
STREAM CROSSING (SC-11)c�
2010
(D
w w
2010
waQz
Z
LL1 W
J
2004.00'
Q J
Q z 2004.00'
Cn
z
VENT ELEV.
c b
3 M PROPOSED COIR MATTING VENT ELEV.
0 N
MH #77 EXISTING GROUND
z L6
� +
(o rn EROSION CONTROL
N MH #80 (VENT)
+ rn
p00
200
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
o
O + 0.) LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
U N II
2000
STA. 274+55.63
00
I` Y N II
it ()
°' 0 00 — STA. 284+96.63
f� Y N
= O Q —
J
RIM = 1992.22'
= o 2
(-) - II RIM = 1991.29'
� C �
199
1990
198
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
1980
Y
i
z
z
z
00
6)
O N
Lo.,
N O
o
(o00
00 6?
N
00 O 00 N
0') N
00
M
00II
00
O) N 07 N
— 00 00
Cl')
00
Cl)
II
0 197
i
II °)
F- II
F- II
II
F--II II
F- II
= z
O-
1970
p z
O?
p z O z
2
z_ z_
zz
z z zZ
zz
- -
E
(D (o
_ _
cy) M
_ _
CO Cy) M c
M M
M M
196
co co
1960
a
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
9
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
0
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
1950
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1950
n
0
u
EXHIBIT ONLY.
2 U
o
I
1940
1940
274+00
0
275+00 276+00 277+00 278+00
279+00
280+00
281+00 282+00 283+00 284+00 285+00 286+00 287+00
288+00
289+00
n
SANITARY
SEWER PROFILE (STA. 274+00.00 —STA. 289+00-00)
50 0
o
25 50 100 150
0
F
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
LV
CD
A'
i O
W
a
0
z
z 0
o �
o_
>
W
U)
0
6
z
O �RICT � bN��66�
s
z
13V0

71
I
�n
n�° I MH #82 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) c GRASS
ID NORTH
N G GR 111 NAVp88
NAD83 (20
STA. 293+72.57 LINE "A" I MH #83
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
LINE „A„ STA. 296+80.57 LINE "A"
GRASS y PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
e
----- I -- -- --- SPIGOT -- --
4sPlGora}� S10 42 0 ° 2"W 308.00 LF SPIGOT
SPIGOT
r--- 4„ 531.12LF --[� --`----s-----s-----s-----s-----s---- s--
Z_ _ _ _ _ — — S05° 34' 2 W �� _ —s — — — 36 RCP>
mce --S— —_— —--------
_ _ RIVER ROAD
"RCP
m --- _5---- — - OLD
- - - -
m_-- — — _ - - =-- - - -
T • •
MSD SMH #50-28018 MSD SMH #50-431277
y
— . - — — — RIM=1995.30 RIM=1994.52
INV=1982.80 INV=1983.03
fn -
/ I i MSD SMH #50995 65
_ RIM=183:0
— INV=1983.05
N'
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
� S25° 22' 08"W 65.00 LF /
m
AH #84
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
3TA. 297+45.57 LINE "A"
r'ROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
l GRASS MH #85
`
o (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
P STA. 301+29.08 LINE "A"
S25° F PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
�s 4 W 383.51 LF -1 oSE_D T EMPORgR
PROP CONSTRUCT
` OSED P ` ` lON E ` 1
— GRAV` ERMgNENT gSEMENT
EgSE
MENT
_ 36"RCP S �—�_` \ GRASS \O /
INV=1985.91 ... ` \
_ �` \
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189`36"RCP��
_ \O4
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
MSD SMH #50-28020
RIM=1995.41 \\
INV=1983.30
\- J
SEWER PLAN(STA. 289+00-00 -STA.303+00-00)SANITARY 1
�
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
203
2
STREAM CROSSING (SC-11)
202
2
=
_
C7
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
O
Q
EROSION CONTROL
~ Q
w UJ
201
w Lu
z
Q Z
> J
2
Q
J
>� 00
w
MH #82 (VENT)
EXISTING GROUND 2004.00 LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
MH #83
Lo
z L6
z oq
+
VENT ELEV. STA. 293+72.57
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
O� "t rn
0 o a�
RIM = 1995.52'
.
STA296+8057
� p r rn
00 Y co. II
�* U
200
RIM = 1994.28'
v `V II
= p 1 g
2
J
U) 0�
1990
1
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
1980
w
1
00
00 00
rn
00 0�
a�
00
(n
00
6> N
— 00
N
00 O
1970
F i
z
� 0')F-
00
� rn
1
O
O z
p z
z z
z z
>>
zz
p z
�o zo
cM M
M co
��
cM co
z_z_
1960
�o �o
`y) `y)
1
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
60 ° DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
1950
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1
EXHIBIT ONLY.
330
D20
D10
)90
)80
a70
a60
)50
1e
w
U
ce
LLJ
N
—
O
O
p
'
O
f V
N
I
J
a)
z
a
m
o
cC
w
�
m
w
MV)
^`
0
Q
N
O
o
Lo
O
O
�
�
N
o
�I
rl
w
C�
�
onV)
O
—�
+
O
w
�
ce
00
O
O
LL
Y
�m
LU
>
O
2
z
Y
p
=
a
U
Q
N
0
O �O
w
Q
0
6
z
O �RICT � bN��66�
s 1940 —1940 �`-' -
289+00 290+00 291+00 292+00 293+00 294+00 295+00 296+00 297+00 298+00 299+00 300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 d
s o
Y cd
o a>
°o CD F
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 289+00-00 - STA. 303+00.00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
13W•

I �
1 O
1 STREAM
O
U
Q
,1 /
=1-----`—�---71`—
r_
z— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
m S36° 47' 23"W 367.00 LF
V
POST
--S
----S-----S—
f ^ 36"RCP
-O I PROPOSED COIR MATTING
r EROSION CONTROL
N
I
I
I F
R E N C H
\
MH #86 (VENT) \
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) \
STA. 304+96.08 LINE "A" \
STA.0+00.00 BEGIN LINE "D" \
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
/
LINE "D"
(SEE SHEET PL-29)
/
/ MH #D1
/ STA. 0+19.19 END LINE "D"
��[� PROVIDE NEW 4' DIA. MH
�Ue/\ RECONNECT EXISTING SEWER
/ (SEE SHEET PL-29)
\\\\ LINE "A"
36h. P
— _\ \ OT \ SS6° 18 40" \ OS \ GRASS
ABANDON AND PLUG \ \\\��\ �4Sp 00 �F \ \ \ \ FMPp RgRyC \
`EXISTING SEWER \ \ \ \ PROI'OSF� p \ ONSTRU
NT C \ENT
IGOT
— MSD � SMH #50-28021 NT \ \
RIM=1993.35
INV=1983.70 \ \\
3
WB
3M BOLT AND TAG \
)NCRETE BRIDGE \ \ \
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT \ \
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 ` \
BRAD R
j V E R
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
o MH #87
/ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 309+46.08 LINE "A" \
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
\ \ ____ � MH
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) GRASS
\ \ \ STA 312+04 08 LINE "A"
L
L Ai
U
Q
OCD
cC = O
N
I
�P
z 00
O
w m
a
Q
Q
N
a
_
11
O
O O
O
�ju
DC N
ui
,,..a
m V) O
Q
U
a-d
2 O
o
U)
z4-Jm
0�1
O O
Lu
u-
2 Q
Y
4_�
�
}
CO
Ln
0 `�
J
z
0
Y
W
O
of=
CL
a
0
U
Q
GRASS
I
FENG [j
[] n y0
1�SHED
FENCE
MH #89 (VENT) I(7
\ \ \ \ \ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH STA. 316+04.08 r
\ S5 ° \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\ 6 2�, 33 \ \ \ \\w2sgp\\\ G PROVIDE NEW 6'DIA.MH — �Z
\ p \ \S \ p �F \7\ U -- GATE FENCE , m
\ \ OL\\ \ \ \ \ \ J EQUINE ARENA — — — — — — —
RIDING RING _
--------------
\S39° 46' 25"W 400.00 LF — S33° 37 10"W — rn
m_ —
\ \ \ ORAV\ \ \ (\f� .� SPIGOT • SPA � U - _S — V J \ \ sURFgCE \ 36, \ POST _ D.I. GRATE=1994.31 SPIGOT —�— [� [] —S 36"RC=
\p 36"RCP----S-----S-- —[]—S Ll POSTS_�
-��---S-----S—IPd11-9S1 E.:L-
36"RCP
--�•-\ -� wv/ICv
MSD SMH #50-28023 \
RIM=1992.47 U
INV=1983.77
MSD SMH #50-28024
RIM=1994.31 INV=1989.47
INV=1987.00
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 303+00-00 - STA. 318+00-00)
--- Wv/ICv — ' ___4m
T
r
U.P.L WITH U.P.L WITH 1 N
U/G ELEC U/G ELEC .�
MSD SMH #50-28025 1
RIM=1995.43
INV=1984.12 I
203
202
2030
—2020
MH #86 (VENT)
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
=
STREAM CROSSING (SC-12)
STA. 304+96.08
=
(D _
RIM = 1991.95'
(DQ
201
w w
—2010
2005.50'
LIJ
Z
Q —
z
� -12006.50'
00
MH #89 (VENT)
VENT ELEV.
J
co
_
— (Dco VENT ELEV.
z r`
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
_
Z (o rn
0 +
STA. 316+04.08 =_
EROSION CONTROL
EXISTING GROUND
� � —
0 0
RIM = 1994.97
200
o o
00 U cl) II
2000
00 co II
= 0 Q g
20<�
J co0�
J (n 0�
f. t
199
—1990
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
o
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
=
1980
z
z
—1980
w
z
i�,.U)
r`
b)U)
ap 0
w
Z
fn
00 ti
00 00
CV (n
c7
— 00
II �
— 00
II �
00
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
m (� 00
00 c�
II
II
7
00
1970
II °' 00
O z_
O z_
n °)
—1970
II -
ozz
zz
z_z_
F-II
pz
z z Z
M m
M m
z z
co 00
M M
196
—1960
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
==
1950
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1950
EXHIBIT ONLY.
_-
Haan
Haan
n
303+00 304+00 305+00 306+00 307+00 308+00 309+00 310+00 311+00 312+00 313+00 314+00 315+00 316+00 317+00 318+00
0
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 303+00-00 -STA. 318+00.00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
o
0
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
w
Q
0
II
�u
6
z
O �RICT • eN,�66�
s
z
13N0

2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
i
u
a
1970
0
i
i♦
EI
'I 1960
/
L
J'
gl 1950
1940
318+00
50
I� l POND
/ W.E. 19923
C ' Lo
GRASS 1, ( STREAM l ' uc 1J
MH #93 (VENT) MH #94 I
P PROPOSED \'
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) \ COIR MATTING 'DELINEATEO
F-
STA. 330+77.66 LINE "A" WETLAND
EROSION CONTROL
w
APO STA. 328+55.66 LINE "A" PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
—
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH ..�,_;.�W
----------- — �. ---I(n
D
_ �N — — — — ° 12' 04"W 263.65 LF
/ MH#92 GRASS —NE SA EME T _---------o------------- — S31 _ L.L1
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) CONSTRUCTIO _ S36 23' 35"W 222.00 LF _— —
STA. 325+71.66 LINE "A � S TEMPORARY — T EASEMENT � — -- -s —36°RCP _ s_ � ; w7
PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH 0POSE—s
pR— AMEN POST _ _ — Z
PEP' 36"RCP
PROPO36 M ——S-----S-----S-----S---S INV=198784 _
/ — — — SEp_ �s — °RCP
MH #91
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) / / gpAD
STA. 322+81.58 LINE "A"( -
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH GRASS/ / / — —_ — _ -' OLD
—s —
POST
/ / ///` �� i S 36"RCS .... / ''--•_...� 36"CMP .-.- ----.
/ ,/ oaL� /� i �/ , i ----..-••--- INV=1987.24
/ i O�„v v 2go / / /S / / ... i — • - - i ' " • MSD SMH I #50-28031
S / / — — - ' ' - f MSD SMH #50-28029 INV=1985.22
BRIDG
LINE "A"— //. / EXISTING 20' EASEMENT IRNV=1985.06
� � TBM MAG NAIL
95.03
MH #90 ' / s�R PCE / / / .- PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 TOP OFCONC CONCRETE WALL
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) / �s G j
STA. 320+04.08 LINE "A" PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY '
� yo PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH GRASS i GRASS � / �s� / �
r1 ' ' I — OST i 36 RCP �/ / MSD SMH #50-28028 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
RIM=1994.37
INV=1984.65
z fss
m ------------- �� F R E N C H B R 0 A D R I V E R
1 ------ —s— ! /
V J S33° 37' 10"W 400.00 LF yo
T POST
1 1�1 -SIGN — —S • _ — ' — — _ / .
=r _---- -
--
--_
_ / - MSD SMH #50-431274
m s
RIM=1994.49
INV=1984.49
i
T '
MSD SMH #50-28027 1
• - - - . — y0
MSD SMH#50-28026 RIM=1994.28
___ ..---•-
r RIM=1993.89 INV=1984.56
TBM MAG NAIL INV=1984.37
IV IN UTILITY POLE
W ' EL=1996.78
1
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
A1119
ww
H
Q z_
J
>� 00
4 Z00
horn
CD c"I
20<�
J in ry
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
z�
co
4 m
M
00
00
C7 C7
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 318+00.00
SCALE: 1 11=50'
- STA. 333+00-00)
2030
?020
p
STREAM CROSSING (SC-13)
P
_
_
_
C7
�-
�z
�z
LU
-2010
Q
Z
J
J
2007.50'
J
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
U
Z(p
b
VENT ELEV.
Z(p
o
EROSION CONTROL
Z
3:
CD
00 4
+
MH #93 (VENT)
�
+ Lo
O
+ 6,
N 6,
EXISTING GROUND 0
p
°'
N
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
O
p
6'
-
rn Y
M i
N
U
`'' II
STA. 328+55.66
U
`'' II
2000
=0Qg
_0<�
J
RIM=1994.26'
=O<�
2 J
U)�
co�
2 zz�J
C Q
_
1990
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09% z
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
w
00z�
w
?
_1980
Lo
00
co�
OR
Eo
�
00
00
L6m
7
00
00
I I
00 00
O
00
0)
Lo
II
II
00
0)
II
O
z
0
»
Z
II
>
II
z
z
z
0
z
0
Z
1970
Z
Z
cM
cM
Z
Z
Z
Z
(fl
M
Qc)
M
-
(o
-
(o
-
M
-
M
M
M
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
319+00 320+00 321+00 322+00 323+00 324+00 325+00 326+00 327+00 328+00 329+00 330+00 331+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 318+00-00 - STA. 333+00.00)
100 150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 III
= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
1 INCH = 50 FEET
332+00
m
950
J 1940
333+00
U O N
O I
w O J
° rLLJ 4- ;
a) Z m
tA C) w � m
Lu
N
Q O
0
o Ln
C,d
O O ^^�11 "
W O W
m l/I p F Q
= i O o �
�1 z _ 000
�, � (L)Le,c rv_
0 O L.L Y =
}�
�_ m
J LU W
O v Z Y O
of
2 d
U Q
O
O �O
w
Q
0
z
z O
O
o >
W
U
0
0
z
O �RICT • bN��66�
s
OO
H-
13W•

50
Of
MH #99
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 344+39.31 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
C.0
-- P _— ROPOSED PERMANENT EASE — — — — — —
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)36 _ 3s RCP — — N
STA. 336+18.31 LINE"AII s-------s---- MENT --- J
° " PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH ------s—�—�_ ——s----_ —_ ---Qii-- 0-
S31 12 04 W 263.65 LF i GOLF ---s— ROAD s-----s--- S42°
�° 52' 16 W 2g8 �' —OLD RNER_ — _ — —s — — — -- 32 32„�/ 266.0FL F W
MH #95 _ / S2 —s — — — — _ — _
Lij
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) / �� — s — ~ ~
i iS �� 3s"RCP T
STA. 333+41.31 LINE "A" / �� —s — — _ — _ 1 DELINEATED / ��
I ' WETLAND / ' iS �36"RCP — _ —J S —
PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH , �
GRAVEL SURF
E
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY MSD SMH#50-28035 �• �w
//`�� , • / /r1'' 1 O / / • " • / \ \
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INV= RIM=11998.14
985.95 �•-
• - " ` J / , / / / �O� 1 / / /� - • • / MSD SMH #50-28033 MSD SMH #50-28034
\ , �
SMH RIM-1997.02 RIM-1997.73
/ INV-1985.s7 INV-1985.74
i
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT 0
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 Q
// / MSD SMH #50-28032
:r RIM=1995.17
•
m /INV=1985.42
m� F R E N C H B R 0 A D R I V E R
r
MSD SMH #50-28031
' RIM=1993.77
INV=1985.29 \
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 333+00-00 - STA. 346+00-00)
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
333+00
0 25 50 100
\ll +DELINEATED MH #98
WETLAND (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
�• STA- 340+85.31 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
(/ \ �� �� • •. ,•-.L_ • • '��� \ 1.: ... ... ' • DELINEATED
\ ' . • ' '-�� .. �• . • • • • 7WETLAND
MH #97 (VENT) ,\• ' •' �'..-...—.....—... �,��— �,�
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) •� —� — _
_ — — — — — — — — — —PROPOSED TEMPO _
STA. 338+86.31 LINE A �• _ _
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH _ _ _ — — — — — 199,00 LF — — — — — — — NARY CONSTRUCTION
MH #96 i — — — — S28° 54' 38' W S40° 53' — — — — — — — — — EASEMENT
49 �/ 354.00 LF p
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
334+00 335+00 336+00 337+00 338+00 339+00 340+00 341+00 342+00 343+00 344+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 333+00-00 - STA. 346+00.00)
150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
345+00
1 -
346+00
T cf� Ln
U Q N
w Oo
J
T w c7- +
O w m
Lj r
Q N _
v LI O O
+�
oC O"
w w Q oco= � O
Z�p
rnn
Lu
O O u- rn
Y
4-�
� � m
D Ln J o
z
Y Q
Ln Q w a
� U Q
in
�d
w
a
0
9
!ac o
6
z
oS-�Ricr. bN,��
13W•
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET

60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
d
H
MH #101
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 347+45.92 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH I
MH #100 Nx
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 347+05.31 LINE'0 O
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH d
alU
m
mjL S42 32 "
m - -
C , <36"RCP
m
V�
N,V,n
.. �------
MSD SMH #50-32412
<42"RCP
EXIST. MH
TO REMAIN
MSD SMH #50-38178
ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER
//�
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
JB #5
STA. 350+07.74 END LINE "A"
15' x 10' JUNCTION BOX
CONNECT EXISTING SEWER
(SEE SHEET PL-27)
N
PROPO SED
_ — ,yCONSTR -p TEMPORARY
PROPOSED ERMAN EASEMENT 1
-- ENT EgSE MSD SMH #50-32416
—S S57° MEN7' RIM=1996.38
mt�
INV=1986.18
BRIDGE —
�
GRAVEL SURFACE
TBM MAG NAIL — OLD RIVER ROAD
IN CONCRETE BRIDGE
EL=1995.57 _
MSD SMH #50-32414
RIM=1996.43 EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
INv(a2"�=1s85.ss PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
INV(12")=1990.43 PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT20'
- ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER
F R E N C H B RDA D R I V E R
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 346+00-00 — STA. 350+07-75)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
2030
DINGLE CREEK ROAD
2030
2020
2020
STREAM CROSSING
_ _
(SC-14) X
z_
m
�Q �Q zo
O
Z
LIJ
2010
Qz Qz v�-
J J
2010
� U Z
ti r-
�(j � � UJ �
z c2 z rn EXISTING GROUND o
o
+ Ln
o rn
�o� ��(6
000+rn +rn Z
T°, o0Q-°' 0
ch
< II
LO
U M II U M II m
2000
= O = O < PROPOSED COIR MATTING
U) of
2000
J J rOf EROSION CONTROL
-7— —7 — — —\ — WE
1990
�
1970
1960
1950
1940
346+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
z
0
0
rn (o
OD
II 0')
II
O z
z Iz
Elm
347+00
w
z�
U)U)
o
00oo
morn
00 00
II o c))
� II II
p z z
z z z
Cfl Cfl a0
co co —
" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
348+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04%
349+00
(.6 't
00 7
O) o
00
u °'
� I
O z
z Iz
03N
350+00
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
' 1940
351+00
P
4-�
4-�
oC
Q
Lu
~
O
n
�o
N
J
z
O
Ln
c�
TO
w
o�
M
(L)
Lu
n
VEl
o
Q
N
O
O
�
"
DC
a
w
00
VI
O
III
Q
U
Q
Z
4-J
Q0
O
O
LL
I
Y
�
m
I^
v ,
J
�LU
O
v
z
Y
O
�
=
a
0
U
Q
-c�kvo.'`
O �RICT•bN,�6
n
'I SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 346+00-00 — STA. 350+07.75) �(��I
W
H
Q
z
z 0
O cn
�;
Dfw
c�
0
6
z
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
13V0

MH #2 /
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) ;
STA. 1+73.14 LINE "A" j
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH /
MH #1 SSMH #21-14743
RIM:1,976.27' _
LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) INV: 1,961.0' \ F
STA. 0+00.00 LINE "A" =1 TBM BOLTING V_M, MH #3 R
ON SW RIM OF SM T�� E N
PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH ! EL=1976.08 `� (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) C I�
SSMH #21-14742 i
STA. 5+53.97 LINE "A" D
R Q A
NV:1,960.4' f / — L �_ _ _ — PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
R
R�M: 1,976.34'INVERT ELEV. _ _ _ '_ MH # 21-14744 I tT
'�=— —
1950.00'
F RIM: 1,978.85' E 16
4 L© _ _
S57° 3,tW 173 1 T eASE26aNT#1 — /— 1
-, S75° �_ INV: 1,960.9'
PERMANENT EASEMENT#2 - 281
DB 5389/PG 286 pERMANEN �- MIA/
\, �RGP- D.B. 398, p� _ - � a48"RCP - - _ - _ � • �
<48'
- \_— - MH#4
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 9+51.03 LINE "A"
_� AMON^.� _ �- _. _ - _ PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
J _ - ` - N.C. GRID NAD83 2011 COORDS: '� - . _ - _
CITY OF ASHEVILLt \\\ \ )
PIN 9638-90-9798 ,ITY OF ASHEVILLE \ \ $ = N:680,712.2T, E:939,758.16' _!""i `-- • - . - . MH #21-14745 MH #5
/ ! CITY OF ASHEVILLE y� �� ''�� ASPHgLT P S76° �- �-
PIN 9638-90-9746 \\�� r „ _ - _ RIM: 1.979.67' LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
PIN9648-00-1832 1 D.B. 5242,PG. 1141 \�� O I�VfL6k_ OHI�EV:1,976.21' PATH 20 05 w - _ ( )
D.B. 1659,PG.436 TP-T11-29-18 �' P.B. 10,PG.96 D.B.5095,PG. 1167 �� �� �� ' 397. — - NV: 1,961.3' "
BRIDGE U / P.B. 10,PG. 96 P.B. 10.PG.__ — _ .� _ 06 LF _ --- - •_ _ — STA. 12+76.79 LINE A" M
r� \ \ —T —--=P °_ _ off �— _ _ PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
4 _ / 'J \ 1! t 0- I / t, �� • MH #21-37431 /J
�/ / •^yam, \ \ice(j�Y-7g��,CA �H BASIN _ �_ RIM: 1,976.8T LL
GR: 1,973.87' INV: 1,961.0' , L
.V'� - - INV:1,971.7' -1bd
w ham= _ +_
HIGH TENSION -9 Nd S b �� w
_ PO_WERPOLE=_�� S76° 7' QQQST_ _... W
MSD MH #21-14741 �J � — -C U O — �S ——�19$A�- O AMON 48"VV 325. t r� - —��' w
RIM SSMH #21-17475 O _ - /- _ ` `* X _
_ �� A 3 2011) COORDS: 6 LF
v RIM: 1,993.59' \ \ INV: 1, A ✓ / / INV.=1961.20 ��= a 980.4u . =� MBQ A D � \ `� _ 5.65 \ - -
_ 1Tr0AD Tom; N: V:1,9.
❑ NV: 1,976.1' �' _� _ ASPHALT p E
V MENT ���
�_ � ` ED �'ERMANEN � o"u�L:`° \' LU
LU
vcp
(J)
�� \ Sip /<<q �H S /y \TBM 60d NAIL W/ SHINER \ I I - - - \ �\ 'S ` \ ` ��� \ CATCH BASIN \ %MH #21-431809
ELEV: 1,993.52' --� �� �� ` ` GR: 1,972.9T �/ RIM: g 979.28' LL,I
7� IN:1,969.5; 7
S � � `� INV: 1,970.8' L
/ OUT: 1,969.1' 2
/I I RIM UN NOWN MSD MH 47
t
1 INV.=1970.0' I
7/ I WATER VALVE
IN MANHOLE
P.B.
FLOOR CONCRETE
_�IELEV:1,986.1' C
�ipp
`_ I MH #21-14771
1 (NOT SURVEYED) -
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 0+00.00 — STA. 13+25.00)
SCALE: 1 11= 50'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION.
2000
2000
EXHIBIT
ONLY.
Q
�
Q
Q
a)_
Q
CD
1990
N
c
J
N
M oo
rn
O
_ 1990
�
f� 00
(h
O
O
00
M�
LO O
��
+
CAD
+ 0)O
O
+ I`
+
CO LO
0')
II
04
LO II
O
Q II
7 II
II
= <
2
= Q
_��
���
=Q�
�07�
���
�c~nof
1980
�U)�
1980
1970
1960
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
= 1950
g0' DIP @ 1 c07%
w
zLO
w
w ..
LU..
LO
Y
O
f
M
(� M
Ch
M O
Lo Lq
Ch lj
m
aLO
()
O M
m M
(
- h
�
M
a
O
O
�
II d)
r V)
II
II
a 1940
o
rn
II
z
II
z
pz
II
Oz
p
p
z z
o
z
zz
zz
z z
--
m
U
j
Z
- —
co f
- -
O o
(0
o CD
cm cD
-
°
O
t°
1930
Y
n -1+00 -0+50
z
J
J
Z
o
0+00 0+50 1+00
1+50 2+00
2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50
6+00 6+50
7+00 7+50 8+00
8+50 9+00
9+50
10+00
10+50 11+00 11+50
12+00 12+50
a
m
U
0
0
n
m
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE (STA.
0+00-00 —
STA.
13+25-00)
50 0 25 50
o
100 150
0
n
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
�I GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
970
1960
950
940
' 1930
13+00 13+25
U �
Q � O
Ln
c9' O p +
�', O� tY m
Co w
u
z L u N
CD
4� LUI o Ln
O ce Z O O I
LL. O w J
C = W O
O O Lh Q
J Y 2
Ln Y
Y LU ow
Z Y O
LU
o U Q
\�O
�Q••yuj
�, _
O ��r3fT111\\
O �O
L A
CD
w
Q
II
11Le
O CO
H
a_
W
co
LU
0
z
OS�RICT• v,,,,o� \
� 60
ti
9 t'Z
13W•

N
W WOOD DECK MH #6 \ \ MH #9
�— —
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) - � �_ � - � �_ � � _ (LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT)
' / STA. 16+50.73 LINE STA. 25+99.98 LINE
A
PROVIDE NEW10 DIA' MH PROVIDE NEW 110' D A MH
W -
� MH 21-14746 � �
W ASPHALT PATE' RIM:1,977.99'
I _
574� 39' INV:1,961.7' MH #7 PILE OF DEBRIS S7go I MONITOR WELL
W HIGH TENSION 13 W 373.94 LF _ - _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) 13 48 W 335.61 LF
z /' STA. 19+72.35 LINE "A" r �2LF MH #8
OH POWERPOHI ASPHALT \ / PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH 1 292' % (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) a
J NCO N �— OH PARKING L�T Y / - MH 21-37771 \ Q"
c AD O / \ O SHOWN PER MSD GIS 0 33' STA. 22+64.37 LINE "A"
\ GRID I _ UNABLE TO FIND �GJ / '
� � J / _ I S 1 PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH O
U ; N:68,948 0� off :78° 41' 12" /
ELu
LEV.
948,10p /
ELEV:1,975.38' OH
Q �� W 321.62 LF 1
OH \'� MONITOR WELL J r/�'�
� ON i PILE OF DEBRIS
\ PLANTED FLOWERS IN MULCH \ NI ON , Lu
' N.� GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS:
\ ASPHALT PATH
HIGH TENSION S x N:6 0,116.02', E:937,769.08'
�S \_ POWER POLE O _ ` ' 1,982.4' / \ EL�V: 1,980.46'
H � � W
zAppROx DI S _ ` � J L�
OH RECTION S� I
21-37772 1
AM \ .` RIM: 1,981.74'
N.C.OG O INV: 1�962.0'
RI
S _ NOOR� . NAD83(2011)� \
_ 1 \
1,9778
�g 17' OH MH UNKNOWN ,
5 1 /
IN: 1,967.5' y \ S \
OUT: 1,967.2'
S ASPHALT
I S TBM - MAGNAIL
PARKING OH
LOT
S
N.C. GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS:
—
� VAG SPIKE �
� S N:680,373.74', E:938,118.89' _ ELEV: 1,981.07'
I
—S \- \
I MH 21-14765 �— \ S� MH 21-37773
I RIM:1,980.54' \ \ RIM:1,979.52'
INV: 1,962.1'
20
SANlTR
' S \ \ D'e 96> p. 6 EAS
_ _e 31 EMENT S \
- ' \ \, MH 21-14764 \
`,979.39'
\
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 13+25.00 — STA. 28+00.00)
-- Q
-- C
1990-_ M 6,
� N
O
Ln r.-
+ c))
(.
0 II
2i U) of
1980—
1
1
z
—�-- — — _/\r — 4--
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
f
Q
J
r— M
M Lo
Ch
+ C))
N
CIO N I I
C/) of
i
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
w
60" DIP @
0.02%
w
° 1950—
b �
z
CO
CIS
0) LM
c
M
Lo
I I
~
LO
0 1940
C37
i t
M
m
II
O z
II
z
�
II
z z
O —
"
`
O
z
z z
s
r
>>
z
z
o CD
cmf
— —
- -
O
j
_
C
C9
_
CD
C9
1930
13+25 13+50
o
n
14+00 14+50 15+00
15+50 16+00 16+50
17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00
19+50 20+00
20+50
21+00
21+50
22+00
22+50 23+00 23+50
0
0
0
u
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE
(STA.
13+25.00
—STA.
28+00-00)
50 0 25
5
50 100 150
0
f
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
60" DIP @ 0.02%
24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50
r
w
00
(, i M
Lo Oq
CS) LM
II d')
H 11
Z)
OZ
z z
0 CD
cm (.0
26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50
I
I
970
•.i
950
940
---J 1930
28+00
U
�
O
c
o
p0+
O
m
00
W
cv
_
Z
U
v ,
L u
I—
I
N
Lo
O
oC
Z_
LL
O
Lu
ILL
W
111
cV
W
H
o
J
Q
�
J
+
M
cle
(n
°}0
W
Z
LU
U
�
U
Q
cn
13W•
W
Q
t]
Z
0
a
U
U
LU
Q

MH #11
/
AMON
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
/
MH #10
N.C. GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS:
N:679,918.87', E:937,206.00'
STA. 35+85.91 LINE "A"
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
( )
ELEV: 1,977.38'
�
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
>
-
STA. 32+12.48 LINE "A"
-
S79° 13' 48"W 612.50 LF
\
`
_
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
n
ASPHALT
\
\
2
— — -- — -
- — —
— _-
PA
r
1
-
S79° 13' 48' W 373.43-
Z
— -
ASPHALI-PATH
\
'
------------
INFO
a O
/ 1
' A ;
,�
STAND (TYPE
000
GRID G
BENCH AMON
N.C. GRID NAD83(201 1)
F —
�Ft\00
TYP
COORDS:
i
I f� G
�aI
O
_
`
�- i
00
N O
------ STAND
INFO N:679,917.03',
(TYP)
E:936,898.54'
��//��
CD
CjN
I �
WOOD
BRIDGE
i
O
� ---- --- ---- - --
ELEV:1,977.29'
m
SpHP
I •� � � —
--
BENCH
'
-
m
AMON
97�
N:680,081.85', E:937,554.18' ��-
1 (TYP)
//
_�
\
------------ - ----- -
m ,
ELEV: 1,982.72' v f y
O
WOOD
BRIDGE
/
,�
---------- -
II
,.%
-Qo
-------------
15: HDPE INV: 1,971.55'
--76,
1 \� INV: 1,97 .67'
- -
-----------
--------------------------
NC°GRID NAD83(2011)
MH #12
I'I I
COORDS:
N:680,051.74',
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
I
ELEV:1,976.1
STA. 39 88.57 LINE "A" --
\
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
--_-------�
t
1
RIM: VF1,982.07'
IN: 1, 966.4'
OUT: 1,961_1'
S��� —
7r:
MH
RIM:1,980.92' AMBC
ASPHAL
I NICDOT CLAIMS MAIN
I � -Lu
-- --
I MW W I
Q
U1 0-
I v) a I
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 28+
SCALE: I"=50'
l\ a
\ ROWSOF8"X8" ,
\ WOOD POSTlij
® co
O
AMON® '+ Lw \ 830 ji
N.C. GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS: 18' DO„w4 , ui
N:680,144.34', E:936,623.21' ! —co
— S— — — ELEV: 1,977.83, 2`5.00 LF
S— _ MH 65-37776
S� SHOWN PER MSD GIS
S— _ UNABLE TO FIND -
-- \
_ -- S-_ -
- PATH
T
ATH y
° N.C. GRID NAD83( 011) \ ,
— COORDS:
S-A;680,140.78,
E V: 1,,333.68'
ELEV:1,978.80 �
00-00 - STA. 42+00-00)
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
00
_00
�-o
irQ
Oz
o
O�
UQ
ZQ
Z
2000
Q
Q � Q
� J �
J 0
199 v co CD Lo � � 1990
00 u')
N r6 + ?
L 00 L6
00
O N - M II + 10-1
— c'') I I Q N 0
-
198 ' - — � � � 1980
197 ` J 1970
1960 1960
g
f
2
'a
60"DIP @0.02%
1
1940
1930 '
28+00 28+50 29+00
50 0 25 50
3I (�KHF'h11C: SC:HLt
f
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
29+50 30+00 30+50 31+00 31+50
Lo
rn
cyi
Lo rn
rn LO
u °')
II
O z
z z
32+00 32+50 33+00
60" DIP @ 0.02%
33+50 34+00 34+50 35+00 35+50
w§
N 2
0
4 C',
Lo c
rn a
L;
u 6
� u
� 2
O _
z 22
CC
36+00
60" DIP @ 0.02%
36+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00 39+50
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 28+00-00 - STA. 42+00.00)
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= So, ; VERT. 1 11=10,
o I`
.4 c_
m d
u a
II
O 2
zz
m P.
40+00 40+50 41+00
41+50
1950
1940
U �
� O �
00+
Clz�
a =U
U
\LJ LZ W N
0 � �I
U � O w
LL o
Iwo oU)
J +
Lu 00
O O (n Y
LU W
Z `L O
0 0 Q
ke
op
O �O
W
Q
Z
O
H
a
U
v7
LU
0
6
JO�S�RIC T • eN,,o�
1930 6J
42+00 QC?
Lij � z
W �' N
O
�0�0 • 6v�G 4,
�13 W

I '1 I FFE:
1 It
1 I 1 STORY
I BLOCK BUILDI
I 1 STORY I
I
✓ER FRONT STUDIO, LLC BLOCK BUILDING
D.B. 4235, P. 803 FIFE: 1,980.92' i
I. 14P. 73 & P.B. 72, P. 53 ; 1
PIN:9637-69-0895
'ANd 1 0116-3SS1H1 1
Sd" �N1° 11ne I
I It
z
I
Jr /
2 /
"re,
�°-�
�"Y'
P\NG
r � PSPNP
a
o�
m
U co
m
m
CONTROL BOX
MH #13
r (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) — s.
s— STA. 44+13.57 LINE "A"
C14 PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH —
FLOW METER
50-3033006????� ? — — -------
2000
1990
1980
1970
WeDii
60"DIP @0.02%
ofL
O
=I 1940
u
e
193
42+00 42+50 43+00
u
0
0
O
_ 50
0
25 50
n
�I GRAPHIC SCALE
43+50
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
1
1
1
1
1
N ASPHALT PAVEMENT
MH 65-21358
RIM:1,984.50
N INV:1,972.50' _ —
(NOT SURVEYED) — — — — — — —
Q
C
J
O
O
M aD
+
—vim
� u �
2U)Q
60"DIP @0.02%
_O v
00
C7
r LO
II O
DII
OZ
Z Z
co co
44+00 44+50 45+00 45+50
N
C
J
M N
C)
+
C.0�
U)Of
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 42+00-00 — STA. 56+50-00
SCALE: 1"=50'
S— _ OHU—
S-----S—
,MH
UNABLE TO INVERT - FULLS
'
. W� I
MH /
Q
OWN PER MSD GIS
a
TO FIND _) MH
0f
RIM:
U
MH
Lu
RIM:1,981.86'
0
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. I Hill iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii lill Hill 1-1-M
EXHIBIT ONLY.
Q
J
-
C4 �
C
0) O
J
+ O
O
Ln
O
O
cM0
L0
II
�rn
+
—
�c~nof
�
u
�U)Of
60" DIP @ 0.02% w
`
§ 60" DIP @ 0.02%
w
ao
w
? cn
co
N
4
N Lo
N
N M
LO
0)4
—
L LLo
CV
cM
LO I I
O
I I
O
II II
Ln
O
O
Z F
>
> O
Z
z
Z
z
z
z
z
O
O
-
CO
CO
O
O
CID
Q0
46+00 46+50 47+00 47+50 48+00
48+50 49+00 49+50
50+0
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE
(S
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
O
04
2000
1990
�.
1980
1970
60" DIP @ 0.02%
•m
w § 60"DIP @0.02%
1950
'4 ,
Lo
LO
II O
DII
OZ
1940
0
1930
50+50
51+00 51+50
52+00
52+50
53+00 53+50 54+00 54+50 55+00 55+50 56+00 56+50
TA. 41
+ 00.00 —
STA.
56+50-00)
I
RICT•V&j
ti
'�6
s z
A\ v
. a O
'13 W •

J Lo MH #21
a ('r — -\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 56+60.11 LINE "A"
LLB PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH L
Lu 11 GRASS
//2� ,
C/ )
w
\ S60° 50' 04"LLJ W 505.55 LF
co
W
Z � \ /
_ \ \ \ GRASS
gspy�� ,A
5 S q Ty
G \
\\
S\ \ MH 65-21372
RIM: 1'
\ �INV. 1,963.5'
s,�q NTFN �hjO��
��,cFFi1 ,T
\
\
2010
Q
J
199 c+o
�L�
� u
�U�
1980
P� 1
INV. IN = 1954.43' (SW)
IKIV 01 IT = 1Qc;d AT rnIl
1940
1930 '
56+50 57+00
0
0
O
` 50
s
0
25 50
0
nl C3KAF'HIU bUALt
f
i
57+50
60"DIP @0.02%
FLORA J. WILSON \
.} D.B. 5674, P. 195
� 4L P.B. 12, P. 28
/ PIN:9638-40-2229
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 56+5
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
58+00 58+50 59+00 59+50 60+00 60+50 61+00 61+50
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
MH #23 VENTED
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
I STA. 64+87.78
PRn\/inF NF\N in, ILIA RAH
MH #24
\ao \\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\\\ \ \ STA. 65+52.20 LINE "A"
N PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
PIN:9637944030
CULTIVATION \ BILTMORE COMPANY /
D.B. 0244, PG. 0056
\ \ \\ \ \
ILI
\\\\
\\\ OpOSF\
OS��A \ \ cods R
• \� \\\ \ \\ ANT \ \
04,
co
co
MH#25 \\��
\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 70+52.20 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH \
0.00 - STA. 71 + 00.00)
Q0
U
CD
� O �
Q �o
00+
OLU
m ter\
U
n� z W
VJ w O %� O N L� L N II
0
_ O
C� LL O Q U
� mow+ o�
O Z) w Lin
O O O�Q 2 Q
4� Y }
v
Y LU W
Z Y O
o U Q
co Co 16�
w
Q
E
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. --
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. Q ==200°
04
Lu ONLY. --
RIP RAP, TYP. � o �
Lo 00
z � o N LoM
ai
> 00 00 +' � 04 a -1990
+ d Lo EXISTING GROUND
FRENCH BROAD RIVER c) "t � N C° II
II � Q
co 0�
Lu,
Lu l/ — — — — _ _ _ — — —1980
J '
lY lLu
LUIU
RIVER BOTTOM —1970
— ELEV .1966.11'±
4 e A A ° A 4 a
a n
°d A 44n .4 _ - a C a
� 60 DIP @ 0.02%
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT, 241 LF
60" INV. IN = 1954.54' (SW)
60" INV. OUT = 1954.54' (NE)
62+00 62+50 63+00 63+50 64+00
60" DIP @ 0.200o 60" DIP @ 0.50%
w
z W
Z �
0
co
LLo M
rn It L0
II rn rn LO
F-
II rn
= II
O z D II
; ; O z
zz
-- zz
-
m m o 0
64+50 65+00 65+50 66+00 66+50 67+00 67+50 68+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 56+50-00 - STA. 71 +00.00)
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=101
68+50 69+00 69+50 70+00
MI5
N
M
Lo N
rn r-�
rn
Z n
O z
z Iz
gin
70+50
•.E
950
940
170 30 CJ�RICT• byi 9
N
G
O
�13 W

00*0
000010
0000
0000
Lu MH #26
Lu (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) MH #27
PIN:9637944030
STA. 73+76.20 LINE "A" BILTMORE COMPANY (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH D.B.0244, PG.0056 STA. 78+76.20 LINE "A" MH #28 —
`— PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) Z
STA. 81 +36.20 LINE "A"CULTIVATION _ J
Lu
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH m
CULTIVATION
S76° 24' 18" 24.00 LF NV=1974.17 L — — — _ _ _ _ — — 1 1 ,
W 3 _ _ CULTIVATION LINEAR
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Z= _— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —� — STREAM --- CULTIVATION -------_ m
LAND
S61° 35' 25 W 500.00 L — —
S7 Now
260.00 LF ,� —
— rn
rn
__/ -
------------------------------------------------
15" HDPE 1 I 1
INV=1972.92 w
`STREAM
INV =1975.08
0
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY"" —
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
�o
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 71 +00.00 - STA. 86+00-00)
SCALE: 1"=50'
2020
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
201d DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. f 2010
EXHIBIT ONLY.
200
2000
Q
Q
_
Q
J
J
C
O 60
J
199
m �
CO 00
+ rn
N �
(.0 ti
1990
Cfl m
� 0000
C\jII
+ d�
N �
� II
CO
�fn�
�fn�
2��
U) 0�
1980
1980
z 1970
1970
v
60" DIP @ 1.05%
v
1960
w
60" DIP @ 0.52%
w
1960
60" DIP @ 0.50%
..
60" DIP @ 0.50%
N
M
� cq
O
(0
0)
I I 0)II
r 195
60" INV. IN = 1958.82' (W)
z
o z
1950
n
60" INV. OUT = 1958.82' (E)
-
zz
zz
--
����
CD CD
194
1940
71+00 71+50 72+00 72+50 73+00
u
73+50 74+00 74+50 75+00
75+50 76+00 76+50 77+00 77+50
78+00 78+50 79+00
79+50 80+00 80+50 81+00
81+50
82+00 82+50 83+00
83+50 84+00 84+50 85+00 85+50 86+00
0
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE
(STA. 71 + 00.00 -STA.
86+00-00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
°
n
F
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
�I GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
LU
Q
0
z
0
a
U
U7
LU
0
6
z
Fmm
O��RICTo vlvlo6 ,I
01 b0
ti
s z
m O
'13 W •

w N
�\\ \Ro N G•3 l,Z�^,1l
\\
Q�, \
Row
MH #29
�� (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
!' \ STA. 86+36.20 LINE "A"
V PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
w\ `\T of �%
�o
am\ \ \ pR \ Ro
N\ \
��\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ OpOSFQ FMp ` \ \ \ \ \Row\
\ RCO
OpOS \ \ _ �STRUc \ \ \ \ \ Ro (n
BILT FO pFRM \ T/O'V Fq sIMORE COMPANY ` \ FMF D.B. 0244, PG. 0056 \ � � \ \\
PROPOSED COIR MATTING 40 /
\ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ SFMFNT \ EROSION CONTROL
STREAM 9� '
\ \ \ \ \ 38° \\ °
1g �49g 11
CUL/AuoN � MH #30 MH #31 \� \ \ \ \ \10 e `4o Spa°
/ WATERTIGHT I R
\\ \ \ \ i(LOCKDOWN ) (LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT) \'Y
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ STA. 91+36.05 LINE "A" STA. 95+26.20 LINE "A" ° \ \\ \ I /j�/
' PROVIDE NEW 10DIA. MH � \ /,
, PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH �qA \\ \, ego�-
\\olei
RO-I'/M
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH ---------'------------------------------ — —�\ Op - o
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ��� ��\ ��\ \ CULTIVATION ?; �qY
\�'�\ �\ C S17° 45' 00"W 390.15 LF
0
_ ----------------- --- ------------
\
TBM MAG NAIL - �j�\MH #32
EL=1979.76 / ' �\\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
CONC. ENDWALL V
STA. 97+16.70 LINE "A"
I
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH �1
/1041-1
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 86+00.00 — STA. 101 +00.00)
SCALE: 1"=50'
2020
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
'011 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 1'010
EXHIBIT ONLY.
200
¢
2000
Q
Q
J
C
=
J
r- Lo
J
p
a)
N �
�
00
C
J
o °°
O
N � —
°'
199
+ rn
+ 0)CO
II
1990
N 00
+
�
1—
II
M
Q
U) 0'
<
cco o 0) D
T of
Q'
Q
2
/
fol
-- . —
—
—
1980
1970
1970
60" DIP @ 0.02%
w 60" DIP @ 0.09%
60" DIP @ 0.25%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
w
z
z
z
z
z
00 CD
�
°�°
(0 N
1960-
o
1960
rn 06
0o
rn 00
0')11
-
- m
11
11
11
F-II
II
II
z
p z
0 Z
Z
0-
0-
zz
zZ
zz
zZ
195
1950
c
O O
O O
CD t0
O O
CD CD
CD CO
Cfl (0
v
Y
n
1940 '
1940
n
i 86+00 86+50 87+00 87+50 88+00
J
0
a
88+50 89+00 89+50 90+00 90+50 91+00 91+50 92+00 92+50
93+00 93+50 94+00
94+50 95+00 95+50 96+00 96+50
97+00 97+50 98+00 98+50 99+00 99+50 100+00 100+50 101+00
Y
O
n
SANITARY
SEWER PROFILE
(STA. 86+00-00 —STA.
101 00.00)
50 0 25 50 l00 150
0
n
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
V 00
I
O
m or'o
_ Lu
z Lu �, N
Lu
o u
O oC Z 0
LL O wbi
= LV O o U)
O
,—�
O ZD LU (.o
O O 00 me 00
Y
Y
m
IL
Z Y O
< w a
0 U <
0IIII 0
M C9
O / IIII0
O GO
IM 0
W
Q
0
12L
6
Z

V �
/ 1 NApg N.
' GR/p NO >1 0
3 (2011) N R� O+
a8 0 0 U)
- / 1 c� OLU
m
MH #33 I — PIN:9637OMPA / (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) 1
(LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT) - ---PASTURE i BILTMORECOMPANY / , STA. 114+20.72 LINE "A" 11�0 / < cL) ElZ o 0
D.B.0244,PG.0056
STA. 101+81.61 LINE "A" _ - . _ _ _ PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH �V / Lu I N
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH - — PASTURE RECONNECT EXISTING SEWER LINE I/ �� � O � z OO o II
MH #35 1 �, U � w
PIN:9637944030 l 1 (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) 1 (n C� � Q
BILTMORE COMPANY ` -� " / = w o U)
D.B. 0244, PG.0056 MH #34 � J STA. 110+80.58 LINE A � — _ _ _ 1 � �' � _ +
Lu PASTURE WHY DIES TCE END „ � (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) ui PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — O J
Lij HERE? _ - STA. 105+80.58 LINE "A" " - — _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — cam, O me o
(� PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH _ _ _ _ _ — —
_ _ / �1 �� O O cn Y
( S20° 11 26"E 340.14 LF 1 J Y =
/� _ _ _ I PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT _ — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ice m o
_ � � PASTURE _ _
�W/� _ I_—___r _____— v) Y o
vl — — — — — — — — _ J PASTURE _ — _ — — — - _ _ _ — —� — — / N / S `U 0
_ _ /
PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT NV=1975.77 / ABANDON AND PLUG / j o v Q
W _� °-------- ------------- S20° 11'26"E500.00LF _ -
EXISTING SEWER LINES
S 11 59 37 E 398.97 LF =` � J _ —� � � � � � ✓ / •
O
�RQtOS�D20 WIDE
TEMPORARY EASEMENTr—
Ile
— — — �_\ — — — — — — _------------------- — — T �J v-=
/ I --^�'ly1i� " � �- ABANDON
\ J PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH \ — _ _ \ I / I--� �r.-
` EXISTING MH
MSD SMH #50-45003
\_ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RIM=1980.68
�/ / 1. /—`_ �� �_ - ��.1/INV OUT=1973.38
•-:.._ ..-..-..� i.r�� • =-- =- �.� -1 `' -:`_ � �.- --- - -:-- INV IN-1973.68
ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER LINES
\ F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
-qqq� I
2020
201
20
1
1980-T—
1970
Q
J
O ti
� Co
M
O + 00
M O
M II
co of
Q
N
C
J
M
L
Oo
0000
t
Lo �
O
M II
2 U) Of
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 101 +00.00 — STA. 115+00.00)
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
2020
Q
C
J
Q
00
� O
�
O O
C
r;
1990
+
N
Lo
_
ti
co
II
r,-:
fn of
O
O
M
II
U) �
1980
0
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02% Z
60" DIP @ 0.02%
Z
Z
W
r
Z
M
ir)
U) Lo
fn
N
10
cn
ao
(.0-
Z
e
M
00
rnoo
Co
M
cJ
O O
1960
�M
-(o
0)00m
O
00 -
II
C II
O -
O It
u
O
II
f-
O
II
Z
II II
°
Z)Z
0—
Z
Ozz
z
z Z
Z Z
Z Z
i
1950
Z
--
Z
oo
p
(oc(o
oo-
(o
(o 80
C.0
CD
1940
n
101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 109+00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00 113+50 114+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 101 +00.00 — STA. 115+00.00)
114+50
970
•.1
1950
' 1940
115+00
N Gv
W
Q
0
A
12ce
6
Z
ISCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
IM 0

u '
e
50 0 25 50 100 150
//�� K
VJ BI
' D
Lu PASTURE ,
PROP Z
OSED TEMPORARY C NO CONSTRUCTION r o =� m
(� — _ N EASEMENT
W________- - m
� S34° 08 56' — — S46° 11' 28"E 52.43 LF cn
E 321.07 LF =
►u ____ m
Z_ 8"VCP> PRIVATE — — - m
�-S ----� S-----S}—
J
TB MAG NAIL
EC
POSSIBLE CONC. DECK
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 117+41.79 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 115+00-00 — STA. )
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
115+00 115+50 116+00 116+50 117+00
2020
2010
2000
1990
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
980 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1970
1960
1950
1940
117+50117+75
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 115+00.00 — STA. )
EXHIBIT ONLY.
U
cn
-'
4-
p
oC
Oo
o
o
O
O
O
m
m
c7l
=va
U
oC
(—'
I
N
O
L
L u
Z
O
N
II
Obi�--Iinro
LL
O
=
LL.
O
W
o
J
Q
Lu
O
0
r
O
O
(n
r
Y
�>
Q
J
Y
�V
m
Y
0
W
v
Z
Y
O
�
=
a
0
U
Q
M-jv
V di
W
Q
0
Z
O
a
U
W
0
O
Z
Lmm
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
'13 W •

CARRIER BRIDGE
PUMP STATION
kL
ifir.
0
0
n`
1000 0 500 1000
GRAPHIC SCALE
2000 3000
1 INCH = 1000FEET
4
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
OVERALL SANITARY SEWER PLAN
SCALE'. 1"=1000'
N.C. GRID NORTH
NAD83(2011) NAVD88
w
Q
0
9
!2L
o U)
a >
W
U
w
0
0

MH #2 /
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) ;
STA. 1+73.14 LINE "A" j
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH /
MH #1 SSMH #21-14743
RIM:1,976.27' _
LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) INV: 1,961.0' \ F
STA. 0+00.00 LINE "A" =1 TBM BOLTING V_M, MH #3 R
ON SW RIM OF SM T�� E N
PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH ! EL=1976.08 `� (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) C I�
SSMH #21-14742 i
STA. 5+53.97 LINE "A" D
R Q A
NV:1,960.4' f / — L �_ _ _ — PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
R
R�M: 1,976.34'INVERT ELEV. _ _ _ '_ MH # 21-14744 I tT
'�=— —
1950.00'
F RIM: 1,978.85' E 16
4 L© _ _
S57° 3,tW 173 1 T eASE26aNT#1 — /— 1
-, S75° �_ INV: 1,960.9'
PERMANENT EASEMENT#2 - 281
DB 5389/PG 286 pERMANEN �- MIA/
\, �RGP- D.B. 398, p� _ - � a48"RCP - - _ - _ � • �
<48'
- \_— - MH#4
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 9+51.03 LINE "A"
_� AMON^.� _ �- _. _ - _ PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
J _ - ` - N.C. GRID NAD83 2011 COORDS: '� - . _ - _
CITY OF ASHEVILLt \\\ \ )
PIN 9638-90-9798 ,ITY OF ASHEVILLE \ \ $ = N:680,712.2T, E:939,758.16' _!""i `-- • - . - . MH #21-14745 MH #5
/ ! CITY OF ASHEVILLE y� �� ''�� ASPHgLT P S76° �- �-
PIN 9638-90-9746 \\�� r „ _ - _ RIM: 1.979.67' LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
PIN9648-00-1832 1 D.B. 5242,PG. 1141 \�� O I�VfL6k_ OHI�EV:1,976.21' PATH 20 05 w - _ ( )
D.B. 1659,PG.436 TP-T11-29-18 �' P.B. 10,PG.96 D.B.5095,PG. 1167 �� �� �� ' 397. — - NV: 1,961.3' "
BRIDGE U / P.B. 10,PG. 96 P.B. 10.PG.__ — _ .� _ 06 LF _ --- - •_ _ — STA. 12+76.79 LINE A" M
r� \ \ —T —--=P °_ _ off �— _ _ PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
4 _ / 'J \ 1! t 0- I / t, �� • MH #21-37431 /J
�/ / •^yam, \ \ice(j�Y-7g��,CA �H BASIN _ �_ RIM: 1,976.8T LL
GR: 1,973.87' INV: 1,961.0' , L
.V'� - - INV:1,971.7' -1bd
w ham= _ +_
HIGH TENSION -9 Nd S b �� w
_ PO_WERPOLE=_�� S76° 7' QQQST_ _... W
MSD MH #21-14741 �J � — -C U O — �S ——�19$A�- O AMON 48"VV 325. t r� - —��' w
RIM SSMH #21-17475 O _ - /- _ ` `* X _
_ �� A 3 2011) COORDS: 6 LF
v RIM: 1,993.59' \ \ INV: 1, A ✓ / / INV.=1961.20 ��= a 980.4u . =� MBQ A D � \ `� _ 5.65 \ - -
_ 1Tr0AD Tom; N: V:1,9.
❑ NV: 1,976.1' �' _� _ ASPHALT p E
V MENT ���
�_ � ` ED �'ERMANEN � o"u�L:`° \' LU
LU
vcp
(J)
�� \ Sip /<<q �H S /y \TBM 60d NAIL W/ SHINER \ I I - - - \ �\ 'S ` \ ` ��� \ CATCH BASIN \ %MH #21-431809
ELEV: 1,993.52' --� �� �� ` ` GR: 1,972.9T �/ RIM: g 979.28' LL,I
7� IN:1,969.5; 7
S � � `� INV: 1,970.8' L
/ OUT: 1,969.1' 2
/I I RIM UN NOWN MSD MH 47
t
1 INV.=1970.0' I
7/ I WATER VALVE
IN MANHOLE
P.B.
FLOOR CONCRETE
_�IELEV:1,986.1' C
�ipp
`_ I MH #21-14771
1 (NOT SURVEYED) -
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 0+00.00 — STA. 13+25.00)
SCALE: 1 11= 50'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR
CONSTRUCTION.
2000
2000
EXHIBIT
ONLY.
Q
�
Q
Q
a)_
Q
CD
1990
N
c
J
N
M oo
rn
O
_ 1990
�
f� 00
(h
O
O
00
M�
LO O
��
+
CAD
+ 0)O
O
+ I`
+
CO LO
0')
II
04
LO II
O
Q II
7 II
II
= <
2
= Q
_��
���
=Q�
�07�
���
�c~nof
1980
�U)�
1980
1970
1960
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
= 1950
g0' DIP @ 1 c07%
w
zLO
w
w ..
LU..
LO
Y
O
f
M
(� M
Ch
M O
Lo Lq
Ch lj
m
aLO
()
O M
m M
(
- h
�
M
a
O
O
�
II d)
r V)
II
II
a 1940
o
rn
II
z
II
z
pz
II
Oz
p
p
z z
o
z
zz
zz
z z
--
m
U
j
Z
- —
co f
- -
O o
(0
o CD
cm cD
-
°
O
t°
1930
Y
n -1+00 -0+50
z
J
J
Z
o
0+00 0+50 1+00
1+50 2+00
2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50
6+00 6+50
7+00 7+50 8+00
8+50 9+00
9+50
10+00
10+50 11+00 11+50
12+00 12+50
a
m
U
0
0
n
m
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE (STA.
0+00-00 —
STA.
13+25-00)
50 0 25 50
o
100 150
0
n
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
�I GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
970
1960
950
940
' 1930
13+00 13+25
U �
Q � O
Ln
c9' O p +
�', O� tY m
Co w
u
z L u N
CD
4� LUI o Ln
O ce Z O O I
LL. O w J
C = W O
O O Lh Q
J Y 2
Ln Y
Y LU ow
Z Y O
LU
o U Q
\�O
�Q••yuj
�, _
O ��r3fT111\\
O �O
L A
CD
w
Q
II
11Le
O CO
H
a_
W
co
LU
0
z
OS�RICT• v,,,,o� \
� 60
ti
9 t'Z
13W•

N
W WOOD DECK MH #6 \ \ MH #9
�— —
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) - � �_ � - � �_ � � _ (LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT)
' / STA. 16+50.73 LINE STA. 25+99.98 LINE
A
PROVIDE NEW10 DIA' MH PROVIDE NEW 110' D A MH
W -
� MH 21-14746 � �
W ASPHALT PATE' RIM:1,977.99'
I _
574� 39' INV:1,961.7' MH #7 PILE OF DEBRIS S7go I MONITOR WELL
W HIGH TENSION 13 W 373.94 LF _ - _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) 13 48 W 335.61 LF
z /' STA. 19+72.35 LINE "A" r �2LF MH #8
OH POWERPOHI ASPHALT \ / PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH 1 292' % (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) a
J NCO N �— OH PARKING L�T Y / - MH 21-37771 \ Q"
c AD O / \ O SHOWN PER MSD GIS 0 33' STA. 22+64.37 LINE "A"
\ GRID I _ UNABLE TO FIND �GJ / '
� � J / _ I S 1 PROVIDE NEW 10 DIA. MH O
U ; N:68,948 0� off :78° 41' 12" /
ELu
LEV.
948,10p /
ELEV:1,975.38' OH
Q �� W 321.62 LF 1
OH \'� MONITOR WELL J r/�'�
� ON i PILE OF DEBRIS
\ PLANTED FLOWERS IN MULCH \ NI ON , Lu
' N.� GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS:
\ ASPHALT PATH
HIGH TENSION S x N:6 0,116.02', E:937,769.08'
�S \_ POWER POLE O _ ` ' 1,982.4' / \ EL�V: 1,980.46'
H � � W
zAppROx DI S _ ` � J L�
OH RECTION S� I
21-37772 1
AM \ .` RIM: 1,981.74'
N.C.OG O INV: 1�962.0'
RI
S _ NOOR� . NAD83(2011)� \
_ 1 \
1,9778
�g 17' OH MH UNKNOWN ,
5 1 /
IN: 1,967.5' y \ S \
OUT: 1,967.2'
S ASPHALT
I S TBM - MAGNAIL
PARKING OH
LOT
S
N.C. GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS:
—
� VAG SPIKE �
� S N:680,373.74', E:938,118.89' _ ELEV: 1,981.07'
I
—S \- \
I MH 21-14765 �— \ S� MH 21-37773
I RIM:1,980.54' \ \ RIM:1,979.52'
INV: 1,962.1'
20
SANlTR
' S \ \ D'e 96> p. 6 EAS
_ _e 31 EMENT S \
- ' \ \, MH 21-14764 \
`,979.39'
\
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 13+25.00 — STA. 28+00.00)
-- Q
-- C
1990-_ M 6,
� N
O
Ln r.-
+ c))
(.
0 II
2i U) of
1980—
1
1
z
—�-- — — _/\r — 4--
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
f
Q
J
r— M
M Lo
Ch
+ C))
N
CIO N I I
C/) of
i
60" DIP @ 0.02%
60" DIP @ 0.02%
w
60" DIP @
0.02%
w
° 1950—
b �
z
CO
CIS
0) LM
c
M
Lo
I I
~
LO
0 1940
C37
i t
M
m
II
O z
II
z
�
II
z z
O —
"
`
O
z
z z
s
r
>>
z
z
o CD
cmf
— —
- -
O
j
_
C
C9
_
CD
C9
1930
13+25 13+50
o
n
14+00 14+50 15+00
15+50 16+00 16+50
17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00
19+50 20+00
20+50
21+00
21+50
22+00
22+50 23+00 23+50
0
0
0
u
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE
(STA.
13+25.00
—STA.
28+00-00)
50 0 25
5
50 100 150
0
f
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
60" DIP @ 0.02%
24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50
r
w
00
(, i M
Lo Oq
CS) LM
II d')
H 11
Z)
OZ
z z
0 CD
cm (.0
26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50
I
I
970
•.i
950
940
---J 1930
28+00
U
�
O
c
o
p0+
O
m
00
W
cv
_
Z
U
v ,
L u
I—
I
N
Lo
O
oC
Z_
LL
O
Lu
ILL
W
111
cV
W
H
o
J
Q
�
J
+
M
cle
(n
°}0
W
Z
LU
U
�
U
Q
cn
13W•
W
Q
t]
Z
0
a
U
U
LU
Q

MH #11
/
AMON
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
/
MH #10
N.C. GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS:
N:679,918.87', E:937,206.00'
STA. 35+85.91 LINE "A"
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
( )
ELEV: 1,977.38'
�
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
>
-
STA. 32+12.48 LINE "A"
-
S79° 13' 48"W 612.50 LF
\
`
_
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
n
ASPHALT
\
\
2
— — -- — -
- — —
— _-
PA
r
1
-
S79° 13' 48' W 373.43-
Z
— -
ASPHALI-PATH
\
'
------------
INFO
a O
/ 1
' A ;
,�
STAND (TYPE
000
GRID G
BENCH AMON
N.C. GRID NAD83(201 1)
F —
�Ft\00
TYP
COORDS:
i
I f� G
�aI
O
_
`
�- i
00
N O
------ STAND
INFO N:679,917.03',
(TYP)
E:936,898.54'
��//��
CD
CjN
I �
WOOD
BRIDGE
i
O
� ---- --- ---- - --
ELEV:1,977.29'
m
SpHP
I •� � � —
--
BENCH
'
-
m
AMON
97�
N:680,081.85', E:937,554.18' ��-
1 (TYP)
//
_�
\
------------ - ----- -
m ,
ELEV: 1,982.72' v f y
O
WOOD
BRIDGE
/
,�
---------- -
II
,.%
-Qo
-------------
15: HDPE INV: 1,971.55'
--76,
1 \� INV: 1,97 .67'
- -
-----------
--------------------------
NC°GRID NAD83(2011)
MH #12
I'I I
COORDS:
N:680,051.74',
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
I
ELEV:1,976.1
STA. 39 88.57 LINE "A" --
\
PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH
--_-------�
t
1
RIM: VF1,982.07'
IN: 1, 966.4'
OUT: 1,961_1'
S��� —
7r:
MH
RIM:1,980.92' AMBC
ASPHAL
I NICDOT CLAIMS MAIN
I � -Lu
-- --
I MW W I
Q
U1 0-
I v) a I
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 28+
SCALE: I"=50'
l\ a
\ ROWSOF8"X8" ,
\ WOOD POSTlij
® co
O
AMON® '+ Lw \ 830 ji
N.C. GRID NAD83(2011) COORDS: 18' DO„w4 , ui
N:680,144.34', E:936,623.21' ! —co
— S— — — ELEV: 1,977.83, 2`5.00 LF
S— _ MH 65-37776
S� SHOWN PER MSD GIS
S— _ UNABLE TO FIND -
-- \
_ -- S-_ -
- PATH
T
ATH y
° N.C. GRID NAD83( 011) \ ,
— COORDS:
S-A;680,140.78,
E V: 1,,333.68'
ELEV:1,978.80 �
00-00 - STA. 42+00-00)
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
00
_00
�-o
irQ
Oz
o
O�
UQ
ZQ
Z
2000
Q
Q � Q
� J �
J 0
199 v co CD Lo � � 1990
00 u')
N r6 + ?
L 00 L6
00
O N - M II + 10-1
— c'') I I Q N 0
-
198 ' - — � � � 1980
197 ` J 1970
1960 1960
g
f
2
'a
60"DIP @0.02%
1
1940
1930 '
28+00 28+50 29+00
50 0 25 50
3I (�KHF'h11C: SC:HLt
f
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
29+50 30+00 30+50 31+00 31+50
Lo
rn
cyi
Lo rn
rn LO
u °')
II
O z
z z
32+00 32+50 33+00
60" DIP @ 0.02%
33+50 34+00 34+50 35+00 35+50
w§
N 2
0
4 C',
Lo c
rn a
L;
u 6
� u
� 2
O _
z 22
CC
36+00
60" DIP @ 0.02%
36+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00 39+50
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 28+00-00 - STA. 42+00.00)
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= So, ; VERT. 1 11=10,
o I`
.4 c_
m d
u a
II
O 2
zz
m P.
40+00 40+50 41+00
41+50
1950
1940
U �
� O �
00+
Clz�
a =U
U
\LJ LZ W N
0 � �I
U � O w
LL o
Iwo oU)
J +
Lu 00
O O (n Y
LU W
Z `L O
0 0 Q
ke
op
O �O
W
Q
Z
O
H
a
U
v7
LU
0
6
JO�S�RIC T • eN,,o�
1930 6J
42+00 QC?
Lij � z
W �' N
O
�0�0 • 6v�G 4,
�13 W

I '1 I FFE:
1 It
1 I 1 STORY
I BLOCK BUILDI
I 1 STORY I
I
✓ER FRONT STUDIO, LLC BLOCK BUILDING
D.B. 4235, P. 803 FIFE: 1,980.92' i
I. 14P. 73 & P.B. 72, P. 53 ; 1
PIN:9637-69-0895
'ANd 1 0116-3SS1H1 1
Sd" �N1° 11ne I
I It
z
I
Jr /
2 /
"re,
�°-�
�"Y'
P\NG
r � PSPNP
a
o�
m
U co
m
m
CONTROL BOX
MH #13
r (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) — s.
s— STA. 44+13.57 LINE "A"
C14 PROVIDE NEW 10' DIA. MH —
FLOW METER
50-3033006????� ? — — -------
2000
1990
1980
1970
WeDii
60"DIP @0.02%
ofL
O
=I 1940
u
e
193
42+00 42+50 43+00
u
0
0
O
_ 50
0
25 50
n
�I GRAPHIC SCALE
43+50
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
1
1
1
1
1
N ASPHALT PAVEMENT
MH 65-21358
RIM:1,984.50
N INV:1,972.50' _ —
(NOT SURVEYED) — — — — — — —
Q
C
J
O
O
M aD
+
—vim
� u �
2U)Q
60"DIP @0.02%
_O v
00
C7
r LO
II O
DII
OZ
Z Z
co co
44+00 44+50 45+00 45+50
N
C
J
M N
C)
+
C.0�
U)Of
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 42+00-00 — STA. 56+50-00
SCALE: 1"=50'
S— _ OHU—
S-----S—
,MH
UNABLE TO INVERT - FULLS
'
. W� I
MH /
Q
OWN PER MSD GIS
a
TO FIND _) MH
0f
RIM:
U
MH
Lu
RIM:1,981.86'
0
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. I Hill iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii lill Hill 1-1-M
EXHIBIT ONLY.
Q
J
-
C4 �
C
0) O
J
+ O
O
Ln
O
O
cM0
L0
II
�rn
+
—
�c~nof
�
u
�U)Of
60" DIP @ 0.02% w
`
§ 60" DIP @ 0.02%
w
ao
w
? cn
co
N
4
N Lo
N
N M
LO
0)4
—
L LLo
CV
cM
LO I I
O
I I
O
II II
Ln
O
O
Z F
>
> O
Z
z
Z
z
z
z
z
O
O
-
CO
CO
O
O
CID
Q0
46+00 46+50 47+00 47+50 48+00
48+50 49+00 49+50
50+0
SANITARY
SEWER
PROFILE
(S
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
O
04
2000
1990
�.
1980
1970
60" DIP @ 0.02%
•m
w § 60"DIP @0.02%
1950
'4 ,
Lo
LO
II O
DII
OZ
1940
0
1930
50+50
51+00 51+50
52+00
52+50
53+00 53+50 54+00 54+50 55+00 55+50 56+00 56+50
TA. 41
+ 00.00 —
STA.
56+50-00)
I
RICT•V&j
ti
'�6
s z
A\ v
. a O
'13 W •

STA. X+XX.XX END LINE "B"
10' x 15' JUNCTION BOX
(SEE SHEET PL-29)
S62° 42' 05"E 16.40 LF
S46° 11' 28"E 52.42 LF
PIN:9637944030
MH #34
_
BILTMORE COMPANY
D.B.0244, D.P.0056
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
MH #35
S43° 09' 18"E 480.00 LF
STA. 120+03.30 LINE "A"
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
MH #36 (VENT)
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
STA. 122+14.55 LINE "A"
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT)
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
STA. 127+44.55
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
=
—
—
_ — __—-----------
—______________
_�Z
_
®
S39° 29' 16"E 530.00 LF
_
—1_—__-- E211.25�F
56' 14"
mL
—�
g49°
—� ---
—s—
m
�/'� ,
__—
<36"RCP-- —S�
— —
-
---
s— — -- -- --- —
—S— —S— —S— —`36"RCP ---
-S - -S -
m
U)
--- _S
---
-S - --- --- ---
—S — —S —
—S
_
-- —S—
S
----
VJ
m=
-
_-
---
GRAVEL ROAD
------- - ------
2
mr_
�m
__----
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
___
i m
m ,
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
r
PERMANENT EASEMENT
L
_
MSD SMH #50-28075
'
/
a
I
RIM-1983.65MSD
INV-1968.46
RIM S 84.06MH 0-4500
- . _ • �- ' -
1
v�
NV=1968.81
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
N48° 41' 34"E 18.08 LF
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
I
MSD SMH #50-45004
EXMH MSD #50-462283
RIM=1984.35
(MH# B1)
INV=1969.50
STA. 0+00.00 BEGIN LINE "B"
EXISTING MH TO REMAIN
CONNECT NEW SEWER LINE
lSFF �HFFT PI -9Ql
F R E N C H B R 0 A D R I V E R
MSD SMH #50-462283
RIM=1982.18
INV=1968.01
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. - STA. 128+00-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 501
111
rz
U O � 0
�--' w O J
U p
� O O
00
0 u- N
Q
a� a�uJ
V) o
N
_ ^ < w Cl
O Ln
0 O ^^�11 N
W Q, O W
C,d
m i/i O Q U
= i O o �
o �4 z 4-J M
L--- pw[ c
0 0 LL. as Y =
4-1
}�
�_ m
Ln J LU W
0 v Z Y O
of
= a
U Q
A'
O�\\11111�/ O
co M C9
O �O
W
Q
0
z
aw P
wz =
z C7
J Q
CD z w 2000.00' 2000
� X rn Q VENT ELEV.
N
rn + rn � MH #36 (VENT)
X i z LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
* Q Q g + STA. 127+44.55 LINE "A"
U) U) Of �, p cc'j RIM = 1982.35'
co U II 1990
MH #34
STA. 120+03.30 1 F- - EXISTING GROUND -
RIM = 1982.35'
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.13%
_
z
w ? u
36" INV. IN = 1968.70' (SE)
v� o
36" INV. OUT = 1968.70' (NW)
c.0
Lo
LC
rn
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04%
oo rn
u
6
II D II
36" INV. IN = 1968.70' (SE) 0
z O
60" INV. OUT = 1968.70' NW
j
0
36" INV. OUT = 1968.81' (SW) z
z z
5
M
M M cy
60"DIP @0.02%
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. 36" D.I.P. "°°
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 125+00 126+00 127+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. - STA. 128+00-00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
0
F SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
is
-Lf
970
1960
1950
940
930
J 1920
128+00
W
CD
O �RICT � bN��66�
s
OO
cd
co
13W•

T N
O \
\\ \ -p
20
o
\ PASTURE
\ \ o
\ \ FENCE
PIN: 9637944030 () [] [] []
BILTMORE COMPANY F
\1 ¢ ✓\ PASTURE D.6.0244, D.P. 0056 PASTURE
MH #40 FENCE SHED
•— [1 [1 [1
° \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
J 1 MH #37 ` \' \ FENCE
STA. 138+73.39 LINE "A" 0 0
a / ` �— ° ° [[ FENCE
(LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH a o n n
N MH#38 °— ° o n o o n Z
o o n n n o o � n�n�n
PASTURE STA. 132+24.55 LINE "A" \ \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) MH #39 (VENT) m
W PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH \
W � \ � STA. 134+07.18 LINE "A" (LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT)
_, \ d PROVIDE NEW 6'DIA.MH STA.135+80.39 NE ---------------
_ _ o� o \ \\ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH ROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT — — — — — (n
_ \ P ___ ---- 480.00LF m
Lu S4 _ _ _ PROPOSE TD EM ORq_ ��/ \ ,� _ _ _ — — — — — D PERMANENT EASEMENT
3 09 RY C _ _ _ _ — — ROPOSE_ _ S57° 06' 31 E
18"E480.00LF — P ONSTRUCToI NEgSE i \\ \ _—____--------- P----s---- s _�
ROPpSEp PER _ MENT — — — — — — — — — — 136"RCP —s — — — — —s — — — F m
N1gNENTEAS i �\ S44°23'04„ —____------- ' --s-- _i
44' 23'E 293.00 LFrn
—s EMENT — �82 631"F \ F E 173.21 LF S56° —s — — — — —s — — Fnr—
Z, —S����ice'' 052'MJ OCR_—_ --S--- — _ F C
_; — _ _ _ _ S�`36"RC�SS64 .FOC_— — ® G -- --- — --S_ _
<3_—�� FOC—__ D-- S36"RCP —S— 4--r .--r-
..—.
(°RCP
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT —s <5��� --=FSOC--- — — —
— _ IiS ' ' ---5— — -_G� --FOC
��� _ _ s6 R �S
N
_ _
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
— — _...
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 --.-_ -"�• CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
MSD SMH #50-28072 —
'�--. ,-.•-" RIM=1984.32 —
••- INV=1970.17 — —
CONCRETE • _.-•—
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY TBMMAGNAIL BOAT RAMP
—•-•—.-.r--'-�... __... �••-�.,•J•--�" "-MSD SMH#50-28073
EL=1981.85 RIM=1984.14 — — — 84.50-431294
MH MSD S#
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT MSD SMH #50-45005 INV=1969.99 — — MSD S
MSD SMH #50-28074 RIM=1982.99 — — — INV=1984.78
RIM=1984.73 INV OUT=1969.84
70.10
INV=1969.90 INV IN, (8")=1974.24 — —'
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 128+00-00 — STA. 143+00-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
2010
2
(D
�
Q (D
2000
�
z �
j
J � z
Lo
Q W
00 g
>Z
>NM
EXISTING GROUND O
— —aoLU
M rn EXISTING o N Q
co Y
II FIBER OPTIC CABLE 0 ++ 00
1990
=p<
00�YM�U
co
J
co � EXISTING
OJ <
8" P.V.C. SEWER
1980
1970
2000.00'
VENT ELEV.
MH #39 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIG
STA. 135+80.39
RIM = 1983.68'
(MATCH PAVEMENT)
m-
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.43%
to
N
ti
Z
1960
r
aid
icy
Zo
rnrn
rn
rn
ai
C.0
C.0
0')CIDII
0')
II
II
II
II
0
z
p
z 0
Z
z
z
>
> z
z
° 1950
z_z_
_--
(o
co
i
Cfl
Cfl (.0
CO co
M
M
i
co
co
I 1940
I-
s,
$I 1930
1920 L-
128+00
50
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
0
F- Q
ww
Qz
J
>� o)
>Z co
+00
co
oc�
20<�
J in
a;;;;;;;i
z w
o �
� II
0
O Z
—
z z
M Ico
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
129+00 130+00 131+00 132+00 133+00 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 128+00-00 — STA. 143+00.00)
100 150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
1 INCH = 50 FEET
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
141+00
142+00
2010
is mm
..l
K - l
970
MI -El
950
940
930
1920
143+00
U
+,
DC
w
UU
w
N
{—
0
O
O
J
�
�
z
M
C�
°16
LLL
a
LU
fZ
I-
o
N
O
Q
O
�
W
m
l/1
Q
a
=
i
O
o
U)
O
Z
}-+
00
LLJ
O
O
ILL
rI5
T
2
Q
Y
m
J
W
W
O
`�
Z
Y
O
V)
=
a
U
Q
W
a
0
6
z

2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
I 1960
1
u
u
a
n
1950
0
I
L
1,
EI
�I 1940
L
31
gl 1930
1920 L_
143+00
50
T Q� N
U O
w r
,-I � � a� o
' p o O
z o0
CULTIVATION J fl%pxpy
J
ce: V) o
N _
MH #42 (VENT) Q I N
V V (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) O O O
MH #41 STA. 147+06.39 �' U pC N O U,
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH CO V) O w -1
STA. 143+53.39 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH CULTIVATION � r TM�' _ z � O o �
_ PIN:9637944030 I+1
ILTORE
P O BD.B M0244, D.P. 00 6Y n w r}
__---_------------------- OSEOTEMP ARY MH#43 �O O � Y =
S54° 15' 00"E 353.00 LF _ _ _ _ CpNSTRUCTION E SEMEN (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) CULTIVATION � < ISO
o
— — — — PROPpSEp PERNIA _ _ T STA. 152+34.39 LINE "A" D (n J 0 Lu >
NE EqS PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH O `� � � x
NT _
EME _—__
—s-----s-----s-- s�� NT Vl a L: a
� = a
S-----S-----S— <36"RCP ��S—_ S43°0 �� o U
—S — — — R=VEL ROAD 0 26"E
—FOC— — — FOC— — — — — FOC —__�� FOC S 528-00 LF
FOC—
--s F-c_ — — �
--S__
HEADWALL '---�---'� MH #44 (VENT) -��®� � �i`
U.P.L. 5��� •e
TBM MAG NAIL - ..... - - - - • � � � � _� — — — _ _ _ � � (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) =em s e J �•
EL=19s3.40 . - . F CAB — —s _ STA. 156+49.39
_ POSSIBLECONC.DECK EXISTING 20' EASEMENT �•--- — — — \ � —_ S41° PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH , e,y�� th
— — �� U.P.EBT CARD READER \ _S 47' 1 g'-E 4 J
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 F \ 15.
MSD SMH #50-28071 Oc S 00 LF `
_
�' RIM=1983.44 � ELECTRONIC GATE � � _ _ \ •e � �•\��
INV=1970.64 _ _- I E.JUNC E.
�
— — PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY FOCCABINET t, �s 136"RCP
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
INV=1980.63
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
<18"CMP
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT o '_ O
o\ �\ _ _s — S34° g 22 \ \ \ \
DI. GRATE=1986.15 C) _ ;
INV=1981.55 ' • _,
TBM MAG NAIL m m o INV=1979.77 - \ • - - \ \ _S _ \ 319'O0 4F \ \ \ \ ,L� Q
EL=1986.63 \
A TOP=1986.46 \ \ v
m 5 C.B.INV=1980.86 MSD SMH #50-28069 \ \ \ \S \
m O NIV=19781.100 \ \ \ \
F R E N C H B R O A D RIVE R � � •�• •_---� �� �S\ Z
— \ � co
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 \ �. c
\ �V Z
- - Z z0
O U)
MSD SMH #50-28068 d w RIM=1984.37
INV=1971.22 , co
W
FLOODyyAY SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 143+00-00 - STA. 158+00-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
2
O 2000.00'
Q VENT ELEV.
W LLl
Q Z_
J
rn
�c')8O
Z c,; cfl
3: +
M
ao
O
❑tea'
= 0 <
�J��
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
MH #42 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIG
STA. 147+06.39
RIM = 1983.13'
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
U
H Q
W W
H
Qz
J
>� rn
>Z ico
+ 00
co
CO❑ Ln O
L) II
20<�
J in Of
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
2010
2000.00'
VENT ELEV.
MH #44 (VENT)
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
EXISTING GROUND STA. 156+49.39
RIM = 1983.05' 1990
z
w z
w z
w Z LL
Ch
N U
LO
CD
f�
LO
"J O
I�
N
C�
co�
O
rn
o
I� 6)
O G7
r�
r
II
rn
� II
O II
O II Q
�
II
H
0Z
II
0?
0z
0z
Z
Z
Z t
Z
Z Z
Z
M
M M
M ce)
M Ch lc�
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 150+00 151+00 152+00 153+00 154+00 155+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 143+00.00 - STA. 158+00.00)
100 150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
1 INCH = 50 FEET
156+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
157+00
•:1
970
•.1
950
940
930
1920
158+00
6
z

201
200
199
198
197
gI 196
n
=1 195
51
o
m
E
nl194
L
2 L
=1 193
-
cj \IN,— p n
\ —
��(/\\ MH #45 �� O
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\\ \ STA. 159+68.39 LINE "A" \ — 0 2
\\ \\\ 7. \\ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH — ` 270��
\\\\ \ \\ SF46 \
-
-
S —
�—
. • \ \ \S\ S�oA�R\ \ ohs\ \
04 q
-
-
-
MSD SMH #50-431291 \ \\ \
RIM=1983.51 S, MH #48
INV=1971.46 \\ \ \ \ \ \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\\ \ STA. 170+92.39 LINE "A" �
\ \s \ 5z°A IN, PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH T
MSD SMH #50-28067 \ \\\ \ \ p,3�.
RIM=1985.10 \ \ \ r
_ INV=1971.54 \ \ , J
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY \s6R p0 \ MH #46
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT \\ \ �\ \ \ \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) (LOCKDOWN (VENT) _ — _ _ m
\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ STA. 163+60.39 LINE "A" PIN:9637944030 rP
+4.39 WATERTIGHT) — 75 48' 41"E
343.00 LF
\ \ \ \ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH BILTMORE COMPANY ° T
\ s\ \ \ D.B.0244, D.P.0056 TA
NEW 6 DIA. MH _ — S �36"RCP _ _ 1 "
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT \ \\ \ \ \ \ — _ _ _ —s — — _ DTI
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
\ \\ _ _ _ S78° 53 p4 — _ —s — —� m
rn
14.00LF -- _--
\ —
\ 136"RCP �— �� � � -. --- '— ...
--^.-------
\ ,� •,\ _ GRAVEL ROAp —� �— MSD SMH #50-28064
RIM=1984.17
O -. \ � � INV=197215
_ --�" PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
I
MSD SMH#50-28066 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RIM=1985.15 \ "-"— EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
INV=1971.68 \ /
�Q
ww
Q Z
J
c') 6,
ZOorn
N
Ln 0 Ln
=0��
J
— — PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
-- " � - MSD SMH #50-28065
RIM=1984.81
INV=1972.01
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 158+00.00 — STA. 173+00.00)
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
0
�Q
w
w 2001.00'
Q
Z VENT ELEV.
J
>�
O
Z
o
MH #47 (VENT)
0
CD+
000
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
EXISTING GROUND (o o
C°
II
STA. 166+74.39
ZI:t 0
20<�
-
RIM = 1983.75'
2 J
� Of
�Q
ww
Q Z_
� > J
rn
ZNa�
rn
N
co 0 O
=0��
J in of
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.11%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.03%
�
z
O
7
�
ti
O Cn
N
m
N
ti
rn II
rn
Z
Z
0_
z
»
oz
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z —
Z
-
Z
Z -
—
M
M
O
O co
M
(o
M
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
36" D.I.P.
2010
2000
m
U O
CD i
o �
v O
0 +
Z r
C r w
4.� LU
t4 o
N
QJ O O w
� m t/) O Q
O o �
p � z 000
O O = ul Q Y
D L J ❑ w
O v Z Y O
V) = a
❑ U Q
.�COO co
IWO
O �O
1990 '
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
1930
1920 ' 1920
Y 158+00 159+00 160+00 161+00 162+00 163+00 164+00 165+00 166+00 167+00 168+00 169+00 170+00 171+00 172+00 173+00
U!
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 158+00.00 — STA. 173+00.00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
13N0

U 0
w O J
UMINI o
—'�) OC — Lr,
T w
o 4� z 0000
Q w
p w rz
v°C V
y N
\ Q I o
N
Q O O N II
O
coO Lu a
Q U
STREAM PROPOSED - \ , /' 1 O
MH #49 PAVEMENT SURFACE REPAIR -� �J � M
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) �Ooo �� Lu
\ \ STA. 174+35.39 LINE "A" STREAM PIN: 9637944030 �"9Y \ � Q Q L.L r Y
/ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH BILTMORECOMPANY T-
MH #50 (VENT) D.B.0244, D.P.0056 \ = Q Y �
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) Z o
n , —
m
_ STA. 177+88.39 , D Ln J o w
O
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH PROPOSED COIR MATTING - Z O Q w a
of = a
CULTIVATION PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT MH #52 a PH RivERRoaD
Z ____-- :C------------------ CULTIVATION
� EROSION CONTROL ALTsu
_ _ _ _ _ _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
_ _ S65° 52' 43"E 353.00 LF MH #51 (n
Rj S75° 48' 41"E 343.00 LF PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT _ STA. 184+90.39 LINE "A" _
_ _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH m
��-- 1-®-s-----s---- STA. 181+08.39 LINE "A"
m _-s��—5-----5— <36"RCP— PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH _ -
-s �- - -s - -s _ _ p 46"E 320.00 - - _ - -�27 LF-„EGRAVEL ROAD �� --
V, BRIDGE \
S_� ---------------------
yT _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ —
�� \ �S � c3=„R=P ��
/ GRASS --36"RCP S — oy'`ca M
m ����� S67° 36' 21"E 382.00 LF —�--__s_-
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT ��� s ® ® �� -_s -.�
r PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
\ \ 19IN_ -S----S-----S--- `36"Rs-----S---- S
—S — — — _ <36"RCP — — —
—S —S
ASPHALT WALKING/CYCLING PATH
l \ O
MSD SMH#50-28062
RIM=1982.55
TBM MAG NAIL INV=1972.59 _ ' - - - - \ . / - H
EL=1982.91
POSSIBLE CONC. SLAB PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ,
••� 72"CMP
INV=1974.84 - • - - \ _
\
• ' • • , - - MSD SMH #50-28060
RIM=1985.65
\ INV=1973.97
\ MSD SMH #50-431288
R E N C H TBM MAG NAIL MSD SMH #50-28061 RIM=1985.22
EL=1984.18 RIM=1983.96 \ INV=1973.57
B R O A D RIVER POSSIBLE CONC. SLAB INV=1972.86
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 173+00.00 — STA. 187+50-00)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
202
2020
201
2010
STREAM CROSSING (SC-3)
STREAM CROSSING (SC-4)
C7
2001.00'
�Q
2000-
VENT ELEV.
w
Q
z
J
2000
Ch N
>�
+ CD
N
M
MH #49
MH #50 (VENT)
Lo
U
. II
EXISTING GROUND
1990
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
MH #51
= o
J
< �
1990
�
STA. 174+35.39
STA. 177+88.39
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
� 0-1\
RIM = 1984.02'
RIM = 1981.94'
STA. 181+08.39
RIM = 1982.13'
1980
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
1980
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
EROSION CONTROL
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
° 36" D.I.P. @ 0.29%
36 D.I.P. @ 0.09 /o
36" D.I.P. @ 0.13%
1970
1970
w
z
z
_
w
w
N
co
Lo
�
DD
(''�
�
r—
NLo
r
m
196
II
II
0)II
a'
II
-1960
g
O
II
z
II
„
z
§
o
z
o_
z
0>
zz
»
zz
--
;;
zz
zz
--
Eco
M
coM
coM
-
(o
`o
-
Cfl
co
zoZo
co
1950
n
z
-
1950
1950
i
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
g
194
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1940
n
0
EXHIBIT ONLY.
n
" 1930
1930
d 173+00 174+00
175+00
176+00 177+00 178+00
179+00 180+00 181+00 182+00 183+00 184+00
185+00
186+00 187+00 187+50
0
n
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 173+00.00 —STA. 187+50-00)
50 0 25 50 100
o
150
0
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
W
U)
Is co
O U)
F-
a- j
U
0
6
Z
oS-�Ricr. bN,��
s
z
13W•
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET

12020
12010
12000
11990
11980
0 O
�J 20
MH #54 PROPOSED COIR
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) - GRASS MATTING
STA. 191+47.22 LINE "A" / EROSION CONTROL
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
WALKING TRAIL �yF��/ BILPIN:96 COMPANY
PROPOSED PAVEMENT SURFACE REPAIR
�P���<JG� / FIOODWPY D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056
MH #55 (VENT) S44° 12' 25"E 125.00 LF
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) MH #56 eP°�
STREAM STA. 196+27.21 �SJ�
\ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH (LOCKDOWN W / ATERTIGHT) P,
STA. 201+07.21 LINE "A" PSQ�
_ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
i �' • VEET`EA PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
STREAM I- - - - - - - / •WETLAND • � GRASS -- -
•�S57° 07' 35 E 479.99 LF PROPOSED PERMANENT - - - - - _ / EASEMENT - - GRA � �
/ •DELINEATED 1(VETLAND ® /.'
D.I. GRATE=1983.03 -r_ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INV=1980.43 / i� .._.�.-.._ --- -T - - - . S56°31'21"-------------
E 480.00 LF - -
<36"RCP --- S-----S-----S-----S---
Q� EXISTING 20' EASEMENT -s s- =36"RCP s - - - - -----s----- -�
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
23
/ 1r+ s _
/ / / pgPHALT WALKINGICYCLING Pp 36„R P GRASS \�
S �/J
ASPHALT PATH
/
/s$2° ooll, -1 GRASS VER RO
r' AD
INV=1979.95 OLD
gI
INV=1976.56 ' \ lJ / STREAMf
MSD SMH #50-28058 MH #57
RIM=1984.51 " -' �
PpTM INV=1974.51 MSD SMH #50-45001 / (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
MASSIVE ROCK OUTCROP RIM=1982.1$ �- �. �- - STA. 202+32.21 LINE "A" ,
KNOWN AS "BIG ROCK" ON INV=1974.68 ` _- _-• -.. �" eRi PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
N _.... a
/ TBM MAG NAIL THE ESTATE - - - • - - •' - ' \ _ / •' cF - J
EL=1986.41
MSD SMH #50-28057 MSD SMH #50-28055
MH #53 (VENT)
_ RIM=1986.35
INV=1974.93 RIM=19 MSD SMH #50-28056 INV=1975.65
.93 (LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) F R E N C H B R O A D RIVE R RIM=1985.29 TBM MAG NAIL
STA. 187+65.39 INV=1975.39 EL=1987.14 \ S42° 32' 38"E 450.00 LF CONCRETE BRIDGE \ -
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
MSD SMH #50-28059
/ RIM=1985.37
INV=1974.31
�
PROPOSED VARIABLE ' • WIDTH TEMPORARY SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 187+50.00 - STA. 202+50-00)
CONSTRUCTION
` EASEMENT
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
-36" D.I.P. @ 0.13%
MH #53 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTI
STA. 187+65.39
RIM = 1985.75'
z 1970
�
�
w
�
�
M
u
�
�
II
d)
d
F-
=p
1960
Z
z_ z_
I
E cZoM M
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
STREAM CROSSING (SC-5)
2001.00' O -
VENT ELEV. Q
ww
I\ �
Qz
J
>� N
I N
>Z � N
�00
N
I O M
�o��
EXISTING = 0
Q
l \ 15 HDPE 2 zz�J U) 0�
n
1950
J
w
z
o
O
36" DIP DR-17 (125 PSI) DIPS
U
DIPS OUTSIDE DIA. = 38.300"
1940
INSIDE DIA. = 33.524"
z
AVG THICKNESS = 2.253"
w
WEIGHT = 112.13 LB/FT
m
1930 '
187+50 188+00
0
S
n
50 0 25 50
o
n
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
36"DIP @0.10%
54" DIA. x TBD WALL THICKNESS
STEEL ENCASEMENT PIPE,
MICROTUNNEL
STA. 187+65.39 TO STA. 191 +47.22
36" DUCTILE IRON PIPE
189+00 190+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
aok
z t
J
W
z
z
O
U
0
z
W
WETLAND IMPACT
(WI-4)
OIR MATTING
gTROL
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
2020
STREAM CROSSING (SC-6)
PROPOSEDEROSION CONTROL 2010
= C7
(D Q
2001.00' Q W LU
VENT ELEV. � Z W Q J Z 2000
QJ
MH #55 (VENT) Z C'4 b
N an
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT Z IN, �: Co �
STA. 196+27.21 EXISTING GROUND p o+ 0 Q o o')
RIM = 1982.69' (0 0 C) N II
UN II =O<� 1990
J In ol�
1980
_ 36" D.I.P. @ 0.10% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.21%
� � z
zw zw �c/) 1970
M� �U) (o
M LM(j d7
� M
II II T
II II � II
Oz OZ O? 1960
z z z Z Z Z
(D (.0 (.0 CO M M
co M M (y)
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. I1
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
191+00 192+00 193+00 194+00 195+00 196+00 197+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 187+5
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
EXHIBIT ONLY.
198+00 199+00 200+00
0.00 - STA. 202+50-00)
201+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.12%
202+00
1940
J 1930
202+50
a--� cC L.r1
U O ^
w O J
U =
O
+� ILI 4- +
a� z c
tA � w � N
4.) w M
I o
` N
V_ ^J < w O o Lo
O O O "
DC a O w
cld m �n
(_) i + cn
v l�
O z op
LLJ
0 LL � Q Y =
4� Z m o
O zLULu
a.
2 d
ol U Q
``��►►► I "`��i O
° ca co
O �O
LV
CD
w
Q
0
z
O �RICT o
n
s
o
13W•

PROPOSED COIR MATTING lit
EROSION CONTROL
STREAM
FLOODWAY F� ppD�
STREAM �j� / � , � �(�����
���J�C DWETLANDD
�GO / WELINEAR
TLAND \\
Lo GRASS
PIN:9637944030
BILTMORE COMPANY
J GRASS D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056 MH #59 IqROe �tx- Q0 / / �•Q��
1 MH #58 (VENT) (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) QQ-// O �j
1 (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) STA. 211+04.30 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
w STA. 206+82.21
w / ��
— — — PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH / / / / Q OQO�/
_
W —PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EAS / / / /
LU — — S42° 32' 38"E 450.00 LF — — — — — / GRASS
<36"RCP— — —S — PROPOSED
S42°13 33-7"E-4—22— — — — — --PERMANENT EASEMENT
9
/
/
- —UL)WAY
a
G:
Y
Z
O0
Ocp(9
JGRASS — — — — — — - —S — _ --- — — —
= MSD SMH #50-28054 — — — S — —S _ _ _ <36"RCP /
r 1 RIM=1976.18
f ) GRASS INV-1976.18-
-_ --- - --= EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
--------- GRASS \
--- ---- � PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 S— _
CC
_ — —S — _ _ _ <36"RCP TBM MAG NAIL "
— _S — — EL=1992.28
-- — -
- - \ <36"RCP
F R E N C H
MSD SMH #50-432660
RIM-1989.19
INV=1976.69
\ / " MSD SMH #50-28052 -
-.,� ••, _ .-- — . - RIM==1977.521991.88
MSD SMH #50-28053J INV
B R 0 A D R I V E R -••�-.------ RIM=1989.54
INV=1976.70
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 202+5
mJ6 SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
0.00 - STA. 215+00-00) "
---S-----S----is----
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
U
LU
�
=
O
CD
O
00
I
J
Z
M
a�
w
r
a
oc
C
Q
o
N
_ O
O
OIll
CV
i—I
J
LLI
m
V1
O
Q
U
=
i
O
cc)U)
O
Z
4 -+
00
�
O
O
r
2
ILA
Q
Y
�)
n `
VJ
Z2
}
m
J
W
O
Z
Y
O
w
=
a
0
U
Q
O 60
w
Q
z
Z 0
>
0_
W
W
0
6
Z
1930 ' 1930 y
202+50 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00 213+00 214+00 215+00 �� s
W s
Y � _
O
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 202+50-00 - STA. 21 5 + 00.00) - �g
50 0 25 50 100 150 �. oU j
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
13N0

IN
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
SURFACE REPAIR
ASPHALT SURFACE ^ T
Q
DELINEATE
WETLAND
A�
2020
STONE ARCH TOP CULVERT
"THE LAGOON"
P.L. 1989.7
co
PASTURE V
\
\� ��
�o
oow�
\ `o
\
yv
V�
�Q.
I
I
U
O I
w O J
c 00
LLI 4— 0�
z " N
W N
Lu
V) o
N
_ ^ < w Q O Ln
O O ^^�1 "
W Q, O W
C,d
m i/i O Q U
= i O o cl)
0�1 LLJ zV)
C , LI... ce c: N
o 0 L.L Y =
�00
0 o W
O �� Z
Y p
V) Q Lu a.
U Q
M C9
O �O
w
a
0
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 215+00-00 - STA. 229+00-00) 0
�. SCALE: I"=50'
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
_
¢
2010
w
Q
�
2002.00' w
z
2010
1--z
w Q
z VENT ELEV. Q
J MH #63 (VENT -EXTENSION)
J 3:
00 _ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
w
iv z
°' STA. 224+51.39 EXISTING GROUND z
� Q
�I�
N0++rn
00
RIM=1995.03' 0+��
2001.00' O
00 o
�
N °' (MATCH PAVEMENT)
N U
2000
VENT ELEV.
Y
N II U
<
II 1.-2000
��II
T_C-00
MH#60(VENT)����"��"
T_ o
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
_
—
STA.215+49.12
RIM = 1985.50'
199
_
1990
_
1
O w
1970- (.6 rn
CD
II C')
II
OZ
196 z z
co co
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
195
1940 '
215+00
0
0
n
d
50 0 25 50
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
216+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
-
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.05% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.51% > 36" D.I.P. @ 0.06% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.02%
Z Z W
M Z i:�_ in
C)En
M N:' aN6970
Oti N 0) 00 r-
ti
ti — II
II 0')
W d')
II F—
II II II Z) II
O z ? II O z O Z
» °Z >; zz
z z z z z z z
z
_ _ _ _ 1960
Co CO co (M M M
cM co (o <D
M M
1950
Jill
RICT o v/vy,
\` ti
1940
0
217+00 218+00 219+00 220+00 221+00 222+00 223+00 224+00 225+00 226+00 227+00 228+00 229+00 uj
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 215+00.00 - STA. 229+00-00) 0
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
' 3 W •

PROPOSED PAVEMENT
SURFACE REPAIR
\ S25° 31' 14"E 256.98 LF
\ STREAM /
C% INV= `
1989.50
l,00,0,
s�
INV-
♦�� 1988.81 1
36" BRICK
CULVERT \
2030
MH #65 I \\ CULTIVATION 2
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) s\ ABANDON AND PLUG /
STA. 230+14.85 LINE "A"
MH #C1 \ EXISTING SEWER /
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH y STA. 242+00.74 END LINE "C" \ / RHO NOR1H$$
¢Q� F�opO�P PROVIDE NEW 5' DIA. MH \\ / / �'S N C 3G N4N
��
LINEC�� g 201 1
(SEE SHEET PL-29)
\ PROPOSED COIR MATTING i d�
EROSION CONTROL \ 7
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) 40
wA STA. 242+00.74 LINE A
F�pOD
Y STA. 0 00.00 BEGIN LINE C
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
\ PIN:9637944030
BILTMORE COMPANY-
O� \ D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056�j
ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER
CULTIVATION / 11 !/a9r�(k�'
IN,
IN,
72" WIDE BY 54 STONE \
IN, TOP CULVERT \ \ �O/
MSD SMH #50-28004
GRASS / / / / / / / RIMINV=199. 146
LINE "A.. //
o� \ \ \ o� ff, / / / /S /
\ O \ SS�Q x PROPOSED COIR MATTING
GRAVEL \ SFO \ �'� \ yC'�^ EROSION CONTROL
PARKING GRASS IN,MH #67
�O /
\CO \ \ �� \ \ ��� / / / / / / / / (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) g
/ STA. 239+11.40 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH
I PIN: 9637944030 \�.9 \ \ / / / CJ1� / /`� / / ' • MSD SMH #50-28003
BILTMORE COMPANY S A \ / / /
\ I D.B.0244, D.P.0056 / RIM=1991.30 \'lij� \ / / ••'/ INV=1978.48
-\ \ \\ I \ � / // / •RCP/s / /.
36 /
s
\ GRASS / /
GRASS / /s/ PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
THE LAGOON CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
P.L. 1989.7 I � •I \, � \ \ � / / /
a \ IN, •• /s / / EXISTING 20' EASEMENT /
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 000�P�
\ —s
MH #66 (VENT) /
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) /
STA. 235+49.40 LINE "A"
/ c36 s / / MSD SMH #50-28002
RIM=1988.14 PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH /
/ / / • NV=1978.34
TBM MAG NAIL
Q/ EL=1988.55
BRIDGE WITH CONCRETE DECK SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 229+00.00 — STA. 244+00.00)
/ SCALE: 1 11= 50'
i
2030
w
Q
6
z
"111111111,
STREAM CROSSING (SC-8)
2020 2020
(D
w STREAM CROSSING (SC-9) =
2010 Q z O O 2010
-
� � g
Z co °r° Lu > LU LLI LU LLI
H Z Q Z
EXISTING O o °' 0-
36" BRICK �n 0 co 6' = Q J J
2002.00' � Z N
CULVERT 4t U N II VENT ELEV. Z ti o o
2000 =0��� p+rn ONE 2000
zz� U) 0 co °O
MH #66 VENT EXISTING GROUND m Y N II � U N II
PROPOSED COIR MATTING (VENT) U
EROSION CONTROL LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT O
STA. 235+49.40
= _
\ PROPOSED COIR MATTING RIM 1987.80' _
— — 1990
1990 EROSION CONTROL
L
Y
,1980 1980 •�
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.02% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.08% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.07% •�
u
d ZLo
Cn W
�ch cy) ��Z oo � o" 1970 U) 0ooo w �0-
rn 1970 yinI
rnr-
r,- V �J
mco — II II �IIIZ
II �z Ozz •�
O — nn ll
a Z) II z » z
1960 z z Z z z 1960
— — (o (o
co cor ) cy) 00
(O Co
L — — co co
I Co Co • r�
`o co
1.
8 36" D.I.P. @ 0.02% 60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS. (�0
1950 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 1950 W
NCT o eN/6
EXHIBIT ONLY. �� �y
Es
1940 1940 WQ s %
229+00 230+00 231+00 232+00 233+00 234+00 235+00 236+00 237+00 238+00 239+00 240+00 241+00 242+00 243+00 244+00 c }
s
cn
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE(STA. 229+00.00 TA. 244+00.00)50 0 25 50 100 150 6
O �0
n GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH - 50 FEET SCALE. HORIZ: 1 ��=50� , VERT. 1 ��=10' d��13W'��'�

U
O
N.C. GRID NORTH
O
NAD83 (2011) NAVD88
W
J
N O
w 4-O
O
z Lrn
C� r
w q� N
�—o
a� a.)w
f Q
0
QO
N
�
o
ow
02 �c
MH #69 (VENT) `//fI Clz� m O ~ Q
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) v� U O
STA. 247+23.32 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH W
MH #72 A* cC fV Y
PIN:9637944030 MH #70 (LOCKDOWN WATERTIGHT)
0 0 L.L Cn Y =
BILTMORE COMPANY (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
D.B.0244, D.P.0056 STA. 257+83.32 LINE "A"
STA. 251+16.32 LINE A PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH / //'��� y ~ ~ 2 o w
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH �
� CULTIVATION / �� / `'^ �� Z Y �
CULTIVATION / / �� / / !� ` O Q w d
So — — _ _ _ _ Ropos � TEM p� MH #71 (VENT) / / 53 / / /5 ^ o Q
z _ _ — — — 9° 22' 30',w 3 — RARY CpNST (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) / / / Pe
m _ _ _ — — — _ — — 93.00 �F P _ _ RUCTIO EA � STA. 255+19.32 LINE „A„ — / 14),
_ N
— — ° 40' 38' - 522.58 LF _, —s _ RO OS— _ — _ _ _ SEMENT _ LINE A Q
S06 __------s-- s____��� P EDPERMANENTEgSE—PROVIDENEW6 DIA.MH--�_�„E26400LF
m _,—s— ---5 =_ _ _ _ — — _ _ _ s MENT _—�--- �— SOg°46'45 — --- / / �••• �\`\�1+°° �°
i
rn--S— <36"RCP ----------------------------------------- / O
V, —S — — 36°RCP o " / J
— — S00 18' 00 W 403.00 LF _
�� 'ter \ �S S <36"RCP / �' ELECTRIC RISER WITH flu
T _ / • " • • �/ •, _ _� _ ' / UNDERGROUND CABLE ee�gil\�6
,11 _ `
L
m �,. _ • - . _ �Et RpB� g 36"RCP n / e V
T
V MSD SMH #50-28005 - - MSD SMH #50-28007
r EXISTING 20' EASEMENT RIM=1992.43 RIM-1990.97 / / O O
•� INV=1979.35
INV=1978.91 �� / MSD SMH #50-28008
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH S09° 46' 45"E 264.00 LF RIM=1990.84
•• ' " -,• _ -•• _ •• — " • \ ' - INV=1979.00 58
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT _.-----
MSD SMH #50-431283 —
RIM=1990.71 �— +
INV=1979.11 —
MSD SMH #50-28006
RIM=1991.22
I INV=1979.20
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
2030
2010
2000
1990
�I 1980
�j u
1970
3
n 1960
i
�I 1950
1940 L_
244+00
50
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
245+00 246+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
2003.00'
247+00
MH #69 (VENT)
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT'
STA. 247+23.32 LINE "A"
RIM = 1992.87'
Z
C/
rn _
00 6
r
Cl) «
r
II 6
� II
D
O�
z 2
248+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
249+00
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 244+00.00 — STA. 259+00.00)
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
250+00
0
ww
Qz
J
>� N
Z C�6 (h
p + rn
U N =O<�
2iJU)0�
� r-
u a'
DII
Oz
z z
mm
EXISTING GROUND
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
251+00
EXHIBIT ONLY.
252+00
253+00
254+00
2003.00'
VENT ELEV.
MH #71 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 255+19.32 LINE "A"
RIM = 1990.29'
(MATCH PAVEMENT)
255+00
M _
6
� (r
rn
r
.. G
z Z
co I cc
co c•1r:
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
256+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 244+00.00 — STA. 259+00-00)
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 11= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
2020
= 2010
0
�Q
ww
H
Qz
J
z co
2000
3:00o
rn
N 0 L
* V N II
=O<�
�J��
1990
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
4-11
1970
1960
1950
' 1940
257+00 258+00 259+00
LU
Q
0
9
Z
y
}
13W•

PIN:9637944030
BILTMORE COMPANY
D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056
1 PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
r
Z f�
m --
m {
TANK iS c36�
V � g BR�DG
m � i
d
c9 MH #73
(LOCKDOWN / WA'
STA. 259+24.11 LIB
PROVIDE NEW 6'[
JLTIVATION
�yi> MH 474
STA. 263+24.11 LINE A
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
i� f� (`(lnI NIC('T CYICTInI (_ CC\A/CD
MSD SMH #50-28010 ^' NIV=1984.87 'Vry� 3?f�IO,V�
I
. 1
GRASS
GRASS I ^
GATE 1 `3:
FENCE [] r
— — z
—-------------------------------- m
— — — — — — S21 ° 47' 31 "E 482.00 LF (n
SPIGOT m
POST POST 1 m
<36"RCP S — — — -
S — — — — —S — — — _ GRAVEL SURFACE
i
MSD SMH #50-28013
RIM=1992.03
INV=1981.41
1
1
R I V E R I
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 259+00-00 - STA. 274+00.00)
SCALE: I"=50'
2030
2020
STREAM CROSSING
FOURMILE BRANCH
_
(SC-10)
T-
201
of
2010
ww
�z
�z
Q
z
J
Q
J
¢
J
z��
zj°p
2003.00'
VENT ELEV.
zM"?
2000
�
+
p
N+,>
c❑
MH #75 (VENT)
O0
+ M EXISTING GROUND
2000
o
0) �
�
co
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
co ❑
cfl
M
� U
N I I
U
a I I
STA. 264+61.63 LINE "A"
� U
a I I
= O
<
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
=
RIM = 1992.39'
_
EROSION CONTROL,
1990
To
1990
1980
u
z
w
a
Op
1970
6
00
a')
0)
II
�
o
D
II
z
o
p
E
;
;
1960
z
z
9
co
co
a
a L36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
11 1950
1940
259+00
0
0
n`
50 0 25 50
°
n
GRAPHIC SCALE
36" D.I.P. @ 0.30%
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
260+00 261+00
100 150
1 INCH = 50 FEET
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
�
z w
�
z
z
�
O
00 CV
O OR
00 0�
0') O O
!�2 0
6�
rno�
� d0)
moo
I I —
II
Z) II
� i i
� Z
O ?
p z z
O
z z
z z z
z z
z77
o
M co
co co
0
60 /o DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
co M
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
262+00 263+00 264+00
265+00 266+00 267+00 268+00 269+00
270+0
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 259+00-00 -
STA. 27
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= SO' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
0 271+00
4+00.00)
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
272+00
273+00
m
970
m
950
1940
274+00
cc o
0 N
Lu ^
� ) U a� O
T w
o +
w � N
Lurc
: V
Q N
' ^ O CD
v LI O O "
oC N O w
V _ O ❑ cn
—� Z + a1
Oi `•I �--� � '
O O LL M N Y
� U
4--) = Q Y
}
� CO
D Ln J o 0
O Y O
Q W d
0 U Q
d" \
O �O
IsL
6
z

MH #79
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
ui
STA. 281+20.63 LINE "A"
LL PIN:9637944030 PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH \
BILTMORE COMPANY
m D.B. 0244, D.P. 00-
z
co
m I t MH #80
' S21 ° 47' 31 "E 482.00 LF u (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
GRASS „
MH #77 (VENT) LINE A STA. 284+96.63 LINE "A"
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH c�
STA. 274+55.63 u GRASS m a
— PROPOSED COIR MATTING
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH GRASS ` EROSION CONTROL
------------- - - - - - - _
PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION — — — — — — — — — — — S06 35' 04"E 205.00 LF I
" 460 00 LF
c
_ _ _ _ — — — — —
EASEMENT
S12° 10 53 E
_ u _ —� h--�o
SEMI -PERMANENT
PARKED STORAGE
— — — PROPOSED PERMANENT
— — _—
_�r1�= TRAILER FOR RAFTING
OPERATIONS
/
Z
—�—
—
—S--—S —
— — —S — — — _ _ [1 SPIGOT 7`
— 5--- ---
—S— —SS— � W/V
��
—
— — — —
---
--_—S
---<36"R—CP Il
---
--- ��--S— ---5— <36"RCP
—S —
GRASS
—S—
.�,n ^ O
ECK
///
—5---
min
,
----�•------'� <d0 E —S
-- - -_-- —" "—
— PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
MSD SMH #5045000 �...� i s��
m
�_..--.---
—
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
RIM=1992.49
INV=1981.94
m
— -- EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
EASEMENT
fir"`
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
MSD SMH #50-28015
RIM=1992.07 \
� r
MSD SMH #50-28014 I
INV=1982.07 \
RIM=1993.30
INV=1981.68
TBM MAG NAIL \ •
MSD SMH #50-431280
EL=1990.96
\ `
r
� �•
RIM=1992.71
1
MSD SMH
RI
IN
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
y
N.C. GRID NORTH
NAD83 (2011) NAVD88CL
U
'—'
4—
O
W O
LLJO O
N
J
U
Z 00
N
Woa
Lu M I—
V
o
C
Q
<
N
Ln
O
N
o
OO
DC O
w
clz�a
= i O
o
Zcz
Q
C)-,
pw[ c
O O
N
LL �
Y
U
1
m
}
0]
I ^
v ,
J
0Lu
O �--
z
YLLl
O
(/1
�
=
a
0
U
Q
\\ j
\
'Tt V-1985.98 \ \ \ \ MH #81 PIN:9637944030 I
\ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) BILTMORE COMPANY
\ \ \ \ \ \ STA. 288+41.45 LINE "A" D.B. 0244, D.P. 0056 /
\ \S\ S \ \ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
\
4F \\\ GRASS \
�N
\ \ \ \ \s \ \ \ \ \ \ SPIGOT I J
0-
\ \ \ \ PPOST `
I
� \ \ � • .. \ \ \ R Rom\ wvi\ � —Lij
Lij
co
W
Lij
co
SMH (NO MSD NUMBER) \ ' • \
RIM=1992.90
INV=1985.75, (APPROXIMATE)
(STANDING WATER IN BOTTOM)
(NO VISIBLE FLOW)
_ 1
I
MSD SMH #50-28017 �
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 274+00-00 — STA. 289+00-00) RN�V2:5° ,w-c7l
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
m
S05° 34' 24"W 531.12 LF
1
203
202
2030
2020
_
STREAM CROSSING (SC-11)c�
2010
(D
w w
2010
waQz
Z
LL1 W
J
2004.00'
Q J
Q z 2004.00'
Cn
z
VENT ELEV.
c b
3 M PROPOSED COIR MATTING VENT ELEV.
0 N
MH #77 EXISTING GROUND
z L6
� +
(o rn EROSION CONTROL
N MH #80 (VENT)
+ rn
p00
200
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
o
O + 0.) LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
U N II
2000
STA. 274+55.63
00
I` Y N II
it ()
°' 0 00 — STA. 284+96.63
f� Y N
= O Q —
J
RIM = 1992.22'
= o 2
(-) - II RIM = 1991.29'
� C �
199
1990
198
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.08%
1980
Y
i
z
z
z
00
6)
O N
Lo.,
N O
o
(o00
00 6?
N
00 O 00 N
0') N
00
M
00II
00
O) N 07 N
— 00 00
Cl')
00
Cl)
II
0 197
i
II °)
F- II
F- II
II
F--II II
F- II
= z
O-
1970
p z
O?
p z O z
2
z_ z_
zz
z z zZ
zz
- -
E
(D (o
_ _
cy) M
_ _
CO Cy) M c
M M
M M
196
co co
1960
a
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
9
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
0
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
1950
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1950
n
0
u
EXHIBIT ONLY.
2 U
o
I
1940
1940
274+00
0
275+00 276+00 277+00 278+00
279+00
280+00
281+00 282+00 283+00 284+00 285+00 286+00 287+00
288+00
289+00
n
SANITARY
SEWER PROFILE (STA. 274+00.00 —STA. 289+00-00)
50 0
o
25 50 100 150
0
F
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "=
50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
LV
CD
A'
i O
W
a
0
z
z 0
o �
o_
>
W
U)
0
6
z
O �RICT � bN��66�
s
z
13V0

71
I
�n
n�° I MH #82 (VENT)
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) c GRASS
ID NORTH
N G GR 111 NAVp88
NAD83 (20
STA. 293+72.57 LINE "A" I MH #83
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
LINE „A„ STA. 296+80.57 LINE "A"
GRASS y PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
e
----- I -- -- --- SPIGOT -- --
4sPlGora}� S10 42 0 ° 2"W 308.00 LF SPIGOT
SPIGOT
r--- 4„ 531.12LF --[� --`----s-----s-----s-----s-----s---- s--
Z_ _ _ _ _ — — S05° 34' 2 W �� _ —s — — — 36 RCP>
mce --S— —_— —--------
_ _ RIVER ROAD
"RCP
m --- _5---- — - OLD
- - - -
m_-- — — _ - - =-- - - -
T • •
MSD SMH #50-28018 MSD SMH #50-431277
y
— . - — — — RIM=1995.30 RIM=1994.52
INV=1982.80 INV=1983.03
fn -
/ I i MSD SMH #50995 65
_ RIM=183:0
— INV=1983.05
N'
F R E N C H B R O A D R I V E R
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
� S25° 22' 08"W 65.00 LF /
m
AH #84
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
3TA. 297+45.57 LINE "A"
r'ROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
l GRASS MH #85
`
o (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
P STA. 301+29.08 LINE "A"
S25° F PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
�s 4 W 383.51 LF -1 oSE_D T EMPORgR
PROP CONSTRUCT
` OSED P ` ` lON E ` 1
— GRAV` ERMgNENT gSEMENT
EgSE
MENT
_ 36"RCP S �—�_` \ GRASS \O /
INV=1985.91 ... ` \
_ �` \
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189`36"RCP��
_ \O4
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
MSD SMH #50-28020
RIM=1995.41 \\
INV=1983.30
\- J
SEWER PLAN(STA. 289+00-00 -STA.303+00-00)SANITARY 1
�
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
203
2
STREAM CROSSING (SC-11)
202
2
=
_
C7
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
O
Q
EROSION CONTROL
~ Q
w UJ
201
w Lu
z
Q Z
> J
2
Q
J
>� 00
w
MH #82 (VENT)
EXISTING GROUND 2004.00 LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
MH #83
Lo
z L6
z oq
+
VENT ELEV. STA. 293+72.57
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
O� "t rn
0 o a�
RIM = 1995.52'
.
STA296+8057
� p r rn
00 Y co. II
�* U
200
RIM = 1994.28'
v `V II
= p 1 g
2
J
U) 0�
1990
1
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
1980
w
1
00
00 00
rn
00 0�
a�
00
(n
00
6> N
— 00
N
00 O
1970
F i
z
� 0')F-
00
� rn
1
O
O z
p z
z z
z z
>>
zz
p z
�o zo
cM M
M co
��
cM co
z_z_
1960
�o �o
`y) `y)
1
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
60 ° DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
1950
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1
EXHIBIT ONLY.
330
D20
D10
)90
)80
a70
a60
)50
1e
w
U
ce
LLJ
N
—
O
O
p
'
O
f V
N
I
J
a)
z
a
m
o
cC
w
�
m
w
MV)
^`
0
Q
N
O
o
Lo
O
O
�
�
N
o
�I
rl
w
C�
�
onV)
O
—�
+
O
w
�
ce
00
O
O
LL
Y
�m
LU
>
O
2
z
Y
p
=
a
U
Q
N
0
O �O
w
Q
0
6
z
O �RICT � bN��66�
s 1940 —1940 �`-' -
289+00 290+00 291+00 292+00 293+00 294+00 295+00 296+00 297+00 298+00 299+00 300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 d
s o
Y cd
o a>
°o CD F
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 289+00-00 - STA. 303+00.00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
13W•

I �
1 O
1 STREAM
O
U
Q
,1 /
=1-----`—�---71`—
r_
z— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
m S36° 47' 23"W 367.00 LF
V
POST
--S
----S-----S—
f ^ 36"RCP
-O I PROPOSED COIR MATTING
r EROSION CONTROL
N
I
I
I F
R E N C H
\
MH #86 (VENT) \
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) \
STA. 304+96.08 LINE "A" \
STA.0+00.00 BEGIN LINE "D" \
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
/
LINE "D"
(SEE SHEET PL-29)
/
/ MH #D1
/ STA. 0+19.19 END LINE "D"
��[� PROVIDE NEW 4' DIA. MH
�Ue/\ RECONNECT EXISTING SEWER
/ (SEE SHEET PL-29)
\\\\ LINE "A"
36h. P
— _\ \ OT \ SS6° 18 40" \ OS \ GRASS
ABANDON AND PLUG \ \\\��\ �4Sp 00 �F \ \ \ \ FMPp RgRyC \
`EXISTING SEWER \ \ \ \ PROI'OSF� p \ ONSTRU
NT C \ENT
IGOT
— MSD � SMH #50-28021 NT \ \
RIM=1993.35
INV=1983.70 \ \\
3
WB
3M BOLT AND TAG \
)NCRETE BRIDGE \ \ \
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT \ \
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 ` \
BRAD R
j V E R
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
o MH #87
/ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 309+46.08 LINE "A" \
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
\ \ ____ � MH
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) GRASS
\ \ \ STA 312+04 08 LINE "A"
L
L Ai
U
Q
OCD
cC = O
N
I
�P
z 00
O
w m
a
Q
Q
N
a
_
11
O
O O
O
�ju
DC N
ui
,,..a
m V) O
Q
U
a-d
2 O
o
U)
z4-Jm
0�1
O O
Lu
u-
2 Q
Y
4_�
�
}
CO
Ln
0 `�
J
z
0
Y
W
O
of=
CL
a
0
U
Q
GRASS
I
FENG [j
[] n y0
1�SHED
FENCE
MH #89 (VENT) I(7
\ \ \ \ \ \ PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH STA. 316+04.08 r
\ S5 ° \ (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
\ 6 2�, 33 \ \ \ \\w2sgp\\\ G PROVIDE NEW 6'DIA.MH — �Z
\ p \ \S \ p �F \7\ U -- GATE FENCE , m
\ \ OL\\ \ \ \ \ \ J EQUINE ARENA — — — — — — —
RIDING RING _
--------------
\S39° 46' 25"W 400.00 LF — S33° 37 10"W — rn
m_ —
\ \ \ ORAV\ \ \ (\f� .� SPIGOT • SPA � U - _S — V J \ \ sURFgCE \ 36, \ POST _ D.I. GRATE=1994.31 SPIGOT —�— [� [] —S 36"RC=
\p 36"RCP----S-----S-- —[]—S Ll POSTS_�
-��---S-----S—IPd11-9S1 E.:L-
36"RCP
--�•-\ -� wv/ICv
MSD SMH #50-28023 \
RIM=1992.47 U
INV=1983.77
MSD SMH #50-28024
RIM=1994.31 INV=1989.47
INV=1987.00
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 303+00-00 - STA. 318+00-00)
--- Wv/ICv — ' ___4m
T
r
U.P.L WITH U.P.L WITH 1 N
U/G ELEC U/G ELEC .�
MSD SMH #50-28025 1
RIM=1995.43
INV=1984.12 I
203
202
2030
—2020
MH #86 (VENT)
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
=
STREAM CROSSING (SC-12)
STA. 304+96.08
=
(D _
RIM = 1991.95'
(DQ
201
w w
—2010
2005.50'
LIJ
Z
Q —
z
� -12006.50'
00
MH #89 (VENT)
VENT ELEV.
J
co
_
— (Dco VENT ELEV.
z r`
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
_
Z (o rn
0 +
STA. 316+04.08 =_
EROSION CONTROL
EXISTING GROUND
� � —
0 0
RIM = 1994.97
200
o o
00 U cl) II
2000
00 co II
= 0 Q g
20<�
J co0�
J (n 0�
f. t
199
—1990
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
o
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
=
1980
z
z
—1980
w
z
i�,.U)
r`
b)U)
ap 0
w
Z
fn
00 ti
00 00
CV (n
c7
— 00
II �
— 00
II �
00
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
m (� 00
00 c�
II
II
7
00
1970
II °' 00
O z_
O z_
n °)
—1970
II -
ozz
zz
z_z_
F-II
pz
z z Z
M m
M m
z z
co 00
M M
196
—1960
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
==
1950
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1950
EXHIBIT ONLY.
_-
Haan
Haan
n
303+00 304+00 305+00 306+00 307+00 308+00 309+00 310+00 311+00 312+00 313+00 314+00 315+00 316+00 317+00 318+00
0
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 303+00-00 -STA. 318+00.00)
50 0 25 50 100 150
o
0
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 INCH = 50 FEET
w
Q
0
II
�u
6
z
O �RICT • eN,�66�
s
z
13N0

2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
i
u
a
1970
0
i
i♦
EI
'I 1960
/
L
J'
gl 1950
1940
318+00
50
I� l POND
/ W.E. 19923
C ' Lo
GRASS 1, ( STREAM l ' uc 1J
MH #93 (VENT) MH #94 I
P PROPOSED \'
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) \ COIR MATTING 'DELINEATEO
F-
STA. 330+77.66 LINE "A" WETLAND
EROSION CONTROL
w
APO STA. 328+55.66 LINE "A" PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
—
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH ..�,_;.�W
----------- — �. ---I(n
D
_ �N — — — — ° 12' 04"W 263.65 LF
/ MH#92 GRASS —NE SA EME T _---------o------------- — S31 _ L.L1
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) CONSTRUCTIO _ S36 23' 35"W 222.00 LF _— —
STA. 325+71.66 LINE "A � S TEMPORARY — T EASEMENT � — -- -s —36°RCP _ s_ � ; w7
PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH 0POSE—s
pR— AMEN POST _ _ — Z
PEP' 36"RCP
PROPO36 M ——S-----S-----S-----S---S INV=198784 _
/ — — — SEp_ �s — °RCP
MH #91
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) / / gpAD
STA. 322+81.58 LINE "A"( -
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH GRASS/ / / — —_ — _ -' OLD
—s —
POST
/ / ///` �� i S 36"RCS .... / ''--•_...� 36"CMP .-.- ----.
/ ,/ oaL� /� i �/ , i ----..-••--- INV=1987.24
/ i O�„v v 2go / / /S / / ... i — • - - i ' " • MSD SMH I #50-28031
S / / — — - ' ' - f MSD SMH #50-28029 INV=1985.22
BRIDG
LINE "A"— //. / EXISTING 20' EASEMENT IRNV=1985.06
� � TBM MAG NAIL
95.03
MH #90 ' / s�R PCE / / / .- PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 TOP OFCONC CONCRETE WALL
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) / �s G j
STA. 320+04.08 LINE "A" PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY '
� yo PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH GRASS i GRASS � / �s� / �
r1 ' ' I — OST i 36 RCP �/ / MSD SMH #50-28028 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
RIM=1994.37
INV=1984.65
z fss
m ------------- �� F R E N C H B R 0 A D R I V E R
1 ------ —s— ! /
V J S33° 37' 10"W 400.00 LF yo
T POST
1 1�1 -SIGN — —S • _ — ' — — _ / .
=r _---- -
--
--_
_ / - MSD SMH #50-431274
m s
RIM=1994.49
INV=1984.49
i
T '
MSD SMH #50-28027 1
• - - - . — y0
MSD SMH#50-28026 RIM=1994.28
___ ..---•-
r RIM=1993.89 INV=1984.56
TBM MAG NAIL INV=1984.37
IV IN UTILITY POLE
W ' EL=1996.78
1
36" D.I.P. @ 0.06%
0 25 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
A1119
ww
H
Q z_
J
>� 00
4 Z00
horn
CD c"I
20<�
J in ry
36" D.I.P. @ 0.07%
z�
co
4 m
M
00
00
C7 C7
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 318+00.00
SCALE: 1 11=50'
- STA. 333+00-00)
2030
?020
p
STREAM CROSSING (SC-13)
P
_
_
_
C7
�-
�z
�z
LU
-2010
Q
Z
J
J
2007.50'
J
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
U
Z(p
b
VENT ELEV.
Z(p
o
EROSION CONTROL
Z
3:
CD
00 4
+
MH #93 (VENT)
�
+ Lo
O
+ 6,
N 6,
EXISTING GROUND 0
p
°'
N
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT
O
p
6'
-
rn Y
M i
N
U
`'' II
STA. 328+55.66
U
`'' II
2000
=0Qg
_0<�
J
RIM=1994.26'
=O<�
2 J
U)�
co�
2 zz�J
C Q
_
1990
36" D.I.P. @ 0.09% z
36" D.I.P. @ 0.08% 36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
w
00z�
w
?
_1980
Lo
00
co�
OR
Eo
�
00
00
L6m
7
00
00
I I
00 00
O
00
0)
Lo
II
II
00
0)
II
O
z
0
»
Z
II
>
II
z
z
z
0
z
0
Z
1970
Z
Z
cM
cM
Z
Z
Z
Z
(fl
M
Qc)
M
-
(o
-
(o
-
M
-
M
M
M
60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
319+00 320+00 321+00 322+00 323+00 324+00 325+00 326+00 327+00 328+00 329+00 330+00 331+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 318+00-00 - STA. 333+00.00)
100 150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 III
= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
1 INCH = 50 FEET
332+00
m
950
J 1940
333+00
U O N
O I
w O J
° rLLJ 4- ;
a) Z m
tA C) w � m
Lu
N
Q O
0
o Ln
C,d
O O ^^�11 "
W O W
m l/I p F Q
= i O o �
�1 z _ 000
�, � (L)Le,c rv_
0 O L.L Y =
}�
�_ m
J LU W
O v Z Y O
of
2 d
U Q
O
O �O
w
Q
0
z
z O
O
o >
W
U
0
0
z
O �RICT • bN��66�
s
OO
H-
13W•

50
Of
MH #99
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 344+39.31 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
C.0
-- P _— ROPOSED PERMANENT EASE — — — — — —
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)36 _ 3s RCP — — N
STA. 336+18.31 LINE"AII s-------s---- MENT --- J
° " PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH ------s—�—�_ ——s----_ —_ ---Qii-- 0-
S31 12 04 W 263.65 LF i GOLF ---s— ROAD s-----s--- S42°
�° 52' 16 W 2g8 �' —OLD RNER_ — _ — —s — — — -- 32 32„�/ 266.0FL F W
MH #95 _ / S2 —s — — — — _ — _
Lij
(LOCKDOWN /WATERTIGHT) / �� — s — ~ ~
i iS �� 3s"RCP T
STA. 333+41.31 LINE "A" / �� —s — — _ — _ 1 DELINEATED / ��
I ' WETLAND / ' iS �36"RCP — _ —J S —
PROVIDE NEW 6 DIA. MH , �
GRAVEL SURF
E
PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPORARY MSD SMH#50-28035 �• �w
//`�� , • / /r1'' 1 O / / • " • / \ \
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INV= RIM=11998.14
985.95 �•-
• - " ` J / , / / / �O� 1 / / /� - • • / MSD SMH #50-28033 MSD SMH #50-28034
\ , �
SMH RIM-1997.02 RIM-1997.73
/ INV-1985.s7 INV-1985.74
i
EXISTING 20' EASEMENT 0
PER D.B. 953, PG. 189 Q
// / MSD SMH #50-28032
:r RIM=1995.17
•
m /INV=1985.42
m� F R E N C H B R 0 A D R I V E R
r
MSD SMH #50-28031
' RIM=1993.77
INV=1985.29 \
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 333+00-00 - STA. 346+00-00)
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
333+00
0 25 50 100
\ll +DELINEATED MH #98
WETLAND (LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
�• STA- 340+85.31 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH
(/ \ �� �� • •. ,•-.L_ • • '��� \ 1.: ... ... ' • DELINEATED
\ ' . • ' '-�� .. �• . • • • • 7WETLAND
MH #97 (VENT) ,\• ' •' �'..-...—.....—... �,��— �,�
LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT) •� —� — _
_ — — — — — — — — — —PROPOSED TEMPO _
STA. 338+86.31 LINE A �• _ _
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH _ _ _ — — — — — 199,00 LF — — — — — — — NARY CONSTRUCTION
MH #96 i — — — — S28° 54' 38' W S40° 53' — — — — — — — — — EASEMENT
49 �/ 354.00 LF p
SCALE: 1 "= 5 0'
334+00 335+00 336+00 337+00 338+00 339+00 340+00 341+00 342+00 343+00 344+00
SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 333+00-00 - STA. 346+00.00)
150
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 11=10'
345+00
1 -
346+00
T cf� Ln
U Q N
w Oo
J
T w c7- +
O w m
Lj r
Q N _
v LI O O
+�
oC O"
w w Q oco= � O
Z�p
rnn
Lu
O O u- rn
Y
4-�
� � m
D Ln J o
z
Y Q
Ln Q w a
� U Q
in
�d
w
a
0
9
!ac o
6
z
oS-�Ricr. bN,��
13W•
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET

60 % DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANS.
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT ONLY.
d
H
MH #101
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 347+45.92 LINE "A"
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH I
MH #100 Nx
(LOCKDOWN / WATERTIGHT)
STA. 347+05.31 LINE'0 O
PROVIDE NEW 6' DIA. MH d
alU
m
mjL S42 32 "
m - -
C , <36"RCP
m
V�
N,V,n
.. �------
MSD SMH #50-32412
<42"RCP
EXIST. MH
TO REMAIN
MSD SMH #50-38178
ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER
//�
PROPOSED COIR MATTING
EROSION CONTROL
JB #5
STA. 350+07.74 END LINE "A"
15' x 10' JUNCTION BOX
CONNECT EXISTING SEWER
(SEE SHEET PL-27)
N
PROPO SED
_ — ,yCONSTR -p TEMPORARY
PROPOSED ERMAN EASEMENT 1
-- ENT EgSE MSD SMH #50-32416
—S S57° MEN7' RIM=1996.38
mt�
INV=1986.18
BRIDGE —
�
GRAVEL SURFACE
TBM MAG NAIL — OLD RIVER ROAD
IN CONCRETE BRIDGE
EL=1995.57 _
MSD SMH #50-32414
RIM=1996.43 EXISTING 20' EASEMENT
INv(a2"�=1s85.ss PER D.B. 953, PG. 189
INV(12")=1990.43 PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT20'
- ABANDON AND PLUG
EXISTING SEWER
F R E N C H B RDA D R I V E R
SANITARY SEWER PLAN (STA. 346+00-00 — STA. 350+07-75)
SCALE: 1 "= 50'
2030
DINGLE CREEK ROAD
2030
2020
2020
STREAM CROSSING
_ _
(SC-14) X
z_
m
�Q �Q zo
O
Z
LIJ
2010
Qz Qz v�-
J J
2010
� U Z
ti r-
�(j � � UJ �
z c2 z rn EXISTING GROUND o
o
+ Ln
o rn
�o� ��(6
000+rn +rn Z
T°, o0Q-°' 0
ch
< II
LO
U M II U M II m
2000
= O = O < PROPOSED COIR MATTING
U) of
2000
J J rOf EROSION CONTROL
-7— —7 — — —\ — WE
1990
�
1970
1960
1950
1940
346+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
z
0
0
rn (o
OD
II 0')
II
O z
z Iz
Elm
347+00
w
z�
U)U)
o
00oo
morn
00 00
II o c))
� II II
p z z
z z z
Cfl Cfl a0
co co —
" D.I.P. @ 0.05%
348+00
36" D.I.P. @ 0.04%
349+00
(.6 't
00 7
O) o
00
u °'
� I
O z
z Iz
03N
350+00
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
' 1940
351+00
P
4-�
4-�
oC
Q
Lu
~
O
n
�o
N
J
z
O
Ln
c�
TO
w
o�
M
(L)
Lu
n
VEl
o
Q
N
O
O
�
"
DC
a
w
00
VI
O
III
Q
U
Q
Z
4-J
Q0
O
O
LL
I
Y
�
m
I^
v ,
J
�LU
O
v
z
Y
O
�
=
a
0
U
Q
-c�kvo.'`
O �RICT•bN,�6
n
'I SANITARY SEWER PROFILE (STA. 346+00-00 — STA. 350+07.75) �(��I
W
H
Q
z
z 0
O cn
�;
Dfw
c�
0
6
z
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 50 FEET
SCALE. HORIZ: 1 "= 50' ; VERT. 1 "=10'
13V0

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Appendix C
Updated Figures / Maps
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

'aa Nome Rd
LEGEND
Project Limits
Proposed Access Route
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic
Basemap
N
Aen Hill
netery
0 0.5
Miles
Wilshire Park 19
2Peaverview R
a
N Broad St
m.
P E Chestnut St
h�
''�, Project Location
Crowne Plaza
Tennis & Golf
Resort
Buncombe County, NC
Hazel Green
EE
zs
� a
0
a
i a v
QJ
b � Q Q
o
Hospital
Oakland
a` x a
>
Rd
>
LL _�
_
Asheville -Buncombe
Tech Cmty Col
Malvern Hills
Pisgah View
Amuoyand3o
Carrier Park
a
Winery Q'
5a"o,
c/ M e a dos'
T
Existing Carrier Bridge
y
2214 ft
Pump Station
NO
f-
40
40
74
'P�;
[
O
dry
Old Ride
Rd
A
�a
\
OdFerry Rd L a
wJ
26
Fre I
6
rD 'Y
191
R;
� � G�i� Lone
Moun
Q�
22s7 ft
Q
VqeSter/y Rd
Asheville
Outlets
t
llcn�hlc
/n
c J�,NSekfa.r MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
—SMAI-1-1-ROJECrs4671 msD sUNCOMBE\1019438 CARRiERBRiDCEPs UPDA EDvs lPmMAP DOGS—D CARRiERBRiDCE USACEAPRX DAre1122-3
USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGENDrV
-•• ' :r /
Project Limits`•
r' Proposed Access Route 1 F
1 Topographic Quadrangles
DATA SOURCE: USGS 24k Topographic Map - wd 4
USA Topo Maps GIS ServiceIN
10
0 2,000 II '�� y t
1 inch = 2,000 Feet
i
PAYWOOD FS '
It
POO
�1c. •�� ter• • ili 1RV 4
997
�/. ,,BOY _.1 _ - - �1
jo : �':-
RV
Cu
J. Po �• Gss
vorE
�; ? �'AN1yAN
aalcy
s
�
''--77
:,III
•�, •[� • j' �= C� �V l l� � - ' :t � 7. �: •�,\ . r: �i�. i 1, i-\1\ 1i� l l
MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
FN_ USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
Figure 2
\\CLTSMAIMGII DATA\GIS\PROJECT-671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10194380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\7, WIPVufAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% I-E:3I20Y1023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

fd�r _ ' -• � Ave � .. E *Garde��� . � •1 ♦ � ri N
LEGEND
.L 4 .acc
. 0Proposed Pump Station
r
' �0, c , Rehabilitation
Existing Pump Station 9
h ama Ave Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer l
! Existing 54"
r .�° �'
Gravity Sewer
Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer
Replacement k $ T.
Proposed 54-inch Gravity Sewer
ve ,Rehabilitation.- � _� i � « Free
Proposed 36-inch Force Mains Sth Asp
_ Broad
Existing . ■ • River
Existing Gravity Sewer Pipes
L �-w
' r
6 . ' - i• The French I��d
y ^' ���' �• _ River P rk
'ch �� 5tetej5t - .•
r .11 3 •'
Feet 7
v
St
'� Granada Aje v F. M I I E es
'0.�' * 'Ra
t Cod °�. St._I' a i• s.,.. S r.pvQ i.
Sewer with
Parkway - '�`�ypytRdr -.1
D f
Arnim
yRd
ate
RiverExistinci 4 : tap.
�Q
w
- r French Broad River
AV
°a p.

w
LEGEND
_ Construction- IS
try ► ■ l w ;
Soil Map Unit
Hydric Rating
r� 1 ■ * * ►
• r � r
French Broad River '� ► '�, ■ t ' ►VO
00
i N1. mi` ■ \' ■* \ r
DATA SOURCE: USDA NRCS Web Soil Pq' ■w ` ■
► , Survey (2021)
►k ►' ►
► L� M r ■
_�A ■ •' ►
_ F�en[h Broad River Park French Brnaa e ■ t
RI�F;vr . 1 River 1 r ■
r
■S
t � 44 ~ sue! _ r�_ , ■
y - French Broad
VA � River
* ..
d ° Amis�� Am6oy.Ra-
A

"ROW
M
French Broad River
It
lw]
French Broad River ' r
L f ,
French
Olr
:r

\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVufAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:S31-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGEND
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial
Construction Work Area Imagery
Delineated Wetlands* *Surface waters were delineated by
Three Oaks Engineering and HDR. r�
Delineated Streams/Rivers` **Stream/river delineated limits have been '
Three Oaks PJD Study Area projected based on prior delineation
survey data and aerial review to reflect
Projected Jurisdictional alignment changes for the proposed river
Waters** crossing that occurred after the on -site
F delineation survey.
LISGS National Hydrography
Dataset A
USFWS National Wetlands I
Inventory 0 Feet 250
-467
3a
H
i rw `� A 1•
►-7
e St Fiaure 513
Car ier Pam
0 2,000
>c
"5M1' MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
�Q
FN_ Feet WATERS AND WETLAND RESOURCES
Figure 5B
\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu,AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DAT V27Y 3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGEND
Construction Work Area
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial
Imagery
Delineated Wetlands*
*Surface waters were delineated by
Three Oaks Engineering and HDR.
Delineated Streams/Rivers`
**Stream/river delineated limits have been
Three Oaks PJD Study Area
projected based on prior delineation
survey data and aerial review to reflect
Projected Jurisdictional
alignment changes for the proposed river
Waters**
crossing that occurred after the on -site
delineation survey.
USGS National Hydrography
Dataset
A
USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory
0 Feet 250
S.- S4
PESt
Figure 5C
M1C
7 t r
Car er Pam
Y
0 0 Feet
2,000 {
+�
¢�FiSL>Yr-RQJ MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
�'� WATERS AND WETLAND RESOURCES
Figure 5C
\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVufAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE 31Y 3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

\ a �
LEGEND O� °
ro
Project Limits e r Ln " `"
y� V i
Buncombe County Parcels �� M 3 a
"Public Right -of -Way p�/
0o associated with Lyman Street, Ln
Norfolk Southern Railway, and
Wilma Dykeman Greenway.
#25: CITY OF
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic ASHEVILLE
Basemap
N �
Livingston
Street Park
0 500
Feet s�o
erly Rd W
Beverly Rd w N
#21: V G
ENTERPRISES N Palmer St
LLC
'view Rd #S 24: FOUNDATIONSouthern St
ti } STUDIOS LLC '
Q #22: V J'S Scott
° AUTOINC
2209 Walton St
q �
J N
L
LJ #23: FOUNDATION
STUDIOS LLC
PUBLIC Walton Street
RIGHT OF -WAY' `' Park
� s
#20: PROGRESS ENERGY ��7 1P
a \ OF THE CAROLINAS FKA �7 1P r♦
CAROLINAPOWERANDLIGHT
la Ave Q
cY
2
2
011ie
ench oad
co ll'iew DC IV ark
#19: CITY OF
v ASHEVILLE
< #18: METROPOLITAN
v SEWERAGE DISTRICT r
o° Peace St OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY f
V#30:s
�a
b Pve CITY SOUTHERN
m
Joyner pVe OFASHEVILLE [� RAILROADCO
iamb Ave Upstream W ay #27: CITY OF
ASHEVILLE #29: ROBERT
#28: BURRIS
oyner Ave #26: ASHEVILLE
1 #16: CITY OF HEIRS
OJ #15 CITY OF er ASHEVIL-LE�OFASHEVILLE
RIVER s
ASHEVILLE toad RtV RECREATION S
#14: Reach
RIVNLINK
IC
�a
#6: BILTMORE
COMPANY Qa
.._ary Rd
'"p5k"Q MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PROPERTY OWNERS
w,; 001 Figure 6A
\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\OIS\PROJECTSWB]1 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DAT V27-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

T o
c
= Fifth Ave
LEGEND
Project Limits Stewart St
Proposed Access Route
Buncombe County Parcels State St
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic Basemap Q Stewart St
v
N Y Q
A2101 ft
0 00
Feet
Pisgah View o
Cordova St �
rgiiNa Ave #10: FLORA
J WILSON
O REVOCABLE TRUST
#8: 5 \
AMBOY LLC
#11: CITY OF
ASHEVILLE #12: CITY OF #13: CITY OF
Carrier Pa
#7yWILSON TON Y #9: 521 ASHEVILLE ASHEVILLE
.M:WILSON,ANN B
4
#2: CITY OFF
ASHEVILLE
V d Rt.1er
rDa
IOU T
C—�
#3=SAND #5: RIVER FRONT
STONE PROPERTIES Fren h Broad River STUDIO
LLC LL� C
tQ��h 6 #6: BILTMORE COMPANY #4-HARRINS
4 SAND 40
/ AND GRAVEL LLC
/ 21
2122 ft
U- ca
Pierty St
r:
�an'b Pole
#12
RIVER
IN(
5 MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
�Q
F)l PROPERTY OWNERS
w
' ` �• Figure 613
\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\4671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10194380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\7.2 WIP\MAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACE.APRX DATE: 2/27/2023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

#7�WILSON TONY #9: 521
LEGEND M WILSON.ANN B SMBOY
4 L-L•C-
Project Limits #2: CITY OF
>r ASHEV.ILL'E <
ne
Proposed Access Route ; J e� #6: BILTMORE COMPANY
R
Buncombe County Parcels odL1
- 40
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic
Basemap {
N �Q
/ A
Feet
�a �r
v
v
>_
U
#6: BILTMORE COMPANY
It
ti
Homi Creek
River & nic
Park
� pair.L
i
r #1: WEST.RANGE LLC
2183 ft
y
Lwbplvl.% MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PROPERTY OWNERS
`•. R', ,�. Figure 6C
\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVufAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:II27-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

c+ a w� F a.,q,�. J1 y//� �� a Y - =�e� • v i"
10 LEGEND
• -ct Limits
.'
Proposed Access Route 7�
..ate °r' - •" r`L ,ti i_ - ��+a,r;
.•• 'BURTON WES
STREET '
WOOD PLACE. a
.. •`_' '". a F
11 ••• Zone UCEMONT = ¢a s a .a FP
CIRCLE aowr.,,,q sr ,� •w - �� ,� .
11 ... Zone
if
NT-LOUIStANA
JRCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial
�c
4 ..
es heville� a 4 .Fnu €i
Feet 2,000
IA AVENUE
_ r`-Pennsj:wany Ave .m
OA.r }'+W6dm. n.• -a - A ,
c
pd
l: • ❑arr�V° t 4 r rndrana A.e .: • 2 _
• �_ _ _ ._T. _ .. ."
ke•x Or •
op z-
"kile Dr
' m - � IrNly 17[l ��-4 _ `..^4 ➢ity 'Sr9 rp4 e
z'
French Broad
-
-.- '4ZIP
_ _
0.
G
r■ �A
` Pp,
Orf rocge ea -.f --
A,Mi�. tea.
�a
r
�'hKkew W' n..< <Frrrq
t
i
r�
0 50
Feet
Existing Pump
Station
'
SOUTH.FRENCN BROAD
'A.
m
=ENE
r
owl
r v. • f N.
b
-�g+ranst LIVING
$ HEIG
• roir'S; - F
_ Mallon yr i � n
F a;
Fren�;.
Brr,d �
Mea _
Via-.= Y — _ • i
r
Proposed Pump
Station
f
'r' F
1
4
!1
p1d n ' G
c
l' d French
'yi

LEGEND
Construction Work Area
Proposed Pump Station
- Existing Pump Station
Proposed Cofferdams (stage 1)
Proposed Cofferdams (stage 2)
Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer
Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer
Replacement
Proposed 36-inch Force Mains
Proposed 54-inch Gravity Sewer
Rehabilitation
Proposed Access Route
Delineated Wetlands`
Delineated Streams/Rivers"
Projected Jurisdictional Waters'
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial Imagery
*Surface waters were delineated by Three Oaks
Engineering and HDR.
**Stream/river delineated limits have been
projected based on prior delineation survey
data and aerial review to reflect alignment
changes for the proposed river crossing that
occurred after the on -site delineation survey.
N
G
0 400
Feet
No steam impacts anticipated. This proposed
footprint is for the rock cofferdam option which
has a wider base than the sheet pile cofferdam
option. A temporary culvert may be placed in the
tributary at its confluence with the river to ensure
continued stream flow if a rock cofferdam option
is selected. A temporary culvert would not be
required if the sheet pile cofferdam option is selected
as it would have a narrower footprint and would not
impede flows from this tributary.
Impact Number: S1
Impact Type: Fill (Cofferdam)
Impact Duration: Temporary
Stream Type: Perennial (French Broad River)
Impact Area: 100 Linear Feet (0.92 Acres)
Impact Number: S2
Impact Type: Dewatering/Excavation (Pipe Installation)
Impact Duration: Temporary
Stream Type: Perennial (French Broad River)
Impact Area: 50 Linear Feet (0.30 Acres)
Impact Number: W1
Impact Type: Matting
Impact Duration: Temporary
li Wetland Type: Emergent
Impact Area: 0.08 Acres
MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
FNPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
4° �, �• Figure 8A
\\CLTSMAIWGIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTV,4671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10194380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\7.2 WIP\MAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACE.APRX DATE:61112023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGEND
Construction Work Area
Proposed Cofferdams (stage 1)
® Proposed Cofferdams (stage 2)
-
Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer
Proposed Access Route
Delineated Wetlands'
i
Delineated Streams/Rivers*
Projected Jurisdictional Waters—
ow
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial Imagery
a
*Surface waters were delineated by Three Oaks
"
Engineering and HDR.
""Stream/river delineated limits have been
projected based on prior delineation survey
data and aerial review to reflect alignment
changes for the proposed river crossing that
occurred after the on -site delineation survey.
N
A
■
0 200
Feet
A
o
FN
idv`Rd
This is a proposed footprint for the rock cofferdam option which has a wider base
than the sheet pile cofferdam option. A temporary culvert may be placed on the
tributary to the French Broad River near the confluence with the river to not impede
flow and route water away from the cofferdam. The sheet pile cofferdam would have
a much narrower footprint from that of the rock cofferdam and therefore would have
no impact on flows from the tributary or require a temporary culvert installed to
mitigate potential impact to flows.
Impact Number: S3
Impact Type: Fill (Cofferdam)
r _ Impact Duration: Temporary
Stream Type: Perennial (French Broad River)
Impact Area: 100 Linear Feet (0.87 Acres)
Impact Number: S4
Impact Type: Dewatering/Excavation (Pipe Installation)
Impact Duration: Temporary
Stream Type: Perennial (French Broad River)
Impact Area: 50 Linear Feet (0.26 Acres) ae
MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
Figure 813
\\CLTSMAIWGIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTSb4671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10194380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\7.2 WIP\MAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACE.APRX DATE:61112023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Appendix D
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

BASE FLOW WATER
SURFACE (EL. OF -
DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE)
EXISTING
GROUND
EDGE OF WATER
AT BASE FLOW
PROVIDE ROCK SILL AT UPSTREAM
AND DOWNSTREAM END OF TOE WOOD
EXTENDING UP TO BANK FULL. USE
24" TO 36" BOULDERS STACKED.
RESTORE DISTURBED AREA
WITH TOPSOIL, SEEDING, -
MULCHING AND PLANTING
LIVE BRANCH LAYERING
GEO-LIFT
TOE WOOD -
ANCHOR ROCK
ROOT WAD -\
18" MIN.
OVERHANG'
mw
FOOTER
LOGS
_/
BANKFULL
ClQ:ii►yl 11►s
SECTION A -A
LIMITS OF PAYMENT
I
2
LIVE STAKES
EXCAVATION
LIMITS
WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (TYPE III)
WOOD EXTENDS INTO THE
BANK 4' TO 6' MINIMUM.
CONTROL POINT
- POINT OF
CURVATURE (PC) ROOT WAD LOGS (6"-10"
DIA. & 6'-8' LONG)
_ FOOTER LOGS SPACED EVERY 4'-6'
(12"-18" DIA. MIN.)
FLOW
POOL
RIPARIAN PLANTINGS AND LIVE STAKES
PLAN VIEW
A CONTROL POINT
F-POINT OF
TANGENCY (PT)
A
Z
i
- FOOTER
WOOD
BANKFULL
PLACE MULCH INSIDI
BLANKET WRAP
7nncr/M 2 COIR
BLANKET
WOOD STAKES
-OR ANCHORING
REINFORCED EARTH
G EO-LIFTS
(AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER)
2" x 4" x 18"
WOODEN
STAKE
WOOD STAKE
NOTE: STAKES MAY BE MADE BY SAWING
A 2" x 4" DIAGONALLY IN HALF.
WOOD TOE WITH GEO-LIFTS NOTES
OA WOOD AND BOULDER TOE WITH GEO-LIFTS AND LIVE BRUSH LAYERING ARE BANK STABILIZATION MEASURES THAT PROTECT THE STREAM BANK ALONG
OUTSIDE MEANDER BENDS FROM EROSION AND ENHANCE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND GROWTH OF NATIVE VEGETATION USING LIVE BRANCHES AND CUTTINGS.
WOOD TOE ALSO PROVIDES HABITAT FOR INVERTEBRATES AND FISH AND HELPS TO MAINTAIN POOL DEPTH BY CREATING TURBULENT FLOW AND SCOUR
ALONG THE STREAM BED.
OB WOOD AND BOULDER TOE WITH LIVE BRUSH LAYERING SHOULD BE PLACED AT THE STATIONS, OFFSETS, ELEVATIONS, AND GEOMORPHIC POSITIONS
INDICATED ON THE STREAM MITIGATION DATA TABLE IN THE PROJECT PLANS, STREAM MITIGATION PLAN, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. AT A MINIMUM,
THE BANKFULL WIDTH, WOOD AND BOULDER DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS, NUMBER AND DIMENSIONS OF GEO-LIFTS, AND LENGTH AND NUMBER OF LIVE
BRUSH AND CUTTINGS SHOULD BE SPECIFIED IN THE STREAM MITIGATION DATA TABLE.
OC WOOD TOE SHALL CONSIST OF A MIX OF ROOT WADS, LOGS, BRANCHES, BRUSH, AND OTHER WOODY VEGETATION INSTALLED AT VARIOUS ANGLE, BUT
NOT PARALLEL TO THE FLOW.
OD A HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB SHALL BE USED TO PLACE WOOD AND BOULDERS.
OE CONSTRUCT WOOD OR BOULDER TOE, GEO-LIFTS, AND LIVE BRUSH LAYERING BY:
(1) SHAPE THE CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN TO THE SPECIFIED GRADES AND DIMENSIONS.
(2) EXCAVATE THE POOL AND GRADE EXISTING BANK SUBGRADE TO 2:1 (MIN).
(3) FOR WOOD TOE, LAYER THE WOOD WITH LARGER MATERIAL ON THE BOTTOM AND A MAT OF BRANCHES AS THE TOP LAYER. IF USED, ANGLE ROOT
WADS SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM INTO THE FLOW. FILL GAPS BETWEEN LARGER MATERIAL WITH A MIX OF BRANCHES AND WOODY DEBRIS. THE TOP TYPE III
LAYER OF TOE WOOD SHALL BE AT THE ESTABLISHED NORMAL BASE FLOW ELEVATION (I.E., ELEVATION OF THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE). PLACE WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP OF WOOD TOE.
(4) FOR BOULDER TOE, EXCAVATE BANK TO KEY IN BOULDERS AND PLACE TYPE III WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ALONG THE EXCAVATED BANK. PLACE
BOULDERS IN OVERLAPPING LAYERS AND IMBRICATE EACH LAYER. BACKFILL AREA BEHIND BOULDER WITH SOIL OR ALLUVIUM AND COMPACT WITH
EXCAVATOR BUCKET.
(5) CONSTRUCT GEO-LIFTS AND LIVE BRUSH LAYERING ABOVE WOOD OR BOULDER TOE, AS FOLLOWS:
(a) FOR EACH LIFT, PLACE BRUSH CUTTINGS PERPENDICULAR TO THE BANK AT A DENSITY OF 10-12 STEMS PER FOOT AND COVER WITH 2" OF SOIL.
(b) LAY 7000 COIR BLANKETS OVER THE LIVE CUTTINGS PARALLEL TO THE BANK AND SHINGLED IN A DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
(c) PLACE SPECIFIED SOIL LIFT OVER THE BACK HALF OF THE COIR BLANKET AND COMPACT WITH THE EXCAVATOR BUCKET.
(d) PLACE CLEAN STRAW OR MULCH ALONG THE FACE OF THE SOIL LIFT, WRAP THE LIFT WITH THE FRONT HALF OF THE COIR BLANKET AND STAKE
IN PLACE WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO ROWS OF 2" x 4" x 18" WOOD STAKES AT FIVE-FOOT SPACING.
(e) REPEAT STEPS (a) THROUGH (d) FOR EACH GEO-LIFT SPECIFIED.
(f) PLACE LIVE STAKES OR WOODY PLANTINGS, AS SPECIFIED, ON THE TOP LIFT.
OF ALL MATERIALS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER OR ENGINEER'S ONSITE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVER.
OG PAYMENT FOR THE WOOD TOE WITH REINFORCED EARTH AND LIVE BRUSH LAYERING SYSTEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABOR
NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL BE PAID FOR UNDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM NUMBERS:
209-03.67, STREAM MITIGATION - WOOD TOE W/REINFORCED EARTH, L.F.,
209-03.42, STREAM MITIGATION - LIVE BRUSH LAYERING, L.F.
OH FOR BOULDER TOE DETAILS SEE STANDARD DRAWING D-NSD-32A.
REV. 9-15-17: MODIFIED PAY ITEM
DESCRIPTION. MODIFIED THE STREAM
MITIGATION PLAN LEGEND SYMBOL.
ADDED NOTE HO. MODIFIED WOOD TOE
PLAN VIEW. ADDED "GEO-LIFTS" AND
AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER: TO THE
REINFORCED EARTH DETAIL. MODIFIED
DRAWING NAME. MODIFIED PLAN VIEW
AND LEGEND.
REV. 05-01-20: REDREW SHEET.
MATERIAL SHOWN ARE ONLY A
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
AND DO NOT DEPICT THE
ACTUAL DEPTH OR QUANTITY OF
MATERIALS TO APPROPRIATELY
CONSTRUCT OR STABILIZE
THE CHANNEL.
STATE OFTENNESSEE
STANDARD
DRAWING
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WOOD TOE WITH
NOT TO SCALE
WOOD TOE
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN LEGEND:
WOOD TOE WITH GEO-LIFTS
GEO-LIFTS
11-01-2016 I D-NSD-32

SEEDED FILTREXX@ GROSOXXTM (8"-12" TYP.)
OR LIVE PLANTED (SEE NOTE 5)
LIVE WILLOW STAKES OR OTHER PLANT
MATERIAL FROM SEED OR FROM LIVE PLUGS
FLW 20 GEOGRID WRAPPED AROUND FILTREXX@
GROSOXXT"^ FASCIA OR OTHER STRENGTH
(FLW 35 OR FLW 55)
FACE BATTER (MAX 2: 1) 7—
BOULDERS (SIZED BY ENGINEER
FOR FLOW CONDITION)
EXISTING GRADE
12"+OR HIGH
FLOW VELOCITY
CREEK BED -
EXCAVATE BELOW
EXPECTED SCOUR LINE
FILTREXX BANK TOE ROCKSOXX
(LOOSE STONE WRAPPED IN FABRIC)
NOTES:
1. ALL MATERIAL TO MEET FILTREXX@ SPECIFICATIONS.
2. GROSOXXTm FILL TO MEET APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL GROSOXXTm TO BE SEEDED PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS.
4. BACKFILL TO BE PLACED PER ENGINEER'S REQUIREMENTS.
5. GEOGRID STRENGTH, LENGTH AND VERTICAL SPACING TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER. GEOGRID — NO STRANDS
ARE TO BE CUT DURING PLANTING, ETC. WE RECOMMEND BI—DIRECTIONAL STRENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION EASE.
6. NATIVE AND DRAINAGE BACKFILL TO BE SEPARATED BY NON —WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
7. MAXIMUM HEIGHT RECOMMENDED: TEN FEET EXPOSED HEIGHT.
8. FILTREXX@ GROSOXXTm DEPENDS ON APPLICATION (SIZE DEPENDENT ON PROJECT)
9. CUT BANK NO STEEPER THAN 2H:1V. FOR STEEPER EMBANKMENTS, REFER TO GREENLOXX SYSTEM.
f iIt
1
1��%�%�
These graphic representations are intended for
preliminary design purposes onlyand are not
to be used for construction without the
SCALE:
NONE
rIL 11' =AA CLJUC,AVCK � 1 IKCAM
BANK STABILIZATION SYSTEM -
SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES
signature of a registered professional engineer.
REINFORCED WITH RIPRAP TOE

SEEDED FILTREXX® GROSOXXTM (8"-12" TYP.)
OR LIVE PLANTED (SEE NOTE 5)
LIVE WILLOW STAKES OR OTHER PLANT
MATERIAL FROM SEED OR FROM LIVE PLUGS
ORANGE WITNESS BARRIER OVERLYING
FLW 20 GEOGRID WRAPPED AROUND FILTREXX®
GROSOXXTm FASCIA OR OTHER STRENGTH
7MHW (FLW 35 OR FLW 55)
FACE BATTER (MAX 2:1) F
YAP W
RIPRAP/BOULDERS
illi�l
CREEK BED -
EXCAVATE BELOW
EXPECTED SCOUR LINE
FILTREXX BANK TOE ROCKSOXX
(LOOSE STONE WRAPPED IN FABRIC)
NOTES:
1. ALL MATERIAL TO MEET FILTREXX® SPECIFICATIONS.
2. GROSOXXTm FILL TO MEET APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL GROSOXXTm TO BE SEEDED PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS.
4. BACKFILL TO BE PLACED PER ENGINEER'S REQUIREMENTS.
5. GEOGRID STRENGTH, LENGTH AND VERTICAL SPACING TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER. GEOGRID — NO STRANDS
ARE TO BE CUT DURING PLANTING, ETC. WE RECOMMEND BI—DIRECTIONAL STRENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION EASE.
6. NATIVE AND DRAINAGE BACKFILL TO BE SEPARATED BY NON —WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
7. MAXIMUM HEIGHT RECOMMENDED: TEN FEET EXPOSED HEIGHT.
8. FILTREXX@ GROSOXXTm DEPENDS ON APPLICATION (SIZE DEPENDENT ON PROJECT)
9. WITNESS BARRIER SHOULD BE OPEN MESH GRID TO PERMIT PLANTING.
EXISTING GRADE
i
It1"���®
These graphic representations are intended for
preliminary design purposes only and are not
be used for construction without the
signature
signature of a registered professional engineer.
SCALE:
NONE
FILTREXX EDGESAVER
BANK STABILIZATION
STREAM
SYSTEM
SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES

LIVE CUTTINGS,
TYPICAL (SEE NOTE 3)
APPROXIMATE
BASE FLOW
WATER SURFACE
TOE OF BANK
X7
rlDr)QQ QCrl-rinNl
PROPOSEDTOP
OF BANK
TOP OF BANK MATTING ANCHOR
(SEE DETAIL, SHEET 2)
BACK FILL
(SEE NOTE 5)
EROSION CONTROL MATTING,
TYPICAL (SEE NOTE 4)
COARSE BACKFILL
(SEE NOTE 2)
STREAM BANK TOE PROTECTION,
BOULDER TOE PROTECTION
SHOWN (SEE NOTE 2)
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
MATTING STAKE
DEAD STOUT STAKE,
TYPICAL (SEE DETAIL,
SHEET2)
TOP OF ANCHOR
(SEE DETAIL, SHEET 2)
STREAM BANK TOE
PROTECTION, BOULDER
TOE PROTECTION
SHOWN (SEE NOTE 2) X10 X13
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
PLAN VIEW LIVE CUTTINGS, TYPICAL
(SEE NOTE 6) (SEE NOTE 3)
THIS FIGURE IS ONLY MEANT TO DEFINE THE MINIMUM INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE TO BE INCLUDED IN A DETAIL FOR THIS TYPE OF TECHNIQUE.
THIS FIGURE IS NOT MEANT TO REPRESENT A STANDARD DESIGN METHOD FOR THIS TYPE OF TECHNIQUE AND SHALL NOT BE USED AS SUCH. NOT TO SCALE
Cinrielle-Mecklenburg SHEET NUMBER
STORA CHARLOTTE -MECKLENBURG VEGETATED GEOGRID 1 OF
WATER STORM WATER SERVICES REV. DATE REV
services Mlm� GENERIC DETAIL REQUIREMENTS DRAFT - NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION

+`O
p
ik
- p
APPROXIMATE BASE
FLOW WATER SURFACE
X10
)(9
LIVE CUTTINGS
(SEE NOTE 3)
- BACKFILL (SEE NOTE 5)
STREAM BANK TOE PROTECTION,
RIPRAP SHOWN (SEE NOTE 2)
EROSION CONTROL MATTING,
TYPICAL (SEE NOTE 4)
MATTING WRAPPED LIFT DETAIL
PHOTO: VEGETATED GEOGRID UNDER CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING TOP
OF BANK
4" EROSION CONTROL
UNTREATED X1 MATTING
2" X 4" (NOMINAL) BOARD
16
BACKFILL IX
(SEE NOTE 5)j
X17
DEAD STOUT STAKE �/ TRENCH BACKFILL
(SEE DETAIL, THIS SHEET) �\\/\�, (SEE NOTE 4)
0" - 1 /2"
TOP OF BANK FABRIC
ANCHOR DETAIL
DEAD STOUT STAKE DETAIL
THIS FIGURE IS ONLY MEANT TO DEFINE THE MINIMUM INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE TO BE INCLUDED IN A DETAIL FOR THIS TYPE OF TECHNIQUE.
THIS FIGURE IS NOT MEANT TO REPRESENT A STANDARD DESIGN METHOD FOR THIS TYPE OF TECHNIQUE AND SHALL NOT BE USED AS SUCH. NOT TO SCALE
Cimriette-NeekknhM SHEET NUMBER
STORM CHARLOTTE -MECKLENBURG VEGETATED GEOGRID 2 OF 3
WATER STORM WATER SERVICES REV. DATE I REV.
services aM GENERIC DETAIL REQUIREMENTS DRAFT - NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION

DIMENSIONS (VALUES TO BE PROVIDED BY DESIGNER)
VARIABLE
VALUES
TYPICAL
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
X1
IN. OR FT.
VEGETATED GEOGRID PLACEMENT FROM TOP OF BANK
X2
FT.
VEGETATED GEOGRID HEIGHT
X3
IN. OR FT.
TOE PROTECTION HEIGHT
X4
IN. OR FT.
VEGETATED GEOGRID RELATIONSHIP TO APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW
WATER LEVEL
X5
IN. OR FT.
FIRST SOIL LIFT FACE HEIGHT
X6
IN. OR FT.
SOIL LIFT FACE HEIGHT
X7
FT.
BASE WIDTH OF STREAM BANK/SLOPE REPAIR
X8
IN. OR FT.
TOP WIDTH OF STREAM BANK/SLOPE REPAIR
X9
IN. OR FT.
WIDTH OF LIFTS (MIN. AND MAX. IF APPLICABLE)
X10
IN. OR FT.
LIVE CUTTING LENGTH
X11
IN.
LIVE CUTTING DIAMETER (MIN. AND MAX.)
X12
IN. OR FT.
DEAD STOUT STAKE SPACING - TOP OF ANCHOR
X13
IN. OR FT.
MATTING STAKE SPACING
X14
IN. OR FT.
TOP OF BANK ANCHOR TRENCH SETBACK FROM TOP OF BANK
X15
IN. OR FT.
TOP OF BANK ANCHOR TRENCH WIDTH
X16
IN.
TOP OF BANK ANCHOR TRENCH DEPTH
X17
IN.
DEAD STOUT STAKE LENGTH
X18
IN.
LIVE CUTTING SPACING
X19
NONE
BANK SLOPE (HORIZONTAL COMPONENT)
X20
FT.
SLOPE/BANK HEIGHT
NOTES:
1. VEGETATED GEOGRID SHALL CONSIST OF LIVE CUTTINGS PLACED BETWEEN SOIL LIFTS WRAPPED
WITH EROSION CONTROL MATTING.
2. VEGETATED GEOGRID MAYBE INSTALLED OVER A STREAM BANK TOE PROTECTION MEASURE (E.G.
- BOULDER OR RIP RAP TOE PROTECTION, ROOT WADS; ETC.). INFORMATION REGARDING TOE
PROTECTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE ADDED TO THE VEGETATED GEOGRID DETAIL OR DETAILED
SEPARATELY AND REFERENCED HEREIN.
3. THE LIVE CUTTINGS USED IN THE VEGETATED GEOGRID SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER
(SPECIES, LENGTH, DIAMETER) AND SHOWN IN THIS DETAIL IN ATABLE OR ELSEWHERE IN THE
PLANS (E.G. -A PLANTING PLAN) AND REFERENCED HEREIN. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
LIVE CUTTINGS INCLUDING HARVESTING AND HANDLING INFORMATION SHALL BE DETAILED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS.
4. EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BE OF A TYPE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. IT SHALL BE
USED TO WRAP THE SOIL LIFTS AND ALSO BE PLACED FLAT AND STAKED AGAINST ALL OTHER
PREPARED (GRADED, TILLED, SMOOTHED; ETC.) AND SEEDED AND MULCHED SLOPES. ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REGARDING EROSION CONTROL MATTING, SLOPE PREPARATION, AND
SEEDING/MULCHING SHALL BE ADDED TO THE VEGETATED GEOGRID DETAIL OR DETAILED
SEPARATELY AND REFERENCED HEREIN.
5. THE SOIL PLACED BELOW, WITHIN, AND ABOVE THE LIFTS SHALL BE AMENDED AS SPECIFIED BY
THE DESIGNER. ALSO THE DESIGNER SHALL SPECIFY MAXIMUM LIFT HEIGHT AND COMPACTION
REQUIREMENTS. INSTALLATION OF VEGETATED GEOGRID SHALL PROGRESS GENERALLY AS
FOLLOWS:
A. TOE PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
B. PLACE LAYER OF EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER TOE PROTECTION. MATTING SHALL
EXTEND OVER THE TOE PROTECTION TO THE FACE OF THE EXISTING SLOPE. A SUFFICIENT
AMOUNT OF MATTING SHOULD REMAIN TO WRAP THE FACE OF THE SOIL LIFT AND EXTEND
BACK ON TOP OF THE LIFT A MINIMUM DISTANCE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
C. PLACE FIRST LIFT OF SOIL OVER THE MATTING. THIS LIFT SHALL BE THE SPECIFIED LIFT
HEIGHT AT THE "BACK" OF THE LIFT (WHERE IT MEETS THE EXISTING SLOPE FACE). THE LIFT
SHALL SLOPE UPWARD TOWARD THE PROPOSED SLOPE FACE TO ACHIEVE THE SPECIFIED
SLOPE OF THE PROPOSED STREAM BANK FACE.
D. COMPACT SOIL LIFTS AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.
E. WRAP COMPACTED SOIL LIFT WITH THE REMAINING EROSION CONTROL MATTING.
F. PLACE LAYER OF LIVE CUTTINGS ON TOP OF THE LIFT AT THE SPECIFIED SPACING. THE BASAL
ENDS OF THE LIVE CUTTINGS SHALL CONTACT THE FACE OF THE EXISTING SLOPE AND SHALL
PROJECT NO MORE THAN 6 INCHES FROM THE PROPOSED SLOPE FACE.
G. CONSTRUCT REMAINING LIFTS IN SIMILAR FASHION AT THE SPECIFIED HEIGHT(S).
H. THE FACE OF THE COMPLETED VEGETATED GEOGRID SHALL MATCH THE PROPOSED BANK
SLOPE.
6. THE PLAN VIEW ILLUSTRATES A PERPENDICULAR PERSPECTIVE OF EACH SURFACE DEPICTED IN
THE CROSS SECTION. THERE IS NO FORESHORTENING OF THE STREAM BANK (OR ANY OTHER
SLOPED SURFACE) IN THE PLAN VIEW.
THIS FIGURE IS ONLY MEANT TO DEFINE THE MINIMUM INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE TO BE INCLUDED IN A DETAIL FOR THIS TYPE OF TECHNIQUE.
THIS FIGURE IS NOT MEANT TO REPRESENT A STANDARD DESIGN METHOD FOR THIS TYPE OF TECHNIQUE AND SHALL NOT BE USED AS SUCH. NOT TO SCALE
CHARLOTTE -MECKLENBURG I VEGETATED GEOGRID 1 3 OF 3
WATER I STORM WATER SERVICES I
- Services as GENERIC DETAIL REQUIREMENTS DRAFT - NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Appendix E
Additional Photographs
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Photo 1. Representative photograph of proposed South River Crossinq location
r
Photo 2. Representative photograph of proposed North River Crossing location
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I DWR Project No. 20230477 ���
Response to the Division of Water Resources Request for Additional Information
Photo 3. Representative photograph of Tributary to French Broad River located
downstream of North River Crossina
Photo 4. Representative photo of existing riparian buffer near North River Crossing
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200; Charlotte, NC 28202
704.338.6700

Appendix F
Meeting Minutes from April
277 2023, Site Meeting
hdrinc.com 1201 Market Street
[phone]

Meeting Minutes
Project: MSD - Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project
Subject: Onsite Meeting with Environmental Regulators
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Location: Carrier Park and French Broad River Parks — Asheville, North Carolina
Attendees: Andrew Moore — NC Department of Darin Prosser — Metropolitan Sewerage
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) District of Buncombe County (MSD)
Andrea Leslie — NC Wildlife Resources Crystal Allgood — HDR
Commission (NCWRC) Eric Mularski — HDR
On behalf of the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County (MSD), HDR submitted
the Section 404/401 Pre -Construction Notification for Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement
Project (Project) electronically on March 29, 2023. After reviewing the application, Andrew
Moore (NCDEQ) requested an onsite meeting to discuss the temporary bank stabilizations
measures and proposed tree clearing at the proposed crossing locations. This document
provides a summary of the items discussed during the onsite Project site visit conducted on
April 27, 2023..
• NCDEQ inquired about what the hydrologic -hydraulic model (HEC-RAS model) uses
to equate the stream flood levels, significant rain events, and potential
erosion/scouring effects. NCDEQ was curious on what were the baseline studies
used to develop the algorithms for the model program and if they are equivalent to
the conditions present for the French Broad River Stream System. HDR is looking
into this further and will address this inquiry with the formal response to NCDEQs
request for additional information.
• NCDEQ communicated that based on knowledge of the area, established bank
vegetation would likely survive a storm event even with the cofferdam structures in
place and expressed that removing the existing bank vegetation to replace with
protective gabion riprap slope protection measures would result in more damage to
the bank through the construction of implementing those measures, the
scouring/washing away of the rip rap, and the overall aesthetics along the bank over
the long term rather than trying to re-establish the existing old growth riparian
vegetation. Mature woody vegetation documented onsite included boxelders, red
maples, sycamores, and river birch.
• NCDENR and NCWRC both expressed the preference to leave the existing bank
vegetation in place (i.e., no bank slope protection measures beyond the immediate
crossing area), minimize the crossing impacts along the banks, and remediate any
affects to the banks afterwards should a storm come during the period of
construction and impose a negative effect (i.e., scour, erosion) on the riverbanks.
Also, feel like 600ft at the south crossing for bank slope protection measures is too
much.
• NCDEQ and NCDWR both expressed that the removal of the riparian buffer and
installation of the temporary cofferdams may impact the stream temperature.

• NCWRC recommend minimizing impacts to riparian areas as a conservation
measure to preserve foraging habitat for gray bats.
• It was discussed that the proposed height of the cofferdam structures was design to
overtop at a 2-year storm event and therefore mitigate bank erosion in constricted
areas with higher velocities.
• NCWRC expressed they are okay to leave the cofferdam options open for the
contractor to decide which option would be the best to use based on the data
available and experience working in the area/stream system.
• NCDEW and NCWRC requested additional details for the post -construction
permanent bank stabilization/restorations efforts. NCWRC discussed installing
geolifts as a post -construction permanent bank stabilization option and
recommended reaching out Andrew Bick at Headwaters Engineering to discuss a
project on the Biltmore property. Project link: French Broad River Bank Stabilization
Completed (https://headwaters-eng.com/2020/06/11/french-broad-river-bank-
stabilization-completed/)
• NCDEQ and NCWRC indicated that quantitative assessments would be required to
monitor planted riparian vegetation post construction.
• NCWRC requests a copy of the mussel survey report. (Attached to these meeting
minutes and included in the PCN submittal Package in Attachment 10 — Biological
Assessment, Appendix C — Resource Reports)
• A tributary to the French Broad River was identified immediately downstream of the
North River Crossing (i.e., the force main crossing). This feature was located outside
of the original survey area and not previously identified on the plans. HDR will
evaluate if the proposed North Crossing cofferdam will impede discharge flows and
establish measures to protect the tributary from adjacent construction activities.
(KMZ file with georeferenced photos of this feature is attached to these meeting
minutes)
Several items were discussed in the field that were included in the Formal Request for
Additional Information received from NCDEQ via email on 5/3/2023 including:
• A figure that depicts the future extension of the 60-inch diameter gravity sewer
interceptor pipe from the South River Crossing and extending upgradient/south.
• Clarify if the rockfill cofferdam is still being considered for the project or if the sheet
pile cofferdam is the preferred option.
• Sheet piles will require drilling into bedrock along the riverbed. Provide detail on how
the river flow does not come in to contact with the disturbed area and/or how the
river will be protected from turbidity during the drilling process.
• Sheet piles and brace box will likely require grout to seal the sheet piles from
seepage. Provide a detailed plan on how the grouting will be contained to prevent
contact with the river flow as cement contains lime and contact with water can affect
pH and have detrimental effects on aquatic life.
HDR will respond to NCDEQ's Formal Request for Additional Information by 6/2/2023.
Attachments:
Three Oaks Freshwater Mussel Survey Report for the Proposed Carrier
Bridge Pump Station
MSD Carrier Bridge Road Pump Station Project Google Earth KMZ File
with Geo-Referenced Photographs

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ` �1
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information J
Appendix C
Cultural Resource Reports
and State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO)
Coordination for the Action
Area
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

FN
January 22, 2021
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
State Historic Preservation Officer
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
REFERENCE: Review of Proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement for Potential
Adverse Effects to Historic Properties (No Known Prior ER No.)
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Please find enclosed materials relating to the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County's
proposed Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement project in Buncombe County (Project; Figure 1).
These are being provided for your review and comment in relation to the potential for the Project to have
adverse effects on historic properties. There is no known North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) environmental review number for the Project.
The existing Carrier Bridge Pump Station has three centrifugal solids handling pumps that together
provide a current firm capacity of 22.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and a 24-inch force main that is
approximately 770 feet (234.7 meters) in length with approximately 250 feet (76.2 meter) crossing under
the French Broad River. The highest element associated with the existing pump station is approximately
12 to 15 feet (3.7 to 4.6 meters) above the g round surface. The proposed improvements to the Carrier
Bridge Pump Station would include a new 34 mgd (expandable to 50 mgd) pump station and force main
to replace the existing pump station. The existing influent gravity sewer and existing discharge force main
would also be replaced with larger pipes. The proposed force main would cross the French Broad River to
convey the flow into the existing g ravity sewer along the east side of the river that conveys flow to the
wastewater treatment plant. The proposed location for the river crossing is approximately 1,000 feet
(304.8 meters) downstream from the existing force main. The crossing of the force main may be buried
under the river or possibly raised above the river via a new utility bridge to a height of approximately 35
feet (10.7 meters) above the ground surface. The hig hest element associated with the proposed pump
station would be approximately 28 feet (8.5 meters) above the ground surface, an estimated maximum of
16 feet (4.9 meters) higher than the existing pump station, which is at a higher elevation than the potential
utility bridge. The underground components associated with the Project would be approximately 2 to 60
feet (0.6 to 15.2 meters) deep and are located on both sides of the French Broad River.
The area of potential effects (APE) is an approximately 38-acre area along Riverview Drive, off Amboy
Road, and includes a portion of the French Broad River north of its confluence with the Swannanoa River
in southwest Asheville (Figures 2 and 3). The APE encompasses the location of the existing pump
station, the nearby location where the new pump station would be built, as well as the areas where the
new pipes would be buried under the ground surface and where the pipes would cross under or over the
French Broad River. No significant new visual effects to aboveground resources are expected from the
new pumping station, as that Project component would be no more than 16 feet (4.9 meters) above the
existing infrastructure and no more than 28 feet (8.5 meters) in height overall. New visual effects to
aboveground resources could potentially occur if the approximately 35-foot-high (10.7-meter-high) utility
bridge route for the new force main is selected. If so, visual effects are assumed to be possiblewithin a
0.25-mile radius surrounding the potential bridge location, herein called the 0.25-mile visual effects area
(Figure 4).
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]

FN
To assist in HPO's consideration of Project effects, HDR's cultural resources specialist Harriet Richardson
Seacat conducted background research on the APE utilizing HPO resources, National Park Service
(NPS) resources, files held by the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA), and relevant federal
aerial photography and USGS topographic quadrangles. Richardson Seacat also conducted field
reconnaissance of the APE and portions of the 0.5-mile surrounding rad ius to support the assessment of
visual effects from the Project. This letter summarizes thefindings from this research and presents
conclusions and recommendations regarding Project effects on cultural resources.
REVIEW OF HISTORICAL MAPS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
A review of relevant USGS topographic quadrangles and aerial photographs available from USGS
top oView and USGS EarthExplorer was conducted to assess the potential for historical resources in the
APE (USGS 2020a and 2020b). Based on available 125k-scale (30-minute) topographic quadrangles, in
the 1890s, the APE was generally outside of the developed portions of Asheville and the associated
transportation network. Between 1901 and the early 1930s, a few roads and buildings are shown in the
general vicinity, but no developments are depicted in the APE. The initial 24k-scale (7.5-minute)
topographic q uadrangle available for the APE, the 1936 edition, shows the bridge over the French Broad
River as "Carrier Bridge," as it is known today, and Riverview Drive (unlabeled) appears to follow the
same route as currently used. Residential properties are depicted to the west of the APE. By 1965,
industrial infrastructure is depicted in the vicinity of the APE, including a substation and radio tower to the
north and gas and oil tanks to the southwest and across the river to the southeast. None of the maps
show development within the APE, however. A road that aligns with the existing road to the pump station
is present in a U.S. Air Force aerial photograph from 1964; however, no buildings or other developments
associated with the road are evident. The existing pump station appears on a 1969 National Aeronautics
and Space Administration aerial photograph; however, the rest of the APE is undeveloped.
KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
A search of the archaeological resource files held by OSA identified 10 previously conducted
archaeological surveys in the APE and surrounding 0.5-mile radius (Table 1). Two surveys overlapped
the APE (OSA BIB No. 3034 and 6730).
Table 1. Cultural resources surveys within the 0.5-mile research radius, as inventoried by OSA
OSA BIB No.
Description
Overlapped
APE
N/A
Archaeological Investigations on Biltmore Estate
No
1573
Biltmore Estate Archaeological Survey
No
3034
Proposed French Broad River Park, Survey
Yes
Archaeological Phase I survey of the proposed approach road widening on the
No
4956
Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina
5128
Smith -McDowell House Survey
No
5190
Biltmore Estate Exit Road Repair & Guest House
No
6730
River Arts District Wilma Dykeman Riverway, Survey
Yes
7175
SwannanoaRiver& Ram Branch Stream Restoration
No
7532
2016 Monitoring: Swannanoa Riverbank Stabilization
No
Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Investigations on the Biltmore Estate,
No
8017
Buncombe County, North Carolina
N/A = not applicable
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]

FN
The 1991 survey for the proposed French Broad River Park (BIB No. 3034) investigated the entire APE
on the western side of the French Broad River (Lautzenheiser 1991). Twenty-one, 12-inch-wide (0.3
meter) auger tests were excavated every 100 to 300 feet (30.5 to 91.4 meters) to the depth of 6 feet (1.8
meter) below ground surface. The auger results guided the placement of seven 15- to 125-foot-long (4.6-
to 38.1-meter-long) backhoe trenches within the APE. The trenches extended to 7 to 60 feet (2.1 to 18.3
meters) in depth, depending on trench characteristics, and were excavated perpendicular to the river to
assess stratigraphy as it d iffers with d istance from the river. Mid- to late -twentieth century domestic trash
was found in three trenches to depths of 5 to 8 feet (1.5 to 2.4 meters). Fill from the construction of power
lines was identified in a third trench. The three remaining trenches evidenced environmental or climatic
events and not human activities. No sites were recorded during the survey.
The 2010 survey for the proposed Wilma Dykeman Riverway investigated an area overlapping the entire
APE located on the eastern side of the French Broad River, as well as the portion of the APE that
overlaps Carrier Bridge (Shumate et al. 2010). No shovel tests were located within the portion of the
survey that overlapped the current APE, as access was denied by the landowner. The nearest shovel test
excavations (located within the boundary of the Hans Rees Tannery, an architectural historic district
discussed in more specific detail below) were terminated at 11 to 24 inches (0.3 to 0.6 meter) and largely
recovered coal and slag, indicating, respectively, fuel burning and/or stockpiling, and ironmaking or
redepositing of ironmaking byproducts for other uses. Otherwise, the excavations contained small
amounts of twentieth century bottle glass and structural remains.
Overall, no sites were recorded during the 2010 survey for the proposed Wilma Dykeman Riverway.
However, the survey report concluded that, if any prehistoric or early historic period archaeological
contexts exist in that survey's project area, such deposits would be "deeply buried beneath modern
overburden" (Shumate et al. 2010). The report authors recommended that no furtherwork was necessary
f or d isturbances less than 3.3 feet (1 meter) deep, while ground disturbances deeper than 1 meter should
be monitored by an archaeologist.
KNOWN NRHP-LISTED OR ELIGIBLE CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Review of the NPS NRHP webmap shows that no NRHP-listed cultural resources are within the APE or
the 0.25-mile visual effects area (NPS 2020). The nearest NRHP-listed resource, the Biltmore Estate
Historic District, is located across the French Broad River, the northern boundary of which is
approximately 0.3 mile south of the potential utility bridge location. The district's northern viewshed is
completely buffered by mature trees located along the river, between the district and the APE. Further,
the nearest buildings within the district are 0.7 mile or more away from the potential utility bridge location.
The Biltmore Estate mansion is over 2.9 miles from the potential utility bridge location and generally
separated from the APE by substantial forested lands as well as portions of Interstate-40, which traverse
east -west through the district's NRHP boundaries. The Project would have no effect on the NRHP-listed
Biltmore Estate Historic District.
Research of aboveground cultural resource information available via the HPOWEB 2.0 Buffer Tool
determined that no aboveground resources have been recorded in the APE and a total of 12
aboveground resources have been recorded within the 0.25-mile visual effects area (Table 2; HPO 2020).
Nine of these resources are residential properties within the Erskine -Walton neighborhood. Another
resource, an inspection station and truck repair property, is noted by HPO as ineligible for the NRHP.
These 10 aboveground cultural resources were surveyed by HPO but not added to the HPO study list;
thus, these resources are likely ineligible for the NRHP.
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]

FN
Table 2. Aboveground cultural resources within the 0.25-mile visual effects area, as inventoried on HPOWEB
HPO Site ID
Status
Site Name
Description / Notes
BN0414
SLDOE
Hans Rees Tannery
Criteria & C, BN Co Rpt #480; SL 1991, DOE 2012
BN5664
SL
Walto n Park an d Po o I
c. 1938 1 -story flat roof concrete block structure,pool&
other recreational facilities for African Americans
BN5688
SO
House
1-story side gable Craftsman/bungalowhouse
BN5689
SO
House
1-story front gable roof Craftsman/bun g alow house
BN5690
SO
House
1-story side gable house
BN5698
SO
House
1-story front gable roof Craftsman/bun galowhouse
BN5699
SO
House
2 1/2-story pyramidal roof Colonial Revival house
BN5700
SO
House
11/2-story cross gable roof Craftsman/bungalowhouse
BN5701
SO
House
1-story hipped roof house
BN5702
SO
House
1-story front gable roof Craftsman/bun g alow house
BN5703
SO
House
1-story front gable roof Craftsman/bun galowhouse
BN5933
SO
Inspection Station and
No description provided; Noted by HPO to be ineligible
Truck Repair
SL = study list; SLDOE = study list determined eligible; SO = surveyed only
The two remaining aboveground resources depicted on HPOWEB within the 0.25-mile visual effects area
consist of Hans Rees Tannery district and Walton Park and Pool. The circa-1898 to more recent tannery
district was added to the HPO study list in 1991 and determined by HPO to be eligible for the NRHP in
2012. The district is composed of large warehouse -style buildings that once served industrial uses and
now house art and antique galleries, other retail businesses, and restaurants. The nearest buildings
associated with the district are 0.1 mile or more away from the potential utility bridge location. Mature
trees surrounding the district and located along the French Broad River in the southern viewshed from
this resource as well as elevation would likely completely screen the Hans Rees Tannery district from the
potential utility bridge location and other portions of the Project. In addition, substantial transmission lines
and associated infrastructure are in view overhead in the same direction from the resource as the Project,
and other modern intrusions, such as a cell tower and modern homes, are in view surrounding the historic
district. The Project would have no adverse effect on this NRHP-eligible aboveground cultural resource.
Walton Park and Pool was recorded in 2019 as a one-story recreational facility with a pool that has
historically served African Americans and is approximately 0.2 mile or more west of the proposed utility
bridge location (HPO 2020). Upon survey, this resource was added to the HPO study list, indicating it has
undetermined NRHP eligibility but has the potential to be eligible. Distance, as well as mature trees and
buildings in the western viewshed from this resource, substantially screen Walton Park and Pool from the
Project. The Project would have no adverse effect on this potentially NRHP-eligible aboveground cultural
resource.
A search of the archaeological resource files held by OSA identified seven known archaeological sites in
the APE and the surrounding 0.5-mile radius (Table 3). None of the known archaeological sites overlap
the APE.
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]

FN
Table 3. Known archaeological sites within the 0.5-mile research radius, as inventoried by OSA
Site No.
Site Component
OSA BIB No.
NHRP Status
Overlap APE
31BN12
Prehistoric
1573; 7175; 7532
Undetermined
No
31BN174
Prehistoric
1573; 3120; 4956; 8017
Determined Eligible
No
31BN185
Prehistoric
--
Undetermined
No
31BN696
Prehistoric; Historic
5190;8017
Determined Eligible
No
31BN723
Prehistoric; Historic
5128
Undetermined
No
31BN739
Prehistoric; Historic
5190
Undetermined
No
31BN740
Prehistoric; Historic
5190; 7532
Undetermined
No
Two of the seven sites recorded within the 0.5-mile radius were determined to be eligible for the NRHP.
Both sites are across the French Broad River or the Swannanoa River from the APE, the nearest being
approximately 1,837 feet (560 meters) or more away and the other, approximately 2,346 feet (715
meters) or more away. The Project would have no effect on these NRHP-eligible archaeological sites.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, available historical maps and aerial photographs demonstrate that the APE was largely
undeveloped until the 1960s, when the existing pump station was built. Four NRHP-eligible or potentially
eligible resources are known in the APE or the surrounding 0.5-mile radius. The Project would have no
adverse effect or no effect, respectively, on the two NRHP-eligible or potentially eligible architectural
resources within the 0.25-mile visual effects area, consisting of the Hans Rees Tannery and Walton Park
and Pool. The Project would likewise have no effect on the nearest NRHP-listed resource, the Biltmore
Estate Historic District, located outside the 0.25-mile visual effects area.
No previously recorded archaeological resources are known to be in the APE. Based on prior survey
results, HDR concludes that the APE on thewestern side of the French Broad River has been adequately
investigated through auger tests and deep trench excavations that revealed mid- to late -twentieth century
domestic trash deposits to approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) and, otherwise, especially in the deepest
trenches, environmental or climatic data with no evidence of human activities in the immediate vicinity.
Thus, HDR concludes that the portion of the APE on the western side of the river generally has low
probability of containing archaeological resources and recommends no furtherwork in this portion of the
APE.
Based on prior survey results, HDR concludes that the APE on the eastern side of the French Broad
River has potential for containing intact archaeological resources below 3.3 feet (1 meter). While the
Project would disturb ground to depths up to 15 feet (4.6 meters) to install new gravity sewer, the
excavations would be conducted in the same locations as the existing gravity sewer. As such, HDR
recommends no further work in the portion of the APE on the eastern side of the river, unless portions of
the excavations for the new g ravity sewer do not align with prior excavations and are d eeper than 1
meter. In such areas, archaeological monitoring of Project activities on the eastern side of the river is
recommended.
We seek your review and comment on these recommendations and the potential for adverse effects to
historic properties in relation to the Project. If you need additional information, please contact me at
[e-mail] or 256-614-9007.
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]

FN
Sincerely,
Harriet L. Richardson Seacat, M.A.
Environmental Project Manager/ Cultural Resources Specialist
Sources cited:
Lautzenheiser, Loretta
1991 Archaeological Survey and Deep Testing of a Proposed French Broad River Park, Asheville,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. Prepared by Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., for City of
Asheville, Parks and Recreation, Asheville, North Carolina. On file at OSA, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
2020 HPOWEB 2.0 Buffer Tool. Available at
https:Hnc.mal2s.arcciis.com/apes/webappviewer/index.html?id=773b7da94dc0478390cbOc3l 86
b 7a498.
Shumate, Scott, Lotte Govaerts, Nikki Preston, and John Preston
2010 Archaeological Investigations in the River Arts District of the Proposed Wilma Dykeman
Riverway. Prepared by Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants. On file at OSA, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (NPS)
2020 National Register of Historic Places. Available at
httips://www.nps.ciov/mal2s/full.html?mal2ld=7adl 7cc9-b8O8-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2020a TopoView. Available at https://namdb.usas.gov/topoview.
2020b Eath Explorer. Available at https://earthexplorer.usgs.aov/.
Enclosures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Fig ure 2: Aerial View of APE
Fig ure 3: 24k USGS Topographic View of APE
Figure 4: Known Aboveground Cultural Resources
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075 6
[phone]

F]l
LEGEND Jz - �sC 4r RQ n�v LYdf9 M0ua n�dyr�� r
APE �r Rd Ae ft6 i
C Mlles - _ 8,e'rrC 'Grove _ 'Rd
Elks aY
a Reiedns {� / ELK U
'.WOOdfl11 MWnreal- • � X • 2A
aRa tea., -a
AaFe
-
�` '? uowr:lty arurw nf`�
r '- Aahav Ye Ceury ,L�. - G
l AYon f
'251 � Pa l Tu Y
5,1 aaAev3le •.
s
M1v er`5 +]d Y
_ �qq p-
Pad tic
4 Av Blllmory -'
Sce[I Mnunlarq Ad' I Fneal glllfn Oft -
aaiela '�o counoy Gwe Foresl evrcm
- � eu s6ee rlbunK
(N7AIN `
",a �{a,sa / LluerzrM urnor
_ - u4
5'
PowAatan C� Recro albn ."./' '
9 AA r
sac Rn ' Stud Area
h'
'� r .ter lug
��a fta F a
fnh-
s
Buncombe County
PISGAI{/R�f
�� w `cons at
CARRIER BRIDGE PS
L)l 1 i! PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE 1
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075 7
[phone]

F)l
a
WIMM
VFT
CARRIER BRIDGE PS
AERIAL VIEW OF APE
FIGURE 2
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075 8
[phone]

F3l
F)l
r mph
CARRIER BRIDGE P5
24K USGS TOPOGRAPHIC VIEW OF APE
FIGURE 3
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075 9
[phone]

F)l
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suites 800, 900 & 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075 10
[phone]

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
March 18, 2021
Harriet Richardson Seacat
HDR
440 South Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
harriet. richardsonseacat(a,hdrinc. com
Re: Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement, Asheville, Buncombe County, ER 21-0316
Dear Ms. Richardson Seacat:
Thank you for your submission of February 11, 2021, concerning the above -referenced project. We have
reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments:
The proposed project includes replacing the existing pump station, existing influent gravity sewer, and
discharge force main, with potential ground disturbance up to a depth of 15.2 meters on both the east and
west sides of the French Broad River. As noted in your submission, the area of potential effect (APE) is
located within 0.5 miles of seven archaeological sites that do not intersect with the project area. Previous
studies have shown that the portion of the APE on the west side of the river does not contain intact
archaeological resources — a finding with which we agree. However, an archaeological report by Scott
Shumate et al. (2010, Bib 06730) shows that along the east side of the river, there is potential for intact
archaeological deposits at a depth of 1 meter or more below the surface. This higher probability area
intersects with the east side of the project APE.
Because the proposed construction activities on the east side of the river may include either excavation for
a new gravity sewer outside the location of the existing sewer and/or the construction of a utility bridge,
both requiring intrusion deeper than 1 meter, we recommend a systematic archaeological survey be
conducted prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities on the east side of the river. The
archaeological survey area should include the furthest extent of all potential locations of ground
disturbance for the project on the east side of the APE only, between the French Broad River and Lyman
Street. The survey should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the
Interior professional qualifications.
A list of archaeological consultants, who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at hllps:Harchaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey. Our
office requests that your consultant meet with the Office of State Archaeology Review Archaeologist
to discuss the location and appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field
investigation.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

Two paper copies and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital
copy (PDF) of the North Carolina Site Form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of
State Archaeology (OSA) through this office for review and comment, as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities. OSA's Archaeological Standards and
Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found
online at: hlWs:Hfiles.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA Guidelines_Dec20l7.pdf.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewkncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
(� State Historic Preservation Officer

From:
Clark, Dylan J
To:
RichardsonSeacat, Harriet
Cc:
Shultz, Matthew
Subject:
RE: [External] RE: ER 21-0316 update on next steps
Date:
Friday, April 16, 2021 4:24:10 PM
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Harriet,
Thanks very much. This plan looks great, and I will update our database with the specifics.
Have a nice weekend,
Dylan
Dylan J. Clark, Ph.D., RPA
Assistant State Archaeologist
Division of Historical Resources, Office of State Archaeoloav
INC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
EN
■0 NC DEPARTMENT OF
0: No NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■'K
Office: 828-250-3109
dvlan.clarkancdcr.aov
Pronouns: he / him / his
Western Office
176 Riceville Road
Asheville, INC 28805
Twitter I Facebook I Instagram I YouTube I Linkedln
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Rich ardsonSeacat, Harriet <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Clark, Dylan J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Shultz, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: ER 21-0316 update on next steps
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Hi Dylan —Yes, I agree that we need to send new correspondence to HPO/OSA after the western APE
area has been finalized. That may be a year or so out yet.

I've attached the scope for the geoarch survey to be conducted on the east side of the river (Eastern
APE, per below). Also for your records, we have submitted the following scope to MSD for our
portion of the work:
In relation to the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County's (MSD) proposed
Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement project in Buncombe County (Project), HDR will
perform the following tasks for the archaeological effort on the eastern side of the French
Broad River, north of its confluence with the Swannanoa River (Eastern area of potential
effect [APE]). Archaeological effort associated with the Project to the west of the current
Project work area (Western APE) will be coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NC HPO), acting as the State Historic Preservation Officer, following
completion of the work in the Eastern APE.
Task 1— NC HPO/OSA Coordination. HDR will continue coordination with the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) state archaeologist assigned to Buncombe County to help ensure Project
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act associated with the
Eastern APE. This will include initial coordination on the methodology to be used in the
geoarchaeological survey performed by Seramur & Associates, PC (Seramur), out of Boone,
NC. OSA coordination will continue following the survey, when HDR will provide the report
and plan follow up studies that may need to occur, depending on findings, and finalize
Section 106 coordination with OSA and HPO on the Project's effort for the Eastern APE.
Task 2 — Subconsultant Coordination and Report Oversight. HDR will coordinate with
Seramur on the timing for the geoarchaeological survey and relevant Project particulars. If
needed, HDR will produce geographic information system (GIS) files, as transferred from the
Project design files for the Eastern APE, and provide these to Seramur. These files will depict
the locations of the existing sewer components and trenches, as well as the proposed
Project components and trenches, in order for Seramur to precisely plan the placing of the
geoprobe cores to avoid the existing trench footprints, while working within the proposed
trench footprints. HDR will review Seramur's deliverable and will add Project and HPO/OSA
coordination details prior to their submittal to MSD and HPO/OSA.
Thank you, Dylan!
Talk soon,
Harriet
Harriet L. Richardson Seacat, M.A.
Environmental Project Manager
HDR
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
D & M 256.614.9007
harriet.richardsonseacatna hdrinc.com
hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Clark, Dylan J <dvlan.clark(@ncdcr.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 11:33 AM
To: Rich ardsonSeacat, Harriet <Harriet.RichardsonSeacat(@hdrinc.com>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: ER 21-0316 update on next steps
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Harriet,
Thanks so much for following up — I was about to write you to do the same yesterday, so this is great
timing. Regarding our last meeting, I thought the recommendation you all made for doing some
systematic soil studies along the pipe location and little strip between the river and road makes a lot
of sense. The other MSD project that involves archaeological survey down around the bend along
the Biltmore side — I just heard from Scott -- that it has produced a high number of sites and
potentially significant finds. I'm planning on visiting that area with Hunter Carson and Scott perhaps
next week. So, I think proceeding with an abundance of caution, as you all are, covering the area
over on the east side with a geoarch survey is a good idea.
With regard to the next letter for ER, I would say it depends. If they have not fully or accurately
determined how the APE is going to change for future work on the western side of the river, then we
can handle this minor change in scope as you described -- through our correspondence (I can
append it to the ER documentary record) without needing to submit another formal letter/response
until the project APE officially changes in the future. However, if they do know for sure how the APE
is going to change for the west side and that work is confirmed, I would recommend submitting a
new letter that outlines those changes in the footprint and then the SHPO response letter could
include the methods we discussed for the east side with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's
probably the former, in which case if you can send me a separate email that outlines the geoarch
methods your team has decided on, I can have it appended to the original letter and update the
database. Does that make sense? Please feel free to give me a call if I can clarify anything.
Thanks, again, Harriet, and hope you have a nice weekend,
Dylan
Dylan J. Clark, Ph.D., RPA
Assistant State Archaeologist
Division of Historical Resources, Office of State Archaeoloav
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
■Ri
■f -■ NC DEPARTMENT OF
a Boom NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
r mom
Office: 828-250-3109
dylan.clark&ncdcr.gov

Pronouns: he / him / his
Western Office
176 Riceville Road
Asheville, NC 28805
Twitter I Facebook I Instagram I YouTube I Linkedln
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: RichardsonSeacat, Harriet <Harriet.RichardsonSeacat(@hdrinc.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 12:11 PM
To: Clark, Dylan J <d)1lan.clark(@ncdcr.gov>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: ER 21-0316 update on next steps
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Hi there, Dylan —Thank you for the call last week! We're working on getting a geoarch quote and
proceeding with the survey as we discussed. Meanwhile, I am wondering if it is necessary to submit a
new letter since we're following the advice per HPO coordination (wherein you recommended
survey). In the past when initiating a survey, I discussed methods with the regional archaeologist for
the particular region the survey was in, filed that exchange in the project files, and included the
details in the report.
I'm thinking, once we get an approved quote, we send that to you for your files, and we proceed
with survey and reporting, without a new letter. We would make sure the report includes that this is
the initial phase of the overall project and that coordination with HPO/OSA on the revised footprint
and methodology for the western side of the river would occur in the future. Would this be
acceptable or do you still think a letter is in order?
Thanks!
Harriet
Harriet L. Richardson Seacat, M.A.
Environmental Project Manager
HDR
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
D & M 256.614.9007
harriet.richardsonseacatCcDhdrinc.com
hdrinc.com/follow-us
From: Clark, Dylan J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 10:13 AM
To: Rich ardsonSeacat, Harriet <Harriet. RichardsonSeacat(@hdrinc.com>

Subject: RE: [External] RE: ER 21-0316 update on next steps
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Harriet,
Thanks for reaching out about the changes to the proposed work. I can meet today to speak about
ER 21-0316, or Monday 9-10 or 11-3. Our office is closed tomorrow (Fri), so unfortunately I won't be
able to meet then.
Thanks and look forward to speaking soon,
Dylan
Dylan J. Clark, Ph.D., RPA
Assistant State Archaeologist
Division of Historical Resources, Office of State Archaeoloav
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
In�0�1 NC DEPARTMENT OE
■7 A NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■no
Office: 828-250-3109
dylan.clark&ncdcr.gov
Pronouns: he / him / his
Western Office
176 Riceville Road
Asheville, INC 28805
Twitter I Facebook I Instagram I YouTube I Linkedln
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Rich ardsonSeacat, Harriet <Harriet.RichardsonSeacat(@hdrinc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 12:35 PM
To: Clark, Dylan J <d)1lan.clarkPncdcr.gov>
Subject: [External] RE: ER 21-0316 update on next steps
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Good morning, Dylan — Do you have time tomorrow afternoon to discuss this project with more of
us at HDR and our client, Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County? After our discussion
the other day, I learned that the excavation for the replacement pipe will take several months to
complete. Since only a very small portion of those excavations will result in new disturbances, we

would like to consider other approaches with you.
Thanks!
Harriet
Harriet L. Richardson Seacat, M.A.
Environmental Project Manager
HDR
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
D & M 256.614.9007
harriet.richardsonseacat(a)hdrinc.com
hdrinc.com/follow-us
From: Clark, Dylan J <dylan.clarkPncdcr. og_v>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 12:21 PM
To: Rich ardsonSeacat, Harriet <Harriet. RichardsonSeacat(@hdrinc.com>
Subject: ER 21-0316 update on next steps
CAUTION [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
�
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Harriet,
Wonderful to speak with you today and thanks for the project update for ER 21-0316. Based on the
new information you explained about the in -kind replacement of the existing gravity sewer pipe
along the east side of the APE and the removal of the proposed utility bridge construction from the
project design, it makes good sense to me to conduct archaeological monitoring during the pipe
replacement, rather than a systematic subsurface survey on east side of the APE. I did check with
Lindsay Ferrante in Raleigh about whether we need formal ER documentation, or if our scoping
meeting and correspondence will suffice. It looks like we will need the extra step of a short letter
from HDR sent to SHPO that summarizes the new information and updated map that you showed
me. In turn, you will receive a formal letter back that recommends archaeological monitoring for the
project. Once this is submitted to ER and I receive through the pipeline, it should be a quick turn-
around. Apologies for the additional step in the process, but this will help us make sure our paper
trail is complete for this project.
Thanks again for your help with this and for our meeting today.
Looking forward to meeting you in person at the Asheville office, someday, when we all get back to
in -person meetings,
Best,
Dylan

Dylan J. Clark, Ph.D., RPA
Assistant State Archaeologist
Division of Historical Resources, Office of State Archaeoloav
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
��0O R NC DEPARTMENT OF
■7m NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■I
Office: 828-250-3109
dylan.clark&ncdcr.gov
Pronouns: he / him / his
Western Office
176 Riceville Road
Asheville, NC 28805
Twitt r I Facebook I Instagram I YouTube I Linkedln
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Geomorphology Investigation on the French Broad River for the Carrier Bridge
Pump Station Project, Asheville, NC
May 30, 2021
Prepared for:
Darin A. Prosser, P.E.
Project Manager
MSD of Buncombe County, NC
2028 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Prepared by:
Keith C. Seramur, P.G.
Seramur & Associates, PC
165 Knoll Drive
Boone, NC 28607
Purpose
A geomorphology investigation was completed along a 700 in stretch of the French Broad River in
Asheville NC (Figure 1). A total of fourteen Geoprobe borings were drilled in the T 1 terrace along the
east side of the river where the Municipal Sewer District of Buncombe County (MSD) plans to upgrade
their sewer line. This investigation provides a description of soil profiles recorded in each Geoprobe
boring. The sedimentology descriptions and pedostratigraphy are used to identify buried soils and
interpret the age of the deposits at each boring location.
SCOT i
l WAt TON ST
OAKIAND RD
a
e„
Study Area
TAM4i
LAMB A"
,OVNEP Avf
zn�EN
Figure 7 Carrier Bridge MSD Project Seramur o Associates, PC 0 300
Site Location Map Asheville, NC Boone, Nc
Source: U.S.G.S. National Map Feet
Figure 1. Topographic map of the study area.

Methods
Geomorphology of the area was described from the field reconnaissance and the topographic map.
Fourteen hydraulic -push cores or Geoprobe cores were drilled across the study area to assess the potential
for buried cultural horizons. Each boring was advanced to a depth of 20 feet (610 cm). The Geoprobe rig
collects a core by hammering a steel barrel into the ground in 5-foot sections (152 cm). The core sample
was collected in a plastic core liner placed inside the core barrel. This type of barrel was extracted from
the ground after each 5-foot interval and the core liner filled with sediment was recovered. The core
sections do not always recover the entire 5-foot interval. The core barrel can advance to a certain depth
compacting friable soil until the soil becomes competent enough to be pushed up into the core barrel.
Each core was described from the top of the 152 cm interval. For example, if the first segment of core
from 0 to 152 cm only recovers 100 cm of core, the top of the recovered core is logged as 0 cm and the
base of the recovered core is logged at 100 cm. The depth interval from 100 to 152 cm would be labeled
"no recovery". Every core was logged using this protocol so there is consistency between core sections
and boring locations. The plastic core liner was labeled with the boring number and depth and the top was
noted. The core liner is cut to expose sediment in the core. The sediment core was cleaned with a trowel
to remove loose material from the core surface and show the sediment layers and soil horizons. Each core
was then placed on a photo board and photographed with a white board that listed the project name, date,
core number and core depth. The core was then moved to the description station and the pedology and
sedimentology were described. Soil profiles in each core are described following standard soil taxonomy
descriptions (Birkeland, 1999; and Schoenberger et al., 1998).
Geologic Setting and Site Geomorphology
The project area is located the Blue Ridge geologic belt. Bedrock is mapped as the Ashe Metamorphic
Suite which locally consists of micaceous metagraywacke (Figure 2). Alluvial landforms in the study area
are limited to a low lying T1 terrace along the east side of the river (Figure 1).
�a H W:n 1_
1 Zags
;tudy
Area
Explanation
Zaps • Ashe Metanxxphc S W e
Schistose Metagraywaae ^
Figure 2 Carrier Bridge MSD Project Serartlur & Assoc PC 0 500 1000 /�,
Geologic Map Asheville, NC Boone, NC Feet N
Source: U.S.G.S.
Figure 2. Geology map of study area (modified from Thigpen and Hatcher, 2009).
2

The USDA has soil in the study area mapped as Urban Land Complex. These are soils modified as a
result of development in urban areas. The study area follows a section of a pedestrian and bicycle
greenway trail. It is bordered on the east by Lyman Street and a large railroad yard (Figure 3). The
study area is bordered on the west by the French Broad River.
Results
The borings were spaced at 50 in intervals beginning at the southern end of the study area (Figure 3).
There is typically a wedge of historic alluvium that extends along the banks of most modern rivers. The
soil borings were located on the east side of the existing sewer line in an attempt to locate prehistoric soils
distal to the river channel.
Figure 5. Aerial photograph showing boring locations for borings B-1 through B-14.
On May 12, 2021 Carolina Soil Investigations, LLC mobilized to the site to drill Geoprobe borings and
collect soil samples. A track -mounted Geoprobe rig was used to drill fourteen soil borings. Rain
delayed our start on the first day, but the drilling was completed in two days as was budgeted.
Boring B-1 was drilled into about 4 meters of fill material on the bridge abutment (Table 1). A buried
Ab-horizon was recoded at a depth of 435 cm. Alluvial deposits graded from a silt loam to a loamy sand
with depth. Sand and gravel was recorded in the base of the core at a depth of 515 cm. Boring B-2 was
drilled into 3 in of fill material and a buried A -horizon was recorded at a depth of 310 cm (Table 1). This
3

A -horizon was developed in a sandy loam and this loamy alluvium extended to a depth of 490 cm where
sand and gravel were encountered.
B-1
Horizon
lithology
0-20
Fill
Rock
20-90
Fill
Silt Loam and Gravel
90-140
--
No Recovery
140-240
Fill
Silt Loam and Gravel
240-290
--
No Recovery
290-330
Fill
Loamy Sand
330-390
Fill
Sand and Gravel
390-435
--
No Recovery
435-480
Ab
Silt Loam Alluvium
480-503
C
Loamy Sand
503-515
C
Sand
515-525
C
Sand and Gravel
525
--
No Recovery
B-2
Horizon
Lithology
0-70
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
70-145
--
No Recovery
145-157
Cave-in
Sand and Gravel
157-213
Fill
Sand with Gravel
215-290
--
No Recovery
290-310
Cave-in
Sand and Gravel
310-323
Ab
Sandy Loam
323-348
C
Silt Loam
348-435
--
No Recovery
435-473
Cave-in
Silty Loam/Sand/Gravel
473-490
C
Sandy Loam
490-503
C
Sand and Gravel
503
--
No Recovery
Table 1. Descriptions of soil profiles recorded in Borings B-1 and B-2.
Boring B-3 was drilled into about 3 m of fill material and beds of alluvium were recorded below 323 cm
(Table 2). This alluvium was silt loam above a sand bed that was recorded in the base of the boring at a
depth of 555 cm. A crushed stone was recorded at a depth of 330 cm and the water table was
encountered at a depth 323 cm. Boring B-4 was drilled through about 3 m of fill and into alluvium
which consisted of alternating beds of sand and loam (Table 2). A leaf mat was recorded at a depth of
527 cm and groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 3 m. Boring B-3 and B-4 consisted of fill
material down to the water table.
B-3
Horizon
Lithology
0-45
Fill
Sand and Gravel
45-92
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
92-145
--
No Recovery
145-200
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
200-214
Fill
Sand and Gravel
214-234
Fill
Sand and Gravel
234-245
Fill
Loamy Sand Alluvium
245-290
--
No Recovery
290-323
Cave-in
Silt Loam with Gravel
323-435
C
Silt Loam
435-555
C
Silt Loam
555-580
C
Fine -Medium Sand
580
--
No Recovery
B-4
Horizon
Lithology
0-52
Fill
Sand and Gravel
52-108
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
108-145
--
No Recovery
145-267
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
267-290
--
No Recovery
290-317
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
317-349
C
Fine -Medium Sand
349-410
C
Sandy Loam
410-435
--
No Recovery
435-457
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
457-493
C
Fine -Medium Sand
493-512
C
Silt Loam
512-536
C
Fine -Medium Sand
536-546
C
Sand and Gravel
546
--
Refusal
Table 2. Descriptions of soil profiles recorded in Borings B-3 and B-4.
Boring B-5 was drilled through 4 meters of fill material before recovering alluvium (Table 3). Alluvium
consisted of interbedded loam, sand and gravel. Groundwater was recorded at a depth of 325 cm.
Boring B-6 was drilled through 2 m of fill material and into a laminated bed of sand (Table 3).
Laminations are typically not preserved in prehistoric alluvium because over time they become obscured
by pedogenesis. Alluvium in the base of boring B-6 consisted of interbedded loam and sand (Table 3).
Laminated sandy loam was also recorded between depths of 448 and 472 cm. Groundwater was

recorded at a depth of 315 cm. Boring B-5 and B-6 encountered refusal to the Geoprobe core barrel on
rock or cobbles at depths of 500 and 518 cm, respectively.
B-5
Horizon
Lithology
0-114
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
114-145
--
No Recovery
145-158
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
158-278
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
278-290
--
No Recovery
290-325
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
325-340
Fill
Organic Mud
340-363
Fill
Sandy Loam
363-410
Fill
Silt Loam
410-435
--
No Recovery
435-448
C
Silt Loam
448-470
C
Fine -Medium Sand
470-490
C
Sandy Loam
490-500
C
Sand and Gravel
500
--
Refusal
B-6
Horizon
Lithology
0-100
Fill
Silt Loam and Gravel
100-145
--
No Recovery
145-212
Fill
Silt Loam
212-238
C
Fine -Medium Sand
238-290
--
No Recovery
290-315
Cave-in
Sandy Loam
315-374
C
Sandy Loam
374-435
--
No Recovery
435-448
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
448-472
C
Sandy Loam
472-504
C
Sandy Loam
504-518
--
No Recovery
518
--
Refusal
Table 3. Descriptions of soil profiles recorded in Borings B-5 and B-6.
Boring B-7 was drilled through 218 cm of fill material and encountered refusal to the Geoprobe barrel
on a rock or concrete. This boring was offset about 6 feet to the north and where boring B-7b was
drilled. Boring B-7b was drilled to a depth of 298 cm before encountering alluvium (Table 4).
Laminated sand was recorded at a depth of 512 to 532 cm and groundwater was recorded at a depth of
310 cm. Boring B-8 was drilled through 225 cm of fill material where a buried Ab-horizon was
recorded. Slag was recorded in this buried Ab-horizon. Fill material was recorded below the Ab-
horizon down to a depth of 493 cm. Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-8 at a depth of 300 cm.
B-71i
Horizon
Lithology
0-120
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
120-145
--
No Recovery
145-238
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel & Slag
238-290
--
No Recovery
290-298
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
298-310
C
Fine -Medium Sand with Slag
310-350
C
Sandy Loam
350-357
C
Silty Loam
357-386
C
Fine -Medium Sand
386-435
--
No Recovery
435-454
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
454-488
C
Fine -Medium Sand le ed
488-512
C
Sand and Gravel
512-532
Fill
Fine -Medium Sand
532
--
Refusal
B-8
Horizon
Lithology
0-98
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
98-145
--
No Recovery
145-225
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
225-241
Ab
Loamy Sand with Slag
241-290
--
No Recovery
290-365
Fill
Sandy Loam
365-403
Fill
Sandy Loam
403-435
--
No Recovery
435-493
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
493-518
--
No Recovery
518
--
Refusal
Table 4. Descriptions of soil profiles recorded in Borings B-7b and B-8.
Borings B-9 and B-10 were drilled into a thick area of fill material (Table 5). Alluvium was not recorded
in either boring down to depths of 558 cm in boring B-9 and 520 cm in Boring B-10. Groundwater was
recorded in these borings at a depth of about 3 m.
5

B-9
Horizon
Lithology
0-80
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
80-190
--
No Recovery
190-253
Fill
Loose Sand and Gravel with
Sandy Loam
253-290
--
No Recovery
290-300
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
300-327
Fill
Loamy Sand and Gravel
327-357
Fill
Sandy Loam with Alluvium
357-378
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
378-435
--
No Recovery
435-443
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
443-460
Fill
Sand and Gravel
460-554
Fill
Fine -Medium Sand
554-558
Fill
Alluvium
558
--
Refusal
B-10
Horizon
Lithology
0-60
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
60-145
--
No Recovery
145-232
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
232-290
--
No Recovery
290-330
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
330-367
Fill
Fine -Medium Sand with Silt Laminae
367-435
--
No Recovery
435-445
Cave-in
Sandy Loam
445-508
Fill
Loamy Sand and Gravel
508-520
Fill
Sandy Loam le ed
520
--
No Recovery
Table 5. Descriptions of soil profiles recorded in Borings B-9 and B-10.
Boring B-11 was drilled through 316 cm of fill material before encountering alluvium. Alluvium in boring
B-11 consisted of sandy loam grading into sand with depth (Table 6). Boring B-12 was drilled through
236 cm of fill material where a buried Ab-horizon was recorded. A piece of slag was recorded in this
buried Ab-horizon. Laminated sand was recorded at a depth of 527 to 525 cm. Groundwater was recorded
in these borings at a depth of about 3 m.
B-11
Horizon
Lithology
0-56
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
5-145
--
No Recovery
145-155
Fill
Medium -Coarse Sand
155-216
Fill
Sandy Loam
216-290
--
No Recovery
290-300
Cave-in
Sandy Loam
300-316
Fill
Sandy Loam
316-346
C
Loamy Sand
346-379
C
Loamy Sand
379-435
--
No Recovery
435-446
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
446-470
C
Fine -Medium Sand
470-483
C
Silty Loam
483-497
C
Fine -Medium Sand
497-533
C
Fine -Medium Sand
533-548
--
No Recovery
548
--
Refusal
B-12
Horizon
Lithology
0-72
Fill
Sandy Loam
72-145
--
No Recovery
145-236
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
236-256
Ab
Loamy Sand
256-270
C
Loamy Sand
270-290
--
No Recovery
290-318
Cave-in
Sandy Loam with Gravel
318-349
C
Loamy Sand
349-374
C
Sandy Loam
374-409
C
Loamy Sand
409-435
--
No Recovery
435-452
Cave-in
Sandy Loam
452-486
Fill
Sandy Loam
486-527
Fill
Fine -Medium Sand
527-555
Fill
Medium -Coarse Sand
555-570
Fill
Sand and Gravel
570
--
No Recovery
Table 6. Descriptions of soil profiles recorded in Borings B-11 and B-12.
Boring B-13 was drilled through 214 cm of fill material where interbedded alluvial sand and loam were
recorded. A cobble was recorded at a depth of 518 cm and the sand bed between depths of 518 cm and
542 cm was laminated. Boring B-14 was drilled through 256 cm of fill material where a buried Ab-
horizon was recorded. Slag was recorded at a depth of 265 cm. A second Ab-horizon was recorded at a
depth of 532 cm. The water table was recorded at a depth of about 3 m in both of these borings.
0

B-13
Horizon
Lithology
0-22
Fill
Silt Loam with Gravel
22-145
--
No Recovery
145-214
Fill
Sandy Loam with Gravel
214-260
C
Fine -Medium Sand
260-290
--
No Recovery
290-308
Cave-in
Sandy Loam
308-336
C
Fine -Medium Sand
336-379
C
Sandy Loam
379-412
C
Fine -Medium Sand
412-435
--
No Recovery
435-445
Cave-in
Silt Loam
445-479
C
Loamy Sand
479-518
C
Fine Sand
518-542
Fill
Medium -Coarse Sand
542
--
No Recovery
B-14
Horizon
Lithology
0-79
Fill
Silty Loam with Gravel
79-145
--
No Recovery
145-256
Fill
Silt Loam
256-274
Ab
Loamy Fine -Medium Sand with Slag
274-284
C
Fine -Medium Sand
284-290
--
No Recovery
290-305
Cave-in
Silt Loam
305-355
C
Fine -Medium Sand
355-386
C
Sandy Loam
386-435
--
No Recovery
435-448
Cave-in
Silt Loam
448-500
C
Loamy Sand
500-532
C
Sandy Loam
532-552
Ab
Fine -Medium Sand with Organics
552-560
C
Sand and Gravel
560
--
No Recovery
Table 7. Descriptions of soil profiles recorded in Borings B-13 and B-14.
Discussion
Soils recorded on the T1 terrace in the study area are inceptisols with a modern A -horizon over C-
horizons. The contacts between different beds of alluvium were distinct and not diffuse and beds of
laminated sand were recorded in the base of several soil borings. These characteristics are indicative of
historic alluvium.
Buried A -horizons (Ab) were recorded in Borings B-1 and B-2 in the southern end of the study area.
The buried Ab-horizon in Boring B-1 was poorly developed which would indicate that it was not a
stable land surface for an extended period of time. The Ab-horizon in boring B-2 was quite thin
indicating a possible eroded surface.
Buried Ab-horizons were also recorded in boring B-8 and B-12. Slag was recorded in both of these
buried surfaces indicating a historic deposit. Two buried Ab-horizons were recorded in boring B-14.
Slag was recorded in the shallow Ab-horizon and the deeper Ab-horizon was below the water table.
Fill material was recorded down to the water table in many of these soil borings. The study area is
adjacent to a large rail yard. The beds of sand and loamy alluvium appear to be historic deposits.
Evidence of buried prehistoric surfaces was not found in the 14 soil borings drilled across the study area.
The only cultural deposits recorded were historic and likely related to the adjacent rail yard.
It does not appear that replacement of the sewer line will result in the disturbance of prehistoric alluvial
deposits along the French Broad River. Seramur & Associates does not recommend any further
investigation.
References
Birkeland, P.W., 1999. Soils and Geomorphology, 31 ed. Oxford Univ. Press, Inc., Oxford/New York,
430 p.
7

Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham, and W.D. Broderson, 1998. Field Bookfor
Describing and Sampling Soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln.
Thigpen, J.R., and Hatcher, R.D., 2009. Geologic map of the Western Blue Ridge and portions of the
Eastern Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge Provinces in southeast Tennessee, southwest North
Carolina, and northern Georgia. United States Geologic Survey, Map and Chart Series MCH097.

Allgood, Crystal
From: Clark, Dylan J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Carson, Hunter
Cc: Prosser, Darin
Subject: RE: [External] SFB Relief Interceptor Discussion - July 20
Hi Hunter,
Thanks very much for sending this summary of our meeting on 7/20 and the updated maps. Since our meeting, I've been
reviewing some old aerial photos of Carrier Park from Pack Library showing when it was both an airstrip and racetrack.
Especially considering what we know is on the other side of the river there, thanks to Scott's survey work, I think it
makes sense to consider the west side of Carrier Park a "high probability" landform for historical resources. Because
tunneling is required for the new pipe below the ball park and under the bike track (former racetrack), I would
recommend extending the archaeological study area a bit further west to include the parcels with the track and ball
park. Even though there is a lot of disturbance, the nature of the archaeological record there means that we can't rule
out that "islands" or "pockets" of intact historic resources could exist in places. The consultant you hire will be able to
offset for the standing structures, so it won't be that much more labor and still cover the areas of open ground where
the 20 foot trench will need to go. That is a cautious approach so that you minimize the risk of running into human
burials or part of a town house from Native villages that once existed there during construction in the upper 3-6 feet.
The reasoning is that if those kinds of cultural features appear on one side of the river, which they have over by 31BN12,
they are probable on the other side, too. This is the safest approach, to extend the archaeological survey to the west,
off -setting for extant architecture (track, buildings, pavement, etc.).
Previously disturbed areas that can be eliminated from survey: as you summarized, nothing required in the sand
and gravel quarry area and the brownfield site owned by Riverlink Inc, formerly the EDACO Junkyard.
Agree that testing is required on the parcel to the east of the Riverlink, Inc parcel through the 1,300 LF. This area
approaching the bend in the river and across from the confluence with the Swannanoa is the most culturally
sensitive area we know of currently. I think 20m intervals throughout is good because the areas of open ground
are small. I can speak with your consultant, too, when the time comes to discuss methods.
Correct that the Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement project, the influent gravity interceptor feeding the
pump station, and the two proposed force mains leaving the future pump station are covered by the other
projects and were recently cleared under ER 21-0316. No further archaeological testing is required for the areas
around the pump station. The report for ER 21-0316 by Harriet Seacat will address the open cut river crossing
north of the greenway/dog park, so no need to worry about that under ER 20-1015 (Biltmore Relief Interceptor).
As far as the documentation process with environmental review is concerned, before or after Scott's draft report is
submitted, you can submit a letter to SHPO explaining the minor change in the area of potential effects (APE) with the
new map showing the crossing and areas that will be surveyed in and around Carrier Park. Then, when the next
archaeological survey report is submitted, it will be added as an addendum to Scott's report (it's fine that it's a different
consultant — we will link them on our end, so the records will be in order).
Thanks again for summarizing our meeting and coordinating with us well ahead of time on the plans. Don't hesitate to
let me know if I can clarify or answer any additional questions.
Have a nice weekend,
Dylan

Dylan J. Clark, Ph.D., RPA
Assistant State Archaeologist
Division of Historical Resources, Office of State Archaeolo
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
■ ■■■
■■ ■ NC DEPARTMENT OF
■■ No NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■■
Office: 828-250-3109
dylan.clark(c-)ncdcr.gov
Pronouns: he / him / his
Western Office
176 Riceville Road
Asheville, NC 28805
Twitter I Facebook I Instagram I YouTube I Linkedln
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Carson, Hunter <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 3:28 PM
To: Clark, Dylan J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Prosser, Darin <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] SFB Relief Interceptor Discussion - July 20
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Dylan,
Thanks for your time on the phone a couple weeks ago, and I apologize for the delayed follow up. I just wanted to send a
summary of the highlights discussed on 7/20/21 and make sure we're on the same page. Please see below and let me
know if anything needs to be added or edited.
MSD presented the attached map showing the revised crossing location for the South French Broad Relief
Interceptor and proposed sewer alignment on the north side of the French Broad. Hunter explained that MSD is
pursuing authorization from USACOE and NCDEQ to open cut the river in lieu of alternative trenchless methods.
The open cut section will exist between the Biltmore Estate and Carrier Park baseball/softball field. Due to
constraints on the north and south sides of Carrier Park, MSD is proposing to tunnel underneath the park (as
denoted by the blue dashed line in the attachment). The depth of the pipe in this area will likely exceed 20ft.
Hunter stated that MSD recently held a meeting with NCDEQ/USACOE/NCWRC and their recommendation was
to shift the proposed sewer alignment away from the French Broad river and associated riparian buffer.
Dylan stated that due to prior land disturbance activities associated with Carrier Park, he will not require
archeology testing on the Carrier Park baseball field, nor the adjacent parcel which houses the Carrier Park race
track. Testing is required on the parcel to the east of the race track, just beyond the parking area.

Archeology testing is not required on the brownfield site owned by Riverlink Inc, formerly the EDACO Junkyard.
Testing is required to the east of the Riverlink Inc brownfield parcel and continues for approximately 1,300LF. At
this point, NCDCR has data from a previous archeology study (#91-C-0000-0418) which clears MSD of further
exploration. This study, referred to as the "Survey of French Broad River Park" covers the site of MSD's Carrier
Bridge Pump Station Replacement project, the influent gravity interceptor feeding the pump station, and the
two proposed force mains leaving the future pump station. No archeology work is required prior to pump
station construction.
For areas that do require additional testing, Dylan recommended shovel tests at an interval of 20m. MSD stated
that they will likely contract with TRC Environmental to complete the work.
A map of the additional study area is also attached.
W. Hunter Carson, P.E.
Asst. Director of Engineering
Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County, NC
2028 Riverside Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
[e-mail]

,ox
�r TRC
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SOUTH FRENCH BROAD RELIEF INTERCEPTOR
ALONG AMBOY ROAD,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL REPORT
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
February 2022

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SOUTH FRENCH BROAD RELIEF INTERCEPTOR
ALONG AMBOY ROAD,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL REPORT
NC HPO ER 20-2015
Submitted to:
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
2028 Riverside Drive
Asheville, North Carolina 28804
LIN
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
705 Dogwood Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Authored by:
Paul Webb and John Kesler
February 2022

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed an archaeological survey for a portion of the
Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD) of Buncombe County South French Broad (SFB) Relief Interceptor
along Amboy Road (Project) (ER 20-2015) in Buncombe County, North Carolina. The work was conducted
on behalf of the MSD as part of the permitting requirements for the proposed construction of approximately
5,300 feet (ca. 1,616 meters [m]) of sewer line running through Carrier and Amboy River parks along the
French Broad River floodplain; other portions of the larger SFB Relief Interceptor Project on the Biltmore
Estate to the southwest and along Amboy Road to the east have previously been surveyed by others (Scott
Shumate, personal communication 2021). The proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD) for the Project
consist of a ca. 50-foot wide corridor centered on the Project centerline.
This study was conducted to produce information on any significant cultural resources that might be present
in the LOD to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and so that the information
could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the requirements for an intensive
archaeological survey as defined by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office and Office of State
Archaeology (NC HPO/OSA) and complies with the OSA's (2017) Archaeological Investigation Standards
and Guidelines.
The archaeological fieldwork was directed by Paul Webb and John Kesler of TRC, occurred from
September 27—October 1 and on October 27, 2021, and required approximately 11 person -days. The
fieldwork included a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire LOD and systematic shovel testing
at 20-m intervals across all parts of the LOD except in areas of impervious surfaces. Shovel tests were
excavated at 10-m intervals to delineate finds. A total of 75 shovel tests were excavated.
The survey identified three archaeological sites (Table i.1). Site 31BN1117 is a low -density probable
Mississippian period (Pisgah phase) site, and sites 31BN1116 and 31BN1115 are low -density sites that
produced nondiagnostic lithic and ceramic artifacts, respectively. As all three sites have the potential to
extend outside the Project LOD, TRC recommends that these be considered unassessed for National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility under NRHP Criterion D. Given the low artifact densities
and lack of evidence of cultural features within the LOD, however, TRC recommends that the Project as
currently designed will not adversely affect any deposits that could contribute to the sites' potential
eligibility. Similarly, due to the extensive prior modifications in much of the Carrier Park area, no additional
work is recommended in areas where the shovel tests encountered dense fill. Consequently, no further
investigations are recommended for this portion of the MSD SFB Relief Interceptor Project as presently
defined.
Table U. Archaeological Sites Identified by TRC for the MSD SFB Relief Interceptor Survev.
Site Component NRHP Eligibility Recommendation
31BN1115 Precontact: nondiagnostic ceramic Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
31BN1116 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
31BN1117 Prehistoric: Mississippian (?) Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
Based on the survey results, TRC recommends that no further archaeological investigations are necessary
for this portion of the MSD SFB Interceptor Project.

This page intentionally left blank.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Hunter Carson of the MSD for facilitating the fieldwork. Scott Shumate,
Biltmore Estate Archaeologist and Historian, is thanked for sharing historical data and information on his
prior surveys for the Project.
For TRC, John Kesler directed the survey, assisted by Paul Webb and Rachael Denton. The artifacts were
processed by Brenda Magouirk-Nelson and analyzed by John Kesler (ceramics) and Belinda Cox (lithics).
John Kesler photographed the artifact plates; Belinda Cox produced the graphics; and the report was
copyedited by Heather Millis.
iii

This page intentionally left blank.
iv

MANAGEMENTSUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................................iii
FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................... vii
TABLES...................................................................................................................................................... ix
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... I
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.............................................................................................................. 5
ProjectSetting.....................................................................................................................................5
Physiography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrology................................................................................... 5
ModernClimate................................................................................................................................12
Floraand Fauna.................................................................................................................................12
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................15
Archaeological Overview..................................................................................................................15
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500-8000 B.C.)................................................................................16
Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)..........................................................................................17
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000)..............................................................................19
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1450)................................................................................23
Historic Cherokee Occupation..........................................................................................................
24
Pre -Removal Cherokee Occupations..........................................................................................24
Post -Removal Cherokee Occupations........................................................................................
28
Euro-American Exploration and Settlement.....................................................................................
28
Previous Archaeological Research....................................................................................................
30
4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS............................................................................................... 33
ResearchObjectives..........................................................................................................................33
ResearchMethods............................................................................................................................. 33
BackgroundResearch................................................................................................................. 33
FieldMethods............................................................................................................................. 33
LaboratoryMethods................................................................................................................... 33
Curation...................................................................................................................................... 34
NRHP Eligibility Evaluations.................................................................................................... 34
5. RESULTS............................................................................................................................................... 35
Previously Identified Resources........................................................................................................ 35
Archaeological Projects and Sites.............................................................................................. 35
HistoricStructures...................................................................................................................... 37
Cemeteries.................................................................................................................................. 37
Historical Development of the Project Area..................................................................................... 37
FieldSurvey Results......................................................................................................................... 55
31 BN 1117................................................................................................................................... 55
31BN1116................................................................................................................................... 65
31 BN 1115................................................................................................................................... 67
6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 71
REFERENCESCITED............................................................................................................................... 73
v

APPENDIX 1: Artifact Catalog
vi

FIGURES
1.1. Location of the Project in southwestern North Carolina.....................................................................2
1.2. Location of the Project corridor in Asheville, North Carolina............................................................
3
2.1. Aerial map of Project corridor............................................................................................................
6
2.2. Artificial berm along French Broad River at southwestern edge of Carrier Park athletic
field, facing southwest........................................................................................................................
7
2.3. Fill within artificial berm, facing east.................................................................................................
7
2.4. Project corridor across Carrier Park athletic field, facing northeast ...................................................
8
2.5. Project corridor along north side of Mellowdrome, facing east..........................................................
8
2.6. Project corridor across Carrier Park northeast of Mellowdrome, facing east .....................................
9
2.7. Project corridor along Carrier Park parking lot, facing southeast.......................................................
9
2.8. Project corridor across Carrier Park greenspace, facing southeast...................................................10
2.9. Project corridor entering former EDACO tract, facing east..............................................................10
2.10. Project corridor across fill north of EDACO tract, facing east.........................................................11
2.11. Project corridor across Amboy River Park, facing east....................................................................11
5.1. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1886 Asheville 1:125,000-scale
quadranglemap.................................................................................................................................
37
5.2. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1894 Asheville 1:125,000-scale
quadranglemap.................................................................................................................................
38
5.3. Map of West Asheville in 1895........................................................................................................
39
5.4. Newspaper article concerning racing at Carrier (West Asheville) Race Track in 1892....................
39
5.5. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1901 Asheville 1:125,000-scale
quadranglemap.................................................................................................................................
40
5.6. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1920 Buncombe County soils map...................40
5.7. Map of West Asheville ca. 1932-1934 map depicting Amboy and Almy roads ..............................
41
5.8. 1940s photograph of Carrier Field, facing southwest(?)..................................................................
42
5.9. 1940s photograph of Carrier Field, facing north...............................................................................
42
5.10. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1950.............................................................................
43
5.11. USGS 1:24,000-scale planimetric map of the Project vicinity in 1936............................................
44
5.12. USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic map of the Project vicinity in 1943...........................................45
5.13. USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic map of the Project vicinity in 1961...........................................
46
5.14. Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus at Carrier Field in 1954.....................................
47
5.15. Owen Field with New Asheville Speedway under construction, facing east....................................48
5.16. Owen Field and New Asheville Speedway, facing northeast...........................................................
49
5.17. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1965.............................................................................
50
5.18. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1970.............................................................................
51
5.19. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1975.............................................................................
52
5.20. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1994.............................................................................
53
5.21. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 2006.............................................................................
54
5.22. Location of shovel tests and identified archaeological sites (four sheets) ........................................
57
5.23. Location of identified archaeological sites........................................................................................
61
5.24. Site 31 BN 1117, facing southwest.....................................................................................................
62
5.25. Site 31BN1117, facing northeast from berm....................................................................................62
5.26. Shovel Test 36 at 31BN1117............................................................................................................63
5.27. Map of 31BN1117.............................................................................................................................64
5.28. Precontact ceramic sherds from 31BN1117......................................................................................64
5.29. Site 31BN1115, facing east...............................................................................................................66
5.30. Shovel Test 14 at 31BN1116............................................................................................................66
5.31. Site 31BN1115, facing west.............................................................................................................. 68
vu

5.32. Shovel Test 4 at 31BN1115......................................................................................................................... 68
5.33. Precontact ceramic sherds from 31BN1115...................................................................................... 69
viii

TABLES
i.1. Archaeological Sites Identified by TRC for the MSD SFB Relief Interceptor Survey..
3.1. Generalized Cultural Chronology for Southwestern North Carolina through 1838.......
5.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Project ..................
5.2. Archaeological Sites Identified by TRC in the Amboy Road Section of the MSD SFB
InterceptorProject..........................................................................................................
6.1. Archaeological Sites Identified by TRC for the MSD SFB Relief Interceptor Survey..
................15
ix

This page intentionally left blank.

1. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of archaeological survey for a portion of the Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MSD) of Buncombe County South French Broad (SFB) Relief Interceptor along Amboy Road
(Project) (ER 20-2015) in Buncombe County, North Carolina (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The work was
conducted on behalf of the MSD as part of the permitting requirements for the proposed construction of
approximately 5,300 feet (ca. 1,616 meters [m]) of sewer line running through Carrier and Amboy River
parks along the French Broad River floodplain; other portions of the larger SFB Relief Interceptor Project
on the Biltmore Estate to the southwest and along Amboy Road to the east have previously been surveyed
by others. The proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD) for the Project consist of a ca. 50-foot wide corridor
centered on the Project centerline. The fieldwork was directed by Paul Webb and John Kesler of TRC,
occurred from September 27—October 1 and on October 27, 2021, and required approximately 11 person -
days.
This study was conducted to produce information on any significant cultural resources that might be present
in the LOD to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and so that the information
could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the requirements for an intensive
archaeological survey as defined by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office and Office of State
Archaeology (NC HPO/OSA) and complies with the OSA's (2017) Archaeological Investigation Standards
and Guidelines.
The remainder of this report contains the results of this research. Chapters 2 and 3 provide environmental
and cultural contexts for the area, followed by Chapter 4, which details the research goals and methods.
Chapter 5 presents the results. Chapter 6 contains a summary and recommendations and is followed by a
list of references cited in the text. Appendix 1 contains the artifact catalogs. Digital archaeological site
forms have been submitted under separate cover.

I�qj
r
Buncombe
m
0 4
Miles
0 4
Kilometers
Figure 1.1. Location of the Project in southwestern North Carolina.
N
vv E
S
2

S A INV, Nw
%�- M7
y
Asheville, North Carolina (1979) 0 1
7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map N
Miles
0 4,000
W E
Feet
0 1
S
Buncombe County, North Carolina Kilometers
Figure 1.2. Location of the Project corridor in Asheville, North Carolina.
3

This page intentionally left blank.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PROJECT SETTING
The Project is situated on a narrow floodplain on the north side of the French Broad River in west Asheville,
approximately 425 to 1,825 in west of the confluence of the French Broad and Swannanoa rivers. The
survey corridor extends approximately 5,300 feet (ca. 1,616 meters [m]) through Carrier and Amboy River
parks, and begins at the French Broad River crossing at the southwestern edge of the Carrier Park athletic
field where an artificial berm is present (Figures 2.1-2.3). From that point the corridor runs northeast across
the field (Figure 2.4) before turning east and paralleling an existing sewer line along the north side of the
Mellowdrome (Carrier Park Velodrome, formerly the Asheville Motor Speedway) (Figure 2.5). From there
the corridor continues east, southeast, and northeast across parking areas, trails, and greenspaces of Carrier
Park (Figures 2.6-2.8). At the northern end of Carrier Park, the corridor crosses a small drainage and enters
the fenced former EDACO junkyard (the future Karen Cragnolin Park) (Figure 2.9). The corridor continues
northeast through the fenced area, emerging in an area of fill at the western end of Amboy River Park
(Figure 2.10). From there the corridor continues northeast approximately 280 in across Amboy River Park
(Figure 2.11) before meeting a corridor section previously surveyed by Scott Shumate (personal
communication 2021). Most of the corridor will be constructed using an open -cut trench, although a portion
through the more developed part of Carrier Park will be bored.
PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND HYDROLOGY
The Project is situated in the Blue Ridge province of the Appalachian Mountains within the intermountain
plateau (Asheville Basin) physiographic subdivision (Goldston et al. 1954:3), which is the largest
intermountain basin in the Blue Ridge. In North Carolina, the Blue Ridge stretches from the Unaka and
Great Smoky mountains in the west to the Blue Ridge escarpment, which borders the Piedmont at the
Brevard fault in the east (Orr and Stuart 2000:21-20). The Blue Ridge Province is traditionally described
as the area between the Brevard fault zone and the Blue Ridge fault systems and is characterized by thrust
sheets with separate tectonic histories (Hatcher and Goldberg 1991). The intermountain plateau is a broad
valley on either side of the French Broad River that is characteristically rolling and hilly, with an average
elevation of 2,300 ft above mean sea level (AMSL) (Goldston et al. 1954:4). Elevations within the Project
footprint range from about 1,970 to 1,986 ft AMSL, with the higher elevations (ca. 1,978 to 1,986 ft AMSL)
representing fill.
Geologically, the Project is in the Blue Ridge Belt (North Carolina Geological Survey [NCGS] 1985). The
Blue Ridge Belt has a complex geologic history and contains metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous
rocks that have been transformed by the intense pressures and temperatures related to plate tectonics. The
Project is within the northeast -southwest trending Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls Formation
and is underlain by foliated to massive, locally conglomeratic metagraywacke, which is interlayered and
gradational with mica schist, muscovite-biotite gneiss, and rare graphite schist (NCGS 1985). This
formation is masked by alluvium in the immediate Project vicinity, however, and the depth to bedrock is
unknown. Important materials in precontact times, locally available quartz, quartzite, and mica occur in the
western North Carolina area. Soapstone outcrops also occur but are not plentiful. During the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, such minerals as garnet, olivine, and mica were mined in the western North Carolina
mountains.
Much of the soils within the Project LOD are mapped as Udorthents-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded (UfB), or Udorthents-Urban land complex, 2 to 50 percent slopes (UhE), or
Udorthents, loamy (Ud). Relatively undisturbed areas within Carrier Park are mapped as Rosman fine sandy
loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (RsA), or as Biltmore loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes,

Figure 2.1. Aerial map of Project corridor.
0

Figure 2.2. Artificial berm along French Broad River at southwestern edge of Carrier Park athletic
field, facing southwest.
Figure 2.3. Fill within artificial berm, facing east.

Figure 2.4. Project corridor across Carrier Park athletic field, facing northeast.
Figure 2.5. Project corridor along north side of Mellowdrome, facing east.

Figure 2.6. Project corridor across Carrier Park northeast of Mellowdrome, facing east.
Figure 2.7. Project corridor along Carrier Park parking lot, facing southeast.

4Q
M4
r4 4R
auk,
now-,
�j �� i f I , .
oil ME, WK
0 W A
ION
_�I WOR"r
MAN
N NA
R
0
Nt N
IN'
.............. . . . . . . . .
15'
Q
A

Figure 2.10. Project corridor across fill north of EDACO tract, facing east.
Figure 2.11. Project corridor across Amboy River Park, facing east.
11

occasionally flooded (BeA), which is found closest to the river. Earlier soils mapping shows the entire area
as Buncombe loamy fine sand (Goldston et al. 1954).
The Project area is drained by the French Broad River, which continues north through Buncombe and
Madison counties in North Carolina and into Tennessee. It joins the Nolichucky River just north of
Cherokee National Forest and flows west to join with the Holston River just east of Knoxville to form the
Tennessee River. The Tennessee River flows west and south into Alabama and then turns north back into
Tennessee, continuing north into Kentucky and eventually joining the Ohio River. The Ohio River joins
the Mississippi just a few miles downstream and continues southward to empty into the Atlantic Ocean at
the Gulf of Mexico.
h/[) 11 D1 11001M105/14Iy
The modern climate of Buncombe County is highly influenced by elevation, aspect, and wind direction.
Daily temperatures can fluctuate widely, with cold and warm spells possible year-round. Asheville averages
47 inches of precipitation a year (Hudson 2009:7-9). The spring and fall months receive the most
precipitation, while summer months are the driest. Temperature and precipitation records indicate that the
growing season lasts for about 190 days, extending from the beginning of April through mid -October
(Goldston et al. 1954:9-10). Accumulation of snowfall in the mountains can average 10-14 inches per year
(Orr and Stuart 2000:25).
FLORA AND FAUNA
The study area is in the Broad Basins Level IV ecoregion as defined by Griffith et al. (2002:14). This
environment consists of intermountain basins with low mountains, rolling foothills, and moderately broad
mountain valleys. Streams are moderate gradient and contain cobbles and boulders, while rivers are low to
moderate gradient with sand and bedrock substrates. The ecoregion includes Appalachian oak forests and,
at higher elevations, northern hardwoods forest. Common tree species include a variety of oaks and pines,
as well as silverbell (Helesia tetraptera), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), tulip poplar (Liriondendron
tulipifera), basswood (Tilia americans), buckeye (Aesculus flava), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis),
and beech (Fagus grandifolia).
The Project area also falls in Braun's (1950) Southern Appalachians section of the Oak -Chestnut Forest
region. Prior to the 1920s and the chestnut blight, chestnut (Castanea dentata) dominated the region,
although such species as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ash (Fraxinus spp.), hemlock (Tsuga spp.),
white basswood (Tilia spp.), buckeye (Aesculus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), walnut
(Juglans nigea), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), birch (Betula spp.), and beech (Fagus grandifolia) could be
found in the valleys, coves, and along sheltered mountain slopes (Holmes 1911:38). Little or no primary
forest vegetation remains in the region due to the blight, logging, and other human activity (see Braun
1950:199). Presently, oak and pine (Pinus spp.) are the most common species, with red maple, locust
(Gleditsia spp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and dogwood (Cornus
spp.) also common on the intermountain plateau (Orr and Stuart 2000:36-37). In addition to arboreal
species, the forests supported a variety of undergrowth species. The latter included several varieties of
edible berries, such as blackberries and raspberries (Rubus spp.) and huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), as
well as rivercane and numerous other species used for tools, food, and medicinal purposes by both the
Cherokee and later Euro-American settlers (Cozzo 2004; Foreman and Mahoney 2018; Hamel and
Chiltoskey 1975; Mooney and Olbrechts 1932; Oliver 1989:29).
The varied forests in the area would have supported a substantial and diverse fauna during and prior to
Euro-American settlement. Potential game species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
black bear (Ursus americanus), elk (Cervus elaphus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis
marsupialis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). Other species present
12

included beaver (Castor canadensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), otter (Lutra canadensis),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), mink (Mustela vison), wolf (Canis sp.), panther or mountain lion (Felis
concolor), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) (Shelford 1963). Avian species of possible economic importance
included turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and smaller species; other species may have been valuable non-food
resources as well. The larger streams provided a variety of fish, including catfish (Ictaluridae), sunfish
(Centrarchidae), largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth (Micropterus dolomieui) bass, and
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Altman 2006).
13

This page intentionally left blank.
14

3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
This chapter presents an overview of the precontact and historic period occupations of Buncombe County
and southwestern North Carolina. Much of the earlier part of the cultural sequence for the region is based
on Coe's (1964) investigations of the precontact cultures of North Carolina, coupled with later research
elsewhere in North Carolina (e.g., Daniel 1998, 2021) and in eastern Tennessee (e.g., Davis 1990; Kimball
1985). Information on the later precontact and historic Cherokee occupations of western North Carolina is
derived from a variety of sources, including Dickens (1976), Keel (1976), Purrington (1983), Riggs (1988,
1996, 1999), Riggs and Rodning (2002), Rodning (2004), Steere (2013), Ward and Davis (1999), and
Wetmore (2002). Other data come from recent Cultural Resource Management (CRM) reports for projects
in western North Carolina (e.g., Benyshek 2020; Benyshek and Webb 2008, 2009; Bissett et al. 2009; Idol
2016, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Shumate and Kimball 2016).
The archaeological record of southwestern North Carolina can be divided into four basic time and cultural
periods—Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian —that relate to both social and technological
factors. Several authors (e.g., Dickens 1976:10; Keel 1976:18; Riggs and Rodning 2002; Ward and Davis
1999; Wetmore 2002) divide some or all of these periods into phases, some of which overlap in time and
name but vary in precise definition (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Generalized Cultural Chronology for Southwestern North Carolina throuLyh 1838.
Period
Phase
Chronology
Historic Cherokee
Late Qualla
A.D. 1700-1838
Protohistoric
Middle Qualla
A.D. 1500-1700
Mississippian
Early Qualla
A.D. 1400-1500
Late Pisgah*
A.D. 1200-1400
Early Pisgah*
A.D. 1000-1200
Late Woodland
Undefined (Napier/Woodstock?)
A.D. 800-1000
Undefined (Late Swift Creek/Cane Creek?)
A.D. 600-800
Middle Woodland
Connestee
A.D. 200-600 T
Pigeon 200 B.C.—A.D. 200
Early Woodland Swannanoa 1000?-200 B.C.
Late Archaic Otarre 1500-1000 B.C.
Savannah River 3000-1500 B.C.
Middle Archaic Guilford 4000-3000 B.C.
Morrow Mountain 6000-4000 B.C.
Stanlv 6000-5500 B.C.
Early Archaic LeCroy
7000-6000 B.C.
Kirk/Palmer
7500-7000 B.C. T
Big Sandy
8000-7500 B.C.
Paleoindian Undefined (Hardaway -Dalton?)
9000-8000 B.C.
Clovis
10,500-9000 B.C.
Pre-Paleoindian Undifferentiated
Unknown
T represents overlap into a later period. Adapted from multiple sources, including Riggs and Rodning (2002), Rodning (2004,
2008), Stanyard (2003), and Ward and Davis (1999). *The Hiwassee and upper Little Tennessee valleys contain Early and Middle
Mississippian ceramic types that are more related to the Woodstock, Etowah, and Savannah cultural sequence of northern Georgia
(see Benyshek 2020; Riggs and Kimball 1996).
15

Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500-8000 B.C.)
The earliest broadly acknowledged human presence in the continental United States dates to approximately
12,500 B.P., during the Paleoindian period. The most well-known cultural manifestation of this occupation
is called Clovis, which is represented by distinctive, fluted projectile points that have been found over a
wide geographic area in the United States. But there is also an increasing number of sites that indicate (if
not conclusively demonstrate) a pre -Clovis occupation in the Americas; such regional sites include
Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1990, 1999); Saltville in Virginia (McDonald
2000; Weisner 1996); Cactus Hill in Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997); Topper in South Carolina
(Goodyear and Steffy 2003); and the Sloth Hole and Page-Ladson sites in Jefferson County, Florida
(Dunbar 2002, 2006; Hemmings 1999, 2004). Although none of those sites is without controversy, those
and other sites (e.g., Monte Verde in Chile [Meltzer et al. 1997]) have forced archaeologists to revisit their
models for how and when people first arrived in the Americas (e.g., Anderson and Gillam 2000).
Although there are notable exceptions (e.g., Steeves 2021), most researchers believe that the human
occupation of North America began with a migration of people from Asia across the Bering land bridge,
which would have been exposed from 20,000 B.P. to perhaps as late as 10,000 B.P. due to lower sea levels
associated with the Last Glacial Maximum (Anderson and Gillam 2000; Dixon 2001; Fladmark 1979;
Hoffecker et al. 1993:48; Meltzer 1988, 2004; Smith 1986). Once in North America, the method and timing
of migration south into the Americas remain issues of debate. Some researchers have argued that an ice -
free corridor allowed for movement into the interior of the continent sometime after 11,000 B.P. (e.g.,
Haynes 1966, 1969, 1971), while others have suggested that early settlers, once having occupied Beringia,
followed a coastal route to colonize the Americas (e.g., Dixon 1999; Faught 2008; Fiedel 2000; Fladmark
1979).
Based on a study of Paleoindian settlement patterns, Anderson and Gillam (2000:43) have developed a
comprehensive model concerning the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The study analyzed paths
at a continental scale, to determine which routes would have afforded the least cost to traveling hunter -
gatherers. Factors in the model included topographic relief, locations of ice sheets and pluvial lakes, and
the location of known Paleoindian archaeological sites. The findings suggest that initial dispersal occurred
in coastal and riverine settings and on plains and that founding populations probably spread and diversified
rapidly. The model also implies that now -submerged portions of the continental shelf may have been
important for early dispersal, whether by foot or by boat (Erlandson et al. 2005). In eastern North America,
this is reflected in the distribution of sites along the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the paucity of sites in the
Appalachian Mountains, which were a barrier to mobility.
Diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts include fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile points (such as Clovis and
Cumberland points); flake tools such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched blades, and burins are also found.
Almost all of the Paleoindian materials found in the Southeast have come from surface contexts, and as a
result few data are available concerning regional subsistence or social organization (Anderson 1990).
Hunting of late Pleistocene megafauna is inferred based on evidence from other areas, although direct
evidence for use of animals of any kind is rare in the region. Most, if not all, Paleoindian populations
probably relied extensively on other animal and plant foods as well. Paleoindian populations were generally
highly mobile, and settlements are thought to have included small temporary camps and less common base
camps that were occupied by loosely organized bands. Paleoindians selected high -quality lithic materials
for tools, and many sites are linked to important source areas (e.g., Smallwood et al. 2018).
Paleoindian projectile points are relatively rare in the North Carolina mountains, reflecting their scarcity in
the Appalachians as a whole. A 2005 compilation of data on known fluted points from North Carolina
revealed only 27 specimens from 12 contiguous counties in southwestern North Carolina (Daniel 2005),
although this number certainly understates the actual number of finds. The later Paleoindian phase appears
16

to include Dalton (Goodyear 1982) and perhaps Hardaway (Ward 1983) points and related cultures,
although both types of artifacts are very rare in the region (Purrington 1983).
Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)
The Archaic period began with the onset of Holocene, post -glacial climatic conditions in the East and has
been subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late subperiods. Diagnostic projectile points are the primary
criteria used to identify and date Archaic manifestations. As a whole, the Archaic may be seen as a relatively
long and successful foraging adaptation, with subsistence based on hunting, fishing, and the collection of
wild plant resources. The period is also marked by a general increase in the density and dispersal of
archaeological remains, increased cultural diversity as reflected in more regionally distinct tool forms, and
the increased use of locally available lithic raw materials. There is also evidence of long-distance exchange
and regional -scale networks of social interaction, as well as status differentiation. Group size gradually
increased during this period, culminating in larger populations by the end of the period (Anderson and
Sassaman 2012). While Archaic groups certainly used a variety of materials to fashion utilitarian and other
items, lithic artifacts are all that remain on most sites in the Southeast due to the lack of preservation in
acidic soils. Architectural evidence is rare, suggesting that most structures were not substantial
constructions; the Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeological Database Project lists only 97 potential
Archaic period structural remains in the region (White and Steere 2014). An increasing number of Archaic
sites have been the focus of intensive excavation in the North Carolina mountains (Benyshek and Webb
i.p.; Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 201lb, 2016; Jorgenson et al. 2017; Purrington 1981; Shumate and Kimball
2016), and others have been investigated in eastern Tennessee in the Tellico area (e.g., Chapman 1977,
1981) and in the North Carolina Piedmont (Claggett and Cable 1982; Coe 1964).
Early Archaic (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.). During the Early Archaic period, the mixed coniferous forests present
in much of the Southeast were replaced by mixed hardwood communities dominated by oak, hemlock,
beech, and maple (Claggett and Cable 1982:212), and a modern faunal assemblage was in place following
the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna. Diagnostic markers of the Early Archaic period in western
North Carolina and eastern Tennessee include side notched Big Sandy projectile points and later Palmer -
Kirk projectile points (ca. 8000-6800 B.C.). Palmer -Kirk projectile points are fairly common and
widespread occurrences in the area but are sparse compared to Middle and Late Archaic types. Bifurcate -
based points such as the St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha types (ca. 6900-5800 B.C.) are also found in the
area (Kimball 1985). Although these appear to occur more rarely in the mountains than Kirk forms (Kimball
1996; Stanyard 2003), a long-term survey of sites near Asheville (Henry 1992) documented more bifurcate -
based points than Kirks, perhaps a reflection of the intensive survey coverage up a smaller tributary
(Kimball 1996). Other tools that occur on Early Archaic sites include knives, adzes, end and side scrapers,
drills, perforators, and expedient tools (Stanyard 2003).
Low regional population densities and a continued high degree of group mobility are inferred for this
subperiod in the mountains, where most known sites are located in high upland areas and over 90% of
projectile points found are of non -local chert (Bass 1975). It is also possible, however, that site burial in the
floodplains could be largely masking Early Archaic period use of these landforms (see Benyshek 2007a,
2009; Benyshek and Webb 2004, i.p.; Kimball 1991). The nature of more general land use patterns and
strategies for technological organization remain the subjects of discussion. To the west in Tennessee,
Kimball (1996) has proposed an ongoing change from logistical (relatively more permanent base camps
from which a variety of other satellite camps and specialized use sites were accessed) to residential
(wholesale moving frequently within zones to map onto resources) mobility patterns during the later Early
Archaic period, perhaps as a result of the first signs of warming climatic conditions. Kimball (1996:173)
notes that settlement patterns (and thus perhaps foraging strategies) for bifurcate and Kirk groups were
different, with more bifurcate sites found on T1 terraces and islands compared to Kirk sites, which are more
dispersed on various landforms, suggesting a change in foraging strategy in the later Early Archaic.
17

Middle Archaic (ca. 6000-4000 B.C.). During the Middle Archaic, the cool, moist conditions of the early
Holocene are generally considered to have given way to the warmer, drier climate of the Mid -Holocene
Hypsithermal interval, although there is increasing evidence that the Mountains may have seen increased
rainfall during this period (e.g., Leigh 2002; Leigh and Webb 2006). Extensive estuarine marshes and
riverine swamps began to emerge in coastal regions as sea levels ceased their post -Pleistocene rise by 3000
B.C. The northern hardwoods vegetation matrix in those regions was replaced by an oak -hickory forest,
which was in turn replaced by a southern hardwoods -pine forest characterized by the species occupying the
region today (Claggett and Cable 1982:212-216; Delcourt and Delcourt 1983, 1985). Subsistence
economies became increasingly diversified, particularly evident in the Mid -South and lower Midwest
during the Shell Mound Archaic, where riverine settings were chosen more often for occupation (Sassaman
1996).
The Middle Archaic witnessed the first substantial occupation of the Smoky Mountains (Bass 1975:109),
and presumably of western North Carolina in general. Site file data indicate a marked increase in site
numbers from the Early to the Middle Archaic in the Carolinas and Georgia (Anderson 1996), and Morrow
Mountain projectile points increase markedly in frequency when compared to earlier types in western North
Carolina (Leftwich 1999). Three subperiods recognized in most of North Carolina are identified by the
presence of Stanly (ca. 6000-5000 B.C.), Morrow Mountain (ca. 5000-4200 B.C.), and Guilford (ca. 4200-
3500 B.C.) projectile points, following the classic Archaic sequence first identified by Coe (1964), although
more recent research demonstrates that additional projectile point forms were used as well (Shumate and
Kimball 2016). Archaeologically, the transition from the Early to the Middle Archaic is characterized by
the appearance of stemmed rather than notched projectile points and an increased incidence of groundstone
tools. Sassaman (2010) suggests that the Morrow Mountain tradition may represent a migration of people
from the west in response to global warming, based on the radical differences between Clovis -derived Early
Archaic projectile point technology and similarities between Morrow Mountain types and the Cascade
phase of the Old Cordilleran tradition. This model is still considered speculative but would help explain the
technological discontinuities between the Early and Middle Archaic.
Reliance on locally available quartz and quartzite rather than higher quality non -local chert for stone tools
increased in the Appalachian Summit as well as other parts of North Carolina, northern Georgia, and South
Carolina. For example, a distributional study shows that over 77% of Middle Archaic projectile points from
Mountain counties are made of quartz (McReynolds 2005:23). Atlatl weights make their first appearance
in the archaeological record during the Middle Archaic, as do stone net sinkers. The use of a more expedient
stone tool technology (see Binford 1977, 1979) predominated during the Middle Archaic (Stanyard 2003).
Based on studies in South Carolina, researchers have suggested that Morrow Mountain peoples were
foragers who resided at a location until local resources were depleted (Blanton and Sassaman 1989;
Sassaman 1983). This idea is consistent with an archaeological pattern characterized by local raw material
utilization, the wide distribution of sites in various landscape settings and their small size, the lack of
evidence for long-term occupations, and the absence of discernible substantial trade networks (Stanyard
2003:48-49). Morrow Mountain sites are frequently encountered in the uplands of western North Carolina
(e.g., Purrington 1981), on smaller drainages (Yu 2001), and in floodplains of major rivers, and are
sometimes buried (e.g., Benyshek 2007a; Benyshek and Webb 2004, i.p.). Bass (1975) found that half of
the Middle Archaic sites he analyzed were in the uplands, with the others in valleys and coves.
Late Archaic (ca. 4000-1000 B.C.). Late Archaic sites are common in western North Carolina as elsewhere
in the lower Southeast, suggesting region -wide population increase from the Middle Archaic (Anderson
1996). Late Archaic sites were located in a wide range of environmental zones, although most major
settlements were in riverine or estuarine settings (Bass 1975; Ward 1983). The existence of formal base
camps occupied seasonally or longer is inferred, together with a range of smaller resource -exploitation sites,
such as hunting, fishing, or plant collecting stations (Claggett and Cable 1982; Ward 1983). In particular,
IN

many Late Archaic sites in the Smoky Mountains appear to be situated near quartzite sources (Bass 1975:77;
Shumate and Kimball 2016). Grinding implements, polished stone tools, and carved soapstone bowls
became fairly common, suggesting increased use of plant resources, and possibly changes in subsistence
strategies and cooking technologies. Although regional evidence is minimal, the first experiments with
horticulture occurred at this time, with the cultivation of plants such as squash (Cucurbita pepo), sunflower
(Helianthus sp.), and Chenopodium (Cowan 1985; Ford 1981; Gremillion 2018; Smith 2011).
Soapstone vessels appear to have been most widely used in the eastern United States between 1800 to 1000
B.C. (associated dates range from ca. 4000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 0) (Truncer 2004:505-506). The scarcity of
earlier dates and wide gaps in geographical distribution suggest that soapstone bowl manufacture occurred
continuously at "low levels of production" or was adopted and then discontinued in some areas (Truncer
2004:497). Although soapstone vessel use appears to have preceded ceramic vessel use in some areas, in
the central Savannah River valley in South Carolina and in northeastern Florida, use of soapstone slabs and
pottery precedes soapstone vessel use by up to 1000 years (Elliott et al. 1994; Sassaman 1997; Stanyard
2003:54). Soapstone vessels were apparently used for cooking certain plant or animal foods over a direct
heat source (e.g., Kroeber 1925:527), and may not have afforded any advantage over alternative cooking
methods.
Another innovation in Late Archaic cooking technology was the use of drilled or perforated soapstone slabs,
presumably for use in stone boiling (Anderson et al. 1979; Dagenhardt 1972; Elliott 1981; Trinkley 1974;
Wood et al. 1986). These artifacts are abundant at some Late Archaic sites in the Savannah River and
Oconee valleys in the Georgia and South Carolina Piedmont to the Fall Zone (Claflin 1931:32; Elliott 1981;
Wood et al. 1986) but appear rarely in North Carolina (e.g., Bissett et al. 2009; Idol 2016).
Late Archaic occupations in the Appalachian Summit region are marked by a variety of large to small
stemmed points. The most prominent and recognizable of these is the Savannah River stemmed, a large,
broad -bladed, square stemmed point that appeared ca. 3000 B.C. and lasted to ca. 1500 B.C. Subsequent
Late Archaic sites frequently contain slightly smaller stemmed points of the Iddins Undifferentiated
stemmed or, perhaps, the Otarre stemmed type (Ward and Davis 1999:71), although these general forms
were produced during the Middle Archaic and Early Woodland periods as well and may not be exclusive
to the Late Archaic period (Larry Kimball, personal communication 2010). Size reduction of stemmed
forms is indicated over the course of the Late Archaic to Early Woodland periods in the region, however
(Oliver 1981, 1985). The most common feature type during the Late Archaic is a shallow, rock -filled pit
(Chapman 1981; Keel 1976). Toward the end of the Late Archaic, fiber tempered pottery appeared in the
coastal regions (Sassaman 1993); although such pottery was found at the Ravensford site in Swain County
(Benyshek and Webb 2017a; i.p.), it is a rare occurrence in the Appalachian Summit. There is increased
evidence for trade during the Late Archaic period, as indicated by the presence of soapstone, slate, and
other materials outside their source areas (Chapman 1985).
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000)
The Woodland period began as early as 1000 B.C. and continued until the appearance of the Mississippian
adaptation around A.D. 1000. Across the eastern Woodlands, the period is marked by the appearance of
widespread pottery use, the use of the bow and arrow for hunting and warfare, a greatly increased role for
horticulture in subsistence economies, expanded evidence for complex trade and exchange networks, and
an elaboration of mortuary ceremonialism, including the appearance of burial mounds (Anderson and
Sassaman 2012; Carr and Case 2005; Smith and Yarnell 2009).
Early Woodland (ca. 1000-200 B.C.). Initial Woodland occupations are generally thought to reflect a largely
unchanged continuation of Late Archaic lifeways coupled with the first widespread introduction of
ceramics. The earliest Early Woodland manifestation in the Project region is the Swannanoa phase, which
19

dates ca. 1000-200 B.C. Regional radiocarbon dates for Swannanoa materials include a corrected,
uncalibrated date of 2130±40 B.P. (representing a 2-sigma range of 260-100 B.C.) (Benyshek and Webb
2006) and a corrected, uncalibrated date of 2435±25 B.P. (representing a 2-sigma range of 535-435 B.C.)
(Benyshek 2020).
The Early Woodland period is characterized by thick, crushed quartz or coarse sand tempered, fabric
impressed ceramics; cordmarked, plain, check stamped, and simple stamped wares are also thought to date
to late in the Early Woodland period (Keel 1976:260-266; Ward and Davis 1999:140-143; Wetmore
2002:254-257). Vessel forms consist of unrestricted conical pots and simple bowls. Eastern Tennessee's
Watts Bar and northern Georgia's Kellogg phases are similar stylistically to Swannanoa materials, as are
Vinette ceramics from as far away as eastern New York (Ward and Davis 1999:142).
Early Woodland projectile points consist of smaller stemmed points, the terminal expressions of the large
stemmed point tradition, along with large triangular varieties. The latter include the Transylvania and
Garden Creek types, which are morphologically equivalent to Badin and Yadkin types in the Piedmont
(Keel 1976; Oliver 1985). Although Swannanoa phase site distributions have not been thoroughly
documented, it is apparent that the settlement pattern included large floodplain sites along with numerous
small upland extractive camps. Direct evidence is lacking at present, but it seems likely that the Early
Woodland inhabitants of the region were engaged in at least some degree of horticulture (Ward and Davis
1999:145). Based on evidence at Phipps Bend in eastern Tennessee, deer, elk, and turkey were the animals
primarily hunted (Lafferty 1981). To date, no well-defined Early Woodland structure patterns have been
identified in the region. The nearest examples of Early Woodland structures include a 10 x 7 in rounded
rectangular structure from the Banks III site (40CF108) in Coffee County, Tennessee, and three poorly
defined structures (two are arcs of posts and one is elliptical) from the Kellogg, Garfield, and Two Run
Creek sites in Cherokee and Bartow counties, Georgia (Bacon 1982; Bowen 1989).
Middle Woodland (ca. 200 B.C.-A.D. 600). The Middle Woodland period in western North Carolina is
divided into an earlier Pigeon phase (ca. 200 B.C.-A.D. 200) and a later Connestee phase (ca. A.D. 200-
600), each associated with distinct ceramic styles. Pigeon phase occupations have been very difficult to
isolate however, although a few sites (e.g., Magic Waters [Benyshek 2018a)] and 31SW74 [Webb 2002])
have yielded unmixed assemblages. Thus far, the Magic Waters site in Jackson County is the most
extensively documented Pigeon phase domestic site, which contained a village delineated by circular
structures and associated pit features.
Much more is known about the lifeways, architecture, and subsistence practices of the subsequent
Connestee phase. The Connestee phase is characterized by mound construction and intensified long-
distance trade, and it is apparent that some western North Carolina groups participated in the Hopewell
exchange network (Chapman and Keel 1979; Keel 1976:157; Wetmore 2002:263; Wright 2013, 2019) in
which raw materials and finished artifacts were traded over vast areas of eastern North America (Brose and
Greber 1979; Carr and Case 2005; Seeman 1979). Regional sites with Middle Woodland components that
have been the focus of intensive investigations include Garden Creek in Haywood County (Keel 1976;
Wright 2013, 2019), Biltmore Mound in Buncombe County (Kimball and Shumate 2003; Kimball et al.
2004), Ela in Swain County (Wetmore 1989,1996), Harshaw Bottom in Cherokee County (Robinson 1989),
Tuckasegee in Jackson County (Keel 1976), the Tyler-Loughridge site in McDowell County (Robinson
1996), the Cherokee EMS site in Swain County (Benyshek 2007b), the Bent Creek site in Buncombe
County (Shumate and Kimball 2006), the Iotla Site at Macon County Airport (Benyshek 2020), the Magic
Waters Site in Jackson County (Benyshek 2018a), and the Icehouse Bottom site in Monroe County in
eastern Tennessee (Chapman 1973; Cridlebaugh 1981).
Bass (1975:81) reports that while over 50% of Middle Woodland sites in his sample occurred on the
floodplain, 40% were located above the valley in coves and on benches. Numerous large and small sites
20

dating to this period have been found, suggesting periodic aggregation and dispersion or some kind of
settlement dichotomy. By Connestee times, however, sites have been demonstrated to occur most often in
the floodplains, and a higher percentage are present on the first rise above the river than in the preceding
Pigeon or Swannanoa phases (Wetmore et al. 2000). Across the Southeast, Middle Woodland settlements
appear to have varied in size and scale, but people generally lived in dispersed communities and used sites
with monumental architecture, such as Garden Creek and the Biltmore Mound site, as central places for
social integration and important gatherings (Anderson and Sassaman 2012; Carr and Case 2005).
Horticulture is believed to have become increasingly important during this period, although mast resources
remain the most visible dietary contributor. Possible late Middle Woodland cultigens in the region include
maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana), little barley (Hordeum pusillum), sumpweed (Iva annua), sunflower
(Helianthus sp.), maize (Zea mays), squash (Cucurbita sp.), gourd (Lagenaria sp.), and perhaps
Chenopodium (Benyshek 2007b; Chapman and Crites 1987; Crites 2004; Gremillion 2018; Robinson 1989;
Webb 2002). Evidence for the use of animal resources is scarce from Middle Woodland sites in the area,
save Biltmore Mound where preservation is excellent. Faunal information from the Connestee phase mound
area may not be representative of overall diet and utilization due to the probable ceremonial activities
including feasting that took place there, but no information is available from the associated village to date.
The assemblage is dominated by terrestrial species (white-tailed deer, turkey, box turtle, raccoon, squirrel)
with aquatic resources (fish, mussels) used much less frequently (Whyte 2004).
Diagnostic early Middle Woodland ceramics in western North Carolina include the Pigeon series, which
Keel (1976:256-260) defines as including check stamped, simple stamped, plain, brushed, and complicated
stamped varieties with crushed quartz temper. Vessel forms include conical jars, hemispherical bowls, and
tetrapodal and shouldered jars with flaring/everted rims. Pigeon ceramics are relatively common in the
region but are generally found in mixed contexts (Ward and Davis 1999:146), perhaps indicative of stable
populations inhabiting the same areas for long periods of time.
Subsequent Middle Woodland ceramics consist of the Connestee series, which are generally thinner, sand
tempered wares most often plain or decorated with simple stamped, cordmarked, or brushed surfaces.
Crushed quartz temper was added in small amounts. Fabric impressed and check stamped sherds are also
included in the series. Plain necks are characteristic, with punctated shoulders rarely occurring (Keel
1976:247-255). Swift Creek ceramics are sometimes found as a minority ware on Middle Woodland sites
in the area (Keel 1976:71; Kimball and Shumate 2003; Robinson 1989). Also found, but extremely rare,
are Ohio Hopewellian ceramics (both non -local manufacture and locally made copies) and figurines (Keel
1976:118-119; 120-123; Kimball and Shumate 2003). Lithic artifacts characteristic of the late Middle
Woodland consist of large triangular and side notched projectile points (Garden Creek and Connestee
triangulars, Pigeon side notched), bar gorgets, and a prismatic blade and polyhedral core technology that
was probably ultimately derived from the Hopewellian Midwest (Chapman and Keel 1979:157). Copper is
also found on Middle Woodland sites in the area but is rare (Benyshek 2007b; Chapman and Keel 1979;
Setzler and Jennings 1941).
Connestee phase populations engaged in mound building, evidenced by such substructure mounds as
Garden Creek No. 2 and the Biltmore Mound, and interacted with Hopewellian populations in the Midwest
and elsewhere (Keel 1976; Kimball and Shumate 2003; Ward and Davis 1999:151-153; Wright 2013, 2014,
2019). Connestee series sherds are present on some Hopewellian sites, and small numbers of Hopewellian
ceramics and bladelets made of chalcedony from Flint Ridge in Ohio are present at the Garden Creek site,
at the Biltmore Mound site, and at Icehouse Bottom (Chapman 1973; Chapman and Keel 1979; Kimball
and Shumate 2003; Moore 1984). Marine shell was also traded (Kimball et al. 2004). It has been
hypothesized that western North Carolina was one source of the mica that was traded and used widely
across the East during this period. Recent investigations at the Garden Creek site have recorded two
subrectangular enclosures similar to those found in Midwestern Adena and Hopewell contexts; these appear
21

to result from earlier ritual use of the site and further illustrate the extent of the socio-economic ties
developed between local and non -local populations during the Middle Woodland period (Wright 2013).
Increasing information concerning Connestee architecture has been developed over the last several decades.
At Garden Creek Mound No. 2, at the base of the premound layer, a square structure measuring
approximately 6 in across was identified and was attributed to the Connestee occupation (Keel 1976:95,
99). At Ela, at least eight circular structures 7-8 in in diameter were identified as representative of
Connestee phase constructions (Wetmore 1989, 1996, 2002). More recent excavations at the Macon County
Airport and Old Elementary School sites have also uncovered Connestee structures, both circular and square
to rectangular (Benyshek 2016, 2020; Benyshek and Webb 2009; Steere 2017). These circular and square -
with -rounded corner structures are at least superficially similar to shapes found in monumental Hopewell
earthworks and may represent another way in which local Southern Appalachian people took part in cultural
practices associated with the Hopewell Interaction Sphere (Wright 2013).
Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 600-1000). The Late Woodland period in much of the Southeast saw the
emergence of sedentary village life and intensive maize horticulture and the development of complex tribal
and chiefdom -level political structures. Certainly, by A.D. 1000, many interior Southeastern groups were
producing substantial amounts of maize, which continued into the Mississippian period when wild food
resources were supplemental to cultivated ones (Gremillion 2018; Scarry 2003:88-89). This change in
agricultural practices coincided with the Medieval Warm Period of ca. A.D. 800 to 1100, which likely made
corn agriculture more productive (Anderson 2001). While once largely overlooked for its "good gray
cultures," the Late Woodland period is now better understood as a complex time when the broad interaction
networks of the Middle Woodland period contracted, and the social landscape was marked by regionalism
and increased evidence for warfare (Birch et al. 2016; Cobb and Garrow 1996). The regional diversity of
Late Woodland ceramic traditions and use of palisades provide evidence of more inward -looking societies
(Birch et al. 2016), while at the same time, a widespread tradition of simple stamped pottery across much
of the Southern Appalachian region suggests that indigenous communities played a larger role in the
development of the first large Mississippian centers than previously thought (Anderson 2017; Riggs et al.
2015).
The Late Woodland in the Appalachian Summit was once described as largely invisible (Wetmore 2002),
and a similar lack of recognition of distinctive Late Woodland components has been described in northern
Georgia (Rudolph 1991). Part of the problem may be the lack of specific diagnostic artifacts useful for
unequivocally identifying sites of this period (as plain sherds and small triangular projectile points can be
difficulty to qualify), but it is also possible that the Appalachian Summit region was more lightly populated
during this time and small, dispersed sites were more typical (Rudolph 1991); such sites have been
increasingly identified in the past two decades as a result of an increasing number of large-scale projects in
the region. In addition, Robinson et al. (1994, 1996) have argued that the Connestee phase lasted into the
Late Woodland period based on work at several sites. One Late Woodland manifestation was identified by
Keel and Egloff (1984) at the Cane Creek site in Mitchell County; the distinctive, largely plain -surfaced
assemblage from that site is similar to Connestee wares and associated with a single radiocarbon date of
1340±90 B.P. (uncorrected). Similarly, an AMS date from a Buncombe County site in an upland setting
(31BN943) produced multiple 2-sigma ranges of Cal A.D. 690 to 900 and A.D. 920 to 950 associated with
sand tempered plain ceramics (Idol 2010).
Scattered Napier and Late Swift Creek ceramics and sites (such as Cullowhee Valley School [31JK32]
[Ashcraft 1996; Greene 1996:120-121; Moore 19921, Biltmore II [31BN175] [Hall and Baker 19931,
Ravensford [31SW78/136] [Benyshek and Webb i.p.; Webb 2002; Wild 19941, Hominy Creek [31BN828]
[Par6 et al. 2007], Sneed [31JK466] [Benyshek 2008a], and Boundary Tree [31SW494] [Idol 2011a]) also
occur in the region and reflect influences from the south during this period. A radiocarbon date obtained
from Cullowhee Valley School is similar to those obtained from the Sneed site, which are calibrated at the
22

2-sigma level to A.D. 660-860 (Benyshek 2008a), to the one date from Boundary Tree (A.D. 654 to 769)
(Idol 2011a), and to the two associated with a mixed Swift Creek and Napier assemblage (A.D. 716-883)
in Buncombe County (Idol and Webb 2018). Mid- to late 8th century dates obtained from 31SW136 in
association with Napier and/or Late Swift Creek ceramics are similar to these (Benyshek and Webb i.p.;
Wild 1994). Rudolph (1991) suggests that increased regionalization of ceramic styles and site dispersal
occurred during this period in northern Georgia, and this appears be the case for western North Carolina as
well.
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1450)
The Mississippian period in the Southeast is marked by the increasing intensification of maize horticulture,
the establishment of increasingly hierarchical social structures and settlement systems, an increase in
ceremonialism expressed architecturally in the construction of flat-topped substructure mounds, and
evidence for a shared set of religious and cosmological ideas (Anderson 2017; Knight 2006; Reilly and
Garber 2007). Studies of relations between native chiefdoms and Spanish expeditions in the 16th century
suggest that some type of supra -chiefdom level organization was maintained through a system in which
paramount chiefs traveled from fief to fief, displaying royal powers and prerogative and receiving gifts and
tribute from subservient chiefdoms (Smith and Hally 1992). Large-scale analyses of ceramic temper and
surface decoration on pottery across the Southern Appalachians suggest that beginning around A.D. 1000,
indigenous leaders drew on pre-existing social and political conditions to consolidate their power, and that
while networks of chiefly interaction were unstable, other social networks and institutions were more
durable (Birch et al. 2016; Lulewicz 2019). Settlement pattern studies suggest that boundaries between
chiefdoms or other polities were maintained during the Mississippian period, but that individual chiefdoms
rose and fell in cyclical patterns (Hally 2006). There is a general understanding that many of the core
cultural patterns of the Mississippian period can be traced to religious and symbolic ideas and practices
developed at Cahokia and spread throughout the region, but that "Mississippianization" played out very
differently in different parts of the Southeast (Anderson 2017; Pauketat 2009).
The Pisgah phase (ca. A.D. 1000-1400) corresponds with the early centuries of the Mississippian period in
at least parts of western North Carolina (Dickens 1976:13-14); sites with Etowah phase (ca. A.D. 1100-
1300) components also are present in the Hiwassee (Riggs and Kimball 1996) and upper Little Tennessee
valleys (Benyshek 2020). Sites with high percentages of Pisgah pottery are found primarily in the eastern
and central parts of the Appalachian Summit region and range from small sites such as Brunk (Moore 1981)
to nucleated villages with substructure mounds such as Garden Creek (Ward and Davis 1999:160-161).
Palisades have been recorded at the Garden Creek, Warren Wilson, Cane River, and Norton Field sites,
suggesting that communities were concerned with defense and warfare (Idol et al. 2020; Keel 1976; Moore
2002). Pisgah pottery is also found in the western part of the summit region as well, however, and into
northern South Carolina, southwestern Virginia, and northeastern Tennessee (Dickens 1976). Diagnostic
Pisgah artifacts include small triangular projectile points and distinctive rectilinear complicated stamped
vessels with collared, punctated rims. Dickens (1976) suggests that finer -lined complicated stamping and
lack of rim elaboration characterize the earlier portion of the phase, and such materials have been
documented from the Brunk, Ravensford, and other sites (Benyshek and Webb 2017a, 2017b, i.p.; Eastman
2016, 2017a; Moore 1981).
More recently, ceramics attributable to an early Pisgah subphase and associated structure evidence have
been encountered at Ravensford (Benyshek and Webb 2017a, i.p.) and other nearby sites (e.g., Benyshek
2016). Sherds from Early Pisgah contexts include the common rectilinear "ladder" stamped variety as well
as those with surfaces resembling woven or "reed" impressions, unidentifiable "woven" surfaces that
initially resembles off -set or irregular checking, those with partially smoothed rectilinear stamped surfaces
as well as other partly smoothed (or burnished) plain surfaces (cf. Benyshek and Webb 2017a, n.d.; Eastman
2017a, 2017b; Idol 2018a). Associated rim samples include a few "collared" rims, but are largely
23

characterized by vessel lips that are thickened and decorated, usually with oblique notches or slash marks,
and occasionally with a single deep groove on the surface of the lip (Benyshek and Webb 2017a, n.d.; Idol
2018a:216). Similar sherds were also found at the Brunk site (Moore 1981) and may be masked within
other Pisgah assemblages elsewhere.
Early Pisgah phase structure patterns encountered are of flexed -pole construction and variously square or
rectangular with rounded ends; such buildings have now been encountered at the Ravensford (Benyshek
and Webb 2009, i.p.), Norton Field (Idol et al. 2020); Riverbend (Shumate et al. 2009), Ocona Valley
(Benyshek 2008b), Old Elementary School (Benyshek 2016), Tuckasegee (Tippett et al. 2014), Cullowhee
Mound and Village (Benyshek 2018b), and Magic Waters (Benyshek 2018a) sites. This pattern of domestic
architecture is markedly different from the wall trench structures that were common in the central
Mississippi Valley during the same time period and is more closely aligned with house patterns in the South
Appalachian regions from contemporaneous occupations at sites such as Hiwassee Island and Etowah
(Cobb and King 2005:169; Steere 2017:36-41). Later Pisgah structures more closely approximate the
typical Southern Appalachian Mississippian forms (Dickens 1976; Steere 2017). Maize and other crops
were important sources of food, but floral and faunal remains document the persistence of wild resources
as major components of the diet (Ward and Davis 1999:171). Warren Wilson is the most extensively
explored Pisgah village to date, and work there over several field seasons documented at least seven
palisade lines and 17 structures (Dickens 1976; Moore 2002; Ward 1986). Garden Creek Mound and
Village also contains a Pisgah component, and the main mound (Mound No. 1) there was constructed during
the Pisgah phase (Dickens 1976).
Toward the mid-1200s and early 1300s, the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 950-1250) ended and the Little
Ice Age (A.D. 1300-1850) began (Mann et al. 2009). This climate event resulted in cooler temperatures and
increasingly unpredictable weather, both of which would have affected subsistence economies. The climate
shift of the Little Ice Age has been associated with changes in settlement patterns in other South
Appalachian cultures (Anderson 1994; Hally 1994; Rodning 2004; Whyte 2003) and with migration of
people out of a large section of the mid-continent, from the Ohio River to the Mississippi River and as far
south as northern Mississippi (Cobb and Butler 2002; Sullivan 2018). These large-scale changes in climate
and human interaction certainly played some role in the changes in material culture observed in the 14th and
15th centuries.
HISTORIC CHEROKEE OCCUPATION
The Qualla phase represents the final centuries of Native American autonomy in most of western North
Carolina and reflects the close association between the Cherokees and the Appalachian Summit region.
Although elements of the material culture, belief systems, place names, and social structure of Mississippian
society lingered in the region well into the 19th century (and in some cases to the present day), the Qualla
phase is largely one of social change due to increasing Euro-American intrusion and settlement.
The French Broad drainage lies east of the core area of known 17th and 18th century Cherokee settlement,
which was concentrated in the Blue Ridge Mountains to the west and southwest. The area was likely
frequented by Cherokee hunters, however, and may have contained small settlements at times as well.
According to Mooney (1900:380-381), the French Broad lies west of a neutral area between the Cherokees
and the Catawbas, which was bounded by the Catawba River on the east and the Broad River on the west.
Pre -Removal Cherokee Occupations
The first Euro-American intrusion into western North Carolina took place in 1540, when Hernando de
Soto's expedition passed through the area. Several different reconstructions of de Soto's route have been
proposed, with some early scholars (e.g., Swanton 1985:201-202) suggesting that he crossed Cherokee
24

country by way of the Hiwassee Valley. A later reconstruction (Hudson et al. 1984) proposed that de Soto
crossed the Blue Ridge farther to the north at Swannanoa Gap and then continued along the French Broad
River into Tennessee; more recently, Beck (1997) and Hudson (1997:193) agreed that the expedition
probably followed a more northerly route along the Toe River. The route through the Swannanoa Gap may
have been taken by Juan Pardo, however, who was a Spanish explorer who traversed much of the same area
from 1567-1568 (Beck 1997:167; Hudson 1990:27-46, 1997:193). The accounts of the Pardo expedition
suggest that at least two important Cherokee mother towns, Nikwasi and Kituwah, were well established
by 1568. In a summary of 16th century place names recorded in the Pardo accounts, Booker et al. (1992:407)
note that: "Quetua was Kittowa (Kituhwa), an 18th century town on the Tuckasegee River, and that Nequase
was Naquasse (Nikwasi), another 18th century Cherokee town."
Whatever the precise routes of these explorers, it is clear that the ancestral Cherokees' first encounter with
Europeans occurred in the mid- 16th century (and that the Spanish were unlikely to have traversed the present
Project area). These encounters were to have dramatic effects. The introduction of European diseases to
which the native populations had little resistance caused a major reduction in Native American population
levels and extensive changes in political organization, including the creation of coalescent societies which
developed new institutions from deep shared cultural traditions (Ethridge 2006; Kowalewski 2006).
Elsewhere in the Southeast, the fragmentation and reformation of political groups resulted in major changes
in political organization and the total disappearance of some precontact societies (Ethridge 2006; Smith
1987). But although substantial disruption occurred, the Cherokee managed to retain control of portions of
their homeland.
The historic -period Cherokee occupation of western North Carolina is known archaeologically as the Qualla
phase (ca. A.D. 1450-1838). Although early formulations of the phase (Dickens 1976) divided it into two
segments (Early Qualla, ca. A.D. 1450-1650; and Late Qualla, ca. A.D. 1650-1838), more recent analysts
(Riggs and Rodning 2002; Rodning 2004, 2008; Ward and Davis 1999) utilize a tripartite division.
Following this latter scheme, the early Qualla phase predates A.D. 1500, and thus was likely
contemporaneous with at least the later part of the Pisgah occupations in the region. These authors suggest
that the Qualla phase represents an in situ development in the Upper Little Tennessee and Hiwassee basins
and likely is not a direct derivative of the Pisgah phase, although the presence of large platform mounds at
the Nikwasi and Peachtree sites and the occurrence of Middle Cumberland Region negative painted
ceramics at the Jasper Allen and Peachtree mounds also suggest interaction between indigenous
communities and people to the west, possibly a result of the depopulation of the "Vacant Quarter" at the
end of the 14th century (Keel 2019; Steere 2019; Sullivan 2018). Early Qualla phase ceramics show affinities
to the more southern Savannah and Wilbanks styles, and samples from Coweeta Creek and 31SW291 are
characterized by grit tempered, primarily rectilinear complicated stamped wares (Riggs and Rodning
2002:39), sometimes with "sawtooth" rims. Red filming also occurs (Rodning 2004). Pisgah collared and
punctated rims are not an uncommon occurrence with these Early Qualla wares, however, and Early and
Late Pisgah ceramics have been identified at Ravensford (Benyshek and Webb 2017a). Domestic structure
forms during the Early Qualla phase are the same as Late Pisgah forms and are similar to Lamar phase
houses in Georgia and Dallas and Mouse Creek phase houses in eastern Tennessee (Benyshek and Webb
2009, i.p.; Steere 2017).
Subsequent Middle Qualla phase (ca. A.D. 1500-1700) ceramics are characterized by jar forms with notched
appliqu6, or more often, folded and notched everted to flared rims, and also by the presence of carinated or
cazuela bowls with incised designs. Curvilinear complicated stamping predominates, although rectilinear
designs are also present (Rodning 2004). By the Late Qualla phase (post-A.D. 1700), some variations
occurred; incised ceramics became much less common, while rectilinear stamped designs, rims with
notched appliqu6 strips or fillets, and check stamping are more common in later, pre -Removal (pre-1838)
assemblages.
25

The Qualla phase subsistence base was mixed and included cultivation of corn, beans, and other foods as
well as wild plant gathering, hunting, and fishing (Dickens 1976:14; VanDerwarker et al. 2013). The Late
Qualla phase is marked by the increasing appearance of European goods at Cherokee sites. Although small
triangular projectile points are found in Early and Middle Qualla phase assemblages, their manufacture (and
most other stone tools) decreased rapidly with the increasing prevalence of European firearms after A.D.
1700 and widespread access to iron tools (Riggs 1999:52). During this time, Cherokee settlements became
increasingly less nucleated, often appearing as a linear array of dispersed houses along streams, and
agricultural fields were maintained closer to residential areas. European domesticated animals (especially
pigs and chickens) and garden crops (notably sweet potatoes) were adopted by the mid- 18th century. By this
time and in the years after, traditional Cherokee life was increasingly disrupted by depopulation and
demographic changes, and alterations to the traditional economies (Hatley 2006).
Structure forms varied throughout the Qualla phase. Early Qualla phase structures documented at
Ravensford include winter -type structures, rounded squares of rigid post construction typically constructed
in basins, with central support posts and wall trench entryways. These were accompanied by (but not closely
paired with) square to rectangular houses of less regular construction, which lacked central support posts
and entryway trenches (Benyshek and Webb 2009, i.p.). These domestic structures generally mimic the
patterns documented at several late precontact sites in the southern Appalachians (e.g., Hally 1988, 1994,
2008; Moore 2002; Polhemus 1987; Rodning 2009a; Steere 2017; Sullivan 1987). A few rounder 15th
century domestic structures were encountered at Coweeta Creek (Rodning 2009a:13). Larger, rectangular
structures of more substantial construction appear to represent contemporaneous public buildings at
Ravensford (Benyshek and Webb 2009, i.p.).
Middle Qualla phase architecture, known from the Coweeta Creek, Macon County Airport, and McCoy
Bridge sites among others, was also similar to late Mississippian architecture (and Early Qualla phase).
Domestic structures are typically square with rounded corners and exhibit side or corner entrances and
central hearths flanked by four central support posts (Benyshek 2010, 2020; Benyshek and Webb 2009,
i.p.; Idol 2017; Rodning 2009a:11). At Macon County Airport these were associated with rectangular
summer houses and storage facilities (Benyshek 2020). Smaller auxiliary buildings that likely functioned
as storehouses were present by the late 17th and early 18th centuries (Benyshek 2020; Benyshek and Webb
2009; Idol 2016; Shumate et al. 2005). By the end of the Middle Qualla phase (if not before), mounds
associated with the cyclical demolishment and reconstruction of public townhouses were a prominent
feature of many Cherokee villages and towns (Rodning 2002, 2009b; Steere 2015; Townsend et al. 2020).
Contemporary domestic structures in part appear to have been modelled after the designs of the much larger
townhouses (Rodning 2009a).
Townhouses and their associated mounds were, and still are, an important part of the ancestral Cherokee
landscape (Steere 2015; Townsend et al. 2020). By approximately A.D. 1600 and into the late 18th century
in western North Carolina, townhouses replaced mounds as the primary form of public architecture
(Rodning 2009b, 2010). Townhouses measured between 10 to 20 m in diameter and were often rebuilt in
place over time. This process gradually formed a low mound and created an elevated base for new
townhouse construction. In some cases, Cherokee communities constructed townhouses on top of existing
platform mounds built centuries earlier.
The Cherokee townhouse at the Coweeta Creek site (31MA34) is one of the best preserved and
archaeologically understood examples of these structures (Rodning 2002, 2004, 2009b). This large public
building had at least six successive stages and was used from the 1600s to the late 1700s (Rodning 2010:59).
In contrast to platform mounds, which literally and metaphorically elevated the chief above other
community members, townhouses were public structures that likely functioned as an architectural symbol
of the Cherokee town, emphasizing the importance of community identity over individual leadership
(Rodning 2016).
26

During the historic period, a sacred fire was kept burning in Cherokee townhouses, and once a year, all the
hearths in the village were extinguished and then ceremonially rekindled from this sacred fire (Mooney
1900:396). Based on traditional Cherokee beliefs, sacred fires continue to burn at places like Kituwah
(Duncan and Riggs 2003:146-148; Mooney 1900:396). Cherokee stories also suggest that mounds were
the home of the Nunnehi, immortal spirit buildings, and that mounds and townhouses are symbolically
associated with mountains (Mooney 1900:335-337; Rodning 2009, 2010). According to Cherokee oral
tradition, the Kituwah mound marks the center of the first Cherokee village and the ancestral home of the
Cherokee people (Duncan and Riggs 2003:73-74). Thus, in addition to serving as hubs for social and
political activities, townhouses created a link between the built environment and sacred aspects of the
natural landscape.
By the end of the 17th century into the 18th century, rectangular summer houses were closely paired with
and sometimes connected to winter houses, which were typically octagonal (e.g., Benyshek 2020; Benyshek
and Webb 2009; Cable et al. 1997; Marcoux 2008, 2010; Nelson et al. 2016; Shumate et al. 2005; Webb
and Benyshek 2008b). The late 18th century witnessed a shift toward more European -style architecture
(Dickens 1976:15); a final shift from traditional post -in -ground architecture to horizontal cribbed log cabin
construction occurred in the 1790s (Riggs 1999:515; Riggs and Belt 2019).
The roughly 170-year period between the founding of Charleston in 1670 and the Removal in 1838 was
marked by increasing Euro-American penetration into the Cherokee homeland, first by traders and military
officials and then by settlers, and by increasing deleterious effects on the health and lifeways of the native
peoples (see Marcoux 2010:3-19 for a summary of the English Contact period [ 1670-17401). Although the
period was marked by frequently changing social, economic, and military relationships among the colonies
(and later states), the Cherokees and other American Indian groups, by the end of this period the Cherokees
were to lose most of their lands in what is now North Carolina.
The early 18th century Cherokees occupied 60 or more named towns (Goodwin 1977:44; Gragson and
Bolstad 2007:443; Smith 1979; Thornton 1990:24-25), which were distributed across a 14,000 square
kilometer area (Gragson and Bolstad 2007:2) along the upper Savannah, Little Tennessee, and Hiwassee
drainages in what is now northwestern South Carolina, western North Carolina, northeastern Georgia, and
eastern Tennessee (Gragson and Bolstad 2007; Lee 2004; Schroedl 2000). Individual towns are believed to
have covered from 10 to 80 hectares and contained from 100 to 600 individuals, distributed into about 10
to 60 households (Gragson and Bolstad 2007:443; Schroedl 2000). Taken together, it is likely that the early
18th century Cherokees had a total population of around 10,000 to 12,000, which likely represented a
substantial decline from that of the late 17th century (Thornton 1990:210).
These towns are frequently grouped into four or five clusters based on geography (e.g., Goodwin 1977:38;
Schroedl 2000) and corresponding at least to some extent to linguistic differences and groupings recognized
by the Cherokees themselves. The Lower Towns were along the Keowee River and other tributaries of the
upper Savannah in present-day South Carolina and northeastern Georgia. To the northwest were the Valley
Towns, primarily along the Hiwassee and its tributaries; farther northwest across the Appalachians were
the Overhill Towns. East of the Valley Towns along the upper Little Tennessee River were the Middle
Towns, and northeast of the Middle Towns, along the Tuckasegee and its tributaries, were a small group of
towns sometimes referred to as the Out Towns. The Out Towns were separated from the Middle Towns by
the Cowee Mountains (Greene 1996:38).
With the signing of the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785, the Cherokee lost their remaining lands east of the
Blue Ridge (Mooney 1900:61-62). The Treaty of Holston in 1791 resulted in additional cessions (including
lands in the immediate Project area) but failed to stop Euro-American incursions into Cherokee lands and
the resulting conflicts (Mooney 1900:68-77). A third treaty signed in 1798 ceded additional lands in North
Carolina (https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/e9913eb7l7dc4e68aebe7a7c7d3f42c3; Royce 1884)
27

Treaties signed in 1817 and 1819 resulted in the cession of much of the remainder of present-day Macon,
Swain, and Jackson counties to the U.S. Government (Royce 1884, 1887). The Calhoun Treaty of 1819
ceded large areas of Cherokee lands in what is now Macon and adjacent counties (Jurgelski 2004:26; Royce
1884, 1887), but although these treaties were intended to encourage Cherokees to migrate west to Arkansas,
they allowed any Cherokee head of family residing within the ceded lands who wished to become a U.S.
citizen to apply for a life reservation of 640 acres. Ninety-one individuals in western North Carolina applied
for reservations, and 49 life estates and two fee -simple reservations were deeded (Jurgelski 2004:147; Riggs
1988:15, 25; Royce 1887).
Most of the remaining Cherokee land claims in North Carolina were abolished with the signing of the Treaty
of New Echota in 1835, which set in motion the forced removal of most of the remaining Cherokee to lands
in present-day Oklahoma (Mooney 1900:123-133). The cruelty of this march, known as the Trail of Tears,
has been well documented. The early 19th century witnessed the increasing acculturation of many Cherokee,
largely as a result of increasing contact and intermarriage with white traders and settlers. Other Cherokee
resisted changes to their traditional lifestyles, however, especially those residing in the Out and Middle
Towns (Riggs 1988:10-11). Accounts by contemporary observers indicate that the population of the
mountainous area of western North Carolina (along with some other areas) was strongly traditionalist and
contained a high proportion of full -bloods (McLoughlin and Conser 1984:224-225).
Post -Removal Cherokee Occupations
Despite the Treaty of New Echota and the Trail of Tears, however, some Cherokee remained in their former
lands. A sizeable population living along the Oconaluftee River and nearby was allowed to remain as a
result of their assistance in the Tsali affair. Other Cherokees remained in the vicinity of Cheoah (along
Buffalo Creek in present-day Graham County), primarily due to the difficulty in removing them along poor
roads (Duggan 1998); in the Valley River area (Greene 2009); and along Cartoogechaye Creek in Macon
County (Alexis 1852). Still other Cherokees managed to evade the Army, escaped during the Removal, or,
like Junaluska, returned from the Arkansas territory soon afterward. These groups became the nucleus of
the Eastern Band of Cherokee (King 1979). After the death of Chief Yonagusta in 1839, they were
increasingly assisted by William H. Thomas, a white merchant who was Yonagusta's adopted son. Thomas
worked on the Cherokees' behalf for the next 40 years, acquiring land for both individual Cherokees and
the tribe. Thomas eventually acquired some 73,000 acres for these communities, mostly within the present-
day Qualla Boundary.
The mid- 19th through 20th century social and political history of the Eastern Band has been described in
detail by Finger (1984, 1991), Hill (1997), Mooney (1900), and others. By 1840, Thomas had assisted the
Quallatown residents into organizing into three towns, including Paint Town, Wolf Town, and Bird Town.
Two other towns, Big Cove and Yellow Town, were later added to these three (Finger 1984:67). By 1851
approximately 883 Cherokees were living in three towns in the Quallatown area. The Cherokees' rights to
the lands bought by Thomas were confirmed by a federal court decision in 1874, providing some measure
of security to the local population. In 1889, the Cherokees in North Carolina were officially incorporated
under state law as the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Finger 1984). Most Cherokees continued to
practice a farming economy throughout the 19th century, although hunting, fishing, and gathering wild plant
foods were also important subsistence activities.
EURO-AMERICAN EXPLORATION AND SETTLEMENT
Prior to the American Revolutionary War, the Blue Ridge Mountains formed the western terminus of
European settlement in North Carolina. The first documented English foray into the French Broad drainage
west of the Blue Ridge Escarpment occurred in 1674. This doomed expedition was led by James Needham
and included indentured servant Gabriel Arthur and eight native guides. Financed by a wealthy Virginian,
W.

Abraham Woods, the expedition did not provide the profits expected by the financier, but it did begin the
opening of the vast lands of the Cherokees, which were coveted by the Euro-American settlers for their
natural resources and beauty (Dykeman 1965:27-41).
After the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Treaty of Hopewell, large numbers of Euro-American
settlers (mostly Scots -Irish but also English, Welsh, German, and French) moved into western North
Carolina (Ager 1981:10; Blethen and Wood 1987:76; Sondley 1930:398). After 1783, Land Act legislation
was approved that allowed land sales for western settlements. In addition, war veterans were rewarded with
land grants in the west as compensation for time served.
In 1784 Samuel Davidson, his family, and a single slave became the first known colonial settlers west of
the Blue Ridge Mountains, in what was to become Buncombe County. They settled along the Swannanoa
River near Jones Mountain east of Asheville. After Samuel Davidson's death, his brother (Major William
Davidson), sister (Rachel Alexander), their families, and several friends followed in his footsteps and
established a settlement a year later near the confluence of Bee Tree Creek and the Swannanoa River
(Sondley 1930:397-398).
The expansion of settlement into the mountains was rapid. By 1792, the County of Buncombe was created,
including present-day Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Polk,
Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey counties (Arthur 1914). Eventually, the Buncombe County Court was
established between the Bee Tree Creek settlement and the Reems Creek Valley settlement (northeast of
Asheville); the court met on the property of Colonel William Davidson (a cousin of Major William
Davidson), near the present-day entrance to the Biltmore Estate (Ager 1981:10-11; Sondley 1930:460).
The joining of the two settlements was originally known as Morristown in 1792 (Blackmun 1977:162). In
1794, John Burton was granted 200 acres by the State of North Carolina next to William Davidson's
property. Forty-two half -acre lots were laid off and sold on Burton's property along two newly formed
roads now known as Broadway Street and Biltmore Avenue (Powell 1981:33). The town was incorporated
in 1797 and renamed Asheville after Governor Samuel Ashe (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:379).
Although the communities farther east along the Swannanoa River were the first establishments in
Buncombe County, Asheville became the dominant city and county seat. By 1800, Asheville had a hatter,
a tailor, a blacksmith, an inn, a gristmill, and several merchants (Powell 1981:33). A post office was
established in 1800, and the Public Square (now known as Pack Square) was laid out in 1805 (Sondley
1930:648-649; Stroupe et al. 1996). A brick courthouse was built in the square between 1825 and 1833
(Sondley 1930:649). By the early 1800s, Asheville was a stopping point for livestock, as herders moved
cattle from Tennessee and Kentucky to market in Georgia and South Carolina along the Buncombe
Turnpike (Powell 1981:34). The road ran from Greeneville, Tennessee, to Hot Springs and then along the
French Broad into Asheville. From there, the road headed toward Old Fort and then on to Greenville, South
Carolina. Most of the roadway was completed by 1827 and helped to contribute to the growth of the town
(Blethen and Wood 1987:88). With a higher traffic flow through the region, Asheville experienced an
economic and population boom (Powell 1981:34). In addition to drovers, the turnpike also brought in some
of Asheville's first tourists. By 1860, the town had a population of 1,100, while 12,654 people resided in
Buncombe County (Blackmun 1977:288; Powell 1981:38; Sondley 1930:827-828).
During the Civil War, a rifle factory was located in the town for a short time, but because of the fear of
Union troops in nearby Tennessee it was later moved to Columbia, South Carolina. In April 1865, a small
skirmish occurred near Reed Creek north of the town, on land that is now part of the University of North
Carolina at Asheville campus (Sondley 1930:691-697; Powell 1981:36-37). Overall, little physical damage
from the Civil War occurred in the town, but growth was interrupted and railroad construction was delayed.
In 1880, the railroad (Western North Carolina Railroad) was established to Asheville from Old Fort,
connecting towns that had earlier been served by the Buncombe Turnpike. Just the year before, the first
29

telegraph line was built and a public library opened (Bishir et al. 1999:56; Van Noppen and Van Noppen
1973:379). In 1882, the rail line was completed to the Tennessee state line, and by 1886 the railroad
connected Asheville to points in all directions (Bailey et al. 2000). With new and easier access, Asheville
experienced a revival in growth. From a population of about 2,600 in 1880, it had swollen to over 10,000
in 1890. By 1920, nearly 28,500 people resided in the town (Sondley 1930:828). In addition to an increase
in industries such as logging in Buncombe County, Asheville grew as a resort for leisure and health. In the
years after 1880, several sanitariums were opened in the town as many doctors recommended the healthy
climate of Asheville and the surrounding area (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:379). As tourism grew,
many of the people who visited built second or vacation homes in the Asheville area or returned to invest
in local industries.
Development in West Asheville paralleled that of Asheville, just across the French Broad to the east. The
Western Turnpike was the main road leading west to Haywood County and beyond in the 19'1i century. It
led from Salisbury, North Carolina to the Georgia line in Cherokee County and ran along the approximate
route of present-day Haywood Road. Early settlers in West Asheville included the Henry family, which
settled in the area in 1827 (WAHP 2006). Another earlier settler was Irish-born Captain William Moore,
who alongwith wife, slaves, and six children settled in the area of Hominy Creek where it joins the French
Broad in 1784 after receiving a land grant of 640 acres. Moore served under General Rutherford, who was
his brother in law, in the attack against the Cherokee in 1776 (Dykeman 1955). As early as 1830, a hotel
that could accommodate as many as 500 people was built at Sulphur Springs by Tolbert Henry's son-in-
law. The hotel burned in 1862 (Bailey et al. 2000).
In 1885, Edwin G. Carrier moved to the Asheville area from Michigan where he had made his fortune in
the timber industry, and began buying farmland and woods. Calling the area West Asheville, Carrier set in
motion plans for a business and residential community. Laying out streets and residential and commercial
lots, he sought to bring investors and residents to the area (Whisnant 2017). He built the first power plant,
located on Hominy Creek and built an electric trolley line to run to his Belmont Hotel and Sulphur Springs
Resort. That resort contained a sanitarium and Carrier brought in Dr. Karl von Ruck, a well-known
pulmonary physician who ran the Winyah Sanitarium, to manage it in 1888 (Dykeman 1955). Carrier
constructed a truss bridge, which has been replaced but is still called Carrier Bridge, over the French Broad
River and also a horse track and fairgrounds along the French Broad in the area of present-day Amboy
Road (see Chapter 5). He also constructed brick buildings along Haywood Road, some of which are still
standing. Residents moved to West Asheville, as it was affordable, yet close to Asheville where many
people worked. West Asheville grew quickly and by 1910 had a population of 12,000 (WAHP 2006). West
Asheville incorporated in 1889 and merged with Asheville in 1897. In 1913, West Asheville again
incorporated as a separate town by an act of the state legislature, but in 1917 merged with Asheville
again largely to resolve the $300,000 in civic debt from infrastructure improvements (Perkins 2003).
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Western North Carolina has been the subject of archaeological research for over a century, and most trends
in the history of North American archaeology are reflected in the region. As early as the 1880s, workers
from the Valentine Museum in Richmond investigated several mound sites in the region (Dickens 1976:7),
and other early investigations were carried out by the Osbornes (Keel 1976). The museum's work was
primarily oriented toward recovering artifacts, although in some cases the resulting data have been useful
in addressing present-day research questions (e.g., Dickens 1976:91). Also in the 1880s, researchers from
the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of Ethnology excavated sites in Buncombe and Henderson counties
as part of their investigations into the origin of the "Mound Builders" (Thomas 1894). That research was
instrumental in demonstrating that the mounds in western North Carolina and elsewhere had in fact been
built by American Indians and were not the products of a mysterious, vanished race.
30

Early 20th century work in western North Carolina continued to focus on mound explorations. Captain R.D.
Wainwright examined several mounds in the region in 1913 (Steere et al. 2012), including the now -
destroyed Cullowhee mound (31JK2), and between 1915 and 1919, George Heye and associates excavated
at the Garden Creek site in Haywood County and other nearby sites (Harrington 1922; Heye 1919; Heye et
al. 1918). Although that work was designed to gather artifacts for Heye's Museum of the American Indian
in New York, it did provide some data on the antiquity of the Cherokees in the region (Dickens 1976:7-8).
Subsequent work in 1933 and 1934 by the Smithsonian Institution at the Peachtree Mound and Village in
Cherokee County was also designed to investigate the relationship between the Cherokees and precontact
cultures in the area (Setzler and Jennings 1941). About the same time, George MacPherson (1936a, 1936b)
and Hiram Wilburn conducted surveys of numerous sites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Although many of their data were to be incorporated into later research (Bass 1975), at the time their work
had little impact on the understanding of precontact occupations of the region.
Intensive, systematic work in the Appalachian Summit region did not begin until 1964, when the University
of North Carolina instituted the Cherokee Archaeological Project. This project, which lasted until 1971,
included large-scale surveys and salvage excavations, as well as intensive investigations of late precontact
and historic Cherokee sites (Purrington 1983:98-99; Ward 1979; Ward and Davis 1999:17-18). Data from
this project have been reported in several theses, dissertations, and other publications (e.g., Dickens 1976;
Egloff 1967; Keel 1976) and provide much of the background information on the Appalachian Summit
region. As part of that project, substantial work was conducted at the Warren Wilson site, which
documented a Mississippian period Pisgah phase village as well as earlier Woodland period occupations
(Keel 1976). Other substantial work was accomplished at Coweta Creek (Rodning 2004), Garden Creek
(Keel 1976), Townson (Ward and Davis 1999:268-271), and the Tuckasegee site (Dickens 1976).
Beginning in the 1970s, the establishment of Federal cultural resources legislation and management
procedures resulted in a large number of archaeological projects in Buncombe County and the rest of
western North Carolina. A number of past projects have been conducted on and adjacent to the North
Carolina Arboretum west of the Project area, including an initial survey by Baker and Hall (1987); that
work led to testing of the Bent Creek site (Baker and Hall 1990), which was later intensively investigated
by Shumate and Kimball (2006); other projects have been conducted on the Pisgah National Forest nearby,
including multiple projects by Shumate and others (e.g., Ashcraft and Meer 2019; Preston 2010; Preston
and Shumate 2010; Preston et al. 2001; Shumate 2007a, 2008, 2011; Shumate and Govaerts 2010; Webb
and Nelson 2019c). Many other projects have been completed on the nearby Biltmore Estate (e.g., Shumate
2003, 2007b, 2015, 2016; Shumate and Alexander 2019; Shumate and Evans -Shumate 2001, 2003;
Shumate and Govaerts 2020; Shumate et al. 2000, 2001, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2018). Recent survey,
testing, and/or data recovery projects have also been completed for the proposed realignment of NC 191
(Webb et al. 2019a; Webb et al. i.p.) and development and associated infrastructure improvements (Idol
and Webb 2020; Nelson and Webb 2021; Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b) south of the Project area, as
well as for other portions of the SFB Relief Interceptor Project (Shumate 2021).
31

This page intentionally left blank.
32

4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The goal of the survey was to systematically gather data on any archaeological resources present within the
Project LOD. If significant resources were encountered, the archaeological field data were to be combined
with information obtained in the background research to address the nature of the precontact, contact, and/or
post -contact period occupations of the area.
RESEARCH METHODS
Background Research
Background literature review was conducted to gather information on any known cultural resources on and
adjacent to the Project area and included examination of the following materials:
• Archaeological site files, reports, and data on file at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology in
Asheville;
• Historic structures data available online in the NC HPO's GIS database (HPOWEB); and
• Maps, newspapers, and other data available online and in TRC's collection.
Field Methods
The archaeological survey complied with all pertinent state and federal regulations, including the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology's (OSA) Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines
(OSA 2017). The field surveys and evaluation studies were conducted by a team of two to three.
The fieldwork included a systematic walkover of the entire LOD and systematic subsurface shovel testing
at 20-m intervals across all parts of the LOD except for areas with impervious surfaces; supplemental shovel
tests were also excavated at 10-m intervals to delineate most positive shovel tests.
Each shovel test measured 30 to 35 cm in diameter and was excavated to sterile subsoil or a depth of 90
cm; a hand auger was used in selected areas to penetrate beneath fill deposits. All removed soil (excluding
obvious fill) was screened through 1/4-inch mesh for uniform artifact recovery. Each shovel test was
described in terms of depth, soil texture, Munsell soil color, and artifact recovery. All shovel test locations
were recorded using a GPS unit with sub -meter accuracy in NAD 83 coordinates and drawn on the project
map.
Laboratory Methods
All artifacts were returned to the TRC Asheville facility for processing. Upon arrival in the laboratory, all
artifact and sample bags were checked against provenience data from field records prior to processing.
Artifacts were washed and air-dried, then sorted for analysis. The following laboratory methods were
employed.
Precontact Ceramic Analysis. Precontact ceramic sherds were sorted into fragments greater and less than 2
cm, and only sherds (fragments >2 cm in size) were analyzed fully. The sample of small (residual) sherds
was scanned for the presence of pipe fragments or other unusual ceramic artifacts but was not otherwise
analyzed. Sherd size was determined by diameter templates measuring 2 cm, 2-4 cm, 4-6 cm, etc. Other
attributes recorded for sherds include vessel portion, temper type, exterior surface treatment, rim form, and
33

decoration. Individual ceramic sherds were assigned to formal types when possible following type
descriptions presented by Egloff (1967), Keel (1976), Riggs and Rodning (2002), and others.
Lithic Artifact Anal. Lithic artifacts were first sorted into general categories, including chipped stone
tool and debitage.
Tools. Lithic tools were to be described according to form, type (when possible), and raw material. No tools
are present in the assemblage.
Debitage. Debitage fragments are the byproduct of lithic tool manufacture. Count, weight, raw material,
and size category were recorded for debitage fragments.
Raw Material Identification. Raw stone materials were identified based on macroscopic characteristics.
Categories recognized in the assemblage include chert and quartz.
Postcontact Artifacts Analysis. No pre -modern postcontact (historic period) artifacts were recovered.
Curation
All artifacts, field notes, photographs, and other Project materials are temporarily stored at the TRC facility
in Asheville, North Carolina. At the conclusion of the Project, the recovered artifacts will be returned to the
MSD.
NRHP Eligibility Evaluations
The NRHP eligibility of the archaeological sites encountered by the Project was considered in light of the
NRHP Eligibility Criteria as outlined in 36 CFR 60.4 (USDOI 1997). The NRHP Eligibility Criteria state:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture
is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
(a). That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history; or
(b). That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c). That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d). That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Several factors were considered in assessing site significance and research potential under Criterion D,
including artifact variety and quantity, site clarity and integrity, and environmental context (Glassow 1977).
In this report, definitive NRHP eligibility recommendations (i.e., eligible or not eligible) under Criterion D
are provided only when site boundaries have been totally established by negative shovel tests or
environmental factors (disturbance, steep slope, etc.). Sites that could potentially extend outside the
surveyed area are considered unassessed for NRHP eligibility, but a recommendation is made concerning
the potential for the portion of the site within the surveyed area to contribute to the site's potential eligibility.
34

5. RESULTS
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCES
Archaeological Projects and Sites
Review of files and records at the OSA indicated that there have been no systematic archaeological surveys
and there are no sites recorded within the LOD for this part of the SFB Interceptor Project, although there
have been multiple projects and there are a large number of sites recorded within a one -mile radius.
Including sites recorded by surveys directed by Scott Shumate for the SFB Interceptor survey farther to the
east in Amboy River Park and across the river on the Biltmore Estate, there are at least 46 previously
recorded sites within one mile of the Project LOD (Table 5.1). Several of those sites have been determined
eligible for the NRHP, including 31 BN 174 (the Biltmore Mound), 31 BN 175, 31 BN696, and 31 BN940 on
the Biltmore Estate, and 31BN623, a former hydroelectric plant on Hominy Creek. At least one of the sites
(31BN1101) recently recorded across the river by Shumate (personal communication 2021) may also be
recommended eligible for the NRHP, while 31 BN 1114, located in Amboy River Park just east of the Proj ect
survey area, will likely be recommended for additional evaluation (Scott Shumate, personal communication
2021).
Table 5.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Proiect.
Site No. Description NRHP Status Reference
31BN12 Precontact: Archaic, Woodland; Unassessed Moore 1984; Shumate 2015,
Postcontact: 19`" 20' century 2016
31BN174 Precontact: Middle Woodland Eligible Baker 1992; Kimball and
(Biltmore Shumate 2003; Moore 1984;
Mound and Shumate et al. 2001; Whyte 2004
31BN175
Precontact: Middle Archaic, Middle
Eligible
Baker 1992; Hall and Baker
Woodland
1993; Moore 1984; Shumate et
a1. 2001
31BN176
Precontact: Archaic, Woodland
Unassessed
Moore 1984
31BN177
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Unassessed
Moore 1984
31BN185
Precontact: Early Woodland?
Unassessed
Moore 1984
31BN623
Postcontact: 20"' century
Eligible
Padgett 1994; Pare et al. 2007
31BN685
Precontact: Archaic;
Not Eligible
Shumate et al. 2000
Postcontact: 10 20t'' century
31BN694
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic;
Unassessed
Kimball 2000; Shumate et al.
Patton House
Postcontact: 191 qentwy
2001
31BN695
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic;
Unassessed
Kimball 2000; Shumate et al.
........ .......
Postcontact: 19' 201 century
2001 _ ...._
31BN696
Precontact: Mississippian;
Eligible
Kimball 2000; Shumate and
.......... ................................... ................................._Postcontact:
19-201 century ...............................................
_................ ........................................................................
Evans -Shumate 2003
31BN723
Precontact: Middle Woodland,
Unassessed
Shumate 2003
(Smith-
Mississippian;
McDowell
Postcontact: 191-201 century
House)
...........................................................................................................................................................
.
31BN739
Precontact: late Middle Woodland (?)•
Unassessed
Shumate and Evans -Shumate
31 BN740
31 BN823
31BN831
Postcontact 19'-20t' century
Postcontact: Late Archaic (?); Unassessed
Postcontact.: 20...century..........................................................................................................................
Precontact: Earlv to Middle Woodland Unassessed
Postcontact: 20t'
Not
2003
Shumate and Evans -Shumate
2003; Shumate 2016
...................................................................................................................
Pare et al. 2007
Pare et al. 2007
35

Table 5.1. Previously Recorded ArchaeoloLdcal Sites within One Mile of the Proiect.
Site No.
Description
NRHP Status
Reference
31BN832................................_Postcontact:
20�' century...................................................................._..._Not
Eligible................................
Pare et al. 2007
................................................................................
31BN867
Precontact: Late Archaic, Early
Unassessed
Par6 et al. 2007; Shumate et al.
(Riverbend
Woodland, Mississippian
2009c
Site)
31BN868
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic and
Unassessed
Par6 et al. 2007
.............................................................................._ceramic;__Postcontact....20'h
century.............................._........................................................................................
31BN869
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic and
Unassessed
Par6 et al. 2007
.............................................................................._ceramic;.
th
Postcontact:...20century.............................._..........................._...........................................................
31BN870
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic;
Unassessed
Par6 et al. 2007
.............................................................................._Postcontact:
201 century...................................................................._........................................................................................
31BN871
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic and
Unassessed
Pare et al. 2007
.......... ........................................... ........................._ceramic;
Postcontact....20r''._century.............................._
.................. ......................................................................
31BN872
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic;
Not Eligible
Pare et al. 2007
...............................................................................Postcontact:
20.. century.............................................................................................................................................................._...........................................................................................................................................
31BN873
Precontact: Late Archaic, Middle
Unassessed
Par6 et al. 2007
.............................................................................._Woodland
31BN876
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Not Eligible
Pare et al. 2007
31BN889
.....................................................................................................................................................y..................................................................'.............._...................................g................................................_...........................................................................................................................................
Postcontact: earl to mid-20t1i cen
Not Eli ible
........ ......... ......... ......... .........
Shumate 2007b
31BN895
...................................................................................................................................(..............................P..........................................g..........................)....._........................................................................................_...........................................................................................................................................
Postcontact anchor oint for to boom
Unassessed
Shumate and Alexander 2019
31BN932
...............................................................................................................................................................lm........................................................................................................................g................................................_........................................................................................._.............................................
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Not Eli ible
Shumate et al. 2009a
31BN933
...............................................................................................................................................................lm........................................................................................................................g................................................_........................................................................................._.............................................
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Not Eligible
Shumate et al. 2009a
31BN934
...............................................................................................................................................................lm........................................................................................................................g................................................_........................................................................................._.............................................
Precontact: nondiagnostic ceramic
Not Eligible
Shumate et al. 2009a
31BN935
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Not Eligible
Shumate et al. 2009a
...............................................................................................................................................................lm........................................................................................................................g................................................_...........................................................................................................................................
31BN936
Postcontact: mid-19!'to 20t' cen
Not Eligible
Shumate et al. 2009a
31BN937
...............................................................................................................................................................lm........................................................................................................................g................................................_........................................................................................._.............................................
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Not Eli ible
Shumate et al. 2009a
31BN938
...............................................................................................................................................................lm........................................................................................................................g................................................_........................................................................................._.............................................
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Not Eli ible
Shumate et al. 2009a
31BN939
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Not Eli ible
Shumate et al. 2009a
...............................................................................................................................................................lm........................................................................................................................g................................................_...........................................................................................................................................
31BN940
Postcontact: 20�' cen
Eligible
Shumate et al. 2009b
31BN972
Postcontact: 20�' cen
Unassessed
Govaerts and Shumate 2011
31BN1028
...................................................................................................................................�............g.................................................)...............................................................................g................................................_.........................................................................................---..............................,
Postcontact ride abutments
Not Eli ible
Shumate et al. 2018
31BN1033
Precontact: Middle Archaic, Late
Unassessed
Shumate et al. 2018
...............................................................................Archaic;._Postcontact..._20th
century.............................._........................................................................................
.....................................................
31BN1065
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic;
Not Eligible
Shumate and Alexander 2019
Postcontact: 19t' century
31BN1101/
Precontact; Postcontact
BMSD-1
31BN1102/
Postcontact
BMSD-2
31BN1103/
Precontact; Postcontact
BMSD-3
31 BN 1104/
Precontact; Postcontact
BMSC-13
31BN11051
Precontact; Postcontact
BMSD-4
31BN1114/
Precontact; Postcontact
BMSD-14
* reference in italics
is a site form.
Unknown
Scott Shumate, personal
communication 2021
Unknown
Scott Shumate, personal
communication 2021
Unknown
Scott Shumate, personal
communication 2021
Unknown
Scott Shumate, personal
communication 2021
Unknown
Scott Shumate, personal
communication 2021
Unknown
Scott Shumate, personal
communication 2021
36

Historic Structures
There are no historic structures recorded within or immediately adjacent to the Project LOD (HPOWEB
2021). Resource BN6397, the Amboy Drive-in (Cascade Lounge) across Amboy Road from the Project, is
a 20th century structure that has been determined eligible for NRHP, but there is no potential for associated
deposits within the APE.
Cemeteries
There are no cemeteries depicted within or adjacent to the Project LOD on historic maps (see below),
mentioned in examined newspaper or historical accounts, or listed in available databases (e.g.,
https://www.buncombecounty. org/governing/depts/register-of-deeds/cemetery-locations. aspx).
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AREA
There are no known 18th through mid- 19th century maps that show cultural detail along this section of the
French Broad River. In particular, the 1826 plan of the Buncombe Turnpike
(https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/1223/rec/1) does not extend into this
area, and the MacRae and Brazier map of 1833 (MacRae and Brazier 1833;
https:Hdc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection /ncmaps/id/181/rec/3) fails to show a road or other cultural
developments along the west side of the French Broad in the Project vicinity. The earliest USGS
topographic maps showing the Project area are the 1886 and 1894 editions of the 1:125,000-scale Asheville
quadrangle (Figures 5.1 and 5.2) (USGS 1886, 1894), but neither map shows comprehensive cultural data
in the immediate Project vicinity.
Approximate
Project Location - r
rVL
-
1
r
Figure 5.1. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1886 USGS Asheville 1:125,000-
scale quadrangle map.
37

Approximate
Project Location = �,i ixi e I f
T=
Figure 5.2. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1894 USGS Asheville 1:125,000-
scale quadrangle map.
The commercial development of the Project area (and adjacent parts of West Asheville) had its beginnings
in the 1880s, when Edwin G. Carrier came to Asheville and began buying land in what is now West
Asheville. In 1888 Carrier and others organized the West Asheville Improvement Company (WAIC), which
in 1892 constructed a horse track and fairgrounds at the location of present-day Carrier Park, among other
improvements (Figures 5.3 and 5.4). In addition to horse races, the property also hosted "baseball, bicycle
races, trotting races, tournaments of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, etc." (Asheville Citizen -Times, July 17,
1960; Whisnant 2017). The track operated for several years, but its fortunes declined by the early 1900s.
The property was purchased as "Old Carrier Race Track," by Otto B. Schoenfeld in 1907 (Whisnant 2017).
Schoenfeld reportedly "had under consideration the plan of creating a race course there" (Asheville Citizen,
August 20, 1907) but there are no indications that this ever occurred.
No photographs or plans of Carrier Race Track were located during preparation of this report, but the track
and fairgrounds probably were located in the vicinity of the present-day Mellowdrome and Carrier Park
parking areas. The 1901 USGS quadrangle (Figure 5.5) depicts the forerunner of Amboy Road at its present
location but no improvements along the river at this location, and the 1920 soils map shows a similar pattern
(Figure 5.6). Because of the Project's location outside of the core of Asheville, most late 19th to mid-20th
century maps that are focused on the Town do not show the immediate Project vicinity; this is true of all
the examined Sanborn Insurance maps (dating to 1885-1917 and available on line at
https://web.lib.unc.edu/nc-maps/).
The first located mention of Amboy Road dates to 1914 (Asheville Gazette -News, September 1, 1914. The
road was widened to 60 feet and paved in 1926 (Asheville Citizen, July 11, 1926). By the 1930s, a portion
of the Project corridor was also traversed by Almy Road, which ran south and then east from Amboy Road
in the vicinity of the present-day Mellowdrome (Figure 5.7).
M.

64 i
MA-P of
r NEST AmimL-LI;.N.C.
AND V1CINLry
� �tixar AsllirrLLt � _ �'�- t:
! . ;tT •r• � rgtca++►eery _ _ s !
%V
r w sat fa, lilt .
C
VANI)ERWLT Puf:cl�nsE
r
Figure 5.3. Map of West Asheville in 1895 (Child 1895).
DOWN •11. TIEE RACE:TkACK
THE. l;V*-V4T& Me TBAUK16046V
AND FUUMV.
borer 11!*clt1K 7.4.11s.
[ud Illusrluall TIM
miltu J4itair Te.1ll[ I'IKibm Y1141
"a cat la re 111e Mure u to i •kF[inl[[
A16hc% 111r.
Ilow rocing and liamcl.:tll aittis+11il tIN
11 nNlroat the;tics! Ancrrilk lIFIK16 Yv- '
'trthq itirrmi4m. Tltt drjubic ntltm,
rmo screed to draw a IurNe crowd hall
i Ilc atrret citr IIisra hind : L I I I be co041 +1ra
t1k gCt the IICu1+Ir t+l Ilnd Ir.alat tl:t.
gmunda.
7herateing !kits, attendrrl with diffi-
a,rttry I[eeeuae of tax mud wlriA wua err-
1 toehea deep un Iairla of ltlr tr:ar G.
litre west but +rlx cicot, a lmlt•roilr
tlUttiatk JAt C with five sturivra, a kll
I'rwa: I.% 1`. tilnnttaugli'a wrrel !"afar
'aa'n. Himildom " of Anlwvlllc; A. �,.
L'iweVehav wnre, "1AY' id SItrtrt,rr,
t�t4rk: W. C. Thimplapin'a n�FrrCl
MUM "La IlY GJkH19101" III t`ufryrt,
G. It. Gallidwr's bay grt.ling "I'gimI: I.t
rinir" a1 SwrYtw:tirr, '1 rttn„ nod W.
kay's sorrel hurw ;if Aulwidir. 'I.kit
Ta.e WHIM turapurw r.f *,dl Kish *3"i S..
t lee Ire! ultd brat.
Figure 5.4. Newspaper article concerning racing at Carrier (West Asheville) Race Track in 1892
(Asheville Citizen, July 15, 1892).
39

Approximate .' .
} Project Location
FF • - - /y
r
t 1
■ �J
•ti■ r 1 1�,�
. r
4 '
f'
Figure 5.5. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1901 Asheville 1:125,000-scale
quadrangle map.
Approximate
p. o' f w
Project Location
5 ��-
Figure 5.6. The approximate Project location as shown on the 1920 Buncombe County soils map
(Perkins et al. 1920).
40

Figure 5.7. Map of West Asheville ca. 1932-1934 map depicting Amboy and Almy roads.
The next documented development in the Project corridor occurred in 1930, with the opening of Carrier
Field as a "municipal flying port" (Asheville Citizen, August 31, 1930). Developed at the impetus of Dr.
J.E. Owen, an Asheville dentist and veteran pilot, the field was later to bear his name as "Owen Field"
(Asheville Citizen -Times, January 23, 1955). The field originally featured a dirt landing strip running north -
south along the floodplain, as shown in 1940s photographs (Figure 5.8 and 5.9) and a 1950 aerial
photograph (Figure 5.10); the 1950 photograph also depicts Almy Road passing south of the runway and
between the runway and the river. It is not clear from the later photograph if the strip was ever paved.
USGS planimetric and topographic maps from 1936 (Figure 5.11) and 1943 (Figure 5.12) do not depict the
airfield, but do show Almy Road and one (1943) or two (1936) nearby structures, which are likely related
to the sand mining operation that was present along the river by 1950 (see Figure 5.10). the 1961
topographic map (Figure 5.13) shows Owen Airfield and related buildings, along with one structure at the
sand mining operation.
Although primarily an airfield, Carrier Field also served as a fairgrounds, as when the Ringling Brothers
and Barnum and Bailey Circus visited in 1954 (Figure 5.14) (Asheville Citizen, October 25, 1954).
The airport continued in use until the early 1960s, when it was replaced by the New Asheville Speedway,
a 1/3 mile dirt auto -racing track that opened on June 1, 1960. Photographs from 1960 (Figures 5.15 and
5.16) depict both the new speedway and the former runway, and (as noted on an interpretive sign at the
former track) on one occasion:
An airplane landed on the runway in the middle of a race, despite markings indicating the airport
was closed. Max Wilson, who was announcing the race from the back of a flat-bed truck,
remembered diving under the truck as the plane headed right at him. Fortunately, no one was injured
and a potential tragedy was averted.
41

qK
•A.5V
-4r
lob% -0

y.
L.-A
I i*
V"
Figure 5.10. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1950.
43

l�Ti w • • W • ■ : rraw•■• a .ai r r . i : • • ■ • I i r ■u•
r t a7 • ■ • � � !1
1 ♦a Y O ' !�
ARRI 'A
• + • ■ ` • •..• LJ • . RID 1 Z
■ PROJECT f
r
• ♦''•. • , CORRIDOR t' ••••..20+• fJ
CS
■
• _ fI O C
■ ♦ �� ` • � ter'
1 /ram,
i
r
1 ODODFNORON
It I
•
{ 4 Y
9M
1997
Asheville, North Carolina (1936) 0 1
USGS 7.5 Minute Planimetric Map N
Miles
0 4,000
W E
Feet
C5��" 0 1
S
Buncombe County, North Carolina Kilometers
Figure 5.11. USGS 1:24,000-scale planimetric map of the Project vicinity in 1936.
44

Figure 5.12. USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic map of the Project vicinity in 1943.
45

i111 HAYWOOD
a fi7,H I F e c
,
PROJECT ` t.
CORRIDORJ�
r"
s • ::sf f----------------- /
en Airfield° l�J
50
�
II
�Gas
Asheville, North Carolina (1961) 0 1
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map N
Miles
0 4,000
VV E
Feet
0 1
S
Buncombe County, North Carolina Kilometers
Figure 5.13. USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic map of the Project vicinity in 1961.
46

Thousands
Go Up For Today's Show
�jF F
I � �
�«Lern Ph81�F1b,1lOr
A CIRCUS without elephants would not be coniplete for jnost people. For this
reason the elephants standing in the warm sanshine at Carrier Field yesterday were
the major attraction as the Mingling Bros, and Barnum and Bailey Circus unloaded
froin three trains and went about setting up. There will be two performances to-
day at 2.15 and 8-15 p.m. The circus has in the neighborhood of 40 elephants.
Figure 5.14. Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus at Carrier Field in 1954.
Flights continued at Owen Field until at least November 1961 (Asheville Citizen -Times, November 19,
1961), but presumably ceased soon thereafter.
The New Asheville Speedway (known locally as "The River") hosted eight races on the NASCAR Grand
National circuit between 1962 and 1971, and during the 1980s and 1990s hosted races of the Late Model
Division as well as those featuring "Winston minis, four -cylinder, rookies, street stocks and super stocks."
The speedway was a fixture in Asheville until it closed after the 1998 racing season and the land was
acquired (through an intermediary) by the City of Asheville for use as a greenway and recreation area
(Asheville Citizen -Times, October 25, 1998), now Carrier Park.
47

Figure 5.15. Owen Field with New Asheville Speedway under construction, facing east.
Aerial photographs dating from 1965 to 2006 (Figures 5.17-5.21) illustrate land use along the corridor
during and after the Speedway was in operation. As shown, the principal mid-20`h to early 21" century
disturbances to the Project corridor are those associated with the construction and operation of the airfield
and racetrack, which were focused in the southern part of the Carrier Park portion of the corridor, as well
as those associated with the EDACO facility, which was in operation by the mid-1960s. Disturbances in
the northern part of the Carrier Park area consist primarily of those associated with construction of the
airport runway, as well as with later sculpting of the recreational area. The area north of the EDACO facility
has witnessed some filling, but otherwise seems to have escaped major disturbances. Most of the corridor
also has been affected by previous sewer line construction, which is not visible on the aerial photographs.
W.

_ � - �� .i. ;-.lam• X
- rf.
Li
Figure 5.16. Owen Field and New Asheville Speedway, facing northeast.
M

Figure 5.18. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1970.
51

Figure 5.20. Aerial photograph of the Project vicinity in 1994.
53

+
CM-

FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
The survey included excavation of 75 shovel tests, including those excavated at 20-m intervals along survey
transects as well as 10-m interval site delineation tests (Figure 5.22). The initial shovel transects was aligned
with the orientation of the proposed sewer line corridor, with additional shovel tests excavated
perpendicular to the corridor as needed for site delineation.
The survey shovel tests encountered varying conditions, reflecting the varying degree of prior disturbances
and filling along the corridor. Beginning at the western end, two shovel tests (STs 40 and 75) on the berm
along the French Broad River encountered impenetrable fill, as discussed above (see Figures 2.2 and 2.3).
In contrast, most shovel tests in the athletic field encountered generally natural soils beneath a slight to
moderate amount of fill, and site 31BN1117 was identified in that area. As the corridor turns east, deep fill
was encountered in most shovel tests alongside the Mellowdrome and in the Carrier Park parking lots,
although a few tests in those areas encountered undisturbed soils. Moving east from the Carrier Park parking
lot, however, natural soils were encountered in most shovel tests, except for a few locations (e.g., ST 10),
where filling was obvious. Recent alluvium was also present at multiple locations in that area, resulting
from flooding immediately prior to the fieldwork. Two sites were identified in that area, one (31BN1116)
west of the EDACO area and one (31BN1115) to the east. Overall, the survey identified three new
precontact archaeological sites (31BN1115-31BN1117) (Table 5.2; Figures 5.22 and 5.23). Those sites are
discussed below, moving west to east along the survey corridor.
Table 5.2. Archaeological Sites Identified by TRC in the Amboy Road Section of the MSD SFB
Interceptor Proiect.
Site #
31BN1115 Precontact:
nondiagnostic ceramic
31BN1116 Precontact:
indeterminate lithic
Shovel Tests
Total* Pre. Hist. Cer.
3113N1117 Prehistoric: 24
Mississippian (?)
Artifacts NRHP
Lith. Hist. Total Recommendation
Unassessed;
not eligible
within corridor
Unassessed;
not eligible
within corridor
0 8 Unassessed;
not eligible
within corridor
* Includes all shovel tests within 20 m of positive tests, excluding those that encountered only fill.
31BN1117
Component(s): Precontact: Mississippian (Pisgah phase) ?
Site Dimensions: 75 m NE -SW x 25+ in NW -SE* (approximate)
UTMs (NAD 83): E356510 N3936986
Landform: Terrace
Elevation: ca. 1,980 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s): Udorthents-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Recommendation: Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
*Site measurements based on artifact distribution within the LOD; site could extend outside LOD to the northwest and/or southeast
Description. Site 31BN1117 is a low -density precontact (probable Mississippian period) site situated in the
southwestern corner of the Carrier Park athletic field (Figures 5.22a and 5.23-5.25). As defined within the
survey corridor, the site measures roughly 75 in northeast -southwest by 25 in northwest -southeast. It is
bounded by the artificial berm along the French Broad River to the southwest and by negative shovel tests
to the northeast, but could extend to the northwest or southeast outside the corridor. Originally, the site
likely occupied a low levee paralleling the river.
55

This page intentionally left blank.
56

Figure 5.22a. Location of shovel tests and identified archaeological sites (sheet 1 of 4).
57

Figure 5.22b. Location of shovel tests and identified archaeological sites (sheet 2 of 4).

Figure 5.22c. Location of shovel tests and identified archaeological sites (sheet 3 of 4).
59

Figure 5.22d. Location of shovel tests and identified archaeological sites (sheet 4 of 4).

F
AYW
I
31BN1117 � CORRIDOR
MA
�� a -,awo
31BN1115
20 — IVA
2aoo — - ��,
1 ' r _ ��—: 31BN1116
6�
0,
�,M
f ``ems �y a
y f
_ I
Fry
4sheville, North Carolina (1979 (PR 19931)
USGS 7.5 mute Topographic Map 0 1
N
Miles
0 4,000
VV E
Feet
0 1
S
Buncombe County, North Carolina Kilometers
Figure 5.23. Location of identified archaeological sites.
61

Figure 5.24. Site 31BN1117, facing southwest.
Figure 5.25. Site 31BN1117, facing northeast from berm.
62

The soils at 31BN1117 are mapped as Udorthents-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded, which consist of moderately to well drained soils that have been disturbed by cutting or filling and
areas that are covered by buildings and pavement. Despite the flat appearance of the athletic field and the
adjacent berm, however, it does not appear that substantial cutting has occurred in the site vicinity. Instead,
it appears that fill was deposited to achieve the present level surface. For example, ST 36 (Figure 5.26)
encountered a ca. 41 cm thick layer of fill, which overlay a stratum of dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) sandy
loam that extended to approximately 115 cmbs. Augering below that level encountered grayish brown
(1 OYR 5/2) sand from 115 to 167 cmbs, which was underlain by grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2) silty clay loam.
The second stratum in that ST produced a single ceramic sherd, but also contained a coal fragment, and
likely represents formerly plowed alluvial soils. Other shovel tests in the area also encountered from 20 to
63 cm of fill, which included such diverse items as cinder block fragments and a partial plastic cup featuring
an illustration of McDonald's restaurant character "Officer Big Mac," which pre -dates 1985
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldland).
Shovel Tests and Artifacts. Twenty-four shovel tests were excavated at 10- and 20-m intervals across the
site area within the corridor, including both transect and delineation tests but excluding two tests on the
adjacent berm that encountered only fill (Figure 5.27). Six (25.0%) of the 24 generated a total of eight
precontact artifacts, with artifact densities ranging from one to three per shovel test. All were recovered
from the Ap horizon beneath the fill, and no indications of cultural features were encountered. The artifacts
include seven ceramic sherds and a single lithic artifact. The sherds are all small and fragmented, with three
measuring less than 2 cm and the largest weighing only 5.1 g. Only one can be tentatively identified by
series; that is a probable Mississippian period Pisgah rectilinear complicated stamped sherd (Figure 5.28d).
The other sherds (e.g., Figures 5.28a—c) are small and eroded. The single lithic artifact is a small angular
fragment of chert.
Figure 5.26. Shovel Test 36 at 31BN1117.
63

Figurc 5.27. Map of 31BN1 1 17.
Figure 5.28. Precontact ceramic sherds from 31BN1117. a: eroded, ST 36; b: unidentified decorated,
ST 47; c: eroded, ST 61; d: rectilinear complicated stamped (?), ST 38
64

Summary and Recommendations. Site 31BN1117 is a low -density precontact site that likely dates to the
Mississippian period and is situated within the Carrier Park athletic field. The site may extend outside the
survey corridor in multiple directions, and likely once extended some distance along the river terrace.
Artifact densities are low and the ceramic artifacts are highly fragmented, and no indications of cultural
features were encountered.
Given the possible extent of this site outside the survey corridor, the present work does not support a
definitive assessment of NRHP eligibility. Consequently TRC recommends that this site be considered
unassessed for the NRHP under Criterion D, but recommends that the documented deposits within the
survey corridor are unlikely to contribute to the site's potential eligibility under that criterion. The examined
portion of the site also appear to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under NRHP Criteria A—
C. Consequently, TRC does not recommend that any additional investigations be required at 31BN1117 for
the MSD SFB Interceptor project as currently defined. Should any disturbances be planned farther to the
northwest or southeast at his location, however, additional site delineation and assessment would be
recommended.
31BN1116
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
15 m N-S x 15 m E-W
UTMs (NAD 83):
E357332 N3936930
Landform:
Terrace
Elevation:
ca. 1,976 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Recommendation:
Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
*Site measurements based on artifact distribution within the LOD; site could extend outside LOD to the north and/or south.
Description. Site 31BN1116 is a low -density precontact (nondiagnostic lithic) site situated west of a
pedestrian trail in a landscaped portion of Carrier Park, east of the parking areas and approximately 60 m
west of the drainage at the western edge of the EDACO tract (Figure 5.29; see Figures 5.22c and 5.23). The
soils at 31BN1116 are mapped as Rosman fine sandy loam, and a shovel test encountered a 40 cm brown
fine sandy loam Ap horizon overlaying a compact brown (7.5YR 514) fine sandy loam B horizon (Figure
5.30). The single artifact was recovered from the Ap horizon, which also contained modern glass.
One of five shovel tests in the immediate site vicinity produced a single small fragment of quartz debitage.
No indications of potential cultural features were noted.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31BN1116 is a low -density precontact site that is represented by a
single quartz flake. TRC recommends that this site be considered unassessed under Criterion D, but
recommends that the documented deposits within the survey corridor do not contribute to the site's potential
eligibility under that criterion; this portion of the site also lacks the characteristics necessary for eligibility
under NRHP Criteria A—C. Consequently, TRC does not recommend that any additional investigations be
required at 31BN1116 for the MSD SFB Interceptor project as currently defined. Should any disturbances
be planned farther to the north or south at his location, however, additional site delineation and assessment
would be recommended.
65

y
Y �
fa
i
�� t

31BN1115
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic ceramic (Woodland to Mississippian)
Site Dimensions:
40 in E-W x 15 in N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E357770 N3937074
Landform:
Terrace
Elevation:
ca. 1,974 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Udorthents-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Recommendation:
Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
*Site measurements based on artifact distribution within the LOD; site could extend outside LOD to the north and/or south.
Description. Site 31BN1115 is a low -density precontact (nondiagnostic ceramic) site situated in a grassy
area west of a parking area at the eastern end of the survey corridor (Figure 5.31; see Figures 5.22d and
5.23). The soils at 31BN1115 are mapped as Udorthents-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded, which consist of moderately to well drained soils that have been disturbed by cutting
or filling and areas that are covered by buildings and pavement. ST 4 at 31BN1115 encountered
approximately 45 cm of dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) modern alluvium overlying approximately 60 cm
of homogeneous dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty clay loam (Figure 5.32). Both recovered artifacts
were found in the lower stratum. There were no indications of cultural features.
A total of two nondiagnostic ceramic artifacts were recovered from two of five adjacent shovel tests. Both
have an unidentified surface treatment; the larger of the two (Figure 5.33b) may be simple stamped or cord
marked but is eroded and possibly waterworn.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31BN1115 is a low -density precontact site that is represented by two
nondiagnostic ceramic sherds. TRC recommends that this site be considered unassessed under Criterion D,
but recommends that the documented deposits within the survey corridor do not contribute to the site's
potential eligibility under that criterion; this portion of the site also lacks the characteristics necessary for
eligibility under NRHP Criteria A—C. Consequently, TRC does not recommend that any additional
investigations be required at 31BN1115 for the MSD SFB Interceptor project as currently defined. Should
any disturbances be planned farther to the north or south at his location, however, additional site delineation
and assessment would be recommended.
67

K
v
_{
Figure 5.31. Site 31BN1115, facing west.
Figure 5.32. Shovel Test 4 at 31BN1115.
68

Figure 5.33. Precontact ceramic sherds from 31BN1115. a: unidentified decorated, ST 5; b: unidentified
decorated, ST 5

This page intentionally left blank.
70

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC has completed an archaeological survey for a portion of the MSD SFB Relief Interceptor along Amboy
Road in Buncombe County, North Carolina. The work was conducted on behalf of the MSD as part of the
permitting requirements for the proposed construction of approximately 5,300 feet (ca. 1,616 meters [m])
of sewer line running through Carrier and Amboy River parks along the French Broad River floodplain;
other portions of the larger SFB Relief Interceptor Project on the Biltmore Estate to the southwest and along
Amboy Road to the east have previously been surveyed by others (Scott Shumate, personal communication
2021). The proposed LOD for the Project consists of a ca. 50-foot wide corridor centered on the Project
centerline.
The archaeological fieldwork was directed by Paul Webb and John Kesler of TRC, occurred from
September 27—October 1 and on October 27, 2021, and required approximately 11 person -days. The
fieldwork included a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire LOD and systematic shovel testing
at 20-m intervals across all parts of the LOD except in areas of impervious surfaces. Shovel tests were
excavated at 10-m intervals to delineate finds. A total of 75 shovel tests were excavated.
The survey identified three archaeological site (Table 6.1). Site 31BN1117 is a low -density probable
Mississippian period (Pisgah phase) site, and sites 31BN1116 and 31BN1115 are low -density sites that
produced nondiagnostic lithic and ceramic artifacts, respectively. As all three sites have the potential to
extend outside the Project LOD, TRC recommends that these be considered unassessed for NRHP eligibility
under NRHP Criterion D. Given the low artifact densities and lack of evidence of cultural features within
the LOD, however, TRC recommends that the Project as currently designed will not adversely affect any
deposits that could contribute to the sites' potential eligibility. Similarly, due to the extensive prior
modifications in much of the Carrier Park area, no additional work is recommended in areas where the
shovel tests encountered dense fill. Consequently, no further investigations are recommended for this
portion of the MSD SFB Relief Interceptor Project as presently defined.
Table 6.1. Archaeological Sites Identified by TRC for the MSD SFB Relief Interceptor Survev.
Site Component NRHP Eligibility Recommendation
31BN1115 Precontact: nondiagnostic ceramic Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
31BN1116 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
31BN1117 Prehistoric: Mississippian (?) Unassessed; not eligible within corridor
Based on the survey results, TRC recommends that no further archaeological investigations are necessary
for this portion of the MSD SFB Interceptor Project.
71

This page intentionally left blank.
72

REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55:348-354.
Adovasio, J.M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1999 No Vestige of a Beginning nor Prospect for an End: Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft
Rockshelter. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First
Americans, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turmire, pp. 416-431. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Ager, John
1981 Buncombe County: A Brief History. In Cabins and Castles: The History and Architecture of Buncombe
County, North Carolina, edited by Douglas Swaim, 9-30. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, County of Buncombe, City of Asheville.
Alexis (L.T. Siler)
1852 A Visit to the Cartoogechaye Indians. The North Carolina University Magazine 1:116-118.
Altman, Heidi
2006 Eastern Cherokee Fishing. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, David G.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States.
In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by JAI Press Inc., pp. 163-216, Supplement 5. Greenwich,
Connecticut.
1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In Archaeology of the
Mid -Holocene Southeast, edited by Ken Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 157-176. University Press
of Florida.
2001 Climate and Culture Change in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 29:143-186.
2017 Mississippian Beginnings: Multiple Perspectives on Migration, Monumentality, and Religion in the
Prehistoric Eastern United States. In Mississippian Beginnings, edited by Gregory D. Wilson, pp. 293-322.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Anderson, David G., and Christopher Gillam
2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography,
Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65:43-66.
Anderson, David G., Sammy T. Lee, and A. Robert Parler
1979 Cal Smoak: Archaeological Investigations along the Edisto River in the Coastal Plain of South
Carolina. Occasional Papers 1, Archaeological Society of South Carolina.
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
2012 Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology: From Colonization to Complexity. SAA Press,
Washington, D.C.
Arthur, John Preston
1914 Western North Carolina: A History from 1730 to 1913. Reprinted 1996, Overmountain Press, Johnson
City, Tennessee.
Ashcraft, A. Scott
1996 Pisgah Phase Palisades: Observations on the Spatial Evolution of Village Perimeters. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number Six. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication
38(6):46-72.
Ashcraft, A. Scott, and Kelsey Meer
2019 Archaeological Investigations for the Proposed Hunter Espada Easement Project. National Forests in
North Carolina, Asheville.
Asheville Citizen
1892 Down at the RaceTrack. July 15, 1892.
1907 Schoenfeld Here to See Property. August 20, 1907.
1926 Paving Sought on Amboy Road. July 11, 1926.
1930 Carrier Field is Opened as Municipal Flying Port. August 31, 1930
1954 Thousands See "Big Top" Go Up for Today's Show. October 25, 1954.
73

Asheville Citizen -Times
1955 Dr. Owen to Build Additional Hangar at His Carrier Field. January 23, 1955.
1960 Carrier, A Transplanted Yankee, Did Much for Asheville in 1880s-1890s. July 17, 1960.
1961 Army Pilots, Flying from Owen Field, Receive Valuable Mountain Training. November 19, 1961.
1998 Council Discussed Speedway Deal in Secret. October 25, 1998.
Asheville Gazette -News
1914 Many Arrested at West Asheville. September 1, 1914.
Bacon, Willard S.
1982 Structural Data Recovered from the Banks III Site (40CF108) and the Parks Site (40CF513), Normandy
Reservoir, Coffee County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 8:176-197.
Bailey, David C., Joseph M. Canfield, and Harold E. Cox
2000 Trolleys in the Land of the Sky: Street Railways of Asheville, N. C. and Vicinity. Forty Fort, Pennsylvania.
Printed and sold by Harold E. Cox.
Baker, Michael, and Linda Hall
1990 The Bent Creek Archaeological Site: A Woodland Traditional Settlement within the French Broad River
Basin. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina and the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History, Asheville.
Baker, Michael
1992 An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Pipeline Corridor on the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Hall and Baker Archaeological Consultants, Weaverville.
Bass, Quentin R., III
1975 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smoky Mountains. Submitted to the
National Park Service, Knoxville.
Beck, Robin A., Jr
1997 From Joara to Chiaha: Spanish Exploration of the Appalachian Summit Area, 1540-1568.
Southeastern Archaeology 16:162-169.
Benyshek, Tasha M.
2007a Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Replacement of Bridges 79 and 80 over Caney Fork Creek
and Bridge 99 over Panther Creek, Jackson and Graham Counties, North Carolina. TRC Garrow
Associates, Chapel Hill. Final report submitted to Arcadis G&M, Raleigh.
2007b Archaeological Data Recovery Investigations at 31 SW311 at the EBCI EMS Building Site, Swain
County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Chapel Hill. Submitted to EBCI, Cherokee.
2008a Archaeological Investigations at the Sneed Site (31JK466) at the Former Papoose Motel for the EBCI
Housing and Development Division, Jackson County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. TRC
Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to EBCI, Cherokee.
2008b Archaeological Investigations at Nununyi (31 SW3) at the Ocona Valley Motel Tract for the EBCI
Housing and Development Division, Swain County, Jackson County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina.
TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to EBCI, Cherokee.
2009 Deep Testing and Geomorphic Study for Proposed Replacement of Bridge 3 on US 19-74 Across the
Nantahala River, TIP B-4286, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel
Hill. Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
2010 Archaeological Investigations at 31 SW495 on the EBCI Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Tract,
Swain County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
Submitted to EBCI Tribal Building Construction Office, Cherokee.
2016 Management Summary for Archaeological Data Recovery at 31 SW595 and 31 SW596 at the EBCI Old
Elementary School, Cherokee, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel
Hill. Submitted to EBCI, Cherokee.
2018a Management Summary for the Archaeological Data Recovery at the Magic Waters Site (31JK291) for
the Casino Parking Garage Footprint for the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort Expansion Project.
Submitted by TRC to the Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise, Cherokee, North Carolina.
2018b WCU-STEM Project (Site 31JK2) Archaeological Investigations Progress Report Update, Jackson
County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. Submitted to WCU Facilities
Management, Cullowhee.
2020 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Iotla (31MA77) at the Macon County Airport, North
Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville.
74

Benyshek, Tasha, and Paul A. Webb
2004 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Three Alternatives for the Replacement of Bridges No. 99 and 100
on SRI100 across the Nantahala River, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Durham.
Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
2006 Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Smokemont Water and Sewer Project, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Chapel Hill. Submitted
to Science Applications International Corporation, Oak Ridge.
2008 Mississippian and Historic Cherokee Structure Types and Settlement Plans at Ravensford. Paper
presented at Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
2009 The Ravensford and Macon County Airport Sites, Paper presented in Symposium, North Carolina
Appalachian Summit Archaeology: New Visions of Ancient Times. Appalachian State University, Boone,
North Carolina.
2017a Ceramics from Ravensford, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. Presented at Uplands Archaeology in
the East Symposium XII, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina.
2017b Mississippian Occupations at the Ravensford and Iotla Sites. Paper presented at the 821 Society of
American Archaeology Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia.
i.p. Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at the Ravensford Site (31 SW78 and 31 SW136), Swain
County, North Carolina, Volume 1: Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Historic Cherokee
Components. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
Binford, Lewis R.
1977 Forty-seven Trips: a Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone
Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution, and Complexity, edited by R.V.S. Wright, pp. 24-36.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological
Research 35:255-273.
Birch, Jennifer, Jacob Lulewicz, and Abigail Rowe
2016 A Comparative Analysis of the Late Woodland -Early Mississippian Transition in Northern Georgia.
Southeastern Archaeology 35(2):115-133.
Bishir, Catherine W., Michael T. Southern, and Jennifer F. Martin
1999 A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Western North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Bissett, Thaddeus G., LaDonna Rogers Stroupe, Patrick H. Garrow, and Judith A. Sichler
2009 Phase II Archaeological Testing and Phase III Data Recovery, WCUMillennial Campus —
Neighborhood #1, Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting,
Knoxville.
Blackmun, Ora
1977 Western North Carolina: Its Mountains and Its People to 1880. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone,
North Carolina.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina
Archaeology in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear, pp. 53-72. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Blethen, H. Tyler, and Curtis W. Wood
1987 The Pioneer Experience to 1851. In The History of Jackson County, edited by Max R. Williams, pp.
67-100. The Jackson County Historical Association, Sylva, North Carolina.
Booker, Karen M., Charles M. Hudson, and Robert L. Rankin
1992 Place Name Identification and Multilingualism in the Sixteenth Century. Ethnohistory 39(4):399-451.
Bowen, William Rowe
1989 An Examination of Subsistence, Settlement, and Chronology During the Early Woodland Kellogg
Phase in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of the Southeastern United States. Unpublished PhD
dissertation in Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.
Brose, D.S., and N.B. Greber, editors
1979 Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
75

Cable, John, and Lisa O'Steen, Leslie E. Raymer, Dr. Johannes H.N. Loubser, Dr. David S. Leigh, Dr. J.W. Joseph,
Mary Beth Reed, Lotta Danielsson-Murphy, Undine McEvoy, Thaddeus Murphy, Mary Teresa Bonage-Freund,
and Dr. Deborah Wallsmith
1997 A Picture Unsurpassed: Prehistoric and Historic Indian Settlement and Landscape, Brasstown Valley,
Towns County, Georgia. Report submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources by New South
Associates, Inc.
Carr, Christopher, and D. Troy Case (Editors)
2005 Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New
York.
Chapman, Jefferson
1973 The Icehouse Bottom Site. Report of Investigations No. 13. Department of Anthropology, University of
Tennessee.
1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley 1975: Icehouse Bottom, Harrison
Branch, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. Report of Investigations No. 18. Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
1981 The Bacon Bend and Iddins Sites: The Late Archaic Period in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley.
Report of Investigations No. 31. University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology, Knoxville.
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211.
University of Alabama Press.
Chapman, Jefferson, and Gary Crites
1987 Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays) from the Icehouse Bottom Site, Tennessee. American Antiquity
52:352-354.
Chapman, Jefferson, and Bennie C. Keel
1979 Candy Creek-Connestee Components in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina and Their
Relationship with Adena-Hopewell. In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference, edited by David
S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 157-161. Kent State University Press.
Child, Arthur S.
1895 Map of West Asheville, N.C. and Vicinity.
https://7039. sydneyplus.com/archive/final/Portal. aspx?lang=en-US
Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 14, No. 41, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina
Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Cobb, Charles R., and Brian M. Butler
2002 The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late Mississippian Abandonment of the Lower Ohio Valley. American
Antiquity 67:625-641.
Cobb, Charles R., and Patrick H. Garrow
1996 Woodstock Culture and the Question of Mississippian Emergence. American Antiquity 61:21-37.
Cobb, Charles R., and Adam King
2005 Re -Inventing Mississippian Tradition at Etowah, Georgia. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 12(3):167-192.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
54(5).
Cowan, C. Wesley
1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany,
Ethnography, and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard 1.
Ford, pp. 205-243. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Cozzo, David N.
2004 Ethnobotanical Classification System and Medical Ethnobotany of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee
Indians. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
76

Cridlebaugh, Patricia A.
1981 The Icehouse Bottom Site 1977 Excavations. Report of Investigations No. 13. Department of
Anthropology University of Tennessee; TVA Publications in Anthropology No. 34.
Crites, Gary D.
2004 Biltmore Mound Plant Remains. In Hopewell Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore Mound,
Biltmore Estate, North Carolina. ASU Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Boone. Submitted to
Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Dagenhardt, Johnny R.
1972 Perforated Soapstone Discs: A Functional Test. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology Notebook 4:65-68.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2005 The North Carolina Fluted Point Survey. Electronic document, http://pidba.utk.edu/northcarolina.htm.
2021 Time, Typology, and Point Traditions in North Carolina Archaeology: Formative Cultures
Reconsidered. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr.
1990 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of Investigations No. 50,
University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville; TVA Publications in Anthropology No.
54.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records
of Late -Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway, pp. 1-37.
American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered. Quaternary Research
19:265-271.
Dickens, Roy S.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Dixon, E. James
1999 Boats, Bones, and Bison: Archeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2001 Human Colonization of the American: Timing, Technology and Process. Quaternary Science Reviews
20:277-299.
Duggan, Betty J.
1998 Being Cherokee in a White World: The Ethnic Persistence of a Post -Removal American Indian
Enclave. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Dunbar, J.S.
2002 Chronostratigraphy and Paleoclimate of Late Pleistocene Florida and the Implications of Changing
Paleoindian Land Use. M.S. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
2006 Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the
Aucilla River, edited by S.D. Webb, pp. 403-435. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Duncan, Barbara, and Brett Riggs
2003 Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Dykeman, Wilma
1965 The French Broad. Wakestone Books, Newport, Tennessee.
Eastman, Jane M.
2016 Settlement History at Cullowhee Mound. Paper presented at 73rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Athens, Georgia.
2017a An Early Pisgah Phase Component from the Cross Site, 31JK159, Jackson County, North Carolina.
Poster presented at Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tulsa.
2017b Reconstructing an Early Mississippian Beaded Fabric from Pottery Impressions: Rivercane as Beads?
Paper presented at Reconstructive and Experimental Archaeology Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Egloff, Brian J.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics from Historic Cherokee Towns. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
77

Elliott, Daniel T.
1981 Soapstone Use in the Wallace Reservoir. Wallace Reservoir Project Contribution 5. Department of
Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Elliott, Daniel T., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Elizabeth A. Gordon
1994 Data Recovery at Lover's Lane, Phinzy Swamp, and the Old Dike Sites, Bobby Jones Expressway
Extension Corridor, Augusta, Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc., Athens.
Erlandson, Jon M, Todd J. Braje, Torbin C. Rick, and Jenna Peterson
2005 Beads, Bifaces, and Boats: An Early Maritime Adaptation on the South Coast of San Miguel Island,
California. American Anthropologist 107(4):677-683.
Ethridge, Robbie
2006 Creating the Shatter Zone: Indian Slaving and the Collapse of Southeastern Indian Chiefdoms. In Light
on the Path: History and Anthropology of the Southeastern Indians, edited by Thomas J. Pluckhahn and
Robbie Ethridge, pp. 207-218. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Faught, Michael K.
2008 Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the New World: A Compilation of Accurate and Precise
Radiocarbon Ages from Earliest Sites. American Antiquity 73:670-698.
Fiedel, Stuart
2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of
Archaeological Research 8:39-103.
Finger, John R.
1984 The Eastern Band of Cherokees, 1819-1900. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
1991 Cherokee Americans: The Eastern Band of Cherokees in the Twentieth Century. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Fladmark, Knut
1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44:55-69.
Ford, Richard I.
1981 Gathering and Farming before A.D. 1000: Patterns of Prehistoric Cultivation North of Mexico. Journal
of Ethnobiology 1:6-27.
Foreman, Richard, and James W. Mahoney
2018 The Cherokee Physician. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Glassow, Michael
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 42:413-420.
Goldston, E.F., C.W. Croom, W.A. Davis, and William Gettys
1954 Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station and the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Goodwin, Gary
1977 Cherokees in Transition: A Study of Changing Culture and Environment Prior to 1775. University of
Chicago Geography Research Papers 181.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 47:382-395.
Goodyear, Albert C., and K. Steffy
2003 Evidence for a Clovis Occupation at the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 20:23-25.
Gragson, Ted L., and Paul Bolstad
2007 A Locational Analysis of Early -Eighteenth Cherokee Settlement. Social Science History 31(3):435-
468.
Greene, Lance K.
1996 The Archaeology and History of the Cherokee Out Towns. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
2009 A Struggle for Cherokee Community: Excavating Identity in Post -Removal North Carolina.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Gremillion, Kristen J.
2018 Food Production in Native North America: An Archaeological Perspective. SAA Press, Washington,
D.C.
IN

Griffith, Glenn E., James M. Omernik, Jeffrey A. Comstock, Michael P. Schafale, W. Henry McNab, David R.
Lenat, Trish F. MacPherson, James B. Glover, and Victor B. Shelburne. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston.
2002 Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston.
Hall, Linda, and Charles M. Baker
1993 Data Recovery at 31BN875, the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. On file, Office of
State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Hally, David J.
1988 Archaeology and Settlement Plan of the King Site. In The King Site: Continuity and Contact in
Sixteenth Century Georgia, edited by R.L. Blakeley, pp. 3-16. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1994 An Overview of Lamar Archaeology. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986, edited by D.J. Hally, pp.
144-174. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
2006 The Nature of Mississippian Regional Systems. In Light on the Path: The Anthropology and History of
the Southeastern Indians, edited by T.J. Pluckhahn, and R. Ethridge, pp. 26-42. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
2008 King: The Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian Town in Northwestern Georgia. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hamel, Paul D., and Mary U. Chiltoskey
1975 Cherokee Plants and Their Uses — a 400 year History. Herald Publishing Company, Sylva, North
Carolina.
Harrington, M.R.
1922 Cherokee and Earlier Remains on the Upper Tennessee River. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum
of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
Hatcher, Robert D., and Steven A. Goldberg
1991 The Blue Ridge Geologic Province. In The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological Society
Fiftieth Anniversary Volume, edited by J.W. Horton, Jr. and V.A. Zullo.
Hatley, M. Thomas
2006 Cherokee Women Farmers Hold their Ground. In Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial
Southeast (revised and expanded edition), edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and M. Thomas
Hatley, pp. 305-338. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Haynes, C. Vance, Jr.
1966 Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214:104-112.
1969 The Earliest Americans. Science 166:709-715.
1971 Time, Environment and Early Man. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):3-14.
Hemmings, C.A.
1999 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Tools of Sloth Hole 8JE121: An Inundated Site in the Lower
Aucilla River, Jefferson County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
2004 The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent -Wide Cultural Adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Henry, Gary
1992 A Longterm Site Survey of Sandymush and Newfound Creeks, Buncombe and Madison Counties.
Upland Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number 5. Archaeology Society of Virginia Special
Publication 38(5):145-186.
Heye, George C.
1919 Certain Mounds in Haywood County, North Carolina. Contributions from the Museum of the American
Indian, Heye Foundation 5(3):35-43.
Heye, George C., F.W. Hodge, and G.H. Pepper
1918 The Nacoochee Mound in Georgia. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye
Foundation 2(1).
Hill, Sarah H.
1997 Weaving New Worlds: Southeastern Cherokee Women and Their Basketry. University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Hoffecker, John F., W. Roger Powers, and Ted Goebel
1993 The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling of the New World. Science 259:46-53.
79

Holmes, John S.
1911 Forest Conditions in Western North Carolina. North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey
Bulletin No. 23, Raleigh.
HPOWEB
2021 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service. Electronic document,
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Accessed November 2021.
Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando De Soto Expedition: from Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3(1):45-65.
Hudson, Mark S.
2009 Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Buncombe Soil and Water Conservation District, and Buncombe County
Board of Commissioners.
Idol, Bruce S.
2010 Archaeological Test Excavations at 31BN943, Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC
Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Report submitted to Civil Design Concepts, P.A., Waynesville,
North Carolina.
2011 a Archeological Assessment for Proposed Sewer Line Construction on the Boundary Tree Tract, Swain
County, Qualla Boundary, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Report
submitted to EBCI, Cherokee.
2011b Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at 31 GH457, Graham County, North Carolina. TRC
Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Report submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
2016 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Sites 31JK443 and 31JK553 for the Replacement of
Bridge No. 80 on SR 1737 over Caney Fork Creek, Jackson County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental
Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Division, Sterling, Virginia.
2017 Archaeological Survey and Testing at 31MA685 and Survey, Testing, and Data Recovery Excavations
at 31MA684 and 31MA774 for the Replacement of Bridge No. 172 on SR 1456 over The Little Tennessee
River, Macon County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
2018a Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at 31JK164 and 31JK487 for the NC 107Improvement
Project, Jackson County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
2018b Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at 31 GH635, Graham County, North Carolina. TRC
Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Raleigh.
Idol, Bruce, Paul Webb, Jane Eastman, Brett Riggs, and Ben Steere
2020 The 2019 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at 31JK615 for the Western Carolina University
Intramural Fields Project, Jackson County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville,
and WCU Department of Anthropology and Sociology. Submitted to WCU Facilities Management,
Cullowhee.
Idol, Bruce, and Paul Webb
2018 Archaeological Adverse Effect Determination Form (PA-18-01-0046, TIP I-4409); Proposed
Interchange at I-40 and SR 2500 (Blue Ridge Road) and Improvements to the Intersection at NC-9 and SR
2500 in Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill. Submitted to
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
2020 Management Summary: Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Site 31BN1046, Buncombe
County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation. Submitted to Biltmore Farms, LLC, Asheville.

Jorgenson, Matthew, Peter Sittig, and Daniel Cassedy
2017 The Savannah River Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region: Excavations at 31YC31 in Yancey
County, North Carolina. Presented at Upland Archaeology in the East Conference, Boone, North Carolina,
February 2017.
Jurgelski, William Martin
2004 A New Plow in Old Ground: Cherokees, Whites, and Land in Western North Carolina, 1819-1829.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
2019 The Genesis of Cherokee Archaeology in Western North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeology
68:1-43.
Keel, Bennie C., and Brian J. Egloff
1984 The Cane Creek Site, Mitchell County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 33:3-44.
Kimball, Larry
1985 The 1977 Archaeological Survey: An Overall Assessment of the Archaeological Resources of Tellico
Reservoir. Publications in Anthropology 39. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris.
1991 Swannanoa River Buried Archaeological Site Survey, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Submitted to
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History and the Historic Resources Commission of Asheville
and Buncombe County.
1996 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons from Tellico. In The Paleoindian and Early
Archaic Southeast, edited by D.G. Anderson and K.E. Sassaman, pp. 149-186. The University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
2000 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Investigations on the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North
Carolina. Appalachian State Universities Laboratories of Archeological Science, Boone.
Kimball, Larry, and M. Scott Shumate
2003 Investigations at the Hopewellian Biltmore Mound in the Southern Appalachians. Paper presented at
the 2003 Southeastern Archaeological Conference.
Kimball, Larry, M. Scott Shumate, Thomas R. Whyte, and Gary D. Crites
2004 Hopewellian Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore Mound, Biltmore Estate, North Carolina.
Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology,
Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic
Society, Washington, D.C.
King, Duane H.
1979 The Origin of the Eastern Cherokees as a Social and Political Entity. In The Cherokee Nation: A
Troubled History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 164-180. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Knight, Vernon James, Jr.
2006 Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):1-5.
Kowalewski, Stephen A.
2006 Coalescent Societies. In Light on the Path: History and Anthropology of the Southeastern Indians,
edited by Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Robbie Ethridge, pp. 94-122. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 78.
Lafferty, Robert H., III.
1981 The Phipps Bend Archaeological Project. OAR Research Series No. 4, University of Alabama. TVA
Publications in Anthropology No. 26.
Lee, Wayne
2004 Fortify, Fight, or Flee: Tuscarora and Cherokee Defensive Warfare and Military Culture Adaptation.
Journal of Military History 68:713-770.
Leftwich, Brent M.
1999 Projectile Points as Clues to the Influence of Topography of Western North Carolina on Cultural
History. Seniors honors thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Leigh, David S.
2002 Geomorphology of the Ravensford Tract. In Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the
Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina,
by Paul A. Webb, pp. 135-156. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Leigh, David S., and Paul A. Webb
2006 Holocene Erosion, Sedimentation, and Stratigraphy at Raven Fork, Southern Blue Ridge Mountains,
USA. Geomorphology 78:161-177.
Lewis, T.M.N., and Madeline Kneberg
1957 The Camp Creek Site. Tennessee Archaeologist 13(1):1-48.
Lulewicz, Jacob
2019 The Social Networks and Structural Variation in Mississippian Politics in the Southeastern United
States. PNAS 116 no. 4. Electronic document, https://www.pnas.org/content/I 16/14/6707/tab-article-info,
accessed August 6, 2020.
McAvoy, J.M., and L.D. McAvoy (editors)
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series 8, Richmond.
McDonald, J.M.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a
Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59. Contributions from the Virginia Museum of Natural
History, Martinsville.
McLoughlin, William G., and Walter H. Conser Jr.
1984 Experiment in Cherokee Citizenship, 1817-1829. In The Cherokee Ghost Dance, Essays on the
Southeastern Indians 1789-1861, by William G. McLoughlin with Walter H. Conser Jr. and Virginia Duffy
McLoughlin, pp. 153-191. Mercer University Press.
MacPherson, George A.
1936a Record of Initial Investigations for Archaeological Sites in Certain Sections of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park [Swain and Haywood Counties]. Ms. on file, Great Smoky Mountain National
Park.
1936b Letter Report of George A. MacPherson to Dr. H.C. Bryant. May 29. On file, Great Smoky Mountains
National Park Archives, Sugarlands, Tennessee.
MacRae, John, and Robert H. Brazier
1833 A New Map of the State of North Carolina. Electronic document,
https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/181/rec/2. Accessed January 2022.
McReynolds, Theresa
2005 Spatial and Temporal Patterning in the Distribution of North Carolina Projectile Points. North Carolina
Archaeology 54:1-33.
Mann, Michael E., Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell,
Casper Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, and Fenbiao Ni
2009 Global Signatures and Dynamic Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science
326:1256-1260.
Marcoux, Jon Bernard
2008 Cherokee Households and Communities in the English Contact Period, A.D. 1670-1715. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
2010 Pox, Empire, Shackles, and Hides: The Townsend Site, 1670-1715. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North -America. Journal of World Prehistory 2(1):1-5
2004 Peopling of North America. In The Quaternary Period in the United States, Volume 1, edited by Alan
R. Gillespie, Stephen C. Porter, and Brian F. Atwater, pp. 539-563. Elsevier Science, New York.
Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes,
Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis J. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62:559-563.
RN

Mooney, James
1900 Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897-1898,
Pt. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mooney, James, and Frans M. Olbrechts
1932 The Swimmer Manuscript: Cherokee Sacred Formulas and Medicinal Prescriptions. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 99. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Moore, David G.
1981 A Comparison of Two Pisgah Assemblages. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill.
1984 Biltmore Estate Archaeological Survey Final Report. Western Office of the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History. Submitted to the Biltmore Estate, Asheville.
1992 Salvage Archaeology at the Cullowhee Valley School, Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina.
North Carolina Archaeological Society Newsletter 2(2).
2002 Pisgah Phase Village Evolution at the Warren Wilson Site. Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Special Publication 7:76-83.
Nelson, Michael, and Paul Webb
2021 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for Construction of a New Interchange on I-26 in Buncombe
County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
Nelson, Michael, Tasha Benyshek, and Paul Webb
2016 Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Parker Meadows Recreational Park, Macon County,
North Carolina; Addendum: Archaeological Monitoring at 31M442, 31MA753, and 31MA754 and Data
Recovery Investigations at 31MA752 and 31MA754. TRC Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geological Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh.
Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
2017 Archaeological Investigations Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field
Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation. Electronic document, https://dncr-
arch. s3.amazonaws. com/s3 fs-public/OSA_Guidelines—December20l 7.pdf.
Oliver, Billy
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point Type. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211.
University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Oliver, Duane
1989 Hazel Creek from Then Till Now. Privately published.
Orr, Douglas M., and Alfred W. Stuart (editors)
2000 The North Carolina Atlas: Portrait for a New Century. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Padgett, Thomas J.
1994 Archaeological Study, NC 191 from I-40 to I-240, Buncombe County, State Project No. 8.1843101,
TIP No. U-2902. NCDOT, Raleigh.
Par6, Matthew, Tasha Benyshek, Paul A. Webb, and Damon Jones
2007 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for the I-26 Asheville Connector, Buncombe County, North
Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Chapel Hill. Submitted to NCDOT, Raleigh.
Pauketat, Timothy R.
2009 Cahokia: Ancient America's Great City on the Mississippi. Viking, New York.
Perkins, David
2003 The Story of West Asheville: People, Places, Events. The West Asheville Project Committee, Electronic
Resource, Asheville, North Carolina.
Perkins, S.O., R.E. Devereux, S.F. Davidson, and W.A. Davis
1920 Soil Survey Map, Buncombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.

Polhemus, Richard R.
1987 The Toqua Site: a Late Mississippian Dallas Phase Town. University of Tennessee Department of
Anthropology Report of Investigations No. 41; Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology
No. 44.
Powell, Talmage
1981 Asheville: A Historical Sketch. In Cabins and Castles: The History and Architecture of Buncombe
County, North Carolina, edited by Douglas Swaim, 33-46. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History, County of Buncombe, City of Asheville.
Preston, John
2010 Cultural Resources Survey for the Baldwin Field Branch and Wolf Branch Stream Stabilization
Projects, Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Preston, John, and Scott Shumate
2010 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Bent Creek Experimental Station Dozer Line/Burn Study,
Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge
Archaeological Consultants, Arden, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina,
Asheville.
Purrington, Burton L.
1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Slipoff Branch Site, A Morrow Mountain Culture Campsite in
Swain County, North Carolina. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 5, Raleigh.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's Western
Mountain Range. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A.
Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
Reilly, F. Kent, and James F. Garber (editors)
2007 Ancient Objects and Sacred Realms. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Riggs, Brett H.
1988 An Historical and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations in Macon, Swain,
and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to the North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
1996 Removal Period Cherokee Households and Communities in Southwestern North Carolina (1835-
1838). Submitted to North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.
1999 Removal Period Cherokee Households in Southwestern North Carolina: Material Perspectives on
Ethnicity and Cultural Differentiation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Riggs, Brett H., and Thomas N. Belt
2019 Cherokee Housing in the North Carolina Mountains during the Removal Era. In Native American Log
Cabins in the Southeast, edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, pp 111-141. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Riggs, Brett H., R.P. Stephen Davis Jr., and Mary E. Fitts
2015 Archaeology at Ashe Ferry: Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian Period Occupations in the
Lower Catawba River Valley, York County, South Carolina. Research Report 36. Research Laboratories of
Archaeology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Riggs, Brett H., and Larry R. Kimball
1996 An Archaeological Survey of Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Appalachian
State University, Boone, North Carolina. Draft report submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris,
Tennessee.
Riggs, Brett H., and Chris Rodning
2002 Cherokee Ceramic Traditions of Southwestern North Carolina, ca. A.D. 1400-2002: A Preface to "The
Last of the Iroquois Potters." North Carolina Archaeology 51:34-54.
Robinson, Kenneth W.
1989 Archaeological Excavations within the Alternate Pipeline Corridor Passing Through the Harshaw
Bottom Site (31 CE41) Cherokee County, North Carolina. Prepared for the Cherokee County
Commissioners, Murphy, North Carolina. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1996 Archaeological Investigations in McDowell County, North Carolina. Manuscript on file, North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
01

Robinson, Kenneth W., David G. Moore, and Ruth Y. Wetmore
1994 Woodland Period Radiocarbon Dates from Western North Carolina. Paper presented at the 6`h Uplands
Archaeological Conference, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
1996 Woodland Period Radiocarbon Dates from Western North Carolina. In Upland Archeology in the East:
Symposium Number Six, edited by Eugene B. Barfield and Michael B. Barber, pp. 2-19. Special
Publication Number 38-Part 6, Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
Rodning, Christopher B.
2002 The Townhouse at Coweeta Creek. Southeastern Archaeology 21:10-20.
2004 The Cherokee Town at Coweeta Creek. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
2008 Temporal Variation in Qualla Pottery. North Carolina Archaeology 57:1-49.
2009a Domestic Houses at Coweeta Creek. Southeastern Archaeology 28(1):1-26.
2009b Mounds, Myths, and Cherokee Townhouses in Southwestern North Carolina. American Antiquity
74:627-663.
2010 European Trade Goods at Cherokee Settlements in Southwestern North Carolina. North Carolina
Archaeology 59:1-84.
2016 Center Places and Cherokee Towns: Archaeological Perspectives on Native American Architecture
and Landscape in the Southern Appalachians. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Royce, C.C.
1884 Map of the Former Territorial Limits of the Cherokee "Nation of' Indians. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
1887 The Cherokee Nation of Indians. In Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Rudolph, Teresa P.
1991 The Late Woodland "Problem" in North Georgia. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation: The
Late Woodland Southeast, edited by Michael S. Nassaney and Charles R. Cobb, pp. 259-283. Plenum
Press, New York.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. M.A. Thesis, Dept. of
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid -Holocene
Southeast, edited by K. Sassaman and D. Anderson, pp. 57-74. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
1997 Refining Soapstone Vessel Chronology in the Southeast. Early Georgia 25:1-20.
2010 The Eastern Archaic: Historicized. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Scarry, C. Margaret
2003 Patterns of Wild Plant Utilization in the Prehistoric Eastern Woodlands. In People and Plants in
Ancient Eastern North America, edited by Paul Minnis, pp. 50-104. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.
Schroedl, Gerald F.
2000 Cherokee Ethnohistory and Archaeology from 1540 to 1838. In Indians of the Greater Southeast:
Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 204-241. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Seeman, M.F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: the Evidence for Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity.
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Setzler, Frank M., and Jesse D. Jennings
1941 Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 131. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Shelford, Victor E.
1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Shumate, Scott
2003 Archaeological Survey at the Smith -McDowell House, Buncombe County, North Carolina. ASU
Laboratories of Archaeological Sciences, Boone.
2007a Damage Assessment and Site Documentation at the Abraham Reynolds Cemetery, Daniel Boone Lake
Site, and the Hatch Mill Site at Bent Creek, Buncombe County, North Carolina. National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville.

2007b Archaeological Survey of the Former Managers' Cottage Site on the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe
County, North Carolina. Biltmore Estate, Asheville.
2008 Heritage Resources Survey, Bent Creek Experimental Forest Conference Center Project, USFS
Southern Research Station, Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of
Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2011 Archaeological Survey along the Deer Lake Ridge Trail (TR 664) at the Bent Creek Experimental
Station, Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2012 An Archaeological Resources Survey of the Proposed Metropolitan Sewerage District West French
Broad Interceptor, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
Submitted to Metropolitan Sewerage District, Asheville.
2015 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Swannanoa and Ram Branch Stream Restoration Projects on
the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
2016 Archaeological Monitoring of the 2016 Swannanoa Riverbank Stabilization Efforts on the Biltmore
Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
Shumate, Scott, and Bill Alexander
2019 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Ram Branch Stream Restoration Project Area, Biltmore Estate,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. Biltmore Estate Museum Services, Asheville.
Shumate, Scott, Bill Alexander, and Nikki Preston
2018 Archaeological Survey of the Corridors of Proposed Improvements to the Brevard Road-Biltmore
Estate Drainage System, Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological
Consultants, Arden.
Shumate, Scott, and Patty Evans -Shumate
2001 Archaeological Phase I Survey of Two Proposed Boat Ramp Sites along the French Broad River on the
Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
2003 Monitoring of the Exit Road Repair and Guest House Septic Drain Field Installation on the Biltmore
Estate, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
Shumate, Scott, Patty Evans -Shumate, and Larry R. Kimball
2000 Archaeological Phase I Survey of the Proposed New Parking Area at the Winery on the Biltmore Estate,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science,
Department of Anthropology, Boone.
2001 Archaeological Phase I Survey of the Proposed Approach Widening on the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe
County, North Carolina. Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department
of Anthropology, Boone.
Shumate, Scott, and Lotte Govaerts
2010 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Parking Lot Expansion along FR481 F at Lake Powhatan,
Pisgah Ranger footprint District, Pisgah National Forest, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge
Archaeological Consultants, Arden. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Shumate, Scott, Lotte Govaerts, and John Paul Preston
2009a Archaeological Survey of the Proposed River Bend Parking Lot Complex on the Biltmore Estate,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
2009b Archaeological Investigations at Four Borrow Pit Sites on the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
Shumate, M. Scott, and Larry R. Kimball
2006 Emergency Salvage at the Bent Creek Archaeological Site (31BN335), Buncombe County, North
Carolina. Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of
Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Cold Canyon Site (31SW265), Swain County, North Carolina.
Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology,
Boone, North Carolina. Submitted to the National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Shumate, Scott, Lotte Govaerts, and John Paul Preston
2009a Archaeological Survey of the Proposed River Bend Parking Log Complex on the Biltmore Estate,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.
2009b Archaeological Investigations at Four Borrow Pit Sites on the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden.

2009c Archaeological Discovery at the River Bend Site (31 BN867) on the Biltmore Estate, Buncombe
County, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants, Arden, North Carolina. Submitted to
Biltmore Estate, Asheville.
Shumate, M. Scott, Brett H. Riggs, and Larry R. Kimball
2005 The Alarka Farmstead Site: Archaeological Investigations at a Mid -Seventeenth -Century Cherokee
Winter House/Summer House Complex, Swain County, North Carolina. Appalachian State University,
Boone and Research Laboratories of Archaeology, Chapel Hill. Report on file, National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville.
Smallwood, Ashley, Heather Smith, Charlotte Pevny, and Thomas Jennings
2018 The Convergent Evolution of Serrated Points on the Southern Plains -Woodland Border of Central
North America. In Convergent Evolution and Stone Tool Technology, edited by Michael J. O'Brien, Briggs
Buchanan, and Metin I. Eren, pp. 203-227. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Smith, Betty Anderson
1979 Distribution of Eighteenth -Century Cherokee Settlements. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A Troubled
History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 46-60. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: from Dalton to de Soto 10,500-500 B.P. Advances
in World Archaeology Vol. 5 Academic Press, Inc., New York.
1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.
2011 The Cultural Context of Plant Domestication in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 52
(Supplement 4): 5471-5483.
Smith, Bruce D., and Richard A. Yarnell
2009 Initial Formation of an Indigenous Crop Complex in Eastern North America at 3800 B.P. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:6561-6566.
Smith, Marvin T.
1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Smith, Marvin T., and David J. Hally
1992 Chiefly Behavior: Evidence from Sixteenth Century Spanish Accounts. In Lords of the Southeast:
Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, edited by A. Barker and T.
Pauketat, pp. 99-109. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 3.
Sondley, Foster A.
1930 A History of Buncombe County, North Carolina. The Advocate Printing Company, Asheville.
Stanyard, William F.
2003 Archaic Period Archaeology of North Georgia. UGA Laboratory of Archaeology Series No. 38.
Steere, Benjamin A.
2013 The Western North Carolina Mounds and Towns Project: Results of 2011-2012 Archival Research and
Field Investigations in Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon,
Madison, Swain, and Transylvania Counties, North Carolina, Report prepared for EBCI THPO, Cherokee.
2015 Revisiting Platform Mounds and Townhouses in the Cherokee Heartland: A Collaborative Approach,
Southeastern Archaeology 34(3):196-219.
2017 The Archaeology of Houses and Households in the Native Southeast. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
2019 The Jasper Allen Mound: New Insights from the Valentine Collections. North Carolina Archaeology
68:44-62.
Steere, Benjamin A., Paul A. Webb, and Bruce S. Idol
2012 A "New" Account of Mound and Village Sites in Western North Carolina: The Travels of Captain R.D.
Wainwright. North Carolina Archaeology 61:1-37.
Steeves, Paulette
2021 The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Sullivan, Lynne P.
1987 The Mouse Creek Phase Household. Southeastern Archaeology 6:16-29.
2018 The Path to the Council House: The Development of Mississippian Communities in Eastern
Tennessee. In The Archaeology of Villages in Eastern North America, edited by Jennifer Birch and Victor
Thompson, pp. 106-123. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Swanton, John R.
1985 Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. Originally published in 1939.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thomas, Cyrus
1894 Reports on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report
of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-1891. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thornton, Russell
1990 The Cherokees: a Population History. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Tippett, Joseph Lee, Stuart Fiedel, Tracey Jones, Katherine Kosalko, Gregory LaBudde, and Eric Voigt
2014 Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 31JK12 (Tuckasegee) and National Register Evaluation of Site
31JK13, Jackson County, North Carolina. Louis Berger Group, Raleigh.
Tortora, Daniel J.
2015 Carolina in Crisis: Cherokees, Colonists, and Slaves in the American Southeast, 1756-1763.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Townsend, Russell, Johi D. Griffm, and Kathryn Sampeck
2020 Archaeology, Historical Ruptures, and Ani- Kitu Hwagi Memory and Knowledge. American Indian
Quarterly 44(2):243-268.
Trinkley, Michael B.
1974 Report of Archaeological Testing at the Love Site (SoC240), South Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
26:3-18.
Truncer, James
2004 Steatite Vessel Age and Occurrence in Temperate Eastern North America. American Antiquity 69:487-
513.
U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS)
2021 Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm, accessed July 2021.
United States Department of the Interior (USDOI)
1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1886 Asheville, N.C., topographic map (1:125,000).
1894 Asheville, N.C., topographic map (1:125,000).
1901 Asheville, N.C., topographic map (1:125,000).
1936 Asheville, N.C., 7.5-minute planimetric map (1:24,000).
1943 Asheville, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
1961 Asheville, N.C., 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000).
VanDerwarker, Amber M., Jon B. Marcoux, and Kandace D. Hollenbach
2013 Farming and Foraging at the Crossroads: The Consequences of Cherokee and European Interaction
through the Late Eighteenth Century. American Antiquity 78:68-88.
Van Noppen, Ina Woestemeyer, and John J. Van Noppen
1973 Western North Carolina since the Civil War. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone, North Carolina.
WAHD (West Asheville History Project)
2006 West Asheville History Project. Electronic document, http://www.onhaywood.com/history/history.html
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of
North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M. Mathis and J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
1986 Intra-site Spatial Patterning at the Warren Wilson Site. In The Conference on Cherokee Prehistory,
assembled by D. Moore, pp. 7-19. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Webb, Paul A.
2002 Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham.
Submitted to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Webb, Paul A., and Tasha Benyshek
2008 Historic Cherokee Homesteads at the Ravensford Site, Cherokee North Carolina. Presented at the 2008
Conference on Social Archaeology of Southeastern Colonial Frontiers. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
W.

Webb, Paul A., Melissa Emery, and Michael Nelson
i.p. Addendum to NCDOT Archaeological Adverse Effect Determination Form, Project No. U-3403B,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. In preparation.
Webb, Paul A., Fritz Farrow, and Michael Nelson
2019 NCDOT Archaeological Adverse Effect Determination Form, Project No. U-340313, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. On file, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Webb, Paul A., and Michael Nelson
2019a Background Study and Field Reconnaissance of the Northern Parcel of the Biltmore Park West Tract,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. Submitted to Biltmore
Farms, LLC, Asheville.
2019b Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for Project Ranger, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. Submitted to Biltmore Farms, LLC, Asheville.
2019c Archaeological Survey for Parking Area Construction, The North Carolina Arboretum, Buncombe
County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation, Asheville. Submitted to North Carolina
Arboretum and National Forests in North Carolina.
Weisner, G.
1996 Saltville Site Has Evidence of 14,000-Year-Old Feasts. The Mammoth Trumpet 1(4):1, 18-20. Center
for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1989 The Ela Site (31SW5): Archaeological Data Recovery of Connestee and Qualla Phase Occupations at
the East Elementary School Site, Swain County, North Carolina. (CH-89-C-0000-0424). On file, Office of
State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1996 The Connestee Component from the Ela Site, 31 SW5, Swain County, North Carolina. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: Symposium Number Five. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication
38(5):220-237.
2002 The Woodland Period in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina and the Ridge and
Valley Province of Tennessee. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C.
Mainfort Jr., pp. 249-269. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Wetmore, Ruth Y., Kenneth W. Robinson, and David G. Moore
2000 Woodland Adaptations in the Appalachian Summit of Western North Carolina: Exploring the
Influence of Climate Change. In The Years Without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and Its Aftermath, edited by
Joel D. Gunn, pp. 139-150. BAR International Series 872, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Wetmore, Ruth Y, David Moore, and Linda Hall
1996 Summary of Archaeological Investigations at the Macon County Industrial Park Site (31MA185),
Macon County, North Carolina. Submitted to Macon County Board of Commissioners, Franklin, North
Carolina.
Whisnant, David E.
2017 The Several Lives of West Asheville, Part III: Edwin Carrier in West Asheville. Asheville Junction: A
Blog by David E. Whisnant. April 19, 2017. Electronic document, https:Hashevillejunction.com/the-several-
lives-of-west-asheville-part-iii-edwin-carrier-in-west-asheville/. Accessed January 2022.
White, Andrew A., and Benjamin Steere
2014 EWHADP Database 2014_03-12. Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project, 12 March
2014. www.householdarchaeology.org. Accessed June 6, 2020.
Whyte, Thomas R.
2003 Prehistoric Sedentary Agriculturalists in the Appalachian Summit of Northwestern North Carolina.
North Carolina Archaeology 52:1-19.
2004 Biltmore Mound Archaeofaunal Remains. In Hopewell Subsistence and Ceremonialism at Biltmore
Mound, Biltmore Estate, North Carolina. Research Report submitted by ASU Laboratories of
Archaeological Science, Department of Anthropology, Boone, North Carolina to Committee for Research
and Exploration National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
2017 Big Meat Feasting in the Pisgah Phase of Western North Carolina. Paper presented at the 82"d annual
meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Wild, Kenneth S., Jr.
1994 Archaeological Investigations Conducted at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County,
North Carolina. Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida. Report on
file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Wood, W. Dean, Dan T. Elliott, Teresa P. Rudolph, and Dennis B. Blanton
1986 Prehistory in the Richard B. Russell Reservoir: the Archaic and Woodland Periods of the Upper
Savannah River. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Athens, Georgia. Russell Papers, National Park Service.
Wright, Alice P.
2013 Persistent Place, Shifting Practice: The Premound Landscape at the Garden Creek Site, North Carolina.
In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the South, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry,
pp. 108-121. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2014 History, Monumentality, and Interaction in the Appalachian Summit Middle Woodland. American
Antiquity 79:277-294.
2019 Garden Creek. The Archaeology of Interaction in Middle Woodland Appalachia. The University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Yu, Pei -Lin
2001 The Middle Archaic of the Great Smoky Mountains: Upland Adaptation in a Regional Perspective.
Paper presented at the 66' Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
.N

APPENDIX 1: ARTIFACT CATALOG

This page intentionally left blank.

<i TRC
July 22, 2022
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street, Room 258
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
705 Dogwood Rd. T 919,414,3418
Asheville. NC 28806 TRCcompanies.com
RE: ER 20-2015 — MSD of Buncombe County South French Broad Relief Interceptor Along Amboy
Road, Buncombe County
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley:
On behalf of the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County, enclosed for your review please
find hard and digital copies of a draft report for the archaeological survey of a portion of the South French
broad Relief Interceptor along Amboy Road in Asheville. Other portions of this project have been
surveyed by Scott Shumate of the Biltmore Estate. Digital copies of the related site forms have been
provided to the OSA via email.
Thank you for your review of this report and your assistance with this project. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at [phone] / pwebbgtrccompanies.com if you have any questions or require any
additional information.
Sincerely,
�Q. G Wc,Q,�
Paul A. Webb
Cultural Resources Program Manager
cc: Hunter Carson, MSD of Buncombe County, HCarsonkmsdbc.org

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
October 31, 2022
Paul Webb
TRC Environmental Corporation
705 Dogwood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
pwebb ktrccompanies. com
Re: MSD of Buncombe County South French Broad Relief Interceptor Along Amboy
Road, Buncombe County, ER 20-1015
Dear Mr. Webb:
Thank you for your letter of July 22, 2022, transmitting the draft report for the above -referenced project.
We have reviewed the report and offer the following comments:
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted a systematic Phase I archaeological survey along a
proposed alternative route for the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) SFB Relief Interceptor north of
the French Broad River. The survey identified three new precontact archaeological sites (31BK115,
31BK116, and 31BK117) within the area of potential effects (APE).
Site 31BK115 consists of two non -diagnostic ceramic sherds that lack the contextual integrity necessary
to provide substantive information about precontact history in the area. This area along Amboy Road has
also been extensively modified due to its use as an industrial waste site in the 20th century. As a result,
TRC has concluded that the portion of this site within the APE is not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and no further investigation is recommended ahead of the proposed
undertaking. Should the proposed project corridor change, additional archaeological fieldwork may be
necessary in portions of the site that extend beyond the current APE. Based on the information provided,
we concur with this assessment and recommendation.
Site 31BK116 consists of an isolated non -diagnostic lithic flake. This portion of the APE also contains
mixed fill and modern disturbance due to the modification of Carrier Park. Due to a lack of artifact
density and intact stratigraphy, TRC recommends that this site is also not eligible for listing in the
NRHP within the current APE and no further work is required ahead of the proposed project. Should the
proposed project corridor change, additional archaeological fieldwork may be necessary in portions of
the site that extend beyond the current APE. Based on the information provided, we concur with this
assessment and recommendation.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

ER 20-1015, October 31, Page 2 of 2
Site 31BK117 consists of a low quantity of ceramics, including one complex stamped sherd that may
date to the Mississippian period and three non -diagnostic pottery sherds. The portion of this site within
the APE also lacks sufficient density and contextual integrity to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, and
TRC recommends that no further investigation is needed within the proposed project corridor. Should
the APE change, additional archaeological fieldwork may be necessary in portions of the site that extend
beyond. Based on the information provided, we concur with this assessment and recommendation.
The archaeological survey report meets the Office of State Archaeology's Archaeological Investi ag tion
Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and
Curation and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review@,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Hunter Carson, MSD [e-mail]
Amanda Jones, USACE [e-mail]
John Kesler, TRC [e-mail]
Scott Shumate, Biltmore sshumatekbiltmore.com
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ` �1
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information J
OPPO"'r Appendix D
River Crossing Depth
Illustrations
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

Microtunnel Crossing Option
North side of French Broad
(Carrier Park)
Top of Bank
Elev. — 1984'
Weathered Rock — 4' thickness -1
Solid Rock
South side of French Broad
(Biltmore Estate)
Top of Bank
Elev. — 1980'
River Bottom Elev. — 1966'
recommendation for microtunnel installations below
iver = Min. two casing diameters in solid rock
x 84" diameter casing pipe = 14 ft.
84" diam. casing pipe with 60" carrier pipe inside
Invert depth of 60" Sewer
Interceptor at Carrier Park - 42ft.

Open Cut Crossing Option
North side of French Broad
(Carrier Park)
Top of Bank
Elev. — 1984'
Weathered Rock — 4' thickness -1
Solid Rock
South side of French Broad
(Biltmore Estate)
Top of Bank
Elev. — 1980'
/ River Bottom Elev. — 1966'
60" diam. carrier pipe (no casing pipe req'd)
Invert depth of 60" Sewer
Interceptor at Carrier Park - 28ft.

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ` �1
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information J
M99
Appendix E
Updated Figures / Maps
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

"aa Nome Rd
LEGEND
Project Limits
Proposed Access Route
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic
Basemap
N
Aen Hill
netery
0 0.5
Miles
Wilshire Park 19
2Peaverview R
a
N Broad St
m.
P E Chestnut St
h�
''�, Project Location
Crowne Plaza
Tennis & Golf
Resort
Buncombe County, NC
Hazel Green
EE
zs
� a
0
a
i a v
QJ
b � Q Q
o
Hospital
Oakland
a` X a
>
Rd
>
LL _�
_
Asheville -Buncombe
Tech Cmty Col
Malvern Hills
Pisgah View
Amuoyand3o
Carrier Park
a
Winery Q'
5a��v�
Meador'
T
Existing Carrier Bridge
y
2214 ft
Pump Station
NO
f-
40
40
74
'P�;
[
O
dry
Old Ride
Rd
A
�a
\
OdFerry Rd L a
wJ
26
Fre I
6
rD 'Y
191
R;
� � G�i� Lone
Moun
Q�
22s7 ft
Q
westerly Rd
Asheville
Outlets
t
llcn�hlc
/n
c J�,iiSekfa.r MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
F)l
, R
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
�`._.�
,,,
Figure 1
ol—SNIAw,cis OnT GISPRaeCsaen MSD BUNCOMBEll ie4380 CARRIERBRiDCEPs UP—ED-1—AP D-SI.MSo CARRIERBRIDGE USAGE APRX once 222,2023
USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGEND -
Project Limits
Proposed Access Route
1 , y
Topographic Quadrangles �. — -� • `• �
DATA SOURCE: USGS 24k Topographic Map -
USA Topo Maps GIS Service
1 inch = 2,000 Feet b
ir
- �Sch _ Y r•� _ a_
\ ' ' ': a _•
Roy 0 1 . ,, : �`D • c ° 6
y�I„ 4 L• - - — e T Gas 9
13
I it
Div
G11�a Chanclh
t,
•'e��.:� _ ,l. \�:`� C : % J - _ `ems`` :,� C 1.
MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
FN= USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
,s
•.�,,, ,� Figure 2
\\CUSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196360 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:3I20Y1023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

t
Az aGarden Gir`�n, • , � •, � '; r . y.
LEGEND
a 1. aProposed Pump Station
Rehabilitation
Existing Pump Station 0 with CIPP
Ji ama Ave
k iGravity Sewer
Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer Existing 54"
Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer
Replacement k $ T.
Proposed 54-inch Gravity Sewer
e
�, _� i % Free
Proposed T -
sch Aye . _ Broad
Existing • • 1' �' ' River
Existing Gravity Sewer Pipes.1
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial Imagery
i* The French I��d
8r�■k _ River. P rk
o'''Ch Y
1 .11 ,gyp I
Feet•
v
Gra1 it'sll a l,Ryy'����Iyyfflye
16
Granada Aje v I I i es
4%,.Cordova St. _" o i• s.,..yr.pve
Sewer with
Parkway D .r -rRd-61
f
Arnim
yRd �! r ,•
River f --AI 5t=j�+ ' l � � o
�I�mY • • 4: ro
French Broad River
RV
°a p.

w
LEGEND
_ Construction- IS
try ► ■ l w ;
Soil Map Unit
Hydric Rating
r� 1 ■ * * r
• r � r
French Broad River '� ■ '�, r t ' ,VO
00
i N1. mi` ■ \' ■* \ r
DATA SOURCE: USDA NRCS Web Soil Pq' ,w ` ■
► , ►� Survey (2021) Ill, ►
1 ► r 1 ■
Feet
fA
r
_ ' ,, ■ • i ■
_ F�en[h Broad River Park French Brnaa e ■ t
RI�F;vr . 1 River 1 ■ �
r
■S
t � 44 ~ sue! _ r�_ , ■
y - French Broad
Owe
River
* ..
�t I •
i ]jai fir+ —( M
y1 d ° Amis�� Am6oy.Rd
z,
A ! 2

' '� R
Amboy d
t
Y
Af �F
7�• a S� `� '
French Broad River
3
lw]
s �4
French Broad River 4
L f ,
French
Ol' .
=r �
go .
•r
■

\\CUSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196360 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:S31-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGEND
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial
Construction Work Area Imagery
Delineated Wetlands* *Surface waters were delineated by
Three Oaks Engineering and HDR. r�
Delineated Streams/Rivers` **Stream/river delineated limits have been '
Three Oaks PJD Study Area projected based on prior delineation
survey data and aerial review to reflect
Projected Jurisdictional alignment changes for the proposed river
Waters** crossing that occurred after the on -site
F delineation survey.
LISGS National Hydrography
Dataset A
USFWS National Wetlands I
Inventory 0 Feet 250
-467
3a
H
i rw `� A 1•
►-7
e St Fiaure 513
Car ier Pam
0 2,000
>c
"5M1' MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
�Q
FN_ Feet WATERS AND WETLAND RESOURCES
Figure 5B
\\CUSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196360 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu,AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DAT V27Y 3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGEND
Construction Work Area
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial
Imagery
Delineated Wetlands*
*Surface waters were delineated by
Three Oaks Engineering and HDR.
Delineated Streams/Rivers`
**Stream/river delineated limits have been
Three Oaks PJD Study Area
projected based on prior delineation
survey data and aerial review to reflect
Projected Jurisdictional
alignment changes for the proposed river
Waters**
crossing that occurred after the on -site
delineation survey.
USGS National Hydrography
Dataset
A
USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory
0 Feet 250
ti ��
FL -r
S
1d.
Figure 5C St
G�iiI9C� *►► � f �
4V
Y �f
Car er Pam
Y
0 0 Feet
2,000 {
+�
¢�FiSnvr-RQJ MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
�'� WATERS AND WETLAND RESOURCES
�.� Figure 5C
\\CUSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196360 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE 31Y 3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

\ a �
LEGEND O� °
ro
Project Limits e r Ln " `"
Buncombe County Parcels 4i J M 3 0
"Public Right -of -Way p�/
0o associated with Lyman Street, Ln
Norfolk Southern Railway, and
Wilma Dykeman Greenway.
#25: CITY OF
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic ASHEVILLE
Basemap
N �
Livingston
Street Park
0 500
Feet s�o
erly Rd W
Beverly Rd w N
#21: V G
ENTERPRISES N Palmer St
LLC
'view Rd #S 24: FOUNDATIONSouthern St
ti } STUDIOS LLC '
Q #22: V J'S Scott
° AUTOINC
2209 Walton St
q �
J N
L
#23: FOUNDATION
STUDIOS LLC
PUBLIC Walton Street
RIGHT OF -WAY' `' Park
� s
#20: PROGRESS ENERGY ��7 1P
a \ OF THE CAROLINAS FKA �7 1P r♦
CAROLINAPOWERANDLIGHT
la Ave Q
cY
2
2
011ie
ench oad
co ll'iew DC IV ark
#19: CITY OF
v ASHEVILLE
< #18: METROPOLITAN
v SEWERAGE DISTRICT r
o° Peace St OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY f
V#30:s
�a
b pNe CITY SOUTHERN
m
Joyner pVe OFASHEVILLE [� RAILROADCO
iamb Ave Upstream W ay #27: CITY OF
ASHEVILLE #29: ROBERT
#28: BURRIS
oyner Ave #26: ASHEVILLE
1 #16: CITY OF HEIRS
OJ #15 CITY OF er ASHEVIL-LE�OFASHEVILLE
RIVER s
ASHEVILLE toad RSV RECREATION S
#14: Reach
RIVNLINK
IC
�a
#6: BILTMORE�
COMPANY Qa
.._ary Rd
'"p5k"Q MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PROPERTY OWNERS
lw/ Figure 6A
\\CUSMAIN\GIS DATA\OIS\PROJEC-671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:II27-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

T
o
c
=
Fifth Ave
LEGEND
Project Limits Stewart St
Proposed Access Route
Buncombe County Parcels
State St
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic Basemap j i
Stewart St
Q d
N Y
>
A2101
ft
0 00
Feet
2
Pisgah View
o
rgii7Ia #10: FLORA
Cordova St
�
Ave J WILSON
O REVOCABLE TRUST
#8: 5
AMBOY LLC
\
#11: CITY OF
ASHEVILLE
#12: CITY OF
#13: CITY OF
#7yWILSON TON, Y #9: 521
Carrier Pa
ASHEVILLE
ASHEVILLE
KWILSON.ANN B AMBOY
4
--L-L-C—
#2: CITY OF
#5: RIVER FRONT
ASHEVILLE /
River STUDIO
$Goad Rt,Ief
STONE
PROPERTIES Fren h Broad
E PROPERTIES
LLC
LL_
#6: BILTMORE COMPANY
#47HARRINS
tQ�tr
4 /
�
SAND
AND GRAVEL LLG
40
2122 ft
UL ca
Pierty St
r:
�an'b Ave
ro
#1Z
RIVER
IN(
MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
I—N PROPERTY OWNERS
Figure 613
\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\4671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10194380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\7.2 WIP\MAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACE.APRX DATE: 2/27/2023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

#7�WILSON TONY #9: 521
LEGEND M WILSON.ANN B SMBOY
4 L-L•C-
Project Limits #2: CITY OF
rrne
ASHEV.ILL'E <
Proposed Access Route C ; et et #6: BILTMORE COMPANY
R
- � Buncombe County Parcels odL1
- 40
DATA SOURCE: ESRI World Topographic
Basemap {
N �Q
/ A
Feet
�a �r
v
v
>_
U
#6: BILTMORE COMPANY
It
ti
Homi Creek
River & nic
Park
� pair.L
i
r #1: WEST.RANGE LLC
2183 ft
y
Lwbplvl.% MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PROPERTY OWNERS
Figure 6C
\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196360 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:II27-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

c+ a w� F a.,q,�. J1 y//� �� a Y - =�e� • v i"
10 LEGEND
• -ct Limits
.'
Proposed Access Route 7�
..ate °r' - •" r`L ,ti i_ - ��+a,r;
.•• 'BURTON WES
STREET '
WOOD PLACE. a
.. •`_' '". a F
11 ••• Zone UCEMONT = ¢a s a .a FP
CIRCLE aowr.,,,q sr ,� •w - �� ,� .
11 ... Zone
if
NT-LOUIStANA
JRCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial
�c
4 ..
es heville� a 4 .Fnu €i
Feet 2,000
IA AVENUE
_ r`-Pennsj:wany Ave .m
OA.r }'+W6dm. n.• -a - A ,
c
pd
l: • ❑arr�V° t 4 r rndrana A.e .: • 2 _
• �_ _ _ ._T. _ .. ."
ke•x Or •
op z-
"kile Dr
' m - � IrNly 17[l ��-4 _ `..^4 ➢ity 'Sr9 rp4 e
z'
French Broad
-
-.- '4ZIP
_ _
0.
G
r■ �A
` Pp,
Orf rocge ea -.f --
A,Mi�. tea.
�a
r
�'hKkew W' n..< <Frrrq
t
i
r�
0 50
Feet
Existing Pump
Station
'
SOUTH.FRENCN BROAD
'A.
m
=ENE
r
owl
r v. • f N.
b
-�g+ranst LIVING
$ HEIG
• roir'S; - F
_ Mallon yr i � n
F a;
Fren�;.
Brr,d �
Mea _
Via-.= Y — _ • i
r
Proposed Pump
Station
f
'r' F
1
4
!1
p1d n ' G
c
l' d French
'yi

MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
FNPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
Figure 8A
\\CLTSMAIWGIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTSb4671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10194380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\7.2 WIP\MAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACE.APRX DATE:61112023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

LEGEND
Construction Work Area
Proposed Cofferdams (stage 1)
® Proposed Cofferdams (stage 2)
Proposed 60-inch Gravity Sewer
Proposed Access Route
Delineated Wetlands*
Delineated Streams/Rivers*
Projected Jurisdictional Waters**
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial Imagery
*Surface waters were delineated by Three Oaks
Engineering and HDR.
**Stream/river delineated limits have been
projected based on prior delineation survey
data and aerial review to reflect alignment
changes for the proposed river crossing that
occurred after the on -site delineation survey.
N
A
0 200
Feet
FN
idv`Rd
This is a proposed footprint for the rock cofferdam option which has a wider base
than the sheet pile cofferdam option. A temporary culvert may be placed on the
tributary to the French Broad River near the confluence with the river to not impede
flow and route water away from the cofferdam. The sheet pile cofferdam would have
a much narrower footprint from that of the rock cofferdam and therefore would have
no impact on flows from the tributary or require a temporary culvert installed to
mitigate potential impact to flows.
Impact Number: S3
4 '�Impact Type: Fill Temporary
• , Impact Duration:
VIi
� RSV@1" �i�i� ♦♦ ��i� - •
A' 40P
-• • �;. _ French Broad River
impact•n: Temporary
Stream µ
Type:..• _
Impact• •
.26 Acres)
MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
Figure 813
\\CLTSMAIWGIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTV,4671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10194380 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\7.2 WIP\MAP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACE.APRX DATE:61112023 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

R
French Broad River
� 1
�1
x fx {
l K Oakland,R,
�* rr ■ 'r. ■
` 111� r� ■U_�
r 1 ■ e' r 41;
. ■
r
,� ■ T�. ► r
* ■
• r
, UP
French Broad River Park French Broa,
• 1 River
+a r
' Rwertiie+N r - ..
r ■ '
-_ i0
AL K
rNon-Jurisdictional fi .•
, f
a -'roll o- y
Frencf
• e. ; t .�, x� Ri
l
i ,� i- • � ' _ ! , � 4 �i Nils

*MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
0ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
Figure 9B
\\CUSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196360 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:&14-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

48-inch/54-inch Gravity
..Sewer Rehabilitation9 ! '
AIL
'�3 1 t
1 11 Y• �,•
nch Broad River ■ rNorth River Crossing (36-inch force mains)
100 linear ft. of clearing (0.45 acres)
0, ®re
■ t
•1 linear ft. of •(0.88 acres)
_ r. ■
.a =;Z . �._ -;.y a 'e r . ►
ForceNew 36-inch
!■ ■ ■ ■ r
825 linear ft. of clearing (0.98 a es)
■ ■
r r
French Broad River Park ` ■ ■ r ■
French Brvao 1 ■ r r
River ■
{five .e'" pr r ■
1A
l� S.
It r
■
BridgeNew Carrier
• Station
■ M ■
r • ' ■ ■
r�
y, New.1 a French Broad r ;
Interceptor Pipeline 1 River r ■.�
�.� •� 11 linear ft. of • 1 ■ ■ - ■1
l' ' Yam: Amboylfii Rrll - oy Rd a 4.■
r
1

LEGEND
Construction Work Area
Proposed Tree Clearing
Proposed Tree Trimming Only
DATA SOURCE: Bing Maps Hybrid Aerial
Imagery
N
A �
75
FeetWpm
r
1
I F
South River Crossing
(60-inch gravity sewer line)
100 linear ft. of clearing (0.50 acres)
South River Crossing
(60-inch gravity sewer line)
30 linear ft. of trimming (0.08 acres)
*MSD CARRIER BRIDGE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PROPOSED TREE CLEARING
Figure 10B
\\CUSMAIN\GIS DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\0671 MSD BUNCOMBE\10196360 CARRIERBRIDGEPS UPDATED\].2 WIPVu1AP DOCS\MSD CARRIERBRIDGE USACEAPR% DATE:&14-3 USACE PRECONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION

1
/ ♦ \, 41 r
FrF sf P!Sgah View
... -. . l dips •r•• vYRd ,
yir Uw.
Ob
l FrenciI
_ Broad
River
w r� -
a nF Frei—,—h
2 Broaa
liver
000 linear ft. of
.0 :
27
s
r }e �

Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County I USACE Reference No. SAW-2021-01395 ` �1
Response to the US Army Corps of Engineers Comments and Request for Additional Information J
hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

MSD Carrier Bridge Pump Station Project
Construction Schedule
ID
Task
Mode
]
]
]
Task Name
Construction Contract Notice of Award
Notice to Proceed with Construction
Pump Station Construction
Clearing, Erosion Control, Rough Grading
Install Dewatering System
Pump Station Excavation
Concrete Substructure
Pump Station Building
Piping, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing
Final Site Work and Restoration
Testing and Start Up
Decommission Existing Pump Station and Piping
60-Inch Influent Gravity Sewer
AMBOY ROAD CROSSING
Clearing, Erosion Control, Rough Grading
Trenchless Crossing
60-Inch Pipeline Installation
RIVER CROSSING
Clearing, Erosion Control, Rough Grading
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (North Side)
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (South Side)
Testing
Final Site Work and Restoration
36-Inch Effluent Force Main Sewers
Clearing and Erosion Control
RIVER CROSSING
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (West Side)
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (East Side)
Testing
Final Site Work and Restoration
Existing 54-Inch Gravity Sewer Rehabilitation
Clearing and Erosion Control
54-Inch Pipe Rehabilitation
Testing
Final Site Work and Restoration
Existing 48-Inch Gravity Sewer Replacement
Clearing and Erosion Control
48-Inch Pipe Replacement
Testing
Final Site Work and Restoration
Duration
1021 days
98 days
66 days
110 days
262 days
131 days
110 days
89 days
66 days
89 days
520 days
269 days
98 days
89 days
87 days
169 days
35 days
65 days
69 days
44 days
46 days
316 days
99 days
230 days
66 days
67 days
44 days
44 days
255 days
77 days
89 days
45 days
45 days
121 days
36 days
45 days
22 days
46 days
Start Finish
Thu 8/1/24
Tue 10/1/24
Fri 11/15/24 Thu 10/12/28
Fri 11/15/24 Tue 4/1/25
Wed 4/2/25 Wed 7/2/25
Thu 7/3/25 Tue 12/2/25
Wed 12/3/25 Thu 12/3/26
Fri 12/4/26 Fri 6/4/27
Mon 6/7/27 Fri 11/5/27
Mon 11/8/27 Thu 3/9/28
Fri 3/10/28 Fri 6/9/28
Mon 6/12/28 Thu 10/12/28
Fri 11/15/24 Wed 11/11/26
Fri 11/15/24 Tue 11/25/25
Fri 11/15/24 Tue 4/1/25
Wed 4/2/25 Mon 8/4/25
Tue 8/5/25 Tue 12/2/25
Sat 11/15/25 Wed 7/8/26
Sat 11/15/25 Thu 1/1/26
Fri 1/2/26 Thu 4/2/26
Fri 4/3/26 Wed 7/8/26
Thu 7/9/26 Tue 9/8/26
Wed 9/9/26 Wed 11/11/26
Sat 11/15/25 Fri 1/29/27
Sat 11/15/25 Wed 4/1/26
Sat 11/15/25 Thu 10/1/26
Wed 4/1/26 Wed 7/1/26
Wed 7/1/26 Thu 10/1/26
Thu 10/1/26 Tue 12/1/26
Tue 12/1/26 Fri 1/29/27
Sat 11/15/25 Thu 11/5/26
Sat 11/15/25 Sun 3/1/26
Mon 3/2/26 Thu 7/2/26
Fri 7/3/26 Thu 9/3/26
Fri 9/4/26 Thu 11/5/26
Mon 11/15/27 Mon 5/1/28
Mon 11/15/27 Sat 1/1/28
Sun 1/2/28 Thu 3/2/28
Fri 3/3/28 Mon 4/3/28
Mon 4/3/28 Mon 6/5/28
Half 2 2024
J A S O N D
Half 1, 2025
J F M A M J
Half 2 2025
J A S
O N D
Half 1 2026
J F M A M J
Half 2 2026
J A S O N D
lf 12027
MF1'MJA1M1JJJA1S
Half 2 2027
O N D
Half 1 2028
1 F M A M J
Half 2 2028
J A S
O N D
Hal
J
1
it
+
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Page 1

Carrier Bridge Pump Station
Construction Schedule
1. Construction Contract Notice of Award
a.
8/l/24
2. Notice
to Proceed with Construction
a.
10/1/24
3. Pump Station
a.
Clearing, Erosion Control, Rough Grading
i. Start:11/15/24
ii. End:4/l/25
b.
Install Dewatering System
i. Start:4/2/25
ii. End:7/2/25
c.
Pump Station Excavation
i. Start:7/3/25
ii. End:12/2/25
d.
Concrete Substructure
i. Start:12/3/25
ii. End:12/3/26
e.
Pump Station Building
i. Start:12/4/26
ii. End:6/4/27
f.
Piping, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing
i. Start:6/7/27
ii. End:ll/5/27
g.
Final Site Work and Restoration
i. Start:ll/8/27
ii. End:3/9/28
h.
Testing and Start -Up
i. Start 3/10/28
ii. End 6/9/28
i.
Decommission Existing Pump Station and Piping
i. Start 6/12/28
ii. End 10/12/28
4. 60-Inch Influent Gravity Sewer
a.
Amboy Road Crossing
b.
Clearing and Erosion Control
i. Start:11/15/24
ii. End:4/l/25
c.
Trenchless Crossing
i. Start:4/2/25
ii. End:8/41/25
d.
60-Inch Pipe Installation
i. Start:8/5/25
ii. End:12/2/25

e.
River Crossing
f.
Clearing and Erosion Control
i. Start:11/15/25
ii. End:l/l/26
g.
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (North Side)
i. Start:l/l/26
ii. End:4/2/26
h.
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (South Side)
i. Start:4/3/26
ii. End:7/8/26
i.
Testing
i. Start:7/9/26
ii. End:9/8/26
j.
Final Site Work and Restoration
i. Start 9/9/26
ii. End l l/11/26
5. 36-Inch Effluent Force Main Sewers
a.
Clearing and Erosion Control
i. Start: 11 / 15/25
ii. End:4/l/26
b.
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (West Side)
i. Start:4/l/26
ii. End:7/1/26
c.
Cofferdam and Pipeline Installation (East Side)
i. Start:7/1/26
ii. End:10/1/26
d.
Testing
i. Start:10/1/26
ii. End:12/1/26
e.
Final Site Work and Restoration
i. Start 12/1/26
ii. End 1/29/27
6. Existing 54-Inch Gravity Sewer Rehabilitation
a. Clearing and Erosion Control
i. Start:ll/l/25
ii. End:3/l/26
b. 54-Inch Pipe Rehabilitation
i. Start:3/2/26
ii. End:7/2/26
c. Testing
i. Start:7/3/26
ii. End:9/3/26
d. Final Site Work and Restoration
i. Start 9/4/26
ii. End 11/5/26

7. Existing 48-Inch Gravity Sewer Replacement
a. Clearing and Erosion Control
i. Start:11/15/27
ii. End:l/l/28
b. 48-Inch Pipe Replacement
i. Start:l/2/28
ii. End:3/2/28
Testing
i. Start:3/3/28
ii. End:4/3/28
d. Final Site Work and Restoration
i. Start 4/3/28
ii. End 6/5/28

hdrinc.com 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1200, Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
i�c 03�/ Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To: June 01, 2023
Project code: 2023-0088477
Project Name: MSD - Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project
Federal Nexus: yes
Federal Action Agency (if applicable): Army Corps of Engineers
Subject: Technical assistance for'MSD - Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project'
Dear Eric Mularski:
This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on June 01, 2023, for
'MSD - Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project' (here forward, Project). This project
has been assigned Project Code 2023-0088477 and all future correspondence should clearly
reference this number. Please carefully review this letter. Your Endangered Species Act (Act)
requirements are not complete.
Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC
The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species' determination keys in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into
the IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project. Failure to
accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern Long-
eared Bat Rangewide Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this letter.
Determination for the Northern Long -Eared Bat
Based on your IPaC submission and the standing analysis for the Dkey, your project has reached
the determination of "May Affect" the northern long-eared bat.
Next Steps
Your action may qualify for the Interim Consultation Framework for the northern long-eared bat.
To determine if it qualifies, review the Interim Consultation Framework posted here https:
www.fws.gov/library/collections/interim-consultation-framework-northern-long-eared-bat. If you

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531
determine it meets the requirements of the Interim Consultation Framework, follow the
procedures outlined there to complete section 7 consultation.
If your project does not meet the requirements of the Interim Consultation Framework, please
contact the Asheville Ecological Services Field Office for further coordination on this project.
Further consultation or coordination with the Service is necessary for those species or designated
critical habitats with a determination of "May Affect".
Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area
The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following
ESA -protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your Action area:
■ Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
■ Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii Similarity of Appearance (Threatened)
■ Gray Bat Myotis grisescens Endangered
■ Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
■ Mountain Sweet Pitcher -plant Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Endangered
■ Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
• Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed Endangered
You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take
of the species listed above.

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531 3
Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
MSD - Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project'MSD - Carrier Bridge Pump Station
Replacement Project':
MSD is currently proposing to upsize their existing wastewater infrastructure with
the Carrier Bridge Pump Station Replacement Project (Project) located in
Asheville, North Carolina, to accommodate the new growth within the existing
service area. The Project includes the construction of a new pump station,
replacement of the existing influent gravity sewer, and replacement of exiting
force main. Pipe installation of the influent gravity sewer and exiting force main
will be completed using the open -cut dry ditch method. The proposed Project will
address bottlenecking that is currently occurring at the Biltmore Estate property
on the south side of the French Broad River. As a result of the proposed Project
design, the increased capacity will provide adequate service for the existing and
future growth of the southern and western parts of Buncombe County and
northern Henderson County.
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/(a�35.56269795,-82.5720887053377,14z
irk
}
r
:y
�

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531 4
DETERMINATION KEY RESULT
Based on the answers provided, the proposed Action is consistent with a determination of "may
affect" for the Endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW
1. Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of
the northern long-eared bat or any other listed species?
Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project. Intentional take could refer to
research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering,
harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed
species?
No
2. Do you have post -white nose syndrome occurrence data that indicates that northern long-
eared bats (NLEB) are likely to be present in the action area?
Bat occurrence data may include identification of NLEBs in hibernacula, capture of
NLEBs, tracking of NLEBs to roost trees, or confirmed acoustic detections. With this
question, we are looking for data that, for some reason, may have not yet been made
available to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
No
3. Does any component of the action involve construction or operation of wind turbines?
Note: For federal actions, answer `yes' if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either (1) part
of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.).
No
4. Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a
Federal agency in whole or in part?
Yes
Is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or authorizing the proposed action, in
whole or in part?
No

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531 5
6. Are you an employee of the federal action agency or have you been officially designated in
writing by the agency as its designated non-federal representative for the purposes of
Endangered Species Act Section 7 informal consultation per 50 CFR § 402.08?
Note: This key may be used for federal actions and for non-federal actions to facilitate section 7 consultation and
to help determine whether an incidental take permit may be needed, respectively. This question is for information
purposes only.
No
7. Is the lead federal action agency the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)? Is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funding or authorizing the proposed action,
in whole or in part?
No
8. Is the lead federal action agency the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)?
No
9. Have you determined that your proposed action will have no effect on the northern long-
eared bat? Remember to consider the effects of any activities that would not occur but for
the proposed action.
If you think that the northern long-eared bat may be affected by your project or if you
would like assistance in deciding, answer "No" below and continue through the key. If you
have determined that the northern long-eared bat does not occur in your project's action
area and/or that your project will have no effects whatsoever on the species despite the
potential for it to occur in the action area, you may make a "no effect" determination for
the northern long-eared bat.
Note: Federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representatives) must consult with USFWS on federal
agency actions that may affect listed species [50 CFR 402.14(a)]. Consultation is not required for actions that will
not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, this determination key will not provide a consistency or
verification letter for actions that will not affect listed species. If you believe that the northern long-eared bat may
be affected by your project or if you would like assistance in deciding, please answer "No" and continue through
the key. Remember that this key addresses only effects to the northern long-eared bat. Consultation with USFWS
would be required if your action may affect another listed species or critical habitat. The definition of Effects of
the Action can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/media/northern-long-eared-bat-assisted-determination-key_
selected -definitions
No
10. Does the action area contain any caves (or associated sinkholes, fissures, or other karst
features), mines, rocky outcroppings, or tunnels that could provide habitat for hibernating
northern long-eared bats?
No

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531
11. Does the action area contain or occur within 0.5 miles of (1) talus or (2) anthropogenic or
naturally formed rock crevices in rocky outcrops, rock faces or cliffs?
No
12. Is suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat present within 1000 feet of
project activities?
(If unsure, answer "Yes.")
Note: If there are trees within the action area that are of a sufficient size to be potential roosts for bats (i.e., live
trees and/or snags >3 inches (12.7 centimeter) dbh), answer "Yes". If unsure, additional information defining
suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/media/northern-
long-eared-bat-assisted-determination-key-selected-definitions
Yes
13. Will the action cause effects to a bridge?
No
14. Will the action result in effects to a culvert or tunnel?
No
15. Does the action include the intentional exclusion of northern long-eared bats from a
building or structure?
Note: Exclusion is conducted to deny bats' entry or reentry into a building. To be effective and to avoid harming
bats, it should be done according to established standards. If your action includes bat exclusion and you are
unsure whether northern long-eared bats are present, answer "Yes." Answer "No" if there are no signs of bat use
in the building/structure. If unsure, contact your local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Ecological Services Field
Office to help assess whether northern long-eared bats may be present. Contact a Nuisance Wildlife Control
Operator (NWCO) for help in how to exclude bats from a structure safely without causing harm to the bats (to
find a NWCO certified in bat standards, search the Internet using the search term "National Wildlife Control
Operators Association bats"). Also see the White -Nose Syndrome Response Team's guide for bat control in
structures
No
16. Does the action involve removal, modification, or maintenance of a human -made structure
(barn, house, or other building) known or suspected to contain roosting bats?
No
17. Will the action cause construction of one or more new roads open to the public?
For federal actions, answer `yes' when the construction or operation of these facilities is
either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a
federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.).
No

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531
18. Will the action include or cause any construction or other activity that is reasonably certain
to increase average daily traffic on one or more existing roads?
Note: For federal actions, answer `yes' when the construction or operation of these facilities is either (1) part of
the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a federal agency (federal permit, funding,
etc.). .
No
19. Will the action include or cause any construction or other activity that is reasonably certain
to increase the number of travel lanes on an existing thoroughfare?
For federal actions, answer `yes' when the construction or operation of these facilities is
either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a
federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.).
No
20. Will the proposed action involve the creation of a new water -borne contaminant source
(e.g., leachate pond pits containing chemicals that are not NSF/ANSI 60 compliant)?
No
21. Will the proposed action involve the creation of a new point source discharge from a
facility other than a water treatment plant or storm water system?
No
22. Will the action include drilling or blasting?
Yes
23. Will the drilling or blasting affect known or potentially suitable hibernacula, summer
habitat, or active year-round habitat (where applicable) for the northern long-eared bat?
Note: In addition to direct impacts to hibernacula, consider impacts to hydrology or air flow that may impact the
suitability of hibernacula. Additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat
can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/media/northern-long-eared-bat-assisted-determination-key-selected-
definitions
Yes
24. Will the proposed action result in the cutting or other means of knocking down, bringing
down, or trimming of any trees suitable for northern long-eared bat roosting?
Note: Suitable northern long-eared bat roost trees are live trees and/or snags >_3 inches dbh that have exfoliating
bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities.
Yes

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531 8
PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
Enter the extent of the action area (in acres) from which trees will be removed - round up
to the nearest tenth of an acre. For this question, include the entire area where tree removal
will take place, even if some live or dead trees will be left standing.
3.5
In what extent of the area (in acres) will trees be cut, knocked down, or trimmed during the
inactive (hibernation) season for northern long-eared bat? Note: Inactive Season dates for spring
staging/fall swarming areas can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/media/inactive-season-dates-swarming-and-
staging-areas
3.5
In what extent of the area (in acres) will trees be cut, knocked down, or trimmed during the
active (non -hibernation) season for northern long-eared bat? Note: Inactive Season dates for
spring staging/fall swarming areas can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/media/inactive-season-dates-
swarming-and-staging-areas
0
Will all potential northern long-eared bat (NLEB) roost trees (trees >_3 inches diameter at
breast height, dbh) be cut, knocked, or brought down from any portion of the action area
greater than or equal to 0.1 acre? If all NLEB roost trees will be removed from multiple
areas, select `Yes' if the cumulative extent of those areas meets or exceeds 0.1 acre.
Yes
Enter the extent of the action area (in acres) from which all potential NLEB roost trees will
be removed. If all NLEB roost trees will be removed from multiple areas, entire the total
extent of those areas. Round up to the nearest tenth of an acre.
3.5
For the area from which all potential northern long-eared bat (NLEB) roost trees will be
removed, on how many acres (round to the nearest tenth of an acre) will trees be allowed
to regrow? Enter `0' if the entire area from which all potential NLEB roost trees are
removed will be developed or otherwise converted to non -forest for the foreseeable future.
1.0
Will any snags (standing dead trees) >_3 inches dbh be left standing in the area(s) in which
all northern long-eared bat roost trees will be cut, knocked down, or otherwise brought
down?
Yes
Will all project activities by completed by April 1, 2024?
No

06/01/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 651-127174531 9
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:
HDR
Name:
Eric Mularski
Address:
440 S. Church Street
City:
Charlotte
State:
NC
Zip:
28202
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
7049736878
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Army Corps of Engineers
Name: Amanda Jones
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]