20160944 Ver 1_NCDOT_B315_Haywood_Nationwide 14 Application_20161003

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
l. Project Name Bridge 315 on SR 1346 (Stevens Creek Road)
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: NC Department of Transportation
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: N!A
sAgent autl�orizafion needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: N/A
6. Subdivision Name: N/A
7. City: White Oak Community near Maggie Valley
8. County: Haywood
9. Lat: 35.653312° N Long: -83.033109 ° W (Approx. Project Center)
10. Quadrangle Name: Cove Creek Ga�(35083-F1-TF-024�
ll. Watettivay: Stevens Creek LC)
12. Watershed: French Broad River (06010106)
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 14
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Puipose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

Ti ansporta[ion
October 3. 2016
Ms. Lori Beckwith, NCDOT Regulatory Project M�nager
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
l5l Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
PAT McCRORY
c���,��o.
NICHOLAS J. TENNYSON
Srarrary
Subject: Natiomvide 14 Permit Application
Replace Bridge No. 315 on SR 1346 (Stevens Q�eek Roacl) over Stevens Creek
Haywood County
State Project No. 17BP14.R128, llB1dA-430315
(DWQ Minor Yermit Fee $240.00)
Dear Ms. Beckwith:
The Noith Carolitta Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace the subject
timber bridge due to deterioration and insufficient width. The proposed replacement structure is a
16'2" W(span) � 5' L' H s 44' L aluntinum bo� culveit with notched sills and baffles added to the
culve�t ends and mid-point to promote bedload retention and fish passage. A corrugated culveit
under Stevens Creek Road will be estended in a h�ibutary to Stevens Creek �nd dual 30" culveit
pipes will be placed in Stevens Creek downstream of the bridge for a temporary detour during
construction. And, an 85-foot reach of Stevens Creek will need to be shifted about I S feet to the
east to address the iiano�v i'oad shoulder and to improve the road alignment.
Enclosed are a PCN application, prelitninaiyjurisdiction form, Division of Mitigation Services
Acceptance Letter, plan sheets showing the proposed work, a USGS quad map, photographs, and
other peitinent project infonnation.
The No�th Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was checked for records of threatened
and endangered species. There are S I species listed for Haywood Counry that have federal status.
Nine species, Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucon»>s sobrin:�s co/omtus), gra�� bat (illyotis
grisescens), Indiana bat (A�lyotis sodnlis), Appalachian elktoe (dlasmi�lontn rm�eneliona), sprnce-
fir moss spider (ddicrohexura �iiontn�ngn), small witorled pogonia (Isotrin merleoloides),
spreading avens (Gea��r rcicli�urnn), rock gnome licheu (Gy�irnodernrn lineare), aud northern long-
eared bat (dLyotis septenh•ionnlis, NLEB) are known from ewrent records and are listed as either
threatened or endangered. According to the USFWS, Haywood Cowity is considered occupied
summer range for Indiana bats ancl NLEB.
Appalachian elktoe are found in some well-oxygenated streams with moderate to fast Flowing
water and stable, mi�ed substrates of silt, sand, gravel, and/or cobble. Streams that support this
nuissel are typically much larger than Stevens Creek. The only records in Haywood County are
from the Pigeon River and the lower portious of the F.ast Pork Pigeon and West Pak Pigeon
rivers; there are no records fi�om an}� tributaries to these rivers. The bridge is 1.8 miles upstream
�Nothing Compares�..
Smteo(NonhCamlinn I ���p�hmcnlol'Iransponulionl Di�ision W
?i? Websl.rRoad � SyI.�,NonhCnrolinu23779
Nhene 323-i36-2 W I I Fa� 323-536JOA3

B315, Haywood Page 2 October 3, 2016
of Wate�ville Lake (Pigeon River) and this reach of the river is over 20 river miles downstream of
occupied mussel habitat.
Gray bats usually roost in caves year-round while Indiana bats and NLEB only winter in caves or
mines with stable, but not fi�eezing, cold temperatw•es. This project is a small bridge replacement,
so construction work will not extend far from the esisting right-of-way into areas where caves
may occur. There are no caves or mines visible near the bridge and, according to USGS data, the
nearest underground mine is over 2.2 miles away. Therefore, gray bats and hibernating Indiana
bats and NLEB should not be affected by the project.
When not hibernating, Indiana bats and NLEB usually roost on stil�ctures, under the shaggy bark
of live trees such as white oaks, sycamores, and hickories, or in cavities and under the Ioose
peeling bark of dead trees. The bridge �vas surveyed on June 1, 2015 and tliere were no roosting
bats or any evidence of bat usage (i.e. staining or guano). The structure is poorly suited as a bat
roost because it is only a fe�v feet above the water surface and very cool underneath. Moreover,
Hie bridge is not situated in an area where NLEB hibernacula or maternity roost trees are an
identified concern, so the project is consistent with esceptions for incidental take ouNined in the
NLEB Final 4(d) rule. The construction work may require the removal of approximately 60-70
trees near the bridge ranging in size finm 3" diameter soui�voods to 20" diameter yellow poplars.
To protect Indiana bats, any obstructing trees will be removed fi•om October I S to April l5
(�vinter clearing). With this measure, we recommend a"may affect, not Iikely to adversely
affecY' detennination for Indiana bat.
Small whorled pagonia most often occurs in open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil, though
ltabitats can include slopes along streams and mesic forest with white pine and rhododendron.
Land use adjacent to the bridge consists of a maintained gravel roadway, a landscaped driveway
entrance, and wooded creek ba�ilcs aud hillslopes. There is a dry hillside with mised l�ardwood-
white pine cover to the southwest of the bridge, but no pagonia plants were observed during a
brief su�vey of the area on June I, 2015. Also, there will be little disturbance of that hillside
because Stevens Ci�eek Road �vill be shifted slightly to the east away from this steep slope.
The Carolina northern flying squir��el, rock gnome lichen, spruce-fir moss spider and spreading
avens are found in spivice-fir forests and other isolated high elevation locations in western North
Carolina However, rock gnome lichen is an exception because it can occasionally be found at
lower elevations in deep river gorges with high humidity or on some vertical rock faces that are
periodically �vet. Tlie bridge site has an elevatiai of only 2,840 feet and lacks rock faces and
other habitat wnditions required by these species.
The project is limited in scope. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be used to
minimize adverse effects of the work on aquatic habitats. Habitats for listed species appear
lacking at the project site and none of the species known fi�om Haywood County were obse�ved
during field visits. For tliese reasons and those discussed above, we recommend that a
dete�mination of"no eFfect" on Iisted species, with exception to Indiana bats, apply to this
project.
This project was reviewed by NCDOT's Human Environment Unit in 2013 and it was dete�mined
that surveys were not necessary for historic structures or aroheological resources (see attaclied
forms).
NCDOT best management practices will be used to minimize and control sedimentation and
erosion on tl�is project The construction foreman �vill review all erosion control measures daily

B315, Haywood Page 3 October 3, 2016
to ensure their effectiveness. If the devices are not fimctioning as intended, they will be quickly
replaced with better devices.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Stevens Creek (DWQ Class: C) is shown on the USGS topographic map as a perennial stream. It
has a well-defined channel approximately 6 feet in width �vith a substrate of sand, gravel, and
rock. Stevens Creek flows to the Pigeon River, �vhich meets the definition of a Traditional
Navigable Water (TNVI�. For these reasons, we believe Stevens Creek is a Relatively Permanent
Water (RPW) and is nnder tlie jurisdiction of the U.S. Aimy Corps of Engineers. [n order to
construct the project, it will be necessary to impact waters of the United States in the French
Broad River Basin (CU 06010106). Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to replace Bridge No.
315 with an aluminum box culvert. Listed below is a summary of the proposed impacts:
�xisting Condition Proposed Condition Net Impacts
Site No. (feet)
16'2"Ws5'1"Hx44'L
1 Timber Bridge Aluminum Bos Culvert tvith 44
Headwalls
IA Stevens Creek Channel �mpervious Dikes and Temporary 200
Flow Diversions
Stevens Creek Channel Fill for
1B (Existing 85 feet) Channel Relocation (New 85 feet) 85*
( No Net Channel Loss)
Banks along Stevens Creek Rip Rap Bank Stabilization and
1C ��cluding Relocated Channel) Floodplain Benches I 10
1D Banks along Stevens Creek Rip Rap Bank Stabilization and 35
Floodplain Benches
2 UT Stevens Creek F�ooded by Channel Relocation � �
(Channel loss)
2A UT Stevens Creek Impervious Dikes and Temporary 50
Flow Diversions
2B Banks along UT Stevens Creek Rip Rap Stabilization IS
3 UT Stevens Creek 12' Pennanent Culvert Extension 12'(Perm.)
3A UT Stevens Creek 8' Temporary Culve�t EYtension 8' (TempJ
3B UT Stevens Creek Channel and Impe�vious Dike and Flow 50
Culvert Diversion

B315, Haywood Page 4 October 3, 2016
Total Permanent Stream and Tributary 6npacts for Cidvert and Culvert Extension
Total Pennanent SG�eam Impact (Fill) for Chamiel Relocation#
(*The relocated Stevens Creek channel length will be same length as the old channel)
Total Permanent Tributary Impact (Flooding) for Channel Relocation (Channel loss)
Total Permanent Impact for Bank Stabilization and Floodplain Benches
Total Temporary Stream Impacts for Impervious Dikes and Flow Diversions
Total Temporary Tributary Impact for Culvert Extension
Permits Requested
56'
SS'
17'
160'
300'
8'
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to proceed
with the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Mrs. Marla
Chambers, Western NCDOT Revie�v Coordinator of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), to comment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit
request.
I am also requesting authorization under Section 40l of the Clean Water Act from tlie Noith
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Water Resom�ces (DWR). In
addition, I am asking Mrs. Chambers and Mr. Ben DeWit, EI, Roadside Enviromnental Field
Operations Engineer (NCDOT), to comment directly to me concerning this pennit request.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions about this application or need
additional information. Your prompt revie�v and consideration of this request will be greatly
appreci .
incerely, /J��,, %/�
%O
; � '<��,
ave McHenry
Division 14 Environmental Officer
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Amy Chapman, Division of Water Resources — DEQ, Raleigh
Ms. ICristi Carpenter, Division of Water Resources — DEQ, Raleigh
1�L•. Kevin Barnett, Division of Water Resources — DEQ, Asheville
Mr. Andrew Henderson, Biologist, US Fish &WildliFe Service, Asheville
Ms. Marla Cliambers, Western NCDOT Review Coordinator, NCWRC, Albemarle
Mr. Nathan Tanner, PE, District 2 Resident Engineer, NCDOT Division 14, Wliittier
Mr. Ben DeWit, PE, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
Mr. Michael J. Shumsky, PE, Design-Build Engineer, NCDOT, Raleigli

O��FWATF�OG
y �
> y
O T
OKce Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: � Section 404 Permit ❑ Sectian 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number: Na
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by lhe Corps? ❑ Yes �No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is lhis notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes � No ❑ Yes � No
'I f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation � yes ❑ No
of impacts? If so, altach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. (NC Division of Mitigation Services)
1g. Is fhe project located in any of NCs twenty coastal countles. If yes, answer 1h ❑ Yes � No
below.
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concem (AEC)? ❑ Yes � No
2. ProJect Information
2a. Name of project: Replace Bridge No. 315 on SR 1346 (Stevens Creek Road) over Stevens Creek
2b. County: Haywood
2c. Nearest municipality / town: White Oak Communily near Maggie Valley
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or State 17BP.14.R.128, DB 14A-430315
Project No:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Norlh Carolina DepaRment of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible PaAy (for LLC if Dave McHenry, Division 14 Environmental Officer
applicable):
3d. Street address: 253 Webster Rd.
3e. City, state, zip: Sylva, NC 28779
3f. Telephone no.: 828-586-2141
3g. Fax no.: 828-586-4043
3h. Email address: dqmchenrvCo3ncdot.qov
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Informatlon (if dtfferent from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name: N/A
4c. Business name N/A
(if applicable):
4d. SUeet address: N/A
4e. City, state, zip: N/A
4f. Telephone no.: N/A
4g. Fax no.: N/A
4h. Email address: N/A
5. AgenNConsultant Information (if appllcable)
5a. Name: N/A
5b. Business name N/A
(if applicable):
5c. Straet address: N!A
5d. City, state, zip: N/A
5e. Telephone no.: N/A
5f. Fax no.: N/A
5g. Email address: N/A
Page 2 of 12

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identificatlon
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.653312 Longilude: -83.033109
1c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surtace Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Stevens Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water. C
2c. River basin: French Broad River Basin (HUC 06010106)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and ihe general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site includes a timber bridge on a gravel secondary road. Landscape is primarily forested with scattered residences.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the propeAy:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing slreams (intermittent and perennial) on ihe property:
300
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace the existing substandard timber bridge no. 430315 with a 16' 2° W x 5' 1" H x 44' L single barrel aluminum box
culvert with headwalls on existing location.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Erosion and sedimentation measures including temporary impervious dikes and diversions will be installed. An existing
corrugated culvert in a tributary under Stevens Creek Road will be extended and dual 30' culvert pipes will be placed in
Stevens Creek downstream of the bridge for a temporary detour during construction. An 85-foot reach of Stevens Creek
will need to be shifted about 15 feet to the east to fix an existing sharp drop from the road shoulder and to improve lhe
road alignment. Track hoes, dump trucks, bulldozers, paving equipment, water pumps, sandbags, diversion pipe and
various hand tools will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by ihe
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property ! � Yes � No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in lhe past?
Comments: N!A
4b. If the Corps made ihe jurisdictional determination, what type � preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
5. ProJect History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � yes � No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to °help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Projact Information and Prior Project History
6. Future Project Pians
Ba. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes � No
8b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands � Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Consiruction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on lhe site, then complete this queslion for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non-404, other) (acres)
Tem ora
W1 ❑ P � T N/A N/A � Yes ❑ Corps N/A
❑ No ❑ DWQ
WZ � P� T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts NIA
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all slream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 39�
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non-404, Width (linear
Temporary (T) (IN�? other) (feet) feet)
S1 � P❑ T Cuivert Stevens Creek � PER � Corps 6 44
❑ INT � DWQ
S1A � P� T Temporary Flow Stevens Creek � PER � Corps 6 200
Diversion ❑ INT � DWQ
Fill - Channel � pER � Corps
S18 � P❑ T Relocation Stevens Creek � INT � DWQ 6 85
(no netloss)
S7C � P❑ T Bank Stabilization Stevens Creek � PER � Corps 6 110
And Benches ❑ INT � DWQ
S1 D� P❑ T Bank Stabilization Stevens Creek � PER � Corps 6 35
And Benches ❑ INT � DWQ
S2 � P❑ T Flood �T Stevens � PER � Corps 2 ��
Creek ❑ WT � DWQ
S2A ❑ P� T Temporary Flow UT Stevens � PER � Corps p 50
Diversion Creek ❑ INT � DWQ
S2B � P❑ T Bank Stabilization UT Stevens � PER � Corps 2 75
Creek ❑ INT � DWQ
S3 � P❑ T Perm. UT Stevens � PER � Corps � 12
Culvert Extension Creek ❑ INT � DWQ
Temp. Culvert UT Stevens � PER � Corps
S3A ❑ P� T Extension Creek ❑ INT � DWQ � $
Temporary Flow UT Stevens ❑ PER � Corps
S36 ❑ P� T Diversion Creek � INT � DWQ � 50
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3h. Total Permanent Stream and Tributary Impacts for Culvert and Culvert Extension 56'
Total Permanent Stream Impact (Fill) for Channel Relocation' (no net channel length loss) $5'
Total Permanent Tributary (UT) Impact (Flooding) for Channel Relocation ��'
Total Permanent Impact for Bank Stabilization and Floodplain Benches 160'
Total Temporary Stream Impacts for Impervious Dikes and Flow Diversions 300'
Total Tempora Tributa Im act for Culvert Extension $�
3i. Comments:
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individuall lisl all o en water im acts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora
Q1 ❑ P❑ T NIA fVlA N/A N!A
02 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts N/A
4g. Gomments: N/A •
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake consfruction ro osed, ihen com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetiand Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose of (acres)
number pond Floode
d Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 N!A N!A N/A N/A N/A N!A N/A N/A
P2
6f. Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes � No If yes, permit ID no: N/A
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): N/A
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): N/A
5k. Method of construction: N/A
Page 6 of 12

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete lhe chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Olher:
Project is in which protected basin? N/A ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number— Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zane 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Siream name mitigation {square feet) (square feet)
Tem ora im act re uired?
B1 ❑ P❑ T N/A N/A � Nos N/A N/A
62 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
63 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts N/A N/A
6i. Comments: N!A
Page 7 of 12

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The aluminum box culveA was designed to meet the hydraulic needs of the site. The culvert will be on a 4.92% grade
and will be buried 1-foot into the stream substrate. Three (3) notched sills and baffles will be placed in the structure to
reduce velocily and maintain aquatic life passage during periods of low flow (see plan sheets).
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize lhe proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All instream work will be pertormed in dry work areas using impervious dikes and diversions to divert fhe water around the
project site. Appropriate BMPs according to the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be installed on the
project prior to culvert installaiion.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for �Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ �Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this � payment to in-lieu fee program (NCDMS)
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type N/A Quantily N/A
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-Iieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is altached. � Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 158 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ❑ warm ❑ cool � cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (lidal) weUand mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments: N/A
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible miligation plan, provide a description of lhe proposed mifigation plan.
N/A
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes � No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required miligation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 N/A N/A 3(2 for Catawba) N/A
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigatfon required: N/A
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what lype of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments: N/A
Page 9 of 12

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified � yes � No
within one of the NC Riparian 8uffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: N/A
2. Starmwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N!A
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? � Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If fhis project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Project is covered by NCDOT Individual NPDES Permit No. NCS000250.
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management PIan7 ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
� DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiciion is this project7 N!A
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Managemeni Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Pro ram Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply � ORW
(check all that apply): ❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401.Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements7 � Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submiltal requiremenls been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 12
PGN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the proJect involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or ihe � Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land7
1 b. If you answered "yes' to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes � No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPAlSEPA)?
1c. If you answered'yes'to the above, has lhe document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of lhe NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: N!A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Weiland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes � No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑ Yes � No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in � Yes � No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes' lo the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no; provide a shoR narrative descriplion.
This is a rural secondary road. The bridge is being replaced with a culvert to standard load limits and widlh to improve
safety for ihe lraveling public. The bridge (culvert) upgrade is not anticipated to have any significant impact on fulure
development.
4. Sewage Dfsposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or � Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked wilh the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � yes ❑ No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field O�ce you have contacted.
� Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine wheiher your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database and site specific surveys conducted during the bridge scoping process.
F'egE 11 OT 9'L

6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat7 ❑ Yes � No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whefher your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
N/A—There are no marine or estuarine communities within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this proJect occur in or near an area that lhe state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation � Yes � No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or propeAies significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The bridge project was reviewed by NCDOT's Human Environment Unit in 2013 and lhere were determinations of'no
surveys required' for architecture or archaeological resources. These findings have been approved by the State
Hisiorical Preservaiion Office (SHPO) through Programmatic Agreement with NCDOT (see attached forms).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ❑ Yes � No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: FEMA requirements were taken into consideration by the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit during the design of the bridge (see attached Hydraulic Report in the plan sheets)
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Dave McHenty � 9-30-2016
Division 14 Environmental Officer �
ApplicanUAgenPs Signatur Date
AppliCanf/Agenfs Printed Name (AgenPs signature is valid onty if an authorization letter from the
applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

Copynght (C) 1997, M1laptech, Inc.

� �' Z:...iir
_ 'J` `.�.' !``r. "o� ti. +
� � .���, �.���� y!. I
�� '•, � .1 Y .. `
� � . Yt f�c� � ,�
� . � � .- ,. j, p �, ; �7�F , . �..'h . '
: • 7, . . lY ' �. � � �. �
7 1 `� �
�6`„ > • .�� 'iy ..!A s ��l♦ },,� r,�,ir.
, .� )
�'� .. � �� � , .
�� T � �4�
'..�p�s g�'. `� �`•�.N' �:Y�;. �-
^P �'� �'� �' ,
' . . .� `' � '1b� �• y �,a
r r - � � � . t'. 'r - �
,�,�. � Qy , � ` '� � .��
��
. ,� .� ; �,. .
t, '' 1 . ,..�
° + �'� •,,�`�� �� >� t�a, ",.� � �
h ��
��� ��. � �
�' ` � ' ' �.� , �
�" k� I
.,1 y.� � � . ,
' � � - � � � � ��. �+
— . � _. � ,'i�!, ..
�er 315 'Y� � � $': . o o. `� .� �. jaV _� ��
� � i'
.(' w �• �� .'i �n .
���. � . � . _ -`.`.
�!. ' Z � . '� �,=4.
. � �� . . ' � . �
� e �,�'' �rrlt , �f .
�( w • a `� � ,i' +� i-
7J� . �_ �. � � �l� � �.. t - �
! 'r`� .1 � 9 - `-` �'� i • t.
c �� � �' f, T ��;
�� r �
� ,!'�� .� ` �;' ..
A
f
.A ' ' • � 1 . • T.1 . ,1 .
K . , • ,. � , v '
. �: "�. '` � :l-�." 6 .1� � ' A r!j ,�,� •'�� �
. r'�'' �� � u.
.. � Ilri , � 'i . .'..'�.�a'
c �? -4t °v ` ,��` �� , , A. 'p ,. . r • �. � �
� •.
� ' a. • `�� .�. �.. � : � �.. i �.
'�� � . , . +�� � y . i ;M:.": r
M,�� r� , � �` `:�
� . K �"�� � ,�`'� . �'�' ''��,' t ° �'�;►�?�
R � , i
��.. � � , � t _ 4 r . �� `' 7 �j�_ }y�i �.
S < �� .�It '�. �� r �'' +��.
ti �� � -� • �' • �. ��1.�T . �
� ` , ��y
\''. '_' f a` - _ . ��. . � �
� q i . ��. r � � � � : � -�- Y
_ f f ' �j �� F .`I � � '� � . -�',�1 ^1
. . � v � 3i� �� �.��,
�. � ,, � �. ;,
!` '��y. .� �{� � '�, {� � t� . r �; , i .
♦/ `� y. •
, �.• i�
e .�.-{ t,.� 'P: ' . S�
1� ` ` ~ I � �
�{C(O �eiviap� ulC�( e iter�[(c�rYGeogrPpr.i;:�li (o �lion an'llv' al �si��,���C
�.`� 'Y, � .9i1j��tsoa(ol " .
N Bridge Number 315 over
Stevens Creek on SR 1346
w�e Haywood County, NC
0 25 50 100
S � Feet

t' „
Mitiyation S'ervrces
EII VIqOHME1ITAL OUf�LITY
September 13, 2016
Mr. Dave McHenry
NCDOT Division 14 Enviro�unental SpeciaGst
North Carolina Department of 1'rflnsporta�ion
253 WebsterRoad
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
Dear D4r. MeHenry:
Subject Mitigalion Acceptance Letter:
N4�1 it"Ct;Rp1<�;�
r:,.:�.:,:_.
llONALD 2. VAf; DER VAART
RECEIVED
$EP � 4 2016
�IVISI�N 14
Division 14 Projecl, Replace Bridge 315 on SR 1346 (Stevens Creek Road) over Stevens Creek,
FIaywood Couoty; �yBS Element 17BP.14.R.128 / DR 14A-430315
'I'he puryose of tUis letter is ro notity you that the Division of Ivfitigation Services (DMS) will provide tlie
compensatory stream mifigation for �he subjecf project. Based on Ihe information received ou Sepfember 12, 2016,
!he impacts are located in CU 06010106 of fhe French Broad River basin ui the Southem D4oui�tains (SM) Eco-
Region, and are as follows:
TreneL Broad Stream Wetlands
06010106 Non- Coasta
SD4 Cold Cool Wann Riparian
. Rioarian Marsh
`...`""'"." 158.0
(feeUncres)
"Some of ihe stream and/or we�la�d
application for delails.
may be proposed lo be miligated at a 1:1
BufCer (Sq. FtJ
Zone I Zone 2
�atio. See pem�il
This impact ai�d associated nutigation need were wider projected by the NCDOT u� the 2016 impact data.
D1vIS will commit lo implement sufficient compe�satory s�ream ttiligation credils fo offset lhe impacts associated
witli this project as detennined by the regulatory agencies using die delivery timeluie listed in Seclion F3.c.iii of the
Bi-Lieu Fee Insfrument dated July 28, 2010. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then ihis
mitiga�iou �cceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mi�igatimi acceptance letter will be required from
DMS.
8420.
ff you have any questions or need additionnl uifonnalion, please contact Ms. Be�h Hannon at 919-707-
Sincerely,
C_��H�X
Jan�es .� V
CretliV'�[vlanaoement Supervisor
cc: Ms. Lori Beckwilh, USACE —Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr. 7osh Deytott, P.E., tQCDOT — Division 14 Bridge Maintenance E�gineer
Ms. Linda Filzpalrick, NCDOT — YDEA
Pile: SR 1346 - Bridge 315 — Division 14
SLiteofNeMCamWu Em�immnentaiQualiryi Afitlga�ionSarncrs
1652 hfail Scn�n: Cenler � 217 \V. Jones Sheel Su@e 3000 � Ralcigh, NC 2]609-1652
919 707 5976 T

11
m
�
W
�
�
a
a
�
�
a
W
�
�
�
�,
�
M
W
i�
0
�
m
`�.._.
�� �c�
i
��.�.

Haywood County Bridge #315 on SR 1346 over Stevens Creek
June 1, 2015 and Sep. 2, 2016
� n .. . /i � � J T �:-
i•
/ `�
,=�1��`. ' � y� /u'�', �� P.
.S �
i- t f � 1
vsi�Y � P - � 1
•�+ L � y'_ �.':_. \ . 2i �
Y� k R t.� �t �a n �� i�: ��i .y/
f 4
� � �' F9,
� , ' � � �:c1 yF :�rd�,�.. .. ' _
�;.i� _ �S' ��� � . ,.'��.
r
____ `� y , '
I �
�
I I {� , � _ � . ��; �
� '�' - =�r �
�67 � rl� ,�f� .:-.
r , �; � �y N,:
Y.� r/�
� µ� - . . ' . ! A� v4 ✓'• -�
- . . - .I .y'....:[ .
•� y .- . _ . . � . . �[C"
sia
. �f ' . ' ' _ . . , ' - •-
.Y.� ' �. ' -. - " . . ' _
I _ .. . _ _ � ..
�
Looking southwest towards bridge.
� -- ,..,:� � T'"r a
. : . _ � ,�,,, �
a � �' �, . . .✓! � rn ,�) z
`S �IN -� `a
� � + � �
Lr .
�„�. �� �"'�.�,�. -�� � _
,� � � �r„� � F�° � ..
- .. �'` ' ,'% r � _. '� ::
� � ,r, � ��- _ _ ° �
�.� ,�`r � x .
n
,%`� 1 �;
,� '� : � 4' _�: - a
_ `� �:.. � ' - � `��.�,.
«_ ., . 4'.'wi.. . . - fa 3 w,s��—�. %4L;: � . , .
�. :.%.'�. �.:'�'t4. ;�.,,�_ry.—.i- . .
�'�`�� �.. , � � �
t� . �..}� � � ` �
�s�""_ 3 r _ _ :.�Y�
�.Fti� ..k�*�� ' _.r�,
ss
`1�,?'� - . . .-�6t ' - `�
_ � . . ' "�Y p. 'k.' � � �Ay
' 4 � . . . . i i';Ysa 3�+ir." . �.�
�`�� � � ': e �� ��r�i .!.
>
_ �i � k.0 .a�+��
�n. .. .
� . . .. . f. f a. . .,�d
"W q"
I �. . -.� , . _._ - '�� .�._�, .AY_"Ly_,.�
Looking northeast towards bridge.

Haywood County Bridge #315 on SR 1346 over Stevens Creek
June 1, 2015 and Sep. 2, 2016
1 ,
���, ` ,
��
, ;.: : .;:.
f,:� ,`:.
p �
Looking upstream under bridge (Site 1).
r�►f,� . c , 1��-- ���\ -. � 1., -V. �, .
t` � �
M !�, s� . ' �, . 1 j� a�. }�-e� i �.. , it � ..�
a ��� i� � , �� rti
;'C. � rT'!t � r � .�� �� .� `�7�1�'t i+, °� '�e a,, R� . �
�`- �J�r� ��.It�tiS r /l;,n\ � `',� i ;:' �'����'` � a��� �,y J
,•i
�_� �?,,�:'��t{ j' , i� . ,. � ,
ry,� ( f� 1 1� a ,) j r�/(-` � !'•-1
��:R�`1 ��,��,, „ . . w :�� s - ... s ::1 �i ( � '� �: �
„� y' �dC� � � M��'� d. "7��
a�v �h'�`� � ,w . � w+C �� ��^i
�A � . � y� � ��1:' J ��.��y��
/; � i ry`�n. � - �'�Z":' a! � -+'.9 ! v ��
� � � '� � `' :4 �r ` - 4�d '� ��-, � r� ' �' .
r ''�
.'��,�r{ ,/._ s � 'k� " � ira +'�yb14 yy`,1};.�q
�V�' � ,-\ � ` ��ybJ ,� { 'Y , {
� . Y�� ` 1, nV f V
�;�Y •a � ti' �, � � � 's S� .. �Y �`��:.J•v,d� : �.'.1
; � 1 x. � �, � i � '_. yr .
wpi. �. �A �.:�,� s< 3L '� s" , ." ' (. lrl.��}� k'�a+
'�% .. � I:i' � 4 • ' :,� ,y�.'. ..� 9i`� .. i ,
K ' �p �,�r '� I
�,�o � � �_ y ' �i s .; Yµ .
� �4 � �i
,A �v: 3 � �. 3 . y ��� „ J s `- � � ' � �
i � , �;� � �, �4 � � �� � , �
�• 1i14 �� -" r y��, �, a xk�- F4, k �
i r _ � � � W��StR �..�{(. 1 1 � �� � ��
( ��`cN ai 1�;,�� i o '�,�r l�� " '� w , � � � ' v
�� � n . t
�� o r'4��' �.rr F i � i��. +r i ?
�:.�' ����y�hL�1�,.. � � ��� _alf v7y. )i� ..�. 7
� �i �
` k .�. �.� :; � � ��"� t . ` , j�i 4 �,� x (
d � � .��.. } `J � � �
� .i , `� K 1 � .. '1' �}- � � ..� . S' � �C`.'�2� � � � � � � yy �'�"
iu _� � ', Fai 1 , y 3 +� , Yd� �a<.: � -
�� ,�l.l 1.� '" � �` ,�/ � ! ';�-a1� t ,'\ ' ,y . .
1.�� �� , : '►! >�. � '�1 - � ."s `
L _;5��. �Y-, �.,; _ _ `t� -- _ -
Looking downstream from bridge (Site 1D).

Haywood County Bridge #315 on SR 1346 over Stevens Creek
June 1, 2015 and Sep. 2, 2016
i `,_. ,� :.�:.- , s;::
. ,. n .' , �..
� .,� J l' i ,,.� I � �
�� S �Ar ' l
,.Y� .� . �i��<-.XtF
. . f �..1`.SI' 1
,;T) � r : •. � -
/ � F r � '
� .. 'JF � a . � �E �i � -��./Qr %y, . �" , .
F1'W (` tY y. ..G N'!^ .^-R4
L_ y.� . I C �. .� i- a`
i.�, i� �"1 t Yt �t i� iQ �'� �,a��_'yay 1'
I � 1 1.:`, VJ �YF 1 3.�'�1`^S . l
F t {'Y bl�'
ItY' � 'y lJA4, '�e .. I
� �V � •� �li�r . � I
Iq `Y �� � p� o ��� Z1�1��� � �� ' �
�.: 1` i . , �
,�'q a��' y. �`� ,, �. � }, _. +J'4'�
f . \C i a .. .. ��� . i• .
���R���6+. i,� � 5� i. a�'����'�� ' ' '.�
t ����'jA ,� �` yY�l! ��.?� � . .
P t }
k�,.i� �� !, �r �>(��iit�t �. ���'��i�i., � � �;��
! � ' f' . ��4�c sl�.- ` , ". ' � �'� �1�
:F � f-�� .r".qie_�:f � �� :,;I
� A0.i�.. � �t� �, ,i�� '�
� '�'�� ,� .. f f• � �
F' ai-? � �� i�+ _ �� . � t.jlff
i
� t i
� ;4_;ijS^ � ,�'(;p��� ��;9� . I�; "ir�i1�H•,�
t �
q M�
II � � �(�'T�$ I x�i ;�t`� 1� '. � � ���� � '� �3 � �. �
�p��.: Lr . � i 3 5��� il' IY`:� . , ' ' '1
n. '. . ,. � 3f�. `�%,a _ . _ ._ ^',",
Looking upstream from bridge at downstream end of channel relocation reach (Sites 1B and IC).
Confluence of UT to Stevens Creek (Site 2A and 26) with Stevens Creek is hidden by vegetation at top of
photo.
.`���,.- iz, F,� ,� ����:
�r � Q� ,� :��ay�
�� �i ��� 4�+ � � �
1 `�� 7'�'a '� `
A'�'1�.�a .o _.y:s� � � °j� .�{� . �
�._. ` ` `�' {�A �. �. 4h l
, .. ,., d . �v..
�... iY il'�i .�.
�� � ��``+• �.'? � •4w! • . �.: ii��l %1
,;
>;:a�,;.:. �.
� ;�
:<�,�,;
Site 3A— Culvert outlet under Stevens Creek Road.
j '
�i
< '�

Haywood County Bridge t1315 on SR 1346 over Stevens Creek
June 1, 2015 and Sep. 2, 2016
�e t .- � - . . 9 . . ►���� ��
F \u.✓� a . Li ?\
� �ti � .V � �'�4� ' 1« . � � � '-
. aa ,
� , . rK''�i;�'
�~ Y��•'�'����4� . ���'.Llryf( yt'!.li��
� � � � � .r... V� tl
� � i
� f - � �' � � � �j �p�� � ;�
;�f � -` t ,+ �. ' �`��`*"'�..
�. L ` � " yr5� -r---Y,�-- � ',�
� �. � �� � �: � � �► ' ,� y { sr; ►
,R� > -, „� - � �%r� '� �y' .,')
� r�: ���- �i�y- ' -��, w �:�: 4 .,�.: 1' "�i.�r �
F (
� z, "- f , _ ; " i " � aP��
'yyy��r � � 3 �r�.s-�� t`` ✓'� ��d�l��;� ��
T / �
� � . �.��.,,��I�;.=�i
,
t �.: , � � ,�,
� � � � ��� � ����i'���
� �� �
� �, 'r�' '� , 1��� * . �
� ... � � Pp,
\�
`ti �
�,, „ ��� �' a:
!s►i. i,�,.
M k /� i�
�. , ;�
� � 1 `N + _�ai �3 . ' J'i��� 1
Looking upstream at middle section of Sites 18 and 1C. This is the channel to be relocated southeast
away from Stevens Creek Road (upper right) due to the narrow shoulder width and proposed road shift.

Haywood County Bridge #315 on SR 1346 over Stevens Creek
June 1, 2015 and Sep. 2, 2016
;` ''/, ` �`/
, � ' ..,•% �: '`,
i .4Mi1t,7 � 'i!ir�'�''.�s. .��. l
��� ( f: y� � j�. . �
� ,1k * �..
r i � � � ���
/ , ��
, , ` -"#! �(' " �,,,
��
j' . �a'
,. ;ST�,
,, �;�
/�, •.�'r �•I'�.
� � ,,� % •s •'�"'��
lr :,r '' -
�.�t . �..11 5' � i�'''
�� y4. � '�.1; . :-.J �;
-��// /. Il���.%� ,.
; �_� �4� r'f.' t'., ,
UT to Stevens Creek upstream of channel relocation on Stevens Creek (Sites 2A and 26).

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):9-3o-2o�s
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
NC DepaAment oF Transportation, Dave McHenry, Division 14 Environmental Officer
253 Websler Road. Sylva, NC 28779
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND iNFORMATION:
Replace bridge 315 on SR 1346 (Stevens Creek Road) in Haywood County
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: HavW�a CIIy: Maggie Valley
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.653312 °N; L011g. -83.033109 °�IV.
Universal Transverse Mercator: a�5sas.s,ssa�aoo.sza�e��
Name of nearest waterbody: s�e�e�sc�eek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters:
zoo linear feet: s width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: R3ue�
Stream Flow: r�Re��ai
Wetlands: Na acres.
Cowardin Class: �a
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: Na
Non-Tidal: Na
l

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
� Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 9-3o-Zois
� Field Determination. Date(s):
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
� Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: NcooT
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
appl�i❑cant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
� Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic
� USGS NHD data
� USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑✓ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: ��24kcoveaeekcaP
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
� 100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Q Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date): or
QOther (Name & Date): ���e +, 2o�s a seP�. z, zo�s
� Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
� Other information (please specify):
�

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or oiher general permit verification requiring
"pre-construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicanYs acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarilv been verified bv the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later iurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
a
1
;
�
� � ��,
�
r� , �%�-� � -3� /�
Signature and date f
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Estimated
amount of
aquatic Class of
resourcein aquatic
Site Number Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class review area resource
1 35.653312 -83.033109 R3UB1 2001inearfeet Non Section 10
— non-wetland
2 35.653136 -83.033066 R3UB1 SO linearfeet Non Section 10
— non-wetland
3 35.653500 -83.033091 R3UB1 50 linear feet Non Section 10
— non-wetland

USACE AID #:
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Calculator Version 2
NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and pholographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and cirde the location of lhe stream reach under evaluation. If multiple s4ream reaches will be evaluated on ihe same property,
identify and number alI reaches on the attached map, and inGude a separate (orm for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for
detailed descriptions and explanalions of requested information. Record in the'Notes/Sketch' section if suppiementary measurements were
performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of addifional measuremenls lhat may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): 6315 replacement 2. Dale ot evalualion: 9-2-2016
3. ApplicanUowner name: NCDOT Division 14 4. Assessor name%rganization: Dave McHenry
5. Counry: Haywood 6. Nearest named waler body
7. River basin: Pigeon (French Broad) on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Stevens Creek
8. Site coordinales (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessmenl reach): 35.653223, -83.033064
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaNated (feel): 100
11. Channel deplh from bed (in rifFle, if present) io lop of bank (feet): 3 ❑Unable to assess channel depi
12. Channel width at top of bank (Teet): 12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? �Yes ❑No
14. Fealu�e type: �Perennial Flow �IntermitteM flow ❑Tidal Marsh SUeam
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: � Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (I) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Eslimated geomorphic �AL V �
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flattervalley slope)
�B`1�
(less sinuous slream, steeper valley slope)
17. Walershed size: (skip ❑Size 1(< 0.1 mi�) ❑Size 2(0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) �Size 3(0.5 lo < 5 mi�) ❑Size 4(>_ 5 mi2)
farTidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes �No If Yes, check all lhat apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑�
❑Essentiai Fish Habilat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality WalerslOulstanding Resource Waters
❑Publiciy owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effeci ❑Nutrient Sensilive Waters
❑Anadromous fish �303(d) List ❑CAMAArea of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal andlor slate listed prolected species within lhe assessment area.
List species:
❑Designaled Crilical Habitat (list species)
measurements included in °Notes/Sketch' section or attached?
1. Channel Water—assessment reach metric (sklp for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
�A Water lhroughout assessment reach.
❑8 No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No waler in assessmenl reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A Ai least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffie-pool sequence is severely aftected by a flow restriclion or fill to the
point of obstructing 8ow or a channei choked with aquatic macrophyles or ponded water or impoundment on Ilood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways thal constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
�B NotA
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach melric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattem (examples: straightening, modiftcalion above or below cuWert).
�B NotA
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel proflle has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
�B NotA
6. Signs of Active Instabllity — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past evenls from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability inciude
aclive bank failure, active chan�el down-cutling (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
�A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25°/a of channel unstable
�C > 25%of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB R8
❑A �A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑8 ❑B Moderate evidence of condilions (exampies: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradalion, dredging) that adversety affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows lhrough streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with 9oodplain constriction, minor ditching (including mosquito ditching])
�C ❑C Eutensive evidence of conditions ihat adversely affect reference interaction (Iiltie to no FloodplaiMntedidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channei constriction, bulkheads, relaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through slreamside area] or too much Floodpiainfintertidai zone access [exampies:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made fealure on an interslream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertfdal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or inteRidal zone (milky white, blue, unnalural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
�B Excessive sedimenlation (burying o( stream features or intedidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence oi pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natuwl sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicaling degraded water quality in ihe assessment reach. Cite source in'Noles/Sketch'
seclion.
❑F Livestock wilh access to sfream or intedidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in slteam or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetalion in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destrucfion, elc)
❑I Olher. (explain in'Notes/Skelch' seclion)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Wealher—watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 slreams, Dt drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 slreams, D2 droughl or higher is considered a
drought.
�A Drought condilions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch wilhin ihe last 48 hours
❑B Orought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
�Yes �No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess7 If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a �Yes ❑No Degraded in-sUeam habitat over majority oi lhe assessment reach (examples of stressors inciude excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metrlc 72)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5°!o coverage ot assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plaln streams)
�A Mulliple aqualic macrophytes and aquatic mosses W,� ❑F 5% oysters or olher natural hard botloms
(include IiverwoAs, lichens, and aigal mais) F� ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple stidcs andlor leaf packs andlor emergent o� ❑H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetaiion � N ❑I Sand botlom
�C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r� ❑J 5% vertical bank along lhe marsh
�D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats andlor roots �� ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeler
❑E LiUle or no habitat
*'•'"*"*••*'•"""""""""="•REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS""*""""""*'*"""""'
11. Bedform and Substrate — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain slreams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes �No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaivated. Check the appropriate box(es).
�A RifOe-run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Mefric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In ri�le sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of ihe assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal PIaIn streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Presenl (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = presenl bul < 10%, Common (C) _> 10-40%, Abundant (A) _> 40-70%, Predominanl (P) _> 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessmenl reach.
NP R C A P
� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ eedrocklsaprolite
❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ Bouider (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ SilUday (< 0.062 mm)
� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DetriWs
� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, elc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tfdal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. �Yes ❑No Was an in-stream aquatic li% assessmenf performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of lhe tollowing reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water �Other:
12b. �Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, poois, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over coiumns refer to'individuals' for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa° for Size 3 and 4 slreams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ �Aquatic repliles
❑ �Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ �Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/cra�sh/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damseifly and dragonfiy larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ �Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloplera (alderfly, fishFly, dobsonily larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquilo fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Olher fish
❑ �Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ pSnails
❑ ❑StoneFly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
� ❑Wormsfleeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamslde area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Slreams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland
runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Liltle or no alteralion to water slorage capacily over a majoriry of the slreamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteralion to wafer storege capacity over a majority of lhe streamside area
�C �C Severe alteration to water storage capacily over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil
compaclion, livestock dislurbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside a�ea metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the LeTt Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 6 inches deep
❑8 ❑B Majority oi streamside area wilh depressions able to pond water 3 l0 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area wilh depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
16. Welland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wellands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetled perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the slreamside area?
�N �N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach melric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all conlributors within lhe assessment reach or within view of and dralning to the assessment reach.
�A Streams and/or springs Qurisdiclional discharges)
�B Ponds (include wel detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing Oow during low-0ow periods within lhe assessmeni area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None af the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of subslantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing (low during low-tlow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>— 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that ihe sireamside area has been modified resulfing in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
�F None of the above
16. Shadtng — assessment reach melric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consideraspect. Consider'leaf-on°condilion.
❑A Stream shading is appwpriate for stream category (may indude gaps associaled with natural processes)
�B Degraded (example: scattered Uees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

79. Buffer Width — streamslde area metAc (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for lett bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first 6reak.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A �A ❑A ? 100 feet wide or extends to lhe edge of lhe watershed
❑B ❑8 ❑B ❑8 From 50 lo < 100 feet wide
�C �C ❑C �C From 30 lo < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to <30 feetwide
�E ❑E �E ❑E < 10 feetwide or no lrees
20. Buffer Slructure — slreamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right 6ank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A �A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non-mature woody vegetalion or modified vegetaiion sUucture
�C ❑C Herbaceous vegetalion wilh or wilhout a sUip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Slressors —streamside area metric (skip tor Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicale if lisled stressor abuts stream (A6uls), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is belween 30 to 50 teet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑8 ❑B �B Maintained lurf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C �C �C Paslure (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D PasWre (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A �A Medium to high stem density
❑8 ❑B Lowslemdensily
�C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Contlnuity of Vegetated Buffer—streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas ladcing vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
�A �A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The tolal length of buffer breaks is belween 25 and 50 percent.
�C ❑C The tolal length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area melric (skip for Tidal Marsh 5treams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes firsq as it contributes to
assessment reach habilal.
LB RB
�A �A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and lheir proportions. Lower slrata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop aker Gear-cutting or clearing or
communities wilh non-native invasive species present, but nol dominant, over a large portion of the expected slrata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
�C �C Vegetafion is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proporiions. Malure canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large poAion of expected strata or wmmunilies composed of planted
stands of non-characferistic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegelation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes �No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of ihe tollowing reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measuremenl (unils of microsiemens per cenlimeterj.
❑A <46 ❑B 46to<67 ❑C 67to<79 ❑D 79to<230 ❑E >_230
Notes/Skelch: � l � �f i ✓Li„f [�� . y
!
/�
I �-_. �' ., � � � �
�—.
�'�__�`~\ /�� ,`ut ifiCJ°"'S c � �
� C�
� � /yf'cJaS

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 2
Stream Site Name B315 replacement Date of Assessmenl 9-2-2016
Stream Category Mb3 Assessor Name/Organization Dave McHenry
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence o( regulatory considera�ions (Y/N)
Additional stream informalion/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
(2) BaseFlow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) S�reamside Area A�tenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stabiliry
(4) Channel Stabiliry
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) S�ream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaclion
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh SVeam Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) BaseOow
(2) Streamside Area Vegeta�ion
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2)Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Fillration
(1) Habitai
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) BaseOow
(3) Substrate
(3) Slream Stability
(3) In-siream Habilaf
(2) Stream-side Habital
(3) Stream-side Habilat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-siream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriclion
(3) Tidal Marsh Siream Siability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Slream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-sUeam Habitat
(2) Inleriidal Zone
Overall
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
USACEI NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM

13-OS-0046
oa��� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED TORM ��p
,�:- � R,� ��` � �
This fonn only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for tlus projecG It is not p'�;� � f►':p
��Q,o�:� valid for Hisloric Architecture and I.andscapes. You nmst coiusult separalely with the ��
'�, �;�� Hisloric Architecture and Landscapes Group. �a�Q
PROJECTINFORMATION
ProjectNo: 430315 County: Haywood
WBSNo: 17BP.14.R.96 Docmnenl: MCS
I:A. Na: n/s Funding: � State ❑ Federal
Federnl Perniit Reqnirerl7 � Yes ❑ No Pernrit Type: NWP3, NWP14, TVA
Project Description: This project proposes fo rep/nce Brir/ge No, 315, �vhfcl� cnrries SR1346 (Whfte
Onk Rd) over Stevens Creek in HnyivonAComity, Nor1H Cnrolinn. Accordi�ig to !lre environmeutn(
iuput reqrresf, Ihe uirderinking iuvolves fde ia p/nce rep/nce�nenl of the stn�clare nlong !!�e �risling
nlign�uent, llrereby utininiiZ�ngpotenlial surface anr/subsurfnce rlislurbn�ices nllhis locntton. A�i aff-
slte detour route is nnHclpated� Tke nrclineologlenl Aren nfPotentFn! EJfects (APE) fs cenlerer! upon
Bridge 315 n�id n�ensures 600f1 in lengOt (300fljroin ead� brldge e�rd-poiut) n�id ISOft in ivtdl/i (75ft
froni each slde of Uie SR1346 ceirter-H��e).
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief Aescriptron of review activllles, resul(s of revleiv, mul ca�cluslo�is:
The projec[ area Is located in the north-central portion of the county, dlrec[ly west of I-40 and south of Waterville
Lake. Steve�s Creek, included within the French Broad River Drainage easin, Is a second order stream flowing south
to north through the project area. It empties fnto Waterville Lake a couple of mlles to the north o( eridge 315. A
strongly sloping topogrephy characterizes the maJority of the APE and surrounding area.
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Tuesday, Augus[ 20,
2013. No previously documented archaeological sites are located within the proJects APE or adjacent to the study
area. Five archaeological surveys have been conducted in this general vicfnity whlch resulted in the recordation of
numerous prehi5toric archaeological resources (Stephenson 1985, Snedeker 1986, 8rown & Rogers 1990, Noel &
Snedeker 1993, Espenshade & Garrow 1998). These si[es are almost exclusively relegated to upland contexts such
as hilltops, ridges, and knolls. In some cases, benches and ridge-toes were also utilized, but to a far lesser degree.
Severe sail de0ation was noted at the maJority of the upland sites. As a result, few were deemed signiFlcant, and
therefore did not necessita[e avoidance or Inclusfon on the Natlonal Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The
relatively high upland site densitles in this section of Haywood County are Iikely a consequence of the severe
terraln, lack of habftable floodplains, and resource orientations. Based on thls informatian, the constricted Stevens
Creek stream valley would Ilkewise harbor prehistoric sltes on well-drafned, upland landforms. Although a level,
upland cove/fan Is situated to the east of the bridge location, no landforms suitable for occupation are contained
wfthin [he currently deflned APE. Therefore, the potential of documenting Intact archaeological sites or even
isolated artifact finds in ihe Bridge 315 APE is considered very low.
An inspection of National Register of Hisroric Places (NRHP), Sta[e Study Listed (SL), Locally Designated (LD),
Determined Eligible (DE�, and Surveyed Site (SS) propertles employing resources avallable on the NCSHPO websi[e
concluded that none of the above designated property types were located within or adJacent to the project area.
Hlstoric maps of Haywood County were also apprafsed for evldence of former struc[ure locatians, land use patterns,
of-other-contirmation-offiistorisoccupation at thls locale. In general, this work established-that no�xisting-NRHP— —
Iisted properties, archaeological sites, or cemeteries will be Impacted by the proposed canstruction project.
"No ARCNAEOLOGYSURVEYREQWRED"fonnfarABnor IMnrporMllon ProJtctr m Qvnl�ed fn Ipt I007 ProgmmnmRc Agarmrnt.
I o(2

Further, topographic, geologic, environmental, and NRCS soll survey maps (WoD, SoF) were referenced to evaluate
ecological, geomorphological, hydrological, and other elements that may have resulted in past occupation at this
location. Construction deslgn da[a was examined far determination of the potential Impacts to the ground
surfaces and aerial photographs (NCDOT Spatial Data Viewer) and the Google Street View map application (when
amenable) were examined/utillzed for additional assessment of hydrological, agricultural, modern earth-moving,
and other erosive disturbances that may typify the APE.
Brief I'sxpinnaltou of �vhy !he nvni/nble injori»AtJon provtdes n reliab/e bnsls for reasa�nbly predictiiig
�hnt there are no unidentJfrer! hisforic properties i�� !he APE:
The project APE contains no NRHP Ilsted historic proper[les, prevfously documented archaeological si[es, or
cemeteries. Predicated on soil and topographic data, together with aerial Imagery and past survey data, the eridge
No. 315 APE contalns Ilttle potentlal for the documentation of compelling NRHP ellgible archaeological resources.
The proJect ground surFaces that constitute the APE, and those lands adJacent, are characterized by stony, sloping
ground surFaces devoid of habitable, well-drained landforms.
Considering the bridge replacement impacts are dlminutive in scope, proposing no alteration of undisturbed, level
ground areas, meaningful archaeological sites/deposits wlll not be affected by the project. No further
archaeological input or work will be necessary for this s[ate-(unded NCDO7 bridge replacement project.
Stephenson, Y.
1985 Archaeoloplral Survey oJProposed Roods, French Braod FangerDlsdlct Clsgoh Natlonal Forest Mad&on &
Haywood CounHes, North Corallno.
Snedeker, R.I.
1986 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Wllklns Creek Tlm6er Sale, Compartmenf 64, Frenrh Broad Fanger
D(sh(ct Plsgah Notlonal farest, Haywaod County, North Carolina.
6rown, J,L. & A.F. Rogen
1990 Archaeologlcal5urvey of the Piaposed Naywaod County landJlll.
Noel, F.O. & R.I. Snedeker
1993 HeiltageResourcesSurveyfortheYiopasedWllkfnsCreekllTlmberSale,Compartment69,FrenrhBroodRlanger
Dlstrlct PlsgahNaflonalFoiest HaywoodCaunty,NorthCa�olfno.
Espenshade C.T. & P.N. Gonow
1998 PhaselCultumlResourcesSurveyoJthePioposedHaywoadCountyLandJillExpanslonSfte,Haywaad[ounty,North
[arollna.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See atlached: � Map(s) � Previous Survey Info � Pl�otos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
PINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHACOLOGY SURYEY REOUIRED
"No ARCNAEOLOGYSOFYF.YREQU/RED"jo�n�%rAliiar Tmiuywlalian NoJectr w QiminrAG�lhe7007!'rog.mm�alicAgrern¢m.
2of2

430315

0
0
0
a
N
W
J
Q
U
N

WoD—Whiteoak cobbly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony
Map Unit Setting
• Elevotion: 2,000 to 3,500 feet
• Mean annual piecipitation: 40 to 60 inches
• Mean annual ai� [emperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
• Frost-Jree period: 300 to 150 days
Map Un(t Composition
• Whiteoak, stony, and similarsoils: 85 percent
Description of W hlteoak, Stony
Setting
• LondJoinr. Fans on mountain slopes, drainageways on mountain slopes, coves on mountain slopes
• land/orm position (two-dlmenslonaQ: Footslope, toeslope
• Land/oim position (three-dimensionalJ: Lower third of mountainflank, base slope
• Down-slope shape: Concave
• Across-s/ope shape: Concave
• Porent mateiiol: Colluvium derived from arkose and/or graywacke and/or metaconglomerete and/or metaquartzite
Properties and qualitles
• Slope: 15 to 30 percent
� SurJace area mvered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent
• Dep[h fo iestiidiveJeature: More than SO inches
• D�ainoge closs: Well drained
• Copatity o/ the most limiting layer to Vansmit wa[ei (KsotJ: Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
• Depth fo wa[er table: More than 801nches
• HequencyoJ/looding: None
• F�equenryoJponding: None
• Availo6le wotercopacity: Moderate (about 8.1 Inches)

Interpretive groups
• Farmland dass!/ica[lon: Farmland of local Importance
• Landrnpablliry(non6dgafedJ:4e
• HydrologlcSollGioup:e
Typlcal prolile
• 0 to 9leches: Cobbly loam
• 9 [0 23 fnches: Loam �
• 23to34lnches:Channeryloam
• 34 to 80lncbes: Very (laggy loam
SoF—Soco-Stecoah complex, 50 to 95 parcent slopes
Map Unit Setting
• Elevaflon: 1,390 to 4,560 feet
• Mean onnual preclplfaf(on: 54 to 66 fnches
• Mean onnaol atr temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
• Fros[ Jree pedod: 100 to 176 days
Map Unit Campo�ition
• Soco, stony, and slmila�solls: 45 percent
• Sterooh, sfony, and simllarsolls: 35 percent
• Minormmponenfs:20percent
Descrtptlon of Sow, Stony
Setting
• Landfoim: Mountain slopes
• LandJorm poslNon (two-dimensional): eackslope
• Landform posftlon (three-dlmensional): Moun[alnflank, slde slope
• Down-slopeshope: Convex
. Across-slopeshape: Linear
• Parenl materfal: Residuum weathered from meWconglomerote and/or meta graywacke and/or meta sands[one that
Is affected by soil creep In the upper solum
Properties and quallties
• Slope: 50 to 95 percent
• Su¢ace area covered wlth cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent
• Depth to reshic[iveJeoture: 20 to 40 inches to paralithk bedrock
• Dralnage class: Well drained
• Capacityofthemostlimttfngfayertotransmttwater(Ksa[J:Moderatelyhigh(0.20to0.571n/hr)
• Depth to water table: More than SO inches
• F�equenryofJlooding: None
• FrequencyoJponding: None
• Avolla6le watercapacity: Low (about 5.1 Inches)
Interpretive groups
• Fa�mland classf/Ication: Not prime farmland
• Landcapabllity(nonlnlgaledf:7e
• HydrologltSollGroup:8
Typlcal pro(ile
• Oto5lnches:Channeryflnesandyloam
• 5[0 241nches: Fine sandy loam
• 24to35lnches:Channery0nesandyloam
• 35 to 801nches: Weathered bedrock
Descriptlon of Stecoah, Stony
Setting
• LandJorm:Mountalnslopes
r—lnndJorm-poslt(oir(hvo�dimens7onaq: -Backslope
• Land/orm posltlon (three-dlmenslonalJ: Mountainflank, side slope
• Downslopeshape:Convex

• Aaossslopeshape:Linear
• Parentmaterlol: Residuum weathered (rom metaconglomerate andJor meta graywacke and/ar meta sandstone that
Is affected by soil creep in the upper solum
Propertles and qualltles
• Slope: 50 to 95 percent
• Sur/ace area rovered wlth cab6les, stones or 6oulders: 0.1 percent
• Depth to restrlttive feoture: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock
• D�olnagecfass: Welldrained
• Capacltyofthemos[Ilmltinglaye�rohansmftwater�KsatJ:Moderatelyhlgh(0.20to0.571n/hr)
• Dept6 to watei ta61e: More than SO lnches
• FrequentyoJflooding:None
• FrequencyoJponding: None
• Avalla6le water capaclfy: Moderete (about 6.1 inches�
Interpretive groups
• Farmland clatslJlcatlon: Not prime tarmland
• Landcapa6illty(nonfrilgated/:7e
• FfydrologlcSoll Group: A
Typical protile
• Ofo5/nches:Channeryloam
• 5 to 221nches: Channery loam
• 22 ta 451nches: Channery loam
• 45to80lnches:Weatheredbedrock
Minor Components
lunaluske
• PercenfoJmapunll:6percent
• Landform: Mountaln slopes
• Land/orm posltion (two-dfinensfanalf: Backslope
• Landform position (fh�ee-dlmensionalJ: Mountain(lank
• Downalopeshape: Convex
• Across-sfapeshape:Linear
Cheoah
• Percent of map unit: 4 percent
• Land/orm:Mountalnslopes
• Land/orm pasltlon (two-dfinenslonalJ: Backslope
• Land/orm position (three-dlmensfonalf: Mountalnflank, side slope
• Down-slopeshape: Convex
• Anoss-sfope shope: Convex, Iinear
Santeetlah
• Percento/mopunft:3percen[
• Landfo�m: Drainageways
• Land/orm posltion (fwo-dimenslonolf: Toeslope
• Landfarm posltlon (three-dlmensionolJ: Mountalnbase, base slope
• Down-slopeshape:Linear
• Acrass-slopesbape: Concave
Ditney, very stony
• Yercent oJmop uNh 2 percent
• Land/orm: Mountain slopes
• LandJa�m posftlon (two-dlmenslonalJ: eackslope
• LandJorm posldon (three-dimenslonalJ: Mountaintlank, side slope
• Down-sfopeshape:Convex
• Anoss-slopeshape:Linear
Splvey, very bouldery
• Percent oJmop unit: 2 percent
l

• Land/orm:Oroinageways
• Land/o�m positlon (two-dimenslonalJ: Toeslope
• LandJorm poslNon (three•dimenslonol): Mountainbase, base slope
• Downalopeshape:Llnear
• Across-slopeshape:Concave
leHrey, very rocky
• Percent ofmap unlh 2 percent
• LandJoim: Mountaln slapes
• LandJorm posltion (two-dlmenslonalJ: Backslope
• LandJoim poslHon (three-dlmensionalJ: Mountaln(lank, side slope
• Down-slopeshape: Convex
• Aciau-s/opeshape:Unear
Unicoi, very stony
• Pe¢ent o/map unit: l percent
• Landform: Moun[ain slopes
• Landform pasifton (two�dimenslonalJ: Backslope
• LandJorm positlon (three-dlmenslonalJ: Mountainflank, side slope
• Uownslopeshape:Convex
• Acrossalopeshope:Llnear
Rock outcrop
• Percent o/mop unff: 0 percent

-�`, I � . i� I� ,r' 1j � ,/ �'; ,, ��, ��`, . •+.�
�,�'' � I l� � I: �� n :'',.' I' � � j , . r . �J�1 ' ' 1�,', �''�
�' 1 - j! � < � J j . •* i '.. � ��
�" - I i i! � � I , � J\ r ._./ .'� I j�r� �'
i i � �� ] � � � +
+� . '� ., `!�f. � � � �� �'I
i� • �' � � ' f '1 . ( �� . i . . . . i! f .�� 1 .
, .
i i r � ' � . " ��.. r '� .- 1 t F
; , . � ,. . � I . ' . i� � ' . . -� . � �_t . .
�' � +. i i . i . �7T -� f . � .._ _ ,`L.�'`` , .
� il 1 �.• �'�. 4'��,.� , �`'�� � � �• . ' . ' .. . ' ' ,K,`
I� + r .. •.� � 'l'' I.'I, .. I� �� '' �� � �I 1 ' y Tf1��, Ihr.
� . . , . _ . . 4J + _yfta/ .
�'- . - i I j �I � ' . ; �(�, � . .. � � i q a�'� �'
'r,..--� - � �. � 1: .� ,�♦ . , � � � .-.. ..- �) .
� � ���1 � ' � � '' 1 � n � �'Y � � � _ ll ' � ,`'j
r�� �� � .,��. ��. ._ � •�M. . ,�,,'� ,= y� �•� , .
!' � y'I � ; � , rQ� r � I �
, ,
� : ' , � !v- ,� �' i
�, r.ee ' �. - � t � .'
��� ��P�� � .1� � � � �C'rY�, ��� ':'I' � �� �I,', ' �
r� ' � � �� � � �
. r , , . . �a � , I,
`I . �r�4,' . . ,,. 1.r y I � �� � � y y � ^ � �,
�� � i' � ��'��
I � � . '�i � � �� . " � ' � I .. � . .
� �I ; ti , �.,
' � - � ' �i �
t . � � 5 � ••,•
� . .. �), V �1 . J''+ ''I . ' i
' . I' ,L� �'� ) /
, . � 1 �� ' I IIi . � - � . 1 . .
� , � � _ , � 1 �.
� � ,'� ''. � i �, � �� � i.i�l; � . � � . ' . ..� ♦':
i : � . . 1 1 , �.,.+� . �` - 'i �.
Ji ; �rA"-...�,�11 i , I ' , ���i ) � j f I ' � . ' •�I I i ' .. ._... -, ,.�•� � i .
t � �. � . r i� ; � � t ' . .I ' , ( dr '/ L .
' � 1 /:- .r� � . . 1/ /r � 1� � I ., ' \.� . . � i . �
. \ . f �� akti Ln �I / i • : � � I . - + . ; �
� I � , `i , � . ' � 1 , F I,I .r,,.�- I ��, ,,,
' ,' + ' ;' + ,' t , I, �,
/ �' r ''S � � � � �. � !
� , � � , � f r '+ �� ii; .
,
� i � I S!�It�l+>>. ��. � `` � Cove Creek Gap G � � � � I
� �
,J1 ' : '.' ' . � .. I � ''�� �' �'.t
. � , 1�'.. � ( „�' � . . . . . �`'1 ' I �� � i
I f i , -_.. .. . �' , I � .i . ` � ' � 4 , � ~ �t'i .
', _.� . . � . �� ! � �' (1 i !f �',il % � �+ �,��
. , � ,' I
;
: .
� `. ' ' ; �. _ ' � '�,11��- ; , � . �� ; ; r .
� , �,� . i ; � � ',, .�'aw � r
, � / � � � ��g� �% � I � � ,� . � � . �i;,,
� � . ) �-� , r.t'` � , ` �, t
� �� f i� � }' �{v , 1 �` ;.;�
� � � ,' ' ' � � �
t ;` � ,-•r � , ,� � � �
� ` � I , ` ` �, 1 � .�'�4 .
1��� I' I ����� � rr �'� r' i !fi' ��\ �\�
.N � ' F 1 � �
! i� , ' ie.yr'� � ,� . 1 � �}' +� ... _..:',�
. ` ' � � �i{.�� ,, )}' , �..,m•
4 II � fe � � � � � � � �' � � � .+l..J \,��'�
... � A �A�' k '� � � . �j, � ' � - ��` . , . � . .
. (�� 7� \
/ ,y` . ,
-_. . .S�_ l Y7^i ' �� I � ,'�1„ , i i . j ` . �� , . a
y �
, . 'l . i . i � , .
i I' � �
.—�_ ._ . F'�, . . -Z" ,�� ... . . . .. . ..
.r � V. i '1` y"`� � r i � , ' �f .
�s�; lij� "'. ' � . � � ' � .. i j . � .� �
1� j! .�' � f ...� � ..' . .i .� �� ' .
I '
�` �'� 1 �, � , � � � �
�� r � �� _ , � ,
!�� � ' ��' Ij . �i � ? j' ��'t. � � . . i' ' y�. 7

� �
t q
� 5 �
s i �
�, � � y
i� � .. n. . aa �� a :�
'r'i 4: . .�N O�i: ,
" /e4 �,'j ��U:
£fi � . � �
� rc k
� � � a
�4. � {` � �. .�I ..
� ' �.,, 5 � K
�� � � v
� ..>��v �:.,, ` � .. _
., � y
, A ,� � � ,�ii-: .,
� g � F,
�i J ,�./ PINi,�
M l � Y .i .�i��
� K�
�.y . . _ .T . . .
i
�£ /!I
, �;, i (
p 1' �
W �
N � 8
'�< �
' � t':
> _
�v.lf i rc ����' � .
,' 4�0 ._t"' .
(` ``cf . p� 4 J \„�
.`D�� `\`�� `Sant� l�
v
�:�
m
I�11
piQ
�,,;.., ..
:�
r,
:,,
�°...,�
.,,� ,��:,: ��.:
'.��f �� 'ti.7�1../ 1` �
ii : ��i ;�r ��.
;
, � i
., . .. \jr.. .. _ . . '

�y� s.�. . :� iPxa'.• ���'�P ��L�_: �. -.�. ...
� i -�� 1 � - 'l. � �`• �•.
r .��: � . � ♦ ; .PYi' .
1
�� *'. .� , t : , . v .
: ' ����
� ~ � .
Yj-,}� * �R �, , ' .
�
� �'+ i. �t7i . �
_Lh �
;' t ' ''�� � y .� �
r . .
� � �. � �t � ,
i �,? � ; ��, ;� y � ',� .
� ` �"'�",` � � :
��, , : ;
, i� �, , � �S '� - , . ti �' ry j
.
, }ti �•� �;. � ,.'. • ��, �z
,,�� � ,
., :.
� �; �..t, � �`
� �. I �,- �a Y � .. � �+t �
� + � i� � - � . � �
�. '�'��.'f' � L '� �
1 .f i �� ��� �
� �. �.ti .S . �; �S 4
', r . ' .� / T�� A. �,
�', �' a •` �.. Y �Y .. � �. >
S � � '� ��' i
i ' ' � +
i j i , '� �. } . ' �� � ♦ .
�`- , $ ., ' i: • � �;. r«_�'
���� �:� ��u�
� � .
�� ��
E
. Y � E ° �
.'`� „ u
r �
� �, f � '
� �
E �
� '; � ,�. �
<
��� � ; .�
��;
. ,
s M
R" �r }� . y .se��.
Y�
�� ` �s L
• C ' t �o
�1 Fr • �
� � a
.iy i,L�' *�3
N
�,, y p
��s/�wi �� .:
� �
' � �:
. r ; _;'�
.
4�Ny.�
oa
e ^b
� �
/ 11 il
��1 ' Y.,.. r N�I � e�
r � � ��
, i'�� -.ir��- .. . �>`' . f, . , � �� �
h � �. .Y�• � . , ts ��
"" � 1 ,.� ��� jf .� � .� :3 '. �� '�f2?.�
;► . � . ,' ;S � ;a / o;
I s `. ( � � 7 � `.:i'� ��{�A . l /1 ` : :
,;r l�y. r ,,, t +.�sw J � �
� r r �f�{�,,'� ���. �, �' � � . � �#+x ' � �' � � 1 raj
IT . � T R � �-T
. � , ;� : � �. ; �a'�'� � • � ?
�
.� � t I ; �.' �� ! . ':
t 4 '� 7+ 4• a`" I' ^-��i ' v'
� � 4 t ifr � 9 i
��� 't�� ��', � �� . � , �.. ' }'. .
l .� •�
-�• - �� � it • it �� }'�i�� , . (� � !f .
���, � �,�/ � ������ ' a f 'Rt��' • �f�,;� � . - ,
_��� • � C �� IP �� �"" � . .
I, ��l��`. f, . t{ �;P } . .1.
� � � � '' '' � '� �i • , � �
j `�? .. 'aE �' t .�) � b �'�.�.
. � tfi�''�". � "� } }..� . , ,., _ . ��:�

REQUEST FOR CULTURAL
RESOURCES REVIEW FORM
ProJecf Tmtkln8 No. (hNe�md UseJ
/.3�08 -Da ¢lp
MEMORANDUM TO: Drew Joyner, Human Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 AUG 1 4 2013
ATTENTION: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor E'f�1TER .F.D
Mery Pope Fury Historic Arohitectare Supe ' n
FROM: Pamela R. Williams �'�
Priority Projects Engineer AUG 0 g 2019
SUBJEC'I': Request for Cultural Resources Review
DATE: August 9, 2013 ���_�___��;�„�_.����
PROJECT INFORMATION
Profecl No: Str. # 430315
WBS No: 17BP.14.R.96
County:
Documenl:
,:_1. �11
LIBR data Sheet (PCE) or
Minimum Criteria checklist
F.A. No: N/A F:mding: � State ❑ Pederal
USGS Quad.• Cove Creek Gap / /
Pi•ojecl Description: REP/..fcEBxmGENo. 430315 OVCR STEVBNSCREEK Olv SR1346��ik �Rk �d�
Replace structure at existing location. Area of potential effects is 75' either side from the centerlme of /
the roadway/bridge and 300' from either end of the beidge.
Purpase & Need: Bridge is in poor condition and selected to be replaced under the State Funded Bridge
Replacement Program-Design-Build Year 3 Express Design-Build.
SCH�DULING AND CONTACT INFORMATION
Date Needed: September 9, 2013
Engi�:eer: Pam Williams Tel [phone] E�nnil [e-mail]
DESIGN INFORMATION
Projec! Lengih: Approximately 500 Feet
60 feet or from ditch line to Yes but will
Exisr. R/W.• ditch line maintained P�'oposerllUW.• Vary
ExisG Speed Li�nit: N/A P�•oposed Speed Limi1: N/A
Exist X-Seclion: One lane in each direction
Detour Rou1e: Off-Site
Slructm�e Type: Bridge Year Builr: 1964

ProjerlTm�krngNa. (lxfnxn! Uu�
13-08-0046
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURG AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Iandscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
1� tZ1711 DCN 1� 1� f��77�Ti /V Y C�7�`i
Profecf No: Str. 430315 Cour:[y: Haywood
WBS No.: 17BP.14.R.96 Dncumen! PCE or MCC
T e:
Ferl. AiANo: N/A Fuirdfng: � State Federal
Federnl Yes ❑ No Pernrit NWP 3, NWP 14 & TVA
Permi! s: T e s:
Proiect Descrinlio�e:
Replace Bridge No. 315 over Stevens Creek on SR 1346 (White Oak Road).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTUR� AND LANDSCAPE5
Descriplion ofreview nclivities. resrrlls. nnd coirclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, ond indexes was
undertaken on August 21, 2013. Based on this review, there are no exis[ing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in tl�e Area of Potential Effects, which is 7S from the centerline each way and 300' from each
end of the bridge. There is one property within the APE, 845 Stevens Creek Road. The property was
built in 1997 and is not eligible for National Register listing. Bridge No. 315 is not eligible for the
National Register. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no
survey is 'required. If design plans cl�ange, additional review wil( be required.
WGv ll+e nvn!/nb/e i�iforntnllon provides n re/Inb/e bnsis for rensoitab/v ure�/tcfine that 1llere
nre no niiidentired sie�rificnnt /risforic nrchitectrernl or Inn�/scnne resot�rces i�i the nrofect
aren:
HPO quad maps and GIS infonnation recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS propeRies for the Haywoad County
survey, Haywood County GIS/fax infonnation, and Google Maps are considered valid for the pttrposes of
detennining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There are no National Register listed or eligible
oronerties within the APE and no survev is reauired.
�Map(s)
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
QPrevious Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architeclure and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
❑Design Plans
Hls/otic Archbrnnn mW LmrcGrnprs NO SURYtiY RtiQWRIdD/wm/ar AO�ror 7Ymuportmla� YroJede ns Qvdifird huhe 1007 Progmmmale Agmnmu.
Page 1 of 3

; : � ,,� , . . .
.
,
' � : � �� � ��' � � <���- , , .
'`�.�t` f _ �, _
:F • -:� y: ' _ ;,
' £ ... ii�, 1i' , .<
, ij y. , p:"' , , ,.
�9 .K\�.�5c • . 3 .�+'
� �..� J a� t II yti � / -� P` - .. . . ' . y� � O
, .%-�',r„ `� ' g .
Y�'^ ' �� . . y�:,� �
�..� �,� �. � .. �..�5, '; . . %�y�`� � � . ~ a �
K. _ 1'�f
h. � ~* . � . �� . � l. . � o�, y'y
.,� . `� �r � � �
�y�- a �,�r. ���}� vti.� . .♦ .
. `�'�j � "%"" � '��E�f � y �;�-_�v. „�.W`� 4"aY��rti�i�.`,('��'fi
• rv� .R'� • i i � 4 :�y�,
M � �. S � � �. a`: �A. N
t :: '��' ♦ � . , yt �•4 ..We ��
.�� ,� , � }� ' ~ �� sy`�y S�
•�i °'�_j . � t ` t� � t � , - � � '�'v . ..3,
� s �:
' �:a, _ '� -.. ..,"� .,'.C�-. . d'�,, ,.�,
� � � . , . � ' . . � ' . . 5'•
_ i
��; ��� . , .. '.:. , .. . .,
t
�9. �'.�'N�y4'.: ~,�� i�� � te 4 �.�it'{�� "'�.
�"� p r�a - �a� �:, �.�r - .
'i ,� r n- . "i � .:�Y � � '
�7Jv-, . �ey9E,� 1_y � ,P \,� ... �$v :�� _
'F . �' a- .d�' 1 ' ' '�t� '�i4' • �
:1�;:T�r � ��,. � r s" ry . �j •
Ti ' .� � , �'.'?.� ' M �
��•Z2v �,. .` j :� A. s �.
r V � � tL.�. � . . . t w � _ -� .
.. . . *`, � r�'' `%� ' . � . .., ."� . .

I3ing Maps Birds Eye Vie�v.
Hi�lwic Ardiircrlurt m�d /.mutrmpes h'O SURI'GYREQU/Rh'O fonn/w A7iuu�TrmupormOw� Piojecls m Quah%rrd in IGe 10071'rogrmrmm�ic AXrmmaa
Page 3 of 3