20011275 Ver 1_Complete File_20010823

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
I k1FW*"VAJ
T * •
Now
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 26, 2001
DWQ No. 011275
Orange County
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 55 over the South Fork of the Little River on SR 1540 in Orange County,
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1540(4), State Project No. 8..2501301; TIP B-3219.
South Fork of the Little River [27-2-21-2; WS II HQW NSW]
APPROVAL of Neuse Buffer Rules AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 0.024 acres of protected riparian
buffers (0.004 acres in Zone 1 and 0.02 acres of Zone 2) for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 55 over
the South Fork of the Little River on SR 1540 in Orange County. The project shall be constructed according
to your application dated August 21, 2001and any conditions listed below. This approval shall act as your
Authorization Certificate as required within the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233). In addition, you should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with
your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application dated August 21,
2001. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this authorization and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed below.
_If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization,-you may ask for an-adjudicatory hearing. You - - -- -- - - -- ----
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition,
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This authorization and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Non-Discharge Branch Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper

F Page 2 of 2
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical Alternatives"
determination required in 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8). If you have any questions, please contact John Hennessy
at 919-733-5694.
Sincere)y,
Cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers-Raleigh Field Office
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
CAncdoAT 1P B-3219\wqc\011275 buffer authorization.doc
®l A2?15
sea SfATFo
M n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mrs. Jean Manuele
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
August 21, 2001
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
rr. V Z',731
{ ?.
SUBJECT: The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 55 over South Fork Little River
on SR 1540 in Orange County. Federal Aid Project No.MABRZ-1540(4).
State Project No. 8.2501301. TIP No. B-3219.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we propose to proceed under a
Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Federal Register: March 9, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 47, Pages 12817-12899, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4
and appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed during construction of the project.
The existing bridge will be replaced by a new bridge 165.0 ft in length in approximately
the same location. Project length is approximately 1147.0 ft. Traffic will be detoured offsite
along existing roads during construction.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters. One perennial stream in the Neuse River Basin, South
Fork Little River [DWQ Index No. 27-2-21-2, (8/3/92)] is crossed by SR 1540. This stream
carries a Best Usage Classification of WS-II HQW NSW..
ING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
eCT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
GH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
A pile of logs and other woody debris is located downstream of the bridge. This pile is
causing erosion on the northeast bank of the South Fork Little River. NCDOT plans to remove
this debris during project construction to prevent additional erosion in this area. No impacts to
South Fork Little River will occur as a result of project construction.
The bridge is composed of timber and steel components, with an overlaid asphalt road
surface. The timber and steel components will be removed without dropping into Waters of the
U.S. The asphalt wearing surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping into
Waters of the U.S. During construction, NCDOT Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed. No impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated due to bridge demolition. However, if any fill material falls into the stream it will be
removed as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process.
Jurisdictional Wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands will be not be impacted due to project
construction.
Neuse Riparian Buffers. Impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers associated with this project
total 0.024 ac (0.004 ac Zone 1, 0.02 Zone 2). No new stormwater ditches or sedimentation
control devices are proposed within Neuse Riparian Buffers.
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized via a NWP 23 (Categorical
Exclusion). By copy of this application, we are also requesting a 401 General Water Quality
Certification as well as an Authorization Certificate for Neuse Riparian Buffer impacts from the
NC Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
Willi Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/mcr
f
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mike Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PD & EA
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1.
II.
Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 13
Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project:
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3219
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Orange Nearest Town: Hillsborough
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540(Hunt Rd.) over South Fork Little River
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):N36° 09.459', W79° 00.969'
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
rural highway
7. Property size (acres): approximately 3.0 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): South Fork Little River
9. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: replacement of Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540
crossing South Fork Little River
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: backhoe, crane,
bulldozers, heavy-duty trucks
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: rural, agriculture
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application:
n/a
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 5 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100 year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on map) (acres) (yes/no) (linear feet)
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
* 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: n/a
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)

i

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditch ing/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Page 6 of 13
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site
n/a
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbod
y
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): F-] uplands F-] stream wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Project involves the replacement of a bridge inplace with no impacts to wetlands and no impacts
to surface waters. Traffic will be detoured offsite during project construction
Page 7 of 13
F

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
n/a
Page 8 of 13
1
q
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No R
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No F
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 9 of 13

Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify Neuse )?
Yes ® No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0.004 3 0.0
2 0.02 1.5 0.0
Total 0.024 0.0
Gone t extends out su teet perpenaicuiar rrom near oanK of cnannei; cone / emenus an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
n/a
Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed. in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Impervious area will remain approximately the same as current conditions. The existing bridge is
to be replaced in approximately the same location and elevation. NCDOT BMP's for the
protection of surface waters will be followed throughout project construction.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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
Violations (DWQ Only)
Page 10 of 13
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes n No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
n/a

Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 11 of 13
Caldwell ( ~ ? ? w ?
C ar ??
Z ?
M ?
3.0
3.3 1544
G ?
1548 '
Schley ~ -'~•
h
r. 1508 ?? 1 ?? 1.0

.7
•6
1 3
,, co
LITTLE
RIVER
?•?, b 1579 •7. FAS
1520 a >
?, 21 1579 157 1
b 15` ` o, 1542 9 15
? 1597
,4 1541
1.2 ,9 O
% ?.
n ?TTr
1548
1.6 6 .
1552
1538
3,190

1554
` New Sharon
Ch.
a
I
N
??N0"TMC,9 North Carolina Department of
4
o Transportation
Division of Highways
& Environmental Branch
Plannin
OF g
Orange County
Repla ce Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540
Over South Fork Little River
&3219
Figure One
1540
b 1.5
1539 5
1575
ry0 ? j
2
1538 1573
?S
I
.J
.4
T 1574
1 1548
?n1
V
7
q._
N
M
c??
U U
as
Q N'
O O
0
N V)
LL LL
O v~i
m a?
_ N
N N
m co
z Z
J J
J J
LL 4
<z( I?
J
io
N 0O
Z LL
Q ?
a w
N p-,
Z Z
O lal
U
N
Z o
z
a
U Z
Way
ix z
O ° Q
a
z t0 N
W
n
Z Z8
? Z8

U
Z
O
U

O ! _
/m
-? wfl
I
_ ?\
?
nn
II
?CC

0
` 2 r
?,?Ny 7(1/7 _40
-?c/Ov y1n0 \
S_
C
i

l
N a

o

C

F-
" L-n
N
w
a4i Q i
c? b Of

x
cn
o to 0 + O
U') N0
/ w Q?Z+
W O
>F- Z
I = wWa -

:c F-
U
0V)<
F-
?
U<CD
U Q O
O W w O
Of tN li F-
i
I
I
I ?
Z
X
I w
I O r_ `
LLJ
I F-fl?,a
I ?1
c? I p
2 O
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
Nq TIP Project No. B-3219
State Project No. 8.2501301
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1540(4)
A. Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540 over the
South Fork Little River in Orange County. The new structure will be a
bridge 40 meters (130 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide including two
3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The new bridge will
be at the same location and elevation. Traffic will be detoured on secondary
roads during construction (see Figure 1).
There will be 43 meters (140 feet) of approach work to the north and also to
the south. The pavement width will include two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes
and 0.6-meter (2-foot) grass shoulders. An additional 3 feet of shoulder will
be included where guardrail is required. Based on preliminary-design, the
design speed should be approximately 90 km/h (55 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $447,000 including $425,000 in construction
costs, and $22,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-
2004 TIP is $465,000 including $425,000 in construction costs, and $40,000 in
right of way costs.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 55 has a sufficiency rating of 46.5 out of 100. The bridge is
posted at 15 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers
which is well below standards. For these reasons, Bridge No. 17 needs to be
replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices -
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
2

3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not. inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
3
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be included
and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a pen-nit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23 or General Regional Permit No. 31 will likely be applicable to this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification must be obtained.
Because of the short distance between B-3218 to B-3219 (see Figure 1) and the
overlapping time of construction, consideration should be given to clustering the two
projects.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 425,000
Right of Way $ 22,000
Total $ 447,000
Estimated Traffic: Current - 150 vehicles per day (VPD), Year 2020 - 300 VPD
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 5 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of this document.
4

E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? F-1 X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
F-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x F
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? F1 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F1 X
5
ik.

PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
F-1 X
?x
?x

1-1 X
YES NO
?x
F-1 x
x?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? -
X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? F-1 X
6

(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 17 X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? 7 X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 7 X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? 1-1 X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Not Applicable
7

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No
Project Description :
B-3219
8.2501301
MABRZ-1540(4)
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540 over the
South Fork Little River in Orange County. The new structure will be a
bridge 40 meters (130 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide including two
3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The new bridge will
be at the same location and elevation. Traffic will be detoured on secondary
roads during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
6 .. CAROB
Date Proje Planning Unit Head ?.'•pFESS'•.y"9
70
47 SEAL _
A4". i 4 0 22552 •
Y
Date P oject Planning Engineer = ??F ?•.??
RES 41 OS
•
N
I 5A3
ti
15^.9
t
r'1_ 3
-y
!517
i5?oL4,' --- ?? ??\•a ?? 15.33
-„ r 1'
? ? ct, t?2t S Ca!ctwe;l ? I
15i? h ^ t p 1=?.t
h 1621 h • : t s'3 =--
1542 u t 5? '
Bridge No. 55 -
?- f Schley y, ? C ,? -3?`
n tt
) , 1533 - S
N 15
r ,c-3
g
Icarr 12221
? i ell ? i
I 1a I
r CeCa

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
pf NOR7H Cq?\ North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
q PO:
afi' Planning & Environmental Branch
.?OF TAANSQ
Orange County
Replace Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540
Over South Fork Little River
B-3219
Fir_ure One
e.w SfAT[ u
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
JameslB. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty ay McCain, Secretary
October 10, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 55 on SR 1540 over South Fork
Little River, Orange County, B-3219, ER 97-
7256
Dear Mr. Graf:

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 27, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Bill Goodwin of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on September 20, 1996, to
discuss the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?D'avi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIw/
cc: "H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Orange County Historic Preservation Commission
a
r
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
u u
March 3, 1997
John Williams
Project Planning Engineer, Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Replacement of Bridge No. 55 on SR
1540 over the South Fork of the Little River (TIP No. B-3219). At this time the Planning
Department has no specific comments on this project. However, I would request that
we be provided with a copy of the Categorical Exclusion and the Preliminary Bridge
Design for this project. We also strongly encourage your agency to include guardrails
as a component of the new bridge due to the topography of this river crossing.
As recommended by the letter dated February 19, 1997 from Mr. Vick (and signed by
you) I have sent a copy of the letter to the Orange County Department of Emergency
Management for their review and consideration. If you would like to discuss this matter
further, please call me at [phone], extension 2595.
Sincerely,
Slade S. McCal
Transportation

SrA7r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
4 March 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ATTENTION:
Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Replacement of Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540 over South Fork Little
River, Orange County; TIP No. B-3219; State Project No.
8.2501301, Federal Project No. MABRZ-1540(4).
John Williams, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Unit
This report is to assist in the preparation of a Type II Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
(PCE) for the proposed project. This report contains information regarding water resources,
biotic resources, waters of the United States, permit requirements and federally protected species
within the study area.
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 55 at existing location, with
traffic detoured on existing roads during construction (Figure I ). The existing cross section for
Bridge No. 55 is a 7.3 m (24.1 ft) wide bridge. This structure will be replaced with a bridge 40
m (130 ft) long. Tile existing right-of-way (ROW) for this project is ditchline to ditchline and the
proposed ROW is 24 in (80 ft). Project length is 91 m (300 ft).
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area was
obtained and reviewed. Information sources include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Caldwell), National Wetlands Inventory maps (NWI), NCDOT aerial
photographs of the project area (1:1200), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),
formerly known as Soil Conservation Service, general soil maps (Orange County, 1977), N.C.
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of
Alamance and Orange County (1995), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected
species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique. habitats.

.r
CaldMell I .
Cetl r
y? _'
Cro 5 Sch
Mebane \=
?. ' EN na-..? I +. a a..
+II" orough
3
FORA -E '
o'eo
C Pei ill 3 `?
?-
rb ro: 1 3 ` WOW
-
ana 0ow-
10
1 Luka IS

0,
°?
1 OEM
a
1508 ? 1.0
3 0 7:
6
ti
1 3

s
ib
LITTLE

RIVER
1' A 1579 •7 FAS
3 15A4
3 1520 n'

w .
2 1579 157
1
?. b 15` a 1542 9 15
` 1597 F
.9
FP .4 1541
1.2 •9 0

T
LF
1s48
154
0
'b

Schley
1548
.
.5 1.5
b

h O
' 1539 1575
?
1.? p
1623
f
' Cly 1.6 •6 ? .2
1552 5 1538 1573
Q

1538
f

I « ?
51553
3
S. r
.4
.

? 1574
.
57 •5 t
1548 v

v 1554 1553
New Sharon
K` ?. p5
F
a r Ch. 1002 2.
15
!
r
°l??of NO"T'r C,qo`' North Carolina Department of
Transportation
I.
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
'7ocrn3•?
Orange County
Replace Bridge No. 55 on SR 1540
Over South Fork Little River
B-3219
Figure One

L
r.
A field investigation was conducted on 21 February 1997 by NCDOT biologist Matt
Smith to assess natural resources at the project site. Water resources were identified and
described. Plant communities were surveyed, and wildlife populations were predicted using
general qualitative habitat assessments.
Water Resources
The proj&t study area lies within the Neuse River Drainage Basin. One water body is
crossed by the proposed project, South Fork Little River [DEM Index no. 27-2-21-2, 8/3/92].
South Fork Little River is a fast moving perennial stream with a width of 15 in (50 ft) as it flows
through the study area. Stream banks are only slightly eroded, during the sight visit high water
clarity and low turbidity were observed. Water depth varies from 0.2 to 0.9 m (0.5 to 3 ft). Sand
bars, rock formations, and fallen debris create deep pools and interspersed zones of swift flow
over rocky substrate. Substrate composition is a mixture of sand, gravel, and large rocks.
South Fork Little River has been assigned a Best Usage Classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which denotes
water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The best usage classification for South
Fork Little River is WS-II NSW. WS-II (Water Supplies 1I) refers to those waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds; suitable for all
Class C uses. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. ,The supplementary classification NSW (Nutrient
Sensitive Waters) refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Bentluc Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the DEM, is part
of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected
benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples
are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera (EPT)] and assigned a taxa richness value. Samples are also assigned a
bioclassification that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection.. The '
bioclassification and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are
a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment..BMAN data for South
Fork Little River is currently unavailable.
The South Fork Little River is a N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) Proposed
Critical Habitat (PCH) for aquatic species as it flows through the study area. The species listed for
the Little River and its tributaries upstream of the Little River Reservoir are: yellow lampmussel
(Limipsili.s carioscr), Atlantic pigtoe (P'rtscomaia mcrsoni), and squawfoot (,S1rolMints rmdulalu.v).
Impacts to water resources are anticipated from project construction. Potential sources of
impacts to water resources include: instream construction, grading, vegetation removal,
pavement installation, and construction related vehicular traffic. These activities can result in
increased sediment loads and the runoff of toxic substances such as fuel, oil, and tar into lakes and
3
n
streams. Impacts are best minimized by limiting earth removal activities and implementing
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project, where applicable.
The proposed project is located within a Water supply (WS-11) watershed, which is
by definition a High Quality Water (HQW) zone. Waters classified as HQW's require the
installation and maintenance of HQW Design Standards during the lifetime proposed
project.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial Communities in the study area are described as Disturbed and floodplain
Alluvial Forest. These communities are well-defined and there is little overlap of flora between
the communities. The faunal component of this community is dominated by species found in the
forested community that forage in the disturbed community.
Disturbed Community
This community is composed of the till slopes and approaches for the existing bridge. The
immediate roadsides are maintained on a regular basis and dominated by fescue red
clover (7)-ifoliwn prcrleli.ve), broomstraw sedge (Anch-opogon Orginiccr), and wild onion (AllirIm
cairaclense). dther portions of this community appear to maintained much less frequently and
therefore, have a higher diversity of species. In addition to species found on the roadsides this
portion of the community also supports: golden rod (Soliclago.v1q) ), blackberry (Rubes aigums),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera.japvnic(i), and cat brier (Smilax spp.). Saplings of red cedar
(hinil)erus virvinicrna) and sycamore (Mcinianus vccideniali.v) are also present in this community.
This community provides foraging opportunities for permanent residents of the forested
communities in the project vicinity. Foraging opportunities exist for species which feed on seeds,
insects, and carrion. Larger predators which commonly feed on smaller organisms all also known
to take advantage of the foraging opportunities that exist in this community. Various
grasshoppers (Orthoptera), butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera), and bees (Coleoptera)'feed on
the flora found in this community. Vertebrates such as, white-tailed deer (Odocvilenv
virginiamiv)*, eastern cottontail (Syli,ilagus floridanns), song sparrow (Melivspiza melodia),
northern cardinal ((cu-dinalis cardinalis) and hispid cotton rat (Signnodon hispidnv), will also feed
on the flora in this community. The invertebrates and small vertebrates that forage in this
community serve as a prey base for carnivorous and omnivorous vertebrates. Predators known to
utilize disturbed habitats include: turkey vulture (('aihcrric°s aura)*, red tailed hawk (&uteo
jamaicenvis)*, and black racer (('ohther consiricia).
Floodplain Alluvial Forest
This community is located on the banks of the South Fork Little River and is well-
developed outside of the approaches and existing fill slopes for the bridge. The canopy is
composed of mature: sycamore (Ylunicums vcchlewulis), sweet gum (Liquidamlicu. swraciflua),
4
V%
and swamp red oak (ILMercus shumardii). An understory dominated by ironwood (('ai7)hws
carolinicrna) and dogwood (('oi-mis.Jkiridcr) is well developed on slopes and in the floodplain. A
high level of diversity occurs in the herb layer. Species such as ebony spleenwort (Asl)leninm
plcrtynew-mi), wild onion, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Christmas fern
(Polymichum acrro.wichoidev), trout lily (Ei:y1hroninm americammm), spring-beauty (C'laylonia
cai•oliticuta), liverwort (Hepaficcr anrericana), and cranefly orchid ("l ipnlaria discolor) grow in
and around rock crevasses in the floodplain jutting from the slopes. Open areas in tile floodplam
are more likely to contain Japanese honeysuckle, microstegium (Allicrovegium vin ineum), and
knotweed (Polygomiln.sl).).
Habitats found within this community support a highly diverse association of fauna.
Raptors such as red shouldered hawk (Buleo linealus) and barred owl (, 'illx varia) roost in the
canopy and hunt in the adjacent communities. Northern dusky salamander (Desmogt1a1h11v
fn.vcns), southeastern shrew (Sorex longiro.vn•is)' "wood thrush (Hvlociclila niuslelirna), and
various mice (Peromi,.vcus .tihp.) can been heard searching in the leaf litter for worms and insect
larvae. Avian species such as carolina chickadee (Parris carolinern.vi.v) and white throated sparrow
(7_onofrichia alhicollis) are frequent visitors in the dense understory. Larger vertebrates such as
muskrat (0m4nilra zihelhicus)*, Virginia opossum (l)idelphis ill-giniana), raccoon (Procyon
lonn•)* and many of the species that forage in the disturbed community seek shelter in this and
other forested communities.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing
and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 1
summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated
impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the
study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project length 91 m (300 ft), and the
entire proposed right-of=way width of 24 m (80 ft). However, project construction often does not
require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities. _
Community Impacted Area
lea .(ac)
Disturbed Community 0.06 (0.14)
Fioodpiain Alluvial Forest 0.17 (0.41)
Total impacts: 0.23 (0.5.5)
The projected loss of habitat resulting from project construction will have a minimal
impact on populations of native fauna and flora. Construction will impact the disturbed
community and the fringe of the floodplain alluvial forest community. Plants and animals found in
this community are generally common throughout North Carolina and are well adapted to
persisting in disturbed areas. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should
repopulate areas of suitable habitat following project completion. Narrow zones along the edge
of the forested community may be impacted by project construction, which would reduce the

5
amount of suitable habitat available for interior species and increasing opportunities for edge
species. If forested tracts become too small in area, interior species will not repopulate.
Indirect effects on wildlife populations are anticipated to be minor. While, mortality
among migratory species can be expected from project construction, these effects are anticipated
to be minor, since the existing roadway already serves as an effective barrier against wildlife
migration. In order to minimize impacts to natural communities in the project vicinity it is
recommended that all cleared areas along roadways and embankments be revegetated immediately
following project completion and that impacts to forested communities be avoided whenever
feasible.
Aquatic Communities
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the physical
characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic community composition and structure.
South Fork Little River provides a high diversity of habitats as it flows through the study
area. Habitats include: rocky runs, sand bars, gravel pools, and fallen debris piles. Northern
water snake (Neroclia sil)etl ul) and yellowbelly slider (ClennnVs scril)lcl) often sun themselves on
large rocks and fallen debris in the stream course. Calm eddies and shallow riffle zones offer ideal
habitat for aquatic salamanders such as northern dusky salamander and three-lined salamander
(Ewycea gultolineala). A diverse ensemble of piscine species is likely to occur in this stream
common species include: American eel (Anguilla rostrata), redfin pickerel (Lsox americamis),
bluehead chub (Noconli.v leptocel)hahts), green sunfish (Lelwlnis cywtellus), and shiners (Notropi.v
Freshwater mussels (Isllipli) conylVanata) and Asiatic clam (Corhicula fhuminea) were
observed in rocky runs and on sand bars in the stream channel. Other mussel species known to
occur in the study area include: squawfoot, notched rainbow (Villosct conmllcta), and Atlantic
pigtoe. Many of the species found in the adjacent terrestrial communities are likely to be found
utilizing habitats in the aquatic communities.
Aquatic Community Impacts
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities will occur
from increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation
covers benthic organisms and filter feeders, inhibiting their ability to feed and obtain oxygen.
Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates in the water column can lead to the
smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of
dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light penetration from the
removal of streamside vegetation may also increase water temperatures.
In order to minimize impacts to agautic communities in the project area it is recommended
that instream activities be kept at a minimum.
6
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in section 33 of the code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, also defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of thb U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C 1344. No wetlands are located in the study area for the proposed project.
Permit Requirements
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined the pursuant to
the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and,
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DWQ is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404
permit.
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the COE.
Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Two federally
protected species are listed for Orange County by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as of 23
August 1996 (Table 2). A brief description of these species and habitat requirements follow.

7
Table 2: Federally protected species for Orange County
C O"It ior)Narne Scientific Name 1-'ecleral Statics
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoicles borealis Endangered
smooth coneflower I;chinacea laerigata Endangered
small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloicles Threatened
Michaux's sumac Rhu.s michmixii Endangered
Note:
*"Endangered"' denotes a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
*"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Picoi(les horealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970

Tile red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and
inland in.southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations
occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white
with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape,
and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pill!/.S
pahustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack
a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This
acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from
3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The large incrustation of
sap is believed to be used as a defense by the RCW against possible predators. A clan of
woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number
8
from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers
feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Communities found in the study area do not include sufficient numbers of pines (50% or
more) to provide suitable habitat for the RCW. A search of the NHP database of rare species and
unique habitats showed no cavities of this species as occurring in the vicinity of the proposed
project. Therefdre, no effect to the RCW is anticipated from project construction.
E?chinacea h7evigaia (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 9 December 1991
Flowers Present: June - early July
The smooth coneflower was once found in all of the Atlantic Coast states from
Pennsylvania to Georgia and on the Gulf Coast in Alabama and inland in Arkansas. Populations
are now limited to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
This perennial herb grows from simple or branched rhizomes. It grows up to 1.5 meters
tall, has a smooth stem, and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest and are smooth to slightly
rough, tapered to the base, elliptical to broadly lanceolate, and measure 20 cm across and 7.5 em
in width and are distinguished by long petioles. Mid-stem leaves have short or no petioles and are
smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color, solitary, and 2-2.5 cm
across. The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong prismatic, four- angled,
and 0.5-4 min long, seeds are 0.5 cm long.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open woodlands, glades,
cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. Plants
usually grow in soil derived from calcareous parent material. North Carolina populations are
found in soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with
abundant sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants. Natural fires and large
herbivores are important in the maintenance of the smooth coneflowers habitat.
Biological Conclusion:. Unresolved
Roadsides found within the study area are maintained infrequently enough to provide
suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower. A search of the NHP database showed no populations
of smooth coneflower as occuring in the project vicinity. A survey for this species will need to
conducted during the appropriate survey season.
I. olria medlcoloidles (small-whorled pogonia) Endangered
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: 10 September 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June

qr,
9
The small-whorled pogonia was known historically from Maine to Georgia, with the
exception of Delaware, along the eastern seaboard and in Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri. In
North Carolina it is found in the Nantahala National Forest, Macon County and near the town of
Flat Rock, Henderson County.
This perennial orchid has long pubescent roots and a hollow stem 9.5 cm to 25 cm tall.
Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed.
Leaves measure approximately 8 x 4 cm. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end
of the stem. Flowers have short sepals that are only 2.5 cm long.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous
forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils.
Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling
density.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Open slopes in the alluvial forest provide suitable habitat for the small-whorled pogonia.
A search of the NHP database showed no populations of this species occuring in the project
vicinity. A survey will need to be conducted during the appropriate season in order to determine
if this species is present in the study area.
Rhns n icliauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: •28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont
of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This species is believed to be extirpated in
South Carolina. It is currently known from only 21 populations in North Carolina and Georgia.
In North Carolina populations of Michaux's sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond, Scotland,
Franklin, Davie, Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in
height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-
lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 cm long, 2 to 5 cm wide, acute and acuminate. The bases
of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. It bears small flowers in a
terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop
from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 mm
across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils
and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight
10
and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle that it is often
associated with.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
The existing approaches to Bridge No. 55 and roadsides provide suitable habitat for
Michaux's sumac. A search of the NHP database shows no populations of this species occurring
in the project vicinity. A survey for this species will need to be conducted of all suitable habitat
during the appropriate season.
Y

cc. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3219