20011276 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
IT 0 0
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 26, 2001
DWQ No. 011276
Orange County
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 57 over the South Fork of the Little River on SR 1538 in Orange County,
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1538(4), State Project No. 8.2501401; TIP B-3218.
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 0.09 acres of protected riparian
buffers (0.03 acres in Zone 1 and 0.06 acres of Zone 2) for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 57 over
the South Fork of the Little River on SR 1538 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 oMe 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

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.
Cc:
Sincerely,
ThorQP.
ti g irector
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
C:\ncdot\1TP B-3218\wqc\buffer authoriration.doc
oa 5U1Ev?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWN T 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

0 1 127 6
SUBJECT: The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 57 over South Fork Little River
on SR 1538 in Orange County. Federal Aid Project No.MABRZ-1538(4).
State Project No. 8.2501401. TIP No. B-3218.
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 137.0 ft in length in approximately
the same location. Project length is approximately 1050.0 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 1538. This stream
carries a Best Usage Classification of WS-II HQW NSW.
MATING ADDRESS:
PRO ECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
154 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC

The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a timber deck, with steel I-beams. The
bridge has reinforced concrete caps on timber piles for the bents. The interior bent columns are
concrete incased. The 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 are located within the project area
however, impacts will not occur as aresult of project construction.
Neuse Riparian Buffers. Impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers associated with this project
total 0.09 ac (0.03 ac Zone 1, 0.06 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 Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusion) and a Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Fill). 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,
w.
WillifaG i lmore, P.E., Branch Manager
4
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/mcr
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:
CE Action ID No.
Form Version April 2001
DWQ No. 01 1276
any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
wing the space blank.
Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
F] Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 and 33
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: El
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleiah. 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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 3 of 13
III. 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-3218
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. 57 on SR 1538(Gates Rd.) over South Fork Little River
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):N36° 09.014', W78° 59.764'
(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 2.8 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. 57 on SR 1538
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
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.
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
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
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
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: 0.13 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0 ac
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)

* 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 internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.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 Wat)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
Site 1 temporary fill 0.01 South Fork Little River stream

* 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): ? uplands E] stream EJ 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:
II. 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
permanent impacts to surface waters. Traffic will be detoured offsite during project construction
Page 7 of 13
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/ncwetlands/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
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):
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
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
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 ?
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 0.03 3
2 0.06 1.5
Total 0.09
* Zone 1 extends out 3U teet perpendicular trom near bank of channel; Gone z extends 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
XI. 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.
XII. 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
XIII. 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 No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes R 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
?4lol
w ApplicaAt/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 11 of 13
lr 'LU -'' 1?? •? 1! 7 t 1• '
?O

135
?T LL.L t'6

iut
= ?'? 170
? `
r:
1.0
ti
1
If_?s ;
i
j
3 1.4

11lL •?
•
'1 1.0 'D
? I! 7
? ? r
!ELR. Ist 0
1 l124 L It '
51
26 130- f? `
252 _
0
7 Is>

\9 234

.
lilt
3.0 0 v
13 Cc 14-.11
lut
?? 1
28 136 `
4 r.o
: J
L6
j
!.? 1344 - Islc r
,
RI VER

?? i
14l1
O _
? rl w .(,Lj !
17ZL Isl

? .p L

. r
I
53f

o t
p
C13 ,.?
LM
1L1
1 S71
f- 1.?
'
i
, ?
55
55 •a -1.1.1£ ? _--
1

f., ,.
..
Sd1I.), s 1-1 9-
? 1.13' p 17]9 'J t.s v
1
6 11 4.
.
4 ?f 57 I!7
C3 ?° 1177

37
1?
:?:1t
61 100 1
U .!!7 60 ,?., /As
New Sharon

l0rr I i 17
Cald.11
\ 17 r ) .
1 6<du 1
Gr.va 7 ?'
rH<Oan< 1?
• 1
ORA '
1
' „ apel .II ' ' 1 '
U(h0(0: VICINITY NIAp
rna - II 1
M,n?lne- ?_nCv?w ils ' of
??NEUSE RIVER BUFFER 7,71
-?- it ` i_.? /--1- i f?"-' ?r??..-.rr ?.,?• _?r-.t•t;\ - .aa
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORA\GE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2501 U1 (1-3218)
BRIDGE 57 ON SR 1538 OVER
SOUTH FORK LITTIA' RtVrR.
J.? N UART 29:1(; I

o? i I ( I F ?" -
1 >
?
O b I I x C
4
?? o t
a x E"co W ?

I

a
Z

?
0
.... m

F
a w

w
I

I i

I
i

w
P4
H
x

0
U. I l JLL.
N
E-'

o

lq
Z
i I
°
mm°
w

Z
o
? o

a

o

?4
!
I
N
Nw
°°
a
°
a o
?"
N
°
te N
< a w
o? W
A F o w
00+61 w I `a V) V p :D Z
wm L ;
?
?
o
ti (n
o= !?- U CL I J z
_o I'L
N ! W I In I O
I I I O

!
N
_
- BZ'2 ? N I O

/
( 77" M
U. LL
O 0
u,
( Z-z9
co w w LI;
~ o
1 e
F ? Ln J

?-
z8
-
---?_
N
U
(J)
C) O

\J
?
I ?
w w

co

-? Lfl -
?
::
:
z O
I O ;
=
01
-
---
--- -___
o
!`? z
I -- -r
_ N m W p N SOUTH FORK
o F- 3 W L/T TLE RIVER
co
0
F- z
O
m

LL.
Z ?-z9

I I
,
ca cr-
. w IJ I
of I
O _
Ld
=:D 11 - I N!
l N d u- Z tai w O Q

0 I w a w N m° co o m=W
w
00+91 -
O
I
0
~
mcl- 0
Z N
r- N w
?- N Q
I I z ?I mw 00 Z w F-
Nz3
! I Ln H" UN co 00 <
M :2 a as o?
o ! I W Qi
-F ujn 3: N o w
W
W- ?`
W
00 ! I Q N
3 u I I
l
I
I
( I
I U
o O
O m
Ln ?r
I z
1= o \
00 I x 0-1 \\
+ I LLI (D
0 w \
I " CL\
0
a <\
w m.
V) w z
0- o _
oQ 1=- 1
rz ? N N
Cl--. 0
wQ
J
U 1
I
O J _
0 I I Z 1
CC) + I
? 00
+ ? ' \\
V - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
II It
1
o ° '
F- a '
O Q w -------------
0 ~ -? '
+ V) w TI
c?j
O
O
l9
O
O
J_COXD
0
z
1:2
oQ
Of w
J N
Q z
tY 3
?o
?o
a
z
O O O
O Ln ? 0-) 00
4-
U
.O
00
U
O
G-
1-1
0
N
O
00
Q -
O
O
C9
.a
F
x
a ?
? U
F
w ?
a
zz
oz
11 4 II F
:4 z
0
H
W G: W N
?> ?®M
u u x
O ?
O Q)
Cn u?
N
DETAIL OF W®]E$KPAD
I ft
LS:I?
NWS EL= 480.3
I ?/?\\I I//\ 20 ft
I V,
\ I //X I

( NOT TO SCALE )
STREAM BED
VOLUME AND ACREAGE OF
CLASS II RIP RAP BELOW W.S.
AREA= 0°012 acres*
ROCK EMBANKMENT= 4702 yd 3
gift ABC
ROCK EMBANKMENT
E FLOW
(CAUSEWAY DETAIL
- AREA IS TOTAL TEMPORARY FILL IN SURFACE
WATERS.
H
z
W N

2 _
Z U
0
w o :s o
N
g
a
W

?
w L
za
s
o
°
LL O:

D
m

w a
Z
LL Q p O
0-
M N
z
U)
13
z
g Z L)
S p O
F- O
W N

Q
co
°°
J

v/
' ~ Of
V Q F- U
Q ° o
Q a ° ° O
a

z
w

LL z N
Z U
Q
°
°
o
`L O
°
W N
m a
w U
Z
Q o 0
O
N
0
O
F- ?
FO

? LL o
CO
p
W W
a LO

D W
0

v
U
N Co
v
_
CO CO

z J
Lu Q
CO
O
H

0
0
N

t5 -
S
Z
O o w

LLI
?r ?
W?

L O>
>
ohm
p
m0

w
.
_ Do- LO w LL
co
J
E 0 - O
Z O t
?LL UL°n -
Z
LLJ
E-O
N
Y
C9
0
w
w
°O
Z Z
w
U) 'a w U)
0
o O°-
=z
?
s co
U
a
(1)
z

IL
C H

IL
x

CL ?

CL C)

U) d
L
O
N
N
l

J
C
)
0 LO
a?
An
O
U) LL O
O
LL

o ? ? o 0
m ?
? U
O N Q
cl, C)
U X L a
Q w c-) E
a

? r
Q ?
C -- o 0
0
H
W
Q
LL
N c
v o 0
?
v
?

? c
m o 0

..,
ca
a LL Z

N 0)

L ? t ? O O

a ?

O

W o
?
o ?
Z W ??v o 0
J ?
-
F-
W
N
c ?

u. m
?v
0

m

C0

0

w ? ap
?-
J
O
t
CD

_CD O Q

O
Q
00 gOo=
a j O w w = o N
a
H
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAME & ADDRESS
O RICHARD ROBERTS
2200 RICHARD LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
O RICHARD ROBERTS
2 2200 RICHARD LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
O MARGARET B. WOODS
3 5718 NEW SHARON CHURCH RD.
ROUGEMONT, NC 27572
O PHILIP WALKER
4817 WALKERS FARM RD.
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2501401 (B-3218)
BRIDGE 57 ON SR 1538 OVER
SOUTH FORK LITTLE RIVER.
JAN., 2000 REV. AUG., 2001
SHEET '7 OF F

LEGEND

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L
WETLAND
?L
PROPOSED BOX
CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'

DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND ¦ DRAINAGE INL ET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER ROOTWAD
•
•
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
'
• • • CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-- TOP OF BANK
- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- -. PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - PJ- - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 1- - - - WATER SURFACE
X X LIVE STAKES
X X X X
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
JtNk RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZI BUFFER ZONE 1
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2501401 (B-5218)
BRIDGE 57 ON SR 1538 OVER
SOUTH FORK LITTLE RIVER.
JAN., 2000 REV. AUG., 2001
I 1_ SHEET ? OF 'T
I
y 1
Orange County
Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
Federal Project MABRZ-1538(4)
State Project 8.2501401
TIP # B-3218
011276
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date4rH. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date icholas Graf, P.
tivision Administrator, FHWA

Orange County
Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
Federal Project MABRZ-1538(4)
State Project 8.2501401
TIP # B-3218
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 1998
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
CA R04
:?? ?.? ?FESS/p?.•9
' SEAL '
022552 •
• ,°
Date Jot p L. Williams, P:E.
Project Planning Engineer
N ?? .•
3 f9-9? ??. h ? ?? ol?
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
fi
Orange County
Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
Federal Project MABRZ-1538(4)
State Project 8.2501401
TIP # B-3218
Bridge No. 57 is located in Orange County over South Fork Little River. It is
programmed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge
replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion".
No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 57 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on the existing alignment (see Figure 2). The new structure will be approximately
43 meters (140 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. The bridge will include two
3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on a
temporary bridge and alignment to the west during construction.
There will be 76 meters (250 feet) of approach work to the north and also to the
south. The pavement width will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 0.6 meter (2-
foot) full depth paved shoulders. Additionally there will be 1.8-meter (6-foot) grass
shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 100
km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $901,000 including $850,000 in construction
costs and $51,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $448,000 including $425,000 in construction costs, and $23,000 in right of way costs.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical 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 permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Because of the two archaeological sites to the east of the bridge there will be no
activities (eg. staging or construction) beyond 12 meters (40 feet) east of the centerline of
the bridge. If it is determined that activity is required outside that boundary, NCDOT
archaeologist Tom Padgett will be contacted to determine potential impacts. Mr. Padgett
can be reached at [phone] ext. 292.

III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1538 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is located a few miles northeast of Hillsborough, N.C. Traffic
volume is 1200 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 4900 VPD for the year 2020.
The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 55 mph. The road primarily serves
residential and agricultural traffic.
The existing bridge was completed in 1963. It is 42 meters (138 feet) long. The
deck is 7.4 meters (24.2 feet) wide. The distance between the streambed and the bottom
of the superstructure is approximately 6.1 meters (20 feet). There are two lanes of traffic
on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 44.2 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 15 tons for single
vehicles and 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The bridge lies in a gentle vertical sag. The alignment to the north and south of
Bridge No. 63 is tangent. The pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is
5.8 meters (19 feet). Shoulders on both approaches of the bridge are approximately
2.4 meters (8 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
There are 8 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. According to the
Transportation Director for Orange County closing the road is possible but would be a
slight burden.
Piedmont Electrical Membership Corporation has aerial power lines approximately
10.7 meters (35 feet) west of the center line for SR 1538. General Telephone Company has
an underground service along the east side of SR 1538 with the cables aerial across South
Fork Little River.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 57 with a new bridge on the existing location. Traffic
would be detoured along secondary roads during construction. The design
speed would be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 57 with a new bridge on the
existing alignment. Traffic would be maintained on'a temporary bridge
and alignment to the west during construction (see Figure 2). The design
speed will be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
2
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. DETOUR
Alternate 1 includes a detour along NC 157, SR 1002, and SR 1573 (see Figure 1).
This would generate 9.9 kilometers (6.2 miles) additional miles traveled by the average
road user. Assuming the construction of the project would require 9 months to complete,
using $ 0.30 per vehicle-mile, and 1200 vehicles per day, the cost of detouring to road
users would be approximately $611,000.
VII. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Detour $ 273,000
23,000
103,000
N/A $273,000
23,000
103,000
171,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 120,000 171,000
Engineering & Contingencies 81,000 109,000
Total Construction $ 600,000 $ 850,000
Right of Way $ 24,000 $ 51,000
Total Cost $ 624,000 $ 901,000
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 57 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on the existing alignment at approximately the same elevation (see Figure 2). The new
structure will be approximately 43 meters (140 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide.
The bridge will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets.
There will be 76 meters (250 feet) of approach work to the north and also to the
south. The pavement width will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 0.6 meter (2-
foot) full depth paved shoulders. Additionally there will be 1.8-meter (6-foot) grass
shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 100
km/h (60 mph).
During construction traffic will be maintained with a temporary bridge and
alignment. The temporary bridge will be located approximately 40 feet (centerline to
centerline) west of the existing bridge. It will be 30 meters (100 feet) long and 8 meters
(26 feet) wide at an elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existing
roadbed. The length of the temporary alignment will be approximately 1000 feet and it
will include two 3.0-meter (10-foot) paved lanes and 1.2-meter (4-foot) grass shoulders.
The design speed of the temporary alignment will be 80 km/h (50 mph).
The cost of maintaining traffic onsite, Alternate 2 over detouring traffic offsite,
Alternate 1, is $277,000. The cost to road users of detouring offsite as described in
Section VI above is $611,000. The benefit cost ratio is 2.2 which warrants consideration
of maintaining traffic onsite. The Division Engineer supports maintaining traffic onsite.
For these reasons Alternate 2 is the recommended alternate.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Orange County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the
project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The NRCS
responded that Alternate 1 would not impact prime or important farmland soils.
Alternate 2 will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but the area is wooded
and void of agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has recommended that no
architectural surveys are required.
In the same letter, the State Office of Archaeology (SOA) has recommended that
an archaeological survey is required. A survey was conducted and found two sites east of
the bridge. It was determined that the current plans to replace the bridge will not effect
the archaeological site. The SOA has reviewed the results of the survey and concurs that
the project will not impact the sites.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
A general description of the regional characteristics, including geology,
topography, soils and primary land uses is provided in this section. In addition, this
section contains detailed information concerning water resources, especially, water
characteristics, potential impacts, and overall water quality.
Regional Characteristics
Orange County is located in the north, central portion of North Carolina. It is
situated in the Piedmont physiographic province, which is characterized by rolling
topography with rounded hills and long, low ridges. Elevations, within the county, range
from 73 to 262 meters (240 to 860 feet) above mean sea level (MSL) following a trend of
increasing elevation to the northwest part of the county.
The project area rests in the Neuse River Basin, however the southern portion of
Orange County is also drained by the Cape Fear River Basin. The Neuse River originates
northwest of Durham in the northern portion of the Piedmont region of North Carolina
and then flows southeasterly for over 200 miles (321.8 Kilometers), past the cities of
Raleigh, Smithfield, Goldsboro, Kinston and New Bern to the tidal waters of the Pamlico
Sound.
Current land use in the vicinity of the project includes forest cover and
agriculture. Feed crops tend to dominate the agriculture portion of the land uses.
The elevations in the project area range from 149 to 152 meters (490 to 500 feet)
above MSL.
Soils
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) Soil Survey of
Orange County, North Carolina, the soil association encompassing the project area is the
Georgeville-Hern on association. This unit is characterized by a gently to sloping
topography, with well drained soils that have a surface layer of silt loam and a subsoil of
clay loam, silty clay loam, and clay; on uplands. The somewhat poorly drained Chewacla
soils are included in the "soils of minor extent" subsection of the Georgeville-Herndon
association.
The specific soil series' that are likely to be impacted by this project include:
Chewacla loam (Ch) , Georgeville silt loam (GeB, GeC), and Herndon silt loam (HrB).
Chewacla loam is classified as a primary hydric soils. Chewacla loam is considered to be
somewhat poorly drained with depth to the water table ranging from 0.15 to 0.46 meters
(0.5 to 1.5 feet) from November to April with frequent flooding for brief and long periods
during this span. All three of the aforementioned soil types have a "slight" erosion
damage rating.
Water Resources
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Streams and tributaries, within the project region, are part of the Neuse River
Basin. The Neuse River Basin is further subdivided into Sub-basins. South Fork Little
River is assigned to Sub-basin #030401. In addition to impacts at the project area, it is
assumed that project operations may potentially impact Little River further downstream.
South Fork Little River is designated a class "WS II, NSW" stream from its
source to Little River. Class "WS II" streams are those defined as waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in predominately undeveloped watersheds; point
source dischargers of treated wastewater must hold a permit for such activities and local
programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required.
A "NSW" classification defines a resource as "Nutrient Sensitive Waters," which require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an ongoing
ambient water quality monitoring program which studies long term trends in water
quality. The BMAN program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Benthic macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, and therefore, can be used as indicators to
evaluate the overall health of stream systems.
The most recent sample taken within the region of the project area was conducted
in 1991 in the Little River at Orange Factory. This sampling point is located east of the
project area in Durham County downstream of the confluence of South Fork Little River
and Little River. That sample received a BMAN bioclassification of "Excellent." No
point source dischargers were identified within the project area or immediate surrounding
area. A review of point source dischargers, permitted through the National Pollution
6
Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES), was conducted. No dischargers were
identified within the project vicinity.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Quality
Each of the alternates have the potential to impact water quality. However, with
erosion and sediment control measures set in place, impacts can be reduced to a
negligible level. Minimal disturbance to existing vegetation, especially forest cover, will
reduce water quality impacts as well. From an ecological perspective, Alternate 1 is the
preferred alternate, primarily due to the limited amount of clearing and grubbing that will
be required. Clearing, grubbing, and filling activities in the floodplain and adjacent
upland forest cover will increase the potential for erosion and subsequent degradation of
water quality.. In addition, potential impacts may occur from the removal of stable
vegetation along the streambank. Mature trees and shrubs with well established root
systems are effective protection for streambanks against erosional forces. Loss of this
type of vegetation creates the potential for both short and long term erosion.
Alternate I proposes to replace the bridge on the existing location, and therefore,
would require only minimal clearing on either side of the bridge. Alternate 2 requires
impacts to the streambanks, floodplain and forest cover. This option proposes building a
temporary bridge, to the west of the existing bridge, to detour traffic during project
construction. Alternate 2 has the potential to clear a total of approximately 30 linear
meters (100 linear feet) of streambank and floodplain vegetation along South Fork Little
River.
With each alternate, total long term impacts to water resources and aquatic
communities resulting from the proposed project are expected to be negligible, given that
proper erosion and sediment control measures are taken. In addition, the size of the
project and typical construction methods required pose minimal large scale or long term
impacts.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced during the actual construction
of the project when vegetation removal and the addition of fill material on the site, will
cause the soil to be exposed. After completion, prompt revegetation and restoration of
the disturbed area to its original condition will reduce the potential for erosion and water
quality degradation. However, sedimentation guidelines should still be implemented and
strictly enforced throughout the construction period to reduce the potential for excessive
soil erosion and the degradation of downstream water quality. In order to minimize
potential impacts, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the protection of sensitive
watersheds should be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project.
Non-point source runoff from agricultural is likely to be the primary source of
water quality degradation in the project vicinity. Water quality, in North Carolina, is
significantly influenced by nutrient loading. Long term impacts on streams, as a result of
road construction, are not expected.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Introduction
This section describes the biological components and communities identified as
part of the field investigation. Communities are divided into either terrestrial or aquatic
systems. The flora and fauna identified for each community is provided, as well as, the
fauna likely to be present based on vegetation and habitat.
Terrestrial Communities
The field investigation resulted in the identification of four terrestrial
communities. These include a riparian forest, a utility buffer, a roadside area and a small
section of pasture. The riparian forest meets the definition of a Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest, as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The utility buffer consists
of essentially the same species as in the forested area, however somewhat maintained, in
addition to some invasive inclusions. The roadside shoulder is a small, approximately six
meters (20 feet), buffer between SR 1538 and the adjacent land uses (pasture land,
agriculture fields, and forest cover). The pasture area is a small strip which extends into
the southwest portion of the project area.
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community comprises an area of
approximately 60 meters (200 feet) beyond either streambank on the west side of Bridge
No. 57. On the east side of the bridge, this community stretches back approximately
23 meters (75 feet) from either streambank. In general, the dominant canopy species are
tulip tree, American elm, American sycamore, river birch and green ash. Dominant trees
are, on average, between 30 and 45 centimeters (12-18 inches) in diameter at breast
height (DBH) and are approximately 30 to 60 years of age.
Ironwood and box elder dominate the understory. Poison ivy and trumpet creeper
are woody vines present in the groundcover and microstegium dominates the herbaceous
layer, which also includes several species of smartweed.
Fescue is the most prevalent species comprising the vegetative cover in both the
roadside shoulder and the pasture land.
The majority of the observed wildlife, especially throughout the forested areas,
are common edge dwelling avian species. Chipping sparrow, song sparrow, tufted
titmouse and northern cardinal were identified in the project area. Other species observed
include gray squirrel and American crow. Tracks of white tailed deer and indications of
beaver were also present.
The forest cover within the project area serves as part of the ecological
connectivity along the South Fork Little River riparian corridor. The presence of large
parcels of forest throughout the project vicinity, as well as, along South Fork Little River
suggests that the corridor could serve as foraging and breeding habitat for a diversity of
wildlife species, however, this area serves as more of an edge habitat, and therefore,
would not be ideal for forest interior dwelling species.
Wildlife known to associate with the amount and type of forest cover within the
project area, vicinity, and region would include a diversity of songbirds, including
migratory species, forest interior dwelling birds, raptors, amphibians and reptiles (frogs,
snakes and turtles). This habitat would also be suitable for many mammals such as red
fox, beaver, eastern rabbit, shrews, mice, voles and eastern chipmunks.
Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic communities were identified throughout the project area that will be
impacted by the proposed project. A third community was identified just beyond the
proposed right-of-way and has been included in this report. The portion of South Fork
Little River, within the project vicinity, is a medium sized unvegetated stream. The
stream measures approximately 15 to 18 meters (50 to 60 feet) wide on either side of
Bridge No. 57, and consists of several riffle/pool complexes of different size and velocity.
Streambanks are stabilized by several forms of vegetation including mature trees, shrubs,
and herbaceous cover, and sediment deposition is present through the floodplain.
A palustrine emergent wetland, in the form of a small drainage area, is located
adjacent to SR 1538 in the southwest portion of the project area. The wetland, which
measures approximately 120 square meters (1300 square feet), would be classified as a
temporarily flooded, persistent palustrine emergent wetland (PEM 1 A). Hydrophytic
vegetation present includes: soft rush, pinkweed, green ash, box elder, lurid sedge and
American elm. Hydric soil indicators were evident including low chroma soils and
reducing conditions, while water stained leaves and obvious drainage patterns from the
road indicate that hydrology is present from overland flow, as well as, from flooding of
the river.
Another palustrine emergent wetland is located upstream of the bridge, along the
south bank of South Fork Little River just beyond the right-of-way. The wetland, which
measures approximately 260 square meters (2800 square feet), has a small ponded area
centrally located within the wetland system. The classification of this system is PEM1E,
which describes it as a persistent, seasonally flooded/saturated palustrine emergent
wetland. Hydrophytic vegetation present includes: pinkweed, jewelweed, water
smartweed and arrow-leaved tearthumb. Hydric soil indicators are evident, particularly
high organic content in the surface layer. The system is inundated to a depth of 30
centimeters (12 inches) in the ponded area and soils are saturated beginning at a depth of
53 centimeters (21 inches). These indicators provide evidence of hydrology in this
system.
Based on a random, but qualitative sampling, along portions of South Fork Little
River within the project area, the diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates is high.
Organisms found and identified include the following: midgefly larvae, stonefly larvae,
Damselfly larvae , mayfly larvae , aquatic beetle , riffle beetle , water penny , caddisfly
larvae, and hellgrammite. Of these organisms, caddisfly larvae dominated the sample.
. Based on a general assessment of habitat and water quality, it is likely that a
number of species of fish would typically inhabit South Fork Little River. Some of the
common fishes that occur in similar Piedmont streams are: golden shiner, whitefin shiner,
spottail shiner, rosyside dace, silver redhorse, Eastern silvery minnow, tesselated darter,
fantail darter, creek chub, bluehead chub, and margined madtom.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project may have several impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources, in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses (in square meters) to
these communities. Impacts were determined by using the entire right-of-way width for
each alternate. Impacts may be less, depending on the final sequence of operations.
Table 2. Summary of Community Impacts
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Piedmont /Low Mt. 205 sq. meters 1,330 sq. meters
Alluvial Forest 2,205 s .ft 14,309 s .ft
South Fork Little 450 sq. meters 550 sq. meters
River 4,841 s q. ft 5,917 s .ft
Utility Buffer 200 sq. meters 715 sq. meters
2,152 s q. ft 7,692 s q. ft
Roadside Shoulder 390 sq. meters 1,850 sq. meters
4,196 s .ft 19,903 s .ft
Palustrine 75 square meters 120 sq. meters
Emergent Wetland 807 s .ft 1,291 s .ft
Pasture no impacts 90 sq. meters
968 s .ft
Total Impacts 1320 sq. meters 4655 sq. meters
14,201 s .ft 50,080 s .ft
Anticipated impacts to the biotic communities, in the project area, vary depending
on the alternate selected. Alterations of the current environment will be temporary if the
affected areas are revegetated and returned to their original state as quickly as possible.
The aquatic community may be more sensitive to the effects associated with the
construction process. Protection of water resources is critical to ensure that any impacts
are minimal, short term and localized.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important state and federally regulated natural resource issues - Waters of the United
States and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater 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 into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the USACOE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate and/or determine whether wetlands are jurisdictional include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and evidence of certain hydrologic
characteristics during the growing season.
10
During the August 13, 1997 investigation, each of the aforementioned
components were identified at two locations, one within (Wetland System 2) and one
outside (Wetland System 1) of the project area. Having met all three criteria, these two
areas, which are described in the Aquatic Communities Section of this document, appear
to meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Wetland System 1 would not be
impacted as a result of the bridge replacement, however approximately 120 square meters
(1300 square feet; apx. 0.03 acres) of wetland impacts to Wetland System 2 could occur
as a result of this proposed replacement project.
A review of the NWI maps for the project area identified one wetland system,
South Fork Little River. South Fork Little River is classified as a riverine, lower
perennial stream, with an unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH). The hydrologic regime is
considered permanently flooded. The two additional wetlands (Systems 1 & 2) identified
during the field investigation are not shown on these NWI maps.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. Jurisdictional surface
waters are present in the form of South Fork Little River, which will be crossed and likely
impacted as a result of the proposed project. In accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for
the discharge.of dredged of fill material into "Waters of the United States." A
Nationwide 23 Permit will be required for the proposed project.
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to "Waters of the United States," 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 that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation
for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
1) 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) 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
required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations.
The COE has adopted, through CEQ, a wetland mitigation policy which embraces
the concept of "no net loss of wetlands," and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
11
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics, in light of, project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or shoulder widths. Other
practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
Water Permits
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state 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 issuance of a CAMA or Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ prior
to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires
that the State issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States."
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-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. As of
November 4, 1997 the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Orange
County (Table 3). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follow.
A review of the National Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected
species revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the
project area.
12
Table 3. List of Federally-Protected Species in Orange County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered E
Isotria medeoloides small whorled o onia Threatened T
Echinacea laevi ata smooth coneflower Endangered E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered(E)
Note: Endangered (E) is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened (T) is defined as a species likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Species Description
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
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 (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and must be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are 60 years
or older and that 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
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6 to 30.3 meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1 to 15.7 (30 to
50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large encrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected
species revealed no recorded occurrence of the RCW in or near the project area. A search
for the RCW and its preferred habitat was conducted on August 13, 1997, during the field
investigation. The methodology used to determine the presence of the protected species
included direct audible observations and comparing known habitat conditions for the
RCW to the existing habitats within the project area. The search did not result in the
identification of either the RCW or its preferred habitat.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Small whorled pogonia has a number of key characteristics which aid in its
identification. An individual small whorled pogonia is usually single-stemmed, although
13
occasionally a plant produces two or more stems in a cluster. The stem ranges from 6 to
35 centimeters tall in a flowering plant and is similar in color, with the same degree of
glaucousness, as white seedless grapes; the elliptic to elliptic-ovate leaves are also a pale
milky-green or grayish-green. The flower is yellowish-green with a greenish-white lip.
The sepals vary from linear-oblanceolate to narrowly spatula-like in shape, and spread
outward when in full flower. The lateral petals are oblanceolate to oblong-elliptic and
point forward above the lip. The sepals are approximately 1.5 to 2.5 centimeters long and
either equal in length to the lateral petals or up to 1.5 times as long.
The mixed-deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests in which the small
whorled pogonia grows are generally in second- or third growth successional stages. The
small whorled pogonia occurs both in fairly young forests and in maturing stands. The
ages of the older trees forming the canopy at some of the sites have been estimated at 45-
50 and 60-80 years old (in Virginia), and as little as 30 years old in white pine stands (in
South Carolina). The majority of the small whorled pogonia sites share several common
characteristics. These include: sparse to moderate ground cover in the microhabitat of the
orchids (except when among ferns); a relatively open understory canopy; and proximity
to logging roads, streams, or other features that create long persisting breaks in forest
canopy. Beyond this "common ground" of habitat characteristics, there are myriad
exceptions and variations that may occur regionally and/or locally (van Oettingen, 1992,
USFWS).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected
species revealed no recorded occurrence of the small whorled pogonia in or near the
project area. A search for this species was conducted on August 13, 1997, during the
field investigation. The methodology used to determine the presence of the small
whorled pogonia included a plant by plant survey in areas of suitable habitat within the
project area. The search did not result in the identification of the small whorled pogonia
within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb in the aster family. This
species grows up to 1.5 meters (59 inches) tall from a vertical root stock; stems are
smooth, with few leaves. The largest leaves are the basal leaves, which reach 20 cm (7.8
inches) in length and 7.5 cm (2.9 inches) in width, have long petioles, and are elliptical to
broadly lanceolate, taper to the base, and are smooth to slightly rough. The midstem
leaves have shorter petioles, if petioles are present, and are smaller than the basal leaves.
Flower heads are usually solitary. The ray flowers are light pink to purplish, usually
drooping, and 5 to 8 cm (1.9 to 3.1 inches) long. Disk flowers are about 5 mm (0.2
inches) long; have tubular purple corollas; and have mostly erect, short triangular teeth.
The habitat of smooth coneflower consists of open woods, cedar barrens,
roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs and power line right-of-ways, usually on
magnesium and calcium-rich soils associated with gabbro in North Carolina. Smooth
coneflower occurs in community types described by Schafale and Weakly as xeric
hardpan forests. Xeric hardpan forests occur on upland flats and gentle slopes with an
impermeable clay subsoil; however, water does not stand on them for extended periods.
14
Factors endangering smooth coneflower include habitat destruction and
degradation, curtailment of range, collection, fire suppression, highway right-of-way
maintenance, urbanization and suburbanization of the area of occurrence of the species,
encroachment by exotic species, possible predation by insects, inadequacy of existing
protection afforded by state laws, small population size and lack of formal protection for
all but a few of the known populations. (Murdock, 1995)
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected
species revealed no recorded occurrence of the smooth coneflower in or near the project
area. A search for the smooth coneflower and its favored habitat was conducted on
August 14, 1997, during the field investigation. The methodology used to determine the
presence of this protected species included a plant by plant survey in areas of suitable
habitat within the project area. The search did not result in the identification of either the
smooth coneflower or its habitat.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Rhus Michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a non-poisonous, low-growing, dioecious shrub in the
Cashew family. The stems grow from an underground rhizome to a height of from about
30-90 centimeters (1-3 inches). Each compound leaf consists of from 9 to 13 stalkless,
oval or oblong, toothed leaflets; the terminal leaflet born on a winged petiolule about 2
centimeters long. The entire plant is densely covered with downy hairs. Small greenish-
yellow to white, 4 to 5 parted flowers are born in dense, erect, terminal clusters. Red,
fleshy fruits, covered by short hairs and containing a single large seed, are born on female
plants from August to September.
Michaux's sumac occurs in sandy or rocky open woods, sometimes in association
with circumneutral soils, and is dependent upon some form of disturbance to maintain the
open quality of its habitat. Periodic, naturally occurring fires provided such disturbance
historically. Today, however, many of Michaux's sumac occurrences are in areas
artificially disturbed, such as highway and railroad rights-of-way, edges of cultivated
fields, and other cleared lands.
Although roadside occurrences appear to be thriving in the presence of some level
of disturbance (i.e., mowing), they are always under the constant threat of catastrophic
disturbance. Roadbed widening or heavy equipment activity on cleared lands, for
example, may dramatically reduce the number of individuals. These reductions, if they
come at a crucial stage in the species' reproductive cycle, could have severe long-term
effects on the population. Although it appears Michaux's sumac can rebound from large
disturbances, it is not clear how much genetic diversity is lost with each disturbance.
(Russo, 1993)
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected
species revealed no recorded occurrences of Michaux's sumac in or near the project area.
A search for Michaux's sumac was conducted on August 13, 1997, ,during the field
investigation. The methodology used to determine the presence of this protected species
included a plant by plant survey in areas of suitable habitat within the project area. This
search did not result in the identification of Michaux's sumac in the project area.
Biological Condition: NO EFFECT
B
15 8 1534 I
1535 ? f
57
1519 N 1520 <0> 9 1
1538
• 1 1 1 1536 I
Ln S
Caldwell
1 •? 1.0 1581 417 ? • ° •
154 153 •'
RIVE I 8 \
t ;
1621 1579 1632 I b 1538
1542•
1541 1597' W
9 .4 -! ?yo
9 57 1
Bridge No. 57 54' 16101 FoR,t
L(T7cc FR 1627 ?` \^ )
1548
1540 c?
(0 1 5 ?O?F
Sch y s 20 1539 1575 /
1623 'SOUTH 1
1.6 n /
1552 S J O - 9
? • ` .) 538 S ; rJ _I
9 1573 1
1538 1548 ;
r
.? 100-21
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
? NORiH
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
'70FipA?'
Orange County
Replace Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
B-3218
Figure One
~r''4t .
E ^TfJ ..

bD N
b ?
? O
G
DJJ bI) ? ?
O
U U ,
U U bA
Cd
a?
aj
CJ
i-+ p
c
O
tj
N?
y O
C rte,

O Cd
L
w
y
N
M
bll

L N
£,

°
A c
c o ',
° W o `r' ?

O .? ?
c„
oQ ?
? O L ry
L
L
°
O
C

bA
C
y O PP)
GA y Fy.
?
"
0.
C C p
' C. C OA „q
'
LL "d +..
r
? CD ?
O L Pa ?

G
I
/P°
UP bo\
N
xa N
L4

?^

o a N
z °

U ?(1)
Q
U
? H O
O
O N
? bl)
N ( U
U N
Kl o 'd oU
N
cd
N
Y
I
Mw

i _
CENTER OF BRIDGE FACING SOUTHERN APPROACH
IGURE 3
VIEW FROM EAST OF BRIDGE
FIGUR, E 4
ATTACHMENTS

??•V`4
Qw+M?• ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James . Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty ay McCain, Secretary
March 30, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 57 on SR 1538 over South Fork Little
River, Orange County, B-3218, Federal Aid
Project MABRZ-1538(4), State Project
8.2501401, ER 97-8339
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On March 18, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
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.
Two archaeological sites are located adjacent to the existing bridge. Site 31 OR258
is north of South Fork Little River, and 31 OR354 is south of South Fork Little River.
Both sites are east of the bridge and both need to be tested to determine their
National Register eligibility. It is likely that 31 OR354 contains features and burials.
We also recommend that areas west of the existing bridge be surveyed to locate as
yet unrecorded archaeological sites.
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
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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Orange County Historic Properties Commission
1
?1.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Betty
Hunt Jr., Governor
1 McCain, Secretary
January 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: FA No. MABRZ-1538(4), Archaeological Study
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 47 on SR
1538 over South Fork Little River, Orange
County. TIP B-3218, State Project 8.2501401,
ER 97-8339, ER 98-8261
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1997, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Thomas Padgett of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation concerning the above project.
During the course of the archaeological survey, Mr. Padgett recorded one new
historic archaeological site, 31 OR463 * *, which is located outside the area of
potential effect. This site will not be affected by the proposed bridge replacement
and no additional investigation at 31 OR4,63 * * is warranted at this time.
Two previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sites, 31 OR258 and 31 OR354,
are located east of the existing bridge. The present plans for the bridge
replacement do not include any additional right-of-way acquisition or construction
activities east of the existing bridge. Based on this information, Mr. Padgett has
recommended that no archaeological investigation be undertaken at 31 OR258 or
31 OR354 since they will not be affected by the project. We concur with this
recommendation for the project as presently planned.
As noted in the report, these two prehistoric sites are likely to be eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places and any disturbance or construction east of the
bridge is likely to affect them. If plans for the bridge replacement change and any
additional right-of-way is needed, even if only for a temporary construction
easement, or if any ground disturbing activities are to take place east of the
existing bridge, testing of the affected archaeological sites will be necessary.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Nicholas L. Graf
January 28, 1998, Page 2
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.
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.
Siq_c Le y,
1 ?
?bavid Brook
Deputy State Historic
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
AL?
Preservation Officer

Orange County
Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
Federal Project MABRZ-1538(4)
State Project 8.2501401
B-3218
REVISION TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED: 01127
10-2S-00 Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Nicholas Graf,
Division Administrator, FHWA

Orange County
Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
Federal Project MABRZ-1538(4)
State Project 8.2501401
B-3218
REVISION To
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
OCTOBER 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
/0-Z15
Date

John Lf Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
?N,..
%%' 'a?H CAR04 '
SEAL •.
= 022552
Ste*
/c ?S-ac Cv? h Z-71;-
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Date
'=?? , J,? ?O -
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Orange County
Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
Federal Project MABRZ-1538(4)
State Project 8.2501401
B-3218
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on March 20, 1998.
The document recommended Alternate 2, the replacement of Bridge No. 57 with a new
bridge at the same location. Traffic was to be maintained on a temporary alignment to
the west during construction.
The road user costs generated a cost benefit ratio of 2.2 which is in the range
where it is reasonable to consider either an onsite or offsite detour. At the time, the
Division had concerns about an offsite detour and therefore supported an onsite detour as
recommended in Alternate 2.
Il. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION
During the process of reviewing the design, the Division reconsidered the
possibility of an offsite detour. After coordinating with Emergency Services, the
Division determined that an offsite detour would be feasible.
Since the Road User Costs are in a range where it is reasonable to go with either
an onsite or offsite detour, the recommendation is now Alternate 1. The bridge will be
replaced on the existing location. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions involved with this project.
IV. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT Recommended
ALTERNATE I
ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Detour $ 273,000
23,000
103,000
N/A $273,000
23,000
103,000
171,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 120,000 171,000
Engineering & Contingencies 81,000 109,000
Total Construction $ 600,000 $ 850,000
Right of Way $ 24,000 $ 51,000
Total Cost $ 624,000 $ 901,000
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Because the project will no longer involve a temporary onsite detour, the over all
environmental impact will be less than the original recommendation. The effects of
alternate one are essentially the same as those described in the Categorical Exclusion.
NCDOT Biologists have returned to the site to review a new concern, the Dwarf wedge
mussel. A review and search determined that there will be "No Effect" to the species.
'fly 1
is e
h
m
1519 l? 1520
.? 7
t 1
m
1534
57 1535 • ,Y I
?
9 1538 ?-
' 1536
Caldwell I,
1.0 1581 1 4"t;' 1 0
5
1
1. O??l a RNE c' g 1
1 5
i. I
1621 1579 1 v' G/ 1
m
b 1632 ' 1538 R ? .
1542 ^ J 1 1
1541 1597* (] Y
y0
?•$ O --
.• Bridge No. 57 9 s7 ? ? ?y,? 1
L97LE 1
1548 Rh 1627
15.40
schI4 1539 15 5 J,
1623 SOUTH 1
A
1552 •
3 J O r) .9
.?• ` , `• 538 S 5 1 v
.9 1573 I
1536 1548
13 ,? 100„ 1 '
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

Cap I ill
(her
•_ ?x,..• , , . i? 'jai
?.:, -
1r?? MORTH C,/gOG

Z\
North Carolina
j•"
', Department of Transportation
o? Division of Highways

OF Planning & Environmental Branch
D
Orange County
Repla ce Bridge No. 57 on SR 1538
Over South Fork Little River
B-3218
Figure One

James
Bettv 1
ST I-F
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Y McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 12, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore. P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer ,
Re: Bridge 457 on SR 1538 over South Fork Little River,
B-3218, ER 97-8339
Thank you for your memorandum of August 22, 2000, concerning the above
project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance, which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental
Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINIS RATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAE LOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORA TION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
SURVEY, k PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4801