19950252 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 10, 1995
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 401?,gsum
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Caswell County, SR 1759, Replacement of Bridge No. 88 over South
County Line Creek, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1759(1), State
Project No. 8.2480401, TIP No. B-2812.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project planning
report 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 do not anticipate requesting an individual permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-3141.
rSiner in ick , E., Hager
and Environmental Branch
HFV/dvh
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
iii

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2812
State Project No. 8.2480401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1759(1)
A. Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
Replace Bridge No. 88 on SR 1759 over South Country Line
Creek in Caswell County. The existing bridge will be
replaced at the same location with a 2-barrel, 2.4-meter
X 1.8-meter (8-foot X 6-foot), reinforced concrete box
culvert. Normal flow will be directed into one barrel of
the proposed culvert leaving the remaining barrel dry to
accommodate wildlife passage. The typical section will
include a 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement section and
1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders. Traffic will be detoured
along existing secondary roads during construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge
of 20.2 out of 100 and an
nine years. The bridge is
tons) for single vehicles
for truck-tractor semi-tr
Bridge No. 88 needs to be
No. 88 has a sufficiency rating
estimated remaining life of
posted at 6.3 metric tons (7
and 12.7 metric tons (14 tons)
ailers. For these reasons,
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
1

f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety treatments.
g. Providing driveway 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
33. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to 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
[d] 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
2

J,
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.
D.
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.
it. 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 UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned 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.
Special Project Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
Environmental Commitments:
1. D.O.T. will implement Best Management Practices
(BMP) including strict erosion control measures.
2. Normal flow will be directed into one barrel of the
proposed culvert leaving the remaining barrel to
accommodate wildlife passage.
3. For issues riot covered by commitments 1 & 2, all
standard measures and procedures will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
3

Estimated Costs:
Construction - $ 250,000
Right of Way - $ 27,500
Total - $ 277,500
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 400 VPD
Year 2015 - 700 VPD
Proposed Typical Section:
6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement section,
1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders
Design Speed: 100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments: "SR 1759 may be closed for the
construction of a new bridge. It is recommended that the
project be let to contract with a spring availability date.
A project completion date should be established so that. the
road will not be closed for more than nine months."
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 x
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened F-1 X
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary ?
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
4

(5) Will the project require the use of ?
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water ?
resources be adversely impacted by
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified ?
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(3) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known ?
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
X
X
X
X
X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly F-1 X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?

(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X
Resources Act resources?

(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X
required?
-
(13) Will the project result in the modification F
1 X
of any existing regulatory floodway?

(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO

(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
5
A
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase to traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
6

CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ? x
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in 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 F-I x
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
7
G.
10
CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2812
State Project No. 8.2480401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1759(1)
Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
Replace Bridge No. 88 on SR 1759 over South Country Line
Creek in Caswell County. The existing bridge will be
replaced at the same location with a 2-barrel 2.4-meter X
1.8-meter (8-foot X 6-foot) reinforced concrete box
culvert. Normal flow will be directed into one barrel of
the proposed culvert leaving the remaining barrel dry to
accommodate wildlife passage. The typical section will
include a 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement section and
1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders. Traffic will be detoured
along existing secondary roads during construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
Approved:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Date 4,,tmanager
Planning & Environmental Branch
/,/) -zo-7y
uate
Date
141c< AI <?- Z7/ 07?-
Proje t Planning Unit Head
Pro 'ect P
anning Engineer
8

"m 7 08 7 aA a
l?L e? R
*, I cw?
E Q +.1
?A,* a G U ?; ?lJul
r.
11
11
r ¦
fl
r ¦
AI

1
y
I
c:.
O
j L Y N CV
W j
W
cc:

I N U
'r U O
> Z W
O Z N
a > > Z cd, J C
co >-
~
0 CN
O UJZOF-

Z
N
c?
Y. r
^ J
D
W '
LIJ M
n
xcr cn 0
H7u ?7 Q F- -
c
O
Z E
2z U
,`? uoR J cr
O
O
C
I o
Ld
3.5 °
I+? ? H
r
ter'

U

of N b

r
' .%
r
m', 6.
.
clj
Jf)
?l

V Mi
\ ni
hi \

p? -
Sy T
y a 5
co
5
O r"1
LL
?f\ \ o
-4
? l
P
L• ?.
h c
FAS'
N
L -r V`
l1J
IO
w
W
In
U)
4
12 July 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot. Unit Head
Bride Replacement Unit
FROM: Gerard Nieters, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed replacement of bridze no. 33 over
South Country Line Creek, Caswell County,
TIP No. B-2312; State Project No. 3.2430401;
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1759 (1).
ATTENTION: John Williams, Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on -wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact ine if you have an%
questions. or need this report copied onto disc format.
c: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2312 Caswell County

r
Replacement of Bridge No. SS
On SR 1759
TIP No. B-2812
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1759 (1)
State Project No. S.2450401
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-?S1?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRACH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
GERARD METERS. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
12 July 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................I
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Methodology ...................................1
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................'
2.1 Soils ..........................................2
2.2 Water Resources ................................2
2.2.1 Characteristics of Waters .............3
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification .............3
2.2.3 Water Quality .........................3
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated impacts ........ 4
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................4
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................4
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest............
3.1.2 Pine Forest ...........................6
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest ................6
3.1.4 Maintained Roadside ...................
3.2 Summary of Anticipated impacts .................S
3.3 Aquatic Community .............................. S
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................5
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ...............................9
4.1 waters of the United States ...................9
4.1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters ...... 9
4.1.2 Permits ................................9
4.1.3 litigation ............................10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................10
4.3.1 Federally-Protected Species ............ 10
4.2.2 Federal and State Candidate Species .... 10
5.0 References .........................................12
P .
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed bridge replacement. The project lies
in Caswell County, 6.0 km (3.S miles) northeast of Anderson.
1.1 Project Description
Two alternatives have been submitted for the replacement
of bridge = SS with a concrete box culvert. In alternative
=1 a preferred double barrel. 2.4m x 1.Sm (Sft :c 6f t),
reinforced concrete box culvert is proposed to be replaced at
the current bridge location. This replacement would require
an off site detour of traffic along existing secondary roads
during construction.
Alternative =2 states that a triple barrel (same
dimensions) reinforced concrete box culvert be used to
replace bridge ASS. This culvert would be constructed under
the existing bridge. Traffic would be detoured at the end of
construction along existing secondary roads until the
completion of the project.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identiv and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which 1 minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant oniv in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change.
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1 . 3 N1e t hodo l ogy
Research was conducted prior to field in'.'esti2! ations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the stuciv area include: G.S. Geological Surye_•' (USGS)
quadrangle map (Anderson). National Wetland inventory (NWI)
Maps, and NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area
(1:1200). V,ater resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment. Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis publication of the
Environmental Sensitivity Base :Map of Caswell County.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal anti state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the

Fish and Wildlife Service (F«'S) list of protected and
candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (`:HP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist (Gerard Meters) on 31 May 1992.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques: active searching
and capture, visual observations (binoculars). identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursor%, studies for benthos and mobile aquatic
organisms were conducted using tactile searches. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then
released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation %lanual" (Environment
Laboratory, 19S7).
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the stud- area,
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Caswell County lies in the northern Piedmont
Physiograph ic Provence. The topography of Cas%,.ell County is
characterized by moderately slop in, hi 1Is with associated
bottomIand floodplains. The project area is in a forested.
rural setting that is punctuated by agricultural land.
2.1 Soils
Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil types
which occur in the project area.
Table 1 County Soils in the Project Area
'.LAPPING UNIT SYMBOL ;S SLOPE HYDRIC CLASS
Madison s and_y clay loam `.IaD S- t
Wilkes sandy loam W1KE 15-45 B
Note: "B" denotes soils with inclusions of ilvdric soils or
,xhich have wet shots.
?.? Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those --xater
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems. Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
A ;
3
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The existing structure crosses South Country Line Creek.
a tributary of Country Line Creek, which in turn empties into
the Dan River. The headwaters of South Country Line Creek
are approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) north of Anderson. Stream
channel width is approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) at crossing.
The depth of water varied from 0.02 m to 0.20 m (0.0S ft to
0.67 ft). During the site investigation, the stream level
was well below the stream bank capacity. A cobble substrate
is present and accompanied by small areas of sand deposition
and a few isolated pools of standing water. The flow rate is
moderate with good water clarity. A drainage gully was
evident to the north of the proposed project. This runoff
appeared to be periodically extensive due to the depth 1.Sm
(6 ft) and evident scour of the depression.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DENI). South
Country Line Creek has a "C" classification for its waters
south (upstream) of the crossing, whereas the waters
dowi-istream of the project have a "B" classification. The "C"
classification denotes that the primary use of the water
resource is that of aquatic life propagation and survival.
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
This "B" classification cites primary recreation as the
principle use, as well as the other uses specified by the C
classification.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (OR%V) occur within
1.6 km (I mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Net,sork (B`-IAN)
is managed by DELI and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected bent hic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality.
No BRIAN data is available for South Country Line Creep:.
liovever, most bioclas sifica tion s in the Roanoke River Basin
are good- fair and all sampling sites Located in Cas,eII
CountY showed bioclassifications of fair or better.
1
4
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A registered
domestic discharger (Sweetgum Elementary) is located in the
study area, approximately 3.2 km (2mi) southeast of the
project.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to the waters of South Country Line
Creek, resulting from construction-related sedimentation and
turbidity, include decreases of dissolved oxygen in the water
and changes in temperature, as a result of vegetation loss
and reduction of water clarity. Alterations of water level,
due to interruptions in surface and ground water flow and
increased concentrations of toxic compounds from highway
runoff during construction are other possible impacts that
will affect water quality on South Country Line Creek.
Strict enforcement of erosion, sedimentation controls, and
implementation of best management practices (BMP) is critical
in order to minimize potential impacts to the project area
and downstream as a result of the project construction.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as. the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name on1v.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities and Aquatic Resources
Four distinct biotic communities were identified in the
project study- area: bottomland hardwood forest, pine forest.
upland hardwood forest and maintained roadsiclc. Stream
hydrology is also present tirithin the bottomland hardwood
community, further diversifying that habitat. Community
boundaries are frequently ill-defined. contiguous
communities generally merge without any transition zone
between them. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and
may populate the entire range of terrestrial communities
t

discussed.
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community- is located on a sloping, well-drained
floodplain oriented to the northwest and southeast of the
crossing. This community type is characterized by deep.
fertile soils resulting from periodic sediment deposition
from South Country Line Creek. The dominant canopy species
present were tulip tree (Lirivdendr-on tulipifera), sycamore
(Platanus occidental is) , American elm (Ulrnus amer-icana) ,
sweetgum (Liquidamber sryraciflua), river birch (Betula
ni?-ra), black walnut (Juglans ni-ra) and blac' Willow (Salrx
nilara). Red maple (,4cer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), green ash (Fraxinus penns;-Ivaniea), ironwood
(Carpi nus caroliniana), winged SUITMC (Rhus copyllina),
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), umbrella tree (,Vagnolia
tr•ipetala) smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida), red mulberry (Morus rubra), and saplings of
the canopy species comprised the lower and middle stories of
the vegetative cover.
The herbaceous layer is strongly influenced by several
woody vines: poison ivy (Toxicodendron r'adicans), greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), trumpet creeper (Carnpsis radicans).
Japanese honeysuckle (Lvnicera japonica). Virginia creeper
(Parthenocrssus quinquefolia) and muscadine (V trs
rotundifolia). Other herbaceous representatives were false
nettle (Boehrneria Cylrndrrca), winged verbesina 1, Verbesin,i
aIter'nrfolra). false Solomon's seal (Smilocina racemvsa),
'May-apple (Podopltyllum peltaturn), yellow root (.Canthorhiza
srmplicrssimlli), and panic grass (Panicum Sp.). There exists
a definite dominance of poison ivy and honeysuckle in the
open areas along the stream bank. Beneath the canopy cover a
thick litter layer is present and most of the tower growth
consists of seedlings of the dominant canopy species.
Animal species that were either seen or identified from
spoor evidence were the green frog (Rana clarnitans), raccoon
(Procyon I o t o r - ) , and white - tailedd eer (Odocoileus
vii inianus) Other anlnlal species that are associated with
this habitat type are Elie eastern box turtle (Terrapent,
car•vlina), spring peeper (I,vla cr'ucrfer'), woodland vole
( licrotus pinetorurn), gray squirrel (Sciurus carvlrnensrs)
eastern chipmunk (Tarnias striatus), eastern cottontail
(Sylvila`us Iloridanus), and the Virginia OPOSSUM (Didelphis
c-ir.-rnrana). A few of the insects in the project area are
the red spotted purple (Limenitis astyanax), Diana (Speycria
liana), eastern tier swaIlowtaiI (Papilio -laucus), and
dragonflies (Order Odonata). The s1imv salamander (Plethodon
;lutinvsus) and marbled salamander (.tmbystoma opacum) are
amphibians that also commonly utilize this habitat type.
An ?issortment of avian 1 ife was also evident. The
fl ,
c
Carolina wren (Thyothorus ludovicianus). American robin
( Turdus ini,,i'atorius) . northern cardinal (Cardinal is
cardinalis), and green-bae::ed heron (flutor'ides srriarus) were
observed to utilize this habitat.
3.1.2 Pine Forest
This ecotype is located at the higher elevations of the
project area beginning at the fringes of the bottoriland
forest and progressing into domination the slope increases
on the northeast side of the projcc'. It is characterized by
moderate-to-steeply-slopin;well-drained soils. These soils
usually have poor fertility due to shallow depth of parent
material and .he relative dryness of the profile. Virginia
pine (Pines vi i'giniana) is the most prevalent canopy species
with short leaf pine (P. echinata) also present. Some
representatives of eastern red cedar (Juniperus vir_'Iniana).
tulip tree. and sweetgum are present at a subcariopy level.
The middle-lower stories were found to consist of saplings of
the canopy and subcanopy species along with eastern redbud
(Cercis canadensis), flowering dogwood, red maple. ;white oak
(Quercus alba), mockernuc hickory (Car -va tornentosa), northern
red oak (Q. 1'ubra), eastern hophornbeam (Ostrt•a r-ii-iniana)
and sassafras (Sassafras albiduin).
A thin herbaceous
consisting of Japanese
(Chimelphi la rrraculata) .
(Euonimu.5 amerlcanus).
i-otundi f'ol ia) . and Chr
acrostiClio ides) .
layer is present in this community
. noneysuc::le. spotted wintergre:n
Virginia creeper. stra;wberrv bush
poison iv %-, muscadine (Vitls
istmas fern (Po1vsrichum
(any of the heretofore mentioned animal s:)ecies collid
also utilize this habitat for foraging. shelter. and/or cover
to conceal movement between ecotypes. AIZ'I th exception of
those species that are more common in moist sites. the animal
composition woutd remain quite similar to the b o t t o m I a n d
forest communit:-.
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest
On the southwest Portion of the crossing an Upland
hardwood t_cotype is present on a portion of high elevation
within the project area. Ic is characterized by moderately
sIoJln'.well-brained, soils. In till; COMMIllnLiv Cite carrOp!•-
species consist of t1111p tree, .n ck0ry (Cari•ct sp
_ ) ;white
oak. black oak (Quercus velutina) sweccgum, . .with [ew
Virginia and shortleaf Pines interspersed. The middIL-- lower
s tory of the canopy consisted of saplings of the canopy
species. as well as eastern reel cedar, hophornbearn, flowering
dogwood, eastern redbud, red maple, hac"berry (Celtis
laeviL,ata), black cherry (Prunus .serotina). and sassafras.
The forest floor has adequate litter accumulated to support
some burrowing animals. n poorly developed hernaceous layer
10 .
is present with Japanese honeysuckle, spotted wintergreen,
strawberry bush, Virginia creeper, poison ivy and
representatives of Vac.cinium species. again. the composition
of the animal community wiII not vary greatly from those
previously discussed due to the overlapping nature of this
relatively small region of upland hardwood within the project
area.
3.1.+ Maintained Roadside
A maintained community is present along the edge of the
existing roadway. In this area the dominant vegetation is:
Lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), fire pint: (Silene vir-inica),
trumpet creeper, lactuca (Lactuca sp.). milkweed (,-lsclepias
ample.t•icaulis), fescue (Festuca sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.
Japanese honeysuckle, clover (Trifolium sp.and assorted
grasses.
This habitat serves primarily as a foraging habitat for
various species of birds and mammals, which feed on seeds,
berries and roots. These species include: the Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), northern cardinal. eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomy-s humulis), Virginia opossum,
and eastern cottontail.
Large numbers of insect species inhabit this ecotone.
especially grasshoppers (Ma lanoplus spp.) and dragonflies,
which are the primary food source of various snakes such as
the black racer (CoIuber constrictor) and the rough green
snake (Opheodrys aestlvus); lizards like the five lined sk
(Eumeces fasclatus), birds such as the American robin; and
small mammals Iike the white footed mouse (Peromj?scus
leucopus).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
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. TeIT:porary
and permanent impacts are considered here as %veil.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial reSOUrCeS reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
wicith of 25 m (SO ft) which extends for 150 m (500 ft).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire
right of %vay; therefore, actual impacts may be cons iderabIv

S
less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.12 10.30) 0.12 (0.30)
Pine Forest 0.04 (0.10) 0.04 (0.10)
Upland Hardwood Forest 0.04 (O.iO) 0.01, (0.10)
Maintained Roadside 0.20 (0.10) 0.30 (0.10)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.40 (0.60) 0.40 (0.60)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
3.3 Aquatic Community
A small piedmont perennial stream community, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics
of the water body and condition of the water resource reflect
faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly
influence aquatic communities.
This system is a closely-related and overlapping ecotone
that contributes greatly to many aquatic. semi-aquatic. and
terrestrial organisms in and around the aquatic community.
Some of the invertebrates that were seen to be directly
sustained by the water body were the .eater strider (Gerris
rem i is). mayfly larvae (Order Ephomeroptera) crayfish
(Family Cambaridae), and aquatic worms (Class Oliclochaeta).
The Johnny darter (Etheostoma ni`rum), shield darter (Perc.ina
peItata), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus). green sunfish
(L. cvanellus), swallowtail shiner (Nvrr opis pr-ocne) ,
crescent shiner (,V. cerasrnus), rosefin shiner (,Votropis
ardens), rosyside dace (Clinvstomus funduloides), and creeF;
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) are known to exist in this
habitat type. Semi-aquatic species are also known to utilize
this stream habitat, for instance: the three-lined
salamander (Eurycea ,;uttolineata), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus) and pickerel frog (R. palustris).
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of the proposed culvert %vi11 cause an
initial increase in sedimentation by construction equipment
and/or materials. These impacts may be short term in scope.
However, the possibility for obstruction of the proposed
culvert could vary the velocity of the stream causing
increased turbidity and suspended sediment levels from a
disturbed substrate, especially at times of high flow.
Therefore, this proposed culvert should be regularly
maintained in order to minimize negative impacts. These
impacts could potentially last for long periods of time, and
r .
9
most aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms are extreme!y
sensitive to high sediment loads, as well as introduced
toxins from construction. The installation of the proposed
culvert could cause the loss of many of the or,anisms
previously mentioned. Therefore, stringent adherence to
BMP's should be encforced in order to minimize impacts to
surface waters.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This'section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 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 (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 32S.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 into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. .-army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology based upon the COE 1937 Wetland Delineation Manua!
Proposed construction at South Country Lire Creek will impact
surface waters. No jurisdictional wetlands occur in the
project area.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated. This project
is categorically excluded (CE) which qualifies it for
coverage by Nationwide Permit =23, 33 CFR 330.3 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in who Ie or in
part, by another Federal agency or department. That which is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation,
because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect. Final permit decisions lie
with the Arm! Corps of Engineers (COE).
A North Carolina Division of Environmental `danagement
(DE,M) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is
required prior to the issuing of the nation%,.ide =23. Section
r .
i0
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulations.
4.1.3 Mitieation
Projects authorized under nationwide permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1959
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
:agency and the Department of the .-army. Final decisions
relative to mitigation are the responsibility of COE.
4.2 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 man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species :act of 19-3. as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 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 May 13, 1994, the FV,S lists no
federally-protected species for Caswe11 County.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate/State Listed Species
Virginia quiIIwort (isoetes virginica) and ile11er's
trefoil (Lotus purshianus var. heIIeri) are listed as
Candidate 2 (C2) species. These species are defined as taxa
that show evidence of susceptibility, but there is not enough
data to warrant a listing of endangered. Chreatened, proposed
endangered, or proposed threatened at this time. Neither of
these C2 species have been recorded in this count%' for the
last twenty years. These species are mentioned hel'e for
future reference should they become protected. Candidate
species do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Endangered
Species .jct. Because of this specific surve}-s were neither
conducted for these species nor were they observed during the
site visit.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed no recorded
occurrence of rare or protected species in or near the
project study area. However, Virginia quillwort and Heller's
trefoil are shown to be Candidate (C) species in North
Carolina. These C species are ver.: rare in North Carolina,

II
?eneraIIv with 1-20 populations in the state. generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
These species are also either rare throuzhout their ranges
(fewer than 100 populations total) or disjoint in North
Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country
or world.

12
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Chec'.<-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 19871. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-S'-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.l"K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survev of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1950. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick. E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. tWRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DE`.I. 193S. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network. (BMAN) Water Qua11ty Review 19S3-i9S6.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of `.Water Qual;1%
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Microinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1953-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DE}I. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh.
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Co:r,mission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of ":orth Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1950. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Bill, The University of ;:orth
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 196S. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill The
University of North Carolina Press.

13
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Wea ley. 1990. Classific::ttion of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Aoaroximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of .agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
North Carolina :agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetiands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Listed Candidate
Species of North Carolina, By County., Asheville Field
Office.
Weakle?, A.S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J. F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. .9S?. `Mammals
of the Carolinas. Virginia and :Niarvland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.

N. C. DEPARTAIENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DAE
T

V
M
TO: REF. NO
. OR ROO
. BLDG.

FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

FS' ' .
A, I
?". STAiE
9'?or+?n 3 `?'?.m
93
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
February 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
OEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 88 on SR 1759 in
Caswell County over South County Line Creek, B-2812
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for March 3, 1994 at 2:30 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/pl r CoU?t L?.? C C Z Z 7-
Attachment V Z7- -?? - 7 Z l
a ?r,>1s

p,-b dux c-&ff?
??k 1 I/A 0 CIL a

S
l
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
4
DATE 2-Q3-94
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2812
STATE PROJECT
F.A. PROJECT
DIVISION
COUNTY C we
ROUTE S 9
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 88 on SR 1759
over South County Line Creek in Caswell County, B-2812
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($? r 0.

EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 33 METERS; WIDTH 6.1 METERS
108 FEET 20.0 FEET
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST DT
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH
FEET
METERS
FEET
OR
CULVERT - X METERS
X FEET
4
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 330,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $ 350,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ..................................... ? i5u,uuu
PREPARED BY: John Williams
, J
=0pa®
?Q E a +?
•®• V uNi
4
¦
oa
¦ o
¦ O
fl D
j

b
fo,
nl J
[s Q nl.
a
V
Q?
3.5 ? ¦ n .}, o ¦ Ol
0 p
Q to Sby
`C
n,
0
N W + ?
dfY ?
Cl)
n
e•( ?.
CID
?I
A
b h
n
w
O .a

Z h W (N N
N
Z U

?ZQZ N
-
Q Z 6 J
>. Y E
O w
0 oC N
Od UOZZ F--co
r-
.. J
N
J w= •-

Fz?
?z QC? E
z
U E
w0
U (n
Q CC
QD O O O
UJ

l ? ?I
LOl
n

C?
C
o
m
? o
N
of
h
FAS' 02
N ?
Q C
0
10
n
1 -J 1 ?
USGS Quadrangle
C0Anderson
! ?\ Caswell County \ C
j.
B-2812
590
o ) 8 \ J I?
\ C 0
00
?65- - ?` ?/ \?• ,\\_.? -1 ti'i?? ??? % 615
V\ \ 4 V 60. ? ? ' / h ( ? ? ?_, .._, A •?1 '''-??? ? ? /? / \__ A I ? -,
62 A
14
J 6d: r \\ ?\ '..\ I
U 680. ? \
-\;
00
\ i -Wee ;Gum v
17
Cb' ?I iii' yJ f
M
SCOPING MEETING OUTLINE
B-2513. Caswell County
This is the scoping meeting for the replacement of Bridge No.
SS on SR 1759 over South County Line Creek, in Caswell County.
State work order number: 8.2480401
Federal aid nuilber: BRZ-17f"9(i )
EXISTING CONDITION'S:
- The existing lbr;.ri?ze Wls built in 1956.
- The bridge is a 33 meter (10S foot) long. 6.1 meter
(20 foot) wide timber structure with steel 1-beams and
a 30.2 sufficiency rating.
- Current postins, is " tons for SV and 14 tons for TTST
The bridge carries ' lanes of traffic and has 5.9
meters (19.3 feet) of cl:arec_ width.
- The bridge. is 4.9 meters ( 16 feet ) 1;)0Vc tale streL1111
- SR 1759 is cIass ifiad Rural Loca: i:oute and has a
statutory mph (90 c.ph) speed limit
c:
- Traff lc C,Jul.tS tre 00 VI'D no,.,. 400 V.'-1D in 19'-)7, 1 1
700 VPD P.-oJucted for 201-.
There have beer. no - cel t5 w ,'1 11 the I a s_ hree.
v ?1rs.
Tht;re art' IlU Spr:Cia bic\'C lc CO[ICC.'T.1i
Thera art_ ?,-, school 7U.` CI':»5.i1 L:i: le11r. s i.C
TranspJrta1ion Director for Caswt2I l i:gun.}' ;ch.:c:ti.
stated that it SiIUU a be r1Ci pro?lcin to dt;tour al'oLind
this brid2,e.
The Division EnQ-n Cr i1a'i iil_.1C< LcCI prefe::Cl
detourin2 trAf..c o:faitC for a p( lrio)CI of 9 1il•......_ or
less with a spring availability date.
The replacement structure should be feat lung with an
S.5 meter wide deer: including a 6.7 meter tracelway. and 0.9
meter offsets (25 foot wide deck. ?2 foot trayelway,3 foot
offsets).
WHAT SHOULD THE DESIGN SPEED BE ':
WHAT ALTERNATIVES SHOULD BE EXPLORED -?
Request a COST ESTIMATF from Roadway Design along with an
approximate TYPICAL S CTION and a ROUGH Sc_FTCH.