20150389 Ver 1_Application_20150423 (2)

e•nAR
� �
.�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T'IZANSPORTATION
PAT MCCRORY ANTHONY J. TATA
GOVERN02 SECRE"LARY
Apl'1� 21� 2�15
US Army Coips of Engineers NC Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Winston-Salem Regional Office
Attn: Mr. David Bailey Attn: Mr. Dave Wauucha
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Ste. 105 450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Ste. 103
Wake Forest, NC 27587 Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Subject: Nationwide 14 Pei7nit and Neuse River Basin Buffer Application for the
replacement of Bridge No. 101 on SR 1723 (New Hope Church Road) over Stony Creek,
Orange County, North Carolina, WBS Element No. 17BP.7.R.63
Dear Mr. Bailey and Mr. Wanucha:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace a functionally
obsolete 35' L by 9' A single span conorete bridge on timber caps, posts, and sills with a new 33' L by
5' H reinforced concrete bottomless culvert with top bevel and wing walls. Au off-site detour will be
used to convey traffic during constiuction. The project will also include some minor approach work on
the existing roadway.
Please find enclosed a PCN application, Stormwater Management Plan, Bridge Survey Report, pennit
drawings, buffer drawings, a USGS quad map, SHPO Concurrence Forms, and photographs.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was checked for records of threatened and endangered
species. The database lists five species for Orange County that have federal status. Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected in every county in North Carolina under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides bo��ealis), dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasnsidonta heterodon), Michaux's sumac (Rlius michauxii), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea
Zaevigata) are listed as endangered.
Habitat for bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for
foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. A
desktop-GIS assessment of tUe project study area, as well as the v�ea within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile
plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on March 16, 2015 using 2010 color aerials. No
water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within tl�e review area, a survey of the project study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the
NCNHP database on March 16, 2015 revealed no known occurrences of this species within I.0 mile of
the project study area. The closest Imown occurrence is approximately 6.0 miles west of the project.
Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has
been determined that the subject project will not affect tliis species.

Bridge No. 101 Page 2 April 21, 2015
Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat includes forests �vith trees old enough for roosting, generally at least
60-120 years old, depending on species of pine. Longleaf pine is tl�e prefen�ed species, but other
species of southern pine are acceptable. A review of the NCNI-IP database on March 16, 2015 revealed
no known occurrences of this speeies within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The closest lmown
occurrence is approximately 20.0 miles east of the project. Given the lack of pine stands in the vicinity,
this project will not impact red-cockaded woodpecicer.
Dwarf wedgemussel are small freshwater bivalves found in small streams less than five meters wide to
lu�ge rivers more than 100 meters wide. The closest record of dwarf wedgemussel is in the Eno River
approximately 7.8 miles away. Therefore, the subject project will have No Effect ov this species.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. Several
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially
maintained clearings. Suiveys conducted in 2012 determined that no plants are present in tl�e project
study area. A review of the NCNIIP database on March 16, 2015 revealed no known occuirences of
this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The closest known occurrence is approximately
7.0 miles uorthwest of the project. Therefore, the subject project will have No Effect on this species.
Smooth coneflower is typically found in open woods, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry
limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on magnesium and calcium rich soils. Smooth
coneflower occurs in plant communities that have been described as xeric hardpan forests, diabase
glades or dolomite woodlands. Optimal sites u�e characterized by abundant sunlight and little
competition in the herbaceous layer. Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, historically influenced
the vegetation in this species' rauge. Surveys conducted in 2012 determined that no plants are present
in the project study area. A review of NCNHP database revealed no Imown occurrences of smooth
coneflower within 1.0 mile of the study area. The closest known occurrence is approximately 6.0 miles
from the project. Therefore, tlie subject project will have No Effect on this species.
Additionally, Mr. Gary Jordan (USFWS) recently released the Programmatic Conference Opinion
(PCO) for the recently listed Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB). This opinion, states in part, Uiat "... it
is the Service's conference apdnion that NCDOT activities in eastern North Carolina (Divisions 1-8), as
propased, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the NLEB. "
This project was reviewed by NCDOT's Human Enviromnent Unit in 2012 for potential affects to
historical architecture aud archaeology. After reviewing historical maps, aerials, and other data
sources, it was determined that no survey was required for historical architecture. A survey on July 1 l,
2012 determined that no archaeological resources will be affected by the project.
The project study area is comprised mostly of maintainedhesidential land.
NCDOT best management practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize and control sedimentation and
erosion. The construction foreman will review tl�e BMPs daily to ensure erosion and sedimentation is
Ueing effectively controlled. If the foreman determines the devices are not functioning as intended,
Uiey will be replaced immediately with better devices.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Stony Creek (DWR Class: WS-V, NSW) is shown on the USGS topographic map as a perennial stream.
The channel is well defined with a subsh�ate primarily composed of sand, silt, and gravel and is
approximately 15-20 feet in width. From the project site, Stony Creek flows approximately 3.8 miles

Bridge No. 101 Page 3 Apri121, 2015
eastward to its confluence with the Eno River, a part of the Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020201). The
Eno River meets the defiuition of a Traditional Navigable Water. For these reasons, we Uelieve Stony
Creek is a Relatively Permanent Water and is under tlie jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Carps of
Engineers. As such, replacing the existing bridge will result in impacts to waters of the United States.
The nnpaets are listed in the table below:
Jurisdictional Impact Summary
Perm Fill Temp. Perm. Temp.
Perm. SW �xisting �xisting
Stat3on Structure Size / Type j° Impacts sW Channel Cl�annel
Wetlands �a�� Impacts Impacts Impacts
(ac) ( ac) � �
12+25 to 12+60 LT Channel realigmnent for bottomless
12+30 to 12+65 culvei�t, temporary pipe, and 0.01 OAl 0.01 50 65
RT im ervious dikes
Jordan Lake Buffer Im act Summar
Station Type Zone 1(ft2) Zone 2(ft2)
11+75 to 12+30 —LT-
12+60 to 13+05 —LT- Road Fill and Clearing 1,250 345
11+85 to 12+30 —RT-
12+70 to 13+10 —RT- Road Fill and Clearing 860 335
11+89 to 12+11 —LT- Bridge Fill and Cleuing 910 0
11+96 Yo 12+18 —RT-
Total 3,020 680

Bridge No. 101 Page 4 Apri] 21, 2015
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting autliorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water AcY to proceed with
the construction project outlined above. We are also requesting a 401 Water QualiTy Certiiication aud
Neuse River Basin Buffer Authorization from the North Carolina Depai�tment of Environmeut and
Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Resources (DWR).
If you have any questions or ueed additiona] information, please contact 7erry Parlcer at [phone]
or jparker e,ncdot.gov. Your review and consideration are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
�� m �''''�.���
J.M. Mi]]s, PE
Division Engineer, Division 7
Enclosm es
cc: Tim Powers, NCDOT
Barry Harrington, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer
Jeremy Warren, NCDOT
Chuck Edwards, District 1, District Engineer

O�aF W ATFROG
Ul y
� � -i
O c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 102008
Pre-Construction Notiitcation PC Form
A. A licant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: � Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? � Yes ❑ No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express � Riparia� Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes � No ❑ Yes � No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation � Yes ❑ No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ❑ Yes � No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes � No
2. Project Information -
2a. Name of project: Replace Bridge No. 101 on SR 1723 (New Hope Church Rd) over Stony Creek
2b. County: Orange
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Hiilsborough
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state � 7gp � R.63
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if Division Engineer NC DOT Division 7, Mr. Mike Mills, PE
applicable):
3d. Street address: PO Box 14996
3e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent � Other, specify: NC DOT Highway Division 7
4b. Name: Division Engineer NC DOT Division 7, Mr. Mike Milis, PE
4c. Business name NC DOT
(if applicable):
4d. Street address: PO Box 14996
4e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.: [phone]
4h. Email address: [e-mail] *note: please afso copy Mr. JerryParker, Highway Division 7 Environmenlal
Supervisoron all correspondence—jparker@/'cdot.gov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Mr. Jerry Parker
5b. Business name NC DOT Highway Division 7, Division Environmental Supervisor
(if applicable):
5c. Street address: PO Box 14996
5d. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude 36.02522 Longitude: -79.06079
� (DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Stony Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 27-2-12-(1); WS-V; NSW; 03-04-01
2c. River basin: Neuse (HUC 03020201)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project study area is comprised of mostly of forested land, maintained/right of way and residential property.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.01
3c._List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
� 115 LF of stream within the project boundaries
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient and functionally obsolete timber bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Traffic will be detoured off-site. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be instailed. Water will be diverted around the
construction area. The old bridge will be removed. The proposed stucture will be replaced on its existing alignment. The new
culvert structure wili be a 33' L by 5' H reinforced concrete bottomless culvert with top bevels and wing walis. Water will be
pumped around the work area during construction by installed impervious dikes upstream and downstream of the existing
bridge, Water wili be directed into special stilling basins. Equipment to be used includes a track hoe, dump truck, paving
equipment, pumps, and various hand tools.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / � Yes � No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: N/A
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type � preliminary 0 Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � Yes � No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file° instructions.
N!A
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes � No
6b. If yes, explain.
N/A
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
� Wetlands � Streams - tributaries � Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non-404, other) (acres)
Tem orar T
Riparian/linear ❑ Yes � Corps
W1 � P � T Fill ditch � No ❑ DWQ 0.01
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.01
2h. Comments: wetland begins outside of study area to the northwest which becomes a roadside ditch then runs as a linear
wetland in the ditch down to Stony Creek
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
channel
realignment for
bottomless culvert, � PER � Corps P: 50
S1 � P� T temporary pipe, Stony Creek � INT � DWQ 15-20 T: 65
and impervious
dikes
S2 ❑ P 0 T ❑ PER ❑ Corps
❑ INT ❑ DWQ
3h. Total Permanent Stream and Tributary Impacts 115
3i. Comments: Of the 115 LF of stream impacts, only 50 LF are associated with permanent impacts to the stream for the
purpose of stream alignment with respect to the culvert installation. The 65 LF of temporary impacts are associated with the
impervious dikes that will be used upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing. The dewatering of the stream will run
concurrently with the construction activities (i.e. the temporary impacts associated with dewatering are within the permanent
stream impact footprint location).
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent(P)
or Tem ora T
01 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No open water impacts
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose of (acres)
number pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: There are no ponds created for this project
Sh. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of po�d watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
� Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Other: Jordan Lake
Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Tem ora T im act re uired?
Road fill ❑ Yes
B1 � P❑ T and Stony Creek � No 2,110 680
clearing
Bridge ❑ Yes
62 � P 0 T Fill and Stony Creek � No 910 0
Ciearing
6h. Total buffer impacts 3,020 680
6i. Comments: The impacts associated with the roadway crossing and culvert installation fall under the "potentially allowable"
category per the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules Table of Uses {15A NCAC 026 .0233 (6)}
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
Page 5 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project is to remove a structurally deficient bridge and replace it with a bottomless culvert. Roadway approach
work is minimized as much as is practical to reduce the overall project footprint. Impacts to the associated protected riparian
buffers have also been reduced by promoting sheet flow as well as providing grass shoulders to promote infiltration. An off-
site detour will be employed to avoid the need for a temporary parallel structure. Bank stabilization will be minimized to those
areas where deemed necessary.
1 b. Specificaliy describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Erosion and sedimentation BMPs will be installed prior to construction. The stream will be diverted around the work area to
prevent sedimentation of downstream aquatic resources. Impacts will be minimized by strict enforcement of Best
Management Practices for the protection of surface waters, restrictions against the staging of equipment in or adjacent to
waters of the US and coordination (including a pre-construction meeting) with the Division Environmental Supervisor.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for � Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ � Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? � Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. � Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 50 LF
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: � warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: The NCDOT proposes to provide 1:1 mitigation for the impacts to the stream with the installation of the
bottomless culvert. NCDOT does not believe a 2:1 mitigation ratio is required as the thalweg of the channel will not be
permanently impacted with structures or fill. The stream 6anks will be reshaped and floodplain benches will be built with
streambank stabilization to prevent scour/erosion around the footers of the 3 sided culvert.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ❑ Yes � No
While there are impacts to the protected Neuse River Buffer area, these impacts are
"allowable" per the Table of Uses {15A NCAC 02B.0233(6)}
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3(2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified � Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparia� Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The proposed structure will be a 33' by 5' reinforced concrete
bottomless culvert. There is a slight increase in impervious surface but treatment is ❑ Yes � No
not required. Stormwater runoff will be directed to existing, grass lined roadside
ditches.
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? � Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Plan is attached.
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
� DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local governmenYs jurisdiction is this project? N/A
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approvai been ❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Pro ram Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply � ORW
(check all that apply): ❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federallstate/local) funds or the � yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes � No
(North Carolina) Environmental PolicyAct (NEPAlSEPA1?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surtace Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes � No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑ Yes � No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in � Yes � No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Per the NC DWQ April 10, 2004 Version 2.1 Cumulative Impacts policy, small scale public transportation projects — such
as widening projects, bridge replacements and intersection improvements — have a"low potential for cumulative impact
since little (if any) new impervious surface is added a�d the projects are usually in already developed locales." This
proposed project is within a somewhat developed landscape (i.e. existing residential homes in the vicinity), this is not a
road on a new location (i.e. there is an existing road and bridge structure and thus, the area already contains impervious
surfaces) and the project drains to Stony Creek, which is Class WS-V; Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) (i.e. not HWQ or
ORW or 303(d) listed waters). We anticipate the NC DWR wili advise us if a qualitative or quantitative analysis is needed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
It is nof anticipated that this project will generate any wastewater as it is a roadway project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or � Yes � No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � Yes ❑ No
impacts?
� Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database and onsite investigation.
6. Essentiai Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes � No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
This bridge replacement project takes place in Orange County which is not near any coastal or tidal habitat that would
support EFH (i.e. salt marshes, oyster reefs, etc.).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation � yes � No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
This project was submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Human Environment Unit for review in
2012. It was determined that no survey was required for historical properties, and a field survey on July 11, 2012,
supported that no archaeological resources will be affected by this project.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? � Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: MOA -
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
Mr. Mike Mills, PE •
Applicant/AgenYs Printed Name � %%�%• i�Y/..i� �•Li• /5�
ApplicanUAgenYs Sign ur Date
(AgenCs signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the
a licantis rovided.
Page 10 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version