20020689 Ver 1_Scoping Comments_20020502

January 21, 1999
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O.13OX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
iSy?a
C
} s5ue
15fi1?
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
C5 l'1 ??
1.U .
JAN 2 1 1999
WETLANDS GNOUP'
WA Er, OIwjIy
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3435 Chowan No. 4 SR 1207 Bill Goodwin
-3217 Onslow No. 21 SR 1503 Bill Goodwin
B-3378 Wayne No. 34 NC 111 Karen Orthner
- 3538 Wayne No. 296 SR 1222 Karen Orthner
-3539
rB Wayne No. 164 SR 1571 Karen Orthner
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information 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 projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
February 18, 1999 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown
above. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the
meeting, or e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
WDG/bg
Attachments
(6?,J 0i C/-ee*
C ? CA k-V-<' ?, Ns

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
1/19/99
TIP PROJECT: B-3435 DIVISION: One
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ - 1207(l) COUNTY: Chowan
STATE PROJECT: 8.2030201 ROUTE: SR 1207
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 4 on SR 1207 over Rockyhock Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Edenhouse Quad
LOCATION ON QUAD: North central section
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 600,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 50,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 650,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 500 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 800 VPD
TTST 2 % DUAL 2 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 16 foot
pavement, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 160.0 FEET WIDTH 19.9 FEET
COMMENTS:

t North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
' Planning & Environmental Branch
i'Pilwi
Chowan County
Replace Bridge No. 4 on SR 1207
Over Rockyhock Creek
B-3435
Figure 1
?r
P CQ
? Al?
{
MEMO TO
FROM:
?1°M STAt!'??
M?
?? ViMra v??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
April 9, 1999
Project File
Bill Goodwin, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 4 on SR 1207 over
Rockyhock Creek in Chowan County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1207(1), State Project No. 8.2030201, TIP No. B-3435
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on February 18, 1999. The following
persons were in attendance:
Tom Tarleton Location & Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Greg Mintz Traffic Control
Dan Duffield Hydraulics
Jerome Nix Hydraulics
Marc Clifford Roadway Design
Bill Goodwin Project Development
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are underground telephone lines along
the east side of SR 1207 and overhead power lines along the west side of SR 1207. There is also
a water line buried along the east side of SR 12,07 that is submerged in the creek bed of
Rockyhock Creek.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated by e-mail, that Rockyhock Creek is classified as
Class C - Sw. There are wetlands at the project site that should be avoided as much as possible.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should routinely minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. He
requested that there be no in-water construction activities from February 15 to June 15 due to the
known presence of anadromous fish in Rockyhock Creek.
Ms. Sara Winslow of NC DMF indicated by memo, that Rockyhock Creek functions as a
spawning and nursery area for blueback herring and alewife. The creek is also utilized by white
perch, yellow perch, catfishes and other commercially and recreationally important species.

Therefore, an in-water construction moratorium is requested for the period from February 15
through October 31.
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated
that there are no known sites of architectural or archaeological significance listed on the Natio
Register of Historic Places in the project area. No unknown sites are likely to be found, therefore
no surveys are recommended in connection with this project.
Mr. Dan Duffield of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new bridge will be required to
replace the existing bridge. This bridge should be approximately 170 feet in length and should be
placed at approximately the same roadway grade as the existing bridge. If a temporary on-site
detour is required, it should be to the north of the existing bridge, have a 160 foot long bridge,
and should be at the same elevation as the existing bridge.
The Chowan County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that no school
buses cross this bridge.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing the bridge in-place, with traffic
detoured along other roads in the area would be preferred. The Division would also like to
address a maintenance problem on SR 1207 just northwest of the bridge during the period that
the road is closed for the bridge replacement. The section of SR 1207 just northwest of Bridge
No. 4 has a history of settlement problems and flooding. The Division wants to raise the roadway
grade slightly and attempt to stabilize the roadbed as well.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 4, SR 1207 carries 500
vehicles per day at present [1998]. This figure is expected to increase to 800 vehicles per day by
the year 2025. These traffic figures include 2% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and 2% truck-tractor
semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 10%.
A desired design speed of 60 mph should be achieved on this project. The roadway
approaches will have two 11 foot travel lanes and a shoulder width of at least 4 feet. The total
shoulder width will be 3 feet wider where guardrail is warranted. This section of SR 1207 is
classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The speed
limit in the area is 55 mph by statute.
The Roadway Design Project Engineer has agreed to provide construction cost estimates
and preliminary alignment and typical section information on the following alternative to the
Bridge Project Planning Engineer by May 21, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 4 in place with a new bridge. Traffic will be detoured on
existing area roads during construction.
BG/
.+' STIVf o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 2761 1-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 9, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P. E.
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 21 on SR 1503 over Bear
Creek in Onslow County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(1), State
Project No. 8.226100 1, TIP No. B-3217
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on February 18, 1999. The following
persons were in attendance:
Tom Tarleton Location & Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Shannon Ransom Traffic Control
Dan Duffield Hydraulics
Jerome Nix Hydraulics
David Williams Roadway Design
Greg Brew Roadway Design
Bill Goodwin Project Development
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are underground telephone lines and
overhead power lines along the west side of SR 1503. There is also a water line buried along the
west side of SR 1503.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated by e-mail, that Bear Creek is classified as Class SA -
shell fishing. There are wetlands at the project site that should be avoided as much as possible.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should routinely minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. He
requested that there be no in-water construction activities from March 1 to September 30 due to
the presence of anadromous fish in Bear Creek.
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated
that there are no known sites of architectural or archaeological significance listed on the National
Register of Historic Places in the project area. No unknown sites are likely to be found, therefore
no surveys are recommended in connection with this project.
Mr. Dan Duffield of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new bridge will be required to
replace the existing bridge. This bridge should be approximately 100 feet in length and should be
placed at approximately the same roadway grade as the existing bridge. If a temporary on-site
detour is required, it should be to the west of the existing bridge. This detour should have two 72
inch steel pipes at the main channel and two 36 inch steel pipes in the flood plain and should be
at an elevation that is 3 feet lower than the existing bridge.
The Onslow County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that nine school
buses cross, this bridge daily, for a total of 18 trips per day. Also, these is a Learning Center
located near the intersection of SR 1503 and NC 172 which accounts for a couple of these buses.
They would have a long detour since the bridge is about a quarter of a mile east of the school and
most of its students live east of the bridge.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing the bridge on new alignment to the
west, with traffic maintained on the existing bridge would be preferred.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 21, SR 1503 carries 4000
vehicles per day at present [1998]. This figure is expected to increase to 8700 vehicles per day by
the year 2025. These traffic figures include 3% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and 1% truck-tractor
semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 11%.
A desired design speed of 60 mph may be achievable on this project, depending on the
alternate chosen. The roadway approaches will have two 12 foot travel lanes and a shoulder
width of at least 8 feet. The total shoulder width will be 3 feet wider where guardrail is
warranted. This section of SR 1503 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. The speed limit in the area is 55 mph, with an advisory posting
of 45 mph approaching the bridge from the south.
The Roadway Design Project Engineer has agreed to provide construction cost estimates
and preliminary alignment and typical section information on the following alternatives to the
Bridge Project Planning Engineer by June 30, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 21 in place with a new bridge. Traffic will be maintained on a
temporary detour located east of the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 21 on new alignment to the west with a new bridge. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 3: Replace Bridge No. 21 on new alignment to the east with a new bridge. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
BG/
-. `l
11 ?C'. GU.,4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3481, Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 94 over
Little River, State Project 8.1312101, F. A. Project BRSTP-96(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on March 4, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Tom Tarelton Location and Surveys
Derrick Lewis Programming and TIP
Dan Duffield Hydraulic Design Unit
Matt Lauffer Hydraulic Design Unit
Chris Howard Traffic Control
Jim Speer Roadway Design
Brian Eason Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Tanner Holland Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Andy Healy Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
The Division Four-Construction Engineer, Edward Eatmon, recommended replacing the
bridge in place while detouring traffic off-site along surrounding roads. He also recommended
some alignment improvement in order to improve sight distance.
Renee Gledhill-Earley of SHPO recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys
be conducted in connection with this project.
Tanner Holland, Natural Resources Specialist, commented that NWI mapping indicates
wetlands at the project site. Tanner also noted that there is a NHP site, which indicates a rare
species and unique habitat, located adjacent to the project site on the south side.
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended replacing Bridge No. 94 with a 170-foot long
bridge at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. To facilitate deck
drainage, the Hydraulics Unit recommended a minimum of 0.3% roadway gradient on the new
bridge. Dan recommended a 100-foot long temporary detour bridge located to the south
(upstream) for maintenance of traffic on-site during construction. Dan stated that the grade of the
detour bridge could be six feet lower than that of the existing bridge.
Tom Tarleton of Location and Surveys located underground telephone cables, owned by
Southern Bell Telephone Company, on the east side of NC 96 north of the bridge. Tom stated that
field surveys are needed to determine where and how the cables cross Little River. Tom also
located aerial power lines, owned by CP&L, on the west side of SR 1247.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) gave no specific comments regarding
this project. However, she stated that DWQ's standard recommendations apply to this project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission commented that the Federally-
endangered dwarf wedgemussel and other freshwater mussels are found downstream of Bridge
No. 94. David recommended holding a field meeting to discuss conservation measures to protect
these species. David noted some plans to remove a dam on the Little River downstream of this
site, which will open up this area to anadromous fish runs.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 94:
[Built in 1951] [170 feet long] [25.4-foot wide deck] [24.1 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 21 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 25.9]
[Posted 20 tons for SV and 23 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life 8 years]
Traffic Information:
NC 96 is a Rural Major Collector with a 55 mph posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 2200 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 4500 vpd
8% Duals, 6% TTST
Accident Information: (1-01-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Vehicle ran off the road to the right traveling south on NC 96
Accident 2) Vehicle ran off the road to the left traveling south on NC 96
Bus Information: Eight trips a day.
TIP Estimate:
Construction Estimate:
$ 767,000
Not available yet
nrn?F°?
Min
•? OIMr ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3529, Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 124 over Perry
Creek on SR 2006, State Project 8.2406901, F. A. Project BRZ-
2006(1)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on March 4, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Dan Duffield Hydraulics Design Unit
Matt Lauffer Hydraulics Design Unit
Derrick Lewis Programming and TIP
Greg Brew Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended replacing Bridge No. 124 with a 95-foot long
(see alternate discussion) bridge on new location to the northeast (downstream) of the existing
bridge with approximately the same roadway elevation. To facilitate deck drainage, Dan
recommended a minimum of 0.3% gradient on the new bridge. In the case of maintaining traffic
on-site, the Hydraulics Unit recommended a 60-foot long detour bridge, three feet lower than the
existing bridge, located to the north to avoid utilities.
The Division Five Construction Engineer, Ricky Greene, recommended replacing
the bridge at the existing location with an on-site detour. Ricky also noted that a 16"
diameter water line has been installed on the north side of the road about five feet from the
edge of pavement.
Renee Gledhill-Earley of SHPO recommended no architectural or archaeological
surveys be conducted in connection with this project.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) gave no specific comments
regarding this project. However, she stated that DWQ's standard recommendations apply
to this project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) commented that Perry
Creek now supports an anadromous fish-spawning run due to recent dam removals on the
Neuse River. David requested that NCDOT follow the officially adopted "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage." The WRC requested that no in-water
work occur from February 15 to June 15.
Sid Autry of Location and Surveys located CP&L multiple electrical lines along the
south side of SR 2006. He also found Cable Television cables attached to the CP&L poles.
Sid noted that the City of Raleigh owns a 16-inch water line along the north side of
SR 2006, crossing the road at approximately 130 feet west of the bridge. Sid located the
City of Raleigh's 30-inch sanitary sewer outfall line approximately 150 feet east of the
bridge. Also, Sid located Bell South Telephone underground cables along the south side of
SR 2006.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 124
[Built in 1952] [70 feet long] [25.3-foot wide deck] [24.0 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 15 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 34.3]
[Posted 17 tons for SV and 24 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life: 6 years]
Traffic Information
SR 2006 is an Urban Local Route with a 45 mph posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 9000 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 24,000 vpd
2% Duals, I% TTST
Accident Information: 6/01/95 through 5/31/98
Vehicle ran off road, right 6
Vehicle hit object 2
Rear-end 1
Left turn, same road 3
Left turn, cross traffic 1
Angle 2
Backing up 1
Total Accidents 16
Bus Information: Twenty-four trips a day.
TIP Estimate: $ 657,000
Construction Estimate: Not available yet.
&SIA4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3481, Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 94 over
Little River, State Project 8.1312101, F. A. Project BRSTP-96(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on March 4, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Tom Tarelton Location and Surveys
Derrick Lewis Programming and TIP
Dan Duffield Hydraulic Design Unit
Matt Lauffer Hydraulic Design Unit
Chris Howard Traffic Control
Jim Speer Roadway Design
Brian Eason Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Tanner Holland Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Andy Healy Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
The Division Four-Construction Engineer, Edward Eatmon, recommended replacing the
bridge in place while detouring traffic off-site along surrounding roads. He also recommended
some alignment improvement in order to improve sight distance.
Renee Gledhill-Earley of SHPO recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys
be conducted in connection with this project.
Tanner Holland, Natural Resources Specialist, commented that NWI mapping indicates
wetlands at the project site. Tanner also noted that there is a NHP site, which indicates a rare
species and unique habitat, located adjacent to the project site on the south side.
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended replacing Bridge No. 94 with a 170-foot long
bridge at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. To facilitate deck
drainage, the Hydraulics Unit recommended a minimum of 0.3% roadway gradient on the new
bridge. Dan recommended a 100-foot long temporary detour bridge located to the south
(upstream) for maintenance of traffic on-site during construction. Dan stated that the grade of the
detour bridge could be six feet lower than that of the existing bridge.
Tom Tarleton of Location and Surveys located underground telephone cables, owned by
Southern Bell Telephone Company, on the east side of NC 96 north of the bridge. Tom stated that
field surveys are needed to determine where and how the cables cross Little River. Tom also
located aerial power lines, owned by CP&L, on the west side of SR 1247.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) gave no specific comments regarding
this project. However, she stated that DWQ's standard recommendations apply to this project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission commented that the Federally-
endangered dwarf wedgemussel and other freshwater mussels are found downstream of Bridge
No. 94. David recommended holding a field meeting to discuss conservation measures to protect
these species. David noted some plans to remove a dam on the Little River downstream of this
site, which will open up this area to anadromous fish runs.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 94:
[Built in 1951] [170 feet long] [25.4-foot wide deck] [24.1 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 21 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 25.9]
[Posted 20 tons for SV and 23 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life 8 years]
Traffic Information:
NC 96 is a Rural Major Collector with a 55 mph posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 2200 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 4500 vpd
8% Duals, 6% TTST
Accident Information: (1-01-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Vehicle ran off the road to the right traveling south on NC 96
Accident 2) Vehicle ran off the road to the left traveling south on NC 96
Bus Information: Eight trips a day.
TIP Estimate:
Construction Estimate:
$ 767,000
Not available yet
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Jim Speer and Brian Eason of Roadway Design
agreed to complete the construction cost estimates by May, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 94 with a 170-foot long bridge in -approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Detour traffic off-site along
surrounding roads during construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 94 with a 170-foot long bridge in approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Maintain traffic on-site using
a 100-foot long bridge located southwest of the existing bridge.
Cross Section of New Bridle: 30-foot cross section

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Greg Brew of Roadway Design agreed to complete the
construction cost estimates by August, 1999.
The alternates emerged from a meeting with Ed Johnson of the City of Raleigh on
February 19, 1999. Ed informed NCDOT of the proposed Regional Triangle Mall as well
as the possibility of a new Wake Tech Campus in the vicinity of the bridge. Because of the
extremely high-density development area and other satellite developments proposed,
NCDOT decided to strongly consider construction of a multi-lane bridge to accommodate
the growth. In addition, the City purchased right-of-way for their proposed greenway
located along Perry Creek under the bridge. NCDOT agreed to accommodate the
greenway on the northwest side of the bridge. This accommodation increased the bridge
length from 95 feet to 105 feet to provide clearance for the greenway.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 124 with a 105-foot long bridge at approximately the
same location. Phase construct to allow for maintenance of traffic on-site. Provide three
separate cross sections, each of which will provide two lanes of traffic initially:
A) 32-foot section - two-lane structure with approach shoulders, sidewalk
located on the north side of the bridge.
B) 52-foot section - four-lane structure with approach shoulders, sidewalks
on both sides of the bridge.
C) 64-foot section - five-lane structure with approach shoulders, sidewalks on
both sides of the bridge.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 124 with a 105-foot long bridge on new location to
the north. Phase construct to allow for maintenance of traffic on-site. Provide three
separate cross sections, each of which will provide two lanes of traffic initially:
A) 32-foot section - two-lane structure with approach shoulders, sidewalk
located on the north side of the bridge.
B) 52-foot section - four-lane structure with approach shoulders, sidewalks
on both sides of the bridge.
C) 64-foot section - five-lane structure with approach shoulders, sidewalks on
both sides of the bridge.
a,,. STA7E °?
r ...
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 7, 1999
SECRETARY
Project File
Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
B-3459, Granville County, Replacement of Bridge No. 6 over
Island Creek on SR 1430, State Project 8.2370701,
F. A. Project BRSTP-1430(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on March 2, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Kathy Lassiter Roadway Design
Tim Jordan Roadway Design
Dan Duffield Hydraulic Design
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Gary Parker Traffic Control
Janet James Traffic Control
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
The Division Five Construction Engineer, Ricky Greene, recommended replacing the
bridge in place while detouring traffic off-site along surrounding roads during construction. Ricky
noted that SR 1526 is posted at 6 '/2 tons per axle.
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing bridge with a 55-foot
bridge at the same location and roadway grade as the existing bridge. To facilitate deck drainage,
Dan recommended using a minimum of 0.3% roadway gradient on the new bridge. In the case of
maintaining traffic on-site, Dan recommended a 35-foot long temporary bridge located to the
north. Dan also recommended placing the detour bridge three feet lower than the existing bridge.
Curtis Yates of the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation commented that this
section of SR 1430 corresponds to a designate bicycle route, North Line Trace, through Granville
County. Curtis requested accommodations for bicycles including 4-foot wide paved shoulders
along both sides of the roadway and a bridge rail height of 54 inches for bicycle safety.
Logan Williams, Natural Resources Specialist, commented that a mussel survey would be
necessary for Island Creek. He also stated that two endangered plants, smooth coneflower and
harperalla, will need a survey.
Renee Gledhill-Earley of SHPO recommended that no architectural or archaeological
surveys be conducted in connection with this project.
Sid Autry of Location and Surveys located a single-phase electrical service along the north
side of SR 1430 owned by Carolina Power and Light. He noted that Sprint/Carolina owns an
underground cable along the north side of SR 1430, which becomes aerial across Island Creek.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) gave no specific comments in regard
to this project. However, she stated that DWQ's standard recommendations apply to this project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) commented that Island Creek is
a low gradient, deep channeled stream with a sand and silt substrate. David stated that the stream
might provide fair fishing for sunfish and pickerel. David added that WRC's standard
recommendations apply to this project.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 6:
[Built in 1964] [36 feet long] [24-foot wide deck] [23.9 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 12 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 47.0]
[Posted 18 tons for SV and 24 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life: 8 years]
Traffic Information:
SR 1430 is a Rural Major Collector with a 55 mph posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 900 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 2200 VPD
3% Duals, I% TTST
Accident Information: (1-01-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Vehicle was traveling west on SR 1430 and hit a fallen tree in the road.
Bus Information: Four trips a day.
TIP Estimate:
Construction Estimate:
$ 402,000
Not available yet
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Kathy Lassiter and Tim Jordan of Roadway
Design agreed to complete the construction cost estimates by April, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 6 with a 55-foot long bridge in approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Detour traffic off-site along
surrounding roads during construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 6 with a 55-foot long bridge in approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Maintain traffic on-site using
a 35-foot long temporary bridge to the north.
Cross Section of New Bridge: Design Speed >/ = 45 mph - 32-foot cross section
(using design year ADT)
fi STNF o?
y r ?.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT
April 7, 1999
SECRETARY
Project File
Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
B-3210, Montgomery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 45 over
Uwharrie River on NC 109, State Project 8.1551101, F. A. Project
BRSTP-109(7)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on March 4, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Greg Brew Roadway Design
Dan Duffield Hydraulics Design Unit
Matt Lauffer Hydraulics Design Unit
Spencer Franklin Traffic Control
Neil Mastin Traffic Control
Ray Moore Structure Design
Derrick Lewis Programming and TIP
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Andy Healy Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended replacing Bridge No. 45 with a 360-foot long
bridge at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. To facilitate deck
drainage, the Hydraulics Unit recommended a minimum of 0.3% roadway gradient on the new
bridge. To maintain traffic on-site, Dan recommended a 350-foot long detour bridge located east
(upstream) of the existing bridge to avoid a new waterline downstream. Dan noted that the
temporary structure could be three feet lower than the existing bridge.
Curtis Yates of the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation commented that this
section of roadway does not correspond with a designated bicycle route. However, Curtis noted
that the project is located one mile from Piedmont Spur, a designated bicycle route through the
Uwharrie National Forest. Because the forest and the adjoining Morrow Mountain State Park are
becoming increasingly attractive to cyclists, the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
requested bicycle accommodations along with this project. The proposed improvements included
four-foot wide paved shoulders on both sides of the bridge with a bridge rail height of 54 inches
for bicycle safety.
The Division Eight Engineer, W.T. Campbell, commented that a significant number of
canoeists park along the shoulder of NC 109 to use the Uwharrie River. Mr. Campbell
recommended wide paved shoulders to accommodate for parking along NC 109. He also
suggested leaving the old roadway for parking if the bridge is replaced on new location.
Chris Rivenbark, Natural Resources Specialist, recommended replacing the bridge in place
to minimize impacts to the Uwharrie River. He also recommended a temporary detour to the east
to avoid conflict with a red-cockaded woodpecker tree located approximately 0.6-mile southwest
of the bridge.
John Taylor, Area Locating Engineer, noted that utilities near the bridge include an
underground telephone cable located on the east shoulder on NC 109 that becomes aerial over the
bridge. John also noted a water line located along the bottom of the approach fill on the west side,
buried under the river. He recommended replacing the structure in place with a temporary detour
on the east side to avoid the water line.
Harold Boles of Location and Surveys consulted a tax map of the area and discovered that
the land adjacent to the bridge is privately owned. The tax map showed that the U.S. National
Forest Service owns the land located about 200 feet (east side) to 250 feet (west side) north of the
bridge.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) gave no specific comments regarding
this project. However, she stated that DWQ's standard recommendations apply to the project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) commented that the Uwharrie
River is a very high quality stream that supports an important and diverse fishery for all sunfish
and a spawning run for white bass from Lake Tillery. David added that the river contains
numerous species of freshwater fish mussels, including federal species of concern as well as state
listed species. He stated that the Uwharrie River is one of only a few river basins within the Pee
Dee system that still supports a high diversity of mussels. David recommended that NCDOT hold
a field meeting to discuss mussel conservation measures. The WRC requested that sedimentation
and erosion control measures for sensitive watersheds be used to protect these aquatic resources.
The WRC asked that no in-water work be performed from March 1 to May 30. The WRC also
requested that the new bridge be replaced in existing location. In the event that the bridge is
replaced on new location, the WRC requested that the old bridge be retained for a fishing access
area.
The Statewide Planning Branch commented that the Thoroughfare Plan for this area in
Montgomery County recommends a cross section of 12-foot wide lanes for NC 109.
Official comments from SHPO are not available at this time.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 45:
[Built in 1947] [350 feet long] [29.5 foot wide deck] [26.2 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 34 feet] [Bridge is not posted]
[Estimated useful remaining life: 11 years] [Sufficiency Rating 28.6]
Traffic Information:
NC 10 is a Rural Minor Arterial with a 55 mph posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 2000 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 4000 vpd
6% Duals, 10% TTST
Accident Information: (1-05-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Ran off road due to exceeding safe speed.
Bus Information: 4 trips a day.
TIP Fetimata-
Construction Estimate:
$ 1,314,000
Not available yet
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Greg Brew of Roadway Design agreed to
complete the construction cost estimates by June, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 45 with a bridge, 360 feet in length, at approximately
the same location and roadway elevation. Maintain traffic on-site using a temporary
detour bridge, 350 feet in length, on the east side of the existing bridge.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 45 with a bridge, 360 feet in length, on new location
to the east side of the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using the existing bridge.
Cross Section of New Bridge: Bridge No. 45 will be evaluated on an individual basis for the
new cross section due to its length of 360 feet. NCDOT will coordinate will FHWA to
determine a feasible cross section for this project.
£ o4
hen
•Q Pww ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3534 Watauga County, Replacement of Bridge No. 209 over
Level Fork Creek on SR 1508,State Project 8.2751501,
F. A. Project BRZ-1508(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on March 10, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Sid Autry
Dan Duffield
Matt Lauffer
Greg Brew
Mike Little
David Williams
Ray Moore
Roy Girolami
Derrick Lewis
Chris Howard
Wayne Elliott
Andy Healy
Karen Orthner
Location and Surveys
Hydraulics Design Unit
Hydraulics Design Unit
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Structure Design
Programming and TIP
Traffic Control
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
The Division 11 Engineer recommended replacing Bridge No. 209 on improved alignment
downstream (northeast) of the existing bridge. He recommended maintaining traffic on the
existing alignment during construction.
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing bridge with a 95-foot long
bridge either at the same location or downstream (northeast) of the existing bridge to improve the
horizontal alignment. To facilitate deck drainage, the Hydraulics Unit recommended a minimum
of 0.3% roadway gradient on the bridge. If an on-site detour is required, Dan recommended a
temporary structure of 2 @ 10' 8"(base) X 6'11 "(rise) corrugated pipe arch northeast of the
existing bridge due to topographical constraints to the west. Dan stated that the grade of the
detour structure could be six feet lower than the existing bridge.
Renee Gledhill-Earley of SHPO recommended that no architectural survey be conducted in
connection with this project. With regard to archaeological resources, SHPO recommended
conducting a survey if the bridge replacement requires a new alignment.

Joe Mickey of the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) stated that WRC is concerned
that this project could have adverse impacts to Laurel Fork, a trout stream. WRC stated that they
are opposed to the use of a multi-celled box culvert at this site. WRC also sent a list of conditions
needed for review of the 404/401 permit application for this project.
Sid Autry of Location and Surveys was unable to locate any utilities at this site.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) gave no specific comments regarding
this project. However, she commented that DWQ's standard recommendations apply to this
project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission has not received comments from
biologists at this time.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 209:
[Built in 1950] [51 feet long] [13-foot wide deck] [12.1 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 14 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 34.3]
[Posted 11 tons for SV and 14 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life 15 years]
Traffic Information:
SR 1508 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 300 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 600 or 1600 vpd based on one or two entrances a proposed resort
2% Duals, I% TTST
Accident Information: (1-01-95 through 12-31-97)
No accidents reported.
Bus Information: Four trips a day.
TIP Estimate:
Construction Estimate:
$ 438,000
Not available yet
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Greg Brew and David Williams of Roadway
Design agreed to complete the construction cost estimates by June, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 209 with a 95-foot long bridge at a slightly
improved alignment. Maintain traffic on-site using a temporary detour to the east during
construction. The temporary detour structure will consist of 2 @ 10',8"x6' 11" pipe
arches at an elevation six feet lower than that of the existing bridge.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 209 with a 95-foot long bridge on new
location to the east. Maintain traffic on the existing bridge during construction.
Cross Section of New Bridge: A design exception may be required for this bridge.
For Design Speed = 55 mph - 28-foot cross section
For Design Speed < 55 mph - 26-foot cross section

?Ty ,,. STAit
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMH s B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
April 18, 2002
Mr. Michael F. Bell, PWS
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 28779
Dear Mr. Bell:
020689
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
4Jl i
SUBJECT: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 04 on SR 1207 over Rocky Hock Creek
Chowan County; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1207(1); State
Project No. 8.2030201, TIP No. B-3435.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridge No. 04 on SR
1207 over Rocky Hock Creek in Chowan County, North Carolina. The proposed project is
intended to replace an obsolete bridge carrying SR 1207 over Rocky Hock Creek in Chowan
County and resolve a long standing maintenance problem along SR 1207 in the vicinity of the
bridge.
Bridge Number 4 is a timber and steel bridge, with an asphalt wearing surface over
timber decking. The decking is on steel I-beams supported by timber caps on timber piles. The
bridge was constructed in 1950. The bridge has a clear roadway width of 5.9 meters (19.2 feet)
and is 48.7 meters (160 feet) long. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 18.1 (out of a possible
100 points). The bridge is posted with a weight limit of 10 tons for trucks.
SR 1207 in the vicinity of Bridge Number 4 has two 3\0 meter (10-foot) lanes and 1.2
meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders. The speed limit along SR 1207 in the project area is 55 MPH.
Currently, approximately 500 vehicles per day cross Bridge Number 4. By the year 2025,
this volume is expected to increase to 800 vehicles per day. It is estimated that tractor trailers
and single unit trucks make up two percent each of this total.
SR 1207 parallels the Chowan River in the vicinity of Rocky Hock Creek (see Figure 1 of
the approved Categorical Exclusion). At one location north of the creek crossing, the roadway is
less than 9 meters (30 feet) from the river's edge. An approximately 192 meter (630-foot)
section of the roadway north of the existing bridge has settlement problems because of the
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

mucky nature of the soils in the area. This section of roadway is also prone to flooding due to
wind tides.
The project involves the removal and replacement of Bridge Number 4 carrying SR 1207
over Rocky Hock Creek in Chowan County. The project also involves the removal of an
approximately 195 meter (639-foot) long section of existing pavement and fill from the floodplain
of Rocky Hock Creek north of the existing bridge. A new bridge approximately 259 meters (850
feet) long will be constructed to carry SR 1207 over the floodplain and creek. SR 1207 will be
closed during construction and traffic rerouted along existing roads. The project area and the
studied detour route are shown on Figure 1 in the approved Categorical Exclusion.
The proposed new bridge will have a clear roadway width of 8.4 meters (28 feet). Two
3.3 meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders will be provided on both
approaches to the proposed bridge. A design speed of 100 km/h (60 MPH) is proposed for this
project. It is anticipated SR 1207 will be signed at 55 MPH following project completion.
As noted above, the project is located near the confluence of Rocky Hock Creek and the
Chowan River. The geographic location and topography of this site lead to an overwhelming
majority of the area surrounding the current SR 1207 and bridge No. 04 being comprised of
wetlands and/or surface waters. The main wetland complex, through which the existing
causeway and bridge are located, is dominated by a cypress-gum swamp community. This
community type comprises 90 percent of the project area and occurs adjacent to SR 1207 and the
banks of Rocky Hock Creek, except where human development or disturbance has displaced it.
Approximately 0.17 acres of wetland will be filled by the proposed project. The project will also
require 0.04 acres of wetland to be mechanically cleared to provide room for bridge construction.
Originally, the proposed project planned to replace bridge No. 04 with a bridge of similar
length as the existing bridge and included measures to alleviate the constant settlement and
flooding problems on SR 1207 adjacent to the Chowan River. The original plan to stabilize SR
1207 called for the elevation of the existing roadbed to be increased by several feet. This would
have necessitated a widening of the existing shoulder cross-section, and a considerable amount of
new fill in the high quality wetlands adjacent to SR 1207 would have been needed. In order to
reduce impacts to wetlands, extending bridge No. 04 was recommended. It was determined that
a longer bridge would reduce impacts to wetlands as well as eliminate the settlement and
flooding problems along SR 1207.
The new , longer bridge will now span approximately 639.0' of previously filled wetlands.
The existing causeway will be removed and returned to an elevation resembling that of the
adjacent wetlands. The removal of the old causeway will mean that approximately 0.6 acres of
fill will be removed from wetlands associated with Rocky Hock Creek and the Chowan River.
After the causeway is removed, the same wind tides that presented a flooding problem for SR
1207 will now represent a return to the natural hydrologic cycle for the surrounding wetlands.
The water will be able to flow unimpeded beneath the new structure, allowing the natural
wetland hydrology to return. As was done on the R-2539 project in Craven County, the
NCDOT asks that enhancement mitigation credit be granted for the wetland area that will benefit
from the improved hydrology. Approximately 639.0 feet of existing causeway will be lifted,
restoring the riverine wetland underneath. The NCDOT proposes riverine wetland enhancement
extending outward from the lifted causeway. The area of enhancement will be calculated as a'/4

circle, the radius of which is the length of the causeway removed. The total enhancement area
will equal 7.36 acres.
Over the years, there has been a significant amount of settlement of the existing
causeway. As a result of this settlement and the constant maintenance needed for continued
operation of SR 1207, the NCDOT anticipates there may be some areas where the amount of fill
material, including asphalt, may be 8.0 feet deep or greater. The NCDOT intends to ensure the
removal of this material to prevent potential contamination of the adjacent Chowan River and
Rocky Hock Creek. However, there is the potential for a void to be left in place of the removed
causeway. As has been the case in the past with similar projects of this nature, the NCDOT
proposes to fill these voids with clean, unconsolidated sand. The voids will be filled to within
6.0" to 1.0' of the elevation of the surrounding wetlands. The intent of this is to provide a base
substrate while allowing the natural hydrologic processes to move organic material and sediment
into the top 6.0" to 1.0'.
In summary, the NCDOT proposes to replace the current bridge and causeway along SR
1207 with a new bridge. Approximately 639.0' of existing causeway will be removed and the
elevation restored to resemble the adjacent wetlands. The project will require 0.17 acres of
permanent fill in wetlands and 0.04 acres of mechanized clearing to accommodate the new bridge
approaches. The removal of the causeway will result in a net gain of 0.39 acres (0.6-0. 21). The
project will also vastly improve the hydrology and function of 7.36 acres of surrounding
wetlands. The NCDOT asks that the 0.39 acres of restoration and the 7.36 acres of enhancement
be allowed as credits on future projects within the Chowan River Basin. The NCDOT is aware
of at least one future project, TIP project B-3636 on SR 1222, that is actually on Rocky Hock
Creek a few miles upstream of the current project. Should mitigation be required on B-3636, the
NCDOT would like the option to use credits received from the removal of the causeway on B-
3435.
It is anticipated that this project will be authorized by Nationwide Permit No. 23. Please
find attached a completed Pre-construction Notification Form along with the appropriate permit
drawings. By copy of this letter, the NCDOT is also requesting that the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality issue the appropriate Section 401 Water Quality Certification. A North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management Major Development Permit has been requested under
separate cover. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call Mr. Lindsey Riddick of
my staff at [phone], extension 304.
Sincerely,
I C ?C ,.,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CC: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE, Washington
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM, Morehead City
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ

Mr. Greg Perfetti, P. E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. David Rhodes, P. E., Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Jamie Lancaster, Roadside Environmental
Mr. D. R. Conner, P. E., Division One Engineer
Mr. Jay McInnis, P. E., Project Planning Engineer
y .. swc
K d ?• ?o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 18, 2002
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDOT Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Morehead City District Office
Hestron Plaza II
151-B Highway 24
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Mr. Arrington:
020689
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
_
MAY
yU? E?i"7 ANDS GROUP LITY
,?1!tin
SUBJECT: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 04 on SR 1207 over Rocky Hock Creek
Chowan County; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1207(1); State
Project No. 8.2030201; TIP No. B-3435.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridge No. 04 on SR 1207
over Rocky Hock Creek in Chowan County, North Carolina. The proposed project is intended to replace
an obsolete bridge carrying SR 1207 over Rocky Hock Creek in Chowan County and resolve a long
standing maintenance problem along SR 1207 in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge Number 4 is a timber and steel bridge, with an asphalt wearing surface over timber
decking. The decking is on steel 1-beams supported by timber caps on timber piles. The bridge was
constructed in 1950. The bridge has a clear roadway width of 5.9 meters (19.2 feet) and is 48.7 meters
(160 feet) long. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 18.1 (out of a possible 100 points). The bridge
is posted with a weight limit of 10 tons for trucks.
SR 1207 in the vicinity of Bridge Number 4 has two 3.0 meter (10-foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4-
foot) grassed shoulders. The speed limit along SR 1207 in the project area is 55 MPH.
Currently, approximately 500 vehicles per day cross Bridge Number 4. By the year 2025, this
volume is expected to increase to 800 vehicles per day. It is estimated that tractor trailers and single
unit trucks make up two percent each of this total.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1.548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
SR 1207 parallels the Chowan River in the vicinity of Rocky Hock Creek (see Figure 1 of the
approved Categorical Exclusion). At one location north of the creek crossing, the roadway is less than
9 meters (30 feet) from the river's edge. An approximately 192 meter (630-foot) section of the
roadway north of the existing bridge has settlement problems because of the mucky nature of the soils
in the area. This section of roadway is also prone to flooding due to wind tides.
The project involves the removal and replacement of Bridge Number 4 carrying SR 1207 over
Rocky Hock Creek in Chowan County. The project also involves the removal of an approximately 195
meter (639-foot) long section of existing pavement and fill from the floodplain of Rocky Hock Creek
north of the existing bridge. A new bridge approximately 259 meters (850 feet) long will be constructed
to carry SR 1207 over the floodplain and creek. SR 1207 will be closed during construction and traffic
rerouted along existing roads. The project area and the studied detour route are shown on Figure 1 in the
approved Categorical Exclusion.
The proposed new bridge will have a clear roadway width of 8.4 meters (28 feet). Two 3.3
meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders will be provided on both approaches to
the proposed bridge. A design speed of 100 km/h (60 MPH) is proposed for this project. It is
anticipated SR 1207 will be signed at 55 MPH following project completion.
As noted above, the project is located near the confluence of Rocky Hock Creek and the
Chowan River. The geographic location and topography of this site lead to an overwhelming majority
of the area surrounding the current SR 1207 and bridge No. 04 being comprised of wetlands and/or
surface waters. The main wetland complex, through which the existing causeway and bridge are
located, is dominated by a cypress-gum swamp community. This community type comprises 90
percent of the project area and occurs adjacent to SR 1207 and the banks of Rocky Hock Creek, except
where human development or disturbance has displaced it. Approximately 0.17 acres of wetland will
be filled by the proposed project. The project will also require 0.04 acres of wetland to be
mechanically cleared to provide room for bridge construction.
Originally, the proposed project planned to replace bridge No. 04 with a bridge of similar
length as the existing bridge and included measures to alleviate the constant settlement and flooding
problems on SR 1207 adjacent to the Chowan River. The original plan to stabilize SR 1207 called for
the elevation of the existing roadbed to be increased by several feet. This would have necessitated a
widening of the existing shoulder cross-section, and a considerable amount of new fill in the high
quality wetlands adjacent to SR 1207 would have been needed. In order to reduce impacts to wetlands,
extending bridge No. 04 was recommended. It was determined that a longer bridge would reduce
impacts to wetlands as well as eliminate the settlement and flooding problems along SR 1207.

The new, longer bridge will now span approximately 639.0' of previously filled wetlands. The
existing causeway will be removed and returned to an elevation resembling that of the adjacent
wetlands. The removal of the old causeway will mean that approximately 0.6 acres of fill will be
removed from wetlands associated with Rocky Hock Creek and the Chowan River. After the
causeway is removed, the same wind tides that presented a flooding problem for SR 1207 will now
represent a return to the natural hydrologic cycle for the surrounding wetlands. The water will be able
to flow unimpeded beneath the new structure, allowing the natural wetland hydrology to return. As
was done on the R-2539 project in Craven County, the NCDOT asks that enhancement mitigation
credit be granted for the wetland area that will benefit from the improved hydrology. Approximately
639.0 feet of existing causeway will be lifted, restoring the riverine wetland underneath. The NCDOT
proposes riverine wetland enhancement extending outward from the lifted causeway. The area of
enhancement will be calculated as a'/4 circle, the radius of which is the length of the causeway
removed. The total enhancement area will equal 7.36 acres.
Over the years, there has been a significant amount of settlement of the existing causeway. As
a result of this settlement and the constant maintenance needed for continued operation of SR 1207, the
NCDOT anticipates there may be some areas where the amount of fill material, including asphalt, may
be 8.0 feet deep or greater. The NCDOT intends to ensure the removal of this material to prevent
potential contamination of the adjacent Chowan River and Rocky Hock Creek. However, there is the
potential for a void to be left in place of the removed causeway. As has been the case in the past with
similar projects of this nature, the NCDOT proposes to fill these voids with clean, unconsolidated sand.
The voids will be filled to within 6.0" to 1.0' of the elevation of the surrounding wetlands. The intent
of this is to provide a base substrate while allowing the natural hydrologic processes to move organic
material and sediment into the top 6.0" to 1.0'.
In summary, the NCDOT proposes to replace the current bridge and causeway along SR 1207
with a new bridge. Approximately 639.0' of existing causeway will be removed and the elevation
restored to resemble the adjacent wetlands. The project will require 0.17 acres of permanent fill in
wetlands and 0.04 acres of mechanized clearing to accommodate the new bridge approaches. The
removal of the causeway will result in a net gain of 0.39 acres (0.6-0. 21). The project will also vastly
improve the hydrology and function of 7.36 acres of surrounding wetlands. The NCDOT asks that the
0.39 acres of restoration and the 7.36 acres of enhancement be allowed as credits on future projects
within the Chowan River Basin. The NCDOT is aware of at least one future project, TIP project 13-
3636 on SR 1222, that is actually on Rocky Hock Creek a few miles upstream of the current project.
Should mitigation be required on B-3636, the NCDOT would like the option to use credits received
from the removal of the causeway on B-3435.
The NCDOT hereby requests that this project be authorized by the issuance of a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit. Please find attached the completed MP forms along
with the appropriate permit drawings. The certified mail "green cards" from the adjacent riparian
landowner notifications are also included. The NCDOT has also requested authorization from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under separate
cover. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call Mr. Lindsey Riddick of my staff at (919)
733-7844, extension 304.
Sincerely

G William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CC: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE, Washington
Mr. Doug Huggett, NCDCM, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P. E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. David Rhodes, P. E., Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Jamie Lancaster, Roadside Environmental
Mr. D. R. Conner, P. E., Division One Engineer
Mr. Jay McInnis, Project Planning Engineer

Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
Macedonia
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name N. C. Department of Transportation
Address 1548 Mail Service Center
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27699-1548 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name William D. Gilmore, PE
Address Same as above
City
Zip.
Fax
State N.C.
Day Phone
c. Project name (if any) B-3435
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Chowan
c. Street address or secondary road number
SR 1207, Rocky Hock Creek Road
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) Rocky Hock Creek
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace existing bridge with a new bridge
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Public
Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed project. If
more space is needed, please attach additional pages.
Provide public transportation, top down construction will
be used to reduce impacts to Rocky Hock Creek and
wetlands
Revised 03/95
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract N/A
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or NWL
5.0'
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Dorovon Muck
e. Vegetation on tract fescue, bald cypress, swamp
tupelo wax myrtle pickerel weed
f. Man-made features now on tract
Existing bridge roadway and utilities
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land classification
of the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
X Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for t .?-tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? NCDOT
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National Register
listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes -No
Coastal (marsh) X Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
(Attach documentation, if available)
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
Surface runoff will be carried down to spill trough
spill through scopes at bridge ends
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then forward
a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the
owner claims title, plus written permission from the
owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 710203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
regarding that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site
or location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel
unfamiliar with the area to
the site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
•A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-I
•A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats by
certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that
they have 30 days in which to submit comments on the
proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
See attached list
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
• A check for $400 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to 10)
If the project involves the expenditure of public funds
or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting
compliance with the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact, grant
permission to representatives of state and federal review
agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the day of 041 191.0 Z-
Print Name \). C- 1?.1.If? • c, In"
Signature C • .-
Landowner or Authorized A nt
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Final
Existing Project
Length Width Depth Depth
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shoreline
stabilization)

200'
300'
195' 2-15'
5-15'
5-10'
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 225
b. Type of material to be excavated old roadway
embankment between proposed and existing bridge
ends
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? Yes X No
d. High ground excavation in cubic yards 2170
this is the same existing roadway embankment
listed in la that is above mean high water
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area to be determined by
contractor
b. Dimensions of disposal area N/A
c. Do you claim title to disposal area? \
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? _ Yes X No
If yes, where?
Revised 03/95
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes X No
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION N/A
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
If yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water None
(2) Dimensions of fill area
0-15 x 750'
(3) Purpose of fill to construct roadway
embankment for bridge approaches
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area
(2) Purpose of fill
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
(Sourct of information)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i
Source of fill material

4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
X Yes No
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
NCDOT High Quality Erosion Control Methods
Will be used
b. What type of construction equipment will be used (for
example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Standard heavv hi2hwav construction equipment
c. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
Applicant Pro;/
Si ?atpre I
Date
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
17 spans at 50' • 21 " cored slab
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Rocky Hock Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 11'
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If Yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 160'
(2) Width of existing bridge 19'
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge 3'
(4) Will all, or a part or, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) all of the existing bridge
will be removed
f
Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
if yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
g. Length of proposed bridge 850'
h. Width of proposed bridge 28'
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
6.5' at highest point
Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
X Yes No
If yes, explain the new bridge will be considerably
Longer than the current bridge. The existing
causeway will be removed increasing the potential
for sheet flow (due to wind tides) to enter adjacent
wetlands
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
+/- 4'
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? X Yes No
If yes, explain Navigable opening will be increased
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes X No
If yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
Yes X No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
2. CULVERTS N/A
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
b. Number of culverts proposed
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 225 (same as MP2 question La)
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within: NO
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 650'
(2) Width of area to be excavated 45'
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 2170 (same as in MP2 question 14
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
To be determined by contractor
g. Width of proposed culvert (2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the (3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
MHW or NWL Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow? the owner.
Yes No (4) Will the disposal area be available for future
If yes, explain maintenance? Yes X No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation Yes X No
potential? Yes No If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
If yes, explain above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL above.
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL? result in any fill (other than excavated material
X Yes No described in Item d. above) to be placed below
If yes, MHW or NWL? Yes X No
(1) Length of area to be excavated 150' If yes,
(2) Width of area to be excavated 20' (1) Length of area to be filled
(3) Depth of area to be excavated 2' (2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 310', 210', 215'
(2) Width of area to be filled 13', 8', 8'
(3) Purpose of fill Bridge approaches
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 300'
(2) Width of area to be filled 65'
(3) Purpose of fill roadway fill
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail
On-site see cover letter
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
c. Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
if yes, explain in detail
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? NCDOT High Quality
Waters Erosion Control Methods will be used
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic
dredge)? Heavy highway construction equipment
Revised 03/95
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Class II rip-rap on bridge _
Spill through slopes
://' G . a-9d ?? / 0-e'Applicant or Project e
U'L J1-1
Signature
?- IIVI2.0 0...-
Date
v
1214
1210
•`
`. land'wq
?•PROJE E
7Z
I
I
.1
1216

1213
O 1 0 ?l
1211 1212 BURNErr
Ulu
I 5 PONO
•6 2 ?
1210
1207
1.4 ,
1211 1222

4
1
d 127
S 2.2
r _•
1315
rn I
D / Valhalla 1316
• 'fl
a, 1316
1317
1200 -- 1319
1207 1206 / 9
1318
\
Macedonia \
1207, 1316 -
1209 I Hancock
0 Y a
'1206 6
1205 w 1242 1208 1 3
EDEWON .a
l 1200
1204
1 1202
O N ? ? ` BUS
17
` 1203 / ?

VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHOWAN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2030201 (B-3435)
REPLACE BRIDGE A4 ON SR 1207
OVER ROCKYHOCK CREEK
SHEET' OF / Z lni?,?inl
LEGEND
---WLB----• WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
CL
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETUANO
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•••••• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-_ TOP OF BANK
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -c PROP. LIMIT OF CUT

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--A
AM -PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -P-L - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED ?-
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - --- - WATER SURFACE
xx xxx x x LIVE STAKES
C2D BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS

m2' RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZl BUFFER ZONE 1
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT. OF "TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHOWAN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2030201 (B-3435)
REPLACE BRIDGE 04 ON SR 1207
OVER ROCKYHOCK CREEK
Q O
F' CA] W N
W M
00+61 3N17 k 0Jffn V)
x u
?\ I I II 0 H
CL x
Lli oc I I 7 U
a cl: I? x O o ?
0
m Oz
4 I 44 F" O u o
to U O
G I ®? 3 E-H ?
m n I® U M
I II ,? A j v 0 ; w
m 3 1 I I U 0 O W
I
x gW WiL z
? U
?- I oC
Li ? W
91-
CC 2 a * * . CL x 0
w ° V V + 0
a o ? I Lu
V Z
m 3 W `
N ? ?i I N ? J LY T
L f?
LLJ
a a Z
m
J m
Z/ I I o
J I I m U
W
? N ? OC
W :2E ui
a Y/ L
N I a Q 0Z
J o0
m
W
o Z
0 1--
N
00
?1 I s Z p
I
?I w
0
3
3 0 N
O
Q Q
w In
Lki oz -i I L2 o Lf)
W? ?
x z
?l I I a J O
LL)
N V- _
O ?Obl I I \ ? c o J
lk Ql)
I I WU FW-W
I 3 O
W z Ln
o 0 o O vi
Q/ °° I I r w
Q? , •« N U
N
e ? 3
O
Ln
? m
/J
x
L1
0-1
0
w
a
J
co
N
a
L/
5/
e
o?y?p"ti
ti
oo+ 8/ 3Nn kiawn a x w p

? z ? ? `t' a
? p a
w °° t
° ® ® U
C-) x
II
r ° ?
Q ?
U ti w G
s p a d
I ? ? c
a I
I .? 7

V) I
cl)

cc:
I
I
p
O
CL- m
1. i-?
a
o
L;
z
:? ? ? I ; (D
LU Z
X-
II J ? J
110
I 0° z
LU

I
II o
d

I I
? o z
I ? ? o
I I ? ? m
I

I

I

I I

I b ..z
F-- 3
?+ w zo

I z

I m
b I a
I l
N l u
O

I
?I
I v_ v
w LC)
N
Y I ?
O

I
III _
3
\
I
I O
? ?
I ? 11

x ? I J
tf, a
I o l l
N N U
v,
? I I
I III o
I II ,
OOfP/ 3Nn Hoivn
N
7 ^0 0
cv ?
. -? N
d' ? i cii LW r i
00+00 3N17 NJIM
V) . ? R2 o
°'? I ?• a cc?- o
)I =T, U
g Z F? o
0 `n ? U
a II I; Q o U P? .4" > w
U a. ?. ® x
J
_J I
I w
I 0
o
.. I ol-
eo z , I ZL J
EK ,? ?//
RE x I I m
R??K? L INF LUEN?EI w cc uj Z
3 co o_
,11oP I ?I ? ? ?, -' G
J_
I I w o
lo C z U-)
a
I I x O iv
\SZ HN?P 0(7
2Np T ?wNS 3 P co Z 0
~I I ? 0
00
I Zo 0
I 0
x w
r I ? ? J
I `n a
I + (\j N
L..i -)q
I -lq
o
0-
in
in
I I w o
\ I I Q w
J Z
Fe I m 4 Q
z w W-
< 2: a
?I I Q ?`
J w
J co J
w w
J F- 3 H u
OC I ?I o
? I I II ? ° o
I
. .
00+9/ 3Nn HJIM `:•
O E-+ N

W
x
L N 0
im F
Z cq
'
a L I° I v
, x
I I lL ®
o I I4 I o f H 0 z o Q r?

I
I Uj
I LT.
I
I I ' Z
I ® ® 0
x w
,, ? ? ? w
a l I
I °{ zco a u ; w
U
W v?

5Z II z

I Q
I .I ?
I I I All

II
? O
I
I
I I W w Z
' I O
coI ?I 00
O
w o I. o m
II
41 0
w ?
II
? I I f ?I

? 'I z o ? ?u
3?
I
I W I z
J o Ly z O
I
41
w I v/ e
0 N
I
II I e? co

I
`
' I w

P=j o
CL

U
p3
I QZ _^ U z 0
N I N x O II
o I e? =

o
Ul) Q
0
w
?I I I N

I Ln
? II I
I n o
?iy? pb? I
ti I I Q z
I I u ?p
m W / W? lLQ
LU F
W J

? H
I I N J W I
WU F-3
000
•a o
4
V W p
LU co z < p
oa ««
00f 30 3Nn H01dW « •.
w
0
co
z
G
w
co
Z
O
01
0
J
Q
rr
I-
Q
Z
0
I ° z
o
z cr
O 0
1= ?
as
I > fz
Q D
U. .
x Q
W Z

t?
C

?j
CD
Q
x
F
c
_
?
!?
#
Q .+4
U
U

ra
G
E-i U U b ?p

U x ti
? w
?
Q
x
Z W v

0
0

Q
J
W
a
C.?
W
N
0
0-
O
d.
O
W
Q
CD
z
F-
_
U)
X
LLJ
I Q
I
I I ?

I I a-

I ?
I =

I I
N
Q
I ;
J
I I U z

I I-

O
X O
w
+
I o
I I N
L
I W Q
I W
I I ? ?
i
C2)
I Z Q
I D
I O W
O? _J
U Li
I
I J LC
I Q Cl-
I ?
? o
I Q
< O
I
I Z ?

i
O
O
M
w
?4
i
J ? I
O
O
+
N_
p
In -
o w
_ >
O p
(D
o !'
tai w
J 'J
Ln Q Q
N U tf) U
Ln
n
m
U)
0
w
CC
O
v
N
O
u)
J
I ?
N O to
Z
r a Li-
± °,?
CL Y
Q > In V
LLJ
(A LLJ C
Q
L
C
C
c
C
L
O ao
O rh O ti
+ v p N
n
_ J V _
a w > u

Cl
Q ei N
00
Cn
O
J
d
a
z
_J
O
O
N
N
J
O
O
N
F-
N
X
W
O OI O
1
J
I
O
O
+
O
N

tr'
;n
v
v) W

CG

r

W ?

O 7
U `v
C)'
cg,

00 O
W

Q ;G
x

U
0
Q
rW?
U uj
Q x
U w
? c_1
?
?
?
F
x
W-
r?
O

Lf) O
N
_
H
?
O
= W

O
0
lfl
O n n
0
W W
J J
Lf) Q Q
N U Ln u
cn In
O

Lfl O

Z
O o

CL M
U) M

O > ~ m
U) 0 0
o
Q
LL

Q
LL
U O
a U w
>
w
O w
?
cv n
w
z =
U) 12

Z

10

LL.
0 -0

-T Z>
a
C,
? <v

w

U) N (n U)

w
CL C?
U)

U) LL O

O
? ? C
7 Ql (n .`

O
O> N N
fn
U
'«. C
(9 ..._
f"
V . N cO
X L
d ?
Q w U E

O
Q?
W
Q a cn ?

w
U
Q o

?C
(n C
O fU

o
^
N
LL C 7 U
co
?

0 0

C C)
O U
O O
L_ f0

c cn o

? w c

°
Ll. z - '? o
J LL ?
Z j 0.
N N

H

c 'D
C ° o
U
_ ca fD
lL
N
v
>
7
O
u'r
a0
'- J
N N Q
a o O

U ? a, m

? Q 0

? O
.- U
0
o
O t: u-)
N
? J O
'?
O .? O

O
d

O N
J

(n Z Q
F-
O
N
> M M
=
O z o -?
LL z co
F-

PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES
WILLIAM S. BLAKEMORE
ADDRESSES
327 ROCKY HOCK CREEK RD.
EDENTON, N.C. 27932
WILLIAM A. NIXON
244 COWPEN NECK RD.
EDENTON, N.C. 27932

CYPRESS LANDING
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
P.O. BOX 445
EDENTON, N.C. 27932
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHOWAN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2030201 (8-3435)
REPLACE BRIDGE a4 ON SR 1207
OVER ROCKYHOCK CREEK
I I SHEET 12 - OF I L ??
0206$9
A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION'PR----,a, ..?_
TIP Project No. B-3435
State Project No. 8.2030201 MAY _ ? 20f,
Federal Project No. BRZ-1207(1)
DSG'tOl!P
Project Description: (Include project scope and location and refer to the attached
project location map.)
The project involves the removal and replacement of Bridge Number 4
carrying SR 1207 over Rockyhock Creek in Chowan County. The project also
involves the removal of an approximately 195 meter (639-foot) long section of
existing pavement and fill from the floodplain of Rockyhock Creek north of the
existing bridge. A new bridge approximately 256 meters (840 feet) long will be
constructed to carry SR 1207 over the floodplain and creek. The exact length of the
proposed bridge will be determined during design of the project. SR 1207 will be
closed during construction and traffic rerouted along existing roads. The project
area and the studied detour route are shown on Figure 1.
The proposed new bridge will have a clear roadway width of 8.4 meters
(28 feet). Two 3.3 meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders
will be provided on both approaches to the proposed bridge. A design speed of
100 km/h (60 MPH) is proposed for this project. It is anticipated SR 1207 will be
signed at 55 MPH following project completion.
TIP Project B-3435 is included in the approved 2000-2006 North Carolina
"Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is
scheduled for fiscal year 2001 and construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2002
in the draft 2002-2008 TIP.
The estimated costs for project B-3435 are as follows:
Construction Cost $ 2,750,000
Right of Way Cost $ 40,000
Total Cost $ 2,790,000
The total estimated cost included in the draft 2002-2008 TIP for the project
is $640,000. This includes $40,000 for right of way and $600,000 for construction.
B. Purpose and Need:

The proposed project is intended to replace an obsolete bridge carrying
SR 1207 over Rockyhock Creek in Chowan County and resolve a long standing
maintenance problem along SR 1207 in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge Number 4 is a timber and steel bridge, with an asphalt wearing
surface over timber decking. The decking is on steel 1-beams supported by timber
caps on timber piles. The bridge was constructed in 1950. The bridge has a clear
roadway width of 5.9 meters (19.2 feet) and is 48.7 meters (160 feet) long. The
bridge has a sufficiency rating of 18.1 (out of a possible 100 points). The bridge
is posted with a weight limit of 10 tons for trucks.
SR 1207 in the vicinity of Bridge Number 4 has two 3.0 meter (10-foot)
lanes and 1.2 meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders. The speed limit along SR 1207 in
the project area is 55 MPH.
Currently. approximately 500 vehicles per day cross Bridge Number 4.
By the year 2025. this volume is expected to increase to 800 vehicles per day. It
is estimated that tractor trailers and single unit trucks make up two percent each of
this total.
SR 1207 parallels the Chowan River in the vicinity of Rockyhock Creek
(see Figure 1). At one location north of the creek crossing, the roadway is less
than 9 meters (30 feet) from the river's edge. An approximately 192 meter
(630-foot) section of the roadway north of the existing bridge has settlement
problems because of the mucky nature of the soils in the area. This section of
roadway is also prone to flooding due to wind tides. Approximately $8,000 a year
is spent on maintenance for this short section of roadway.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing 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
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

O repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)

4. Trans portation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements)
when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which
there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the 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.
D. Special Project Information (Include Environmental Commitments and Permits
Required.)
Wetlands
It is anticipated the proposed project will affect approximately 0.4 acre of
wetlands.
Removal of the existing roadway and fill from a portion of the floodplain
will remove fill from wetlands and restore normal flow patterns. In areas where
existing fill is to be removed, the fill will be completely removed and the ground
returned to its original elevation.
The existing bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel and will result
in no temporary fill due to bridge demolition debris.
Protected Species
As of February 26, 2001 the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists one
federally-protected species for Chowan County. The bald eagle is listed as
threatened. Habitat for the bald eagle is present in the project area. However,
field surveys revealed no sign of bald eagles. In addition, review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare and protected species revealed
no records of bald eagles in the project area. Based on this, it is anticipated the
project will have no effect on the bald eagle.
Rafinesque's big-eared bat is the only Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Chowan County as of February 26,
2001. This species is listed as special concern/proposed threatened. Surveys for
this species were not conducted. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no record of this species and
this species was not observed during field investigations.
Water Quality
Rockyhock Creek has a best usage classification of B-NSW. The creek is
a designated anadromous fish spawning area. No waters classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW). Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or water supplies
(WS-I or WS-II) are located within 1.6 kilometers (one mile) of the project study
area.
Due to the presence of anadromous fish in Rockyhock Creek, a
moratorium on in-stream work for the project will be observed from February 15"
to October 31 ".
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface waters will
be followed during construction of this project to prevent siltation of Rockyhock
Creek.
Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation
Although the project is located in one of the twenty coastal counties,
coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service indicates no essential fish
habitat consultation is required.
Permits Required
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a Nationwide
Permit 23 from the US Army Corps of Engineers will likely be required for the
project. Final decisions regarding applicable permits will be made by the Corps
of Engineers. A 401 Water Quality General Certification and a CAMA Major
Development Permit will both be required prior to issuance of the Section 404
permit.
Environmental Commitments
See the attached list of project commitments (green sheet).
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? ? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? Fx]
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? Fx]
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated? ?X
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
-
impacted by proposed construction activities? F
1 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States

in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ?
X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
-
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? 1 X
F
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? F-1 X
6
YES NO
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulator floodway? F-1
X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? ? X
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? ? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or ? X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X ?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
-
and/or land use of adjacent property? 1 X
F
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X ?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? ? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
X
7
YES NO
(25) if the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X ?
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? F? X
(27) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F-1 X
(28) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ?
important to history or pre-history? }{
(29) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ? X
(30) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ? X
of 1965, as amended?
(31) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
?x
8
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Habitat for the federally-protected bald eagle is present in the project area.
However, field surveys revealed no sign of bald eagles. In addition, review of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare and protected species
revealed no records of bald eagles in the project area. Based on this, it is
anticipated the project will have no effect on the bald eagle.
Due to the presence of anadromous fish in Rockyhock Creek, a
moratorium on in-stream work for the project will be observed from February 15"
to October 31 ".
Although the project will likely involve impacts to approximately 0.4 acre
of wetlands, the project will remove existing fill and will bridge approximately
0.6 acre of wetlands located in the Rockyhock Creek floodplain.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3435
State Project No. 8.2030201
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1207(1)
Project Description: (Include project scope and location.)
The project involves the removal and replacement of Bridge Number 4
carrying SR 1207 over Rockyhock Creek in Chowan County. The project also
involves the removal of an approximately 195 meter (639-foot) long section of
existing pavement and fill from the floodplain of Rockyhock Creek north of the
existing bridge. A new bridge approximately 256 meters (840 feet) long will be
constructed to carry SR 1207 over the floodplain and creek. The exact length of the
proposed bridge will be determined during design of the project. SR 1207 will be
closed during construction and traffic rerouted along existing roads. The project
area and the studied detour route are shown on Figure 1.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
_ TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
5-31-01 , , ? -- Y" i,?L -1 , ??
Date Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Pr ject Development U it Head
5-3),01 /, %k2?skf
Date Pr ject Development En neer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date /Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
10
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge Number 4
On SR 1207 Over Rockyhock Creek
Chowan County
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1207(1)
State Project 8.2030201
TIP Project B-3435
Division One
Due to the presence of anadromous fish in Rockyhock Creek, a moratorium on in-
stream work for the project will be observed from February 15" to October 31".
In areas where existing fill is to be removed, the fill will be completely removed
and the ground returned to its original elevation.
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. The existing bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel and will result in
no temporary fill due to bridge demolition debris.
Categorical Exclusion - B-3435 Page 1 of 1
May, 2001

r

P VILL
PoMD
. 5 . 1

1 ) , 5
a
6 'L 77
5 12

12 O
` x
1 IMnu
\ l?Nny
1 ^ 11207
1 , 4
\ ?1 1..? 1316
? V
lh
ll
-
? a
a
a 1
a ?.
1271 J Y'
P
\ 2 1316 >
d
~d
`•
BRIDGE NO. 4 N 1 ?12p 317 -
1319
?
•\ 1207 1206) q a
s
Z \ 1319.
.t \ •

\ e Moca00n1a
?
\ p7 '9 1316 - -
1209 h.-k
!
1 tr
y 6 ENTON
1 206
-
?•--- . o 754
P
5
?
a
?? - .
. 17
' I 1 y _2 120 Z b

1200 ?.._. - '•?
/

1 1204
1202
N
1
/
1/

'p 1203 Z
Z' /
? BU6 /
BERTIE COUNTY i ®o
? 1? `,.
\ E

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
I 0 I 2 3
MILES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
c PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1207
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.4
OVER ROCKY HOCK CREEK
CHOWAN COUNTY
TIP PROJECT B-3435
I FIGURE I
STATE °
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
December 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 4 on SR 1207 over Rocky Hock Creek, Chowan
County; TIP No. B-3435; State Project No. 8.2030201; Federal
Aid No. BRZ-1207(1).
ATTENTION: Jay McInnis, PE, Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and descriptions
of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with analyses of probable impacts
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information on
wetlands and federally-protected species is also provided, with respect to regulatory concerns
which must be considered. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report
copied onto disk format.
Rob Hanson, PE, Unit Head
Project Planning
4
T. Lindsey Riddick, Jr.-14
Natural Systems Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
cc: File: B-3435
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 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
Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 4 on SR
1207 over Rocky Hock Creek, Chowan County
TIP No. B-3435
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1207(1)
State Project No. 8.2030201
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3435
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
T. Lindsey Riddick, Jr., Environmental Specialist
December 11, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ......................................
1.1 Project Description ..................................................................... ...................................
1.2 Methodology .............................................................................. ...................................1
1.3 Definition of Area Terminology ................................................ ...................................2
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ..................................... ...................................2
2.0 Physical Characteristics of Project Area ................................................ ...................................3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ........................................................... ....................................3
2.2 Soils .......................................................................................... ....................................3
2.3 Water Resources ....................................................................... ....................................4
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Impacted Surface Waters ....................................5
213.2 Best Usage Classification .......................................... ....................................5
2.3.3 Water Quality ............................................................. ....................................5
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics ............. ....................................6
2.3.3.2 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring/Biolog ic Water
Quality Monitoring ..................................... ....................................6
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers ............................ ....................................6
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. ....................................6
3.0 Biotic Resources ................................................................................... ....................................7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................................................... ....................................8
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ................................................ ....................................8
3.1.4 Cypress-gum Swamp Forest ...................................... ....................................9
3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................................................... ..................................10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................. ..................................10
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ........................... ..................................10
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities ............................... ..................................11
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ............................................................................. ..................................13
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................................................... ...................................13
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ...... ...................................13
4.1.2 Permits and Consultations ........................................ ...................................14
4.1.2.1 Section 404 Permits ................................... ...................................14
4.1.2.2 Water Quality Certification ........................ ...................................14
4.1.2.3 Coastal Area Management Act ................... ...................................15
4.1.3 Mitigation of Impacts ................................................ ...................................15
4.1.3.1 Avoidance .................................................. ...................................15
4.1.3.2 Minimization .............................................. ...................................15
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation .......................... ...................................16
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .........................................................................................16

4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .........................................................................17
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ..........................................................................17
5.0 References ...............................................................................................................................19
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this
document is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed
right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are
provided, along with recommendations for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern which may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the
proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and effective
manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing
preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria change, additional
field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of an obsolete bridge, bridge No. 4, on SR
1207 over Rocky Hock Creek in Chowan County, North Carolina. Bridge No. 4 will be replaced
in place with a new bridge with traffic detoured on existing area roads during construction. Both
the existing and proposed right-of-way is 60 ft. Additionally, approximately 400-500 feet of SR
1207 will be stabilized to eliminate roadway subsidence and flooding.
1.2 Methodology
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area was
gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area
include:
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Edenhouse, N.C.)
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
(Edenhouse, N.C.)
NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project area
Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey of Chowan/Perquimans
County, North Carolina (1986).
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Map
of Chowan County (1995)
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, 1998). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken
to support existing water quality data. Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS list of protected and candidate
species (June 16, 2000) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented sightings of state or
federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
NCDOT Environmental Specialist T. Lindsey Riddick, Jr., conducted General field
surveys along the proposed alignment on April 26, 2000. Water resources were identified and
their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife
were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications generally follow
Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and
Webster, et al. ('1985). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the
project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general qualitative
habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Field surveys for
federally-protected species were performed following initial habitat assessments where suitable
habitat for each species was identified.
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified and evaluated based on criteria established in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment Laboratory, 1987) and
"Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental
Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et
al. (1979).
1.3 Definition of Area Terminology
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed
right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. Project vicinity is defined as
an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "project region" denotes an
area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, i.e. 163.3
sq km (61.8 sq mi).
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: T. Lindsey Riddick, Jr., Environmental Specialist
Education: BS, Ecosystems Assessment, N.C. State University
Experience: N.C. Dept. of Trans., Environmental Biologist
Expertise: Natural resource management, wetlands science, natural community
interaction, environmental permitting
2
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below with respect
to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence
the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations
or management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In
addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The project area of Chowan County lies in the Coastal Plain physiographic province of
northeastern North Carolina. The topography of Chowan County is nearly level with the lowest
points being along major drainageways. Elevations in the project region range from sea level to
approximately 50.0 feet above sea level near the Snow Hill area of Chowan County.
The project area occurs near the mouth of Rocky Hock Creek as it enters the Chowan
River. The majority of the project vicinity consists of natural forested communities. Limited
areas of agriculture also occur within the project vicinity. Land use patterns in the project region
are not expected to change in the foreseeable future.
2.2 Soils
The dominant soils occurring within the project area are generally of the Chowan-
Dorovan association (MRCS 1999). These soils occur along drainageways, on sites which are
nearly level. They are very poorly drained soils that are loamy and are underlain by muck and
soils that are muck throughout.
Table 1 provides an inventory of the specific soil types which occur in the project area. A
brief description of each soil type is also provided. Proportional area of each soil type was
determined from NRCS soil maps of the project area.
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area.
Map Unit Soil Series % Slope % of Project Area Hydric Class.
UD Udorthents, loamy Nearly 10 NH
level
DO Dorovan Muck Nearly 90 H
level
Note: H Hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major component.
I Soils with inclusions of hydric soils in depressional areas.
NH Nonhydric soils.
The Udorthents loamy map unit consists of areas of altered soil where the normal soil
profile has either been destroyed or covered by grading and digging operations. In this case the
Udorthents in the project area are associated with a boat storage and marina operation. The
Udorthent soils in this area are likely comprised of fill material placed on the underlying
Dorovan muck. Undercutting to remove the unsuitable muck may have also occurred.
Dorovan muck soils are nearly level, poorly drained soils on the Albemarle Sound,
Chowan River, Perquimans River, and major streams. Typically, the surface layer is very dark
brown muck 3.0 inches thick. Below that to a depth of 96.0 inches is black muck. The soil is
made up of highly decomposed organic matter and is extremely acidic. The seasonal high water
table is at or near the surface and the soil is subject to frequent flooding for extended periods of
time.
Erosion hazards are generally slight, primarily due to the nearly level topography of the
project area and the fact that the project lies at the mouth of Rocky Hock Creek surrounded by
the frequently flooded areas of Dorovan muck. Surface runoff velocity under such conditions is
low, limiting its erosive potential. Generally, movement of water through the project area is
dictated by wind tides.
As indicated in Table 2, forest productivity for soils occurring in the project area is poor
as compared to other soils in the Coastal Plain region. Due to the severe wetness, active forest
management for timber production is not present in the project corridor. However, it is likely
that the swamp forests in the project corridor have been harvested in the past and may possibly
be harvested again in the future. This is most likely to occur when drought and high timber
prices combine to allow easier access and financial incentive for timber harvest.
Table 2. Potential forest productivity of soils in the project area.
Soil Series Site Index - Black gum
Dorovan muck 70
Note: Site Index is defined as the expected average height in feet of dominant trees
in an even aged stand at 50 years of age. Black gum is the only species for which a site
index was provided in the soil survey
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with
their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
This section describes the physical characteristics, Best Usage Standards, and water
quality aspects of the water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Impacted Surface Waters
Water resources within the project vicinity are part of sub-basin 030104 of the Chowan
River basin (HUC 03010203). The project area occurs near the confluence of Rocky Hock Creek
and the main stem of the Chowan River.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed streams
or tributaries carry the same best usage classification as that assigned to the stream segment to
which they are a tributary. Rocky Hock Creek carries the best usage classification of B-NSW
(DWQ Index No. 25-22, 9/6/79). Class B refers to those waters designated for primary
recreation and any other usage specified by the "C" classification; NSW (Nutrient Sensitive
Waters) refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs. Class C waters are defined
as suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Additionally, Rocky Hock Creek is a designated annadromous fish spawning area.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project
study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and
nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published
resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight
into the value of water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide
habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
The watershed of Rocky Hock Creek is dominated by nearly equal proportions of
forestland and agricultural lands with the immediate shoreline of the creek being dominated by a
forested swamp community. Residential and commercial development is also present in the
project vicinity, but only to a minor extent. Non-point source runoff from developed
residential/commercial areas and agricultural practices is likely to be a source of water quality
degradation to the water resources located in the project vicinity. However, the low intensity of
such development and the limited surface area of impervious surfaces suggests that non-point
source inputs from developed lands are not likely to be severe. Inputs of non-point source
pollution from agricultural areas within the project area are likely to be more of a contributing
factor. The high proportion of surface area occupied by forestland, along with the gently sloping
topography and low erodibility of the soils, suggest that sedimentation of surface waters is
probably moderate to low for Rocky Hock Creek.
2.3.3.2 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring/Biologic Water Quality Monitoring
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins of North Carolina which includes biologic, chemical, and physical data that are
collected at fixed sampling points. Based on these data, basinwide water quality is reassessed
every five years for each river basin. Rocky Hock Creek is located in the Chowan River basin
(HUC 03010203), sub-basin 030104. A water quality monitoring site (020253632) is located
downstream of the project area at the US 17 crossing of the Chowan River. According to the
Chowan River Basin Basinwide Assessment Report (DWQ, 1996), the Chowan River received a
Good-Fair bioclassification for site 020253632 in 1996.
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ.
All dischargers are required to register for a permit. No permitted dischargers are listed for water
resources within the project area. It should be noted that there is a large paper mill located on the
headwaters of the Chowan River in Franklin, Virginia. Ordinarily, inputs into the main stem of a
River would not affect the river's tributaries from a water quality standpoint. However, the close
proximity of the project area to the mouth of Rocky Hock Creek allow for wind driven tides to
push pollutants, specifically dioxins, from the main stem of the Chowan River into Rocky Hock
Creek.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources which often result from highway construction occur
primarily because of increased sedimentation as a result of accelerated soil erosion from exposed
6
areas. Sedimentation and substrate disturbance occurring during construction can significantly
reduce water clarity and dissolved oxygen content, in addition to the direct clogging of stream
channels. Effects are usually most severe locally but may extend downstream for considerable
distance, with decreasing intensity. However, impacts can be minimized through adequate
planning which emphasizes the reduction of disturbed surface area and by protecting exposed
areas from the energy of falling and flowing waters. Use of BMPs will also help to ensure that
impacts to water quality are temporary and localized rather than long-term and extensive.
Long term impacts to water resources resulting from the proposed project are expected to
be minor, given the site characteristics. Soil erosion from exposed areas should be slight due to
the nearly level topography of the site and the relatively slow flow rates of Rocky Hock Creek.
Due to the cumulative effect of water quality degradation and varied usage of water
resources downstream, consideration should be taken to minimize sediment and toxic discharge
into surface waters. In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be enforced
during the construction phase of the project. This would include:
1) elimination or reduction of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams.
2) installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth berms to control runoff during
construction.
3) placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings.
4) elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams to
minimize disturbed surface area in close proximity to surface waters and to reduce
the potential for accidental discharge of toxins into water bodies.
5) protection of existing streambank vegetation to the greatest extent possible.
6) prevention of any uncured concrete coming into contact with the waters of Rocky
Hock Creek
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as
the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils,
hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented
in the context of plant community classifications, defined by the dominant plant species
observed. Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the
common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project area:
Maintained/Distrubed and Cypress-gum Swamp. Community composition in the project vicinity
is primarily reflective of the current and prior land uses of the area. Both community types
exhibit some degree of past or continued human disturbance which has affected their structure or
species composition. It is likely that much of the original bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
that would have dominated the Cypress-gum community has been removed through logging.
Bald cypress has been replaced by swamp tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) as the dominant species.
Additionally, the southeast quadrant of the project area has been urbanized and currently
supports a commercial enterprise. Community boundaries within the project area tend to be well
defined since forested communities usually border open, disturbed areas.
The landscape immediately surrounding the project area is occupied to a large extent by
agriculture and forestland, interspersed with minor development along roadways. Remaining
forests are frequently found along slopes or bottomlands, or as buffers between fields or around
residential areas.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed. Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) are examples of species which are likely to occur in all
of the habitats in the project area. These species are adapted to forest/clearing boundary
conditions and likely utilize numerous habitats to some extent for shelter, foraging, or movement
corridors. Such species may not be listed for each community described.
3. 1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
The Maintained/Disturbed community occupies 10 percent of the project area and
consists of areas heavily impacted and maintained by human development activities. The project
area to a large extent consists of commercial lawns and roadside areas, interspersed with
buildings and roadways. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent
mowing and/or herbicide application, inhibit natural succession and keep this community in an
early successional state. As a result, the vegetation of this community is dominated by grasses
and herbs, with scattered trees and shrubs. Included in this community are the road shoulders
and maintained right-of-way of existing SR 1207, utility rights-of-way, and a commercial
property in the southeast quadrant of the project.
Common plants of this community are fescue (Festuca sp.), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), wild
onion (Allium canadense), and foxtail grass (Setaria sp.). Important associate species include
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.), plantain
(Plantago sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), henbit (Lamium spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), Queen Ann's lace (Daucus carota), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and aster
(Aster sp.). Planted horticultural trees and shrubs include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), and various oaks (Quercus spp.). Seedlings of various tree species
occur along road slopes, utility rights-of-way, and areas where mowing is less frequent. These
species include yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and winged sumac (Rhos copallina).
Wildlife found in this community is limited and consists primarily of wide-ranging,
adaptable species such as hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), which are well suited to coexistence with human development.
Nocturnal mammals common to suburban areas, such as raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), may travel periodically through the project area, and gray
squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes. Common reptiles include the
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroline), and bird
populations likely include species such as northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Predators
found in this community are the black racer (Coluber constrictor), and rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta).
3.1.2 Cypress-gum Swamp Forest
This community type comprises 90 percent of the project area. This community occurs at
adjacent to SR 1207 and the banks of Rocky Hock Creek, except where human development or
disturbance has displaced it.
Dominant vegetation found in this community includes bald cypress, sweetgum, willow
(Salix sp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp tupelo gum, black cherry, and sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana) in the overstory. The understory is comprised of Carolina ash (Fraxinus
caroliniana), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), greenbrier,
netted chainfem (Woodwardia areolata), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera) is also prevalent along the edge between this community and the roadside
shoulder.
Wildlife expected in this community includes gray squirrel, gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), raccoon, muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),V irginia opossum, barred owl (Strix
varia), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), yellow-
bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and downy woodpecker.
Amphibians common to this community include the southern two-toed amphuima (Amphiuma
means), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), and the
green tree frog (Hyla cinerea). Reptiles such as the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon),
9
eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorous), and the common snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina) may also be found.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, defined as a Coastal Plain Perennial Stream, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Rocky Hock Creek is characterized by slow moving, tannin
stained water. The creek is accompanied in the project area by an extensive cypress-gum swamp
community. The creek and the adjacent swamp system are heavily influenced by wind tides
along the Chowan River.
Coastal plain perennial streams are utilized by a variety of aquatic/semiaquatic insects
such as dragonfly (Odonata) and stonefly (Plecoptera) and by certain species of crayfish
(Cambaridae), and freshwater mussels. At least one species of freshwater mussel, eastern
floater (Pyganadon cataracta), was observed siphoning near bridge No. 4. This stream system
also supports a diverse fishery including bluegill (Lepomis marcrochirus), yellow bullhead
catfish (ktalalurus natalis), alewife (Alosa aestivalis), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis),
bowfin, (Amia calva), redfin pickerel (Esox americana), pirate perch (Aphredoderous sayanus)
mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki), and eastern mud minnow (Umbra pygmaea). An osprey
(Pandion haliaetus) was observed fishing near the project. Rocky Hock Creek is also known to
be a spawning and nursery area for alewife and blueback herring. It should be noted that Rocky
Hock Creek, at the crossing of SR 1207, also contains submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in
the form of hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and water milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.). It should also
be noted that the presence of these SAV species may not necessarily be beneficial. Hydrilla is
generally considered a nuisance weed. The milfoil was determined to be a native species.
However, the exact species could not be determined at the time of the sample.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities
within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary
versus permanent impacts are considered as well, along with recommendations to minimize or
eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on
10
the project length of approximately 1,200 feet and the right-of-way width through the project.
However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and certain portions
of the project area are already paved; therefore, actual impacts may be somewhat less.
Table 3. Estimated area impacts to biotic communities.
Community
Alternative 1 replace bridge in
place with traffic detoured on
existing roads.
Comm./Res. Development 0.05
Cypress-gum swamp forest 0.40
Total 0.45
Note: Values cited are in acres
Total impacts indicated in Table 3 are estimates based on the estimated widths of the
existing roadway cross section and the existing right-of-way. Actual impacts may be different
once a final design for the stabilization of SR 1207 north of bridge No. 4 is complete.
The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from project construction will have
minimal impact on populations of native flora and fauna. The relatively small scale of the
project as a bridge replacement with minor roadway stabilization will result in a maximum of
0.45 acres of total habitat loss. The impacted forested communities have considerable value as
wildlife habitat. However, the displacement of native flora and fauna away from the project area
should be minor. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate
areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced significantly from the project area following construction.
However, to minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all cleared areas along the
roadways should be revegetated soon after project completion to minimize the loss of wildlife
habitat.
Because the project consists of replacing a bridge and stabilizing the roadway on existing
location, fragmentation of natural habitats and disruption of normal wildlife movement should
not be a serious concern. The existing roadway already partially disrupts the natural movements
of wildlife in habitat corridors, such that the proposed project is not expected to create unusual
environmental conditions.
Direct effects on biotic communities should be minimal. Additionally, secondary
development impacts resulting from project construction are not expected. The project will not
open new areas to development and there will be no upgrade to the level of service currently
provided by SR 1207.
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to aquatic communities downstream of the project area primarily
consist of increased sedimentation of the stream channel and toxic inputs from stormwater
11
runoff. Increased sedimentation during construction activities and road surface runoff after
construction are widely recognized as factors that can contribute to the cumulative degradation of
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally highly sensitive to changes in water quality.
Effects are generally most severe at the point of stream crossings, but can extend downstream for
considerable distance, if not controlled.
If precautionary measures are not taken, excessive soil erosion from construction sites
may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
1) Increased turbidity and sedimentation.
2) Reduced light penetration due to reduced water clarity.
3) Reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
4) Increased nutrient loading.
Sedimentation in rivers and streams reduces water clarity and light penetration, affecting
the photosynthetic ability and growth of aquatic vegetation. Suspended particles may also
impact benthic filter feeders inhabiting downstream areas by clogging their filtration apparatuses
or by covering them with excessive sediment. Sedimentation affects the concentration of
dissolved oxygen in the water column by raising water temperature. Warmer water contains less
oxygen and results in a reduction in aquatic life dependent on high oxygen concentrations.
Moreover, increased nutrient loadings can result in the accelerated growth of certain types of
algae at the expense of other aquatic organisms. The loss of aquatic plants and animals resulting
from these processes may ultimately affect terrestrial fauna which feed upon these resources.
In addition, the removal of streamside vegetation increases the exposure of the water's
surface to direct sunlight, which results in locally elevated water temperatures and reduced
concentrations of dissolved oxygen. The removal or burial of these streambank plants also
decreases the food and shelter resources available to aquatic organisms, and disturbance of
streambank vegetation enhances the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation of
streamside zones following construction stabilizes the soil and shades the water surface, thus
mitigating these processes.
Toxic substances from roadways (e.g. oil, gas, etc.) may enter surface waters through
stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. Such chemical substances may result in the direct
mortality of aquatic species inhabiting the water resources located in the project area.
Construction of the proposed project will require a work to be conducted within Rocky
Hock Creek. However, the proposed project should have only minor impacts on downstream
aquatic communities, assuming precautionary measures are taken. Local erosion from
construction activities may be high during construction, but appropriate use of BMPs should
prevent most sediment from reaching surface waters. Erosion rates should diminish rapidly
following project completion if exposed soils are revegetated and streambanks are stabilized.
Minimizing the area of streambank disturbance will greatly aid in limiting erosion from the
project area and protecting aquatic communities. Following project completion, road shoulders
12
should aid in absorbing toxic runoff from roadways. Other considerations to protect stream
communities include:
1) consideration of bioengineering techniques for streambank protection/
stabilization.
2) using native vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
3) minimizing/eliminating the use of fertilizers adjacent to streams.
4) properly installing and maintaining all erosion control measures
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues
retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate their
protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory
authority prior to project construction.
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 (CRF) Part 328.3. Any action
that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands 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). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the
growing season.
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were delineated using the criteria specified in the 1987
"Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands
include:
1) presence of hydric soils,
2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and
3) evidence of prescribed hydrologic characteristics during the growing season
All of these features must be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
One jurisdictional wetland occurs in the project area. This wetland is part of the cypress-
13
gum swamp community described in section 3.1.2. The area is frequently flooded and is
dominated by hydrophitic vegetation. Soil profiles in the Dorovan muck soil consists of 0-3.0
inches of IOYR 2/2 brown muck underlain by >20.0 inches of IOYR 2/1 black muck. These
soils are very poorly drained and very acidic.
The classification scheme developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) provides a uniform
approach in classifying wetland and open water systems. Based on this system, the wetlands in
the project area would be classified as PF06F. These classifications are interpreted as palustrine
(P), forested (FO), deciduous vegetation (6), with a semi-permanently flooded water regime (F).
4.1.2 Permits and Consultations
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources. Surface
water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to most
regulatory permits. These permits are authorized under the Clean Water Act and under separate
state laws regarding significant water resources.
4.1.2.1 Section 404 Permits
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters may occur from project
construction. 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 or fill material into
"Waters of the United States." The proposed project will require impacts to Rocky Hock Creek.
And the adjacent wetlands.
Given the magnitude of potential impacts, a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) 23 is
likely to be applicable at most stream/wetland crossings found in the project study area.
However, final decisions concerning applicable permits for the proposed project rest with the
COE.
4.1.2.2 Water Ouality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge into Waters of the United States. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 Certification from the DWQ is a
prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
14

4.1.2.3 Coastal Area Management Act Permittm
This project will also require a Major Development Permit from the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (DCM). The North Carolina Coastal Area management Act
(CAMA) requires that development activities impacting Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC)
in one of the twenty designated coastal counties be reviewed and authorized by the DCM.
Rocky Hock Creek within the project area is a designated AEC. Therefore, the project will
require authorization in the form of a CAMA Major Development Permit. Issuance of the
CAMA Major Development Permit is also a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
4.1.3 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (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 he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the 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.
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
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 overall project purposes.
Due to the proximity of the project to a large continuum of cypress-gum swamp and the
need to stabilize a portion of SR 1207, it is unlikely that wetlands can be totally avoided.
Additionally, the replacement of bridge No. 4 will require work in Rocky Hock Creek.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
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 to median widths, ROW
15
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States should be minimized by
modifications in design such as:
1) perpendicular stream crossings.
2) reduction of fill slopes
3) elimination of staging areas in lowland sites.
4) reduced clearing and grubbing activity in or near floodplain systems.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Water of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation may be required for unavoidable impacts given the new
mitigation thresholds for Nationwide Permits. However, if avoidance and minimization are
emphasized in the project, minimal residual loss of wetland and streams, which may fall below
the compensatory mitigation threshold, should occur. Final decisions concerning compensatory
mitigation rest with the COE and DWQ.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Threatened or endangered species are species whose populations are in decline and which
face probable extinction in the near future without strict conservation management. Federal law
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, protects plant and animal species
which have been classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or
Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA require that any
action which is likely to adversely affect such federally classified species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other potentially endangered species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws. In North Carolina, protection of endangered
species falls under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) and the N.C. Department of Agriculture, respectively.
16
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
As of June 16, 2000, the USFWS lists the following federally-protected species for
Chowan County (Table 5). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of
each species follows Table 5, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts.
Table 5. Federally Protected Species for Chowan County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Threatened
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can
be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of
the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project area is near the confluence of Rocky Hock Creek and the Chowan
River and suitable nesting and foraging habitat is available. However, field surveys
revealed no sign of bald eagles within the project area. In addition, the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database of rare and protected species was reviewed and
revealed no records of bald eagles in the project area. Thus, construction of the proposed
project will have no effect on this species. It should also be noted that the bald eagle is
currently proposed to be delisted from the list of Endangered and Threatened Species.
422 Federal Species of Concern
One Federal Species of Concern (FSC) is listed by the USFWS for Chowan County as of
June 16, 2000 (Table 6). FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is
subject to change, and so should be included for consideration.
17
In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
Species are afforded limited state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the
NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Species listed under state laws may or may
not be federally protected. Species with state designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare
(SR), and Watch List (W) are not protected under state laws; however, evidence suggests that
populations of these species are also in decline.
Table 6 lists Federal Species of Concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This species
list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern for Chowan County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) raftnesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC/PT Yes
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and
the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species
is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of
the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The
species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
* * -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for this species were not conducted during the site visit, nor was this species
observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no
record of any federal Species of Concern within the project area. Based on available information,
no impacts to state listed species are anticipated.
18
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
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 111. 1980. 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. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality
Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams:
Benthic Macro invertebrate Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 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 Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and
Candidate Plant Species". Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. North Carolina Agriculture
Experiment Station.
19
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "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. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. and. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
20
IF INCORRECT RETURN TO
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date 02-11-2002
Warrant No. 1260007 CONTROLLER'S OFFICE
oei cirru Mr, 17aoo_,MF AiiAl n77n nni
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE OPURCHASE ORD R CONTRACT INVOICE AMOUNT (-) DISCOUNT (+) FREIGHT NET AMOUNT
02-07-2002 400.00 400.00

I
?ass?
Detach stub before depositing TOTAL: 400.00 400.00
Remarks MAJOR CAMA PERMIT TIP NO. B-3435
Pay
to the
Order of
w !! A l a. %01 liw1% I I I vr?s wr.sslor-%
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1515
I
NC DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL, RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1638 MAIL SERVICE CTR
RALEIGH NC 27699-1638
THIS I Of IM CONIMNS MIt:H01'HIN I ING
Date 02-11-2002'\
Amount $400.00
,. a
C. Wayne Stallings
Chief Financial Officer
Present to: State Treasurer, Raleigh North line
payable at per through Federal Re ystern
11' L 26000 711' 1:0 5 3 L i0 594ll: 511100011160 1,11'

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 5, 2002 -
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 !_ I%, s` ;: rl h!
RE: Request for Modification of CAMA Permit No. 105-02 (TIP No. B-3435). Replacement of
Bridge No. 04 on SR 1207 over Rocky Hock Creek, Chowan County.
Dear Dr. Bruton:
This letter is in response to the N.C. Department of Transportation's (NCDOT's) letter dated
8/22/02 requesting an amendment of CAMA Permit No. 105-02. This CAMA permit authorizes
the replacement of an existing 160-foot long timber bridge over Rocky Hock Creek with an 850-
foot long concrete bridge spanning Rocky Hock Creek and the adjacent cypress-gum swamp.
Approximately 639 feet of causeway will be excavated from the existing roadbed and restored to
its previous wetland hydrology.
The NCDOT letter requests that the in-water moratorium required by CAMA Permit Condition
No. 1 be lifted for the causeway restoration area only. Condition No. 1 of CAMA Permit No.
105-02 states as follows:
"1) Due to the presence of anadromous fish, including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and in
accordance with the Project Commitments contained within the Categorical Exclusion document
dated May 2001, no in-water work shall be conducted from February 15`h to October 31" of any
year without prior approval of the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM), in consultation
with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC Division of Marine Fisheries. For the
purposes of this moratorium, in-water is defined as those areas that are inundated at any time
during construction."
In a letter to the N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) dated 8/22/02, NCDOT explained
that they believe that the existing causeway area will immediately become inundated with water
once the fill material is removed. Due to the length of the replacement bridge, and the duration
of the proposed in-water work moratorium, NCDOT feels that there will not be sufficient time to
construct the project within the normal one to two construction seasons. NCDOT estimates that
not being allowed to work within the causeway restoration area from February 15 to October 31
could double the construction time.
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 500% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
After coordination with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, DCM has determined that permit condition No. 1 may be modified provided that
the following conditions are met. This approval is based in part on the fact that the overall
bridge replacement project will result in a net benefit to the Rocky Hock Creek system, including
the surrounding wetlands.
1. The in-water work moratorium required by CAMA Permit Condition No. 1 shall
only apply to the watercourse of Rocky Hock Creek. It shall not apply to the
surrounding wetlands or causeway restoration area.
2. The use of turbidity curtains to contain all bottom disturbing activities required by
CAMA Permit Condition No. 6 shall only apply to the watercourse of Rocky Hock
Creek. It shall not apply to the surrounding wetlands or causeway restoration area.
The permittee shall install turbidity curtains along the banks of Rocky Hock Creek
to prevent sediment from the causeway restoration area from entering the
watercourse.
3. The causeway restoration area will be fully contained by silt fence.
4. In order to protect water quality, runoff from construction must not visibly increase
the amount of suspended sediments in adjacent waters. Sediment control measures
must be installed and maintained as necessary to prevent sediment from entering the
adjacent wetlands or watercourses.
This Letter of Refinement must be attached to CAMA Permit No. 105-02, which was issued on
8/2/02, and both documents must be readily available on site when a DCM representative
inspects the project for compliance. All other conditions and stipulations of CAMA Permit No.
105-02 remain in force.
Please contact Cathy Brittingham at [phone] x238 or Bill Arrington at [phone] if
you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Doug H gett
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
Cc: Lindsey Riddick, NCDOT
Bill Arrington, DCM
David Cox, NCWRC
Sara Winslow, NCDMF
Mike Bell, USACE
DCM-Morehead City