20020032 Ver 1_Complete File_20020109

B-3532
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
State Project No. 8.2410601 Right of Way 6-01
Federal Project No. BRZ-1614(4) Construction Let 6-02
Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco in
Warren County, B-3532.
Bridge No. 8 LENGTH 33.8 METERS; WIDTH 6.1 METERS
111 FEET 20.1 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 38,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 413,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route

i 1.4 ? i
4 i \•
i 25 1123 \ 1604
S ?' 3
?
rn
1 125
Provide e
k
1
? 1 125 ' Q _ __
a Church ?••%"
j 1 129 Afton
? 1126 1650
:i 6
36' 20' 1 ? k. •5 1.2
!. ` tD 1604
J es 131

1625 .S ' -•-----
4
Ch
i i 1130 -
. - 1625
O i _.
--•J
? 1127 ( l0 f -0 1613
1127 ?? • 5 1129

l ?
j 10 eron
•?
i 1126 ` ,y N
1133
? Vicksbo - N `
?
i 1133 `-• '? i..
1614
? i
rp Shocco 3 6
i `y\
? 126' Ch. Bridge No
8
i .
1134

i 1 146 1 137
PO \ ?
?O .2 2 7 ?•._
i p •3
N n
1614 61
N
_ •:
i'1135 1620
1 1 34 .2
2
J Y
i w (. i
1

CJ 1136
'•? ? 14 Fj 0

^
\,? 1614 d ,
.2 1140
401
'rJ
..1.. ?-_./ 1616 `
-lam , 1618 1.4 CD 1617
i N
-
1 138 ?.?• `•
? .? ?.
?D .....
J
40
o
%
n

N v Korth Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Warren County
Replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614
Over Shocco Creek
B-3532
FIGURE I
? ? ., ?'. ? / v ,R, rte z •, ? >;? ?.? ' ?, ? {' II`- --
r li j' a en' ? 11 _
350 0 ''Kys ., c? II • ?i >demtr - 6 i, y ? 111 ., y ?• p
Y 1131 n x $le i ` ' 1604 ?''
Cz,
d?
Vow
a ` s
o
v r \ 161 i
o
O
413
`1 ? .,.?..? 400 ?„?-?f )• J ?1?:. \?`?-??,:/? ? ?,. ,__.?J (` ?
li 'yam -
?l '` .350 ?_ ;/ ? I°? =6...-= q I .-?J ''II ? '// j? t?? ??=-?` i ??j/? ???,??,.
389 , .
0.1
50 / •?? (pfivi. Spnngs NIA
3 i •! p\ ?? ?}? s _ ?; /?? 350 n, ^? J , ` ?.
J `° 1,..
17
300
66
ilk km
?. ( BR 273
350 ./ '?% ? 7 ? '/ i l ??J ?=. ?-?} ?' ? ? :.
__ .. - :. ? v„-, ?..?., . ? 1 n_ .t / ///%?, `dJ(/?^? - /off,` ?. . ? C/-?1 (\yJ?:? ? 1
J
0
i 35 3
D
D
9
a
*' SUTro
wre
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 21, 2001
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Regulatory Specialist
020032
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek,
Division 5, Warren County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1614(1),
State Project No. 8.2410601, T.I.P. No. B-3532.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 8 over Shocco Creek (DWQ Index # 28-79-22) a Division of Water Quality
Class "C NSW" Waters of the State. The project involves replacing the current bridge
with a new bridge approximately 130 feet long in the existing location. The cross-section
of the new bridge will include 11-foot lanes and 3-foot shoulders. Traffic will be
detoured offsite during construction. Please find the enclosed project site map, permit
drawings, PCN form, Federally-Protected Species information (Appendix One),
PCE form (Appendix Two), and the NRTR document (Appendix Three).
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the proposed project. The construction of
the bridge will require the use of causeways consisting of Class II riprap to provide
access to the site by the construction equipment. The resulting temporary surface water
fill will be 0.06 ac (0.02 ha). Construction of the proposed temporary rock causeway is
depicted in the attached drawings (Sheets 1 to 10).
Bridge No. 8 is located on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek in Warren County. Bridge No. 8
is 130.0 ft (39.6 m) long. With the exception of concrete sills in the stream, the
superstructure of Bridge No. 8 is composed entirely of timber and steel. Therefore,
Bridge No. 8 will be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the
United States.
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.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
RESTORATION PLAN
The project schedule calls for a July 26, 2002 let date. It is expected that the contractor
will chose to start construction of the causeways shortly after that date. The causeways
will likely be in place for approximately twelve (12) months.
The materials used, as temporary fill in the construction of the rock causeways, including
pipes, will be completely removed. The entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the
original contours and elevations after the purpose of the causeway has been served.
After the causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment
to remove all materials including pipes. The class II rip rap used in the causeways may
be placed as riprap slope protection. All causeway material will become the property of
the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal
of and disposal of all materials off-site.
TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN RULES
This project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River. Basin; therefore the regulations
pertaining to the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules will apply. There are 0.006 acres of
impacts to Buffer Zone One and 0.017 acres of impact to Zone Two (see sheet 7 of 10).
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists two federally protected species for Warren County
(Table 1). Information regarding the 22 September 2000 Section 7 Consultation field
meeting for the dwarf wedgemussel and the tar spinymussel along with the resulting
biological conclusions are included in Appendix One of this application.
The biological conclusions of "Not Likely to Adversely Effect" for the dwarf
wedgemussel and the tar spinymussel are conditional upon the implementation of the
environmental commitments presented in the 20 December, 2001 memo (Appendix One).
However, these commitments are now being reevaluated and may be subject to change.
NCDOT and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission plan to meet in the near future to
discuss these commitments. The USACE will be notified once a decision has been
reached on whether these commitments shall be modified or will remain as written.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Warren County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological
Status Conclusion
dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E * Not Likely to
Adversely Effect
tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E * Not Likely to
Adversely Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"*" see attached Section 7 Consultation and Biological Conclusion information (Appendix One).
SUMMARY
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeways will be authorized under Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). Therefore,
the NCDOT is requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
construction of the causeways. All other aspects of this project are being processed by
the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23
CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we request that those activities be authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of March 9, 2000 (65 FR
12817, 12899). We anticipate 401 General Certifications will apply to this project, and
we are providing one copy of this application to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, for their review.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
(Ad
?i'liam D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
VCB/hwm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Ms. Judith Johnson, NCWRC, Apex
w/o attachments
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. David Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, PD & EA Planning Engineer Unit Head
VICINITY MAP
t
,12
Afton

D t. 1
t
Z t
L
` 1130 131
1
t 1127
}v

1128
1133
Vicksboro??
138
\?
1134
-
p
,
\ \t
?
' l 1148 1137
'1135 113
/ 140 \. ;•
IN
03
TAR-PAMLICO RIVER
BUFFER
1820
w
"I . .
Elberon
=" PROJECT
3532
r__
G??K
Co
o Ty
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHW JkYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2410601 (B-5532
BRIDGE NO.8 OVER SHOCCO CREEK
O\ SR 161
i
07-01
i
SHEET I OF 1 j
1'

"C

SITE MAP

C
i
z
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2410601 ( B-3332
>
BRIDGE NO.8 OVER SHOCCO CREEK
ON SR 1611
07-01
SHEET .Z OF 12
TB.
i --- E
Ex
DITCH-,/"
RIP RAP
STD. NO. 868.02
? `rsQ

?
?
RIP RAP
? j?i?
?
E-
co co
N N
-" N
4
E--TB
PHASE IICAUSEWAY
LAN VIEW PHASE I CAUSEWAY
(OF NOTE: PHASE I CAUSEWAY TO BE
CAUSEWAY REMOVED BEFORE INSTALLATION
OF PHASE II CAUSEWAY.
PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS ZONE I
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
® PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS ZONE 2 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS
PROJECT: 8.2410601 ( B-33532 )
I DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE BRIDGE NO.8 OVER SHOCCO CREEK
WATER ON SR 1614
SCALE 1" = 50' 07-01
SHEET ° OF

I
GRASSED SWALE
STATION -STRUCTURE TREATED D.A. (AC) TREATED LENGTH (FT.)
14+37 LT. 2G1 0.01 0
14+58 RT. 2G1 0.01 0
14+58 RT. OUTLET 15- CSP 15/
TOTAL 0.02 15'
II 4+00 RT. I DITCH I 0.30 I 358'
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2410601 ( B-3332 )
BRIDGE NO.8 OVER SHOCCO CREEK
ON SR 1614
07-01
SHEET "T OF
d ?.
N NQ)
tL
0
1
i
0
Q ?1-'
?w
LLJ o iz
O cn
0
.?- ow
Q
m OL
r
M
W
N
O

- C
O
CL
O r
O o
-?- W
O
to
w W
(,7
0
x W
?
m
-XO
U it
O
r
cr)
.m I
d N?C\j
Q- WS?

r
a

f ICD
ti
I
O
N
0 ? / V n

t OJ
t J W
1
tC
t
z
o>>,t

co
rt
N
O
o
c0
N >-

w
w a
U
z
,O
d
N
Q
2
CL
Ci

N
O
J ?
W ?
O
N M
r Z?
r aa_
r a. t
r Q J
CC Q
r J CL
r (-D =O
r z ?Z
J
j U U-)
1
r oI
N
to
N
F
a S
F U
F ?
z
z
z"
H o 0
z
00
14
>a
a
a
U
z
L:U
L-1
a
64 U
M
p U
o
0
U 0 w
? p O
o z
p x
E•
CC
x J
00
.n .r

w

W
N
`

f?

a

!
I

TYPICAL SECTION CAUSEWAY
(Not to Scale)
EX. CREEK BANK-,
20' Min.
CLASS 'B' RIP RAP
WORK SURFACE
Class II ?
RIP RAPS
i
EX. CREEK BED- /
Min. Elev. = 261.0
- REINFORCING
FABRIC
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2410601 ( B-35552 )
BRIDGE NO.8 OVER SHOCCO CREEK
ON SR 1614
07-01
SHEET A? OF I
F-
z
L1J

W 0 Q ° o
U N
g
a
W

LL Q ° o
LL N
D
m

W
LL N
LL Z U

Q
o

o
5 O
m N
z

z
q Q
0 ° o
W N

r ? H Q

2
Z ?'
N ,V
N

U
Q ¢
a ?ja
oa o
o
a ?

z
w
W Z N
LL z o

Q
o

o
LL O ° o
? W N
M
W d

Q tD
°
O d
N °

Z O
O C N
`r
r?
Q O
y ? o

W N
w
0
e
?j 0:
F N CD
O
Z
w ...I
a
F-
0
F-

Y 0
4) w
W N
Z
Q N O's
C0
U
H
0 3 co O

CL
N
° a= z
H
O cow
=

H U o 0 bo
?
co
H 0
W N
W
U. 0
M °0
0
Zr=
a? U W ?!n
N
LL. o 0 O
Z
U
m0
a
..
z

LL

O
N

M
N

05
E
O
lL

F-

? d
o m °
- o
-y L
? U

(A ? c ?
t6
v
°
O
C
a w U E
a

W
Q ? o

W
U
Q

o
t ? d W ° O

v

Z v

N (m

c0 L ? O O

Q ?
N O ?
H ? ?
U

C U
? W _

a °z H

z w ?? ?
J ?
c
F-
W
N
C ?
_
o ? ? O O

?
a
V
a? n o _

?
d v
r
W
0

0]

O co
O
? O LO J

}

O ?
? Z <
O
U ?.
O

W
Q1
41
IPROPEIC TY (OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O & O PERCY & BEATRICE RICHARDSON P.O. BOX 426
WARRENTON, NC 27589
O LARRY L. & NANCY THOMPSON
BRANCH HOME & LAND CO.
7904 PAPER TRAIL
WAKE FOREST, NC 27587
904 OLD WILSON RD.
NASHVILLE, NC 27850
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2410601 ( B-5552 )
BRIDGE NO.8 OVER SHOCCO CREEK.
ON SR 1614
07-01
SHEET --?- OF ?D

LEGEND
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

WETLAND
C
L
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
® DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
(POND) ,r?,
5
1
, SINGLE TREE
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
®
WATER ROOTWAD
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION

RIP RAP
TB
?- TOP OF BANK
WF EDGE OF WATER
- - PROP, LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP, LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE _ TEMP.DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDc - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
X x( X X
X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE 1
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2410601 (B-3532 )
BRIDGE NO.8 OVER SHOCCO CREEK
ON SR 1614
07-01
SHEET ! G OF /6"
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analvsis Branch
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: William D. Gilmore
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Pagel of 8
III. Project Information '
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek Warren
County.
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3532
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Warren Nearest Town: Elberon
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): US-401 to SR 1614
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 36.29° N Lat 78.22° W Long
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Existing
land uses include forested and maintained communities. The area has a mixture of
agricultural and woodland landuse.
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Shocco Creek
9. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/mUs/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge. Bride No.
8 with a new 130 feet (40 meter) long bridge on approximately the same alignment
Page 2 of 8
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Heavy duty construction
equipment.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Existing land uses include maintained
and forested communities. The area has a mixture of agricultural and woodland landuse.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 8
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on map) (acres) (yes/no) (linear feet)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on map) (linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.Qov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.toi)ozone.com,
www.mal)quest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact Area of
Name
Wat Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact )
plicabblele)
(if
applicable) (lake, pond, estu
ary, sound,
(indicate on map) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
Bridge Temporary Fill 0.06 Shocco Creek Perennial Stream
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 4 of 8
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): . Eluplands 0 stream F1 wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial. viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
NCDOT will adhere to the "Best Management Practices (BMPs for Bridge Demolition and
Removal" during the removal of Bridle No. 8. NCDOT will also comply with all USACE and
NCWRC permit conditions in order to minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required. when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
Page 5 of 8
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
hM://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), . and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http:/Wo.enr.state.ne.us/wm/index.htin. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
Page 6 of 8
E
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No n If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 261 fl 3 N/A
2 741 fl? 1.5 N/A
Total 1002 ft? N/A
Gone 1 extends out 3Q teet perpendicular trom near banK of channel; zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The euidelines for the NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Sensitive
Watersheds" will be followed. These include minimizing the project footprint and diverting
stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
Page 7 of 8
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes F? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes EJ No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
49-
Applicant/Agent' s Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX ONE

. . r

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 20, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: B-3532 Project File
FROM: John Williams
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Section 7 Consultation for Dwarf wedge mussel in Warren
County near Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek.
A meeting was held onsite on September 22, 2000 to discuss potential techniques
to minimize impacts to the dwarf wedge mussel resulting from the replacement of the
subject bridge.
The proposed project would replace Bridge No. 8 by first closing the road and
detouring traffic offsite. The existing bridge would then be removed and a new three
span cored slab bridge would go back in its place. With the exception of concrete sills in
the stream, the bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel.
The follow measures were discussed to be included as project commitments.
• NCDOT shall conduct an in-stream survey just prior to the construction let date. The
NCDOT Resident Engineer shall be responsible to alert Tim Savidge two months
prior to the project being awarded so that he may plan the required in-stream survey.
• This project shall conduct bridge demolition so that no debris whatsoever shall be
allowed to drop into the water. Demolition shall be conducted in a top-down fashion.
• Sediment and Erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing activities. No
sediment from either demolition or construction activities shall be allowed to enter
the flowing stream.
• There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing - no work_ between November
15 and April 1.
• Weep holes will be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the stream.
• Where in-stream work is unavoidable, any area of disturbance shall be surrounded by
a turbidity curtain in a horseshoe fashion prior to beginning activity. A turbidity
curtain shall not be draped across the entire stream but only around the area of
activity. It is understood that removing the existing concrete sill from near the north
and south banks of the stream is very important to the project but that it also poses the
risk of raising significant amounts of sediment if dropped. It is also understood that a
stone pad will be required for the north bent both for the removal of the existing sill
and the construction of the new bridge bent/pier. As such, a turbidity curtain will first
be placed around these areas and appropriate care shall taken by the contractor in the
placement of the pad and removal of the sill. A plan for removing the sill must be
cleared by NCDOT's Resident Engineer prior to implementation. Rock workpads
should be established on both banks if heavy equipment will be located and/or used
there to minimize risk of sediment entering the stream.
• Wet concrete shall not come in contact with stream water at any time during
construction.
• The erosion and control plans will be designed to HQW standards
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be defined on the plans which consist of a 50
foot buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
• The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations in the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas until immediately prior to the beginning grading
operations.
• Once grading operations begin in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as specified on
the plans, work will progress in a continuous manner until complete.
• Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade
establishment.
• Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading progressed.
• The project will be designed using a "Special Hardware Cloth" erosion control device
which will be used where needed along the stream banks.
If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at 733-
7844 ext. 235.
Thanks
jlw
cc: Judith Johnson* N.C. Wildlife Resource. Commission
John Alderman N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
David Cox N.C.- Wildlife Resource Commission
John Hammond* U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Tom McCartney* U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Dan Hinton* Federal Highway Administration
Eric Alsmeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jean Manuele* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Linda Pearsall N.C. Natural Heritage Program
Randy Wise Roadside Environmental Unit, NCDOT
Ken Pace* Roadside Environmental Unit, NCDOT
Jeff Wrenn* Roadside Environmental Unit, NCDOT
Neb Bullock* Structure Design Unit, NCDOT
David Williams* Roadway Design Unit, NCDOT
Greg Brew* Roadway Design Unit, NCDOT
Jerome Nix* Hydraulics Unit, NCDOT
Tracy Parrott Division 5 Construction, NCDOT
Chris Murray* Division 5 Environmental Officer, NCDOT
Ron Hancock* Area Bridge Construction Engineer, NCDOT
• Ellis Powell Bridge Construction
Tim Savidge Project Development & Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
Logan Williams* Project Development & Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
Michael Wood* Project Development & Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
* Attendees of the meeting are noted with an asterick
y '
a.. AA7f??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT 1R. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 2, 2001
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott, P.E.
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Unit
' 6J
From: Logan Williams, Environmental Specialist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: Protected species survey for dwarf wedge mussel for replacement
of bridge no. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek, Warren County.
References: Memo to File B-3532, Section 7 Consultation for dwarf wedge
mussel in Warren County near bridge no. 8 on SR 1614 over
Shocco Creek, written by John Williams, December 20, 2000.
The following memo addresses the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
and tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), two federally protected species listed by the
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service for Warren County. Both species have been recorded at
various locations in Slocco Creek. A mussel survey was conducted for the proposed
bridge replacement on July 10, 2000 by NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge, Logan
Williams, Sue Brady and Jeff Burleson.
Mussel surveys were conducted at the bridge site and for a distance of
approximately 750 feet upstream and 300 feet downstream using tactile methods, view
buckets and SCUBA. Water depth at the bridge site averaged around 6 feet and visibility
was poor. Thirty mussels in the Elliptio complex and two dwarf wedge mussels were
found during the survey. The dwarf wedge mussels were found approximately 700 feet
upstream from the existing bridge. The Tar Spiny Mussel was not observed during the
survey.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
A Section 7 meeting was held on September 22, 2000 to discuss methods to avoid
impacts to Shocco Creek. A list of Environmental Commitments proposed by NCDOT
for the construction of this project is given in the referenced letter from john Williams
(Ref.l ). Given the survey results and provided these provisions are strictly adhered to, it
.t
can be concluded that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" these two
species.
CC.
Hal Bain, Unit Head
File: B-3532
V
APPENDIX TWO
r
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3532
State Project No. 8.2410601
Federal Project No. BRZ-1614(1)
A. Project Description:
Replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek in Warren Countv.
The ilex,,, structure will be a new bridge approximately 130 feet (40 meters)
long on the same location. The cross-section of the new bridge will
include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 3-foot (1-meter) offsets
(shoulders). Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 8 is posted for 9 tons single vehicles, 13 tons truck-tractor 020032
semi-trailers and has a sufficiency rating of 37.9 out of 100. Both the substructure and superstructure are deteriorating and in need of
replacement.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are
circled:
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
gg 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
realOin-ient
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performin?7 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
0 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade
railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, tender svstems, and minor structural
improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited
use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have
significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes
where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning
and located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle
anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings
and ancillary facilities where only minor amounts -of additional
land are required and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an operi..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.
2
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
and 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:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 600,000
Right of Way $ 21,000
Total $ 621,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 300
Year 2025 - 600
TTST - 60
Dual - 12
Proposed Typical Cross Section: There will be 300 feet (91 meters) of
approach work on either side of the bridge including 11-foot (3.3-meter)
lanes, 4-foot (1.2-meter) shoulders; and 7-foot (2.2-meter) shoulders where
guardrail is required.
Design Speed: 60 mph (100 kph)
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments: The Division Office supports temporary
road closure during construction.
Offsite Detour: Traffic will be detoured along SR 1620 and US 401 during
construction. Only one bridge is located on the detour (Bridge No. 4) and
it is sufficient to carry the traffic from SR 1614.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 8 is composed entirely of timber and
steel. Therefore there will be no resulting terriporarv fill as a result of
bridge demolition. All elements will be rem6ved without dropping them
into the water.
3

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 a
or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre an?1 have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service

lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? 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 desi
nated mou
tain t
t
ti
?
a
g
n
rou
coun
es X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage

tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ?
X
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? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required-?
X
5
(13) Will the proJJ'ect result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? ? 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 low-income population? ? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is
the amount of right of way acquisition considered mi
?
X
?
nor
(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? a X
(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
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the
bridge be replaced at its existing location (along the
i
f
l
ex
sting
aci
ity) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be
t
i
d
h
i
i ?
con
a
ne
on t
e ex
st
ng facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
6
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local

laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ?
X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/ properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic

Places? ?
X
(29) Will the project affect anti archaeological remains, which
are important to history or pre-history? ? X
(30) 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
(31) 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 of 1965, as amended? ? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
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.)
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
Dwarf Wedge Mussels have been found 700 feet (213 meters)
upstream of the bridge. The US Fish & Wildlife Service has agreed that
the project is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" either the dwarf wedge
mussel or the Tar spiny mussel give strict adherence to the project
commitments listed on the Greensheet.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3532
8.2410601
BRZ-1614(1)
Replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek in Warren County.
The new structure will be a new bridge approximately 130 feet (40 meters)
long on the same location. The cross-section of the new bridge will
include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 3-foot (1-meter) offsets
(shoulders). Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date
?5
01
Date
_9_b5_Oi
Date
• (i rol5
ho 4. Development En
Development &
For Type II(B) projects only:
?l1 4 ?
' Date
Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Analysis Branch
FOR pN 00g,,i? ST& ?R,tIF
8
rrolect ueveiopment & hnvironmental Analysis Branch
Federal Highway Administration
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Warren County
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614
Over-Shocco Creek
Federal Project.BRZ-1614 (1)
State Project 8.410601
TIP No. B-3532
Commitments' Developed Through Proiect Development and Desi
Division S Construction, Roadside Environmental Unit, Structure Design Unit,
Project Development & Environmental Analysis (Natural Resource Specialist)
Bridge Demolition; Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented during the construction of Bridge No. 8. With exception of concrete sills
in the stream, the bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel. Therefore, Bridge No. 8
will be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United States.
This project shall be conducted so that no debris whatsoever shall be allowed to drop into
the water.
The new structure will be a 3-span cored slab bridge.
Weep holes will be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the stream.
Sediment and Erosion controls ; must be in place prior to land clearing activities. No
sediment from either demolition or construction activities shall be allowed to enter the
flowing stream.
Where in-stream work is unavoidable, any area of disturbance shall be surrounded by a
turbidity curtain in a horseshoe fashion prior to beginning activity. Turbidity curtains shall
not be draped across the entire stream but only around the area of activity. It is understood
that removing the existing concrete sill from near the north and south banks of the stream
is very important to the project but that it also poses'the risk of raising significant amounts
of sediment if dropped. It is also understood that a stone pad will be required for the north
bent both for the removal of the existing sill and the construction of the new bridge
bent/pier. As such, a turbidity curtain will first be placed' around these areas and
appropriate care shall be taken by the contractor in the placement of the pad and removal
of the sill. A plan for removing the sill must be cleared by NCDOT's Resident Engineer
prior to implementation. Rock workpads should be established on both banks if heavy
equipment will be located and/or used there, to minimize risk of sediment entering the
stream.
Wet concrete shall not come in contact with stream water at any time during construction.
NCDOT shall conduct an in-stream survey just prior to the construction let date. The
NCDOT Resident Engineer shall be responsible to alert Tim Savidge. (733-3141) two
months' prior to the project being awarded so that he' :inay. plan the required in-stream
survey.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
April 17, 2001
i
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Warren County
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614
Over Shocco Creek
Federal` Project BRZ4614 (1)
State Project 8.410601
TIP No. B-3532 ,
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Division 5 Construction, Roadside Environmental Unit
There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing -no work between November 15 and
April 1.
The erosion and sedimentation control plans will be designed to High Qualit? Water.
(HQW) standards.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be defined on the plans, which consist of of 50-foot
buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operation in the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas until immediately prior to the beginning grading
operations.
Once grading operations begin in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as specifiedl. on the
plans, work will progress in a.continuous -manner until complete.
E
Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade establishment.
"Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading progressed.
The project will be designed using a "Special Hardware Cloth" erosion control device,
which will be used where needed along the stream banks.
i
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2
April 17,' 2001 I_
1
1. 4
i 25 9 1123 1 1604

i
3 ti AI

'
0) 1125 Provide e D
__ .
•
-
1125 Church -
' -'

i •. 1 129
1 Afton -"
0 1
112 6 6 650
i
36' 20•
l i ,'.,` 2 1 5 1
\ 604
i 1 J es 131 4 1625 's -'--' -
i Ch
i 1130
1625
O

?
1127 (D I
1613,
1 127
i
• 5
1129
1 i1 2
i t •? ?
eron
1 126 N
1133
1 Vicksbo `
i 1133
i? ra ShOCCO
- Ch. 6
126
1 t 34 _
1146 11
3
Bridge No.8
N
1614
•0 ^ 1614 61
1135 N 1134 .2 1620
136 114
\ 1
^Q? ^ 1614 0
2 1140 `1- 401
1616
_ -.?? 1618 1.4
, 1617
1 N
1138
t? ?..._.?,?.`._._._•?
J.yOO ??..•--....?,? ,..
10 _ t
AO
W
:r.
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
we/ .C*OF)OdIi
-Xarren County
Replace Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614
Over Shocco Creek
B-3532
I FIGURE 1

fV

?
R? 1/
rT
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek,
Warren County, B-3532, ER 99-7691
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

_ 1998
.
On December 10, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of -the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?3
Nicholas L. Graf
12/28/98, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment., please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,

David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 41W. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett

F771 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C rdina- r_ - /G
Habitat Conservation Progr /
DATE: December 21, 1998
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Alamance, Haywood, and Warren
counties, North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3400, B-3401, B-3186, and
B-3532.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 21, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream -Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed:
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
e •
-'A%A t, 1\G:Flla?.lallGlll 1V1Glllu
L)"Cnloer L1, 15198
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3400 - No specific concerns.
2. B-3401 - This project is in the upper headwaters of the Graham-Mebane water
supply reservoir. This lake supports a diverse reservoir fishery with a quality
largemouth bass population. We request that no in-water work be performed
from April 1 to June 15.
3. B-3186 - Richland Creek is a tributary to Lake Junaluska. This section of
stream contains trout and is designated as Delayed Harvest Trout Waters. We
recommend that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge that spans the
entire stream. Although we do not request a seasonal exclusion for this
bridge, we do request that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control
measures for High Quality Waters. We also want to reiterate that NCDOT
should impress upon its contractors and inspectors that they are working in
streams which are public resources and extra care should be taken to insure
that sedimentation and erosion control devices are installed and maintained
properly.
Z
?33'' __?
4. B9 - No specific fishery concerns. However, there is the potential for
federally listed mussels to occur in the project vicinity. We recommend that
NCDOT biologists be contacted and a survey conducted.. If mussels are
found, a field meeting should be held to discuss special measures to minimize
impacts to these animals.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks; reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

07/23/G;_ MON 07:52 FAA 1 919 856 4556 USFITS-RALEIGH,NC 10002
° h United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 99726
M qCH a Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 10, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.; Manager
NCDOT
Project Developmcnt and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of April 17, 2001, requesting comments or concurrence from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) on the biological assessment for the dwarf-wedge mussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) and the tar spineymussel (EPIliptio stehistansana) in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek, Warren County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3532). Ibis
report is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
The Service considers this report to be an accurate representation of the survey and results for the
these species, and their habitat. Based on the information provided, the Service concurs that this
project, implemented as described, is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the dwarf-wedge mussel or
the tar spineymussel, provided you strictly adhere to all project commitments outlined in the
attachments to your April 17, 2001 memorandum.
Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to the referenced species up to the date of this
report. Shnuld additional information become available relative to the referenced species, additional
surveys and/or modification of the agreed to commitments may be required-
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Toin
McCartney at [phone]; extension 32.
Sincerely,
A/--?
?ow
?Jsr. Garland 13. ardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
ec: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
FWS/R4_TMccartney:TM:05/09/01:919/5564520 extension 32:\D-3532.esp
APPENDIX THREE
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.8 ON SR 1614 OVER SHOCCO CREEK
WARREN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3532
State Project No. 8.410601
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 98-LM-12
LandMark Design Group Project Number 1960024-212.00
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attn: Phil Harris
Issued: May 2000
LAND%E
-.:.resccpe I:' Crwircnr-e- 1 orsui?c.
5544 Greenwich Road, Suite 200, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [phone] FAX: [phone] [e-mail]
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ...........................................................................................................................2
1.5 . DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................2
2.1 SOILS ....:.......................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ................................................. :................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ...................................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .....................................................................................................................................3
2.2.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................5
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3:1.1 Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial Forest ........................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Pasture ..................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside Community .......................................................................................................6
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 6
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................... 7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ........................................................................................................................................8
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .............................................................................:................................................... 8
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................................................................... .. 8
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................................................................................... .. 8
4.1.3 Permits ............................................................................................................................................................... .. 9
4.1.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................................................... .. 9
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ..................................................................................................................................................................... ..9
4.1.4.2 Minimization ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ............................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................................................................ 12
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................13
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Warren County and Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Bridge No. 8 Project Area Map (Topographic Quadrangle)
Figure 3. Impacted Biotic Communities (Aerial Photograph)
6.2 RESOURCE AGENCY LETTERS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ....................................................7
TABLE 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WARREN COUNTY ..................................................................................... 10
TABLE 3. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR WARREN COUNTY ........................................................................................ 12
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960031-312.00 Page ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is situated in southeastern Warren County (Figure
1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1614 over Shocco Creek with a
new bridge in the existing location (Figures 2 and 3). Traffic will be detoured offsite during
constru^fion.
The existing right-of-way is 18.3 m (60.0 ft). The proposed right-of-way is 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Project
length is approximately 228.6 m (750.0 ft).
Bridge No. 8 is 39.6 m (130.0 ft) long. The bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel and will
result in no temporary fill due to bridge demolition debris. Conditions in the stream will raise sediment
concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various natural resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to identify and estimate the
probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures that will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map for Warren
County (Afton, 1971), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (Afton,
1995), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soil
maps and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1"=100'). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR
1994). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of
concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by LandMark Design Group
environmental scientists Mary-Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith on 29 March 2000. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), and identification of characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
North Carolina Department of Transportation N fay 2000
The LandMarli Design Group, Inc. Project No. %9600_'4-212.00 page 1
criteria prescribed in the Corps of Engineers 6Vetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory
1987). Jurisdictional surface voter determinations were performed using guidance provided by N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding (Environmental Lab 1997).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Mary-Margaret McKinney, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., May 1996 to Present
Education: MS Forestry, Minor in Ecology,
North Carolina State University, 1996
BS Botany, North Carolina State University, 1994
Certifications: Registered Forester (NC Board of Registration for Foresters)
Professionai Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists)
Experience: Research Assistant, North Carolina State University,
Department of Forestry, June 1994 to April 1996,
Plant Identification Specialist,
North Carolina State University Herbarium
Expertise: Wetland mitigation, NEPA documentation, plant community
ecology
2) Investigator: Wendee B. Smith, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist,
N.C. Department of Transportation/ Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, May 1999 to August 1999
Forestry Technician, N.C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the
area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented
by a 7.5 minute.USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and availability of
water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this
section of Warren County is characterized by gently rolling hills with broad ridges and sharply indented
stream valleys. This area is typified by highly erodible clay soils. Topography in the project area is
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The Landbtark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212. 00 Page ?
relatively flat since it is located in the flood plain area associated with Shocco Creek. Project elevation
is approximately 82.3 m (270.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Three soil phases occur within project study area: Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, Pacolet sandy loam
(6 to 10 percent slope) and Pacolet sandy loam (10 to 15 percent slope).
• Chewacla and Wehadkee soils 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a poorly drained soil that occurs on the flood
plains of streams. Permeability is moderate and runoff is slow. Flooding is frequent. The seasonal
high water table is 0.2 m (0.5 ft) to 0.5 m (1.5 ft) below the surface. The frequent flooding and
wetness are severe limitations of this soil complex.
Pacolet sandv loam with 6 to 10 percent slopes is a well-drained soil that occurs on convex side
slopes. Permeability is moderate, runoff is medium to rapid. This soil's moderate limitations
include the hazard of erosion due to slope and,moderate permeability.
Pacolet sandv loam with 10 to 15 percent slopes is a well-drained soil that occurs on convex side
slopes. Permeability is moderate and runoff is medium to rapid. This soil's main limitations
include the hazard of erosion due to slope and moderate permeability.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the
project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to
major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to
surface water resources and minimization methods.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Shocco Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed project (Figure
2). Shocco Creek is located in sub-basin 03-03-04 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. At Bridge No. 8
the average base flow width is approximately 13.7 in (45.0 ft). The average depth is approximately 0.8
m (2.5 ft).
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of Shocco
Creek (DEM Index No. 28-79-22) is C NSW (NCDWQ 1994). Class C uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Secondary recreation
includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. The supplemental
classification of NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters that require limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 page 3
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state There
is not a BMAN station located on Shocco Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six months to a year,
therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different
taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant
organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are
reflections of long term water quality conditions.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register for
a permit.. No point source discharger is located on Shocco Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the
project study area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost
always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge
replacement on a new location usually results in more severe impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of
24.4 m (80.0 ft), anticipated impacts to Shocco Creek due-to bridge replacement will be 24.4 m (80.0
ft). Project impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial total 0.38 ha (0.95 ac). The area of aquatic and
terrestrial environments impacted is 0.03 ha (0.08 ac) and 0.35 ha (0.87 ac) respectively. Usually,
project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal,
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas, and/or
North Carolina Department of Transportation h/ay 3000
The Land Mark Design -Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212. 00 Page 4
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. The
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines. for these BMPs include,
but are not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface
water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
, 3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within these
ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications +
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Plant. taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980) and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities "
Three distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Piedmont/ Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest, pasture and maintained/disturbed roadside. Community boundaries within the study
area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal species likely to occur
within the study area will exploit both communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as
movement corridors.
3.1.1 Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest is present along Shocco Creek corridor. The transition from alluvial forest to
maintained/disturbed roadside community is abrupt due to road shoulder maintenance activities.
The flora that comprises the alluvial forest includes river birch (Betula nio a), red maple (Acer
rubrum), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American holly
(Iles opaca), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), willow oak (Quercus phellos), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), crane fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema tripyhllum), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifloia).
North Carolina Department of Transportation Xfay 3000
The Landikfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960034-313.00 Page 5
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest includes white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern
mole (Scalopus aquaticus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), .
beaver (Castor canadensis), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer will use this forest
community for cover and will forage on twigs and leaves as well as mast.
Avian species utilizing the alluvial forest include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), belted kingfisher* (Megaceryle alcyon), wood duck* (Aix sponsa), and white-eyed
vireo (Vireo griseus).
3.1.2 Pasture
This early successional pasture community is located northeast and northwest of Bridge No. 8. Flora
within this periodically maintained community includes swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var.
bijlora), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and fescue (Festuca sp.).
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents
only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the alluvial
forest.
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside Community
The maintained/disturbed roadside community includes road shoulders along SR 1614 that are present
along the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically maintained community includes
fescue (Festuca sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), field pansy (Viola rafinesquii), rabbit tobacco
(Gnaphalium obtusifolitim), violet (Viola sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), chickweed
(Stellaria media), crab grass (Digitaria sp.), vetch (Vicia angustifolia), field garlic (Allium vineale) and
common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). The width of the road shoulder is approximately 4.6 m
(15.0 ft) wide.
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents
only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the alluvial
forest.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Shocco Creek will be impacted by the. proposed project. Physical
characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
aquatic communities.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Fish species likely to occur in Shocco Creek include redhorse (Moxostoma sp.), creek chubsucker
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandNlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 6
(Erimyzon oblongus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanelltes), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
and yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis). Invertebrates that would be present include various
species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), dragonflies (Odonata) and damselflies
(Odonata). The snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon) are common residents in this community.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in to-r s of area
impacted and. ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present
within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width
of 24.4 in (80.0 ft), minus the area previously impacted by the existing road. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 1. Anticipated impacts from the nrnnnserl nrnipet to hintir enmmnnitiac
Community. Alternate 1
Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.09 (0.23)
Pasture 0.03(0.07)
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside 0.23 (0.57)
Total 0.35 (0.87)
ivo[e: v awes citea are m necrares kacres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 8 and its associated improvements will reduce habitat
for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of this
project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream channelization,
scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work will affect water quality
and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from
these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream constriction include increased channelization and scouring of
the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streainside
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 3000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960034-313.00 Page 7
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or
feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and
amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation
carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more
direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This, section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues-
"waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States," as defined
in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3,
are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands are not present within the project area.
Shocco Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of all surface waters in the
project area are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW width of 24.4 m
(80.0 ft). Considering the proposed project, impacts to Shocco Creek will consist of a 24.4 m (80.0 ft)
width and a 13.7 m (45.0 ft) long crossing for an area of 0.03 ha (0.08 acre). Usually, project
construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual surface water impacts may be
considerably less.
North Carolina Department of Transportation Alay 2000
The LandUark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 page 8
4.1.3 Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies charged with protecting the water quality of public water resources
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to "waters of the
United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or part by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
EnAronmental Quality regulation for implemer..:ng the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section. 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "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. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Mitigation
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 the
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.
4.1.4.1 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.
.North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 9
4.1.4.2 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 of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "waters of the United States"
crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-
establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of
"in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 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 practicable. 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 that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation and enhancement of "waters of the United States." Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever practicable.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species-. Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 13 March 2000, the FWS lists the
following federally protected species for Warren County (Table 2). A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential
project impacts follows Table 2.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Warren County.
Scientific Name .,Common Name Status
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel Endangered
Elli do steinstansana Tar Riverspiny mussel Endan ered
Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
North Carolina Department of Transportation AJay 2000
The LandiVark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 10
Alasmidontaheterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: March 14, 1999
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell noted by two lateral
teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to
dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in the Neuse River
Basin and in the Tar River. Basin. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and
industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well-oxygenated water to
survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
UNRESOLVED
Surveys for the dwarf wedge mussel are to be conducted by the NCDOT.. The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000 revealed no
records of dwarf wedge mussel within the project vicinity.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River spiny mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: July 29, 1985
The Tar River spiny mussel has always been endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, from Falkland in
Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash County. Now it is limited to populations in Swift Creek and the
Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash counties.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom
is composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt-free. It is
known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60.0 mm (2.4 in). Short spines are arranged
in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other valve, others
have two rows of spines on each valve. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).
Young specimens have an orange-brown periostracum with greenish rays and adults are darker with
inconspicuous rays. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project
perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Surveys for the Tar River spiny mussel are to be conducted by the NCDOT. The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000 revealed no
records of Tar River spiny mussel within the project vicinity.
North Carolina Department of Transportation Xlav 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 11
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are five Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Warren County. Federal Species of
Concern 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. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration
for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. 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 state protection under the
NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 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.
Surveys for, these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 27 March
2000 revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study
area.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Warren County.
Scientific Name Common:Name State.Status. Habitat. Present-,
Aimo hila aestivalis Bachman's arrow SC No
L thrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic i oe T Yes
Elli do lanceolata Yellow lance T Yes
Lotus helleri Carolina birdfoot-trefoil C Yes
"T"- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an 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 which may be taken under regulations adopted
under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes.
"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 has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as an
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 12
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
I rinting Office, Washington D.C.
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. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEM. 1994. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. September 1999 Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Biological Conservation Database.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Palmer, Willliam M. and Alvin L. Braswell, 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrate of the United States, 3rd. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
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.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The Land,Vark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960034-212.00 page 13
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. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA.2000. Unpublished soils data from the Watauga County NRCS. US Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The Landhlark Design Group, Inc Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 14

L2?

P North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Warren County
Replace Bridge N'o.8 on SR 1614
(her Shocco Creek
B-3532
-1 C_F?i?lU?1•?NnKJCJ_?.,•JU?^.J ,,` .:AN!I
l _` o ? / 1 r 1
? ?:. ?J. 1. ? ( ?• I `" ?.:
h• J//??
i ? %"?? LOS-':?; • ? e '.??? w
ur 9D?+?xb \ l??
',?.: . .
F'j
14, TA
V 17
W crrOn
V 7?
)Orj
r-
? ??, Jam, -, •-; ? ?? - ?f ?, ?? ?--.
1
31
_!? I •
`J)? . O /,,???! _. '\? ?`?j?) ' '? ' _ C j I?4 ? p??%?l•\ "dQ ????1
1 ' ,?`,? ? r- - ? '% ' ? ._,/?? ? ?,i/ r t1,<? rte- //n..+; Jam.,//-'`.+• ?i- ?? .?',%/':\ . ?, -
Z7 ?' - v.....
?- r
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commtission®
® North
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh North Cirolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullw9od, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planningl& Environment Bran hj, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C rdinaL r
Habitat Conservation Progr
DATE: December 21, 1998
n
SUBJECT: c CunDOs Northe CaRelacements in rolina. TIP Nos. l B3400, B-3401, Ban 196, and
B-3532.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance it provisions
Fish and Wildlife
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)} and t
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical beneath the clearances provided no blocksfisallows for hiunan
h passage, and
and wildlife passage
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. if possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed 1 n the stream.
??7 3Y. JAM--- 9'9 J Ooot
Bridge Replacement Memo
2
December 21, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidee should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fist
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third.cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location. %tiith road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the necd for clearing and to
J- ERIN; - - ?5 v661
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
project specific continents.
1. B-3400 - No specific concerns.
' 2. B-3401 - This project is in the upper headwaters of the Graham-Mebane water
supply reservoir. This lake supports a diverse reservoir fishery with a quality
largemouth bass population. We request that no in-water work be performed
from April 1 to June 15.
3. B-3186 - Richland Creek is a tributary to Lake Junaluska. This section of .
stream contains trout and is designated as Delayed Harvest Trout Waters. We
recommend that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge that spans the
entire stream. Although we do not request a seasonal exclusion for this
bridge, we do request that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control
measures for High Quality Waters. We also want to reiterate that NCDOT
should impress upon its contractors and inspectors that they are working in
streams which are public resources and extra care should be taken to insure
that sedimentation and erosion control devices are installed and maintained
properly.
32-
4. B.-A4 - No specific fishery concerns. However, there is the potential for
federally listed mussels to occur in the project vicinity. We recommend that
NCDOT biologists be contacted and a survey conducted. If mussels are
found, a field meeting should be held to discuss special measures to minimize
impacts to these anirnals.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.
LA?DIIARK?ESiGVGROU? JAA,11E SHERiN; 919 670 0661; ',1AR-10-CO J:J;:='k-I;
n
SMArt
s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
lamcs B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Rsy McCain, Seerctary
December 28, 1998
r
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #8 on SR 1 614 over Shocco Creek,
Warren County, B-3532, ER 99-7691
Dear Mr. Graf:
-,AQZ:. J-.,
Division of Archives and History
kffrcy J. crow, Director
aEGEl?
8
199 '
On December 10, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Regn Compliance o1966and the Avisory Council on with Section 06, codified ats361CFRPart 800 Preservation's
Regulations s for
109 E--St Joncs Sucet • R=1cil`, N(--? C-rclins 27601.292
:Y: LANOMARKOESIGNGROUP JAMIE 3^ERN; 919 570 0661; MAn'-10-00 3:'O3`:'Mi =AGc 55/59
Nicholas L. Graf.
12/28/98, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett
M
A
11.an 10 CO 3:0»=11;
J. ?Y: ?A MA-;K3-SiGNGROUP JA14I= SHchN; 9t? 570 0661;
From: Stephen Hail <[e-mail]>
To- DOT. smtpmime("bgoodwirZdot..state.nC.us Date; wed, Dec 9, 1996 6:21 pm
Subject: TIP B-3532, Bridge Replacement on Shocco Creek
The propozed bridge replacement on SR 1614 is located on a reach of Shocco
Creek
that has been identified as a Significant Aquatic Habitat by the-NaturaJ,
Heritage Program. A population of least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepyp era
state listed as Special Concern, has been recorded in this reach. Several
Registefed Natural Heritage Areas a1'so exist dust downstream.
In order to minimize impacts to the Shocco Creek Aquatic Habitat, we req_,est
that best management practices for High Quality waters be followed; that no
weep
holes be constructed on the bridge that will drain directly into the creek;
and
that all concrete used in this project be fully cured before coming into
contact
with the water.
Stephen Hall, Environmental Review Specialist
NC Natural Heritage Program