20061195 Ver 1_Complete File_20031003

m?4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
File
October 3, 2003
Karen B. Capps, PE
Project Development Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 63 on SR 1337 over Hubquarter
Creek, Warren County, State Project No. 8.2411401 F. A.
Project No. BRZ-1337(3), TIP No.
B-4311
A scoping meeting was held for the subject bridge replacement on August 19,
2003 in the Roadway Design Conference room. The following people were in
attendance.
Bill Goodwin PDEA Michael Summers Bridge Maintenance
Karen Capps PDEA Tinnette Hales Right of Way
Eric Alsymeyer USACOE Glenn Mumford Roadway Design
Lisa Shapiro Roadway Design Jaime Adrignola PDEA/PICS
Tim Gardner PDEA/PICS John Pilipchuk Geotechnical
Michael Ellington Program Development Scott Coats Traffic Control
Roy Girolami Structure Design Randy Henegar Hydraulics
Derek Bradner Location & Surveys Kirby Warrick Right of Way
BenJetta Johnson Traffic Engineering
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule Document:
Right of Way:
Construction:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
June 2004
June 2005
June 2006
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Bridge No. 63 was originally built in 1959. It is 36 feet long and 20 feet wide. The
bridge is posted as being narrow. The bridge is posted at 9 tons for single vehicle and 15
tons for TTST's. The sufficiency rating for the bridge is 24.9 out of a possible 100. The
approach roadway width is approximately 17 feet wide with 6.0-foot grass shoulders.
Traffic Information SR 1337 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit. The
current ADT is 400 vpd and the projected 2030 ADT is 800 vpd. There are currently 2%
Duals and 2% TTST's. There are two school bus crossings per day. The school system
would like for NCDOT to provide turn arounds on either end of the project for buses.
Accidents
There were no accidents recorded in a recent three-year study period.
Cross Section of New Bridge According to March 2000 Bridge Policy
Based on the NCDOT Bridge Policy, the minimum typical section for the proposed
bridge should be able to carry two 11-foot lanes with 3.0-foot offsets.
Possible Mite Detour
An offsite detour was studied that uses SR 1344, SR 1318, SR 1335, and SR 1336.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Division 5 recommended using an offsite detour and replacing bridge number 62 (B-
4310) and bridge no. 63 at the same time. There are wetlands located in the project
vicinity.
Warren County Emergency Services indicated that a road closure on this project would
not create any emergency response concerns for the county. They request at least one (1)
month advance notice on when construction will start and the length of time the road will
be closed.
The Geotechnical Unit has no concerns on this project at the present time.
The Wildlife Resources Commission recommended replacing the bridge with a bridge.
Standard comments apply.
The Division of Water Quality has not commented to date.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service offered standard comments.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources HPO stated that there are no historic
resources in the project area and no further surveys are required.
The Natural Resources Technical Report stated that Hubquarter Creek is located in the
Roanoke River Basin and has a usage classification of C. There is a network of drainage
ditches located along the northwestern quadrant of the project area. Three wetland areas
were located in the project vicinity. The biological conclusion for the Dwarf wedge
mussel and Tar spinymussel is no effect.
The Location and Surveys Unit stated that underground telephone lines are located on
the north side of SR 1307. The telephone line crosses Hubquarter Creek on poles. No
other utilities were observed. It was noted that many boaters and vacationers travel this
road due to the vicinity of Lake Gaston. There is an old farm road that is located between
this bridge and Bridge No. 62 (B-4310). Access will probably need to be maintained
during construction, since these bridges are due to be let in the same fiscal year. It is
recommended that the construction schedules be coordinated such that one bridge is open
while the other one is under construction. It is recommended that the construction
schedule for B-4310 and B-4311 be coordinated with the construction schedule for
Bridge No. 38 (B-4309) because both of these routes are used to access Lake Gaston.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends replacing the existing bridge with an 80-foot long
bridge placed at the existing location and low chord elevation as the existing structure. It
is recommended that an onsite detour be used to maintain traffic. This temporary detour
should be built upstream of the existing structure with a length of 80 feet.
The Public Inolvement/Community Studies Unit also indicated the presence of what
appeared to be a farm road located between Bridge No. 62 and Bridge No. 63. Further
investigation was recommended in order to resolve potential access issues.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
The following alternate was carried forward for further study.
1. Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge in the same location and low chord
elevation as the existing structure. Detour traffic offsite during construction using the
detour described above. Offset the construction schedule of the project with B-4310
in order to maintain access to the farm road located between the two bridges.
The Roadway Design Unit will have preliminary design plans and construction cost
estimates available by March 2004.
ALTERNATES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
1. Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge at the same location and low chord
elevation as the existing structure while maintaining traffic with an onsite detour.
This alternate was eliminated due to environmental concerns and the availability of a
feasible, offsite detour.
2. Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge at the same location and low chord
elevation as the existing structure. Construct this bridge simultanously with Bridge
No. 62 (B-4310) while detouring traffic offsite. This alternate was eliminated due to
concerns over access to properties located between the two bridges and the
contractors access between the two bridges. If both bridges were replaced at the same
time, an onsite, one-lane access might be required which would increase
environmental impacts.
NEXT STEPS
PDEA, Roadway Design and Division 5 will need to assess the impacts to access to
Lake Gaston in this area depending on the construction schedules of B-4309, B-4310,
and B-4311.
e„r.5TA7£y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
File
Karen B. Capps, PE
Project Development Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETr
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 38 on SR 1306 over Six Pound
Creek, Warren County, State Project No. 8.2411201 F. A.
Project No. BRZ-1306(10), TIP No. B-4309
A scoping meeting was held for the subject bridge replacement on August 19,
2003 in the Roadway Design Conference room. The following people were in
attendance.
Bill Goodwin
Karen Capps
Eric Alsmeyer
Lisa Shapiro
Tim Gardiner
Sarah McBride
Scott Coats
Randy Henegar
BenJetta Johnson
PDEA
PDEA
USACOE
Roadway Design
PDEA/PICS
SHPO
Traffic Control
Hydraulics
Traffic Engineering
Michael Summers
Tinnette Hales
Glenn Mumford
Jaime Adrignola
John Pilipchuk
Michael Ellington
Roy Girolami
Derek Bradner
Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way
Roadway Design
PDEA/PICS
Geotechnical
Program Develoment
Structure Design
Location & Surveys
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule Document:
Right of Way:
Construction:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
August 2004
September 2005
September 2006
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Bridge No. 38 was originally built in 1960. It is 72 feet long and 20.0 feet wide. The
bridge is posted at 11 tons for single vehicle and 19 tons for TTST's. The sufficiency
rating for the bridge is 35.2 out of a possible 100. The approach roadway width is
approximately 18 feet wide with 6.0-foot soil shoulders.
Traffic Information SR 1306 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit. The
current ADT is 400 vpd and the projected 2030 ADT is 600 vpd. There are currently 2%
Duals and 2% TTST's. There are four school bus crossings per day. The county school
system would like for NCDOT to provide turn arounds at each end of the project for
school buses.
Accidents
There were no accidents reported in a recent three-year study period.
Cross Section of New Bridge According to March 2000 Bridge Policy
Based on the NCDOT Bridge Policy, the minimum typical section for the proposed
bridge should be able to carry two 11-foot lanes with 3.0-foot offsets.
Possible Offsite Detour
There is not a feasible, offsite detour available for this project.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Division 5 stated that there are wetlands located on the project site. However, the only
available offsite detour is very long; therefore, NCDOT should consider using an onsite
detour for this bridge replacement. The division also recommends that the Hydraulics
Unit investigate raising the grade for the proposed bridge.
Warren County Emergency Services indicated that a road closure on this project would
not create any emergency response concerns for the county. They request at least one (1)
month advance notice on when construction will start and the length of time the road will
be closed.
The Geotechnical Unit has no concerns on this project at the present time.
The Wildlife Resources Commission stated that this bridge should be replaced with a
bridge and that the proposed structure should give adequate clearance for watercraft.
The Division of Water Ouality has not commented to date.
The Division of Marine Fisheries has not commented to date.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service gave standard comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service stated that there are no NUTS trust fishery
resources located at this project site. Normal environmental concerns apply.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources HPO stated that there are no historic
resources in the project area and no further surveys are required.
The Natural Resources Technical Report stated that Six Pound Creek is located in the
Roanoke River Basin, with a usage classification of C. No High Quality Waters, Water
Supplies, or Outstanding Resource Waters occur within the project vicinity. Two
unnamed tributaries are located in the project area, with the confluence of one located
immediately upstream of the existing bridge and the other confluence located
immediately downstream. Three jurisdictional wetland areas were within the project
study area. The Dwarf wedge mussel and Tar spinymussel have biological conclusions of
unresolved. Further surveys will be required.
The Location and Surveys Unit indicated that there are underground telephone lines
located on the north side of SR 1306. The telephone line crosses Six Pound Creek on
poles. There are also overhead powerlines located along the south side of SR 1306.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends replacing the existing bridge with a 90-foot long
bridge in the existing location and with approximately the same low chord elevation as
the existing bridge. If an onsite detour is used, the temporary structure would need to be
approximately 90 feet in length and located downstream of the existing structure.
The Public Involvement/Community Studies Unit suggested that agricultural activities
be coordinated with during construction in order to minimize hardship. Perhaps the
timeframe for construction could be adjusted to minimize possible impacts.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
The following alternate is carried forward for further study.
Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge in the same location and approximately
the same low chord elevation as the existing bridge. Maintain traffic with an onsite
detour located to the north of the existing bridge.
The Roadway Design Unit will have preliminary design plans and cost estimates ready in
January 2004.
ALTERNATES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
1. Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge in the same location and at the same
low chord elevation as the existing bridge while traffic is detoured offsite.
This was eliminated because there is not a feasible, offsite detour available for this bridge
site. The detour route that was evaluated was approximately 10 miles in length over
several roads that had less than desirable horizontal alignments. Additionally, the route
was not well marked.
NEXT STEPS
1. PDEA will send the wetland delineation files to both Roadway Design and Hydraulics
in order to facilitate their design.
2. PDEA will request additional mussel surveys to resolve Section 7 issues.
3. Further coordination between the project development project manager and the Public
Involvement and Community Studies Unit will be done to ensure that farming
operations in the project vicinity are accommodated during the construction period of
the new structure.
4. PDEA and NCWRC will coordinate further on the request for adequate clearance for
watercraft under the bridge.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ro DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP S injo
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.'
J( 1?
V
,
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
? - M v frG?.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS - ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION.--.
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
f`- _ _ 0

NSU7E4?
w
.Q awl'
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
July 24, 2006
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 06119
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 Raleigh, NC 27609
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
D ?^
5 l
ZANOS NOSTpR ?UhC1
MrygRBR"cH
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek on
SR 1337 in Warren County. TIP No. B-4311. w Qs ii 3 36 418
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek in Warren County with a new bridge structure (see
Figure 1 and Photograph 1). The existing structure consists of two spans (2 @ 17 feet 9
inch) with timber floor on timber piles. The proposed structure is one span (1 @ 70 foot)
bridge with prestressed box beams.
Impacts to waters of the United States
Bridge replacement activities at this site will impact Little Hubquarter Creek (NCDENR-
DWQ Index No. 23-16-1, Best Usage Classification C, HUC 03010106) in the Roanoke
River Basin. Removal of the existing bridge will not result in the placement of fill
material in Little Hubquarter Creek. The existing in-stream piling will either be extracted
from the streambed or snapped at the stream bed elevation. Removal of the existing
vertical bridge end abutments will result in unstable banks underneath the proposed
bridge deck. The NCDOT proposes to line both streambanks with rip rap to provide
long-term stability. This will result in 30 linear feet of existing channel impacted.
Construction of the fill slope in the northwest quadrant near 13+90 Rt will result in 0.01
acre fill in wetland and 0.01 acre mechanized clearing in wetland (see Appendix One for
USACE wetland delineation forms). Figure 2 provides the plan and profile view of
construction activities at the site.
Waters of the U.S. mitigation
Avoidance:
Permanent impacts to Little Hubquarter Creek cannot be avoided.
Division 5, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
• _ . A
Minimization:
The construction of this project has minimized the extent of the built-upon area by using
the existing alignment for new construction. The proposed replacement structure will not
have piers, bents, or footings in the stream and will not have deck drains over the creek.
Compensatory Miti ag tion:
Compensatory mitigation will be provided at the request of the USACE. All
compensatory mitigation requirements will be assimilated on a quarterly basis and
provided to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for their acceptance with a copy
provided to the USACE for verification and accounting purposes.
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 ESA. As of March 8, 2006, there are three federally protected species
listed for Warren County. They include dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon),
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
Suitable habitat for bald eagle is not present at the bridge replacement site. A mussel
survey was conducted by Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. on April 22, 2004 with
a biological conclusion of No Effect for federally listed species.
Summary
The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek on SR
1337 in Warren County. Both streambanks of Little Hubquarter Creek will be lined with
rip rap to provide long-term stability resulting in 30 linear feet of existing channel
impacted. Construction of the fill slope in the northwest quadrant near 13+90 Rt will
result in 0.01 acre fill in wetland and 0.01 acre mechanized clearing in wetland.
Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Section 404 Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 3 and NWP 13 (NCDENR-DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification
(WQC) No. 3494 and WQC No. 3495) for the above-described activities. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Murray at (919) 560-
6081.
Sinc
Jo . Nance, P.E.
Division Engineer
cc: Mr. Rob Ridings, NCDENR-DWQ
Ms. Katie Simmons, NCDOT
Mr. Dallie Bagwell, NCDOT
Mr. Mike Summers, NCDOT
Photograph 1. View of Bridge No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek.
CADocuments and SettingstmurrayDesktopUkon Photos\0031 Bridge 62 and 63\DSCN0340
IGrvw
?rmst? 1
'r ? ?, 1. ?„'1 \ ?? ? =r?
"? - Project Site
f i
NN V "N,
J1 ?' t
301
+ i
„-
A'A
? ?.?
( Replacement of Br. 63 over Little Hubquarter
f? ?r
Creek on SR 1337 in Warren County,
Macon USGS Topo Map (1970) -?
B-4311
s, Figure 1 1:24,000
ono
* fx ?? . ?.
i JNE r.."?
A3;?3 AS-
o r ? -
ZN
. _? J ;
`5s, I t
!Vaughan •?-?
ha
1 `'sue r \ r
Copyright (C) 1998, Maptech, Inc.
no
m? ONN)(A
oW
?? ?OOgq
z a;q x
K„ q
D X -,
x
O ?(n x to
Ul vNyH I l N
2 O I ?NtD z
g O
A , ?InHA p W A
W-?x H \
mNm rvj $• VI g
A m ?601
H-n0
-4 r- 0
DD O I ON I 11+00
mm O 1 -AH I
D N
C I ^' z N
O I n H -
am8 O
I SAO v I
I N
O N m
I am=
n N N
1 ?? I
Z ?
-u H --4 -4 H 0- A H f)
N H m m x c f D Z C x D H O I m -
NN SN Z--1 0z - nrrn
Hoy um -N 12+00
mrmc aA -+Aro D 4-.
< A r c 0? (A I
r A p 2 K O
a0 n-?i m c?Amoo? aZ N ->4 0 mm
O H A O C _
C O H < A
AZ -i Hm G, 0
Hf7 O= v-0N>nZNm .-gy co I m Q I I V-
mIA AD M -A
-1mm>AOC OmA OZ '(H Q
r K N 0 I
Z
O Z H D AA H H ,DZ
mAm vF ,m„r- CD cu -livmlD')A n= I wj z
?iC<az ZZ'9pmm°<°o.-0 => om D. Q D I I IE
cmm Nm zzn."m r1 rr I !gy 7 Z \
m ZOm ? Q. ?I
HWA OO .. WZM N m
OZbm r(A 0 ) m Ny r N•H+i mp xO ` Q
=Z?CV VDiOH mOmD iAi O I ``11 1?+00
M H (h W" N m O H D A H OT < T
mZ D Z HO -4Zp=v z
rZ IQ .
H A= m q
HDO SAN...
mm~c/0000N-DInOf??A mp
p 52? H A cl"
m HH O SHH z 'U
HHr O;
0 Z 11 -/ Z H +1 D
SAO f•,ZO 00 m,,rn AH I I n
Z Z
mmN Nm N NN = 0f0*In?Sm mH H +
N H Z< - O D 6 a Q V I
COm ANO. Oom m rWO Q.
n r = -i z, > D 7 r+ W
? -4 n=Zn A L mtom
C H D C =MM H H a W z
z mA C z O n? H
m A.` N ."4 N H fD" G"1 m y ".
Hv m
o - -
14+00
-, H O o y
..C UV
Fail
m -1 Sm'n HO 1Dr ® 7
Z D mcvNZ ?D ZH
W ?m Omm NN
OH W M H m A -1 1 2 2 a 0
N "-4
.miomm°zovx II ?1 ..m I r ?I I \\
`
m z cziz zca 00:r a-INr O• m N p IYA
-4 M K romz pm .. C, ca r)
xH mna -om
= A ov IInIZaHO ,+,,
N V) m O K O 'n -4>" O7 O H
NN ?zAH -m 0 "'gym O. O
H nD AO>TmZZ rD Hn z O
C) 2 r A -0 r fn n .-.OfnN r^ r..p
S -Ir rm cN DH-Z HO m
A l-d v' r+ m 1
p xm mvzm-a v.- O TMz I I j 5+00
rrn -a-1 A -1 O H C" Z .-.A A O? 1
SAm NCHC ,..\H O Mp, .
r am m H Z x O N 01
O C DO -n H 0 --j-4 Z C
O A< Az `A
? Hm HC?Ar-VN r D> .
H Nv n Hr O -[
O -1 < y 1
z ? W H H Z 0 0 H
N H< O Z O z
r z m o?-4 C
N
r D m z S Z n
zf ovzw,"?-? I AI n
a- AA0- 0 r O
.J Z 0 H D N A
O m<n H-1-10 ?m I I
ao
?z ^Zrr mKmz V
000> o
r v H -1 r m T
\ za amo ?a I r-
Z A N= H 0 v H \ 1 . m
p0 Om-0HZ N Nm
K-
3> C,n?0-i = O o? Cfl16+00
-1 °gHm x m I m I
A Vi ? q i ... ?I
?N I ?I J K-
?
0 , '(
_ ?If
z t O O D
0 1 c A
m r H
O m
"3 ? J 1 ? N N A(A ?
lro z I '1
Z o0 1 -v N H A I__,?_., I 17 +00
1 H Dz
n -D II
I? f A m
l
C7 !i`° I r p o ... ? x
TT 1 1 ?_
(p ' N N O O
1 O O f
y = 0 m T
1 N o A
0 M
> p
/A ono ? o ? n ? I 18}
?O t O ?/N -<
o i to
m
0 (A
1 r'
d? w o m > IF
0 O M -a Q 1 ?--? N
O
r M H -n O Sa n 1 Z Z -L z
M :i7 p r -+ Z p. -4 1 Q o v m
C) M
A D
a m .. '1 co A N
rr,
H
oc #Z 0~ ZQ 1 oa w
v > CA ?° -- m -n ! 19+00
? w o
c o -v g z 1.
w oho
O M N O-n o O W (A Q,
q r l
rn -BL- 101 5+00.00 POT
N m w rn ? 0 0)
m m
? -4 Co
z°
HF ? v r
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 20 0 6 8
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:NWP 3 and NWP 13
2. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
3. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
4. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Division 5 Jon G. Nance
Mailing Address: 2612 N. Duke St., Durham, NC 27704
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: JNancegdot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant 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:
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
Page 1 of 8
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 the"prbpdi tydisicr6arly 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: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek on
SR 1337 in Warren County.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
B-4311
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Warren Nearest Town: Warrenton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Warrenton
travel northeast on US 158, turn left onto SR 1335 and travel northeast, turn right and travel
southeast on SR 1337 to project site.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36.4668742 ON 78.0275431 °W
6. Property size (acres): 1.1 acre
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Little Hubquarter Creek
8. River Basin: Roanoke
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at h"://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Site is surrounded by wooded land.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek on SR 1337. Equipment
may include excavator, backhoe, bulldozer, grader, and crane.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Replace bridge.
Page 2 of 8
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 future permit requests anticipated for this project? 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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The NCDOT will place rip
rap along the both banks of Little Hubquarter Creek fill 0.01 acre wetland and conduct
mechanized cleariniz on 0.01 acre wetland.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of 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.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) linear feet
1 Fill Forested/Herbaceous Yes Adjacent 0.01
1 Mechanized Clearing Forested/Herbaceous Yes Adjacent 0.01
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.02
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.03 in ROW.
Page 3 of 8
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial Average Stream Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact or Width Before Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Intermittent Impact (linear feet (acres)

Site 1 L. Hubquarter
Creek J Rip rap stabilization Perennial 33 ft 30 0.01
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 30 0.01
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
indicate on ma ocean, etc. acres
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres). N/A
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.02
Open Water Impact (acres): NONE
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.03
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 30
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Page 4 of 8
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: 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. All wetlands and surface
waters not affected by construction will be protected from unnecessary encroachment during
construction. Strict enforcement of Best Manaizement Practices for the -protection of wetlands
and surface waters will be enforced during construction. Only the smallest amount of fill
necessary to complete the project will be placed in waters of the United States
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 January 15, 2002, 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 NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnnizide.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)
Page 5 of 8
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.
Compensatory mitigation will be provided for this project at the request of the USACE.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five 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 (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. 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
3. 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 ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
Page 6 of 8
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify, )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", 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 3 (2 for Catawba) None
2 1.5 None
Total None
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. There is 0.4 acre existing impervious surface
with the 1.1 acre project site. No additional impervious surface is proposed at the project
Erosion and sediment control devices at this site will be comprised of temporary silt fence
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
This project will not generate wastewater.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes E] No
Page 7 of 8
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The project involves replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek on SR 1337 in
Warren County. No additional roadway improvements will be associated with this project No
additional development will result from this action
XV. 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).
z?IW
App cart/Agckt's Signature / Date
(Agent's si ature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
Appendix One
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlahds Determination Manual) '
Project/Site: 3- -(3 t1 (?)r. Ro&e,c_C(c_ bA5IL(337 Date: 7, t2? 106
Applicant / Owner: N,- t, or County: wa «??
Investigator: C,M- r State:- A&
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes r/ No Community ID: w a„g_
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No_ Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ace, rI ro.- ?^' 9.
2. ACer r.LrLJ.-• . If. 10.
3. v S?S 11.
pt'A 12.
5.
$ 13.
6. ?
-- 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). too
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Specie are are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
11?t rX ?a? < < U QC 12 t'c? cJ/? R f- 5;
U M11 /? Gn C
d
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated

Recorded Data Available
ZNo ?§aturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines

Field Observations: Sediment Deposits

Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: _ n (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: ) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) - FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
W to,., -t;, ? r fv At- Ct - 51
SOILS
Map Unit Name ,
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
?
IZ?- -LL %:n C ?Mk-k Je- t0

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
:;?dle
ed or Low-Chroma C
l Listed on National Hydric Soils List
O
h
E
l
i
__
y
ors _
o t
er (
xp
a
n in Remarks)
Remarks:
nn
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1947
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.