20191084 Ver 2_17BP.5.R.88 FInal Reverification file 11015022_20221105

FLAGGING MAP OVERVIEWBRIDGE REPLACEMENTBRIDGE NO. 135 ON SR 1609OVER FISHING CREEK
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSDIVISION 5
Figure1
County: Warren
Division: 5
WBS: 17BP.5.R.88
Date:September 2017
0 100 20050Feet
³
Fishing Creek
Legend
Warren 135 Study Area
Wetland
Open Water
2013 NC OneMap AerialNCDOT Contours
Po
w
e
l
l
s

M
i
l
l

R
d
.
Wetland B (WB)
Wetland A (WA)
Wetland A (WA)
Wetland C (WC)
Note:Wetland and stream locations shownhave been surveyed.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2017-00852 County: Warren County U.S.G.S. Quad: Afton
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Applicant: NCDOT; Division of Highways
ATTN: Mr. J. R. Hopkins, P.E., Division Engineer
Address: 2612 North Duke Street
Durham, North Carolina 27704
Telephone Number: [phone] (Chris Murray)

Size (acres) 4.5 Nearest Town Warrenton
Nearest Waterway Fishing Creek River Basin Tar/Pamlico
USGS HUC 03020102 Coordinates Latitude: 36.3391; Longitude: -78.1289
Location description: WBS 17BP.5.R.88; Powells Mill Road over Fishing Creek, south of Warrenton, NC.

Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination

X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including
determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other
resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that
would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.

B. Approved Determination

There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

We recommend you have the waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area delineated. As the Corps may not
be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation
that can be verified by the Corps.

The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five
years.

The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed
by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on ______________. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

Page 1 of 2

SAW-2017-00852

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmeyer at [phone] X 23 or
[e-mail].

C. Basis For Determination: The project study area contains jurisdictional waters of the US, Fishing Creek, with ordinary high
water marks, and associated wetlands. Fishing Creek is a tributary of the Tar River, a Section 10 Water.

D. Remarks: This JD was confirmed by field inspection on 5/3/2017. The drawings on the attached Figure 1, ”FLAGGING MAP
OVERVIEW, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, BRIDGE NO. 135 ON SR 1609, OVER FISHING CREEK”, dated September 2017,
generally depicts the approximate boundaries and locations of potential jurisdictional waters of the US within the subject study area.

E. Attention USDA Program Participants

This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.

**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**

Corps Regulatory Official: ____________________________________________________________________________________

Date: October 4, 2017 Expiration Date: N/A

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so,
please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

Copy Furnished (by email):

Heather Smith
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway; Suite 101
Cary, NC, 27518

Page 2 of 2

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 6
17-11-0001

NO NATIONAL REGISTE R O F HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: na County: Warren
WBS No: 17BP.5.R.88 Document: MCC
F.A. No: na Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP

Project Description:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division 5 intends to replace Bridge No.
135 on SR 1609, Powell Mills Road, over Fishing Creek southwest of Liberia. Based on preliminary
designs that were made available at the time of the request for archaeological review, an area of potential
effects (APE), for the purposes of that review, was established that encompassed all proposed right -of-
way (ROW) for the bridge replacement project. This APE is estimated at roughly 1 acre (slightly over .4
hectare).

SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:

There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
present within the project’s area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents
as needed)
No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.

Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
As noted in the Archaeological Survey Required form (dated November 28, 2017), no Known
archaeological resources have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement project,
but historic mapping of the area (the 1924 John E. Buck Map of Warren County) depicts Powell’s Mill
and Store along the road where it crosses Fishing Creek to the south of Spring Grove Church. Aerial
photographs and LIDAR imagery of the project vicinity appeared to depict mill elements outside the
proposed APE to the west of the project but given the proximity of those areas and the suggestion in the
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 6
17-11-0001
historic mapping of a complex of structures, it was determined that an archaeological reconnaissance
would be required for the project.
On October 19, 2018, NCDOT archaeologists, Shane Petersen and Brian Overton conducted a pedestrian
survey of the project area including areas associated with the suspected location of Powell’s Mill and
Store. This pedestrian survey included a visual inspection of the entire proposed APE and a broader
reconnaissance to identify features of the documented mill complex. As suggested by topographical and
soil type mapping for the archaeological screening, landforms within the APE are dominated by
frequently flooded (wet) soils framed by steeply sloped areas. None of the areas within the APE was
considered suited to subsurface testing.
Farther to the west, the foundations of the mill house were observed along with some pieces of mill
machinery (a turbine shaft?). Remnants of the breached mill dam were observed in Fishing Creek as can
be seen in the LIDAR imagery of the area. Adjacent the mill foundation, a laid-stone retaining wall can
be seen along the banks of Fishing Creek on the north side. Remnants of a road trace were observed
running parallel to Fishing Creek from SR 1609 past the mill foundation remnants. To the north of this
road trace, opposite the mill house foundation, the ridge slope appeared to exhibit some modification that
may indicate additional space for structures. The location of the mill store was not confirmed during the
reconnaissance survey. Based on the extant mill features observed, a tentative boundary for Powell’s Mill
was established, and the site was recorded as 31WR293**. No further investigations of the mill were
undertaken once it was established that the site does not extend into the current APE. No assessment of
the National Register Eligibility, nor recommendations regarding archaeological significance is offered
for the site in the current effort.
The project should be considered to be compliant with Section 106 of the national Historic Preservation
Act and North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a). No further archaeological investigations are required
for the project as it is currently proposed. Should the project footprint expand beyond the currently
delineated APE, further archaeological review, and likely further investigations, will be necessary. In the
unlikely event that archaeological deposits are encountered during the bridge replacement project, all
earth-disturbing activities should cease in the associated locations and this office should be contacted
immediately.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Signed:

October 25, 2018

NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date

Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 6
17-11-0001

Aerial photograph of the proposed APE (orange lines) along with preliminary designs for the bridge
replacement project; note the location of the mill structure foundations (green lines) and the preliminary
site boundary for 31WR293**(pink lines).
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 6
17-11-0001

LIDAR imagery of the project area including the APE for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 135
(orange lines) and the locations of mill elements associated with Powell’s Mill, site 31WR293**.

Mill House
Mill Dam
Old
Roadway
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 6
17-11-0001

Photograph of Bridge No. 135 and SR 1609 facing south through the current APE.

Photograph of Bridge No. 135 and SR 1609 facing north through the current APE.
Project Tracking No.:
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT”
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 6
17-11-0001

Photograph of the mill house foundations at Powell’s Mill facing south towards Fishing Creek.

Photograph facing north across Fishing Creek towards the mill house at Powell’s Mill; note the mill dam
remnants on the left side of the photograph and the laid stone retaining wall along the creek bank on the
right.

1
Murray, Christopher A
From:Kaleigh Pollak <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, August 29, 2022 4:13 PM
To:Murray, Christopher A
Subject:[External] Re: FW: NCDOT Division 5 project: Replacement of Bridge 135 over Fishing
Creek on SR 1609 (Powells Mill Road) near Warrenton, Warren County
(WBS:17BP.5.R.88)
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Categories:Purple Category
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for contacting us about the proposed project. The Monacan Indian Nation is a federally
recognized sovereign tribe, headquartered on Bear Mountain in Amherst County. Citizens of the
Nation are descended from Virginia and North Carolina Eastern Siouan cultural and linguistic
groups, and our ancestral territory includes Virginia west of the fall line of the rivers, sections of
southeastern West Virginia, and portions of northern North Carolina. At this time, the active
Monacan consultation areas include:

Virginia: Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Appomattox, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland,
Buchanan, Buckingham, Campbell, Carroll, Charlotte, Clarke, Craig, Culpepper, Cumberland,
Dickenson, Floyd, Fluvanna, Franklin, Frederick, Giles, Goochland, Grayson, Greene, Halifax,
Henry, Highland, Lee, Loudoun, Louisa, Madison, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Nelson, Orange,
Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Pulaski, Rappahannock, Roanoke,
Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, Washington,
Wise, and Wythe Counties, and all contiguous cities.

West Virginia: Greenbrier, Mercer, Monroe, Pendleton, Pocahontas, and Summers Counties.

North Carolina: Alamance, Caswell, Granville, Orange, Person, Rockingham, Vance, and Warren
Counties.

At this time, the Nation does not wish to actively participate in this consultation project, because:

This project is outside our ancestral territory
X The project’s impacts are anticipated to be minimal
The project is more closely related to _____, which should be contacted to
participate in consultation
2

The tribal office does not currently have the capacity to participate in this project
Other:

However, the Nation requests to be contacted if:
· Sites associated with native history may be impacted by this project;
· Adverse effects associated with this project are identified;
· Human remains are encountered during this project;
· Unanticipated native cultural remains are encountered during this project;
· Other tribes consulting on this project cease consultation; or
· The project size or scope becomes larger or more potentially destructive than currently
described.

Please do not make any assumptions about future consultation interests based on this decision, as
priorities and information may change. We request that you send any future consultation
communications in electronic form to [e-mail]. We appreciate your
outreach to the Monacan Indian Nation and look forward to working with you in the future.

Kaleigh Pollak

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:54 PM Consultation <[e-mail]> wrote:

From: Murray, Christopher A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 2:26 PM
To: Tribal Office <[e-mail]>; Kaleigh Pollak <[e-mail]>; Brooke Wilde
<[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Consultation <[e-mail]>
Subject: NCDOT Division 5 project: Replacement of Bridge 135 over Fishing Creek on SR 1609 (Powells Mill Road) near
Warrenton, Warren County (WBS:17BP.5.R.88)

Dear Ms. Wilde or Ms. Pollack,

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) continues the project development,
environmental and engineering studies for replacement of Bridge 135 over Fishing Creek on SR 1609 (Powells
Mill Road) near Warrenton, Warren County (WBS:17BP.5.R.88).

The purpose of this email is to provide you with the following information:

(Version 2.08; Released April 2018)
SF-920135 TIP No.:17BP.5.R.88 County(ies):Warren Page 1 of 1
TIP Number:Date:
Phone:Phone:
Email:Email:
County(ies):
CAMA County?
Yes
Design/Future: Year:2025 Existing: Year:
Aquatic T&E Species?Comments:
Yes No
No
N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
ac.
2 @ 9' lanes with 0.5' paved shoulders
160
[e-mail]
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
NRTR Stream ID:
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Existing Site
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
ac.
Surface Water Body (1):
Class CNCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Tar-PamlicoBuffer Rules in Effect:Fishing Creek
80
2 @ 9' lanes with 3' paved shoulders
Waterbody Information
2000
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
SF-920135
Impairments:
Other Stream Classification:
Primary Classification:
Project Built-Upon Area (ac.)
State project 17BP.5.R.88 involves the replacement of the existing NCDOT Bridge #920135 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek. Bridge #920135 consists of 1@20'-8" timber floor
on I-Beams with timber caps on rubble masonry abutments. The existing bridge is to be replaced with a proposed culvert which consists of a 42'x10' bottomless RCBC on
footings. The proposed crossing is located in Zone AE of FIRM Map number 3720294400J and was studied by Limited Detailed methods. There are steep ditches within the
project limits that need rip rap to maintain stability. Also, existing ditches are being covered up by the proposed roadway and in order to maintain stability, proposed ditches run
through the buffer zones.
940 Main Campus Drive
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
Project Type:
1000 Birch Ridge Drive Address:
General Project Information
17BP.5.R.88
WBS Element:
Bridge ReplacementWBS Element:
Reid B. Robol, PE - VHBNCDOT Contact:
919-707-6711
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contractor / Designer:
919-754-5005
[e-mail]
Address:
1/13/2019
Warren
Galen Cail
Raleigh, NC 27610
River Basin(s):
City/Town:
1.4
Typical Cross Section Description:
Surrounding Land Use:
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
No
Forest, agricultural, and rural residential
Fishing Creek 28-79-(1)
1.2
0.081 Miles
Project Description
Proposed Project
Tar-Pamlico
Supplemental Classification: Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
Wetlands within Project Limits?
FI
S
HI
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
F ISH
IN
G
CR
EEK
92-0135
BRIDGE
R/W MON
R/W MON
Raleigh, NC 27606
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (C-3705)
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
4
SHEET 1 OF 6
PERMIT DRAWING

20 4040
25 50 10050
5 10 2010

DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
0
0
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
PROJECT LENGTHDESIGN DATA
SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.

PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:
0
9
/
0
8
/
9
9
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0
00
8
:
17
:
4
7

A
M
R
:
\
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
P
E
R
M
IT
S
_
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
2
0
13
5
_
P
R
M
_
W
E
T
_
T
S
H
.
d
g
n
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
:
A
R
T
MEN
N
A
S
O
H
D
E
P
T
O
F TRA S PORT
T
I
O
N
T
A TEOFN RT
CAR
O
LI
N
A
=
=
CLASS =
V
SUBREGIONAL TIER
LOCAL
RURAL
=20 MPH
LENGTH STRUCTURES STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
LENGTH ROADWAY STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
Prepared in the Offices of:
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
RIGHT OF WAY
COMPLETE:
AUGUST 15, 2018
PE
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
N/A
17BP.5.R.88
17BP.5.R.88
VICINITY MAP
See Sheet 1B For Conventional Symbols
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
-L- POC STA. 14+75.00
END STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
T
I
P

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
:
1
7
B
P
.
5
.
R
.
8
8
= 0.072 mi.
= 0.008 mi.
= 0.080 mi.
ADT
BRIDGE NO. 135 OVER FISHING CREEK
ON SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD.)

-L- P0T STA. 10+50.00
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
OFF-SITE DETOUR
WARREN COUNTY
80 VPD
GRAPHIC SCALES
80
SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD.)-L-
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE TO LIMITS ESTABLISHED USING METHOD III.
B
A
LTI
M
O
R
E
CH
U
R
CH
R
D.
S
R
16
0
6
TO
SR 1600 BALTIMORE RD.
TO
GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND CULVERT
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
JOSHUA ROEMER
ANDY YOUNG, PE
NCDOT CONTACT
LISA GILCHRIST, EI
N/A17BP.5.R.88
N/A17BP.5.R.88 UTILITIES
ROW
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
MAY 17, 2019
PROJECT #:B16012.00
www.stewartinc.com
Firm License #: C-1051
T 919.380.8750
RALEIGH, NC 27603
223 S. WEST ST, STE 1100
-L- STA. 12+13.26
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- STA. 12+56.74
END CULVERT
GREU, TL-2
GREU
, TL-2
G
REU,
TL-
2
GREU, TL-2
Creek
Fishing
PROJECT
BEGIN
PROJECT
END
Rd.
Kearney
1605
Rd.
Town
Limer
1604
Rd.
Baltimore
1600
Mill Rd.
Powells
1609
Church Rd.
Baltimore
Church Rd.
Baltimore
1606
Rd.
Cheek
Will
1608
Cheeks Rd.
Lee Roy
1611
Rd.
Parktown
1625
Rd.
Harris
Pete
1625
Creek
Fishing
Creek
Richneck
Creek
Bridle
45
44 135
132
39
74
42
Mill
B
ranch
Richneck
Creek
B
ri
dle
Creek
Fishing
Fishing
C
r
e
e
k
Creek
P
o
ssu
m
qu
a
rter
2
.4
2.1
.6
.5
.71.5
2.9
1.
1
.4
1
.
3
.7
.2
.1
.5
1.2
2.6
1.1
.6
.6 .4
.
8
.8
.5
.5
1.7
.5
2
.
9
.2
2
.
1
7
1.58
.7
0
Creek
1512
1620
1620
1625
1625
1625
1625
1605
1631
1623
1622
1622
1600
1600
1608
1608
1607
1606
1606
1609
1609
1624
1612
1612
1611
1610
Kearney
Rd.
C
o
u
n
t
y
Hu
n
t
Ho
u
se
Rd.
Parktown
Rd.
Parkto
w
n
Rd.
Le
e
Roy
Rd.Cheeks
Old
Mill
Rd.
Gum
Pon
d
Bea
mon
Hunt
Davis
Sheriff
Rd.
W
ill
C
heek
Rd.
Powells
Mill
R
d.
R
d
.
B
alti
m
ore
Church Rd.
Parktown
Rd.
Rd.
Davis
Bugg
B
a
l
t
i
m
o
r
e
B
a
ltim
o
re
R
d.
Parktown
Liberia
1.
65
.7
5
1.8
6
.9
6
43
58
58 NSRS 2011
NAD 83/
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
***
**
*
*
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
E E IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
SITE 1
SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 2
SITE 3
0
INSET GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=20'
20 10 20 40
SHEET 2 OF 6
PERMIT DRAWING
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
THE RELOCATION.
APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL FROM RK&K TO SCHEDULE
THE DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER WILL CONTACT
THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO START OF IN-CHANNEL WORK.
THE MUSSEL RELOCATION MUST OCCUR WITHIN
NOTE:
G
A
T
E
SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD)
FI
S
HI
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
F ISH
IN
G
CR
EEK
EXISTING R/
W
EXISTING R/
W
E
XI
S
TI
N
G
R/
W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/W
30.00'
3
0
.
0
0'
3
0
.
0
0
'
I
N
V
=225.
27'
15" RCP
18"
R
C
P
I
N
V
=261.
05'
I
N
V
=262.
32'
JAMES H. ROBERTSON
SPRING GREEN BAPTIST CHURCH
A 30' MAINTAINED EXISTING R/W IS SHOWN.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY,
OF MAINTENANCE, APPROX. 30' - 40'.
IS ASSUMED TO HAVE R/W TO THE LIMITS
ROADWAY HAS NO DEEDED R/W BUT
WHICH STATES THIS PORTION OF THE
IN PLAT CABINET 1 SLIDE 240A PLAT 10
BE MAINTAINED R/W AS PER PLAT
EXISTING R/W IS ASSUMED TO
RONNEY G. BELTON, ET UX
KEVIN C. MALONEY, ET UX
JAMES RICHARD WILLIAMS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
BL-101
BL-104
BL-102
BL-103
WOODS
92-0135
BRIDGE
24" RCP
WOODS
WOODS
EIP
R/W MON
R/W MON
EIP
EIP
EIP
WOODS
EIP
S
E
XI
S
TI
N
G
R/
W
BAPTIST CHURCH
SPRING GREEN
V
A
RI
A
B
L
E
WI
D
T
H
B
S
T
S
R 1609 (P
O
WE
L
LS
MIL
L
R
D)
SCOUR AREA
WASHOUT/
RAP
RIP
EXIST
E
X
I
S
T
TBM-4
TBM-2
TBM-1
PI Sta 10+92.05
D
L = 83.32'
T = 42.05'
R = 250.00'
PI Sta 11+70.75
D
L = 70.60'
T = 37.43'
R = 86.00'
PI Sta 13+07.18
D
L = 75.01'
T = 39.37'
R = 100.00'
PI Sta 13+86.74
D
L = 82.77'
T = 43.92'
R = 100.00'
PI Sta 15+71.91
D
L = 292.24'
T = 146.32'
R = 2,284.89'
-L-
-L-
-L- PT Sta. 17+17.83
-L- PRC Sta. 14+25.59
-L- PRC Sta. 13+42.82
-L- PC Sta. 12+67.81
15
-L- PT Sta. 12+03.92
-L- PCC Sta. 11+33.32
-L- POT Sta. 10+00.00
18'
03 0402
01
00
0102
0 3
0
4
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 2
03
04
0
4
0
3
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
-L- PC Sta. 10+50.00
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
-L- POC Sta. 14+75.00
END STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
GREU, TL-2
GREU
, TL-2
G
REU,
TL-
2
GREU, TL-2
3:
1
2:1
2:1
8:1
NAD 83/ NA 2011

10
:
19
:
5
6

A
M
R
:
\
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
_
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
2
0
1
3
5
_
P
R
M
_
W
E
T
_
P
S
H
0
4
.
d
g
n
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
RE
V
IS
IO
N
S
5
/
1
4
/
9
9 SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
417BP.5.R.88 4
FOR -L- PROFILE, SEE SHEET 5
0
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'
40 20 40 80
Se = EXIST.
Runoff = 90'Runoff = 90'
Runoff = 90'
Se = 4%
Se = 4%Se = 4%
Se = EXIST.
www.stewartinc.com
T 919.380.8750
Raleigh, NC 27603
Suite 1100
223 S. West St,
Firm License No. C-1051
FOR CULVERT PLANS, SEE SHEETS C-1 THRU C-4
Raleigh, NC 27606
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (C-3705)
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
MUSSEL SURVEY AND RELOCATION ACTIVITIES.
PROJECT TO ALLOW FOR APPROPRIATE CONTACT WITH PARTIES CONDUCTING THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEER AND DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER CONCERNING START OF WORK AT THE
THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE AT LEAST THREE WEEKS NOTIFICATION TO THE RESIDENT
STA. 12+17 TO 12+73 RT.
MATERIAL FROM STA. 12+00 TO 12+53 LT AND
ALONG STRUCTURE WITH ENGINEER APPROVED
ARMOR SHOULDERS AND SIDE SLOPES
NOTE:
1
2
3
4
5
2:
1
D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 13+85 TO STA. 14+50 -L- RT
FROM STA. 13+83 TO STA. 14+75 -L- LT
DETAIL 2
Max. d=1.0 Ft.
Min. D=1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
24" RCP-V
2:
1
D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 12+70 TO STA. 13+50 -L- RT
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+50 -L- LT
FROM STA. 10+50 TO STA. 11+95 -L- LT
DETAIL 1
Max. d=1.0 Ft.
Min. D=1.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class B Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 2 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
L
S etc.
GI
10:1 20
:1
( Not to Scale)
FALSE SUMP
2.0'
STA. 13+67 -L- LT
DETAIL 3
Traffic Flow
Outside Ditch
1.
0
'

M
a
x
0
.
5
'

M
i
n
.
S=Ditch Slope C Proposed Ditch
SEE DETAIL 3
FALSE SUMP
2:12:
1
D
( Not to Scale)
STANDARD BASE DITCH
B
d
FROM STA. 13+64 TO STA. 13+66 -L- RT
DETAIL 4
B= 2 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural
Ground
Natural
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Geotextile
EST 15 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 10 TONS
SLOPE=0.3%
EST DDE=5 CY
SEE DETAIL 4
STANDARD BASE DITCH
RCBC ON FOOTINGS
42'x10' BOTTOMLESS
EST 215 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 75 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 150 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 50 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 120 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 40 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH EST 120 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 75 TONS
CLASS I RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 170 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 110 TONS
CLASS I RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
SEE DETAIL 5
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 2 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
Flatter3:1 or
D
2:
1
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 10+50 TO STA. 11+56 -L- RT
DETAIL 5
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural Slope
Ditch
Front
( Not to Scale)
BANK STABILIZATION
DETAIL 6
GEOTEXTILE
Type of Liner= CLASS II RIPRAP
3.0'min.
2.0'NWS
SEE DETAIL 6
EST 180 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 110 TONS
CLASS II RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 6
EST 125 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 80 TONS
CLASS II RIP RAP
RIP RAP
CLASS II
RIP RAP
CLASS B
GRADE TO DRAIN
DETAIL 7
SCOUR HOLE DETAIL
SEE DETAIL 7
FILL SCOUR HOLE
NTS
ENG. APP. MATERIAL
VOIDS. GRADE TO DRAIN AND SEED AND MULCH.
COMPACT AS NEEDED TO PROMOTE VEGETATION GROWTH AND FILL
RIP RAP. TOP CLASS B RIP RAP WITH ENGINEER APPROVED MATERIAL AND
NATURAL GROUND. ADD 1.0' OF CLASS B RIP RAP ON TOP OF CLASS II
FILL IN SCOUR HOLE WITH CLASS II RIP RAP TO WITHIN 2.0' OF
EIP
0
424" RCP-V
BL-103 24" RCPEIP
0
424" RCP-V
C
F
C
C
C
F
C
C
C
F
F
F
C
205
2
0
5
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
210
2
10
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
210
2
1
5
2
1
5
2
1
5
2
1
5
2
15
215
215
2
1
5
215
2
15
2 1 5
220
2
2
0
220
2
2
0
220
2
2
0
2
2
0
220
220
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
5
225
225
225
225
2
3
0
230
230
2
3
0
230
230
2
3
5
235
2
3
5
235
2
4
0
240
2
4
0
240
2
4
0
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
245
2
4
5
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
5
2
5
5
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
2
0
230
G
A
T
E
SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD)
FI
S
HI
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
F ISH
IN
G
CR
EEK
EXISTING R/
W
EXISTING R/
W
E
XI
S
TI
N
G
R/
W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/W
30.00'
3
0
.
0
0'
3
0
.
0
0
'
I
N
V
=225.
27'
15" RCP
18"
R
C
P
I
N
V
=261.
05'
I
N
V
=262.
32'
JAMES H. ROBERTSON
SPRING GREEN BAPTIST CHURCH
A 30' MAINTAINED EXISTING R/W IS SHOWN.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY,
OF MAINTENANCE, APPROX. 30' - 40'.
IS ASSUMED TO HAVE R/W TO THE LIMITS
ROADWAY HAS NO DEEDED R/W BUT
WHICH STATES THIS PORTION OF THE
IN PLAT CABINET 1 SLIDE 240A PLAT 10
BE MAINTAINED R/W AS PER PLAT
EXISTING R/W IS ASSUMED TO
RONNEY G. BELTON, ET UX
KEVIN C. MALONEY, ET UX
JAMES RICHARD WILLIAMS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
BL-101
BL-104
BL-102
BL-103
WOODS
92-0135
BRIDGE
24" RCP
WOODS
WOODS
EIP
R/W MON
R/W MON
EIP
EIP
EIP
WOODS
EIP
S
E
XI
S
TI
N
G
R/
W
BAPTIST CHURCH
SPRING GREEN
V
A
RI
A
B
L
E
WI
D
T
H
B
S
T
S
R 1609 (P
O
WE
L
LS
MIL
L
R
D)
SCOUR AREA
WASHOUT/
RAP
RIP
EXIST
E
X
I
S
T
TBM-4
TBM-2
TBM-1
PI Sta 10+92.05
D
L = 83.32'
T = 42.05'
R = 250.00'
PI Sta 11+70.75
D
L = 70.60'
T = 37.43'
R = 86.00'
PI Sta 13+07.18
D
L = 75.01'
T = 39.37'
R = 100.00'
PI Sta 13+86.74
D
L = 82.77'
T = 43.92'
R = 100.00'
PI Sta 15+71.91
D
L = 292.24'
T = 146.32'
R = 2,284.89'
-L-
-L-
-L- PT Sta. 17+17.83
-L- PRC Sta. 14+25.59
-L- PRC Sta. 13+42.82
-L- PC Sta. 12+67.81
15
-L- PT Sta. 12+03.92
-L- PCC Sta. 11+33.32
-L- POT Sta. 10+00.00
18'
03 0402
01
00
0102
0 3
0
4
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 2
03
04
0
4
0
3
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
-L- PC Sta. 10+50.00
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
-L- POC Sta. 14+75.00
END STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
GREU, TL-2
GREU
, TL-2
G
REU,
TL-
2
GREU, TL-2
3:
1
2:1
2:1
8:1
NAD 83/ NA 2011

10
:
2
0
:
0
1 A
M
R
:
\
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
_
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
2
0
1
3
5
_
P
R
M
_
W
E
T
_
P
S
H
0
4
_
C
O
N
.
d
g
n
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
RE
V
IS
IO
N
S
5
/
1
4
/
9
9 SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
417BP.5.R.88 4
FOR -L- PROFILE, SEE SHEET 5
0
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'
40 20 40 80
Se = EXIST.
Runoff = 90'Runoff = 90'
Runoff = 90'
Se = 4%
Se = 4%Se = 4%
Se = EXIST.
www.stewartinc.com
T 919.380.8750
Raleigh, NC 27603
Suite 1100
223 S. West St,
Firm License No. C-1051
FOR CULVERT PLANS, SEE SHEETS C-1 THRU C-4
Raleigh, NC 27606
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (C-3705)
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
MUSSEL SURVEY AND RELOCATION ACTIVITIES.
PROJECT TO ALLOW FOR APPROPRIATE CONTACT WITH PARTIES CONDUCTING THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEER AND DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER CONCERNING START OF WORK AT THE
THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE AT LEAST THREE WEEKS NOTIFICATION TO THE RESIDENT
STA. 12+17 TO 12+73 RT.
MATERIAL FROM STA. 12+00 TO 12+53 LT AND
ALONG STRUCTURE WITH ENGINEER APPROVED
ARMOR SHOULDERS AND SIDE SLOPES
NOTE:
1
2
3
4
5
2:
1
D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 13+85 TO STA. 14+50 -L- RT
FROM STA. 13+83 TO STA. 14+75 -L- LT
DETAIL 2
Max. d=1.0 Ft.
Min. D=1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
24" RCP-V
2:
1
D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 12+70 TO STA. 13+50 -L- RT
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+50 -L- LT
FROM STA. 10+50 TO STA. 11+95 -L- LT
DETAIL 1
Max. d=1.0 Ft.
Min. D=1.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class B Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 2 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
L
S etc.
GI
10:1 20
:1
( Not to Scale)
FALSE SUMP
2.0'
STA. 13+67 -L- LT
DETAIL 3
Traffic Flow
Outside Ditch
1.
0
'

M
a
x
0
.
5
'

M
i
n
.
S=Ditch Slope C Proposed Ditch
SEE DETAIL 3
FALSE SUMP
2:12:
1
D
( Not to Scale)
STANDARD BASE DITCH
B
d
FROM STA. 13+64 TO STA. 13+66 -L- RT
DETAIL 4
B= 2 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural
Ground
Natural
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Geotextile
EST 15 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 10 TONS
SLOPE=0.3%
EST DDE=5 CY
SEE DETAIL 4
STANDARD BASE DITCH
RCBC ON FOOTINGS
42'x10' BOTTOMLESS
EST 215 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 75 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 150 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 50 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 120 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 40 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH EST 120 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 75 TONS
CLASS I RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 170 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 110 TONS
CLASS I RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
SEE DETAIL 5
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 2 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
Flatter3:1 or
D
2:
1
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 10+50 TO STA. 11+56 -L- RT
DETAIL 5
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural Slope
Ditch
Front
( Not to Scale)
BANK STABILIZATION
DETAIL 6
GEOTEXTILE
Type of Liner= CLASS II RIPRAP
3.0'min.
2.0'NWS
SEE DETAIL 6
EST 180 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 110 TONS
CLASS II RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 6
EST 125 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 80 TONS
CLASS II RIP RAP
RIP RAP
CLASS II
RIP RAP
CLASS B
GRADE TO DRAIN
DETAIL 7
SCOUR HOLE DETAIL
SEE DETAIL 7
FILL SCOUR HOLE
NTS
ENG. APP. MATERIAL
VOIDS. GRADE TO DRAIN AND SEED AND MULCH.
COMPACT AS NEEDED TO PROMOTE VEGETATION GROWTH AND FILL
RIP RAP. TOP CLASS B RIP RAP WITH ENGINEER APPROVED MATERIAL AND
NATURAL GROUND. ADD 1.0' OF CLASS B RIP RAP ON TOP OF CLASS II
FILL IN SCOUR HOLE WITH CLASS II RIP RAP TO WITHIN 2.0' OF
EIP
0
424" RCP-V
BL-103 24" RCPEIP
0
424" RCP-V
CLEARING
DENOTES MECHANIZED*
*
*
*
***
**
*
*
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
E E IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
SITE 1
SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 2
SITE 3
0
INSET GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=20'
20 10 20 40
SHEET 3 OF 6
PERMIT DRAWING
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
THE RELOCATION.
APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL FROM RK&K TO SCHEDULE
THE DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER WILL CONTACT
THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO START OF IN-CHANNEL WORK.
THE MUSSEL RELOCATION MUST OCCUR WITHIN
NOTE:
C
F
C
C
C
F
C
C
C
F
F
F
C

5
/
1
4
/
9
9 SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
17BP.5.R.88
www.stewartinc.com
T 919.380.8750
Raleigh, NC 27603
Suite 1100
223 S. West St,
Firm License No. C-1051
Raleigh, NC 27606
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (C-3705)
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
SHEET 4 OF 6
PERMIT DRAWING
SKEW = 75°
GP = 216.01'
RCBC ON FOOTINGS
42' x 10' BOTTOMLESS
CL STA 12+35.00 -L-
210
220
200
0 50'50'100'100'150'150'
EXISTING BEDTOP OF FOOTING ELEV=204.0'
PROPOSED 2 YR WSEL = 220.6'
PROPOSED 100 YR WSEL = 229.3'
TB LT
TB RT
4/11/2016
DATE OF SURVEY
WSEL = 209.6'
2.07:1 (2:1 NORMAL)
ARE TO BE PAVED OVER ENTIRE RCBC
SHOULDERS AND SIDE SLOPES
25'27'
MINIMUM CROWN ELEV. = 214.0'
MIN. REQUIRED WATERWAY OPENING= 191 SF
PROPOSED WATERWAY OPENING=191 SF
EXISTING WATERWAY OPENING=83 SF
00
00
1010
1010
2020
2020
3030
3030
4040
4040
5050
5050
6060
6060
7070
7070
8080
8080
9090
9090
100100
100100
110110
110110
120120
120120
130130
130130
140140
140140
150150
150150
0
8
:
18
:
2
8

A
M
R
:
\
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
_
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
2
0
1
3
5
_
P
R
M
_
W
E
T
_
X
S
C
.
d
g
n
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
8
/
2
3
/
9
9
PROJ. REFERENCE NO.SHEET NO.
215 215
220 220
225 225
230 230
235 235
210 210
220 220
225 225
230 230
235 235
215 21514+00.00
220 220
225 225
230 230
235 235
215 215
225 225
230 230
235 235
240 240
220 220
225 225
230 230
235 235
240 240
220 220
X-3
-L-
5 10
17BP.5.R.88
SITE 2
ROW WET
SHEET 5 OF 6
PERMIT DRAWING
LT_PS3_Shelf_Out
RT_PS1_OEOP
PV2_PGL
LT_Sub_OEOT
PV3_PGL
Sub_PGL
RT_Slope_Cut
LT_Slope_Fill
LT_PS3_OEOP
RT_Sub_OEOTLT_PS2_OEOP
RT_PS3_OEOP
LT_PS1_OEOP
RT_PS2_OEOP
LT_PV1_OEOT
RT_PV2_OEOT
RT_PV1_OEOT
LT_GS_OS_CTL
RT_PS3_Shelf_Out
RT_SS_Ditch_Base_Out
LT_Sub_Trench_Out
PV1_PGL
RT_Sub_Trench_Out
RT_Sub_Trench_Out_DLT
LT_Sub_Trench_Out_DLT
RT_GS_OS_CTL
LT_PV3_OEOT
LT_PV2_OEOT
RT_PV3_OEOT
222.35
2:1
4
:
1
0.0270.040
221.22
218.58
4:1
2:
1
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 12+06/12+82 -L- 42'x10' BOTTOMLESS RCBC 0.01 0.03 151 176
2 13+78/14+17 -L- LT 42'x10' BOTTOMLESS RCBC < 0.01 < 0.01
3 13+57/13+67 -L- RT 42'x10' BOTTOMLESS RCBC < 0.01 < 0.01

TOTALS*: < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.03 151 176 0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
**The length of the culvert is 52 feet long Excavation in
Wetland
(sq. ft.)
MC in
Wetlands
(sq. ft.)
Perm. SW
Impact
(sq. ft.)
Temp. SW
Impact
(sq. ft.)
Perm. Fill in
Wetlands
(sq. ft)
Site 1 0 0 543 1402 0
Site 2 145 180 0 0 0
Site 3 0 112 0 0 61
TOTAL 145 292 543 1402 61

Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 6 OF 6
SF-920135
17BP.5.R.88
WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
WARREN COUNTY
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1/18/2019
NOTES:
Permanent impacts are coincident with the temporary impacts
92-0135
BRIDGE
R/W MON
R/W MON
Raleigh, NC 27606
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (C-3705)
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
4
BUFFER IMPACTS PERMIT
SHEET 1 OF 4
BUFFER DRAWING

20 4040
25 50 10050
5 10 2010

DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
0
0
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
PROJECT LENGTHDESIGN DATA
SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.

PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:
0
9
/
0
8
/
9
9
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0
00
8
:
3
3
:
3
3

A
M
R
:
\
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
P
E
R
M
IT
S
_
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
2
0
13
5
_
P
R
M
_
B
U
F
_
T
S
H
.
d
g
n
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
:
A
R
T
MEN
N
A
S
O
H
D
E
P
T
O
F TRA S PORT
T
I
O
N
T
A TEOFN RT
CAR
O
LI
N
A
=
=
CLASS =
V
SUBREGIONAL TIER
LOCAL
RURAL
=20 MPH
LENGTH STRUCTURES STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
LENGTH ROADWAY STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
Prepared in the Offices of:
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
RIGHT OF WAY
COMPLETE:
AUGUST 15, 2018
PE
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
N/A
17BP.5.R.88
17BP.5.R.88
VICINITY MAP
See Sheet 1B For Conventional Symbols
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
-L- POC STA. 14+75.00
END STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
T
I
P

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
:
1
7
B
P
.
5
.
R
.
8
8
= 0.072 mi.
= 0.008 mi.
= 0.080 mi.
ADT
BRIDGE NO. 135 OVER FISHING CREEK
ON SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD.)

-L- P0T STA. 10+50.00
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
OFF-SITE DETOUR
WARREN COUNTY
80 VPD
GRAPHIC SCALES
80
SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD.)-L-
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE TO LIMITS ESTABLISHED USING METHOD III.
B
A
LTI
M
O
R
E
CH
U
R
CH
R
D.
S
R
16
0
6
TO
SR 1600 BALTIMORE RD.
TO
GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND CULVERT
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
JOSHUA ROEMER
ANDY YOUNG, PE
NCDOT CONTACT
LISA GILCHRIST, EI
N/A17BP.5.R.88
N/A17BP.5.R.88 UTILITIES
ROW
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
MAY 17, 2019
PROJECT #:B16012.00
www.stewartinc.com
Firm License #: C-1051
T 919.380.8750
RALEIGH, NC 27603
223 S. WEST ST, STE 1100
-L- STA. 12+13.26
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- STA. 12+56.74
END CULVERT
GREU, TL-2
GREU
, TL-2
G
REU,
TL-
2
GREU, TL-2
Creek
Fishing
PROJECT
BEGIN
PROJECT
END
Rd.
Kearney
1605
Rd.
Town
Limer
1604
Rd.
Baltimore
1600
Mill Rd.
Powells
1609
Church Rd.
Baltimore
Church Rd.
Baltimore
1606
Rd.
Cheek
Will
1608
Cheeks Rd.
Lee Roy
1611
Rd.
Parktown
1625
Rd.
Harris
Pete
1625
Creek
Fishing
Creek
Richneck
Creek
Bridle
45
44 135
132
39
74
42
Mill
B
ranch
Richneck
Creek
B
ri
dle
Creek
Fishing
Fishing
C
r
e
e
k
Creek
P
o
ssu
m
qu
a
rter
2
.4
2.1
.6
.5
.71.5
2.9
1.
1
.4
1
.
3
.7
.2
.1
.5
1.2
2.6
1.1
.6
.6 .4
.
8
.8
.5
.5
1.7
.5
2
.
9
.2
2
.
1
7
1.58
.7
0
Creek
1512
1620
1620
1625
1625
1625
1625
1605
1631
1623
1622
1622
1600
1600
1608
1608
1607
1606
1606
1609
1609
1624
1612
1612
1611
1610
Kearney
Rd.
C
o
u
n
t
y
Hu
n
t
Ho
u
se
Rd.
Parktown
Rd.
Parkto
w
n
Rd.
Le
e
Roy
Rd.Cheeks
Old
Mill
Rd.
Gum
Pon
d
Bea
mon
Hunt
Davis
Sheriff
Rd.
W
ill
C
heek
Rd.
Powells
Mill
R
d.
R
d
.
B
alti
m
ore
Church Rd.
Parktown
Rd.
Rd.
Davis
Bugg
B
a
l
t
i
m
o
r
e
B
a
ltim
o
re
R
d.
Parktown
Liberia
1.
65
.7
5
1.8
6
.9
6
43
58
58
FISH
IN
G
C
R
E
E
K
FI
S
HI
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
NSRS 2011
NAD 83/
G
A
T
E
SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD)
FI
S
HI
N
G
C
R
E
E
K
F ISH
IN
G
CR
EEK
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/
W
EXISTING R/
W
E
XI
S
TI
N
G
R/
W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/W
30.00'
3
0
.
0
0'
3
0
.
0
0
'
SR 1609 (POWELLS MILL RD) 17' BST
I
N
V
=225.
27'
I
N
V
=224.
01'
15" RCP
18"
R
C
P
I
N
V
=261.
05'
I
N
V
=262.
32'
DB 169 PG 366
JAMES H. ROBERTSON
SPRING GREEN BAPTIST CHURCH
PB 22 PG 142
DB 571 PG 32
A 30' MAINTAINED EXISTING R/W IS SHOWN.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY,
OF MAINTENANCE, APPROX. 30' - 40'.
IS ASSUMED TO HAVE R/W TO THE LIMITS
ROADWAY HAS NO DEEDED R/W BUT
WHICH STATES THIS PORTION OF THE
IN PLAT CABINET 1 SLIDE 240A PLAT 10
BE MAINTAINED R/W AS PER PLAT
EXISTING R/W IS ASSUMED TO
PC 1 SL 240A PLAT 10
DB 965 PG 720
CORY J. THORNTON, ET UX
PB 22 PG 142
DB 928 PG 209
DB 716 PG 945
RONNEY G. BELTON, ET UX
PC 1 SL 267A PLAT 14
DB 868 PG 397
KEVIN C. MALONEY, ET UX
PC 1 SL 240A PLAT 10
DB 814 PG 794
JAMES RICHARD WILLIAMS
DB 191 PG 177
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
BL-101
BL-104
BL-102
BL-103
WOODS
92-0135
BRIDGE
24" RCP
WOODS
WOODS
EIP
R/W MON
R/W MON
EIP
EIP
EIP
WOODS
EIP
S
S
18
" R
C
P
E
XI
S
TI
N
G
R/
W
BAPTIST CHURCH
SPRING GREEN
V
A
RI
A
B
L
E
WI
D
T
H
B
S
T
S
R 1609 (P
O
WE
L
LS
MIL
L
R
D)
SCOUR AREA
WASHOUT/
RAP
RIP
EXIST
E
X
I
S
T
TBM-4
TBM-2
TBM-1
PI Sta 10+92.05
D
L = 83.32'
T = 42.05'
R = 250.00'
PI Sta 11+70.75
D
L = 70.60'
T = 37.43'
R = 86.00'
PI Sta 13+07.18
D
L = 75.01'
T = 39.37'
R = 100.00'
PI Sta 13+86.74
D
L = 82.77'
T = 43.92'
R = 100.00'
PI Sta 15+71.91
D
L = 292.24'
T = 146.32'
R = 2,284.89'
-L-
-L-
-L- PT Sta. 17+17.83
-L- PRC Sta. 14+25.59
-L- PRC Sta. 13+42.82
-L- PC Sta. 12+67.81
15
-L- PT Sta. 12+03.92
-L- PCC Sta. 11+33.32
-L- POT Sta. 10+00.00
18'
03 0402
01
00
0102
0 3
0
4
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 2
03
04
0
4
0
3
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
-L- PC Sta. 10+50.00
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
-L- POC Sta. 14+75.00
END STATE PROJECT 17BP.5.R.88
GREU, TL-2
GREU
, TL-2
G
REU,
TL-
2
GREU, TL-2
3:
1
2:1
2:1
8:1
NAD 83/ NA 2011

10
:
19
:
5
0

A
M
R
:
\
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
P
E
R
M
I
T
S
_
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
2
0
1
3
5
_
P
R
M
_
B
U
F
_
P
S
H
0
4
.
d
g
n
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
RE
V
IS
IO
N
S
5
/
1
4
/
9
9 SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
417BP.5.R.88 4
FOR -L- PROFILE, SEE SHEET 5
0
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'
40 20 40 80
Se = EXIST.
Runoff = 90'Runoff = 90'
Runoff = 90'
Se = 4%
Se = 4%Se = 4%
Se = EXIST.
www.stewartinc.com
T 919.380.8750
Raleigh, NC 27603
Suite 1100
223 S. West St,
Firm License No. C-1051
FOR CULVERT PLANS, SEE SHEETS C-1 THRU C-4
Raleigh, NC 27606
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (C-3705)
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
MUSSEL SURVEY AND RELOCATION ACTIVITIES.
PROJECT TO ALLOW FOR APPROPRIATE CONTACT WITH PARTIES CONDUCTING THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEER AND DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER CONCERNING START OF WORK AT THE
THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE AT LEAST THREE WEEKS NOTIFICATION TO THE RESIDENT
STA. 12+17 TO 12+73 RT.
MATERIAL FROM STA. 12+00 TO 12+53 LT AND
ALONG STRUCTURE WITH ENGINEER APPROVED
ARMOR SHOULDERS AND SIDE SLOPES
NOTE:
1
2
3
4
5
2:
1
D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 13+85 TO STA. 14+50 -L- RT
FROM STA. 13+83 TO STA. 14+75 -L- LT
DETAIL 2
Max. d=1.0 Ft.
Min. D=1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
24" RCP-V
2:
1
D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 12+70 TO STA. 13+50 -L- RT
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+50 -L- LT
FROM STA. 10+50 TO STA. 11+95 -L- LT
DETAIL 1
Max. d=1.0 Ft.
Min. D=1.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class B Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 2 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
L
S etc.
GI
10:1 20
:1
( Not to Scale)
FALSE SUMP
2.0'
STA. 13+67 -L- LT
DETAIL 3
Traffic Flow
Outside Ditch
1.
0
'

M
a
x
0
.
5
'

M
i
n
.
S=Ditch Slope C Proposed Ditch
SEE DETAIL 3
FALSE SUMP
2:12:
1
D
( Not to Scale)
STANDARD BASE DITCH
B
d
FROM STA. 13+64 TO STA. 13+66 -L- RT
DETAIL 4
B= 2 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural
Ground
Natural
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Geotextile
EST 15 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 10 TONS
SLOPE=0.3%
EST DDE=5 CY
SEE DETAIL 4
STANDARD BASE DITCH
RCBC ON FOOTINGS
42'x10' BOTTOMLESS
EST 215 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 75 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 150 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 50 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 120 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 40 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 1
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH EST 120 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 75 TONS
CLASS I RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
EST 170 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 110 TONS
CLASS I RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
0401
0402
SEE DETAIL 5
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
EST 7 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 2 TONS
CLASS B RIP RAP
Flatter3:1 or
D
2:
1
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 10+50 TO STA. 11+56 -L- RT
DETAIL 5
Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural Slope
Ditch
Front
( Not to Scale)
BANK STABILIZATION
DETAIL 6
GEOTEXTILE
Type of Liner= CLASS II RIPRAP
3.0'min.
2.0'NWS
SEE DETAIL 6
EST 180 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 110 TONS
CLASS II RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL 6
EST 125 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST 80 TONS
CLASS II RIP RAP
RIP RAP
CLASS II
RIP RAP
CLASS B
GRADE TO DRAIN
DETAIL 7
SCOUR HOLE DETAIL
SEE DETAIL 7
FILL SCOUR HOLE
NTS
ENG. APP. MATERIAL
VOIDS. GRADE TO DRAIN AND SEED AND MULCH.
COMPACT AS NEEDED TO PROMOTE VEGETATION GROWTH AND FILL
RIP RAP. TOP CLASS B RIP RAP WITH ENGINEER APPROVED MATERIAL AND
NATURAL GROUND. ADD 1.0' OF CLASS B RIP RAP ON TOP OF CLASS II
FILL IN SCOUR HOLE WITH CLASS II RIP RAP TO WITHIN 2.0' OF
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
SITE 1
SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 4
SHEET 2 OF 4
BUFFER DRAWING
THE RELOCATION.
APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL FROM RK&K TO SCHEDULE
THE DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER WILL CONTACT
THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO START OF IN-CHANNEL WORK.
THE MUSSEL RELOCATION MUST OCCUR WITHIN
NOTE:
C
F
C
C
C
F
C
C
C
F
F
F
C
Site Station Structure
No. (From/To) Size / Type
1 10+50/12+21 -L- LT 42'x10' BOTTOMLESS RCBC X 1234 1892 3126
2 11+78/12+29 -L- RT 42'x10' BOTTOMLESS RCBC X 1978 1893 3871
3 12+42/13+12 -L- LT 42'x10' BOTTOMLESS RCBC X 1632 1766 3398
4 12+45/13+69 -L-RT 42'x10' BOTTOMLESS RCBC X 1938 1255 3193
6782 6806 13588 00000
NOTES:
Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 3 OF 4
ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE
1/13/2019
ZONE 2
(ft2)
ZONE 1
(ft2)
TOTAL
(ft2)
ZONE 2
(ft2)
ZONE 1
(ft2)
TOTAL
(ft2)
17BP.5.R.88
WARREN COUNTY
SF-920135
BUFFER
REPLACEMENT
IMPACTS
RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TOTALS*:
ROAD
CROSSING BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ft2)
ZONE 2
(ft2)
TYPE
ZONE 1
(ft2)
ZONE 2
(ft2)
4 13+57/13+65 -L- RT 0 130
0 130
Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 4 OF 4
WETLANDS IN BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
17BP.5.R.88
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1/13/2019
WARREN COUNTY
SF-920135
WETLANDS IN
BUFFERS
SITE NO.
STATION
(FROM/TO)
TOTAL:
Rev. Jan 2009

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSULTATION/CONFERENCE HISTORY...............................................................................................................iii
BIOLOGICAL/CONFERENCE OPINION .....................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2. PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Action Area ................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2. Removal of Existing Bridge and Construction of New Culvert .................................................................... 2
2.3. Conservation Measures..............................................................................................................................3
2.4. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ...................................................................................................5
3. CONCURRENCE.............................................................................................................................................5
4. YELLOW LANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1. Status of Yellow Lance ................................................................................................................................ 6
4.2. Environmental Baseline for Yellow Lance ................................................................................................... 9
4.3. Effects of the Action on Yellow Lance ......................................................................................................... 9
4.4. Cumulative Effects on Yellow Lance..........................................................................................................11
4.5. Conclusion for Yellow Lance......................................................................................................................11
5. TAR RIVER SPINYMUSSEL ............................................................................................................................ 12
5.1. Status of Tar River Spinymussel ................................................................................................................ 12
5.2. Environmental Baseline for Tar River Spinymussel ................................................................................... 14
5.3. Effects of the Action on Tar River Spinymussel ......................................................................................... 14
5.4. Cumulative Effects on Tar River Spinymussel ........................................................................................... 15
5.5. Conclusion for Tar River Spinymussel ....................................................................................................... 15
6. ATLANTIC PIGTOE ....................................................................................................................................... 16
6.1. Status of Atlantic Pigtoe ........................................................................................................................... 16
6.2. Environmental Baseline for Atlantic Pigtoe .............................................................................................. 18
6.3. Effects of the Action on Atlantic Pigtoe .................................................................................................... 18
6.4. Cumulative Effects on Atlantic Pigtoe ....................................................................................................... 19
6.5. Conclusion for Atlantic Pigtoe ................................................................................................................... 19
7. PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ATLANTIC PIGTOE ............................................................................... 20
7.1. Status of Atlantic Pigtoe Proposed Critical Habitat .................................................................................. 20
7.2. Environmental Baseline for Atlantic Pigtoe Proposed Critical Habitat ..................................................... 21
7.3. Effects of the Action on Atlantic Pigtoe Proposed Critical Habitat ........................................................... 22
7.4. Cumulative Effects on Atlantic Pigtoe Proposed Critical Habitat ............................................................. 23
7.5. Conclusion for Atlantic Pigtoe Proposed Critical Habitat.......................................................................... 23
8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 24
8.1. Amount or Extent of Take.........................................................................................................................25
8.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures .......................................................................................................... 25
8.3. Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 26
8.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................. 26
9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 27
10. REINITIATION NOTICE ................................................................................................................................. 27
11. LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX D: MUSSEL RELOCATION PLAN

iii
CONSULTATION/CONFERENCE HISTORY
This section lists key events and correspondence during the course of this consultation/
conference. A complete administrative record of this consultation/conference is on file in the
Service’s Raleigh Field Office.
2018-11-05 – Service staff met onsite with North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) staff, consultants, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission staff to
discuss project plans and the need for formal Section 7 consultation/conference for
federally listed/proposed mussels.
2019-03-19 – The Service received a draft Biological Assessment (BA) for review.

2019-03-21 – The Service provided comments on the draft BA to NCDOT.

2019-04-02 – The Service received and commented on a revised draft BA.

2019-05-09 – The Service received a final BA (dated 2019-04-05) and a letter from the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) requesting initiation of formal Section 7
consultation/conference.

2019-05-28 – The Service provided a letter to the USACE stating that all information required
for initiation of consultation/conference was either included with their 2019-05-09 letter
or was otherwise available.

2019-07-01 – The Service provided the USACE and NCDOT with a draft Biological/Conference
Opinion.
1
BIOLOGICAL/CONFERENCE OPINION
1. INTRODUCTION
A Biological Opinion (BO) is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), as to whether a
Federal action is likely to:
jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
A Conference Opinion (CO) is equivalent to a BO, but addresses species that are not yet listed
under the ESA and/or proposed critical habitats not yet designated. Therefore, the ESA
prohibitions against jeopardizing species, destroying critical habitat, and taking animals do not
yet apply. The Service may adopt a CO as a BO if and when the evaluated species/critical habitat
are listed/designated and while the action agency’s discretion and involvement in the action
continue.
The Federal action addressed in this BO/CO is the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, of the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 135 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, Warren County, North Carolina (the Action).
This BO considers the effects of the Action on Yellow Lance and Tar River Spinymussel. The
CO considers the effects of the Action on Atlantic Pigtoe and proposed critical habitat for the
Atlantic Pigtoe.

The USACE determined that the Action is not likely to adversely affect Dwarf Wedgemussel.
The Service concurs with this determination for reasons we explain in Section 3 of the BO/CO.

A BO/CO evaluates the effects of a Federal action along with those resulting from interrelated
and interdependent actions, and from non-Federal actions unrelated to the proposed Action
(cumulative effects), relative to the status of listed/proposed species and the status of
designated/proposed critical habitat. A Service opinion that concludes a proposed Federal action
is not likely to jeopardize species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
fulfills the Federal agency’s responsibilities under §7(a)(2) of the ESA.

“Jeopardize the continued existence” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02). “Destruction or adverse modification” means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of designated critical habitat for the conservation
of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or
significantly delay development of such features (50 CFR §402.02).

This BO/CO uses hierarchical numeric section headings. Primary (level-1) sections are labeled
sequentially with a single digit (e.g., 2. PROPOSED ACTION). Secondary (level-2) sections
within each primary section are labeled with two digits (e.g., 2.1. Action Area), and so on for
2
level-3 sections. The basis of our opinion for each listed/proposed species and each proposed
critical habitat identified in the first paragraph of this introduction is wholly contained in a
separate level-1 section that addresses its status, environmental baseline, effects of the Action,
cumulative effects, and conclusion.

2. PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 135
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek in Warren County, North Carolina with a bottomless concrete
culvert. The existing bridge is considered functionally obsolete according to Federal Highway
Administration standards. Components of both the superstructure and substructure have
experienced an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by
maintenance activities. The bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. The estimated time to
complete construction is approximately three months. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, the Action requires authorization from the USACE. The Action will be deconstructed
into two components: 1) removal of existing bridge and construction of new culvert and 2)
conservation measures.

2.1. Action Area
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, the action area is defined as “all areas to be affected
directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the
action” (50 CFR §402.02). The “Action Area” for this consultation/conference includes the
footprint of the existing bridge, the replacement culvert, the stream bank immediately adjacent to
the bridge receiving any runoff from the construction activity, a section of SR 1609 extending
approximately 235 feet to the north and 170 feet to the south, a section of Fishing Creek
extending from 400 meters (1312 feet) downstream to 100 meters (328 feet) upstream of Bridge
No. 135, and a mussel relocation area located approximately 350 meters (1148 feet) upstream of
the bridge (see Figure 2.1). Under normal circumstances, a downstream distance of 400 meters is
generally considered to be the extent of detectable sedimentation effects.
2.2. Removal of Existing Bridge and Construction of New Culvert
The existing bridge is a single span 20.7 foot structure consisting of a timber deck on steel I-
beams on timber caps with masonry abutments. There are no bents in the water. The removal of
the bridge shall be performed so as not to allow debris to fall into the water. The bridge will be
removed from the top down, first removing the asphalt with containment measures in place to
prevent components of the bridge deck from dropping into the stream. The method of
containment will be proposed by the contractor and approved by the engineer. This will be
followed by removal of the rail, decking, and girders. The contractor will then completely isolate
the masonry abutments using an impervious dike in the stream to allow for complete removal of
the abutments.

The existing bridge will be replaced with a 42 foot x 10 foot bottomless concrete culvert.
This will increase the hydraulic opening from ~ 83 square feet to ~ 191 square feet. The new
structure will completely span Fishing Creek. The contractor will install additional impervious
3
dikes in the stream as necessary to allow for construction in the dry of the new structure footings
and for installation of the Class II rip rap for bank stabilization. All construction equipment will
remain behind the impervious dike. Approximately 190 tons of Class II rip rap will be used to
stabilize the stream banks upstream and downstream of the proposed structure. The rip rap will
establish a more natural streambank profile by constructing a bench that ties to the adjacent
floodplain elevation along both streambanks. The total distance of stream bank to be stabilized
with rip rap is approximately 85 linear feet along the southern bank and approximately 95 feet
along the northern bank. Minor road realignment on each side of the new culvert for a total
distance of approximately 425 linear feet will occur.
Figure 2.1. Approximate boundaries of Action Area outlined in red.
2.3. Conservation Measures
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 04B.0124 (b) – (e)] will be
incorporated into the action. Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds are erosion control
measures that exceed the standard BMPs (e.g. measures are designed to provide protection from
runoff of 25-year storm event). Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall also be designated and
defined as a 50-foot buffer zone within the right-of-way on both sides of the stream measured
from top of streambank. Within Environmentally Sensitive Areas the following shall apply:
The contractor may perform clearing operations but not grubbing operations
until immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
4
Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work
shall progress in a continuous manner until complete.
Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearingoperation.
Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by
construction immediately following final grade establishment.
Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater
than 20 feet in height measured along the slope or greater than two acres in area,
whichever is less.

The new 42 foot x 10 foot bottomless culvert will be constructed on existing alignment. Traffic
will be detoured on adjacent roads until completion of the new structure. No bents will be
constructed in the stream.

Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during the
removal of the existing bridge.

No equipment will be placed/staged in Fishing Creek unless behind the impervious dike as noted
in Section 2.2.

Special sediment control fence NCDOT Standard No. 1606.01 or a combination of special
sediment control fence and standard silt fence will be installed between the top of the stream
bank and bridge embankment. Once the disturbed areas of the project draining to these areas
have been stabilized, the special sediment control fence and/or standard silt fence and all built up
sediment adjacent to these devices will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with
appropriate seed mix. Native grass mix will be used on the floodplain.

All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, will be cleaned
out as appropriate to ensure proper function of the measures.

Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner as to prevent surface
runoff/drainage from discharging untreated into the riparian buffer. Instead all interim surfaces
will be graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices. Temporary berms, ditches, etc. will
be incorporated, as necessary, to treat temporary runoff before discharging into the riparian
buffer.

NCDOT will conduct a pre-construction mussel relocation for all species of native mussels as
per Appendix D of the Biological Assessment (attached). The relocation plan covers an area
from 130 meters downstream of the bridge to 30 meters upstream of the bridge.

The contractor will provide at least three weeks notification to the Resident Engineer and
Division Environmental Officer concerning start of work at the project to allow for appropriate
contact with parties conducting the pre-construction mussel survey and relocation activities.

The existing scour hole in the floodplain of the southwest quadrant will be filled with suitable
material and stabilized with ground cover.

5
Best management practices found in the following documents will be implemented as
appropriate: 1) NCDOT Erosion and Sediment Control Design and Construction Manual
(NCDOT 2015), 2) NCDOT Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities (NCDOT 2003), and 3) NCDOT Stormwater Best Management Practices Toolbox
(NCDOT 2014).

All sedimentation and erosion control measures will be appropriately maintained following
NCDOT standards to ensure proper function of the measures. The NCDOT adheres to the permit
conditions of General Permit NCG 010000 to Discharge Stormwater under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System for Construction Activities. NCDOT is required to “select, install,
implement and maintain best management practices (BMPs) and control measures that minimize
pollutants in the discharge to meet the requirements of this permit.” Among other conditions, the
permit requires: 1) all erosion and sedimentation control measures must be inspected at least
once every seven calendar days and 2) within 24 hours after any storm event of greater than 1.0
inch of rain per 24 hour period. It is understood that these requirements and implementation of
other appropriate BMPs are monitored through multiple layers of oversight. At a minimum, the
following personnel monitor erosion control measures:
• Contractor project manager
• NCDOT Division Environmental Officers and Environmental Specialists
• NCDOT Roadside Environmental Field Operations staff
2.4. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions
A BO/CO evaluates the effects of a proposed Federal action. For purposes of
consultation/conference under ESA §7, the effects of a Federal action on listed/proposed species
or critical habitat include the direct and indirect effects of the action, plus the effects of
interrelated or interdependent actions. “Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those
that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.
Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under
consideration” (50 CFR §402.02).
A Halifax Electric aerial power line is located near the bridge. The power line does not need to
be moved but it will need to be de-energized and lowered to the ground while the new culvert is
installed.

3. CONCURRENCE
The USACE determined that the Action is not likely to adversely affect the Dwarf Wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon). The Service concurs with this determination, for reasons we explain in
this section. A mussel survey was conducted within the Action Area on August 23, 2017. While
habitat for Dwarf Wedgemussel is present within the Action Area, no specimens have ever been
documented in Fishing Creek near the project area. The closest known occurrence for the species
is approximately seven miles downstream of the Action Area on Long Branch. The species was
last observed there in 1999.
6
This concurrence concludes consultation for the listed species named in this section, and these
are not further addressed in this BO. The circumstances described in the Reinitiation Notice of
this BO that require reinitiating consultation for the Action, except for exceeding the amount or
extent of incidental take, also apply to this species.

4. YELLOW LANCE
4.1. Status of Yellow Lance
This section summarizes the best available data about the biology and current condition of
Yellow Lance (YL, Elliptio lanceolata) throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an
opinion about the Action. The Service published its decision to list YL as threatened on April 3,
2018 (83 FR 14189-14198). The Service also recently completed a Species Status Assessment
Report for the YL (USFWS 2017c), and much of the information contained in that document is
incorporated by reference into this BO.

4.1.1. Description of YL

The YL is a bright yellow mussel with a shell more than twice as long as it is tall, usually not
more than 86mm (3.4 inches) in length. Its shell is composed of two hinged valves which are
joined by a ligament. The outermost layer of the shell has a waxy appearance with brownish
ridges known as “growth rests” that formed during an intermediate stage of growth when the
ridge area was the edge of the shell. The lustrous inner layer is usually an iridescent blue color,
and sometimes has white or salmon color on the shorter end of the shell from where the foot
extends (the anterior). The longer end of the shell from where the siphons extend (the posterior)
is distinctly rounded. YL has interlocking hinge “teeth” on the inside of the shell to help keep the
two valves in proper alignment (USFWS 2019c).

4.1.2. Life History of YL

The YL is a sand-associated species often found buried deep in clean, coarse to medium sand,
although it can sometimes be found in gravel substrates. The YL often are moved with shifting
sand and eventually settle in sand at the downstream end of stable sand and gravel bars. This
species depends on clean, moderate flowing water with high dissolved oxygen and is found in
medium-sized rivers to smaller streams.

The life cycle of the YL, like most freshwater mussels, is complex, relying on host fish for
successful reproduction. Their eggs develop into microscopic larvae (glochidia) within the gills
of the female mussel. The female expels glochidia into the water where they must attach to gills
or fins of a fish to continue developing. Each mussel species has specific host fish species that
are needed by the glochidia to keep growing and transform into juveniles. After a few weeks,
they drop off and land on the river bottom where they grow into adults.

Like many freshwater mussels, the YL grows rapidly during the first few years of life and slows
down with age. In the laboratory, the YL reaches sexual maturity around three years old. Once
the YL reaches maturity, the females release stringy clumps of glochidia in mucous. The clumps
7
are likely eaten by minnows so the glochidia can attach to the minnow’s gills and fin scales. At
least two species of minnow are confirmed to host YL development in a laboratory setting, the
White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus) and Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matuntinus). Biologists have
developed ways to propagate YL under controlled laboratory conditions.

Like other freshwater mussels, YL are suspension feeders that eat algae and other tiny particles,
such as leaf debris, that they filter out of the water. Juveniles likely pedal-feed in the sediment,
whereas adults filter-feed from the water column. For more detailed information on the life
history of YL, see USFWS (2017c).

4.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of YL

The YL has a historical range from the Patuxent River Basin in Maryland to the Neuse River
Basin in North Carolina. For the current range, the YL Species Status Assessment Report
(USFWS 2017c) delineates populations by using the eight river basins that YL has historically
occupied. This includes the Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, York, James, Chowan, Tar, and
Neuse River basins in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Because the river basin level is at
a very coarse scale, populations were further delineated using management units (MUs). MUs
were defined as one or more HUC10 watersheds that species experts identified as most
appropriate for assessing population-level resiliency. Of eight historical populations, seven are
known to have had a YL occurrence in the last 12 years, though the majority of those
occurrences were limited to a single location within the river basin.

Patuxent River Basin in Maryland – This population contains one MU, the Patuxent MU. Five
YL were collected prior to 1965, one individual was collected in 2015, and one relic shell was
collected in 2016. In 2018, 23 individuals were found over 6+ kilometers of the Hawlings River.
Potomac River Basin in Maryland/Virginia – This population contains one MU, the Potomac
MU. One specimen has been documented from a pre-1970 survey.
Rappahannock River Basin in Virginia – This population contains one MU, the Rappahannock
River Subbasin MU. Many surveys have documented the presence of YL in this MU, with an
occasional observation of upwards of 50 individuals. The species was first seen in the late 1980s,
and it has been observed most recently in 2011 in the Rappahannock River, although very few
(3) individuals were seen during that survey.
York River Basin in Virginia – This population contains one MU, the York MU. Several surveys
document the presence of YL in this MU – presumably first seen in 1973, and as recent as 2007
in the South Anna River, although only one individual was observed during that survey.
James River Basin in Virginia – This population contains one MU, the Johns Creek MU. YL was
first seen in this MU in 1984, and in 2004, one effort observed 31 individuals. The Virginia
Department of Transportation confirms YL occurrence in this basin as recent as 2009.
Chowan River Basin in Virginia – This population contains two MUs, the Nottoway River
Subbasin MU and the Meherrin River MU. Several surveys in the Nottoway River Subbasin
8
have noted the presence of YL (one with as many as 781 individuals, although the identity of
some specimens is in question). The species has been seen as recently as 2011 in the Nottoway
River, albeit in extremely low (5) numbers.
Tar River Basin in North Carolina – This population contains four MUs; the Upper/Middle Tar
River MU, the Lower Tar River MU, the Sandy-Swift Creek MU, and the Fishing Creek
Subbasin MU. Many survey efforts have documented the presence of YL over the years; the
species was first seen in 1966 in the Tar River, and it has been documented as recently as 2017 in
Shocco Creek (RK&K 2017a) and Fishing Creek (RK&K 2017b). Surveys in the mainstem Tar
in 1990 documented upwards of 100 live individuals; most other surveys have documented
between 25 and 31 individuals, and the most seen in recent (2014) surveys has been 25 live
individuals. Similarly, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Swift Creek surveys documented
hundreds (342 in one instance) of shells, and recent surveys in 2015 and 2016 documented 53
and 45 live individuals, respectively.
Neuse River Basin in North Carolina – This population contains one MU, the Middle Neuse
Tributaries MU. The YL was first seen in 1991, and most recently one individual was seen in
2015. Most surveys report very low numbers observed (usually only one live individual or just
shell material), although one effort in 1994 (Swift Creek) documented 18 live individuals. There
have been recent (2014-2016) intensive surveys in the Swift Creek watershed, and only one YL
has been observed.
For more detailed information regarding the current condition of YL populations across its range,
see USFWS (2017c).
4.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to YL
The largest threats to the future viability of the species relate to habitat degradation from
stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity
(USFWS 2017c).

Adult mussels are easily harmed by toxicants and declines in water quality from pollution
because they stay in one place. Pollution may come from specific, identifiable sources such as
factories, sewage treatment plants and solid waste disposal sites or from diffuse sources (non-
point pollution sources) like runoff from cultivated fields, pastures, cattle feedlots, poultry farms,
mines, construction sites, private wastewater discharges, and road drainage. Pollutants can cause
changes in water chemistry that seriously impact aquatic species by reducing water quality and
may directly kill mussels, reduce the ability of surviving mussels to have young, or result in poor
health or disappearance of host fish. Mussels are known to be sensitive to a variety of heavy
metals, inorganic salts, and ammonia (Wang et al. 2017).
Sediment is material suspended in water that usually is moved as the result of erosion. Although
sedimentation is a natural process, poor land use practices, dredging, impoundments, intensive
timber harvesting, heavy recreational use, and other activities may accelerate erosion and
increase sedimentation. A sudden or slow blanketing of the river bottom with sediment can
suffocate freshwater mussels because it is difficult for them to move away from the threat.
9
Increased sediment levels may also make it difficult for mussels to feed, which can lead to
decreased growth, reproduction, and survival (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1980).

Dams affect both upstream and downstream mussel populations by disrupting natural flow
patterns, scouring river bottoms, changing water temperatures, and eliminating habitat (Watters
2001). The YL, a mussel adapted to living in river currents, cannot survive in the still water
impounded behind dams. YL depend on their host fish as a means of moving upstream. Dams are
barriers that prevent or restrict fish from moving upstream, and therefore also prevent mussels
from moving upstream. Upstream mussel populations then become isolated from downstream
populations. This isolation leads to small unstable populations which are more likely to die out
(USFWS 2019c).

4.2. Environmental Baseline for YL
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the YL, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area. The
environmental baseline is a “snapshot” of the species’ health in the Action Area at the time of the
consultation, and does not include the effects of the Action under review.

4.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of YL

The Action Area occurs within the Fishing Creek Subbasin MU of the Tar River Basin
population. A mussel survey was conducted within the Action Area on August 23, 2017 (RK&K
2017b). During the survey, seven YL were observed. Using a detection probability of 0.42
(Pandolfo et al. 2016), it is estimated that 17 adult YL occur within the Action Area.

4.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to YL

The Action Area contains approximately one acre of good quality habitat for the YL; however,
some bank erosion/undercutting is present. The land use around and upstream of the Action Area
is primarily forested, with ample forest buffers to protect the stream. Therefore, the Action Area
is not currently threatened with water quality issues from upstream. The most immediate threat
to YL within the Action Area may be from beaver activity, which could render the habitat less
suitable to the species (Hoch 2012).

4.3. Effects of the Action on YL
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the YL, which includes the
direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects are caused by
the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the Action, but
are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. Our analyses are organized according to the
description of the Action in section 2 of this BO.
10
4.3.1. Effects of Removal of Existing Bridge and Construction of New Culvert on YL
Due to the top-down demolition methodology, the removal of the existing bridge deck is not
likely to affect YL. The primary direct instream disturbance will result from the placement of
impervious dikes to dewater the work area to remove the existing masonry abutments, to install
the new structure footings, and to place the rip rap on the stream banks. It is possible that YL
could be crushed during these activities, but the potential for this to occur is low due to the fact
the activities will occur at the scour pool under and adjacent to the bridge where YL are less
likely to occur. The possibility of YL being crushed is also further reduced by the commitment to
perform a mussel relocation prior to construction (see Appendix D of Biological Assessment).
When the impervious dikes are removed after construction of the new culvert, some amount of
sediment will be transported downstream, potentially harming YL by interfering with respiration,
feeding, or spawning and otherwise degrading habitat for YL and their host fish (Ellis 1936,
Marking and Bills 1980). In extreme cases, mussels may be buried by sediment. However, the
transport of sediment will be limited by the presence of the deep pool located at the bridge, thus
reducing downstream effects.

Some minor earthwork will occur along the approach roads to the bridge, thus creating the
potential for disturbed areas to erode sediment into the stream. However, to avoid or minimize
the potential siltation effects, NCDOT has developed stringent erosion control measures (see
Section 2.3) which greatly minimize sediment entering the stream. Assuming the proper
installation and maintenance of these erosion control measures and full implementation of all
conservation measures, the probability of effects from siltation leading to mortality is low. All
potential effects described in this section could affect not only juvenile and adult YL, but the
larval glochidia stage and the species’ host fish as well.

Under normal circumstances, a downstream distance of 400 meters (0.25 mile) is generally
considered to be the maximum extent of detectable sedimentation effects in Piedmont streams.
Based on the estimated population of adults, it is assumed that up to 17 adult YL could be
harmed within this 400 meters. However, this number is likely overstated due to the planned
mussel relocation in a portion of the Action Area (see Section 2.3). Given the cryptic nature of
YL, any harmful effects would be difficult to detect and measure.

Although NCDOT employs BMPs to avoid contaminants from entering streams, there is always
the chance of an accidental spill of petrochemicals, uncured concrete, or other toxic substances
into a stream. Although such events are rare, they can cause significant harm to mussels
(USFWS 2017a).

One indirect beneficial effect of the Action is that the hydraulic opening under the existing
bridge will be increased from ~83 square feet to ~191 square feet with the new culvert, thus
allowing the stream channel to stabilize and reach a more natural equilibrium. In turn, this will
likely reduce the potential for long-term erosion and sedimentation effects on downstream YL
habitat.

11
4.3.2. Effects of Conservation Measures on YL
The conservation measures are designed to minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources. One of
these conservation measures involves relocating mussels from a 160 meter section of stream
(from 130 meters downstream to 30 meters upstream of the bridge crossing – see Appendix D of
Biological Assessment). If YL are encountered within this 160 meter section of stream, they will
be relocated approximately 350 meters upstream of the bridge crossing into suitable habitat. Any
YL handled and relocated may be temporarily stressed (i.e. harassed) during the relocation, but
mortality is not expected. Although up to 17 YL are estimated to occur within the Action Area, it
is likely that only a subset of this number would be relocated within the 160 meter section of the
stream covered by the relocation plan. Based on a 0.42 detection probability (Pandolfo et al.
2016) and applying 1-2 survey passes, it is estimated that 42-66% of YL within the 160 meter
section of stream would be located and moved.
4.3.3. Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on YL
The de-energization and lowering of the Halifax Electric aerial power line located near the
bridge will have no effect on the YL. No ground disturbance is expected.

4.4. Cumulative Effects on Yellow Lance
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA.

We are not aware of any non-Federal actions in the Action Area that may affect YL. Therefore,
cumulative effects are not relevant to formulating our opinion for the Action.
4.5. Conclusion for Yellow Lance
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for the YL
(status, baseline, effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under §7(a)(2)
of the ESA, which is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
a) jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
“Jeopardize the continued existence” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).
Of eight historical populations of YL occurring in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, six
are known to have had records in the last 12 years. The Action Area occurs within the Fishing
Creek Subbasin MU of the Tar River Basin population. It is estimated that 17 adult YL occur
within the Action Area. Adverse effects to YL may occur. However, the Action incorporates
many construction-related conservation measures which will reduce the potential to adversely
12
affect YL. Assuming proper installation and maintenance of NCDOT’s stringent erosion control
measures, the probability of adverse effects from siltation leading to mortality is low. A mussel
relocation plan will further reduce the chance of lethal effects. The Action also has a long-term
beneficial effect of increasing the hydraulic opening of the new structure, which will likely
reduce future erosion and sedimentation effects. Overall, the effects of the Action are not
biologically meaningful relative to the species’ populations range-wide and the species’
conservation needs.

After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area,
the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the YL.

5. TAR RIVER SPINYMUSSEL
5.1. Status of Tar River Spinymussel
This section summarizes the best available data about the biology and current condition of Tar
River Spinymussel (TRSM, Parvaspina steinstansana) throughout its range that are relevant to
formulating an opinion about the Action. The Service published its decision to list TRSM as
endangered on June 27, 1985 (50 FR 26572-26575).

5.1.1. Description of TRSM

The TRSM is one of only three freshwater mussels with spines in the world. The brownish shell
is rhomboid-shaped, up to 2.4 inches (6 cm) long, with 0-6 spines on each valve. The shell is
rather smooth and shiny, with concentric rings, and ends in a blunt point. Younger individuals
are orange-brown with greenish rays streaking outward from the hinge area. Adults are darker
with less distinct rays. One to three small thin ridges run on the interior surface of the shell from
the beak cavity to the lower ventral area of the shell. The anterior half of the shell’s inner surface
is salmon-colored, while the posterior half is iridescent blue. Juveniles may have up to 12 spines,
but adults tend to lose their spines as they mature (USFWS 2017d).

5.1.2. Life History of TRSM

The TRSM lives in relatively silt-free unconsolidated beds of coarse sand and gravel in relatively
fast-flowing, well oxygenated stream reaches. It is found in association with other mussels but is
never very numerous. Like other mussels, it feeds by siphoning and filtering small food particles
that are suspended in the water. Their method of reproduction is similar to other freshwater
mussel species. Males release sperm into the water column, and the sperm are taken in by the
females through their siphons as they respire. The eggs are fertilized and develop within the
females' gills into larvae (glochidia). The females release the glochidia that must then attach to
the gills or fins of specific fish species. The glochida transform into juvenile mussels and drop
off the fish onto the stream bottom (USFWS 2017d). The following fish have been identified as
suitable hosts: White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus),
Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), and Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella analostana) (Eads et
al. 2008).
13
5.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of TRSM
The TRSM is endemic to the Tar River and Neuse River basins in North Carolina. In the Tar
River system, the species has been documented in the mainstem of the Tar River, Shocco Creek,
Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Swift Creek, and Sandy Creek. In the Neuse River system,
the species has been documented from the Little River and mainstem of the Neuse River. Based
on the most recent survey data, the species may be extirpated from the mainstem of the Tar River
(last observation of live individuals in 2001; no live or shells were found during surveys in 2002,
2007, or 2013) and Shocco Creek (last and only record was a shell found in 1993). The species
may also be extirpated from the mainstem of the Neuse River. Surviving populations of TRSM
are small in number, restricted in range, declining, and appear isolated from other populations
where they continue to be highly vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic and chronic events
(e.g., drought, toxic spills, runoff, problems associated with wastewater discharges) (USFWS
2014).
Surveys in Sandy Creek and Swift Creek (Tar River Basin) from 1987-2005 found a total of 355
TRSM (live individuals plus shells). Only one individual was found during surveys in Swift
Creek in 2005 and no individuals have been found since. A total of 73 live individuals and shells
have been observed in Little Fishing Creek during surveys from 1993-2016, and 10 (live
individuals plus shells) were found from 1999-2016 in Fishing Creek. Only four TRSM have
been recorded from the Little River (Neuse River Basin), and repeated surveys have not found
any more individuals (NCWRC 2019). Additional surveys are needed to determine the status of
the TRSM in the mainstem of the Tar River, Shocco Creek, and the mainstem of the Neuse
River.

Although a very low level of successful reproduction may be occurring in the Little
Fishing/Fishing Creek and Little River populations, all the surviving populations appear to be
well below self-maintenance levels. Multiple augmentation efforts from December 2014 through
April 2017 have occurred in Little Fishing Creek and Fishing Creek. A total of 11,577 captively
propagated TRSM were released at locations in the two streams (Tyler Black, NCWRC, personal
email communication, February 2018).

5.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to TRSM

All surviving populations of the TRSM are small in size, highly fragmented, and are in decline.
The primary factors affecting the species and its habitat appear to be stream impacts
(sedimentation, bank instability, loss of instream habitat) associated with the loss of forested
riparian buffers, poorly controlled stormwater runoff of silt and other pollutants from forestry
and agricultural activities, development activities, and road construction (USFWS 2019b).
Pesticides were implicated in the largest known mortality event for Tar River Spinymussel
(Fleming et al. 1995). Point source discharges also continue to threaten habitat quality in both the
Tar and Neuse River watersheds. The genetic viability of the surviving populations is a
significant concern. All of the remaining populations of TRSM appear to be effectively isolated
from one another by impoundments and long reaches of highly degraded habitat (USFWS
2019b).
14
5.2. Environmental Baseline for TRSM
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the TRSM, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area. The
environmental baseline is a “snapshot” of the species’ health in the Action Area at the time of the
consultation, and does not include the effects of the Action under review.

5.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of TRSM

Although the TRSM was not found during an August 23, 2017 survey (RK&K 2017b) of the
Action Area, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence (EO) ID No. 21414
for the species is located approximately 0.3 stream mile downstream of Bridge 135, just outside
the Action Area. The EO is considered current with a last observed date of August 20, 1999. The
1999 survey detected a single TRSM approximately 1.25 stream miles downstream of Bridge
135. Suitable instream habitat for the species is present in the Action Area, but is not optimal due
to deeper pools and the fineness of the substrate. Based on this information, it is estimated that
up to one TRSM may occur within the Action Area.

5.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to TRSM

The Action Area contains approximately one acre of suitable, but not optimal, habitat for the
TRSM; however, some bank erosion/undercutting is present. The land use around and upstream
of the Action Area is primarily forested, with ample forest buffers to protect the stream.
Therefore, the Action Area is not currently threatened with water quality issues from upstream.
The most immediate threat to TRSM within the Action Area may be from beaver activity, which
could render the habitat less suitable to the species (Hoch 2012).

5.3. Effects of the Action on TRSM
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the TRSM, which includes
the direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects are caused
by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the Action, but
are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. Our analyses are organized according to the
description of the Action in section 2 of this BO.
5.3.1. Effects of Removal of Existing Bridge and Construction of New Culvert on TRSM

The effects of removing the existing bridge and constructing the new culvert on TRSM are very
similar to those of the YL described in Section 4.3.1. It is estimated that up to one TRSM may be
harmed.

5.3.2. Effects of Conservation Measures on TRSM

The effects of conservation measures on TRSM are very similar to those of the YL described in
Section 4.3.2. It is estimated that up to one TRSM may be temporarily harassed via relocation.
15
5.3.3. Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on TRSM
The de-energization and lowering of the Halifax Electric aerial power line located near the
bridge will have no effect on the TRSM. No ground disturbance is expected.

5.4. Cumulative Effects on TRSM
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA.
We are not aware of any non-Federal actions in the Action Area that may affect TRSM.
Therefore, cumulative effects are not relevant to formulating our opinion for the Action.
5.5. Conclusion for TRSM
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for the TRSM
(status, baseline, effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO under §7(a)(2)
of the ESA, which is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
a) jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
“Jeopardize the continued existence” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).
The TRSM is endemic to the Tar River and Neuse River basins in North Carolina. Populations of
TRSM are small in number, restricted in range, declining, and appear isolated from other
populations where they continue to be highly vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic and
chronic events. No TRSM were observed within the Action Area in a 2017 survey. The closest
record for the species was a single specimen from 1999 that was observed approximately 1.25
miles downstream of Bridge No. 135. It is estimated that up to one TRSM may occur within the
Action Area.

The Action incorporates many construction-related conservation measures which will reduce the
potential to adversely affect TRSM. Assuming proper installation and maintenance of NCDOT’s
stringent erosion control measures, the probability of adverse effects from siltation leading to
mortality is low. A mussel relocation plan will further reduce the chance of lethal effects. The
Action also has a long-term beneficial effect of increasing the hydraulic opening of the new
structure, which will likely reduce future erosion and sedimentation effects. Overall, the effects
of the Action are not biologically meaningful relative to the species’ populations range-wide and
the species’ conservation needs.

16
After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area,
the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the TRSM.

6. ATLANTIC PIGTOE
6.1. Status of Atlantic Pigtoe
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of Atlantic
Pigtoe (AP, Fusconaia masoni) throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion
about the Action. The Service published a proposed rule to list AP as threatened on October 11,
2018 (83 FR 51570-51609). The Service also recently completed a Species Status Assessment
Report for the AP (USFWS 2017b), and much of the information contained in that document is
incorporated by reference into this CO.

6.1.1. Description of AP

The AP is a freshwater mussel with a chunky, rhombus shaped shell, similar in appearance to a
pig’s hoof/toe. There is a distinct posterior ridge. The outer surface of the shell is yellow to dark
brown and parchment-like, while the inner layer is iridescent blue to salmon, white, or orange.
Although larger specimens exist, the AP rarely exceeds two inches in length. Young individuals
may have greenish rays across the entire shell surface. When collected fresh, the interior surface
(nacre) in the shell tends to be salmon colored and sometimes iridescent. AP has interlocking
hinge “teeth” on the inside of the shell to help keep the two valves in proper alignment (USFWS
2019a).

6.1.2. Life History of AP

The preferred habitat of the AP is coarse sand and gravel, and rarely in silt and detritus.
Historically, the best populations existed in small creeks to larger rivers with excellent water
quality, where flows were sufficient to maintain clean, silt-free substrates.

The life cycle of the AP, like most freshwater mussels, is complex, relying on host fish for
successful reproduction. Male AP release their sperm into the water column where it is siphoned
in by the females. Once fertilization has taken place in the gills of the female mussel, mature
microscopic glochidia (larva) are released where they must attach themselves to the gills and/or
fins of fish hosts to continue developing. AP are tachytictic (short term) breeders that usually
release their larvae by July or August (USFWS 2019a).

AP have specific host fish that are needed by the glochidia to keep growing to ultimately
transform into juveniles. After a few weeks of living as parasites, they drop off and land on the
stream bottom where they grow into adults. Host fish for the AP include the Rosefin Shiner
(Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), Longnose Dace (Rhynichthys
cataractae), White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead
Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner
(Lythrurus matutinus), Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace
17
(Chrosomus oreas). The time period for glochidia to develop varies between 30 to-60 days and
depends on the host fish (USFWS 2019a).
Like all freshwater mussels, AP are known as suspension feeders because they eat algae,
bacteria, and other microscopic matter they filter out of the water. Juveniles likely pedal-feed in
the sediment, whereas adults filter-feed from the water column (USFWS 2019a).

6.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of AP

The AP’s historical range included all major river basins in the Atlantic coastal drainages from
the James River Basin in Virginia south to the Altamaha River Basin in Georgia. The AP has
been documented from multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the Appalachian
Mountains through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams ranging in size from < 1
meter wide up to some of the largest Atlantic Slope rivers within the species’ range.

For the current range, the AP Species Status Assessment Report (USFWS 2017b) delineates
populations using the 12 river basins that AP has historically occupied. This includes the James,
Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee, Catawba, Edisto, Savannah, Ogeechee, and
Altamaha River basins. Of 12 historical populations, seven populations within Virginia and
North Carolina have observations in the last 12 years, though the majority of occurrences were
limited to a single location within the river basin. The AP is presumed extirpated from the
southern portion of the range in South Carolina and Georgia. Most of the remaining populations
are small and fragmented, only occupying a fraction of reaches that were historically occupied.
This decrease in abundance and distribution has resulted in largely isolated contemporary
populations.

Because the river basin level is at a very coarse scale, the seven extant populations were further
delineated using management units (MUs). MUs were defined as one or more HUC10
watersheds that species experts identified as most appropriate for assessing population-level
resiliency. For more detailed information regarding the status of each population and MU, see
pages 13-26 and Table 3-2 of the AP Species Status Assessment Report (USFWS 2017b).

6.1.4. Conservation Needs of and Threats to AP

The AP faces a variety of threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and
instream habitat fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats. These threats are expected
to be exacerbated by urbanization and climate change. Given current and future decreases in
resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic events, in turn,
resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy. Predictions of AP habitat
conditions and population factors suggest possible extirpation in up to five of seven currently
extant populations. The two populations predicted to remain extant at the end of the predictive
time horizon are expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance. For more
detailed information regarding the conservation needs and threats to AP, see pages 45-61 of the
AP Species Status Assessment Report (USFWS 2017b).

18
6.2. Environmental Baseline for AP
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of the AP, its habitat, and ecosystem within the Action Area. The
environmental baseline is a “snapshot” of the species’ health in the Action Area at the time of the
consultation, and does not include the effects of the Action under review.

6.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution of AP
Although the AP was not detected during an August 23, 2017 mussel survey (RK&K 2017b), the
Action Area is located within North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence
(EO) ID 16027. The EO is considered current with a last observed date of July 27, 2017. Another
survey on June 12, 2017 documented the closest recent record of an AP to Bridge 135 – one AP
individual just over 10 stream miles downstream of the bridge, well outside of the Action Area.
Suitable habitat for the species consisting of stable gravel or sand/gravel substrate is present
within the Action Area, but areas of finer sand and silt in the deeper pools cause the AP habitat
to have a patchy distribution.

6.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs of and Threats to AP

The Action Area contains less than one acre of suitable habitat for the AP in a patchy
distribution. The land use around and upstream of the Action Area is primarily forested, with
ample forest buffers to protect the stream. Therefore, the Action Area is not currently threatened
with water quality issues from upstream. The most immediate threat to AP within the Action
Area may be from beaver activity, which could render the habitat less suitable to the species
(Hoch 2012).

6.3. Effects of the Action on AP
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on the AP, which includes the
direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct effects are caused by
the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the Action, but
are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. Our analyses are organized according to the
description of the Action in section 2 of this BO/CO.

6.3.1. Effects of Removal of Existing Bridge and Construction of New Culvert on AP
The effects of removing the existing bridge and constructing the new culvert on AP are very
similar to those of the YL described in Section 4.3.1. It is estimated that up to one AP may be
harmed.
6.3.2. Effects of Conservation Measures on AP
The effects of conservation measures on AP are very similar to those of the YL described in
Section 4.3.2. It is estimated that up to one AP may be harassed via relocation.
19
6.3.3. Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on AP
The de-energization and lowering of the Halifax Electric aerial power line located near the
bridge will have no effect on the AP. No ground disturbance is expected.
6.4. Cumulative Effects on AP
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA.

We are not aware of any non-Federal actions in the Action Area that may affect AP. Therefore,
cumulative effects are not relevant to formulating our opinion for the Action.
6.5. Conclusion for AP
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for the AP
(status, baseline, effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO/CO under
§7(a)(2) of the ESA, which is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
a) jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
“Jeopardize the continued existence” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be
expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
that species (50 CFR §402.02).

Of 12 historical populations, seven populations within Virginia and North Carolina have
observations in the last 12 years. The AP is presumed extirpated from the southern portion of the
range in South Carolina and Georgia. Most of the remaining populations are small and
fragmented, only occupying a fraction of reaches that were historically occupied. The AP was
not detected within the Action Area during an August 23, 2017 mussel survey, but the Action
Area is located within North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence ID 16027.
The closest recent record of the species was documented in 2017 with a single individual
observed just over 10 stream miles downstream of Bridge No. 135, well outside of the Action
Area. Suitable habitat for the species is present within the Action Area, but in a patchy
distribution. Based on this information, it is estimated that up to one AP may be present within
the Action Area.

The Action incorporates many construction-related conservation measures which will reduce the
potential to adversely affect AP. Assuming proper installation and maintenance of NCDOT’s
stringent erosion control measures, the probability of adverse effects from siltation leading to
mortality is low. A mussel relocation plan will further reduce the chance of lethal effects. The
Action also has a long-term beneficial effect of increasing the hydraulic opening of the new
structure, which will likely reduce future erosion and sedimentation effects. Overall, the effects
20
of the Action are not biologically meaningful relative to the species’ populations range-wide and
the species’ conservation needs.

After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area,
the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the AP.
7. PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ATLANTIC PIGTOE
7.1. Status of Atlantic Pigtoe Proposed Critical Habitat
This section summarizes best available data about the current condition of all proposed units of
critical habitat for Atlantic Pigtoe (AP, Fusconaia masoni) that are relevant to formulating an
opinion about the Action. The Service published its proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
AP on October 11, 2018 (83 FR 51570-51609).
7.1.1. Description of AP Proposed Critical Habitat
Proposed critical habitat for AP is comprised of approximately 542 river miles in 16 units. All of
the units are currently occupied by the species and contain all of the physical and biological
features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species. See Table 3 of 83 FR 51570-51609
for more detailed information on individual units.

The proposed critical habitat provides the following PBFs essential to the conservation of the AP
(83 FR 51570-51609).

1. Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, characterized by geomorphically
stable stream channels and banks (i.e., channels that maintain lateral dimensions,
longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading
bed elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussel and native fish
(such as stable riffle-run-pool habitats that provide flow refuges consisting of silt-free
gravel and coarse sand substrates).

2. Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the severity, frequency,
duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), necessary to maintain benthic habitats
where the species is found and to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain,
allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the mussel’s and fish
hosts’ habitat, food availability, spawning habitat for native fishes, and the ability for
newly transformed juveniles to settle and become established in their habitats.

3. Water and sediment quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness,
turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary
to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all
life stages.

4. The presence and abundance of fish hosts necessary for recruitment of the AP.
21
7.1.2. Conservation Value of AP Proposed Critical Habitat

The current distribution of the AP is much reduced from its historical distribution. We anticipate
that recovery will require continued protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as
ensure there are adequate numbers of mussels in stable populations and that these populations
occur over a wide geographic area. This strategy will help to ensure that catastrophic events,
such as the effects of hurricanes (e.g. flooding that causes excessive sedimentation, nutrients, and
debris to disrupt stream ecology), cannot simultaneously affect all known populations.
Rangewide recovery considerations, such as maintaining existing genetic diversity and striving
for representation of all major portions of the species’ current range, were considered in
formulating this proposed critical habitat. All of the units are currently occupied by the species
and contain all of the PBFs essential to the conservation of the species (83 FR 51570-51609).

7.1.3. Conservation Needs for AP Proposed Critical Habitat

The features essential to the conservation of the AP may require special management
considerations or protections to reduce the following threats: (1) urbanization of the landscape,
including land conversion for urban and commercial use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities),
and urban water uses (water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, etc.); (2) nutrient pollution
from agricultural activities that impact water quantity and quality; (3) significant alteration of
water quality; (4) improper forest management or silviculture activities that remove large areas
of forested wetlands and riparian systems; (5) culvert and pipe installation that creates barriers to
movement; (6) impacts from invasive species; (7) changes and shifts in seasonal precipitation
patterns as a result of climate change; and (8) other watershed and floodplain disturbances that
release sediments or nutrients into the water. Management activities that could ameliorate these
threats include: use of best management practices designed to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and
bank side destruction; protection of riparian corridors and leaving sufficient canopy cover along
banks; moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals to maintain natural flow regimes;
increased use of stormwater management and reduction of stormwater flows into the systems;
and reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments, pollutants,
or nutrients into the water (83 FR 51570-51609).

7.2. Environmental Baseline for AP Proposed Critical Habitat
This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to
the current status of proposed critical habitat for AP within the Action Area. The environmental
baseline is a “snapshot” of the condition of the PBFs that are essential to the conservation of the
species within designated critical of the Action Area at the time of the consultation, and does not
include the effects of the Action under review.

7.2.1. Action Area Conservation Value of AP Proposed Critical Habitat

The Action Area lies within Management Unit 10: TR3 - Fishing Creek Subbasin, which consists
of 85 stream miles in Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, and Maple Branch in
Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties. The land bordering the creeks includes private
22
parcels (56 miles), protective easements (14 miles), and state game lands (15 miles). The unit
currently supports all breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs for the species. The Action Area
occupies 0.36% of Management Unit 10 and < 0.06% of the total of all proposed critical habitat
for the species. The Action Area provides all four PBFs, but in a patchy distribution.

7.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs for AP Proposed Critical Habitat

The land use around and upstream of the Action Area is primarily forested, with ample forest
buffers to protect the stream. Therefore, the critical habitat within the Action Area is not
currently threatened with water quality issues from upstream. The most immediate threat to the
critical habitat within the Action Area may be from beaver activity, which could affect all four
PBFs (Hoch 2012).

7.3. Effects of the Action on AP Proposed Critical Habitat
This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the Action on critical habitat for AP,
which includes the direct and indirect effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Direct
effects are caused by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused
by the Action, but are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. Our analyses are organized
according to the description of the Action in section 2 of this BO/CO.

7.3.1. Effects of Removal of Existing Bridge and Construction of New Culvert on AP
Proposed Critical Habitat

When the impervious dikes are removed after construction of the new culvert, some amount of
sediment will be transported downstream within critical habitat, potentially affecting PBF
numbers 1,3, and 4 (from Section 7.1.1 above). However, the transport of sediment will be
reduced somewhat by the presence of the deep pool located at the bridge, thus reducing
downstream effects. Also, the minor earthwork along the approach roads to the culvert will
create the potential for disturbed areas to erode sediment into the stream. Any addition of
sediment to the stream could also affect PBF numbers 1, 3, and 4. However, NCDOT has
developed stringent erosion control measures (see Section 2.3) which greatly minimize sediment
entering the stream. Assuming the proper installation and maintenance of these erosion control
measures, such effects to the PBFs are expected to be minor and temporary, and thus would not
appreciably diminish the value of the PBFs.

One potential beneficial effect of the Action on critical habitat is that the hydraulic opening
under the existing bridge will be increased from ~83 square feet to ~191 square feet with the new
culvert, thus allowing the stream channel to stabilize and reach a more natural equilibrium. In
turn, this will likely reduce the potential for long-term erosion and sedimentation effects on PBF
numbers 1, 3, and 4.

7.3.2. Effects of Conservation Measures on AP Proposed Critical Habitat

The Conservation Measures, in part, are designed to reduce sedimentation effects. Therefore,
potential effects to PBF numbers 1, 3, and 4 described above will be minimized.
23
7.3.3. Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on AP Proposed Critical Habitat

The de-energization and lowering of the Halifax Electric aerial power line located near the
bridge will have no effect on proposed critical habitat.

7.4. Cumulative Effects on AP Proposed Critical Habitat
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, cumulative effects are those caused by future state,
tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered, because they require
separate consultation under §7 of the ESA.
We are not aware of any non-Federal actions in the Action Area that may affect proposed critical
habitat. Therefore, cumulative effects are not relevant to formulating our opinion for the Action.
7.5. Conclusion for AP Proposed Critical Habitat
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections for AP critical
habitat (status, baseline, effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of a BO/CO
under §7(a)(2) of the ESA, which is to determine whether a Federal action is likely to:
a) jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
b) result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
“Destruction or adverse modification” means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of designated critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such
alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of
such features (50 CFR §402.02).
Total proposed critical habitat for AP consists of approximately 542 miles of stream across 16
units. All units are considered occupied by the species. The Action Area comprises 0.31 mile of
proposed critical habitat, thus representing <0.06% of the total proposed critical habitat. Some
adverse effects to critical habitat may occur from movement of sediment within the stream or
from input of sediment into the stream, thus potentially affecting PBF numbers 1, 3, and 4.
However, implementation of conservation measures as part of the Action will greatly minimize
these effects. All such effects are expected to minor and temporary, and thus will not appreciably
diminish the value of the PBFs.

After reviewing the current status of the proposed critical habitat, the environmental baseline for
the Action Area, the effects of the Action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s
conference opinion that the Action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical
habitat for AP.

24
8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
ESA §9(a)(1) and regulations issued under §4(d) prohibit the take of endangered and threatened
fish and wildlife species without special exemption. The term “take” in the ESA means “to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct” (ESA §3). In regulations at 50 CFR §17.3, the Service further defines:
“harass” as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of
injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering;”
“harm” as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife
by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or
sheltering;” and
“incidental take” as “any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and
not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.”
Under the terms of ESA §7(b)(4) and §7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as
part of the agency action is not considered prohibited, provided that such taking is in compliance
with the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement (ITS).

The prohibitions against taking an endangered animal species found in ESA §9, and against
taking a threatened animal species adopted by regulations under §4(d), do not apply until a
species is listed. The preceding conference opinion (CO) evaluated effects of the Action on the
AP, which is not listed under the ESA. The Service advises the USACE to consider
implementing the reasonable and prudent measures provided below, which are intended to
reduce the anticipated amount or extent of take of this species. Voluntary implementation of
these measures according to the accompanying terms and conditions, and voluntary monitoring
and reporting of taking as specified below, will facilitate adoption of the CO as a BO following
listing of this species as endangered or threatened. Following such adoption, the reasonable and
prudent measures, terms and conditions, and monitoring and reporting requirements provided
below will become non-discretionary.

The Action considered in this BO/CO includes a conservation measure to capture and relocate
mussels from a portion of the Action Area to an upstream safer location (see Section 2.3).
Through this statement, the Service authorizes this conservation measure as an exception to the
prohibitions against trapping, capturing, or collecting listed species. This conservation measure is
identified as a Reasonable and Prudent Measure below, and we provide Terms and Conditions
for its implementation.

For the exemption in ESA §7(o)(2) to apply to the Action considered in this BO/CO, the USACE
must undertake the non-discretionary measures described in this ITS, and these measures must
become binding conditions of any permit, contract, or grant issued for implementing the Action.
The USACE has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this ITS. The protective
coverage of §7(o)(2) may lapse if the USACE fails to:
assume and implement the terms and conditions; or
25
require a permittee, contractor, or grantee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the ITS
through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the USACE must report the progress of the
Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this ITS.
8.1. Amount or Extent of Take
This section specifies the amount or extent of take of listed/proposed listed wildlife species that
the Action is reasonably certain to cause, which we estimated in the “Effects of the Action”
section(s) of this BO/CO. We reference, but do not repeat, these analyses here.

8.1.1. YL

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of individual
YL consistent with the definition of harass resulting from capture and relocation (see Section 2.3
and 4.3.2). The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take
of individual YL consistent with the definition of harm resulting from the removal of the existing
bridge and construction of the new culvert (see Section 4.3.1). It is estimated that up to 17 adult
YL could incur incidental take.

8.1.2. TRSM

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of individual
TRSM consistent with the definition of harm or harass resulting from the removal of the existing
bridge and construction of the new culvert (see Section 5.3.1) or from capture and relocation (see
Section 2.3 and 5.3.2). It is estimated that up to one adult TRSM could incur incidental take.
8.1.3. AP
The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of individual
AP consistent with the definition of harm or harass resulting from the removal of the existing
bridge and construction of the new culvert (see Section 6.3.1) or from capture and relocation (see
Section 2.3 and 6.3.2). It is estimated that up to one adult AP could incur incidental take.
8.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary or
appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take caused by the Action on YL, TRSM, and
AP.
RPM 1. Mussel Relocation. Relocate YL, TRSM, and AP from the portion of the Action Area
most likely to be adversely affected.
26
8.3. Terms and Conditions
In order for the exemption from the take prohibitions of §9(a)(1) and of regulations issued under
§4(d) of the ESA to apply to the Action, the USACE must comply with the terms and conditions
(T&Cs) of this statement, provided below, which carry out the RPMs described in the previous
section. These T&Cs are mandatory. As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility,
the USACE must require any permittee, contractor, or grantee to implement these T&Cs through
enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
T&C 1. Relocation Schedule. The mussel relocation must occur within three weeks prior to start
of in-channel work.
T&C 2. Relocation Extent. As per the Mussel Relocation Plan (see Appendix D of the Biological
Assessment, attached), mussels will be relocated from a 160 meter section of Fishing
Creek (from 130 meters downstream of Bridge No. 135 to 30 meters upstream of the
bridge). Relocated mussels will be moved to suitable habitat approximately 350 meters
upstream of Bridge No. 135 as per the Mussel Relocation Plan.
T&C 3. Take TRSM into Captivity. Any TRSM observed during the mussel relocation will be
transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to be utilized as brood
stock for future propagation/augmentation/reintroduction purposes. Agency contacts are
Todd Ewing and Michael Fisk. All TRSM will ultimately be returned to the capture
location after a successful reproductive event.
8.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the USACE or NCDOT must report the
progress of the Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental
take statement (50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)). This section provides the specific instructions for such
monitoring and reporting (M&R). As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the
USACE must require any permittee, contractor, or grantee to accomplish the monitoring and
reporting through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
Such enforceable terms must include a requirement to immediately notify the USACE and the
Service if the amount or extent of incidental take specified in this ITS is exceeded during Action
implementation.
M&R 1. Erosion Control Measures Failure. In the event that visible sediment loss from the
project is observed at the bridge site, a review of turbidity levels will be made upstream
and downstream 400 meters (0.25 mile) to determine if sedimentation effects are
occurring beyond the Action Area. If visual observation of turbidity levels downstream
appear to be elevated beyond upstream observations, the project inspector will contact the
Division Environmental Officer. If determined that project-related sedimentation is
occurring beyond 400 meters, the amount or extent of incidental take specified in this ITS
has been exceeded and the Service must be contacted immediately
27
M&R 2. Mussel Relocation Report. A report summarizing the details of the mussel relocation,
including species and numbers of individuals moved, will be submitted to the Service. If
more than 17 YL, more than one TRSM, or more than one AP are moved, the amount or
extent of incidental take specified in this ITS has been exceeded.
9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
§7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the
ESA by conducting conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation recommendations are discretionary activities that an action agency may undertake
to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a proposed action, implement recovery plans, or
develop information that is useful for the conservation of listed species. The Service offers the
following recommendation that is relevant to the listed species addressed in this BO/CO and that
we believe are consistent with the authorities of the USACE.
1. Provide resources for additional mussel survey work within the Upper Tar River
Watershed.
10. REINITIATION NOTICE
Formal consultation for the Action considered in this BO is concluded. Reinitiating consultation
is required if the USACE retains discretionary involvement or control over the Action (or is
authorized by law) when:
a. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
b. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;
c. the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated
critical habitat not considered in this BO; or
d. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Action may affect.

In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the USACE is required to
immediately request a reinitiation of formal consultation.
Formal conference for the Action considered in this CO is concluded. The USACE may submit a
written request to the Service to confirm the CO as a BO issued through formal consultation if
the USACE retains discretionary involvement or control over the Action when species addressed
in the CO are listed, or when proposed critical habitats addressed in the CO are designated. This
request should advise the Service of any new information about the Action or its effects on such
species or critical habitats that is relevant to adopting the CO as a BO, including the amount or
extent of any taking of species that the Action has caused before the effective date of a listing
decision.

The incidental take statement provided for non-listed species in a CO does not become effective
until such species are listed and the CO is adopted as a BO. At that time, the Service will review
the Action to determine whether modifying the opinion and incidental take statement to reflect
new information is appropriate. If the Service finds no significant changes in the Action as
28
proposed or in the information used during the conference, the Service will confirm the CO as a
BO for the Action, which shall conclude formal consultation. Thereafter, the USACE shall
request to reinitiate formal consultation under the same four circumstances listed above.
11. LITERATURE CITED
Eads, C.B., R. Nichols, C.J. Wood, and J.F. Levine. 2008. Captive spawning and host
determination of the federally endangered Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Ellipsaria 10(2):7-8.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology 17:29-42.
Fleming, W.J., T.P. Augspurger, and J.M. Alderman. 1995. Freshwater mussel die-off attributed
to anticholinesterase poisoning. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14:877-879.
Hoch, R.A. 2012. Beaver and mill dams alter freshwater mussel habitat, growth, and survival in
North Carolina piedmont streams. Master’s Thesis, Appalachian State University, Boone,
NC. 48 pp.
Marking, L.L. and T.D. Bills. 1980. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pages 204-211 in: J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proceedings of the UMRCC symposium on
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 270 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2003. Best management practices for
construction and maintenance. Raleigh, NC. 112 pp. + app. Available online at
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Roadway/RoadwayDesignAdministrativeDocuments/Best
%20Management%20Practices%20for%20Construction%20and%20Maintenance%20Activit
ies.pdf. Accessed on July 1, 2019.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2014. Stormwater best management
practices toolbox, version 2. Raleigh, NC. Available online at
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/Stormwater%20Resources/NCDOT__BMP_Toolb
ox_2014_April.pdf. Accessed on July 1, 2019.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2015. Erosion and Sediment Control
Design and Construction Manual. Raleigh, NC. Available online at
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/HSPDocuments/NCDOT_ESC_Manual_2015.pdf
Accessed on July 1, 2019.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2019. Online portal access to
wildlife systems (PAWS). Accessed May 2019.
Pandolfo, T.J., T.J. Kwak, W.G. Cope, R.J. Heise, R.B. Nichols, and K. Pacifici. 2016. Species
traits and catchment-scale habitat factors influence the occurrence of freshwater mussel
populations and assemblages. Freshwater Biology 61:1671-1684.
29
RK&K. 2017a. Freshwater mussel survey report. Replacement of Bridges No. 66 and No. 9 on
NC 58 over Shocco Creek. Unpublished report submitted to North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 8 pp. + app.
RK&K. 2017b. Freshwater mussel survey report. Replacement of Bridge No. 135 on SR 1609
over Fishing Creek. Unpublished report submitted to North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 8 pp. + app.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
5-year review: Summary and evaluation. Raleigh, NC. 21 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Clinch River mussel pulled back from brink of
extinction. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2017/10/clinch-river-
mussel-pulled-back-from-the-brink-of-extinction/. Accessed on June 11, 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017b. Species status assessment report for the
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) version 1.2. Atlanta, GA. 181 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017c. Species status assessment report for the Yellow
Lance (Elliptio lanceolata) version 1.2. Atlanta, GA. 140 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017d. Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Available at https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_tar_spinymussel.html . Accessed June
11, 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019a. Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni. Available
online at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/mussels/atlantic-pigtoe/. Accessed on June
11, 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019b. Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana.
Available online at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/mussels/tar-river-spinymussel/.
Accessed on June 11, 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019c. Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata. Available
online at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/mussels/yellow-lance/. Accessed on June
11, 2019.
Wang, N., C.D. Ivey, C.G. Ingersoll, W.G. Brumbaugh, D. Alvarez, E.J. Hammer, C.R. Bauer,
T. Augspurger, S. Raimondo, and M.C. Barnhart. 2017. Acute sensitivity of a broad range of
freshwater mussels to chemicals with different modes of toxic action. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 36(3):786-796.
Watters, T. 2001. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in: Proceedings of the First Freshwater
Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium, 1999. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.
Elliptio lanceolata
Parvaspina
steinstansana
Fusconaia masoni
F is h i n g C r e ek

6fvlslaa of Water Resources
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
January 31, 2018 Ver 2.3
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are ans red.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E-PCN, all you need to do is right-click on the document and you can print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https://edocs. deq. nc.gov/WaterResources/0/edoc/624704/PCN%20Help%20File%202018-1-30. pdf
A. Processing Information
County(or Counties) where the project is located:*
Franklin
Warre n
Is this project a public transportation project?*
C' Yes C' No
This is any publicly funded by rrunicipal,state or federal funds road, rail, airport transportation project.
Is this a NCDOT Project?*
C Yes C' No
NCDOT only) T.I.P. or state project number:
WBS #
176P.5. R.78
for NCDOT use only)
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:*
rJ Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?*
J Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
This form may be Corps to initiate the standard/individual permit process. Please contact your Corps representative for submittal of standard permits.
All required items that are not provided in the E-PCN and be added to the miscellaneous upload located at the bottom of this form.
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 03 - Maintenance
NWP Number Other:
List all MN nurrbers you are applying for not on the drop dow n list.
1c. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:*
check all that apply
ri 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
r 401 Water Quality Certification - E ress
fJ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1d. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
I For the record only for DWR 401 Certification: ' Yes C•' No
For the record only for Corps Permit: C' Yes C•' No
1e. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
If so, attach the acceptance letter from rritigation bank or in-lieu fee program
C' Yes ' No
1f. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?*
C' Yes C•' No
1h. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?*
C' Yes G No
Link to trout information: http://wwv.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Agency-Coordination/Trout.aspx
B. Applicant Information
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Chris Murray
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
1c. PrimaryContact Phone:*
xxx)xxx-xxxx
919)220-4633
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner r Applicant (other than owner) r AgenUConsultant
Check all that apply)
2. Owner I nformation
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
NCDOT
2b. Deed book and page no.:
Not available
2c. Responsible party:
for Corporations)
2d.Address
Street Address
2612 N. Duke Street
Address Line 2
Durham
Fbstal / Zip Code
27704
State / Rovince / F gion
NC
Country
USA
2e. Telephone Number:
xxx)xxx-xxxx
919)220-4633
2f. Fax Number:
xxx)xxx-xxxx
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1a. Name of project:*
Replacement of Bridge 920140 over Little Shocco Creek on SR 1488 (Rod
Alston Road)/SR 1647 (Major Rob Alston Road)
1b. Subdivision name:
if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/town:*
Warrenton
1d. Driving directions*
If it is a new project and can not easily be found in a GPS rrapping system Rease provide directions.
From Warrenton, travel south on US 401, turn left and travel west on SR 1620 (Lickskillet Road), turn right and travel south on SR 1647
Major Rob Alston Road) to project site.
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
I (
tax RN or parcel ID)
Warren County2941901525 and 2941633017; Franklin County: 011310
and 012452
2b. Propertysize:
in acres)
1.26
2c. Project Address
Street Address
near 292 Major Rob Alston Road
Address Line 2
Warrenton
Fbstal / Zip Code
27589
2d. Site coordinates in decimal degrees
State / R-ovince / F gion
NC
Country
USA
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey-grade GPS device) after the decimal place as
appropriate, based on howthe location was determined. (For e>cample, most mobile phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to
map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal place.)
Latitude:* Longitude:*
36.24801 -78.16215
ex: 34.208504 -77.796371
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Little Shocco Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
28-79-22-6; Class C;NSW
Surface Water Lookup
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Tar-Pamlico
River Basin Lookup
4. Project Description
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
Existing conditions are described as wooded land.
4b. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for
I
DWR)
C7ick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
17BP.5.R.78 USGS map.pdf 918.9KB
Fle type rrust be pdf
4c. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site.
for DWR)
C7ick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
176P.5.R.78 Soil Survey map .pdf 681.19KB
Fle type rrust be pdf
4d. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.01 ac
4e. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
interrrittent and perennial)
100 linear feet of Little Shocco Creek
4f. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
I Replacement of e asting three span bridge with an newone span bridge on e asting alignment. Bridge is
structurally deficient.
4g. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
i Replacement of existing three span bridge with an newone span bridge on e asting alignment. Existing bridge has
two sets of timber piles on bents located along each streambank. Equipment will include bull dozer, crane, grader,
paver, excavator, etc.
4h. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
C7ick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
Fle type rrust be pdf
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the propertyor proposed impact areas?*
C Yes C' No f Unknown
Comments:
Sb. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? *
C' Preliminary C' Approved C•' Unknown C' f UA
Corps AID Number:
5carrple: SAV 2017-99999
Sc. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Othe r:
Heather Smith
Ecological Engineering
Sd. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Heather Smith conducted the delineation on November 11, 2016. Pre-JD request was sent to Eric Alsmeyer (USACE) via email on November
14, 2016, No other information received from USACE.
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
C7ick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
Fle type rrust be FDF
6. Project History
I
6a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
C' Yes r No ' Unknown
7. Future Project Plans
7a. Is this a phased project?*
C' Yes C•' No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the
proposed project or related activity? This includes other separate and distant crossing for linear projects that require Department of the
Army authorization but don't require pre-construction notification.
No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
rJ Wetlands r Streams-tributaries rJ Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. Site #- Reason for impact * 2b. Impact type * 2c. Type of wetland * 2d. Wetland name *2e. 2f. Type of 2g. Impact
Forested* Jurisdicition* area*
Site 1 P Bottomland Hardwood mechanized Yes Both 0.010
N p label (e.g. fd ad Qossing 1- CUlvert, F rrrenent (Fj or Forest Clearing (404, 10) or G/R(401, (acres)
dewatering, etc) Terrporary ( other)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
o.000
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.010
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.010
2h. Comments:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. Individually list all buffer impacts below.
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?*
Check all that apply.
r Neuse fJ Tar-Pamlico
r Catawba r Randleman
I r Goose Creek r Jordan Lake
r Other
6b. Impact Type * 6c. Per or 6d. Stream name *
Temp*
Site 1 allowable bridge P Little Shocco Creek
Location and 6cerrpt, Allowable, allowable w/ F2rrranent ( or
rritigation Terrporary (
Site 1 allowable road crossing P Little Shocco Creek
Location and Exerrpt, Allowable, allowable w/ F2rrranent (P) or
rritigation Terrporary (
Site 2 allowable bridge P Little Shocco Creek
Location and 6cerrpt, Allowable, allowable w/ F rrranent (F) or
rritigation Terrporary (
Site 2 allowable road crossing P Little Shocco Creek
Location and 6cerrpt, Allowable, allowable w/ F2rrranent (f j or
rritigation Terrporary (
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Temporary impacts: 0.00 0.00
Zone 1 Zone 2
Permanent impacts: 3,054.00 1,382.00
Zone 1
Total buffer impacts: 3,054.00
6i. Comments:
Supporting Documentation - i.e. Impact Maps, Plan Sheet, etc.
Qickthe upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurr nt
920140_Permit_Drawings_20180720. pdf
920140_Permit_Drawings_buffer_20180720. pdf
Fle rrust be FDF
Zone 2
1,382.00
6e. Buffer mitigation 6f. Zone 1 6g. Zone 2
required?* impact* impact*
No 1,544 241
squarefeet) (squarefeet)
No 0 461
squarefeet) (squarefeet)
No 1,444 41
squarefeet) (squarefeet)
No 66 639
squarefeet) (squarefeet)
1.33M6
986.89KB
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:*
Existing bridge is three span bridge with timber piles for each of the bents located on each streambank. The
proposed bridge is a single span and does not result in any stream impacts. Only the minimal amount of
mechanized clearing impacts are permitted to allowfor installation of erosion control devices.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:*
NCDOT inspectors and CEI inspectors will be on site daily to review construction of the project. NCDOT Division 5
i Environmental Specialist will be on site to determine methods to further reduce the mechanized clearing in wetland
impact area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
C' Yes C•' No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Minimal project impacts do not require mitigation when using NWP 3.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section ."*
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection
Rules?
C' Yes c' No
1b. All buffer impacts and high ground impacts require diffuse flow or other form of stormwater treatment. If the project is subject to a
state implemented riparian buffer protection program, include a plan that fully documents how diffuse flow will be maintained.
All Stormwater Control Measures (SCM)s must be designed in accordance with the NC Stormwater Design Manual. Associated
supplement forms and other documentation shall be provided.
What type of SCM are you providing?
r Level Spreader
7 Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHWT)
r Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
r Other SCM that removes minimum 30% nitrogen
check all that apply)
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here.
Diffus Flow Documentation
qick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrer
176P.5.R.78 SWMP.pdf 107.19KB
Fle type rrust be FDF
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
C Yes C' No
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
C Yes C' No
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or State (North Carolina) Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA/SEPA)?*
C•' Yes C' No
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the
NEPAor SEPAfinal approval letter.)*
f Yes r No
Comments:*
I
Document has not been finalized by the State Clearing House
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or
DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
f Yes C•' No
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application?*
C' Yes ' No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact
nearby downstream water qualit i?*
C' Yes ' No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
I Project replaces the ewsting bridge and roadway with similar sized roadway width and bridge width. Current design
standards are used in this design.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project? *
C' Yes C' No C•' f UA
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat? *
Yes C' No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
C Yes ' No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
C' Yes C•' No ' Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?*
C' Yes C' No
Sj. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
Use of Programmatic Biological Opinion for Bridge and Culvert Replacements/Repairs/Rehabilitations in Eastern
North Carolina, NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (June 13, 2018) provides for incidental take coverage for those projects
which may have adverse effects to three species of mussels (Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River Spinymussel, and
Yellow Lance). It also provides automatic concurrence for those projects which may affect, but are not likely to
adversely affect (MA-NLAA) those species. The use of the PBO and a mussel survey conducted on April 11, 2017
indicate Biological Conclusions of May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect for Dwarf Wedgemussel and May Affect,
Not Likely to Adversely Affect for Yellow Lance and Tar River spinymussel. The Department will follow obligations
regarding reporting of results and payment of $25,000 to the in-lieu fee program for the NC Nongame Aquatic
Species Fund. Biological Conclusion for Northern Long Eared Bat is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
C' Yes ' No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Available mapping.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
Link to the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural
preservation status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina historyand archaeology)?*
C' Yes C•' No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? *
Coordination with State HPO.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
Qick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
16-09-0010_Hist Arch NoSurveyReq.pdf 5.31 MB
I PA 16-09-0010 Warren No Archaeological Survey Required Form.pdf 1.16MB
Fle rrust be FDF
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEMA Floodplain Maps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
Yes l" No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
I Project has been designed by PEF to meet FEMA requirements.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
Mapping.
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
C7ickthe upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
I
Environmental summary for USACE.pdf 356.51 KB
Fle rrust be FDF or VWQ
Signature
fJ By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
I agree that submission of this PCN form is a"transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic
Transactions AcY');
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic
Transactions AcY');
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
i Full Name:*
Christopher A. Murray
Signature
c: y
Date Submitted:
8/22/2018
Initial Review
Is this project a public transportation project? *(')
r Yes C' No
Change only if needed.
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
C' No
BIMS # Assigned*
20181172
Version#*
1
Reviewing Office *
Central Office - [phone]
Select Project Reviewer*
Rob Ridings:eads\rgridings
Is a payment required for this project?*
f No payment required
C Fee received
C' Fee needed - send electronic notification

Warren Bridge 135 over Fishing Creek on SR 1609 (17BP.5.R.88)
FINAL Avoidance and Minimization Measures (December 13, 2021)

The following “Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds” [15A NCAC 04B.0124 (b) – (e)] are
incorporated into NCDOT projects that occur within or upstream of water bodies that contain
federally protected aquatic species. Within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the following
shall apply:

-The contractor may perform clearing operations but not grubbing operation until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations.

-Once grading operations begin in the ESA, work shall progress in a continuous manner until
complete.

-Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.

-Seeding mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately
following final grade establishment.

-Seeding mulching shall be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet in
height measure along the slope or greater than two acres in area, whichever is less.

The following are additional measures intended to further reduce deleterious construction
related effects to the waterway:

The proposed replacement structure is a 42 ft x 10 ft concrete arch bottomless structure that will
be constructed on existing alignment. Traffic will be detoured on adjacent roads until completion
of the new structure.

The following documents will be used during design and construction: 1) NCDOT Erosion and
Sediment Control Design and Construction Manual; 2) NCDOT Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities and 3) NCDOT Stormwater Best Management
Practices Toolbox. Best Management Practices for bridge demolition and removal will be
implemented during the removal of the existing bridge.

The bridge will be removed from the top down, first removing the asphalt with containment
measures in place to prevent components of the bridge deck from dropping into the stream. The
method of containment will be proposed by the contractor and approved by the engineer. This
will be followed by removal of the rail, decking, girders, etc. The contractor will then
completely isolate the masonry abutments using an impervious dike in the stream to allow for
complete removal of the abutments.

The contractor will install additional impervious dikes in the stream as necessary to allow for
construction in the dry of the structure footings and for installation of the Class II rip rap bank
stabilization. All construction equipment and portions of the culvert structure necessary to
complete the project will remain behind the impervious dike while within the banks of Fishing
Creek.

Deck drains will not be allowed to discharge directly into the stream.
Special sediment control fence NCDOT Standard No. 1606.01 or a combination of special
sediment control fence and standard silt fence will be installed between the top of the stream
bank and bridge embankment. Once the disturbed areas of the project draining to these areas
have been stabilized, the special sediment control fence and/or standard silt fence and all built
up sediment adjacent to these devices will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with
appropriate seed mix. Native grass mix will be used on the floodplain.

All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, will be
cleaned out as appropriate to ensure proper function of the measures.

Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner as to prevent surface
runoff/drainage from discharging untreated into the riparian buffer. Instead all interim surfaces
will be graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices. Temporary berms, ditches, etc. will
be incorporated, as necessary, to treat temporary runoff before discharging into the riparian
buffer (as specified in the NCDOT BMP Manual).

The Department will conduct a pre-construction mussel survey and mussel relocation plan
following information contained in Appendix D in the Biological Opinion dated July 17, 2021.
The mussel relocation will occur between August 29, 2022 and September 12, 2022. The
Division Environmental Officer will coordinate this activity with biologists from RK&K.

The contractor must begin in-stream work on September 13, 2022 and will continue to
completion. The in-stream activity is considered to be complete installation of the impervious
dikes surrounding the brick masonry abutments at Fishing Creek. In Intermediate Contract Time
addressing the start of the in-stream work by the contractor will be followed for this project.

The Mussel Relocation Plan indicates that mussels will be relocated from a 160 meter section of
Fishing Creek (from 130 m downstream of Bridge 135 to 30 m upstream of Bridge 135).
Relocated mussels will be moved to suitable habitat approximately 350 m upstream of Bridge
135. Any Tar River spinymussel collected during the mussel relocation will be transferred to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. A report summarizing the details of the mussel
relocation will be submitted to the USFWS. If more than 17 Yellow lance, one Tar River
spinymussel, or more than one Atlantic pigtoe are moved, the amount or extent of the incidental
take specified in the Incidental Take Statement has been exceeded. The incidental take for
Neuse River waterdog is estimated at two individuals. The NCDOT will be required to reinitiate
consultation with the USFWS is the incidental take is exceeded.

The existing scour hole in the floodplain of the southwest quadrant will be filled with suitable
material and stabilized with ground cover comprised of vegetation and stone.

Existing Halifax Electric power lines and poles to remain in location during construction.
Halifax Electric will de-energize line and lower to the ground if necessary for placement of
structure or for other operations requiring use of a crane. There should be no impacts to existing
trees or vegetation at the site from this utility action.

All sedimentation and erosion control measures will be appropriately maintained following
NCDOT standards to ensure proper function of the measures. This project must adhere to
conditions of General Permit NCG01000 to Discharge Stormwater under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System for Construction Activities. The project design and construction
activities are required to “select, install, implement and maintain best management practices
(BMPs) and control measures that minimize pollutants in the discharge to meet the requirements
of the permit.” Among these conditions, the permit requires: 1) all erosion and sedimentation
control measures must be inspected at least once every seven calendar days and 2) within 24
hours after any storm event of greater than 1.0 inch of rain per 24 hour period. It is understood
that these requirements and implementation of other appropriate BMPs are monitored through
multiple layers of oversight. At a minimum, the following personnel monitor erosion control
measures:

• Contract project manager
• NCDOT Division Environmental Officer and Environmental Specialist
• NCDOT Roadside Environmental Field Operations Staff

Construction must adhere to information contained in the Biological Opinion (USFWS July 17,
2019) and Addendum to Biological Opinion (November 5, 2021).

In the event that visible sediment loss from the project is observed at the bridge site, a review of
turbidity levels will be made upstream and downstream 400 meters (0.25 mile) to determine if
sedimentation effects are occurring beyond the Action Area as defined in the Biological
Opinion. If visual observation of turbidity levels downstream appear to be elevated beyond
upstream observations, the project inspector will contact the Division Environmental Officer. If
determined that project-related sedimentation is occurring beyond 400 meters, the amount or
extent of incidental take specified in the Incidental Take Statement (see page 24 of
Biological/Conference Opinion, USFWS July 17, 2019 and page 12 of the Addendum to BO
USFWS November 5, 2021) has been exceeded and the USFWS must be contacted immediately.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2017-00852 County: Warren U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Afton

GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION

Permittee: NCDOT Division 5
Chris Murray
Address: 2612 North Duke Street
Durham, NC 27704
Telephone Number: 919-220-4633
E-mail: [e-mail]

Size (acres) N/A Nearest Town Warrenton
Nearest Waterway Fishing Creek River Basin Pamlico
USGS HUC 03020102 Coordinates Latitude: 36.3391
Longitude: -78.1287
Location description: The project location is existing bridge 135 over Fishing Creek on SR 1609 (Powells Mill Rd.), near the
town of Warrenton, Warren County, North Carolina.

Description of projects area and activity: This permit verification allows for 0.04 acre of permanent wetland impacts, 52 linear
feet of permanent stream channel impacts from fill, 99 linear feet of permanent stream channel impacts from bank
stabilization, and 176 linear feet of temporary stream channel impacts from dewatering for the replacement of BR 135 with a
culvert in the same location. Mitigation is required for this proposal (See attached plans).

Applicable Law(s):܈ Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)

Authorization: NWP 3. Maintenance

SEE ATTACHED NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL, AND/OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed
Conditions, your application signed and dated 8/14/2019, and the enclosed plans entitled “Bridge 135 over fishing Creek wetland
and surface water impacts permit” dated 1/13/2019. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted
plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate
legal action.

Comments:

1. Compensatory mitigation was required for this project and was completed by NCDOT through payment to the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). A Statement of Mitigation Liability Acceptance was signed by
NCDMS for this project on September 9, 2019.

Special Conditions:

1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) titled, “NCDOT Program
Effects on the Northern Long-eared Bat in Divisions 1-8”, dated November 6, 2020, contains agreed upon conservation
measures for the NLEB. As noted in the PBO, applicability of these conservation measures varies depending on the
location of the project. Your authorization under this Department of the Army permit is conditional upon your
compliance with all applicable conservation measures in the PBO, which are incorporated by reference in this permit.
Failure to comply with the applicable conservation measures would constitute non-compliance with your Department
of the Army permit. The USFWS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and conditions
of its PBO, and with the ESA.

2. This Department of the Army permit does not authorize you to take an endangered species referenced in the Biological
Opinion, including a November 2021 Addendum and a January 2022 Conference Opinion adoption, in particular the
Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). Also, included are the Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Atlantic
Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and the Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) and their designated critical habitat. In
order to legally take a listed species, you must have separate authorization under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
(e.g., an ESA Section 10 permit, or a BO under ESA Section 7, with “incidental take” provisions with which you must
comply). The enclosed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (BO) contains mandatory terms and conditions
to implement the reasonable and prudent measures that are associated with “incidental take” that is also specified in
the BO. Your authorization under this permit is conditional upon your compliance with all of the mandatory terms and
conditions associated with incidental take of the attached BO, which terms and conditions are incorporated by reference
in this permit. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the BO, where a take
of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute non-compliance with
your permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms
and conditions of its BO/, and with the ESA.

This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified, suspended
or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this
verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified
nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would
no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction)
or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed
within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit’s expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.

Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.

For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), prior
to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management Morehead City, NC, at [phone].

This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State
or local approvals/permits.

If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Andrew Williams at 919-554-4884 ext 26 or [e-mail].

Corps Regulatory Official: _____________________________________________________Date: 1/31/2022
Expiration Date of Verification: 03/18/2022

Date: 2022.02.01
10:54:28 -05'00'

Action ID Number: SAW-2017-00852 County: Warren

Permittee: NCDOT Division 5, Chris Murray

Project Name: Replacement of BR 135 over Fishing Creek on SR 1609 (Powells Mill Road)

Date Verification Issued: 1/31/2022

Project Manager: Andrew Williams

Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Attn: Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
or
[e-mail]

Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may
result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I
administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action.

I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.

_______________________________________ ______________________
Signature of Permittee Date

1 of 6
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST

The following questions provide direction in determining when the Department is
required to prepare environmental documents for state-funded construction and
maintenance activities. Answer questions for Parts A through C by checking either
“Yes” or “No”. Complete Part D of the checklist when Minimum Criteria Rule
categories #8, 12(i) or #15 are used.

TIP Project No.: N/A

State Project No.: 17BP.5.R.88

Project Location: Bridge No. 135 on SR 1609 (Powell Mills Road) over Fishing Creek
in Warren County

Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes bridge replacement of Bridge No. 135 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek in
Warren County. The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a functionally obsolete
and structurally undermined bridge.

Bridge No. 135 was constructed in 1975. The bridge is 20.7 feet long with a deck width
of 18.2 feet. The structure type is timber floor on I-Beams. NCDOT Bridge Management
Unit records indicate Bridge No. 135 has a sufficiency rating of 65.69 as of November
16, 2017 (previously 75.66 on November 14, 2013).

Bridge No. 135 would be replaced in-place with an off-site detour. The proposed
structure would be an approximately 42-foot long bottomless culvert. The bridge typical
section is two undivided 9-foot lanes with 3-foot unpaved shoulders on each side. The
proposed design speed is 20 mph. The project length is approximately 422 feet.

Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: US Army Corps of Engineer
(USACE) Nationwide Permit No. 14, Section 401 Water Quality Certification 4135,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Permit, NC Department of Water
Resources (NCDWR) Riparian Buffer Authorization

Special Project Information:

Detour – Traffic will be managed with an off-site detour. The off-site detour would begin
from SR 1600 (Baltimore Road), to SR 1625 (Parktown Road), to SR 1620 (Pete Harris
Road), to NC 58, to NC 58/NC 43 and end on SR 1606 (Church Road); approximately 11
miles.

NC River Basin Buffer Rules – An email from Rob Ridings with NCDWR dated March
2017 confirmed that Fishing Creek is subject to Tar-Pamlico riparian buffer rules.
Impacts to protected stream buffers have been determined; permits will be submitted to
NCDWR.
2 of 6

Threatened & Endangered Species – A biological conclusion of May Affect, Likely to
Adversely Affect was provided for Northern long-eared bat. The Programmatic
Biological Opinion for NLEB (PBO – NLEB) will provide incidental take coverage for
the NLEB and will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for
five years for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes
Warren County, where Bridge No. 135 is located.

A freshwater mussel survey was conducted in Fishing Creek on August 2017 (Mussel
Survey Report dated November 2017). The federally protected Yellow Lance was
observed. A biological conclusion of May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect was
proposed for the Yellow lance. Biological conclusions of May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect were proposed for the Dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, and
Atlantic pigtoe. NCDOT is currently preparing to enter formal Section 7 Consultation
with the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Yellow lance.

Public Involvement – A newsletter was sent to Warren County officials August 2017 for
their distribution. The newsletter shows the proposed detour and new bridge design.

PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA

Item 1 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?

If the answer to number 1 is “no”, then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.

If yes, under which category? Category #9 – Reconstruction of existing
crossroad or railroad separations and
existing stream crossings, including, but
not limited to, pipes, culverts, and bridges

If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.

PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS

Items 2 – 4 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?

3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?

4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
3 of 6
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?

Item 5-8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands;
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?

6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?

7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?

YES NO
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats

If any of questions 2 through 8 are answered “yes”, the proposed project may not qualify as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state environmental assessment (EA) may be required. For
assistance, contact:

Philip S. Harris, III, PE
Environmental Analysis Unit Head
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Items 9- 12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?

10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
fill in waters of the United States?

11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?

12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
4 of 6
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
Items 13 – 15 to be completed by the Engineer.
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?

Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an “effect” on a property or site listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?

15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?

Response to Question No. 9 – Habitats for the NLEB and Yellow lance (see Special
Projects Information).

Response to Question No. 10 – Approximately 176 linear feet of jurisdictional water
resources and 0.02 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the right-of-way.

Questions in Part “C” are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental
Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource
agency may be required. If any questions in Part “C” are answered “yes”, follow the
appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction.
PART D:( To be completed when either category #8, 12(i) or #15 of the rules are
used.)

Items 16- 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.

16. Project length: N/A

17. Right of Way width: N/A

18. Project completion date: N/A

19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:

N/A

20. Total acres of wetland impacts: N/A

21. Total linear feet of stream impacts: N/A

22. Project purpose: N/A

2/25/2019
2/28/2019
3/1/2019
6 of 6
Warren County
Bridge No. 135 on SR 1609 (Powell Mills Road) over Fishing Creek
State Project No. 17BP.5.R.88
WBS No. 17BP.5.R.88

All commitments developed during the project development and design phase for the
project are listed below.

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit:

FEMA
The project may encroach but will not adversely affect the FEMA-regulated stream. The
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with FEMA to determine if a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required
for the project.

NCDOT Division 5

Federally Proposed Threatened Species
NCDOT will initiate formal Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS for the Yellow
lance.

NCDOT Division 5 Construction:

Roadway Lane Reductions and Closures
NCDOT will contact the Warren County Emergency Medical Services Division at 252-
257-1191 at least one month prior to lane reduction and/or roadway closure to allow first
responders to prepare for the anticipated action.

NCDOT will contact the Warren County Fire Marshall at 252-257-1191 Ext. 237 at least
one month prior to lane reduction and/or roadway closure to allow first responders to
prepare for the anticipated action.

NCDOT will contact the Warren County Schools Director of Transportation at 252-257-
3860 Ext. 7000 at least one month prior to lane reduction and/or roadway closure to allow
schools to prepare for the anticipated action.

FEMA
If a CLOMR and subsequent final LOMR are required for the project, NCDOT will
submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon project completion
certifying the project was built as shown on construction plans.
1 Updated 12/6/2021

North Carolina Department of Transportation
NEPA/SEPA Consultation Form

STIP Project No. N/A
WBS Element 17BP.5.R.88
Federal Aid Project No. N/A

A. Project Description, Location, and Purpose:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of
Bridge No. 135 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek in Warren County. The purpose of the
proposed project is to replace the structurally deficient bridge. The proposed structure
would be an approximately 42-foot x 10 foot long concrete arch bottomless culvert on
footings. The bridge typical section is two undivided 9-foot lanes with 3-foot unpaved
shoulders on each side. The proposed design speed is 20 mph. The project length is
approximately 422 feet. The bridge will be replaced in-place and will utilize an off-site
detour from Powell Mills Road (SR 1609) to Baltimore Road (SR 1600) to Park Town Road
(SR 1625) / Old Mill Road (SR 1612) to NC 58 to Baltimore Church Road (SR 1606). The
bridge has been closed since August 2018 due to prolonged flooding causing additional
scour around the bridge abutments.

B. Consultation Phase: (Check one)

☐ Right-of-Way
☒ Construction
☐ Other: Identify the trigger – (e.g., design change, change in impacts)

C. NEPA/SEPA Class of Action Initially Approved as: (Check one)

☒ SEPA MCDC March 1, 2019

D. Changes in Proposed Action & Environmental Consequences:
There are no design revisions that need to be noted in this consultation. The design
remains the same as noted in the description in Section A above and the 2019 Minimum
Criteria Determination Checklist (MCDC).

The list of protected species has changed since the previous MCDC was completed. Below
is a table of protected species for Warren County and their current status.

Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus
leucocephaulus
Bald Eagle BGPA No No Effect
Alasmidonta Dwarf Wedgemussel* E No MANLAA
2 Updated 12/6/2021

heterodon
Noturus
furiosus Carolina Madtom* E Yes MANLAA
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow Lance* T Yes MALAA
Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog* T Yes MALAA
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe* PT Yes MALAA
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River Spinymussel* E Yes MALAA
* Indicates species potentially affected by activities at the project study area as identified in IPaC (USFWS, November 15, 2021).
Note: The Atlantic Pigtoe will be listed as Threatened with designated Critical Habitat on December 16, 2021.

Bald eagle
No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding resources
were identified within 1.13 miles of the project study area. Accordingly, a survey of the project
study area and within 660 feet of the project study area was not conducted (Natural Resource
Technical Report, October 2017). There will be No Effect to the Bald eagle from construction of
this project.

Northern long-eared bat
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has revised the previous programmatic
biological opinion (PBO) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and NCDOT for the northern lo ng-eared bat (NLEB)
(Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT program
in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. Although this programmatic
covers Divisions 1-8, NLEBs are currently only known to occur in 30 counties within Divisions
1-8. NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE have agreed to two conservation measures which will
avoid/minimize mortality of NLEBs. These conservation measures only apply to the 30 current
known/potential counties shown on Figure 2 o f the PBO at this time. The programmatic
determination for NLEB for the NCDOT program is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. The
PBO provides incidental take coverage for NLEB and will ensure compliance with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act for ten years for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in
Divisions 1-8, which includes Warren County, where 17BP.5.R.88 is located. Currently the 30
counties where NLEBs are known to occur does not include Wa rren County; accordingly,
environmental commitments (i.e. Measures to Avoid/Minimize Mortality) for this species are not
required for this project. This level of incidental take is authorized from the effective date of a
final listing determination through December 31, 2030.

Atlantic pigtoe, Dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, Yellow lance and proposed
critical habitat for Atlantic pigtoe
The USFWS provided a Biological Opinion (BO) and Conference Opinion (CO) for this project
on July 17, 2019. The NCDOT had previously determined that the Action i s likely to adversely
affect Tar River spinymussel, Yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe and proposed Critical Habitat for the
Atlantic pigtoe. (note: additionally, the Action is not likely to adversely affect the Dwarf
wedgemussel). The USFWS concluded in the BO/CO that the Action is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the Tar River spinymussel, Yellow lance and Atlantic pigtoe and is
not likely to adversely modify proposed critical habitat for Atlantic pigtoe.

Carolina madtom
The USFWS provided concurrence that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the Carolina madtom (USFWS, March 4, 2020).

3 Updated 12/6/2021

Neuse River waterdog, critical habitat for Neuse River waterdog and critical habitat for
Yellow lance
The USFWS provided an Addendum to the Biological Opinion (BO) for this project on
November 5, 2021. The NCDOT had previously determined that the Action is likely to
adversely affect Neuse River waterdog, critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog and
critical habitat for the Yellow lance. The USFWS concluded in the Addendum to the BO that
the Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Neuse River waterdog and
is not likely to adversely modify proposed critical habitat for Neuse River waterdog or Yellow
lance.

Environmental Commitments for aquatic species
The following “Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds” [15A NCAC 04B.0124 (b) – (e)] are
incorporated into NCDOT projects that occur within or upstream of water bodies that contain
federally protected aquatic species. Within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the following
shall apply:
• The contractor may perform clearing operations but not grubbing operation until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin in the ESA, work shall progress in a continuous manner
until complete.
• Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.
• Seeding mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction
immediately following final grade establishment.
• Seeding mulching shall be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20
feet in height measure along the slope or greater than two acres in area, whichever is
less.
The proposed replacement structure is a 42 ft x 10 ft concrete arch bottomless structure that
will be constructed on existing alignment. Traffic will be detoured on adjacent roads until
completion of the new structure.

The following documents will be used during design and construction: 1) NCDOT Erosion and
Sediment Control Design and Construction Manual; 2) NCDOT Best Management Practices
for Construction and Maintenance Activities and 3) NCDOT Stormwater Best Management
Practices Toolbox. Best Management Practices for bridge demolition and removal will be
implemented during the removal of the existing bridge.

The bridge will be removed from the top down, first removing the asphalt with containment
measures in place to prevent components of the bridge deck from dropping into the stream.
The method of containment will be proposed by the contractor and approved by the engineer.
This will be followed by removal of the rail, decking, girders, etc. The contractor will then
completely isolate the masonry abutments using an impervious dike in the stream to allow for
complete removal of the abutments.

The contractor will install additional impervious dikes in the stream as necessary to allow for
construction in the dry of the structure footings and for installation of the Class II rip rap bank
stabilization. All construction equipment and portions of the culvert structure necessary to
complete the project will remain behind the impervious dike while within the banks of Fishing
Creek.

4 Updated 12/6/2021

Deck drains will not be allowed to discharge directly into the stream.

Special sediment control fence NCDOT Standard No. 1606.01 or a combination of special
sediment control fence and standard silt fence will be installed between the top of the stream
bank and bridge embankment. Once the disturbed areas of the project drainin g to these areas
have been stabilized, the special sediment control fence and/or standard silt fence and all built
up sediment adjacent to these devices will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with
appropriate seed mix. Native grass mix will be u sed on the floodplain.

All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, will be cleaned
out as appropriate to ensure proper function of the measures.

Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner as t o prevent
surface runoff/drainage from discharging untreated into the riparian buffer. Instead all interim
surfaces will be graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices. Temporary berms,
ditches, etc. will be incorporated, as necessary, to treat temporary runoff before discharging
into the riparian buffer (as specified in the NCDOT BMP Manual).

The Department will conduct a pre-construction mussel survey and mussel relocation plan
following information contained in Appendix D in the Biological Opinion dated July 17, 2019.
The mussel relocation will occur between August 29, 2022, and September 12, 2022. The
Division Environmental Officer will coordinate this activity with biologists from RK&K.

The contractor must begin in-stream work on September 13, 2022 and will continue to
completion. The in-stream activity is considered to be complete installation of the impervious
dikes surrounding the brick masonry abutments at Fishing Creek. In Intermediate Contract
Time addressing the start of the in-stream work by the contractor will be followed for this
project.

The Mussel Relocation Plan indicates that mussels will be relocated from a 160 meter (m)
section of Fishing Creek (from 130 m downstream of Bridge 135 to 30 m upstream of Bridge
135). Relocated mussels will be moved to suitable habitat approximately 350 m upstream of
Bridge 135. Any Tar River spinymussel collected during the mussel relocation will be
transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. A report summariz ing the
details of the mussel relocation will be submitted to the USFWS. If more than 17 Yellow lance,
one Tar River spinymussel, or more than one Atlantic pigtoe are moved, the amount or extent
of the incidental take specified in the Incidental Take State ment has been exceeded. The
incidental take for Neuse River waterdog is estimated at two individuals. The NCDOT will be
required to reinitiate consultation with the USFWS if the incidental take is exceeded.

The existing scour hole in the floodplain of the southwest quadrant will be filled with suitable
material and stabilized with ground cover comprised of vegetation and stone.

Existing Halifax Electric power lines and poles to remain in location during construction.
Halifax Electric will de-energize line and lower to the ground if necessary for placement of
structure or for other operations requiring use of a crane. There should be no impacts to
existing trees or vegetation at the site from this utility action.

All sedimentation and erosion control m easures will be appropriately maintained following
NCDOT standards to ensure proper function of the measures. This project must adhere to
5 Updated 12/6/2021

conditions of General Permit NCG01000 to Discharge Stormwater under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System for Construction Activities. The project design and construction
activities are required to “select, install, implement and maintain best management practices
(BMPs) and control measures that minimize pollutants in the discharge to meet the
requirements of the permit.” Among these conditions, the permit requires: 1) all erosion and
sedimentation control measures must be inspected at least once every seven calendar days
and 2) within 24 hours after any storm event of greater than 1.0 inch of rain per 24 ho ur period.
It is understood that these requirements and implementation of other appropriate BMPs are
monitored through multiple layers of oversight. At a minimum, the following personnel monitor
erosion control measures:
• Contractor project manager
• NCDOT Division Environmental Officer and Environmental Specialist
• NCDOT Roadside Environmental Field Operations staff
Construction must adhere to information contained in the Biological Opinion (USFWS July 17,
2019) and Addendum to Biological Opinion (USFWS November 5, 2021).

In the event that visible sediment loss from the project is observed at the bridge site, a review
of turbidity levels will be made upstream and downstream 400 meters (0.25 mile) to determine
if sedimentation effects are occurring beyond the Action Area as defined in the Biological
Opinion. If visual observation of turbidity levels downstream appear to be elevated beyond
upstream observations, the project inspector will contact the Division Environmental Officer. If
determined that project-related sedimentation is occurring beyond 400 meters, the amount or
extent of incidental take specified in the Incidental Take Statement (see page 24 of
Biological/Conference Opinion, USFWS July 17, 2019 and page 12 of the Addendum to
Biological Opinion, USFWS November 5, 2021) has been exceeded and the USFWS must be
contacted immediately.

Environmental Permits
The NC DEQ DWR provided a 401 Water Quality Certification and Tar-Pamlico Buffer
Authorization, with additional conditions on August 19, 2019 (DWQ Project Number
20191084). The USACE issued Nationwide Permit Number 3 on September 3, 2019 with an
expiration date of verification on March 18, 2022(USACE Action ID Number SAW -2019-
00852). Work in waters of the United States is authorized under this p ermit until March 18,
2023. The Division 5 Environmental Officer will be required to monitor construction and request
a permit reverification if necessary from the USACE.

E. Conclusion:
The above NEPA/SEPA documentation has been reevaluated (as required by either 23
CFR 771 or by NC General Statute Chapter 113A Article 1). It has been determined that
the current proposed action is essentially the same as the original proposed action.
Proposed changes, if any, are noted in Section D. It has been determined that anticipated
social, economic, and environmental impacts were accurately described in the above
referenced document(s) unless noted otherwise herein. Therefore, the original
Administration Action remains valid.

6 Updated 12/6/2021

F. Coordination
NCDOT personnel have discussed the current project parameters with qualified NCDOT
representatives and FHWA (where applicable). The NCDOT Project Manager, Lisa Bullard-
Gilchrist, EI, hereby verifies the involvement of the following staff and the incorporation of
their technical input:

Design Engineer: Andrew Young, PE (Stewart) 11/15/2021
Environmental Specialist: Chris Murray, SPWS (NCDOT) 11/15/2021
Hydraulics Engineer: Frank Fleming, PE (VHB) 11/15/2021
Other:

G. Consultation Approval for NCDOT Project 17BP.5.R.88

Prepared By:

Date Harrison Wenchell, Transportation Planning Team Lead
Stewart

Prepared For: Lisa Bullard Gilchrist, EI
NCDOT, Bridge Program Manager

Reviewed By:

Date Chris Murray, SPWS
NCDOT, Division 5 Project Engineer for Planning and Environmental Studies

☒ Approved In adherence with 23 CFR 771 (NEPA) or NC General Statute
Chapter 113A Article 1 (SEPA), NCDOT approves this Consultation.
or
☐ Certified NCDOT staff certifies if FHWA signature was previously required or
where changes have resulted in FHWA signature being required.

Date Tracy Parrott, P.E.
NCDOT, Division 5 Deputy Division Engineer

FHWA Approved: FHWA signature required for Type I(B) CE, Type II(B) CE, Type III
CE, FONSI or ROD.

N/A
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
12/6/2021
12/6/2021
12/6/2021
7 Updated 12/6/2021

H. Project Commitments (as of December 6, 2021)

Warren County
Bridge No. 135 on SR 1609 (Powell Mills Road) over Fishing Creek
WBS No. 17BP.5.R.88

All commitments developed during the project development and design phase for the project
are listed below.

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit:

FEMA
The project may encroach but will not adversely affect the FEMA -regulated stream. The
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain mapping Program (FMP) to determine
status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’s Memorandum of Agreement, or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR).

The project has received a MOA designation from the Hydraulics Unit and FMP. The MOA has
been approved.

NCDOT Division 5

Federally Proposed Threatened Species
NCDOT will initiate formal Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS for the Yellow lance.

The NCDOT has completed formal and informal consultation with the USFWS for the following
species and critical habitat: Atlantic pigtoe, proposed critical habitat for Atlantic pigtoe, dwarf
wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, yellow lance, Carolina madtom, Neuse River waterdog,
critical habitat for Neuse River waterdog and critical habitat for Yellow lance. Environmental
commitments for aquatic species are identified on pages 3-5 of the Consultation. These
commitments must be adhered to during the final design and construction of this project.

The Department will conduct a pre-construction mussel survey and relocation plan following
information contained in Appendix D of the Biological Opinion dated July 17, 2019. The mussel
relocation will occur between August 29, 2022 and September 12, 2022. The Division
Environmental Officer will coordinate this activity with biologists from RK&K.

The contractor must begin in-stream work on September 13, 2022 and will continue to
completion. The in-stream activity is considered to be complete installation of the impervious
dikes surrounding the brick masonry abutments at Fishing Creek. In Intermediate Contract
Time addressing the start of the in-stream work by the contractor will be followed for this
project.

NCDOT Division 5 Construction:

Roadway Lane Reductions and Closures
NCDOT will contact the Warren County Emergency Medical Services Division at 252-257-1191
at least one month prior to lane reduction and/or roadway closure to allow first responders to
prepare for the anticipated action.
8 Updated 12/6/2021

NCDOT will contact the Warren County Fire Marshall at 252-257-1191 Ext. 237 at least one
month prior to lane reduction and/or roadway closure to allow first responders to prepare for
the anticipated action.

NCDOT will contact the Warren County Schools Director of Transportation at 252-257-3860
Ext. 7000 at least one month prior to lane reduction and/or roadway closure to allow schools to
prepare for the anticipated action.

FEMA
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to the FEMA -regulated
stream. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed As-built construction plans to the
Hydraulics Unit upon completion of the project, certifying that the stream crossing structure
and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown
in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

The project has received a MOA designation from the Hydraulics Unit and FMP. The MOA has
been approved.

Environmental
The NCDOT Division Environmental Officer will monitor construction and request a permit
reverification if necessary from the USACE.

The NCDOT Division Environmental Officer will provide oversight on the pre -construction
mussel survey and relocation plan activity and construction activity to ensure the Incidental
Take Statement is not exceeded for the project.