19950974 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AT.N?FA
C) EHNFi
December 11, 1997
Granville County
WQC 401 Project #95974
TIP No. B-2828
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill in 0.12 acres of wetlands or
waters for the purpose of bridge replacement over Coon Creek on SR 1609, as you described in your
application dated November 21, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a ne %,, application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must. follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Sincerely,
ston Howard, Jr. P.E.
950974.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
e,.suA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 21, 1997
D
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office UU
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Chief
Dear Sir:
N W
NOV 2 11997
Subject: Granville County, Replacement of Bridge No. 14 over Coon Creek on
SR 1609, Federal Project No. BRZ-1609(1), State Project No. 8.2370401,
T.I.P. No. B-2828.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the
subject project on September 14, 1995. This permit expired on January 21, 1997. The
replacement of Bridge No. 14 over Coon Creek is scheduled to be let to construction in
November 1997. Consequently, the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) needs
to renew authorization for this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the Categorical Exclusion document in a letter dated September 7, 1995.
This document was reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771 in a consultation dated
August 6, 1997. A copy of this consultation is enclosed. The NCDOT requests that the
COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in Granville County under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division of
Water Quality is also requested.

0
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Gordon
Cashin at 733-7844 Ext. 278.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P & E Project Planning
?.RAno?
?°'A
.0 QMM''?•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 21, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 228402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Chief
Dear Sir:
Subject: Anson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 169 over Brown Creek on
SR 1428, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1428(1), State Project
No. 8.2651201, T.I.P. No. B-2505.
1997 ?' ? ? ''
rP
ECTION
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the
subject project on April 7, 1995. This permit expired on January 21, 1997. The
replacement of Bridge No. 169 over Brown Creek on SR 1428 scheduled to be let to
construction in November 1997. Consequently, the N.C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) needs to renew authorization for this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the programmatic Categorical Exclusion and the Natural Resources
Technical Report in a letter dated February 10, 1995. The NCDOT completed an updated
review of potential effects on protected species by memorandum dated July 17, 1997
which concluded that the project would have no effect on protected species. The NCDOT
requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in Anson County under
a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water Quality Certification by
the Division of Water Quality is also requested.
NOV 2
WAw G
Rp 41
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Gordon
Cashin at 733-7844 Ext. 278.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Ernie Jahnke, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Michelle James, P & E Project Planning
Form Revised: 6-10-92
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
I. D. No. B-2828
GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase: Construction
b. Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1609 over Coon
Creek in Granville County
C. State Project: 8.2370401
Federal Project: BRZ-1609(1)
d. Document Type: Categorical Exclusion 8/95
Date
I1. CONCLUSIONS
The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771. It
was determined that the current proposed action is essentially the same as the original proposed
action. Proposed changes, if any, are noted below in Section III. 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.
III. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The original CE was found to be incorrect in identifying the stream crossed by the project.
Bridge No. 14 crosses Coon Creek, a tributary of Fishing Creek, instead of Fishing Creek as
stated in the CE. This misidentification does not affect the water resources classification.
One federally protected species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), has been added
for Granville County since the CE was signed in August, 1995. Staff biologist, Mr. Lindsey
Riddick, determined from his review that suitable foraging habitat did not exist in the project area
for this species. Therefore, the construction of this project will have no effect on the bald eagle
(see attached memo).
Potential environmental effects are unchanged from those presented in the Categorical
Exclusion and Right-of-Way Consultation.
Form Revised: 6-10-92
The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer stated in a memo dated August 20, 1996
that the SHPO has reviewed the plans for the subject project and have confirmed that the project
will have no effect on archaeological resources (see attached memo).
The grade was raised at the north end of the project to avoid flooding of the roadway.
There are no other changes in project design from what was recommended in the Categorical
Exclusion and Right-of-Way Consultation.
IV. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
D.O.T. will implement all practical measures and procedures to minimize and avoid
environmental impacts.
V. COORDINATION
Planning and Environmental Branch personnel have discussed current project proposals
with others as follows:
Design Engineer: DeWayne Sykes
FHWA Engineer: John Schrohenloher
VI. N.C.D.O.T. CONCURRENCE
Project P1 Ming Engineer
-;&-i' L
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
8/5/97
Date
8/5/97
Date
Date
607
Date
a ?SUR?
i?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
September 7, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:

R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY

SFP I I
WETLANDS f'[?'
!!uP,TER Ufelfi'
SUBJECT: Granville County, Replacement of Bridge No. 14 over Fishing Creek on
SR 1609. TIP No. B-2828, State Project No. 8.2370401, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1609(1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued
November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the -project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management, for their review.
Vn
z
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone]. Extension 315.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
GEC/plr
Attachments
cc:, Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, PE, Division 5 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer

Granville County
SR 1609
Bridge No. 14 Over Fishing Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1609(1)
State Project 8.2370401
T.I.P. No. B-2828
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
sL
DAT H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
(?l3 S? C
DATE Nichol ,,A. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
Granville County
SR 1609
Bridge No. 14 Over Fishing Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1609(1)
State Project 8.2370401
T.I.P. No. B-2828
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
Documentation Prepared By: .•`"QIZH.CAR6"'•.,
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. -- &ESS10-%N
SE AL
s ,
19732
t
E.
Shihchen (David) Fuh Ph.D PE '?. It-?C t?.•`
Project Manager ???'''?????•????`'???,
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit He
Consultant Engineering Unit
AOJ?JA
Stacy Y. B ld 'n
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Granville County
SR 1609
Bridge No. 14 Over Fishing Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1609(1)
State Project 8.2370401
T.I.P. No. B-2828
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Design plans will be forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for continued
review of potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the
proposed project's area of potential effect.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Granville County
SR 1609
Bridge No. 14 Over Fishing Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1609(1)
State Project 8.2370401
T.I.P. No. B-2828
Bridge No. 14 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 14 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 37 meters (120 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meters (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.0-meters (3-
foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher than the
existing grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 0.6 meters (2 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 2A) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $530,000. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $352,000 ($325,000-construction;
$27,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central portion of Granville County, approximately 1.6 kilometers (1
mile) southeast of Oxford, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural forested in nature.
SR 1609 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1609 has a 6.1-meter (20-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter (6-
foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade increases from the bridge on both ends.
The existing bridge is located on tangent which extends approximately 61 meters (200 feet) north and
15 meters (50 feet) south from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 4.3 meters (14
feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 2400 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 4700 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed through the project area, therefore the speed limit is
assumed to be the statewide maximum of 90 kilometers (55 miles per hour).
Bridge No. 14 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was
constructed in 1950.
The overall length of the structure is 32.3 meters (106 feet). The clear roadway width is 6.4 meters
(20.8 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 8 metric tons (9 tons) for single vehicles and
12 metric tons (13 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 14 has a sufficiency rating of 23.6, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead power lines are located
on both sides of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Two single vehicle accidents, resulting in no fatalities and one injury, have been reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 14 during the period from February 1991 to January 1994. Neither accident
occurred on the bridge. Both accidents were the result of the vehicle running off the road and striking
fixed objects.
Four school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 14 were studied. Each alternative consists of abridge 37
meters (120 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figures 4 and 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 90 meters
(300 feet) to the north and 120 meters (400 feet) to the south. An off-site detour will be provided
during the construction period. The off-site detour will be 9.6 kilometers (6 miles) in length (see
Figure 2A). The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
Alternative 1 is recommended because it has less impact on the wetland environment and is less costly
than Alternate 2 due to the additional roadway approach work for Alternate 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 90 meters (300 feet) to
the north and 120 meters (400 feet) to the south. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during
the construction period west (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist
of a bridge 18 meters (59 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet)
west of the existing structure. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60
miles per hour). This alternative is not recommended because of the additional wetlands that would
be impacted by the temporary detour.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1609.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 5 concurs that an off-site detour will be
the best alternative during bridge replacement.
The Granville County School Superintendent indicates that the maintenance of traffic off-site during
the construction period is acceptable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
... Alternative 2
Structure $ 280,800 $ 280,800
Roadway Approaches 129,837 152,302
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 432,535
Structural Removal 17,363 17,363
Engineering and Contingencies 72,000 167,000
Right-of-Way/Construct ion Easements/Utilities 30,000 38,625
Total $ 530,000 $ 1,088,625
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 14 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 37 meters (120 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 90 meters (300 feet) to the North and 120 meters
(400 feet) to the South from the bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended
alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 0.6 meter (2 feet)
will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.2-meter (30-foot)
clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1609 is classified as a rural minor
collector, therefore, criteria for a rural minor collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will
provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders across the structure. The
design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off-site is acceptable because of low traffic
volumes using SR 1609 and the short length of additional travel required along existing secondary
roads. The use of a temporary on-site detour will also impact and damage wetlands due to the
construction of the temporary detour approaches.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 37 meters (120 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate
drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher than
that of the existing bridge so that there will be no increase. to the existing 100-year floodplain
elevation. The length and height of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 25, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Mixed Upland Forest:
Mixed Upland Forest are on sloping areas south of the existing bridge dominated by a mixture of
hardwoods and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The canopy is composed of sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), loblolly pine, willow oak (Quercus phellos), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
American elm (Ulnms americana), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra). Sub-canopy trees include
the canopy species plus redbud (Cercis canadensis) and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
The shrub/sapling layer is composed of willow oak, red maple (Ater rubrum), yellow-poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and loblolly pine. The vine/herb layer is composed of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), five-fingers (Potentilla
canadensis), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans).
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
This plant community (Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Type) is adjacent to Fishing Creek
and on low-lying areas in the floodplain. The canopy is dominated by sweetgum and includes loblolly
pine, sycamore, and American elm. The sub-canopy is composed of the canopy trees and red bud.
The shrub/sapling layer includes sweetgum and raspberry (Rubus spp.). The vine/herb layer is
composed of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicafrs), Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), rush (Juncus spp.), wild garlic (A Ilium vineale), and aster (Aster spp.).
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed roadside margins, a powerline Right-of-Way, and
cleared land in the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses,
vines and herbs including: fescue grass (Festuca spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese
honeysuckle, trumpet creeper, foxtail (Setaria spp. ), common yarrow (Achillea millefolirim), and
black-eyed Susan (Rudbeekia ulgida). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of raspberry, loblolly
pine, and sweetgum.
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside, agricultural, and residential
development. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for agricultural and residential uses has
eliminated much cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area.
Even so, remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forested area adjacent to
Fishing Creek and associated ecotones, do serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering Fishing
Creek has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles,
and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginicnra) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Mammals
likely to inhabit the area include eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
The observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat types
are available. Species encountered in the forested areas nearby Fishing Creek include great blue
heron (Ardea herodias), Pine warbler (Dendroica pifuus), and common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula).
Species seen along the roadside areas include the common crow (Corwis brachyrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and Fowler's Toad (Bz fo woodhousei).
Aquatic:
Fishing Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Aquatic invertebrates observed included whirligig beetles (Gyrinus spp.), mayflies (Ephemeroptera)
and caddisflies (Trichoptera). A number of small fish observed in the creek included the eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and shiners (Notropis spp.).
Fishing Creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians
and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
6
salamander (Desmogmathus fuscus), frogs (Rrnur spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), worm
snake (Carphophis amoernus), and ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
Physical Resources
Soil
Granville County is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Topography is
characterized by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the
immediate project area range from 107 meters (350 feet) along the creek bottom to 113 meters (370
feet) along the forested upland areas.
South-central Granville County is underlain by the mixed Felsic and Mafic system. The mixed Felsic
intrusive rocks include granite gneiss and mica schist and Mafic intrusive rocks include gabbro and
diorite. Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a
single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Chewacla-Wehadkee and Vance sandy loam. Chewacla-
Wehadkee soils are found in low lying areas adjacent to the creek with Vance soils in the upland
areas. Chewacla-Wehadkee soils are poorly drained and frequently flooded. Chewacla-Wehadkee
soils are hydric or have hydric soils as a major component. Vance sandy loam soil is characterized
by occurring on 6 to 10 percent narrow side slopes on Piedmont uplands. Vance sandy loam soil is
a well drained, non-hydric soil.
Water
Bridge No. 14 crosses Fishing Creek approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) downstream of its origin
in northern Granville County. Fishing Creek flows southeast for 8 kilometers (5 miles) into the Tar
River which is part of the Tar-Pamilco River Basin.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993). Fishing
Creek is Class C NSW stream, indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture, and a supplemental classification for nutrient sensitive
waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report lists no sources within four miles upstream of the proposed
crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
7
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. BMAN information gave a Fair
bioclassification rating for Fishing Creek at the SR 1643 crossing approximately 4.8 kilometers (3
miles) downstream of the study bridge crossing.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Fishing Creek observed in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecoloeical Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Silt, gravel, boulder
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 6 meters (20 feet)
Water Depth 15 centimeters (0.5 feet) to 61 centimeters (2 feet)
Water Color Clear
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Sweetgum, loblolly pine, sycamore, American elm
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.05 hectares (0.12 acres) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the
recommended alternative.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following
three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence
of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Granville County as of March 25, 1995.
TABLE 2
Federallv Protected Species for Granville Count
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E
Harperella PtiGnmium nodosum E
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Status: E
Family: Unionidae
Listed: 4/13/90
The dwarf wedge mussel formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to the Neuse River,
North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in Swift Creek, Moccasin Creek, Middle
Creek and Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Ruin,
Crooked, Turkey and Stoney Creeks of the Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural,
domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated
water to survive.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 centimeters to 3.8 centimeters in
length. It's shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish
to silvery white.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A mussel survey conducted 30 meters (100 feet) above and 100 meters (328 feet) below the proposed
project alignment revealed evidence of the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and fingernail clams
(Sphaeriidae), but, no live mussels or shell evidence of other mussel fauna. Results of mussel survey
suggest that few, native mussel species occur in this section of Fishing Creek. Also, a review of
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of the dwarf wedge mussel in the
9
project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on dwarf wedge
mussel.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: 10/8/92
Smooth coneflower is currently known from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line right-of-ways, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with
gabbro in North Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and little competition
in the herb layer. The Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 1.5 m tall
from a vertical root stock. The stems are smooth with few leaves. The rays of the flower are light
pink to purplish, usually drooping, and the flower heads are usually solitary. Flowering occurs from
May through July.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside margins, powerline right-of-way, and cleared land area along the project
offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys along these habitats were conducted
on October 25, 1994. No dried flower heads from the summer bloom or plants were observed. A
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum)
Status: E
Family: Apiaceae
Listed: 9/28/88
Harperella is known from 12 extant populations including one in Granville County, North Carolina.
This annual herb grows to a height of 0.15 to 1.0 meters (6 to 36 inches). The leaves are reduced
to hollow, quill-like structures. The small, white flowers occur in heads, or umbels. Flowers have
five regular parts and are bisexual or unisexual, each umbel containing both perfect and male florets.
Flowering in riverine populations begins in late June or July and continues until frost.
Harperella typically occurs in two habitats: rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift-flowing
stream sections and on the edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain. The plant
requires a very specific and unusual water regime, which includes moderately intensive spring floods,
which reduce or eliminate competing vegetation.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
10
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted on October 25, 1994, to determine if harperella was present
in suitable habitat along the stream margins. No harperella was found along the stream margins
within the project right-of-way. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data
revealed no records of this species in the project study area. It can be concluded that construction
of this project will not impact this species.
Federal Candidate Species:
There are eight C2 federal candidate species listed for Granville County. The North Carolina status
of these species is listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Granville Count
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolala Yes T
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes T
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Yes T
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis Yes E
Serpentine aster Aster depauperalus Yes E
Heller's trefoil Lotus purshianus var. helleri Yes C
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons Marshallia grandii fora Yes C
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltalum Yes E-SC
NC Status: SC, E, T, C and SR denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and
Significantly Rare, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
State Listed Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state listed
species occurring within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site.
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
11
may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 4
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact
Mixed Upland Forest 0.03 (0.09)
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.05 (0.12)
Urban/Disturbed 0.14 0.35
TOTAL, 0.22 (0.56)
Notes: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow strips adjacent
to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Alternative 1 is not expected to result in substantial
adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements occur primarily within
disturbed right-of-way limits and mixed forest edges which currently do not support significant
communities.
The proposed action will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or
animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood
Forested areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as multiflora
rose and Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can
recover quickly from construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering Fishing Creek will
receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area. Fishing Creek should continue to provide
adequate habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
12
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
13
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
David Brook, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer in response to a scoping letter about
Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen bridges), (CH 95-E-4220-0305), responded in a
memorandum dated December 19, 1994 that:
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity. However,
we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet recorded resources
without a project location. As soon as a location and detailed project information
(including new right-of-way, approach work, detour structures) is available, please
forward it to us so we may complete our review.
When available, design plans will be forwarded to the NCSHPO for continued review of potential
impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the proposed projects area
of potential effect.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. All work will be done
within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of
prime, unique, or important farmland acreage.
14
The project is located in the area of Granville County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable because the
proposed project is located in this attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Granville County has had special flood hazard areas identified and is not a participant in the National
Flood Insurance Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in
Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no structures located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
15
O d t ?"
PO
?. ?• '®1 .woe a'
v
? ;r Q
? 11
s
a (?1 c b Y L f
.0

D Ib-y
I
I I t\
5100 131
.«n.orrH
e
4139 FAI
lile
I s t'.4
^ rAS a J
..W . I
W
I Zlio 11
?E I' *
/ IWYIYim;? 117.
IIIQ .. `. -
"? 'f
Y`
II N ?
1
1101 ?.
Q
Q
r
Y? I
r 1 _
1
I ?
1
I.7 0
11
'r V1r0111 na
u
w
,
llock ia
t B
r
I t
3 t '
N
Stovall ?
,
Oak Hdl IS WJlun
96 5
IQ
1 Lerls 1
1
GR NV LE
Brea 9 1
?OXIo
1 ?
Providence
Y
'? I \
UTNfe T L

Hester
hte

wd ,
'utner ! 56 ,
i 4 15 Creedmoor
rank
Not side 7 10\

I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Granville County
SR-1609 over Fishing Creek
Bridge #14
B-2828
0 miles 2
FIGURE 1
Granville County
- --?? - - - SR-1609 over Fishing Creek
Bridge # 14
B-2828
C,
1 1
0
u
1514
1 liter 1 ?
?J1 At
V
11 2_1
0
Tr N1_1
\ Oxford
Nenderwn
o ?
o .l A;rpor+ - \ W
° 1377 trP? _
IS20 .5
M-2
\ as
TO 1314
1 19 0 \\? ` '? try
•e
e Munhboro
4
'k 1517 1515
s7a
0 p U 7! A
L1
.o r J ti .
tt
a 1 le Tj, ?? h `\ .?
H 3]°- 13]1 1611
a o
'122 47
e • ALTERNATIVE 1
? O 1377
1111 o w 11637 ?O 1"0 (RECOMMENDED)
44 1
1.0 f ' Mare. ' .
, 1 °' OFF-SITE DETOUR --
Ji. 1 OXFORD?? 64 P cp '' i99,
. e 'eta ?
fl 1127 J I'Or. 7.60 (,f Ip •_ j' 4a .J FoirpoA
`•
n'
-6 .rF.%? • : ??? 1609 I I 1 .9
r ,^ •'u. 116, 1606 ?. t
fA? ® Dickerson V ;
It an C.:b 1.0 j1. J?'•'.? .S??F?!43s .4 C t 1 1
U
fAU A 1 IAtI -?
1 6 13 -4
'?' d6 I.1 ? ! ? J • ' i 4
lax, V. 1649 1677
Q
? ourv0,1eY ?'•. :;?;;_ {? •' AL / I .1001
\ ww?wwrAVevelamai.411wmua,n >?
L ,700told -- _'N BRIDGE NO. 14 a 1 1647
1 1101 117? 1163 ` - Hashers 16' 2.6 F?'Ar?a
96
1004
Cla f
t \ ? 1167 , '. /?gelll0? J Y
t? O.9 Corinth Ch. .\ Cr
LQQUI
t7u7 1161 '17 e
'
n \ t, ; 1211
, If
o
100a? y
C V !7 ' 161!
FIGURE 2A
...., .. 'J' 1197 O I
i li

SIDE VIEW
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3
C
o

z
LL)

yz

o <_
F- H zOUW Oo
x C
O<
3 -0104
o
Ll
N C/) ozz-
- ,0 N
.=:
a CL F-NOZU
U
> O >'C C
L
> rn
9
_
O $
Z Dam

C

J J
Z Z
O O
F-- 1••.
U U
W
to W
cq
O

? Z
Q

?
d
Q

N ?
C O (} O O o o
? co
A cr
CL X CC CL
a o o E E co
W a a ° o °
°
Q Q ?
?
J
U J •-
U to
a a '°
>
F- }
F-
0
tv
J J
C !'?
O ?
.r L
3
N ?
W O O 00 •p
M .-. Q
•

CL Cl)
CL
L
0 75
b
L
L

F- !- C i `
(a 00
J a H
11 II II
Y J CL F-

C7
w

o
?
~ d

? w

? z
a
Q a
m
ca j
2 00
JFr? U

.. a 0 U
U O Z a v
o
--

x NO7ax ,?
00
U _ C14
? 9 F ?ZU
0. y,0N
C r O A ???Cf7U
m C7
°
,
o

? U
9
M
a

r~

z
0
z
0
x
U O

W U
Cn W

° Q O
V U

N CL.
O
?
?
M

U
`
r
.. b b b

O o 0 0
C D
O

o ? oo
IRT

-
? N N V
o U II II II
w ?C) - 00

CA
? rn rn o
-- ? N
N
Q
Q

U

z
0
H
U

w

C7
Li.
c
,408 aQ6 A? R\ CORPORATE
x{1.4 Isw l LIMITS
City of Oxford 403
i 310108 „% A \
398 402 oR
\ ?ANM,E
RM4 n
O\ ! ] City of A
`• ... SERVICE ROAD ` - - Oxford
is Fshing creek ZONE AE\ Tributary 310108
?8 III ZONE A--
9
ZONE X 386 ZONE X
::..ZONE A w
O?iO?O RM48
OFGOV
IL CID
W
375 W
? Rq 7.0) °
°? 1Q07 / AC p LIMITS ,
372
0 RM50 RM49
369
' 366 r5 o f
\ I rshing Creek r= i
360 I 9R9a
3 6
rn CID -
N
,'0 RM51 /
M1' 355
0 ??9 350 ::;:;::..' 'ZONE A
RM52 tt Is,:
B 348 i
y
==?,?ZONE Al
1%
Fishing Creek
>6K
&CLAY
?h
...?,?? Granville County
SR-1609 over Fishing Creek
Bridge # 14
B-2828
rn X
O }
OZ
RM45 i? ac
V
00
ROAO
III
ZONE X
COSY
GRAN '--
`? City of Oxford
' z
Extraterritorial
?v
Jurisdiction
____3 7 108__-
100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT'
-1z
lz ED x
BRIDGE NO. 14 1 P 0
II
DI C KERSON
ZONE X
r====

r?
rr
FIGURE 6
ENT' Or Th
WP ?^ Za
o ^`
,r 9
N O
ARCH 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 8, 1994
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
TAKE ?
PRIDE W
AMERICA
i
S h .?
ok
z ` 194
z 9
This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1994
requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comments on
15 proposed bridge replacements in various eastern counties in
North Carolina. These comments are provided in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) occurs in Moore County. Our records indicate
that one of the five populations is documented from below dam
at Highfalls, to the start of the reservoir near the railroad
crossing of Deep River northeast of Glendon, Moore County. A
second population occurs from the Deep River in Coleridge,
Randolph County to the start of the reservoir above Highfalls,
Moore County. As such, it appears that the Cape Fear shiner
may occur in the area of the SR 1456, bridge #82, over Deep
River, Moore County.
The endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
occurs in Nash, Granville, and Wake Counties, and may
potentially occur in Fishing Creek in Granville County where SR
1609, Bridge #14 replacement is proposed, and in Swift Creek in
Wake County where SR. 1152, bridge #289 replacement is
identified.
The Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) occurs in Nash
County with documented populations in Sandy Creek, Swift Creek,
and the Tar River below US-64 Alt. bridge.
For bridge replacements proposed in counties where Federally-
listed aquatic species are known to occur, the Service
recommends that instream construction activities be avoided.
In the event that such activities must occur, the following
conditions must be adopted to avoid adverse impacts to the
above-referenced species:
1) Immediately before construction is to occur a qualified
individual should survey for the Cape Fear shiner, the
Tar spinymussel and dwarf wedge mussels within the
project impact area, and 150 feet downstream of the
impact area. If either of the endangered mussels are
found, the Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) shall be contacted and a
relocation plan must be developed and approved by the
Service.
2) Regardless of whether the endangered mussels or the Cape
Fear shiner are discovered during your survey, we
recommend the use of instream silt curtains and
stringent bank erosion control. If trees must be
removed, we recommend that stumps and roots be left
intact for bank stabilization.
3) High Quality Waters Erosion guidelines will be
followed throughout construction.
4) Early permanent seeding of disturbed areas shall
occur.
5) The existing bridge structure will be removed so
as not to allow debris to enter the stream.
6) Stormwater from the new bridge shall be directed
over land rather than drained directly into the
stream.
7) All piles shall be driven and not drilled.
8) Immediately before construction is to begin, the
contractor shall contact the Service and NCWRC for
notification (due to possible changes in stream
conditions).
The following is a list of individuals whom the Service and the
NCWRC believe are qualified to conduct freshwater mussel
surveys:
1) Dr. Art Bogan [phone]
2) Dr. Eugene Keferl [phone]
3) Dr. Dave Michaelson [phone]
4) Dr. Dick Neves [phone]
5) Dr. Phil Stevenson [phone]
6) Dr. David Stansbery [phone]
7) Dr. Dave Strayer [phone]
We encourage the NCDOT to continue an informal consultation
dialogue with this office since instream work is generally
considered by the Service to cause adverse impacts to
freshwater mussels and fish. However, as you proceed with your
environmental planning process and more details are available,
the Service is available to have additional site specific
resource discussions.
If it is determined through your environmental analysis that
the proposed action "may affect" a Federally- listed species,
then formal consultation is required. If it is concluded that
"adverse effects" are not likely, the Service should review the
assessment and provide written concurrence with the
determination. We refer you to the Interagency Cooperation
Regulations (50 CFR 402) and the Act for Section 7 consultation
requirements.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide these
comments in the early stages of your environmental planning
process. If you have any questions please contact Ms. Candace
Martino at [phone] ext. 30.
Sincerely,
010i
David Horning
Endangered Species Coordinator
s iT...t?rx
? r
20
DEC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic-Preservation Officer
Division of Arc Hi to
h?
William S. Price,

i

SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
3
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q0
H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County
Archaeological site 31 OR438 * * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation '?
FROM: Renee Gledhill-EarleyP,C
Environmental Reviev?Jj"' oordinator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-1100(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, Nonh Carolina 27001-2SO7
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491 (2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1 152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1 152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
C
TIP 6 2P>28 Federal Aid n eR - l(oo°I (I ) _ County &F-Atdiu.E
CONCURRENCE FORiYI
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
P-.PLA&r, 1 Wv6E t4o• 14- cM SR. 1b01 odGR- Flr-AuOa C,RE.EV_
On --SAP1uAR3 2(a, 1,1115 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as . are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation o thera-ig necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
/S if
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHw the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, Date
State Historic Preservation Offs er ate
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.