20080813 Ver 1_Application_20080513

SrATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RqN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVFRNOR
April 29, 2008
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SP.(REIARY
080813
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23 & 33 and Section 401
Water Quality Certification. Replacement of Bridge No. 133 on SR 1412 over
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina. Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1412(4), State Project No. 8.2371701, WBS Element 33749.1.1,
TIP No. B-4525.
$240.00 Debit from WBS Element 33749.1.1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 133 on SR
1412 (Dick Blackwell Rd.) over Grassy Creek, in Granville County. The existing 70-foot 3-span bridge
was constructed in 1960 and received a sufficiency rating of 27.6 out of a possible 100 for a new
structure. Based on this rating, the bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
The project proposes to demolish the existing bridge and replace with a three span, cored slab structure
crossing Grassy Creek. The new bridge will be approximately 145 feet long with approximately 24 feet
of clear roadway width. During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site. The proposed detour route
is approximately 3.7 miles in length. Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN),
permit drawings, design plans, and email from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(WRC) for the subject project. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion was completed for this project in
February 2007 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in sub basin 03-02-06 of the Roanoke River Basin in
Granville County. This area is part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03010102. The project area is
located within the Central Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina.
There are two jurisdictional streams located within the project study area and have been assigned Stream
Index Number 23-2-(1) by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Grassy Creek and an
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Or 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone] .
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBSITE: WWW. NCDOT. ORG
unnamed tributary to Grassy Creek both lie within the construction limits of the project. Grassy Creek
enters the study area as a well-defined fourth order perennial stream. Grassy Creek is described as
having a substrate consisting primarily of sand, silt, and cobble, flowing northeastward towards John H.
Kerr Reservoir and eventually into the Roanoke River. Within the project study area, Grassy Creek is
approximately 30 feet wide with banks ranging from 2 to 6 feet. The substrate of the unnamed tributary
is comprised of sand and gravel with some cobbles. The tributary is a perennial stream and has a channel
ranging from 6 to 10 feet wide and the banks from 2-4 feet high. This tributary flows into Grassy Creek
on the southern bank, just west of the bridge. The unnamed tributary and the stretch of Grassy Creek in
the project study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission had requested a moratorium for Grassy Creek from
April 1 to June 30 due to the sunfish fishery within the project area. However, per an email from Travis
Wilson on January 28, 2008, NCWRC will not require an in-stream work moratorium for sunfish.
No portion of Grassy Creek, its tributaries, or other surface waters within 1.0 mile of the project are
listed on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) 2006 Final 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts: There are 103 linear feet of permanent impacts to surface waters associated with this
project. At Site 1, two bents will be constructed in the channel of Grassy Creek, at an angle paralleling
the creek's natural banks. The piers associated with these bents will impact approximately 14 linear feet
of stream channel. An additional 11 linear feet of stream will be impacted by rip rap placed at the mouth
of the unnamed tributary being relocated.
Site 2 is the relocation of the unnamed tributary to Grassy Creek, just south west of the bridge. This will
directly result in 7linear feet of jurisdictional channel being permanently impacted (0.01 ac). NCDOT
will relocate the ?tributary side of current design fill slopes, and tie back into Grassy Creek west of the
existing confluence.
There are no permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands anticipated with the construction of this
project.
Temporary Impacts: There will be approximately 0.04 acres of jurisdictional impacts associated with the
construction of two temporary causeways. The causeways will be constructed of Class II rip rap for the
base and Class A rip rap as the crest. The causeways will be located on each bank of Grassy Creek.
No temporary wetland impacts are associated with this project.
Bridge Demolition: The existing structure has a timber deck with an asphalt wearing surface, on a steel
beam and steel floor beam system. The substructure is composed of timber caps and piles with concrete
mud sills. Temporary causeways will be constructed to allow removal of existing mud sills. The
existing bridge will be removed without dropping components into Grassy Creek. Currently there are
two bents located within the channel of Grassy Creek. All guidelines for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters.
Utility Impacts: There are no anticipated utility impacts associated with this project.
B-4525 Permit Application
2
B-4525 Permit Application
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
2 0 0 8 0 8 1 3
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
kii ai,y pa, urinal itcm IN not appncaote to tuts project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwides 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 133 over Grassy Creek on SR 1412 (Dick
Blackwell Rd.) in Granville Countv.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4525
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Granville Nearest Town: Oak Hill
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take I-85 North to
Granville County in Oxford take NC 96 West SR 1415 bares off to the right follow to SR
1412 which will be on your left.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): ON ow
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Grassy Creek
8. River Basin: Roanoke River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Bridge 133 is approximately 70 feet long and was
constructed in 1960. Land use in the area is mainly agricultural and forestry-based with
some residential development.
Page 2 of 9
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
C
q'M'618
Applicanj Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
[ Fwd: sunfish moo-atoriums]
Subject: Fwd: sunfish moratoriums
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:20:26 -0500
From: Rachelle Beauregard <rbeauregardgdot. state. nc. us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Ashley Cox <[e-mail]. nc.us> , "James S. Mason" <[e-mail]. nc.us> ,
Sara Easterly <seeasterly(?dot.state. nc.us>
CC: Elizabeth Lee Lusk <ellusk a dot.state.nc.us>
Please update warehouse based on this WRC email.
E,
I updated the let list moratorium spreadsheet with this info.
Subject: RE: sunfish moratoriums
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:18:54 -0500
From: "Travis Wilson" <travis.wilsonG&ncwildlife.org>
To: "'Rachelle Beauregard"' <[e-mail]. nc.us>
B-4613: Commitments associated with reducing impacts to the Cape Fear Shiner
will suffice in lieu of the previous requested moratorium
B- • WRC agreed to remove this moratorium in November 2007
B-4525: WRC no longer request the in-water work moratorium of April 1 to
June 30 as stated in our memo dated March 1, 2004.
B-4592: T ass is located at this project site. We
request NCDOT utilize Erosion and Sediment Control BMP as well as BMP for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
B-4216: The SR/FSC Roanoke bas is location immediately downstream of the
project site. We request NCDOT utilize Erosion and Sediment Control BMP as
well as BMP for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
-----Original Message-----
From: Rachelle Beauregard [mailto:rbeauregard(c?dot.state.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 3:07 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Travis Wilson; Rachelle Beauregard
Subject: sunfish moratoriums
David,
The WRC has requested sunfish moratoriums from 4/1 to 6/30 for
the following projects in the central region:
1 42
4/28/2008 12:54 PM
sii
NCDOT
VICINITY
MAPS
Pwmk Drawing
skeet j&
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJECT: 33749.1.1(6-4525)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 133
ON SR 1412
OVER GRASSY CREEK
01129108
NORTH CAROLINA
71
77
' f7r4 y ) y t?aen4 r?``•?
°yr c
%
{t !'
ti 1 r 1'
S'1 '•?, _ ? ,J'.. - ,I ?`, ?, ? o? u,. N + • 4 e 4, ? i ? rr` ?u, °?? •\\ - ? i ?C? ? _
;Projects„ t,=
oz -
CY.
31,
l?tr ,I?+ 1f JJ:? ,,d IY 1CI ,,,?•{ 1 \e.,?` _) _
I
{}-
-;V I 1416Y
2,0.010' 4,000 , 6,000 - 18;000
' ti r i d.' Lr 1 ~. '? l j
c r
1 inch equals 2,000 feet N C D OT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LOCATION GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJ
ECT: 33749.1.1 (B-4525)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 133
ON SR 1412
FermR p OVER GRASSY CREEK
F-heet 2 of 01/29/08
;n „rr•a• I INf?V / ti Mimito (Lmrlmnnla C'_l}}anAthifa Nr`.
PROP. NO. PROPERTY OWNER NAME DEED BOOK & PAGE
2 William Mark Blackwell DB 887 PG 266, PB 16, PG 174
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJECT: 33749.1.1 (B-4525)
11/7/2007
R:/z-misc/Hydro/Wetprop.xls Permit DMV M9
Sheet _ (o
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
ft
1 -L- 13+24 - 14+03 LT & RT Roadway / Bride < 0.01 0.03 25 77
2 -L- 12+56 - 13+24 LT & RT Roadway 0.01 < 0.01 78 9

TOTALS: <0.02 <0.04 103 86
145 sqft (0.003 ac)
••: EXCLUDES 25' OF PERMANENT IMPACT
61 sqft (0.001 ac)
25 ft = 14 ft pier impacts and 11 ft UT impacts
N1*5
permit Drawing
Shwt,,,.Y.r.. _ ?._.
---.--_._------------------_..®.?.,..?,n,. ,,,,.. u arnv¢e, eax n,xv3w.iswwaavvtn.?a
c
A n
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4525
Sta. 11+80.00 -t-
I
I
I
I
i
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
1 I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I'
I I I,
I I I'
I I II
I I I',
I I II
I I I'
I I 1 ',
I I I I
I I I I
I I I i,
I I I
I I 1?
STA. 13+23 IT
I
0
A.J. BLACKWELL. ET AL
DB 853 PG 820
f 1 1 ?
I i I I ?/
' I
I

'
j
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I

' I I I
I I I
I I I
1 I I
I I I
I I I
I I 1
I I I
I I i
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
Q 1
Ste. 10400n0 -L-
vv PB16 Gh4
ea 1
aln SBG BEGIN BRIDGE R ?? V ENO APP SLAB
(3.12+51.20 -L- STA.12+92AO EXIST. I -L STA414+4990 s?-•m? 4 4
End SBG = Be in SBG
i End SBG
Sta. +85.00 ? Sta. 15+02.00
Sta. 14+29.00
B-77 N B-77
t
U PRELIMINARY PLANS
f . 4 . . . .
Z (\14 2 DD NOT USE CONSTRUCTION
` V ` V ....
--_ _ j
A
B-77 ?9 B-77 6
BEGIN APP.SLAB In SBG _ _
STA.12+7810 N
a + ®PItOPOSED BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB - 14 End SBG
1• + Sta. 15+02.00
End SBG ENO SBG : sh0ulatlr Berm Gutter
`f- BR
t 12+99.00 -L- Sr -
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND APPROACHES r `I
?p LOrOvlnq Not to Stdel
NOTE A,
r (Rf]\ \ U+ L ?A. j !+30 T 4-
* ®OERFAC IMPACTS IN
1 SURFp//EE wpTER
DEN6TES TEMPORARY
IMP/ACTS IN SURFACE WATER
??k\ END TIP PROJE 1T B-4525
A.J. BLACKWELL, ET AL StO.15+35.00 '
DB 853 PG 820 .1. - so, s?s•F x -?-
iS.VL LT
PREFORMED / +35.00 4- WETLAND ? POTSNI 17+00.00-L'
iC DETNL C 'RMI, 1 t
EKL O L \ ` \ 4EJL RM,' / t
E 46.00
EMIS7. R/W
t F
SR INZ OIX &AfAYf11 %tlA0. f8$Il ..
F
C( ,
+Ea.oO L
- rz Iwyat
EINNLL CIR H 1SC"„
0 LA
S_ - /+
PTSra. N+2524 -Y1-
PCSta N+45.54 -YI-
PTSto. N+9777 -Yl-
?/ %ISS•R/e
/x.10+00.00 -r,-
= Sta 12+23b5 -L-
PCStal0+1493 -Y1-
PTSta.10+6190 -YI-
PCSta.10+8388 -Y1-
0
A.J. BLACKWELL, ET AL
DB 853 PG 820
I I 1
1 I I I
RESAOAIR ENALL • VMOOMPACTES
I N TREAT= AS . ` _... OACKPILL-•.
M \' SPW-ZV"r O :0 PLANS l 1' NSA. 1W `RESIN OAANi
w--??---
I i i ... ??'_ N G H•.`SARNI SLACK
r ESN. OF 1.S' 01YOIN INVEST FLOW
1 1 1 Or EXISTINS CHANNEL CNANESL I
a
w

WACKFILL SECTION A-A CMAOTER
SACKFILL
IMPERVIOUS SEJCT
?,pr
INITIINN' UN?? NATE ((N

W E
NOJECTL
SFNIAL
WAEPIU MOVISIONI

IACIPILL

,
N
W

?. 1Ok
LL RACK SMALL M INOTALND IN ACCOAOANOE
T
WACIRILL
O
%LN
L N MICT NBIF
ICATION.
!. SNOIILD N INTALLN AT THE INTERFACE

S
Q NTWM EXISTING CHANNEL AN PROPOSES CRANK.
S. NTTN OF ROCK SHOULD N A =HIM
,
NiWNOC?NA?Q1LL BLOCK fi

F SECTION B • S
EL LIMITS
OFONM
S
C
AN
ffllii OF I& BELOW
4. THE INVIENT OF SNNLDD MITEENO A"EINNIE N ;O: W. TN

BLOCK
LIMITS OF TN EQSTI
U
fi IIN
I
N
II N S»WI CHANNEL
N
S. INSTALL EROSION CERNOL rATTINO AND $00 IN
PLAN V1 STREAM PLUG DETAIL F MMWT
SPECIFICATION
nN
"
""
E
1
12 - 70 IT NT » IDLE
4- STA .
o
1ATLLY
N
AFFTE
SIN.
0. COMPACT MCMPILL » EITENT POSSIBLE N AT T!
. DIWRTION OF THE MIN=.
a
C
h
%m ?S?Sy
COKC ty, / F
1r? \
I
CHANGE
I
\ \ 2 ti
LIAR BLACKWFJ
enoDS m ° aoCKCaRbb"
? -?-DB 887 PG 266
WW DETA 0. \
EXST.R/W
fN .
Sy POC
Wams
F
ss
n?
DICK BLACKWELL ROAD (SR 14121

r
y? o ? -YI- i06tNEt
P1 Sta 10+4478
' PI Sta 8+05,83
' P1 Sto If +7101
A - 8942 324
(LT)
' A = 47
23'59.5(RT) A = I4' 57` 53,a (LT)
D • !90
59' 094'
Q L - 4697' D - 114'35'29,e
36'
L - 41 D - 22??'38' 524•

' .
' L 574124 +
2
R
30.00 R - 50.00 00D
-
B
SE = NC SE = NC +
/
01 +
ET AL
A
J
BLACKWELL
.
.
. PR FORM D OU R HO
\ DB 853 PG 820 TAI
PaTSta 12+3591-Y1- PcRM . Permanent Soil Reinforcement Mat. -PLAN VIE
CHAot to u+ANGE'"' - .:.,.x wtOlNrMpk w:
1xw ro sear Pipe or Ditch Im mtwol Qou
Nonro+
TAI A Outlet S ITCH Te Ground
' A A
INDt 1D $DDwI afow r/F1.
From a
t 1 K +4 ' La1L D= 2SFt. roew vlra
+ a= LT5Ft.
D W B= 6.OFt. Spree hetornW
! D= Lat. OB• 4.OF1. Scour N.I. dsm p
D• varls6 8= 3.T5F i.
FROM -YI- STA. 10+70 TO STA 11+l0 E L STA. 12+00 IT eto.In -j ysh-
LE 0= LOFT.
NOTH•1E.0'
5.0.00% VYI,O' STEP ROCK CEDES VANE t f M= 4.OFT,
EKG EL-356AD,END EL-384.63' C= O.SFT.
TAI
U ?wITCH TAI WS11914 A-A sow LA(Not to 'V' DIT
Soom CH q
?a rr11h
-* ;; o r r• Ors PSRM
UWL D= 0.6Ft..? y v tsbw DIrmLV a -!r t r
Max. E=0.6Ft. D ound
a 24Ft,LOn Llku O• I.OFt.
2.OFt. Lan Liners Claee B RID Rap I' tuck
Type of LAon PSRY 1.01 thick .ltr, or Faorlc
-Ir STA 70.0X1 IT FROM 4, STA. 17+70 TO Sr1414+40 LT
NO .a°iud,END aaN.vr SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- & -YI- PROFILE
SEE SHEET S-ITHRU S- FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
5/05

RRCIA! TID 00IIICr7- o_eCnc

PRELIMINA..RY PLANS
i DO NOT USE Pat CONSTRUCTION
!f rv111111 ?•'?
i
... etti.. EOf-=T
® PROPOSED BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
SBG = Shoulder Berm Gutter
i
,
i
,
„
„
, I
I I
I
I I
I ,
I ,
,
I
i
I I i
I I 1
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I 1
I I 1
I I
I I I
I I I
I ? I
I ? I
I ? 1
? I 1
I ,
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I
6 ?
I ?
I I
? I
I I
w?

NEW STNAMIANK §PALL UNCWACTN
N TREATER ; I RACIPILL-- 1 J'
EPECIPti IN PLANE- I i' ILA. 10' \ PINIIN UNAN?
1RXCL SWCi(-2NYER- I? -r--.?. .-?. -- .?..7...
C(EINTEIiOUf CRA0'NYOMO
. .
OF iXISTINI CHANNEL FLOW
CHANNEL INVE
I
CNPACTM-
BACRPILL
X0.0' IN. UNCONFACTEO
M BACPILL
BACIPILL -0 E XC
SECTION A•A eMr&CTRH
EACRPILL
IiB'ERTIOUE !ELECT
MATERIAL
MOJNT !!!IAL
PROTIIINS)
a /TIN
CMNBL LLaPit? i } 1. sionwMNL NLAGR EMlPLLBC1111 . D IS AC1OA80
H°iTx TIE PROJECT NSHGTINE TK.
!. BLOCK BMOE.D N INSTALL® AT E INTERFACE
NiN•N EXISTING CHANNEL AND

1.1' PROPONO CHU L.
!. IOTTN OF BLOCK INOYLD N A RNIEW OF 1. NLM1
THE INVEST O
UMN CPAR
IILL BLOCK
IQ
N. 8P leroxE Lulu
a
op
XZ OFT

ECTION B•0
F THE EIST
IXI CKAHNL.
Nan D oltN
a. ELxK A LLNIEN OF 1,1! BEYOND TN
LIILrn OF TH
K
CHANNEL E IMSTUI STRIAE CKMML.
x. INSTALL NNIN CONTROL EATTINI ANO U n IN
PLAN YIEW STREAM PLUG DETAIL F
ACCORDANCE WI
SPECIFICATIONS
]
M
FT
G
A
I
4- STA. 12-73 LT NOT TD ICAL[ I
MEDIATELY AAP
TER
R
D
NG.
E.
TO EXTENT PONULE N AT THE
OMPACT
F
ZLL
C
TMI I
OR OP
POTSra 12+35.91 -n-
TAI A
SP (Not to ARCH
F -f
. ,,J gnw
D
Yln. D= LOit.
FROM -TI- STA. 10+70 TO ETA 1R+S0 R
MATER I,
ll z r/ Sb 4
A - 89'42'
v D - 190' 59
--
/
S? =
=
1L aCKWELL. ET AL
\ B 853 PG 820
1\
\
CIL•.hi??. rnsNGE
. w''',pppRRR:'''o soau
µsl NOWd
trend II'L` o-oona
end iw.
d
Nn. D=72" t. 6xl?t• +
d- LT5Ft. to a
H= 6AFt.
OS• IAF+.
-1-1
L/
TAI
.N s
END EI Ear. ?NV» rvs
EEO 6.SIA00', Li1.1lI,EY d-
LA ALI'V' TCH SECTION A-A
DETAIL F
(Not to sod.1
LATERAL 'V' INTCH
I Nof to soOYl A ?W1MTfdl
t tr. FW PSRY Na}urd
Win. On O.6Ft,NP- J_ FM
N .. slope DIrmW d Max. d- D
0.6Ft. Ound
b= 2.OFtA4n Uku On LOFT, RIP Rap
I' tuck
D= 2.OF+. Yh Ltherl Close B
Type of Uner= PSXY I,0'thkk rlth Filter Fab
rlc
-I. STA. 12+20 LT FROM -L- STA. 17+71 TO STA .14,40 LT
G
IMGii.39i V,S-15.07% .1w.v11 SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- & -YI- PROFILE
SEE SHEET S-ITHRU S- FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
5/05
r
C
D
L
Lo
T
D
L
J)
cli
N
00
0L
Jid
N/
00
3
r-o
0 0y
,00
/!o
"LE
vJ
ee
r?
V
W
0

AA?
V`
O
U
O
U
See Sheet I -A For Index of Sheets

141
omwall `•' , _
435
1412 : ?• ,,

1 81300:,' ; ..•` ST VAL.
1430 /

r. 14-0
1415
k
Al f

415 PROJECT i
L CATION
VICINITY MAP
OFF511 E DETOUR ROUTE - 9 -
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRANVILLE COUNTY
v TTz7
METHOD OF CLEARING -IT .
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY.
DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR SAG VERTICAL CURVE K FACTOR, AND VERTICAL CURVE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE.
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 15 0 50 100 ADT 2007 = 110 vpd
ADT 2030 = 200 vpd
PLANS DHV = 14 %
5? 0 50 100 D 60 %
T = 3 %
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 50 MPH
10 5 0 10 10
TTST 1% ' DUAL 2%
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
LOCATION: BRIDGE #133 OVER GRASSY CREEK ON SR 1412 (Dick Blackwell Rd)
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4525 = 0.040 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4525 = 0.027 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4525 = 0.067 MILES
PRELIMINARY PLANS
D6 Nor NB Pal CoNmucn IN
Prepared in me orrice of.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Birch Ridge Dr., Raleigh NC, 21610
2006 STANDARD SPEGIFICATIONS
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
November 1, 2007
JAMES SPEER, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER
LETTING DATE:
November 18, 2008
JOHN LANSFORD, PE
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
R1n WAW MWEr ft=Op n
w
amn
•C• B-4 525 1
W AM Prtn tirIm"n nv?w
33749.1.1 BRZ-1412 4 PE
33749.2.1 BRZ-1412 4 RW & Utilities

ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
PE
SIGNATURE:
DI1rISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
n
P.E.
STATE HIfNWAY DESIGN F.NGOJEER /
PItOIECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
8_4525 5
Dell 1 171 R?pvlred fod -SW; ( K F W?0 Verl! r:R AWAY DEMGN MYDRAUUCS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
i
ST AxY 5+00; PMLIMIN Y FLANS
Lit
-WE - zw 50wl - so K" os aMewcf w
S4 ^
?T DOW
?flf! ?IWE AY
? EM 6rnde r5?;54b -c- x t
c
a
0
N
P
QO
u+a
OT
00
' -. .. {
!
PROI. REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
m ?13a 140 10 1
0 1
A00
9"10 9

4
_
x 3

I,

_
?__ 0 710 50
4
0 30 2(I lb
1b

2b

i
,

_r. 40 6b 7
O
160

1i0 1 0 130 140

130
s ?

r ,
tt
i
3
??qq?? r
{
-YF-+ STA. 10+ 8.41
45.44' R AM
r

Y - - -
,i
:
w
,

e

i
/A

J
1

r

J `
:
395.474
I
d
?
1 t ,
£ i

3

i 0.00
I

,
YLr STA.
10-a
y
_. 4fa_ j
T !
44 6 RI
-
, 420
r

w
I

,

--- ----

- ------
0-03M-
-a02

00 '
- -
?m
r a M1'• r? I f•7
i _ ""
'

6 00':
0
.
_ .1814
i ,

Latatal Y Ditch
-L- STA_ 12 + 4P-00
41Q. _ ?
35 ffit` 1L. _ -
-y -t

,
- ....... _. _ _._ ?'-?A - _- .... 410,,-
4W ?r[1 t-
_
_
0.0380
0.0120
-
-
9 7 ,
t
,
c

12 +4 0.00
,

.380
0
P?0 -

N.'c
° ISO 140 130 130 110 1Q0 90 80 710
60
50 40 30
20
lb a
in an In en
FYI !A
7A
w an lA(1
1111 11fl 79Y1
' 10 1 PROJ. REFERENCE NO. SHER NO.
m -4525 X-r
140 : 140

_

Slo
140 110 1fo 1r)41° 91,0 eo 710 n 4b 30 2p 1 . $ ib ?o

ao eio?:. 9b 100 1i0 ., 10 10
10
140

, ,
x
, t
0.0200 0.0200
W

s
}
rr-
r

i
i
i
{ 0(W 0.0200

4 i
,
t
,
i. r
1
13+ 0.00
1

t

s ,

,
°?
i
f

ay"
7W.

-

`
.:. ,
,

00 0
0
D.0
.
200

i ,
,
,
,
-?yny?-'!"'F-

r
-?
4 73
.00

t

a
0.0200o200
f

s 1.? ° 1a t ? ? , ;
..
1
13+20.00; i

,

i j -.380-
I
5
- i
a0200 ! 0.0200

'. 3

3
6
m
oa 1
0.00
+
o as
00 .. I i ,
?
ryo
ISO
140
130 120 110 100 9'D 90 710 QO 5O 40 ?n
7n in in do an An
J?
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A.
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-4525
8.2371701
33749.1.1
BRZ-1412 (4)
The purpose of this project is to replace Granville County Bridge No. 133 on
SR 1412 over Grassy Creek. Bridge No. 133 is 70 feet long. The replacement
structure will be a bridge approximately 144 feet long providing a minimum 24
feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 10-foot lanes and 2-foot
offsets. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as
the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 110 feet from the south end of
the new bridge and 100 feet from the north end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 20-foot pavement width providing two
10-foot lanes. Four-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side
(seven-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed
as a Rural Local Route using Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very
Low-Volume Local roads (< 400 ADT) with a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 133 has a
sufficiency rating of 27.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete due to a structural
appraisal and a deck geometry rating of 2 out of a possible 9 according to Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for FHWA's
Bridge Replacement Program.
The substructure of Bridge No. 133 has timber elements that are forty-six year
old. Timber components have a typical life expectancy between 40 to 50 years
due to the natural deterioration rate of wood. Rehabilitation of a timber structure
is generally practical only when a few elements are damaged or prematurely
deteriorated. However, past a certain degree of deterioration, most timber
elements become impractical to maintain and upon eligibility are programmed for
replacement. Timber components of bridge No. 133 are experiencing an
increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by reasonable
maintenance activities, therefore the bridge is approaching the end of its useful
life.
The posted weight limit on the bridge is down to 8 tons for single vehicles and 12
tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The bridge is approaching the end of its useful
life. Replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
0 Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the. evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
The estimated costs, based on 2006 prices, are as follows:
Structure $ 250,000
Roadway Approaches $ 134,500
Detour Structure and Approaches -0-
Structure Removal $ 26,500
Misc. & Mob. $ 74,000
En g. & Contingencies $ 90,000
Total Construction Cost $ 575,000
Utility & Right-of-way Costs $ 10,500
Total Project Cost $585,500-1
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 110 vpd
Year 2030 - 200 vpd
TTST - 1 %
Dual - 2%
Accidents: There were no reported accidents in the area during the study of a
recent three-year period.
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 133 is constructed entirely of timber and steel
and should be possible to remove with no resulting debris in the water based on
standard demolition practices.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the
road.
Rehabilitation - The bridge was constructed in 1960 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour - Bridge No. 133 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the
construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours
for Bridge Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables
beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include SR 1410 (Oak Hill Road), SR 1300 (Cornwall Road), and
SR 1415 (Mountain Creek Road). The majority of traffic on the road is
through traffic.
4
The detour for the average road user would result in four minutes
additional travel time (two miles additional travel). Up to a nine-month
duration of construction is expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of
delay alone the detour is acceptable. Granville County Emergency
Services along with Granville County Schools Transportation have also
indicated that the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 5 has indicated
the condition of all roads, bridges and intersections on the offsite detour
are acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the
detour.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour.
Staged Construction - Staged construction was not considered because
of the availability of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment - Given that the alignment for SR 1412 is acceptable, a
new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in
standardized letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure
to be a spanning structure.
Response: The replacement structure is a spanning structure.
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission also requested an in-stream
moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30.
Response: Since this moratorium is not a regulatory requirement, it will be
honored only if the project schedule allows.
Public Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.
A newsletter has been sent to all those living along SR 1412 between the
intersection with SR 1410 and the intersection with SR 1415. No comments have
been received to date.
Based on no responses to the newsletter, a Citizen's Informational Workshop was
determined unnecessary-
5
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type H
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ?
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
6
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes?
0
0

X

X

(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project?
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Question 2: Granville County has three federally listed endangered species. The Dwarf
Wedgemussel, the Harperella and the Smooth coneflower; all of which
have a biological conclusion of "No Effect".
Granville County has one federally listed threatened species. The Bald
eagle, which has a biological conclusion of "No Effect".
Question 14: To reduce the length of bridge structure required, seventy-five to one
hundred feet of an unnamed tributary to Grassy Creek will be relocated to
the west of its existing location.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4525
State Project No. 8.2371701
W.B.S. No. 33749.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1412 (4)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Granville County Bridge No. 133 on
SR 1412 over Grassy Creek. Bridge No. 133 is 70 feet long. The replacement
structure will be a bridge approximately 144 feet long providing a minimum 24
feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 10-foot lanes and 2-foot offsets
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the
existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 110 feet from the south end of
the new bridge and 100 feet from the north end of the new bridge. The approaches
will be widened to include a 20-foot pavement width providing two 10-foot lanes.
Four-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (seven-foot shoulders
where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local
Route using Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local roads
(< 400 ADT) with a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Catezorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
;.//
D to
7-115. o7
D to
Zh5/C'I
Date

Bridge Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
9IW4,n Z /?A /
Projec Engineer
Project Devel9Pr
& Environmental Analysis Branch
ProjecYPlanning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
_,?.12 -712 2 :Z ,o?_ IJ )?,
ate John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Div'
_rw Federal Highway Administration
strator
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Granville County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1412
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1412(4)
State Project No. 8.2371701
W.B.S. No. 33749.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4525
Division 5 Construction, Resident Engineer's Office - Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Granville County Schools
should be contacted at least one month prior to road closure.
Granville County Emergency Services needs to be contacted at least one month prior to
road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
Division 5 Construction, Resident Engineer's Office
If project schedule allows, construction should allow for an in-stream moratorium from
April 1 - June 30 for sunfish.
Roadway Design, Division 5 Traffic Engineering
The existing roadway in this area is not designed for a 55-mph statutory speed limit. A
50-mph design speed was used to make the roadway safer for the traveling public.
Division 5 will post the speed limit at 45 mph in the area of the bridge.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
February 2007
? ? r
1437
W32 a _
155 14M
13 V 1439 D $ 4 140 y f fi4w
o
1427
f 1.
f 430
-•?t
lase'. ]AM 138 ?4 a 205
.12
200
1436
a o
1300 ? o® '? . 1 ?-
44333 1428
c?Qwo? t '
1409 1429
1410
¢
f - 139 f
O ,
-`-.` p " 1x18 36`? .Q 1300, 1426 '?
-}415
1412
\..
r $ ? 1 9 r? ? d
?', 41 } 10-14 A Bridge # 133 -? •?
Oak H9I `
Sdma1 _ 1417' •?
1? f r ` 1415
1+x55 1.3 .3
a 1+414 $413
C46 r .
y
3 ? $a0-
$toMsrwFiilb
11 . - 372
Denotes off-site detour

to'rH? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
m ?\ TRANSPORTATION

}!
I'
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?f PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
! ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
'TOFrn
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 133 ON SR 1412
OVER GRASSY CREEK
B-4525
Figure 1
?. 7z ?yG E 1 y ?
AUG !9 2304
a?
? r ONtSiOW OF Q= c?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources %p0 , N1 uv?YS
State Historic Preservation Office Z) ELOg
Peter B. Sandbeck. Administrator TA A y'
Michael F. Easley, Governor Ot'Fce of Archiv (story
Lisbeth C. Evans- Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
August 12, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck 41bli", mk,,- S&Joeck
SUBJECT: 2004 Bridge Projects, including B-3492, B-4408, B-4409, B-4410, B-4446,
B-4466, B4469, B-4518, B-4545, B-4573, B-4631, B-4423, B-4424, B-4454,
B-4520, B-4538, B-4540, B-4548, B-4549, B-4567, B-4578, B-4648, B-4664,
B-4665, B-4504, B-4560, B-4587, B-4618, B-4644, B-4649, B-4651, B-4658,
B-4671, B-3624, B-3819, B- 391 L B-4404, B-4552, B-4613, B-4646, B-4675
B-3169, B-3606, B-3802, B-38u3, B-3804, B-4523, B-4524, B-4525, B-4526,
Multi-county, ER 04-1280-ER 04-1330
On July 28, 2004, Sarah McBride, our preservation specialist for transportation projects, met with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
projects. We reported on our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and
resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project descriptions, area photographs, and
aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we have included our
comments for each bridge project on a spreadsheet attached to this letter. These comments are provided for
each project as proposed.
If an archaeological survey is requested on the spreadsheet, a separate memorandum from the Office of State
archaeology, explaining whether a general survey is required or if the survey is predicated upon an off-site
detour or new location, is attached.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location Mailing Address Teiephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC'-7699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION i15 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Ralctgh NC 27699.4617 [phone]/715-4901
SURVEY & PANNING i I i N. 131ount Street. Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Crmer. Raleieh NC 276994617 (919)733-h545/715-4901
?,a STA7p q,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 12, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways c n
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck P,2 of ?Yi u
SUBJECT: Bridge 133 on SR 1412 over Grassy Creek, Granville County,
TIP B-4525, ER 04-1321
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of April 29, 2004, concerning the above project. We apologize for the delay in
responding; however, project location maps were not included in the initial submission. Based on the
topographic and hydrological situation we have determined that there is a very high probability that
archaeological sites exist in the project area. We therefore we recommend that a comprehensive
archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance
of any archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of any earth moving activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
further earth moving activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 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 considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
PBS:w
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone]/7154801
Thank you for your cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
PBS:w
Attachments
1 Spreadsheet
16 Memos
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Mary Pope Furr
OL?
ROLI
rl?
?? L1
9
9"
?2oz?
`= I
1 TiP j BRIDGE I GUUN I T I UIVIWUNi OUiLi ' rut i HrCmieciufe ruu?aealo
i 1B-3492 1580056 McDOWELL 13 1962 i Hancock! Yes No
1 B-4408 030265 ANSON 10 1961 Hancock I No i No
Q ? B-4409 1 030308 ANSON 1 10 1922 i Hancock No Nc
Q$ B-4410 030307 ANSON ! 10 1931 1 Hancock ' Yes No
601 B-4446 1 100227 BUNCOMBE 13 1956 1 Hancock Nc No
8-4466 1 210004 CLAY 1 14 1952 1 Hancock No Nc
i B-4469 220219 !CLEVELAND ! 12 1 1952 Hancock I No No
(aS B-4518 350110 I'GASTON 1 12 1 1962 Hancock: No ! No
13? 8-4545 . 440072 HENOERSON 1 14 1 1963 1 Hancock'
No
No
1' B-4573 540183 LINCOLN 12 1965 I Hancock ; No No
13D6 13-4631 800526 RUTHERFORD 1 13 1 1970 Hancock! No No
B-4423 1 060067 I BEAUFORT 1 2 1965 Capps No I No
13 . B-4424 060068 BEAUFORT 2 1 1966 ! Capps No No
8-4454 150043 CARTERET 2 i 1963 1 Capps Na No
8-4520 1 360032 GATES 1 1 1 1952 Capps Yes Nc
'.?56 13-4538 410025 HALIFAX I 4 1 1965 1 Capps ! No No
la 31 B-4540 410142 HALL FAX 4 1962 ! Ca s ! Yes Yes
36 B-4548 450002 HERTFORD i 1 i 1960 I Capps No I Yes
3o9 B-4549 450042 HERTFORD 1 1960 Capps 1 Yes Yes
1 8-4567 1 530069 LENOIR 2 1971 1 Capps 1 Yes ! Yes
8-4578 570008 MARTIN 1 1974 Capps 1 No 1 No
13 -4648 880017 TYRRELL 1 1 1977 1 Capps 1 No No
13171 8-4664 1 920025 WARREN 5 1 1957 1 Capps 1 Yes ! Yes
8-4665 920036 WARREN 1 5 1955 ' Capps No Yes
-4504 1 320052 EDGECOMBE 1 4 1964 1 Johnson No Yes
131 8-4560 500102 I JOHNSTON 4 1 1956 i Johnson I Yes Yes
H9 B-4587 ! 630082 NASH 1 4 i 1961 1 Johnson No Yes
3 B-4618 1
8-4644 770445
830057 ROBESON
STANLY 1 6 1
10 1955
1961 1 Johnson l
Johnson! Yes
No No
No
H B-4649 890377 UNION 10 1962 Johnson! No I No
}3 8-4651 890251 ( UNION 10 1957 Johnson i No ! No
3! -4658 910345 WAKE 5 1960 Johnson' No j No
8-4671 950035. WAYNE 4 1961 1 Johnson i No Yes
-3624 130190 CALDWELL 1 11 1981 Pi kin ! No No
-3819 1 130184 I CALDW ELL ; 11 I 1962 1 Pi kin ! No No
-3911 ! 850038 SURRY I 11 1923 1 Pi kin Yes i No
B-4404 1 000102 ALAMANCE 7 1 1968 Pi kin 1 Yes I No
Gid B-4552 1 480100 I IREDELL I 12 1963 ! Pi kin i Yes ! No
-4613 750415 RANDOLPH i 8 ! 1959 ! Pi kin I No 1 Yes
I-VI B-4646 850132 SURRY 11 1 1962 Pi kin 1 Yes 1 No
1 8-4675 960034 WILKES 11 1960 ! Pi kin i No I No
):?9 B-3169 310158 I DURHAM 5 1960 ! Williams 1 Yes 1 No
(30 B-3606 040070 ASHE j 11 1963 ; Williams 1 Yes No
a B-3802 ' 040229 ASHE 11 1960 1 Williams No No
J B-3803 i 040334 ASHE i 11 1966 1 Williams 1 Yes 1 No
1a B-3804 040296 ASHE 11 1964 ' Williams ; Yes No
131 B-4523 380164 GRANVILLE 5 1 1955 1 Williams No Yes
13:6 6-4524 380193 I GRANVILLE 5 i 1956 Williams I No Yes
13 8-4525 m 380133 GRANVILLE 1 5 ! 1960 Williams 1 No 1 Yes
3 B-4526 1 380200 ! GRANVILLE i 5 1957 1 Williams i No 1 Yes
8/9/2004
CFY2007SHPO
T' -7
MAY 12 200
North Carolina Department of Cultural Res"Oniceg,
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbecl4 Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
May 10, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ilz)t6w F65
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Replacement of Bridge No. 133 on SR 1412 over
Grassy Creek, TIP. No.B-4525, Granville County, ER 04-1321
Thank you for your letter of April 25, 2005, transmitting the archaeological survey and evaluation report for
the above project.
The report author noted that no cultural resources were discovered during the archaeological survey and that
no further archaeological investigations are necessary and/or warranted. We concur with this
recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 500.
Thank you for your cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919.733.4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Matt Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/731-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Stree4 Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4017 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 17 [phone]/715-4801
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1226 Bridge No. 13 over Grassy Creek
Granville County
TIP No. B-4525
State Project No. 8.2371701
FAP No. BRZ-1412 (4)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
April 2004
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1226 Bridge No. 13 over Grassy Creek
Granville County
TIP No. B-4525
State Project No. 8.2371701
FAP No. BRZ-1412 (4)
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Issued by:
Earth Tech, Inc.
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Earth Tech Project No. 73566
April 2004
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grass, Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION .................................................................................................................. PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................1
1.2 Project Purpose ................................................................................................... l
1.3 Methodology .......................................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators ...................................................... 3
1.5 Terminology and Definitions ..............................................................................4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................4
2.1 Soils ....................................................................................................................4
2.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ............................................ 5
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ....................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Water Quality .........................................................................................6
2.2.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics .............................................6
2.2.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report .................................................. 6
2.2.3.3 Impaired Waters .........................................................................7
2.2.3.4 Point Source Discharge Permits .................................................7
2.2.3.5 Non-Point Source Discharge ......................................................7
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................... 8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..............................................................................................9
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................................................................................... 9
3. 1.1 Disturbed Community ........................................................................... . 9
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ............................................................... .9
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest ...................................................................... 11
3.1.4 Faunal Component ................................................................................ 11
3.2 Aquatic Communities ....................................................................................... 12
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ....................................................................... 13
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................... 13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................14
4.1 Waters of the United States .............................................................................14
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ..................................15
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .........................................................15
4.2 Permit Issues .....................................................................................................16
4.2.1 Mitigation .............................................................................................16
4.2.1.1 Avoidance .................................................................................17
4.2.1.2 Minimization ............................................................................17
4.2.1.3 Compensation ...........................................................................17
4.2.2 Bridge Demolition ................................................................................18
April 2004
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.3 Rare and Protected Species ...............................................................................19
4.3.1 Species Under Federal Protection .........................................................19
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status ........................................24
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities .............................................. 13
Table 2. Estimated Area of Impact to Surface Waters .....................................................15
Table 3. Estimated Area of Impact to Wetlands ............................................................... 15
Table 4. Species Under Federal Protection in Granville County ..................................... 20
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern in Granville County ...............................................24
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Natural Communities ......................................................................................... 10
Note: Highlighted text denotes items not included in this draft that will be added
later by NCDOT,personnel once alignments are developed.
April 2004
11
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is submitted to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) preliminary to the preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this technical report is to
inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the likely consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of the preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary
to conduct additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria change.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 133 on Dick Blackwell
Road (SR 1412), which spans Grassy Creek. The project is located in northern Granville
County about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers [km]) north of Oxford, NC (Figure 1). The
bridge was constructed in 1960.
Alternate 1
(Insert description of Alternate here)
Alternate 2
(Insert description of Alternate here)
1.2 Project Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
1.3 Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field investigation.
Information sources used to prepare this report include the following:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' quadrangle map (Satterwhite, 1981)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Map (Satterwhite, 1994)
• Soil Survey of Granville County Area (Natural Resources Conservation Service
[NRCS] 1997)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR 2000)
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species
April 2004
PTT E-p- L", 1A e-7?,
k
215 >%-
.off
1422 14 • 1.
1 l • ?'
..w
130 1439
•fr
!t,
r
6
1439'-.- ` 1436
13004?cc
C?d?rwa®
140'9
141o
0
T ?
P259
Oak H71
School
1 ?.
1.
140 1
1433
_ -, 1427

~
ell 430
r , +
,
205
-
133
200 . `r
1436
ea .
1 f . ? 14a3°S< S ? 942B
e + - 1430 •' +"
J
a

--.? 139 t
p >
Q 1418
??-` ` ' a 13001 \
136
1426

,
l j
d
11419
1412
1 9 t' •.
33 `?. p 1.4
1414

SFr
,' << 1617 • i

-? 1446
`
r
14'56

1414
•1455
C46--- .3
-
.
Oak
ml 0
,? 1 `_
$ballbsiwFlile?

• ? e
e e
510,
00 dl
°6 I. !
GRAN?V.,
?eerea S `mac
+0110rd -
' Ee!r 1
I `.-• ,< "Qf: IJ F
i:l :rvfr .
Lit

h He sler
fe
m-?r? Wdton
utner:,. " r 56
't Creedm0or
?
o(
'
.
tOs.de :, .. U
"jORTMSI NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
/0 Ft?; TRANSPORTATION
. kdl . DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
7 ?_? X21 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
\F OF TA4 I
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 133 ON SR 1412
OVER GRASSY CREEK
B-4525
Figure 1
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) Proposed Critical habitats for
aquatic species.
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World Wide
Web by NCDENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
list of protected and candidate species (January 16, 2004), posted on the World Wide
Web by the Ecological Services branch of the USFWS office in North Carolina.
Information concerning species under state protection was obtained from the NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats. NHP files were reviewed for documented
sightings (January 13, 2004) of species on state or federal lists and locations of significant
natural areas.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route by Earth Tech
biologists on February 5 and 11, 2004. Water resources were identified and their physical
characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this study, a brief habitat assessment
was performed within the project area of Grassy Creek. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques, including
active searching, visual observations, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows). Terrestrial community classifications generally
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows
Radford et al. (1968) and nomenclature follows National Plant Data Center PLANTS
Database (USDA, NRCS 2004). Vertebrate names follows Rohde et al. (1994), Conant
et al. (1998), the American Ornithologists' Union (2001), Thorpe and Covich (1991), and
Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial photography of
the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on criteria
established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE,
1987). Wetlands were classified based on Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators
Investigator: George Lankford, PSS
Education M.S., Botany, North Carolina State University
Experience North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist, Biologist, Earth Tech 3 years
Expertise Botany, Soils, Wetland Delineation
April 2004
3
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
Investigator: Ron Johnson
Education M.S., Biological Sciences, Illinois State University
Experience Biologist, Earth Tech 17 years
Expertise Natural resources surveys, wetland and stream mitigation
1.5 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this report, the following terms are used for describing the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes an area with a width of 500 feet
(152.4 m) along the full length of the project alignment. The "project vicinity" is an area
extending 1 mile (1.6 km) on all sides of the project area, and "project region" is an area
equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map (about
61.8 sq miles or 163.3 sq km) with the project study area occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project area lies in the extreme north-central portion of North Carolina within the
Piedmont physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately 390 to
450 feet (119 to 137 m) (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929). The topography of the
project vicinity ranges from nearly level within the floodplain to moderately steep slopes
in the adjacent uplands.
The proposed project is in a rural area in Granville County about 11 miles (17.7 km)
northwest of Oxford, NC. Granville County's major economic resources are forestry and
agriculture. The population of Granville County in 2000 was 48,498 (U. S Census
Bureau, 2000).
2.1 Soils
Information about soils in the project area was taken from the Soil Survey of Granville
County, North Carolina (USDA 1997). The map units in the project area are Chewacla
and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, and Georgeville silt loam 2
to 10 percent slopes. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are mapped along Grassy Creek and
are considered hydric soils by the NRCS.
• Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, are
mapped along the floodplain of Grassy Creek. Chewacla soils are on the slightly
higher ridges on floodplains and Wehadkee soils are on the lower swales on
floodplains. Chewacla is somewhat poorly drained and Wehadkee is poorly drained.
Both soils have moderate permeability and moderate natural fertility. The seasonal
high water table for Chewacla is 0.5 to 1.5 feet and for Wehadkee is 0 to 1 foot.
Chewacla is frequently flooded for long periods and Wehadkee is frequently flooded
for brief periods. Surface runoff is slow to very slow. The NRCS classifies Chewacla
and Wehadkee soils as hydric.
April 2004
4

Natural Resources Technical Report
Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
• Georgeville silt loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes, is mapped on the broad ridge and
narrow hill slopes at both ends of the project area. This soil is well drained, has
moderate permeability, and the shrink-swell potential is low. The natural fertility is
low. The seasonal high water table is greater than six feet. The erosion potential is
moderate to severe. The NRCS classifies Georgeville soils as non-hydric.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average height,
in feet, that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a specified
number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged,
unmanaged stands. The soils in the project area have the following site indices:
• The Chewacla soils have a site index of 95 for loblolly pine (Pines taeda), 96 for
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and 78 for green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica).
• The Wehadkee soils have a site index of 93 for loblolly pine, 100 for yellow poplar,
and 89 for green ash.
• The Georgeville soils have a site index of 81 for loblolly pine, 66 for shortleaf pine
(Pious echinata), and 72 for white oak (Quercus alba).
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics
(determined by field survey), best usage classifications, and water quality aspects of the
water resources. Probable impacts to surface waters are also discussed, as well as means
to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the Roanoke River basin (ROA06) sub-basin, USGS Hydraulic
Unit Code (HUC) 03010102, Middle Roanoke). Grassy Creek originates about 6.0 miles
(9.7 km) from the project site. Within the project site, Grassy Creek flows from west to
east. From the project area, the creek meanders in a northwesterly direction about 6.2
miles (10 km) to the Grassy Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir. The Grassy Creek
Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir flows into Virginia before joining the main stem of the
reservoir. In addition to Grassy Creek, one unnamed tributary is located within the
project area.
Grassy Creek is a perennial stream approximately 30 feet (9.1 m) wide at the bridge
crossing. The banks of Grassy Creek are 2 to 6 feet (0.6 to 1.8 m) in height and are
generally stable. On the day of the site visit the water was moderately turbid with a
moderate flow. The substrate is sand, silt, and cobbles. The canopy cover is
approximately 50 percent. Large woody debris was observed in the stream
April 2004
5
r
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grass, Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
An unnamed tributary to Grassy Creek is present within the southwestern portion of the
project area. This perennial stream flows in a northerly direction, joining Grassy Creek
just upstream of the bridge. The channel is 6 to 10 feet (1.8 to 3 m) wide and banks up to
2 to 4 feet (0.6 to 1.2 m) high. It has good sinuosity and the substrate is cobbles with
sand and gravel. On the day of the site visit, the water was slightly turbid and flows were
moderate. The canopy cover is approximately 60 percent. Within the project area cattle
and a residential home impact this stream.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) that is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the
state. Grassy Creek [Index # 23-2-(1)] is classified as a Class C water body (NCDENR
2004). Class C waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions
on watershed development activities. The unnamed tributary present within the project
area has not been classified individually by DWQ, therefore it carries the same C rating as
its receiving stream.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-
II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the
project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential
impacts to water quality from point and non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are based upon published resource information and field study observations.
2.2.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
The project area is in a forested and agricultural watershed. Bordering the project area is a
dairy farm having large pastures with cattle. Most waterways and wetlands within the
watershed remain forested. Potential threats to water quality in this area are agricultural
and forestry practices, which may contribute to soil erosion and increases in chemical
runoff and nutrient input.
2.2.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report
Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences
Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ. The program has established monitoring
stations for sampling selected benthic macro invertebrates, which are known to have
April 2004
6
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived
from the number of taxa present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can
then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent.
There are no macroinvertebrate monitoring stations within this drainage above the John
H. Ken Reservoir. The reservoir was sampled in the summer of 1999 and rated as
mesotrophic. Sampling was confined to the Nutbush Creek Arm of the reservoir. The
Nutbush Creek Arm is located to the east of the Grassy Creek Arm. An invasive aquatic
macrophyte, Hydrilla, was observed in the Grassy Creek Arm.
2.2.3.3 Impaired Waters
North Carolina's §303(d) List (NCDENR 2000) is a comprehensive public accounting of
all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that is damaged by pollutants,
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria, and by pollution such as
hydromodification and habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from
point sources, non-point sources, and atmospheric deposition. The standards violation
might be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown cause of
impairment. This list is compiled by the DWQ and submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by April 1 of every even year.
None of the water resources described in Section 2.2.1 are designated as biologically
impaired water bodies regulated under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
§303(d).
2.2.3.4 Point Source Discharge Permits
Point source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All
dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no permits issued to
discharge in Grassy Creek as of January 13, 2004 (NCDENR 2004).
2.2.3.5 Non-Point Source Discharge
Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source (NPS) pollution
comes from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt runoff moves over the
earth's surface, natural and man-made pollutants are picked up, carried, and ultimately
deposited into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and groundwater. Non-point source
pollution includes fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from farms and residential
areas; hydrocarbons and chemicals from urban runoff; sediments from construction sites,
land clearing, and eroding stream banks; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal
wastes, and faulty septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. The effects of NPS
pollutants on water resources vary, and in many instances, may not be known. These
April 2004
7
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
pollutants generally have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, wildlife,
and fisheries.
Earth Tech biologists conducted a visual observation of potential NPS discharges located
within and near the project study area. Atmospheric deposition from passing vehicles;
fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from nearby residential and agricultural areas; and
hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby residential driveways were identified as
potential sources of NPS pollution near the project area. Overall, the threat of non-point
source discharge is average because of the moderately sized riparian buffer along much of
Grassy Creek.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary
impacts during construction may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic community. In
general, replacing an existing structure in the same location with an off-site detour is the
preferred environmental approach. Bridge replacement at a new location results in more
severe impacts, and physical impacts are incurred at the point of bridge replacement. If
and onsite detour is planned, placement of the detour to the east of the existing bridge
would reduce impacts to the unnamed tributary. (Insert description of anticipated
impacts for Alternates here)
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills from constriction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented,
as applicable, during the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment
leaves the construction site.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of biotic resources.
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated
April 2004
8
Natural Resources Technical Report
Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. They are also cross-
referenced to International Classification of Ecological Communities (ICEC)
(NatureServe, 2002), which has been adopted as the standard land cover classification by
the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name
only. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a disturbed
community, a bottomland hardwood forest, and an upland hardwood forest (Figure 2).
Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will also be
discussed.
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
This community includes types of habitat that have recently been or are currently
impacted by human disturbance including regularly maintained roadside shoulder,
agricultural fields, and a residential area. These habitats are kept in a low-growing, early
successional state. The maintained roadside shoulder is mowed frequently and is
dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The dominant species include white clover
(Trifolium repens), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and various grasses. The
pastures, containing grasses and weeds, were mowed or cropped close by livestock.
Along the field edges, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rebus sp.),
and various weeds were the dominant vegetation. The residential area includes
maintained lawns and waste places near outbuildings. The residential areas are
dominated by various turf grasses, ornamental shrubs, and loblolly pines.
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community occurs along the floodplain and banks north of Grassy Creek. This forest
is mature but lacks a dense understory of shrub and woody vegetation. Cattle have
impacted this community. The canopy height is 60 to 70 feet (18 to 21 m). This
community includes a wetland. Canopy species include tulip poplar, sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The shrubs and vines are
scattered. Many of the shrubs are saplings of the canopy trees, but also include red maple
(Acer rctbrum), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and paw-paw (Asimina
triloba). Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle, and grape (Vitis
sp.) are the dominant woody vines. Herbaceous vegetation was lacking or unidentifiable
April 2004
9
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
because of dormancy and cattle impacts. This community probably represents a marginal
example of a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990). The ICEC classification is most likely I.B.2.N.d.12 Liquidambar
styraciflua - (Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer rubrum) temporarily flooded forest alliance
(Piedmont Small Stream Sweetgum Forest).
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest
An upland hardwood forest is located on the uplands both southwest and east of the
bridge. This is a mature forest reaching to 80 feet (24 m). The canopy species in this
community include white oak, northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and sweetgum.
Understory species include red maple, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), eastern red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). Some areas
contain pines in the canopy. These mature pines are most likely remnants of the earlier
successional community. Vines of green briar (Smilax rotundifolia) and poison ivy are
also present. Herbaceous vegetation was not observed because of dormancy and leaf
litter.
This community represents an example of a Dry-Mesic Mixed Oak-Hickory Forest as
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The ICEC equivalent is most likely
I.B.2.N.a.27 Quercus alba - (Quercus rubra, Carya spp.) Forest Alliance (Dry-Mesic
Piedmont Oak - Hickory Forest).
3.1.4 Faunal Component
Species that prefer open areas to feed and nest in can be found in the disturbed
communities. The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic
and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living
and dead faunal components. The European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), northern flicker*
(Colaptes auratus), and American robin (Turdus migratorius) are common birds that use
these habitats to find insects, seeds, or worms. The American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) and the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are true opportunists
and will eat virtually any edible items including vegetation, fruits, seeds, insects, and
carrion.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or
prefer a mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagus floridanus) and the
dark-eyed junco* (Junco hyemalis) prefer a mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and
may be found in the dense shrub vegetation or out in the roadside and residential areas.
White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus) will utilize the forested areas as well as the
adjacent open areas. The black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) will come out of forested
habitat to forage on rodents in open areas. Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) and
common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) are Neotropical migrants that inhabit dense,
shrubby vegetation along transitional areas. Blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata), song
April 2004
11
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial fauna
that rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and
recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to
affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of
gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools
and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased
sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction
as it can adversely affect aquatic life. Potential adverse effects can be minimized through
the implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters.
Given the diverse sunfish population in Grassy Creek, a moratorium on instream work
from April 1 to June 30 is requested by WRC. This should minimize impacts to the
sunfish and largemouth bass populations during the spawning season. Records from the
NHP indicate the occurrence of the Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) in Grassy Creek.
This is a federal species of concern and is a species of state special concern. The known
occurrence of this species is located approximately 1.4 miles (2.2 km) downstream from
the project area. Therefore, in conjunction with general mitigation measures, stringent
erosion and sedimentation controls should be implemented for all construction, and these
measures should significantly exceed the state minimum requirements.
WRC made the following comments:
• The NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge and not a culvert.
• A significant fishery for sunfish exists at this site, therefore the WRC requests an in-
water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30.
• WRCs standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects apply.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state regulatory
issues: "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR § 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface
waters or wetlands falls under these provisions.
April 2004
14
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project area and may be impacted by project
construction. The Satterwhite, NC NWI map shows a palustrine forested broadleaf
deciduous seasonally flooded wetland (PF01C) along the northwestern edge of the
project area. The wetland extends into the project area on the northwest side of Grassy
Creek (Figure 2). This wetland was given a DWQ rating of 51 out of a possible 100
points. These forested wetlands are described in Section 3.1.2. Grassy Creek and the
unnamed tributary meet the definition of surface waters, and therefore, are classified as
Waters of the United States. Grassy Creek is a perennial stream that is approximately 30
feet (9 m) wide within the project area. The unnamed tributary to Grassy Creek is a
perennial stream that is 6 to 10 feet (1.8 to 3 m) wide within the project area.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
A forested wetland was identified within the project area. Alternate 1 would impact XX
acres (XX hectares [ha]) of the wetland community. Alternate 2 would impact XX acres
(XX ha) of the wetland community. Project construction cannot be accomplished without
infringing on the surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the
jurisdiction of the USACE and the DWQ. Within the project area, Grassy Creek is 30 feet
(9.1 m) wide. Assuming a study corridor of XX feet (XX m) for each alternate, the
construction of the new bridge will impact XX linear feet (XX m) of stream, and a total
area of XX sq feet (XX sq m) of surface waters. Table 2 lists the estimated area of
impacts to surface waters. Add information regarding stream impacts here.
Table 2. Estimated Area of Impact to Surface Waters
Area of Impact in Linear Feet (Meters)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Surface Waters Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
Grassy Creek
UT to Grassy Creek
Total Impact
A forested wetlands were identified within the project area. This wetland was given a
DWQ rating of 51 out of a possible 100 points. Add information regarding wetland
impacts here. Table 3 lists the estimated area of impacts to wetlands.
Table 3. Estimated Area of Impact to Wetlands
Area of Impact in Acres (Hectares)
Permanent
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Total
April 2004
15
r
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.2 Permit Issues
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. Permits
and certifications from various state and federal agencies may be required prior to
construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23, as
promulgated under 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or in part, by
another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions that neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment; and
• the Office of the Chief Engineer has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Construction may also require authorization by NWP No. 33, also as promulgated under
67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002. This permit authorizes temporary structures, work,
and discharges, including cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or access fills
or dewatering of construction sites; provided that the associated primary activity is
authorized by the USACE or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), or for other construction
activities no subject to the USACE or USCG regulations.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3403, from the
DENR prior to issuance of the NWP 23. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision rests with the
USACE.
4.2.1 Mitigation
The function of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States by avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts. Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
April 2004
16
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.2.1.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of averting
impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the EPA and USACE, in determining "appropriate and practical"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope
and degree of those impacts and practical in terms of costs, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
4.2.1.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Practical means to
minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed project
include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
width, ROW widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of
surface waters and wetlands
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
• Judicious pesticide and herbicide usage
4.2.1.3 Compensation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of
the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous
to the discharge site (i.e., compensatory on-site mitigation). The only area for potential
mitigation is the pasture adjacent to the project area and the forested wetland. Restoration
may be possible because the wetland is degraded by cattle, tree clearing (pasture), and
several shallow ditches. The wetland extends beyond the area investigated.
Because this project will likely be authorized under a NWP, mitigation for impacts to
surface waters may or may not be required by the USACE. In accordance with the DWQ
Wetland Rules [15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)] "Fill or alteration of more than 0.1 acre of
wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and fill or alteration of more than 150
linear feet of streams may require compensatory mitigation." Written approval of the
April 2004
17
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
final mitigation plan is required from DWQ before the regulatory agency issues a Water
Quality Certification. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020; 2092; January 15,
2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that
adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of proposed
project impact and function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors
considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation. Final compensatory stream mitigation requirements will be determined by the
USACE under the statutory provisions of CWA §404 and the January 15, 2002 Final
Notice of Issuance of Nationwide Permits.
Impacts to Grassy Creek, the unnamed tributary, and its associated wetlands can be
avoided by utilizing an off-site detour during bridge replacement. Because of the
wetlands within the project area, it is recommended that an off-site detour be utilized to
control traffic during bridge replacement. If an on-site detour or a new alignment is
necessary, then placing it to the east of the existing bridge will avoid or minimize impacts
to jurisdictional wetlands and the unnamed tributary to Grassy Creek. If it becomes
necessary to construct an on-site detour through wetlands, degradation of certain wetland
functions may occur though soil compaction or other distortion. These functions may
include water storage capacity and erosion control capability, sediment removal, filtration
of nutrients from agricultural areas, and biological productivity.
Add information regarding stream and wetland impact quantities here. If the final
length of stream impact is greater than 150 linear feet (45.7 m), or if impacts to wetlands
are greater than 0.1 acres (0.2 hectares), compensatory mitigation may be required. The
environmental regulatory agencies will ultimately provide final permit and compensatory
mitigation decisions for the project.
4.2.2 Bridge Demolition
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States must be
addressed when applying to the USACE for a permit. A worst-case scenario of dropping
components of the bridge in the water is assumed. Effective 9/20/99, this issue is
included in the permit application for bridge reconstruction. The permit application
henceforth will require disclosure of demolition methods and potential impacts to the
body of water in the planning document for the bridge reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures stipulates that the dropping of parts or components of structures
into any body of water will not be permitted unless there is no other practical method of
removal. The removal of the existing bridge should be by sawing or other non-shattering
methods. The removal from the water of any part or component of a structure shall be
done so as to keep any resulting siltation to a minimum. To meet these specifications,
NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,
as supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
April 2004
18
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of ORW or
threatened and/or endangered species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-
structure below the water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency
to protect the ORW or T&E species.
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in BMPs for Protection of
Surface Waters and supplements added by the Bridge Demolition document, dated
9/20/99.
Grassy Creek flows into the Kerr Reservoir and is in the Roanoke Watershed. It has a
water quality classification of C. Given the diverse sunfish population in Grassy Creek, a
moratorium on instream work from April 1 to June 30 has been requested by North
Carolina WRC. Therefore, Case 2 applies to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 133
over Grassy Creek.
The existing superstructure consists of timber floor with steel girder floor beam system
and I-beam. The substructure is made of timber caps on timber piles with end bents and
internal bent on concrete sills. No fill is expected from bridge demolition.
The streambed in the project area is mostly sand, gravel, and cobbles. Therefore,
conditions in the stream do not raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is not
recommended.
4.3 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces
or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and protected species listed
for Granville County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1 Species Under Federal Protection
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The USFWS lists (List updated February 18, 2003) four species under federal protection
for Granville County. These species are listed in Table 4.
April 2004
19
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
Table 4. Species Under Federal Protection in Granville County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus T
Invertebrates
Dwarf-wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Vascular Plants
Ha erella Ptilimnium nodosum E
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevi ata E
Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T(S/A) Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species.
* Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** Incidental/Migrant record-the species was observed outside of its normal range or
habitat.
USFWS - List updated February 18, 2003
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows,
along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact. All surveys for federally
protected species should be conducted at least one year prior to the scheduled
construction let date. Surveys are valid for two years from the survey date. If the project
is not constructed within those two years then the area may need to be resurveyed prior to
the let date.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 1995
Proposed for delisting
Threatened
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan reaching 7 feet (2.1 m). Adults have
a dark brown body with a pure white head and tail, whereas the juvenile plumage is
chocolate brown to blackish with white mottling on the tail, belly and under wings.
Adult plumage is fully acquired by the fifth or sixth year.
The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting
near large bodies of water where it feeds. It preys primarily on fish, but will feed on
birds, mammals, turtles, and carrion when fish are unavailable.
In the southeast, the nesting and breeding season runs from September to December.
Large nests up to 6 feet (1.8 m) across and weighing hundreds of pounds are
constructed from large sticks, weeds, cornstalks, grasses, and sod. Preferred nesting
April 2004
20
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
sites are usually within one-half mile of water, have an open view of the surrounding
area, and are in the largest living tree, usually a pine or cypress. Excessive human
activity may exclude an otherwise suitable site from use. Wintering areas generally
have the same characteristics as nesting sites, but may be farther from shores.
The bald eagle ranges throughout all of North America. Breeding sites in the
southeast are concentrated in Florida, coastal South Carolina, and coastal Louisiana,
and sporadically located elsewhere.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No rivers or lakes exist within one-half mile (0.8 km) of the project area. The Grassy
Creek arm of Kerr Reservoir is 6.2 miles (10 km) from the project area. The project
has only a few moderately large conifers mixed within the forested areas. A search of
the NHP database found no occurrence of this animal within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf-wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1990
The dwarf-wedge mussel rarely exceeds 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) in length. It is the only
American freshwater mussel that has two lateral teeth on the right valve, but only one
on the left. The shell's outer surface is usually brown or yellowish brown in color,
with faint green rays that are most noticeable in young specimens. The male and
female shells differ slightly, with the female being wider to allow greater space for
egg development.
The dwarf-wedge mussel inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to
approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) wide), with slow to moderate flow. A variety of
preferred substrates have been described that range from coarse sand, to firm muddy
sand to gravel (USFWS 2004). In North Carolina they often occur within submerged
root mats along stable stream banks. The wide range of substrate types used by this
species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition. These areas must be silt free. The dwarf-wedge mussel occurs in at
least 25 stream reaches along the Atlantic Coast from New Brunswick, Canada, to
North Carolina.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of the species include water
quality degradation and loss of habitat. The mussel needs slow to moderate currents
and a silt free environment, conditions that often are modified by dam construction.
Another significant factor is the exclusion of its anadromous fish host from some
habitat areas by impoundment and dams. Increased acidity, runoff of agricultural
chemicals and fertilizers, and the mussel's sensitivity to potassium, zinc, copper,
April 2004
21
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
cadmium and other elements associated with industrial pollution also contribute to its
decline.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP files found no occurrences of the dwarf-wedge mussel in the
project vicinity. The current is moderate and the stream appeared to have a minor silt
load. It is also upstream of two dams (Kerr Reservoir and Roanoke Rapids Lake).
Although Grassy Creek is not in a river basin where this mussel typically has been
found, marginal habitat exists at the site. Therefore, the biological conclusion is
unresolved pending a survey of the stream by NCDOT biologist.
Echinacea laevigata (Smooth coneflower)
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 1992
Endangered
The smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 4.9 feet
(1.5 m) tall. The largest leaves are the basal leaves, which reach 7.8 inches 19.8 cm)
in length and 3 inches (7.6 cm) in width. The basal leaves have long stems, are
elliptical to broadly lanceolate, tapering to the base, and smooth to slightly rough.
The plant has smooth stems with few cauline leaves. The rays of the flowers (petal-
like structures) are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and 1.9 to 3.1 inches (4.8
to 7.9 cm) long. Flower heads are usually solitary. Flowering occurs from May
through July.
The known range of Echinacea laevigata consists of 22 populations found now only
in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Six of the populations are
in North Carolina and are found in Durham and Granville counties. Most of the
populations are small, containing less than 100 plants each. Four of the populations
contain less than 10 plants each.
In North Carolina the habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens,
roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on
magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase. Optimal sites
are characterized by full sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer
(Gaddy 1991). Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, are part of the history of the
vegetation in this species' range and many of the associated herbs are also sun-loving
species, which depend on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and competition
of woody plants (Kral 1983 and Gaddy 1991).
The major factors contributing to the endangered status of this species are collecting,
residential and industrial development, shade from woody vegetation, highway
construction and improvement, and certain types of roadside and power line right-of-
way maintenance. Like most coneflowers, this species is intolerant of dense shade.
April 2004
22
f
Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP files found no occurrence of smooth coneflower in the project
vicinity. Although open habitat is present along the sides of Dick Blackwell Road,
the soils mapped in the project area are not typical of this species. However, it
cannot be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Therefore, the biological conclusion will remain unresolved pending a survey of the
area at an appropriate survey time (late May through July).
Ptilimnium nodosum (Harperella)
Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: 1988
Endangered
Harperella is an annual herb that grows to a height of 6 to 36 inches (15.2 to
91.4 cm). The leaves are hollow, quill-like structures. The small, white flowers occur
in heads, or umbels, not unlike those of Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota). It is
found in pond and riverine habitats. Flowering begins in May in the pond habitats,
late June or July in the riverine habitats, and continues until frost. Seed set is
apparently profuse and populations in localized areas can achieve a high density and
number of individuals each year.
Harperella appears to prefer periodically disturbed sites. It typically occurs in two
habitat types: (1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift-flowing stream
sections; and (2) edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain. It does not
compete well with other species without periodic disturbance.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of this plant are its tolerance and
possible requirement of a very specific and unusual water regime. This includes
moderately intensive spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing
vegetation. Harperella is readily eliminated from its habitat by alterations of the
water regime resulting from impoundments, water withdrawal, and drainage or
deepening of ponds. Other factors such as siltation, pollution, and shoreline
development also threaten harperella populations.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Marginal habitat for harperella exists along the rocky margins of the stream bank
within the project area. The stream has moderately intensive spring flows and does
have rocky or gravelly shoals in the project area. A search of the NHP database found
no occurrence of this plant within the project vicinity. However, it cannot be
concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species. Therefore, it is
unresolved pending a survey of the area at an appropriate survey time (late June or
July).
April 2004
23

Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 5 includes FSC species
listed for Granville County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern in Granville County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
Present
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion SC Yes
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR ** Yes
Invertebrates
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni E Yes
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa E Yes
Green floater Lasmi ona subviridis E Yes
Yellow lam mussel Lam silis cariosa E Yes
Yellow lance Elli do lanceolata E Yes
Vascular Plant
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri SR-T Yes
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum E-SC No
Torre 's mountain-mint Pycnanthemum torrei SR-T * No
T= Threatened
E= Endangered
SC= Special Concern
SR= Significantly Rare
-T= Fewer than 100 populations throughout the species' range
* = Historic record; the species was observed over 20 years ago
** = Obscure record; the date and/or location of observation is uncertain
_
Urces: Amoroso, ed., 2002; LeGrand, Hall, and Finnegan, 2001
NHP - list updated 1/04, FWS - list updated 2/18/03
?
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, and only the Carolina darter is
recorded at NHP as occurring within 2 miles (3.2 km) of the project area. The Carolina
darter has been observed approximately 1.4 miles (2.2 km) downstream in Grassy Creek.
In addition to a federal species of concern the Carolina darter is a species of state special
concern.
April 2004
24
+ Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. "The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds,
Seventh Edition." http://www.aou.or-Jaou/birdlist.html#tina (19 Dec 2003).
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1998. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, New York
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gaddy L.L. 1991. The status of Echinacea laevigata (Boynton and Beadle) Blake.
Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. 24
pp., plus appendices and maps.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest- related vascular
plants of the South, U.S. Forest Service Technical Pub. R8-TP2. 1,305 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List
of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Caroliria Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
NatureServe. 2002. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial
Vegetation. Natural Heritage Central Databases. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
NCDENR. "Permits Database on Mainframe Computer." Water Quality Section, Division
of Water Quality http://h2o.enr.state,nc.us/NPDES/documents.html (13 Jan. 2004).
April 2004
25

Natural Resources Technical Report
Grassy Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html (9 Jan. 2004).
NCDENR. 2003. Basin-Wide Assessment Report of the Tar River Basin. Environmental
Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
NCDENR, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
County Status Database. Raleigh, North Carolina. (January 2004)
North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning, and Management. "State
Demographics.,, http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/demog/ (July 2002).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Thorpe, James H. and Alan P. Covich. 1991. Ecology and Classification of North
American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1997. Soil Survey of Granville County, North
Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
USFWS. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in North Carolina." North Carolina
Ecological Services. http://nc-es,fws.gov/es/countvfr.html (25 February 2003).
USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 http://plants.usda.gov National
Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
April 2004
26
V, - `-/) 2 11
gs'zs
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) I
Pro in
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation: oZ - ?- 6 u
5. Name of stream: G r*n- s.S k:
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: 2 - -36 4. Time of evaluation: ?1 M
v
6. River basin: R,
8. Stream order: r,
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.55661
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (noteinearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
S R 1 y j ?) r. y J-0 C? ra. s 5 y t e..1 C.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):_
15. Recent weather conditions: 1
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map(.? YES 'NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
vide the followin information for the stream reach under assessment:
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
;_ 1 , ;Presence of flow / persistent:pools in_stream' 0 5 4 0 5 ' L
no flow or saturation - U` strop' flow _max 'pints) :
Evtdence:of past lhuman!alteration r -
2
--
(extensive:alteiation ...0 no alteiatioa-max oints -0 5 0 5 -
3 = Riparian zone" _
~
' 6 0' 4
conti uous, wide
buffer = max aims
no buffec = 0•

4 :%.Evrder?ce of nutrient or chemical discharges

-

0"
'0 _4
es . O;;.no.dischar es = max points)
extensive dischar _
Groundwater discharge
no dischar e::=0 sprin s sees tivetlands etc: = max points} A, A -
_
6 Presence of a Sjacent.floodplain ,
0'-4
0-4
0 2
no floodptaiii 0 extensive fl ood lain max points) -
Entrenchment / floodplain access
7 0
5 0
4 0 2
- (deep l entrenched = 0 iie uerit floodin =:max points _ _

8 'Presence of Adjacent wetlands
='
0 6
0 4
0- 2
cJ
(no wetlands 0 lar e.adjacent wetlands
max pints
9 Channe-l'smuosity 0 - 5 0 - 4 0
- extensive chariiieUiation O; natural meander = max points)

10
5
_Sedimibt input
05
0-4
0
4
extensive de osttron=0 i?ttle.or nosedimenf = max pints) -- _ . --

11. r Size;& cLversityof channel bed substrate
- '
.. :<
' ;
a NA * -

-
0 4

.;
0' S
(fine, homo e
nous =.0 lar e, diverse sizes -:max. pmts)
Evidence of channel incision or Widening '
dee 1 incised 0 stablerbed & banks maz pints 0 5 0 4 0- 5

. 13 Presence of ma'or bank failures
?..
`
0-5
0-5
0 5 _
M- severe erosion . 0• no erosion, stabae banks=
max:points) - - -

14 Root depth and. densityan {ianks

'
'
0=3
0-4
0 5
E , (no visible roots O;: dense
throu hout = max oints) -
roots -
(4 :
15 Impact, by agriculture, livestock,. or timber production -
0-5
0-4 -
0-5
-
substantial impact =0 no evidence'=max pmts) _

16 Presence of riffle pool/ripple-pool complexes

p
0
0; 6
ed = max points)
(no riffles/ripples or o6k = O; well-develo
17 Habitat complexity
0 -6 0
6
E-? . : (little or no habitat = O; frequent, varied habitats = max oints) .

A?
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0.- 5
0 5
0 - 5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) j

19: Substrate embeddedness
L`IA
0-4
0 4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure= max)

- 20 Presence.of stream invertebrates. (see page 4)
0 4
0 - 5
0 - 5
?: (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

21 Presence of amPhibians
0-4
0-4 ..
0-4
f.
O; no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
a,.
O`
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4-
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
.
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6.
0-5
0 - 5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible =100 100 '100
TOTAL SCORE also enter on fist page) ?3
"These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
, C,\

ya
2

I USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: ?? - -? 0 5
3. Date of evaluation: ?)- - - O If
5. Name of stream: '-JT- - t-«fS ?e &aar-
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
4. Time of evaluation: 7M
6. River basin: o i
8. Stream order:
10. County: C rl\ -I-"
12. Subdivision name (if any):,
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sh Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note earby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of v
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:

Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change- version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

3 q Sys. u7- STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# x r CHATtACTERISI`ICS ECOREGION,POIN T RANGE '
-_ coastal -Piedmont - oantam = 2

1 presence of flow / persistent.poois in stream
0
5
0
4
(no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points) - - 0 - 5
Evidence of past human' alteration
2
-
(extensive alteration=. 0•:no=alteration=max points) 0-6 07 5 0- 5
Riparian zone'

3 .
(no buffer = 0; conti . uous, wide buffer= max points
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 - 5
Evidence of nutrient. 6r chemical discharges .
4
extensive dtschar es = 0;,no disch'ar es°. max points) 0-5 0=4 0-4

5 Groundwater discharge
3

no discharge = 0; s
rin s seeps,* weilands,..etc. = max points) 0- 0-4 0-4
.?
6 _
Presence of adjacentfloodplain
0'- 4
0-4
0'
- Z
(no floodplain = O; extensive flood lain = max points ' _
Entrenchment /;floodplain
access
..
.
- 0 - 5 0 - 4 0
2
p- deeply entrenched = 0 e.e uent floodin
= max points) -
8 Presence
d
(no wetlands
0; large Ad
cent wetlands = max points) 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2

9 Channel.sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channetiiation = O; natural meander -max points)

10 Sediment input
0 - 5
0 - 4
0
- 4
extensive deposition= 0; lit6..or no sediment = max points) .

11 Size & diversity of,channelbed substrate

`
'
•NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous °-0, lar
e
diverse sizes = max points) -

12 :Evidence of channel incision or widening
'0
5
0
4
(deeply ineised = 0 stable bed & .banks ° max points) - - 0-5
j

13 Presence: of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
severe erosion - 0; no erosion, stable banks =. max points)

14 Root depth and. densityon banks
,. -
,
-
0-3
0-4
0-5
(n6 visible roots =
O,
dense roots throw hout = max points) ?-

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber: production
substantial impact=0` no evidence = max points) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5

16 Presence of riffle pool/ripple-pool complexes
0
-
-
_
no riffles/ripples or 6619 =, 0; well-developed max points) -3 0.-5 0
6
d Habitat complexity
17
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0.-6

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0
5
0-5

(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max hints) - 0-5
`

19 Substrate embeddedness
..
. NA*
.0-4
0-4 _
(deeply embedded= 0; loose structure = max) ` L
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

?
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points) ..
.0-4
..0-5 "
0-5. f
(
7
21 Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 _
O_ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 1.
a
O'
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
Total Points Possible 100 100 1,00
TOTAL SCORE :(also enter on first page) L t f
2 ,

* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
r ?
WETLAND'RATING WORKSTMET`Tourth Version
Project Name: Imo, 4f Nearest road: !6 IZ
County: ``r Wetland area: acres Wetland width: feet
Name of evaluator: 1.A??G r Date: "
Wetland location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other:
Soil series
predominantly organic
(humus, muck, or peat)
predominantly mineral
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
total riparian wetland width > 100 ft
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation S %
agriculture, urban/suburban 80 %
impervious surface 2 %
Dominant vegetation
1) SCI,,'A V
3)
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_L,,,:-seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
?ottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage 2 x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization -2 x 4.00 = Total Renre
T Pollutant removal ci I x 5.00 = ZS
I Low flow aug x 2.00 ?-
N Wildlife habitat 2-. x 4.00 =
G Aquatic life 2 x 1.00 = 2
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within % mile radius.
I A
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: lei- ?tS ?? Date: - ))- !
ApplicantlOwner. /? 13 v County:
Investigator: a nlC u State: t
t? .
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ? No Community ID: W d (a J
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No L,- Plot ID: 7 Z
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
! l .! r " A ? -- ?' 14 PTE?__

IL St f

r

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) ?j ?j
Remarks: ?,.. f rle? % ?C2J?! p/f Oo!t
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
./Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
_ /Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
r? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
41` FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
a
Community ID: k)e- ?o Project/Site:
Transect ID: Date:/
Plot ID: I P F ^ ¢ S
SOILS
s? W?<- ?
Map Unit Name //???? 1
(Series and Phase): L Ve_ G ?n c I, Drainage Class: a+ f
A? ?J? ?? ' J o t P Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
Taxonomy Subgroup: +?- C \JV C' iy'y'4' L r'C?`? ` r No

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseli Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
(7 - 5 3 /LA
`_
53 14
V
I
e6 c L

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions =Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ? s No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? =Yes No
Remarks:
s
rt J ? ??I
r,. _S

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date:
Applicant/Owner: County: - f ;• -r
Investigator: _ Lws? Fa State: N
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No L, Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: i?
(If needed; explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

-A-C LA

C,
n
YID J-,tiC
A- o

v fAL

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) _
? 2 (m
Remarks: 1J5= c ^r
p°
r , d. e r?
"j a /
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits

N A Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water:
(in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
.• w
Community ID: N _; Projecd5ite: ?? - "Z
Transect ID: Date:
Plot ID: T)
Y '
SOILS
S'o ,n^.e w4?Z. ?
ud r ? G
,
Map Unit Name /? II p
Drainage Class: 4! . c? ?o f
V

(Series and Phase): ag
/Confirm Mapped Type?

Taxonomy Subgroup:
IF? Vy0. GL
VPn tG y Yes
$s rrG rf
(j No
t` F?J j
a ,-.?•ts
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
p?- I A111

l? ?/?t ?l?j^ a py
sWPA L
L - s/ 'o -J

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditio ns Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
0
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L,---No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 1/ No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes 1.,?No
Remarks: J f??` t? _ W
157-
tx ? ? '^rA ?, s .'k^ 1 .r. rip. .mss n :`r
? ??'rl
?£j, vvg i
Y ?r A s
a x 2 ? 'swaaMr w?r * i. 'tr» 6 t? ?. r n .* j r
1 •?e ? 'tl ar %, ""S f, 1sri? ,'? K ? 0 , ? ;'i: j : ,..rR
it '? ':?t ?'"d 'Y?7? ??? ,2: ?'. :?.d v ? „...,, ??? ,:S f ?"`aW?3,t. +iH V,: •,?y }1 •...`Y ,;a ,tip,:,
t-}>, ? ??'" `?,`?:• ?>, ? ?µ? '' ?'? "'1?k1'? ? 'CS.,uy, 5 .s a0r ?a y yV0.t:,'F n ?.' iii. r., 'PS
k!•°?` f ' ?'? ?t{?` i'?!.th- ?, ci. ? 8. r Y ?? .?' a'ixYe 1'M' ?aa~. ?s i.t a "r .., ?4
??ja JR?ff?? 1yga+r N•T T tE " p, Is.. Y .MEir4? .. 74 -,
r „c V' Ph,,. ?„a
tt ,
'00
P ,
?`.Hy M, Fp?'rry .4 5'
V_ 4'0
»
??
kz,
5w.. ? ? ? ?yyl a+b4 `w• .?? ?,ta ' ?` ,^Y;` ? "t'... a ' ? ?' ? 1, 'h•r'"`
t
,.. ., +... 'ir i,"' ?, q. wA .:. ra .. ?` ?:7,y v"'• ;:.7,_? 3,,::» ,.? .. ?,>: r° ?,..».: .,,'? r ? y',a ? ;
9`
,
y 1 1 ' ? ?,t sj? 'e ?'? ??? x.A? . 1 fl i ^G i? ?? ?_ :i,T y? •1? .n y??, ,h'{
i '
d ? 7 7
4
# ?., 5?Sd ?i_y. n : :. SLAY, tk? xa,.1,a• k
.a- A .:.y.•,., x•:rA.• ` w' . k ? L ? ? '? ?^ 'i;':+ gly ? ,? .. #w .l, f,..t?"4 .Ly v .r,t,,?'? ? a y, o>i...
,nh,('. ? ?.,; C ,k'. .;;r, ""Y?, - '5•?Mh „`.?.? F' ,C,.Y [eafcf•.c ? #Sr;t'
. rax a-•'l+,r• :-3? s F?? +tir ?'? r,'': `.?'''1'?',, 1??..?
? r M his /i 3
°^ P- _
, ?- ,a`C t •. „ .a +..r3+r. +. ?+ ?. ,Sim: F S °` ;'_ is {
-A7'
?Al
1 S'y.,., ? 'S' _ ; ?, »'?` , 4 ? r s , S ,? ? J r,Nn 'Sf.? ? {?Wi• ? `? k ?..' s i
LA ±' '? , ,?
°,yF"?,Liv >„ff'` - aL, ?tn• ?' ,y±>kt ... riw 7Y.
7 F k ,Zti „: h7 a 'i : L 1 ia(' p w w ..7t 't °F ;Tu81.t '"•, _ ' .^a° ` .. Y: .
.:`5 .. `..i?'-' ..._a^ "REp.-?•??,1?`?.Tk? - t. :;. ,,,?}a ? '??'".'? ?x•..^'.. .y, ?".?.""•; ?..'L?+ .'r .C r??V`:n.:5, "+l',, •'4`. ?'»a_.
?Vw
y iL k"' t 4 C .'. ?'.:.y p.y 4 r - >, vI S r: 4 s
71
?. .r• b t` Y"y?'hwn?'l,r?? w ??`s`r..? 5d? .'? ,?'n" b fi ?vf a?' S1 i s£?A .a ???`^.4??57 K. ??7a a6r??`? (L
r •r ' a nc a., 'fir _ . ar.. i' pt k;'t k ,w?.'4,?+,
6? nr...{ S 5 r.,,?h
wy, E4
1.7
14
r.
- ,. ? t+t ? f k?? YVI
' •' y? ? /i ,C' LS?'i 1%:r F t ?".' k) ? '; y ''?? ?: G ? I ? ? ? P?!?. µW? r
' ? 'AI # ry i ?.G'` d _ E rI µ, r °? 1 , ° ? ,AC 'ty t: Cam. ?'y??s trr? ?r p O
tkr ?? ?at'M yt ?4.fi}' '?'.?? '+Yj>:'. r $ y .? ax• ? ?y4 t ? d ? f '? r[ ?? qtr t?7'
? ? fib ?` A?' z, r ?,£ ? ? 4 `' ?^ r " ,, ?,°ia ? ? '!.. } "G
Cp
- ? a wxl'f' d ?""" .w ,r ?` A' M. F ??'k?•r j, ?' "?"'t'x x 5 ? d'
!'
r t .y : <t t,,{r? 4ro i 44 nr r+' j}
krt}i' ""' ..`,.i yrr+' tom! e > G ' y`:?'" , r S° j (D
Y v ,
r
__ r s

GIN TIP PROJECT B-4525
MTL
G
CONC
a END TIP PROJECT B-4525
2SFD
WOODS
WOODS
i
i
/ /? Ex?sTR'w
WOODS
EXIST. R/W
F
:w -
F
WOODS
STREAM MODIFICATION
t
W
C
N
N
1) U
U ?
Y
a
WOODS
WETLAND
V ? ?Ilc
F EXIST. R/w
-- --- DICK BLACKWELL ROAD (SR 1412)
EXIST. R/W
F W0005
WOODS
END CONSTRUCTION

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.133 ON SR 1412
OVER GRASSY CREEK
B-4525
FIGURE 2
PGq f)
Sf
?F
y ??