20081601 Ver 1_Application_20081021

.k

MICHAEL F EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 16, 2008
U S Army Corps of Engineers p R?Row11 D
3331 Heritage Trace Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587 081601 O CT 2 1 2008
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ATTN Mr Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
e.w AA)Io `4
DENR - WATER QUAUTY
WULANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Subject Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 33 and 13, Section 401
Water Quality Certification, and Tar-Pamlico Buffer Authorization for
the proposed replacement of Bridge No 193 over Shelton Creek on SR 1309
(Ben Thrope Rd ) in Granville County, Federal Aid Project No BRZ-
1309(5), WBS 33748 1 1, Division 5, TIP No B-4524
$240 00 debit from WBS 33748 1 1
Dear Sir
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No
193 on SR 1309 (Ben Thorpe Rd ) over Shelton Creek A Nationwide 33 and 401 Water
Quality Certification (WQC) 3688 will be required for temporary impacts to Shelton Creek
due to the construction of a temporai work ad A Nationwide 13 and WQC 3689 will be
required for 3I-linear feet of permanent impac s to Shelton Creek necessary for bank
ili A Tar-Pamlico Buffer Authorization will also be required for allowable
impacts to riparian buffers
Please see the enclosed copies of the pre-construction notification, U S Fish and Wildlife
(USFWS) Biological Opinion (BO), permit drawings, and design plans for the subject
project A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed for this project in February 2008 and
distributed shortly thereafter Additional copies are available upon request
The Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for B-4524 will expire on January 14, 2010 This
project is currently scheduled for letting on June 16, 2008 (review date of April 28, 2009)
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG
LOCATION
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
ao
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at
http //www ncdot org/doh/preconstruct/pe/ If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call James Pflaum at [phone]
Sincere ,
?-' x 11 Gregory J /-. PhD
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr J Wally Bowman, PE , Division Engineer
Mr Chris Murray, DEO
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr David Chang, P E , Hydraulics
Mr Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental Unit
Mr Greg Perfetti, P E , Structure Design
Mr Victor Barbour, P E , Project Services Unit
Mr Jay Bennett, P E , Roadway Design
Mr Mated Alghandour, P E , Programming and TIP
Mr Art McMillan, P E , Highway Design
Mr Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr Bryan Kluchar, PDEA
2

C
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2o ® 8 1 80 1
(it any particular item is not applicable to this 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 13,33
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 Thorne, Ph D , Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699
Telephone Number 919-733-3141 Fax Number 919-715-5501
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
Updated l i/1/2005
Fax Number
a Page I of 11
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 193 over Shelton Creek on SR 1309
2 T I P Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only) B-4524
3 Property Identification Number (Tax PIN)
4 Location
County Granville Nearest Town Goshen
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number)
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc) US 158 to to SR 1309
5 Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody )
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum) 36 3875 °N -78 7534 °W
6 Property size (acres) Project Area is approximately 0 7 acres
7 Name of nearest receiving body of water Shelton Creek
8 River Basin Tar-Pamlico (HUC 03020101)
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated mayor 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 rural, residential housing? agriculture
10 Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 11
Construction of a new bridge on its existing location using an off ite detour The new bridge will
be a 100-foot, single span, box beam bridge with end bents on piles There will be no bents in the
water The approaches to the bridge will have 10-foot lanes and 4-foot grass shoulders, 7-foot
where guardrail is required, with a design speed of 60 mph The approach work will begin roughly
130 feet south of the new bridge and end roughly 140 feet north of the new bridge Heavy duty
excavation equipment will be used such as trucks, dozers, cranes and other equipment necessary
for roadway construction
Explain the purpose of the proposed work To replace a detiorating bridge
IV. Prior Protect History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable) If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T I P project, along with
construction schedules
Jurisdictional Determination 01/14/05 USACE Action ID # 200421001
Expiration 01/14/10
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e g , culvert installation should be listed separately from
nprap dissipater pads) Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 11
I Provide a written description of the proposed impacts
Permanent Impacts There will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands There will be 31 linear feet of
surface water impacts due to the placement of np rap along the northern and southern banks for bank
stabilization after removal of the existing end bents The banks at these locations are currently unstable,
the np rap will not result in loss of Waters of the US
Temporary Impacts There will be no temporary impacts to junsdictional wetlands There will be 0 O1
acre of temporary fill placed in Shelton Creek due to the construction of a temporary work pad along the
northern bank The work pad is necessary for the removal of the concrete mud sills at the existing bents
The length of this impact is within the footprint of the northern bank stabilization
Utility Impacts There will be no impacts to jurisdictional resource resulting from the removal or
relocation of utilities within the project area
2 Individually list wetland impacts Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e g , forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc
) Located within
100-year
Floodplam
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

L
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3 List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property 0 acres
4 Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts Be sure to identify temporary
impacts Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e g , cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, et
plans and profiles
must be included
Updated 11/1/2005
c ), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc If stream relocation is proposed,
showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560
a Page 4 of 11
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Intermi ntermittteten or t Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 1 Shelton Creek Bank stabilization
(rip rap on Bank) Perennial 18 31 <0 01
Site 1 Shelton Creek Temporary fill
(work pad) Perennial 18 0* 001

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 31 <0 02
is within the footpnnt of the bank stabilization impacts, therefore the linear impact is included in the bank stabilization impacts
5 Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U S ) Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6 List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U S resulting from the nrolect
Stream Impact (acres) <0 02
Wetland Impact (acres) 0
Open Water Impact (acres) 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U S (acres) <0 02
Total Stream Impact (linear feet) 31
7 Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet) Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE
Updated 11 / 1 /2005
Page 5 of I 1
8 Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application
Pond to be created in (check all that apply) ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e g, dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc )
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e g, livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc )
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond
Size of watershed draining to pond Expected pond surface area
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts It may be useful to
provide information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances,
accessibility, and financial viability of the project The applicant may attach drawings
of alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and explain why these design options were not
feasible Also discuss how impacts were minimized once the desired site plan was
developed If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be followed during
construction to reduce impacts
• The new bridge will be 44 feet longer than the existing bridge, increasing the floodplain under the
bridge
• The proposed bridge will be replaced on its existing location
• The proposed project will completely span Shelton Creek with no bent in the channel, allowing for
pre-project stream flows to maintain the current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime
An off-site detour will be utilized during construction
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control schedule and use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs)
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented
• Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented
• A preformed scour hole will be located southeast of the new bridge
Due to the presence of the federally protected dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in the
project area, a formal consultation was initiated with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) A
Biological Assessment (BA) was submitted to USFWS on June 23, 2008 The USFWS issued the
Biological Opinion (BO) on September 4, 2008 To minimize the affect of the proposed project on the
federally protected dwarf wedgemussel, the following conservation measures were required
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the contractor may perform clearing
operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately prior to beginning grading operations
• Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work shall
progress in a continuous manner until complete
J
Updated I I / 1 /2005
Page 6 of 1 I
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, erosion control devices shall be installed
immediately following the clearing operation
•rf areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, seeding and mulching shall be performed
on the areas disturbed by construction immediately following final grade establishment
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, seeding and mulching shall be done in
stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet in height measured along the slope, or
greater than two acres in area, whichever is less
• No new bents will be placed in the channel, new bents will be greater than 10 feet from the
normal waterline
• Deck drains will not be allowed to discharge directly into the stream
• Removal of the existing bents will take place when water flow level is at a minimum point
allowable within the project schedule and will be done in such a manner to minimize disturbance
to the stream bed
• Install special sediment control fence along the top of the stream bank Install silt fence along
the toe of slope parallel to the stream Once the disturbed areas of the project draining to the
special sediment control fence have been stabilized, the special sediment control fence and all
built up sediment adjacent to the fence will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with a
native grass mix
-? • All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, must be cleaned
out when half full with sediment, to ensure proper function of the measures
• Install np rap slope protection simultaneously with the embankment construction
• A temporary access road for conveying construction equipment in the floodplain/buffer will be
stabilized with rock or timber matting A rock work pad or timber matting will also be utilized
between the stream bank and the interior bent in the stream for removal of the interior bents
• Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner to prevent surface
runoff/drainage from discharging into the riparian buffer All interim surfaces will be graded to
drain to temporary erosion control devices Temporary berms ditches, etc will be incorporated
as necessary to prevent temporary runoff from discharging into the riparian buffer (as specified
in the NCDOT BMP manual)
?_ • NCDOT will ensure that the contractor understands and follows the conservation measure listed
in the BO
• NCDOT will ensure that the Division Environmental Officer maintains a level of oversight to
insure that all appropriate erosion control measures are fully implemented to avoid/minimize
sedimentation of the stream
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7ofII
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to reducing the size of the project, establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams, and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina (see DWQ website for most current
version )
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e g, deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc ), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed
Mitigation is not proposed for this project The bank stabilization provides remediation
for eroding banks and will prevent further bank erosion The bank stabilization will not be
placed across the stream bed, nor will it reduce stream function or result in loss of Waters of
the US The impacts to Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffers are categorized as allowable
therefore, mitigation is not proposed
2 Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http //www nceep net/pages/inlieureplace htm If use of the NCEEP is proposed,
please check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet) 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet) 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres) 0
Amount of Non-npanan wetland mitigation requested (acres) 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres) 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 11
2 If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation
Yes ® No ?
3 If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Cleannghouse9 If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate Photographs may also be included at the
,applicant's discretion
1 Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B 0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B 0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )'? Yes ® No ?
2 If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitieation
1 382 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
2 374 1 5 0
Total I 756 I I 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel, Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone I
3 If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i e ,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund) Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B 0242 or 0244, or 0260 Buffer mitigation is not required
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
Updated 11/l/2005
Page 9 of 11
the property If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http //h2o ear state nc us/ncwetlands If no, please provide a short narrative description
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e g, draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control)
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was given in the CE for haiperella and smooth coneflower
Marginal habitat is located within the project area, however no specimens were observed during surveys
conducted on July 14, 2008 A biological conclusion of "No Effect" remains valid for harperella and the
smooth coneflower North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) documents no occurrences of
harperella or the smooth coneflower within 10 miles of the project area
A biological conclusion of "May affect-Unresolved" was given in the CE for the dwarf wedgemussel
Surveys for the dwarf wedgemussel were conducted by Alderman Environmental Services on April 28,
2005 A single live specimen was located with the project area A follow up survey was conducted by
NCDOT biologists on February 5, 2008 This survey was conducted after drought conditions
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 10 of 11
experienced during the last half of 2007 had subsided and the stream had returned to normal flow
conditions Six fresh dwarf wedgemussel shells were observed Based on the most recent survey
results, a biological conclusion of "May affect, likely to adversely affect" was issued and a formal
consultation with USFWS was initiated The USFWS Biological Opinion was issued on September 5,
2008, and is included in this application
The CE greensheet states that NCDOT will conduct preconstruction surveys and relocated federally
protected mussels from the project area These activities were not proposed as conservation measures in
the BA Pre-construction mussel surveys and relocations were not listed as discretionary or
nondiscretionary conservation measures in the BO While there will be a work pad constructed in the
stream, however, it will be constructed in an area that does not provide suitable habitat for the dwarf
wedgemussel Preconstruction surveys and relocation of federally protected mussels is not required by
USFWS, therefore, NCDOT has concluded that this commitment is not warranted Therefore, pre-
construction surveys and mussel relocation will not be performed for this project
/d1/(P -a6
ApplicXnt/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided )
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 11 of 11
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 4, 2008
John F Sullivan III, PE
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr Sullivan
This document transmits the U S Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based
on our review of the proposed replacement of Bridge No 193 over Shelton Creek on SR 1309,
located in Granville County, North Carolina (TIP No B-4524), and its effects on the federally
endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM) in accordance with section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531-1543) Your August
25, 2008 request for formal consultation was received on August 26, 2008
If you have any questions concerning this biologic inion, please contact Mr Gary Jordan at
[phone] (Ext 32) ----?
Pete Beo nin
Field SuVervisor
cc Ken Graham, USFWS, Atlanta, GA
Susi von Oettingen, USFWS, Concord, NH
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Greg Thorpe, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Logan Williams, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Chris Murray, NCDOT, Durham, NC
David Hams, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
e
This Biological Opinion (BO) is based on information provided in the Biological Assessment
(BA) prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), telephone
conversations, emails, field investigations and other sources of information A complete
administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office
CONSULTATION HISTORY
July 24, 2006 - Service staff assisted in NCDOT mussel survey at project site
September 15, 2006 - NCDOT requested concurrence with a biological determination of "may
affect, not likely to adversely affect" for DWM
October 3, 2006 - The Service provided a letter to NCDOT stating that the Service does not
concur with the biological determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for
DWM.
May-June 2007 - Service staff and NCDOT staff had discussions and email exchanges regarding
necessary conservation measures for the project
June 6, 2007 - Service staff and NCDOT Natural Environment Unit (NEUl) staff met at the
project site
June 7, 2007 - The Service recommended that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
initiate formal consultation for the project
January-February 2008 - Service staff and NCDOT staff had discussions and email exchanges
regarding the development of a BA
February 25, 2008 - Service staff assisted in NCDOT mussel survey at project site
August 26, 2008 - The Service received a letter from the FHWA, dated August 25, 2008, with
the attached BA, requesting formal consultation on the proposed Bridge No 193 replacement
over Shelton Creek
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The B-4524 project is located at the SR 1309 crossing of Shelton Creek in Granville County,
North Carolina, approximately nine miles northwest of the city of Oxford The existing four-
span, 62 feet long bndge will be replaced with a single-span, 100 feet long box-beam bridge
The new bridge will be placed on the same alignment, but will be raised slightly The new
bridge will completely span the channel of Shelton Creek A total of 540 cubic yards of existing
fill will be removed from the floodplain at the bridge approaches and abutments The newly
shaped bank slopes will be stabilized with nprap above the waterline. For equipment access, a
temporary access path will be constructed on both banks on the downstream side of the existing
bridge Riprap or timber matting will be used to stabilize the temporary paths The existing
bents will be removed from the channel Removal of the center bent will require a temporary
nprap causeway The existing approach roads will be widened from 18 feet to 20 feet for a
distance of approximately 280 feet to the south and 290 feet to the north Traffic will be
detoured onto other roads during construction
Action Area
The action area is defined as the SR 1309 project right-of-way (ROW) of B-4524, beginning
approximately 280 feet south of the bridge to approximately 290 feet north of the bridge, plus
Shelton Creek for a distance of 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream and 98 feet (30 meters)
upstream of the bridge The action area consists mainly of a maintained/disturbed roadside
vegetative community, the SR 1309 pavement and bridge structure, and the Shelton Creek
channel. The action area occurs in Tar River Sub-basin 03-03-01, as assigned by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Section
At the project site, Shelton Creek is approximately 45 feet wide Bottomland hardwood forest
borders along each bank within the action area
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures represent actions, pledged in the project description, that the action
agency will implement to minimize the effects of the proposed action and further the recovery of
the species under review Such measures should be closely related to the action and should be
achievable within the authority of the action agency Since conservation measures are part of the
proposed action, their implementation is required under the terms of the consultation The
FHWA and NCDOT have proposed the following conservation measures
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the contractor may perform clearing
operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately prior to beginning grading
operations
• Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work shall
progress in a continuous manner until complete
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, erosion control devices shall be
installed immediately following the clearing operation
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, seeding and mulching shall be
performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately following final grade
establishment
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, seeding and mulching shall be done
in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet in height measured along the
slope, or greater than two acres in area, whichever is less
• An off-site detour will be utilized for this project
• NCDOT Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
implemented during the removal of the existing bridge
• No new bents will be placed in the channel New bents will be greater than 10 feet from the
normal waterline
• Deck drains will not be allowed to discharge directly into the stream
• Removal of the existing bents will take place when water flow level is at a minimum point
allowable within the project schedule and will be done in such a manner to minimize
disturbance to the stream bed
• Special sediment control fence will be installed along the top of the steam bank. Standard
silt fence will be installed along the toe of slope parallel to the stream Once the disturbed
areas of the project draining to the special sediment control fence have been stabilized, the
special sediment control fence and all built up sediment adjacent to the fence will be
removed to natural ground and stabilized with a native grass mix
• All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, will be
cleaned out when %Z full with sediment, to ensure proper function of the measures
• Rip rap slope protection will be installed simultaneously with the embankment construction
• A temporary access road for conveying construction equipment in the floodplain/buffer will
be stabilized with rock or timber matting A rock work pad or timber matting will also be
utilized between the stream bank and the interior bent in the stream for removal of the
interior bents
• Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner to prevent surface
runoff/drainage from discharging into the riparian buffer All interim surfaces will be graded
to drain to temporary erosion control devices Temporary berms, ditches, etc will be
incorporated as necessary to prevent temporary runoff from discharging into the riparian
buffer (as specified in the NCDOT BMP manual)
II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES
The DWM was federally listed as endangered on March 14, 1990 The DWM is found solely um
Atlantic Coast drainage streams and rivers of various sizes and moderate current It ranges from
New Hampshire to North Carolina, in small creeks to deep rivers in stable habitat with substrates
ranging from mixed sand, pebble and gravel, to clay and silty sand In the southern portion of its
range, it is often found buned under logs or root mats in shallow water (USFWS 1993), whereas
in the northern portion of its range, it may be found in firm substrates of mixed sand, gravel or
cobble, or embedded in clay banks in water depths of a few inches to greater than 20 feet (Fichte]
and Smith 1995, Gabriel 1995, Gabriel 1996, Nedeau and Werle 2003, Nedeau 2004a, 2004b,
2006a)
The DWM's reprgductrve cycle is typical of other freshwater mussels, requiring a host fish on
which its larvae (glochidia) parasitize and metamorphose into juvenile mussels The DWM is
not a long-lived species as compared to other freshwater mussels, life expectancy is estimated at
10 to 12 years (Michaelson and Neves 1995)
Human activity has significantly degraded DWM habitat causing a general decline in populations
and a reduction in distribution of the species Pnmary factors responsible for the decline of the
e
DWM include 1) impoundment of river systems, 2) pollution, 3) alteration of riverbanks, and 4)
siltation (USFWS 1993)
Damming and channehzation of rivers throughout the DWM's range have resulted in the
elimination or alteration of much of its formerly occupied habitat (Watters 2001) Domestic and
industrial pollution was the primary cause for mussel extirpation at many historic sites Mussels
are known to be sensitive to a wide variety of heavy metals and pesticides, and to excessive
nutrients and chlorine (Havlik and Marking 1987) Mussel die-offs have been attributed to
chemical spills, agricultural waste run-off and low dissolved oxygen levels
Because freshwater mussels are relatively sedentary and cannot move quickly or for long
distances, they cannot easily escape when silt is deposited over their habitat Siltation has been
documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water
quality, increasing exposure to other pollutants and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936,
Markings and Bills 1979) In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of DWM by accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981)
Most DWM populations are small and geographically isolated from each This isolation restricts
exchange of genetic material among populations and reduces genetic variability within
populations (USFWS 1993)
At one time, DWM was recorded from 70 localities in 15 major drainages ranging from North
Carolina to New Brunswick, Canada Since the 1993 Recovery Plan, a number of new locations
have been discovered and a number of known locations are possibly no longer extant Based on
preliminary information, the dwarf wedgemussel is currently found in 15 major drainages (Table
1), comprising approximately 70 "sites" (one site may have multiple occurrences) At least 45 of
these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely on spent shells (USFWS 2007)
Table 1 Dwarf wedgemussel major drainages
State Major Drainage County
NH Upper Connecticut River Coos, Grafton, Sullivan, Cheshire
VT Upper Connecticut River Essex, Orange, Windsor, Windham
MA Middle Connecticut River Hampshire, Hampden
CT Lower Connecticut River Hartford
NY Middle Delaware Orange, Sullivan, Delaware
NJ Middle Delaware Warren, Sussex
PA Upper Delaware River Wayne
MD Choptank River Queen Anne's, Caroline
MD Lower Potomac River St Mary's, Charles
MD Upper Chesapeake Bay Queen Anne's
VA Middle Potomac River Stafford
VA York River Louisa, Spotsylvama
VA Chowan River Sussex, Nottoway, Lunenburg
NC Upper Tar River Granville, Vance, Franklin, Nash
NC Fishing Creek Warren, Franklin, Halifax
NC Contentnea Wilson, Nash
NC Upper Neuse Johnson, Wake, Orange
* The 15 major drainages identified in Table I do not necessarily correspond to the original drainages identified in
the 1993 Recovery Plan although there is considerable overlap
The main stem of the Connecticut River in New Hampshire and Vermont is considered to have
the largest remaining DWM population, consisting of three distinct stretches of sporadically
occupied habitat segmented by hydroelectric dams It is estimated that there are hundreds of
thousands of DWM scattered within an approximate 75-mile stretch of the Connecticut River
The Ashuelot River in New Hampshire, the Farmington River in Connecticut, and the Neversznk
River in New York harbor large populations, but these number in the thousands only The
remaining populations from New Jersey south to North Carolina are estimated at a few
individuals to a few hundred individuals (USFWS 2007)
In summary, it appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are
declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any DWM
in follow-up surveys Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut appear to
be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed affected by the recent
floods of 2005 is uncertain at this time (USFWS 2007)
III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally listed
species, the Service is required to take into consideration the environmental baseline, The
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other activities in the action area (50 CFR
402 02), including federal actions in the area that have already undergone section 7 consultation,
and the impacts of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in
process
Status of the Species Within the Action Area
The action area occurs within the Upper Tar River Basin Records maintained by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) have shown DWM to be present in the Tar River
main stem between SR 1150 (Gooches Mill Road) and US 158 and in the following tributaries
Cub Creek, Shelton Creek, Fox Creek and North Fork Tar River All of the element occurrences
in the Upper Tar River Basin are designated as NHP Element Occurrence No 89, representing
them as a single population of DWM
Observations (G Jordan, Service, personal observations) of the Upper Tar River Basin suggest
that the DWM in the Upper Tar River Basin are genetically isolated and may not be represented
as a smgle population Shelton Creek and Fox Creek are a contiguous unit, separated from the
Tar River main stem by Gooches Mill Dam The dam is located at the mouth of Shelton Creek
and impounds the Tar River and Shelton Creek The habitat at their junction is not suitable for
DWM or their host species and likely represents a complete barrier to movement between the
two areas
Surveys conducted within the action area on July 24, 2006 and February 25, 2008 did not reveal
any live DWM However, a single dead DWM shell was found during a habitat assessment
within the action area in May 2006 NCNHP data also indicate a 2005 observation of DWM
approximately 2 8 miles downstream of the action area near the SR 1304 crossing Though no
live DWM have been found within the action area, the habitat is suitable and the presence of
DWM cannot be ruled out
On July 17, 2007, Shelton Creek was observed to have completely stopped flowing and was
reduced to a series of stagnant pools due to drought conditions (G Jordan, Service, personal
observation) Little or no rain occurred from July 2007 to at least November 2007 An October
29, 2007 site visit by NCDOT biologists to a location several miles downstream of the action
area near the confluence of Shelton Creek and Tar River revealed dry conditions and heavy
mussel mortality
Rainfall returned to the action area during the winter of 2007/2008 and flow resumed in Shelton
Creek A February 25, 2008 mussel survey conducted by Service and NCDOT staff several
miles downstream of the action area at the,US 158 crossing of Shelton Creek revealed the
presence of at least small numbers of live DWM, demonstrating that some DWM survived the
drought conditions by burrowing down into moist subterranean substrate
Factors Affecting the Species Environment Within the Action Area
The existing bridge, with its approach fill material within the floodplain, may have affected
DWM habitat within the action area DWM, like all mussels, are sensitive to changes within
their watershed, particularly deforestation, urbanization and major construction activities
Presently the action area and surrounding areas are primarily rural and do not appear to be
experiencing deforestation, urbanization or any other major construction activities The most
prevalent recent factor affecting the species in and near the action area was the effect of the
severe 2007 drought and the lack of genetic connectivity with nearby, but isolated populations
IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, "effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects of
an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with that action The federal agency is responsible for analyzing
these effects The effects of the proposed action are added to the environmental baseline to
determine the future baseline, which serves as the basis for the determination in this BO Should
the effects of the federal action result in a situation that would jeopardize the continued existence
of the species, we may propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal agency can
take to avoid a violation of section 7(a)(2) The discussion that follows is our evaluation of the
7
anticipated direct and indirect effects of the proposed project Indirect effects are those caused
by the proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR
40202)
Factors to be Considered
Based on previous survey results, and given the effects of the severe 2007 draught, it is uncertain
that any DWM occur within the action area If the species does occur within the action area, the
project is expected to have negative effects for only a short duration The long term and overall
effect of the project may be beneficial if there is significant recovery of the species in the Upper
Tar Basin
Analysis for Effects of the Action
Beneficial Effects The commitment to completely span the channel and lengthen the bridge
from 62 feet to 100 feet will have beneficial effects Some of the approach fill material in the
floodplain at the existing abutments will be removed, allowing the stream to access more of its
floodplain This can be expected to reduce the bridge's effects on stream-flow patterns by
potentially reducing downstream bank scouring and sedimentation
Direct Effects A temporary causeway (rock work pad or timber matting) will be constructed
from one bank to the interior in-channel bent for its removal Placement of the causeway could
crush any DWM within its footprint If a high water event occurs during the tune the causeway
is in place, the constricted flow could cause erosion of the opposite bank A causeway also adds
additional area for storm debris to collect on, further increasing the possibility of erosion
Material eroded from the stream bank could be deposited downstream onto DWM and/or their
habitat, possibly killing them or hampering respiration, feeding or reproduction The causeway
could be dislodged during a storm event, scattering debris downstream possibly onto DWM
and/or their habitat However, the temporary causeway is expected to only be in place for less
than a month, thus reducing the chance of effects The causeway may cause temporary
compaction of the underlying substrate after its removal
Removal of the in-channel bents may disturb sediment which will redeposit downstream,
potentially on DWM or within DWM habitat However, the small amount of sedimentation is
likely sub-lethal Of greater concern is prolonged erosion of the disturbed area on and along the
banks of the creek within the action area during the construction of the bridge and approach road
A major storm event could erode soil from within the disturbed construction area and wash it
into the stream, thus smothering mussels, interfering with respiration, feeding, and reproduction,
and degrading habitat To avoid or minimize the potential for this effect, NCDOT has developed
stringent erosion control measures and other conservation measures (see "Conservation
Measures" section of this BO) which greatly reduce the likelihood of sediment entering the
stream
Indirect Effects Since the project involves replacing an existing two-lane bridge with a new
two-lane bridge, it is unlikely that the project will promote any secondary development or land-
use changes. Also, since no bents will be placed in the channel, no measurable negative indirect
effects to stream flow are anticipated Overall, the project is not likely to have any measurable
indirect effect on DWM or its habitat
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions None known
V. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, local or private actions that are
reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO Future federal actions that
are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require
separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA At this time there are no known future
local, state or private actions, not requiring federal actions that are reasonably certain to occur
within the action area
VI. CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of the DWM, the environmental baseline for the action area,
all effects of the proposed project, and the conservation measures identified m the BA, it is the
Service's biological opinion that the proposed replacement of Bridge No 193 over Shelton
Creek on SR 1309 (TIP No B-4524), as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of this species No critical habitat has been designated for this species, therefore, none
will be affected
This non Jeopardy opinion is based, in part, on the following facts It is not known if DWM
exist within the action area The project has some beneficial effects Several conservation
measures will greatly reduce the potential for negative effects Any adverse effects are expected
to be short in duration
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the
taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in. any such conduct Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering Harass is defined
by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed
species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity Under the
terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part
of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement
9
The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the FHWA for
the exemption in section 7(0)(2) to apply The FHWA has a continuing duty to regulate the
activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement If the FHWA (1) fails to assume and
implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the NCDOT to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the Incidental Take Statement, the protective coverage of section 7(0)(2) may
lapse To monitor the impact of incidental take, the FHWA or the NCDOT must report the
progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service [50 CFR §402 14(I)(3)]
Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated
The Service anticipates that incidental take of the DWM may occur as a result of the bridge
replacement During demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge,
individual mussels may be crushed, harmed by siltation or other water quality degradation, or
dislocated because of physical changes in their habitat
Because there are no reliable data on the number of DWM buried in the substrate compared to
those on the surface (and even those on the surface are difficult to detect), it is not possible to
base the amount of incidental take on numbers of individual mussels Additionally, incidental
take will likely be difficult to detect and monitor Although spent shells may be collected,
attributing the cause of mortality maybe difficult Glochidia and juvenile mussels are also
extremely difficult to sample, therefore it is difficult to document take of either of these life
stages
The level of incidental take of the DWM can be defined as all DWM that may be harmed,
harassed, or killed within the action area (400 meters downstream and 30 meters upstream of the
existing bridge) If incidental take is exceeded, all work should stop, and the Service should be
contacted immediately
Effect of the Take
In the accompanying BO, the Service has determined that the level of anticipated take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to the DWM Since critical habitat has not been designated for this
species, the proposed project will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of the DWM These nondiscretionary measures include, but are not
limited to, the terms and conditions outlined in this BO
I All Conservation Measures previously described in this BO must be implemented
10
Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the NCDOT must comply
with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures
described previously These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary
1 NCDOT will ensure that the contractor understands and follows the measures listed in the
"Conservation Measures" section of this BO
2 NCDOT will ensure that a Division Environmental Officer maintains a level of oversight
to insure that all appropriate erosion control measures are fully implemented to
avoid/mimmize sedimentation of the stream
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes
of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species The following conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information
1 Acquire riparian conservation buffers in the Upper Tar River Basin to benefit DWM
either unilaterally or in concert with other conservation programs
2 Conduct periodic DWM status surveys in the Upper Tar River Basin and submit results to
the Service
3 Contnbute funding and/or staff to any future DWM reintroduction or population
augmentation efforts conducted by others
4 Contribute funding and/or staff to any future dam removal initiatives in the Upper Tar
River Bassin
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations
REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your August 25, 2008 request for
formal consultation As provided in 50 CFR section 402 16, renutiation of formal consultation is
required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been
retained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) new information reveals effects of the agency action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this
opinion, (2) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the
11
listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion, or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action
Literature Cited
Ellis, M M. 1936 Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments Ecology 17 29-42
Fichtel, C and D G Smith 1995 The Freshwater Mussels of Vermont Nongame and Natural
Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Technical Report 18 53 pp
Gabriel, M 1995 Freshwater mussel distribution in the rivers and streams of Cheshire,
Hillsborough, Merrimack and Rockingham Counties, New Hampshire Report submitted
to U S Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office and New Hampshire Fish
and Game Department 60 pp
Gabriel, M 1996 1996 Monitoring of the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in the
Ashuelot and Connecticut Rivers, New Hampshire Report submitted to The Nature
Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts 27 pp
Havhk, M. E. and L L Marking 1987 Effects of contaminants on Naiad Mollusks
(Unionidae) A Review U S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Resource Publication 164 Washington, D C 20 pp
Marking, L L and T D Bills 1979 Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels Pages 204-211 in J R Rasmussen, ed Proceedings of the UMRCC
symposium on Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois
Michaelson, D L and R J Neves 1995 Life History and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia Umonidae) Jour N Am. Benthol Soc
14 324-340
Nedeau, E J and S Werle 2003 Freshwater Mussels of the Ashuelot River Keene to
Hinsdale Unpublished report submitted to the U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord,
New Hampshire 50 pp
Nedeau, E J 2004a A Fourth Investigation of the Survival of Dwarf Wedgemussels
(Alasmidonta heterodon) for the Relocation Project on the Connecticut River, Route 2
Stabilization Project, Lunenburg, Vermont Unpublished report submitted to the U.S
Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire 7 pp
Nedeau, E J 2004b Quantitative survey of dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
populations downstream of the Surry Mountain Flood Control Dam on the Ashuelot
River Unpublished report submitted to the U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord,
New Hampshire 12 pp
12
Nedeau, E 2006 Characterizing the Range and Habitat of Dwarf Wedgemussels in the "Middle
Macrosite" of the Upper Connecticut River Unpublished report submitted to the U S
Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire 6 pp
Smith, D G 1981 Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Water Pollution Control Westborough, MA
U S Fish and Wildlife Service 1993 Dwarf Wedge Mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Recovery
Plan Hadley, Massachusetts 52 pp
U S Fish and Wildlife Service 2007 Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5-Year
Review Summary and Evaluation Concord, New Hampshire 19 pp
Watters, T 2001 Freshwater mussels and water quality A review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society Symposium, 1999 Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio
pages 261-274
13
(F
t
0
SITE
NCDO¦
VICINITY
1`01APS-
iOf
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJECT 337481 1 (B-4524)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO 193
ON SR 1309
OVER SHELTON CREED
07/28/08
NORTH CAROLINA

y i
J a ? i t
Y? E R S
4 ` T
A
( ? S i I
111 }?' ?F ?.t'
le
e Projcxct-
r, J .. -, o s is t 3
ry? ? S ?` r ?> t E 3
C "- r x , L. c s i
w •" r a 4 _ r c i
_ E I
S y 4 -
s /E i , ? z '- ?A > ? rr' 3 s F N t ` x ?/ 5
> w, `\ a ?? ?'?•? ?? a / I may. Ew ? E , r 4 (E( r ; N .o.
+ry3 `? S
-- _ i '
' M
r+-
1
`t 2;00Qe QQ0 6,000 '0 8;000/r
Feet
1 irich equals 2 000 feet N V V OT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LOCATION GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJECT 337481 1 (B-4524)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO 193
ON SR 1309
Buffer Drawing OVER SHELTON CREEK
stmot of 07128/08
uux?C Uu~Ca? s ?,ir7tk?e° ?i?,ci?<sr clltr, T%,E+" S mir f ?, NG

cn
V
/ O
?
^
cn

LL?

r-
-0 r-
cD v N

Z
/
Ii C\j LO L)
U N Z O N
o ZU? Fa->- >- ?
0 CC z z m

Q a
J
O
J
Q O
C 2
=
W
Y
W r 01)
O
? o
W 2 ?Y

~
O <
a: LL W It N
O J? T
Z Z
Y
w
w H O co
LL
0
Z r

0

v m
X 0

Q H
CL
U)
(3)

p N o U a_
cc m Z
CL O
a.

W °C
Z U

Q J
? J
Z oC cn
OW
CC

W cr
Z W
Z z w o
H Q a.
O 0-a:
J aiS W
062
cr- ~
W 0
2 U)
O W
D
Om
a
Q

z

C. *- N M
O
cc
a
m
a
0
n
m
0
v
T
U
_y
E
N
cr
U)
X
CL
O
CL
co

W
0
N
N A
Z zN m
Ll!
v
W NN O N
w
IN
Q (n
Q
LL
U v
H
a m
o
m w 3 Z
d
LLJ Z w

V Cf)= pr m
cr ON Q
W V N
F O C m
00 Z" n
Q
= 1-t_n Q U
-5
w
O ? C7
00 0
W
J U a
m N Z
D Z
H O
v
N
W

O
v
N
J
Q N ?
f N
_
~ r to

v

co
N

Q
?. W
J n c
c
G U M N
C <
Q
W
Z OD
t0
L,
N
G
M Q O 0
N CO Co N x
J d
Cl) J
:..
0 co Ln N
co Q
r
N ? Q
U
Q
w cn

CL 0

a
c
? Q
a - 2
c w fr

W w
0
w
LL ? °- x w
w
LL ? m m
? c7
m 0?
0Cf) x
QQ

U
_
Z O N
.n W
v
O C

Q 0

U) LL
o
m

w w
?ry
N Q
En Q
W W ED

a
~
U

3
D 0
Q
O
to
0
z J T

W Q
H

F-

Lq-OINTRA CT. TIP PROJECT. B-4524
0 LA
ow-
N
? ?? ? mrS
?N ALN LN ~? H mN
Mm - O. "' to G7 p_
O? F? ZZ;o
n p m o p O
Z O Z, CC,) m1 0 m aY
a
f (b
0 (b
? a Z N Z N
w
n
?r\? J
0 :?
r `
D i ID 0 O to
° 0a`' to n
oN 0 c C 1 -n
S a A
m Z
D Y v=? m n
b O O m O °' o
II NN ;uCr ?Z
m (A
u u u u u u rn ? O ° O
p T L7
D T 0
O 0 W IT
3?°o 0o a a 0)(D
< < y nOz O
u s a s a > 5 OD
M
aN° co c s
m
r r mOQ
(D CD A
rr,
to -n
Q S 7" r) r:? ° m O` O ?-
r OQ cn N N
3 rt d > m OD
p Cl D m o Lnn
S (p .? ao ?o, t° p N
.{ o CA R
crj
-o -o ? •,?
Z
o
h `
-? 0
C p? 0
O
C)
n ?D n y H
rt =-1 W
_ (b
U, LTI
20 1`5
II II N ? ? ? I I /y n -,
0 0 0 Y to !mil
000
eo
o?o?
J
tr o r-
O
10 [?! co
b O t0
Rf a a CO)
CD Q 71
pc `°N3 =?° O e
? ' y H x ?" coo
p? ? I
Y ° e (A ?r r
a
my ?. m Cn
k m (/1 2
y
ti ?^ D
n Yyyy O
? b
w
m
n a ?. o r p N m
x o0
O y
rn
° A
Ica
O A
N
S
ab ? r
10
y+1'? ??70 Sf'^p ?Q ? z
Y w ? ? o
0M Y?(?oa
i
C? z
?y
a

i
I
I
A A
? IOO i? 2

I
? ?
w
I ?VI )
Im W IN
I Im W $
lo o e , ?
it 9

I IG
I C im q
Q ? oy
1
j7G
r
i my
I H y?
R\,25\08 08 18 40
hydreul ic9\pe-ite\b4524_hyd_prm_b.f dqn
4
>1 ?
DO<
t }t
H
+ ?I s
' a
e
w
?o,4-opt
rrrrr?n
v
n?i ?`I?opv
r r r r r r_A
NwGq°
pi
ti
Epp a Sd
??= 5 -BL- 100 POT 5+00.00
a -L- POT STA 10+05.59 (15.0i -L
UO =
08
a a a
Nrr Sr
oU.
o?? N
8_4524-1 PINC 6+75.35 NCOOT GPS = 4j
-L- POC STA 11+81.13 (15.09 LT)
x
al?
Rim
a
z°
O JJ?
?Qp x
O ?
+^ N
. 0
V M
aG
f

-BL- 101 PINC 9+76.63
-L- POC STA 14+82.85
8
I
0
y ? I x
5
Y
5 I I
l
I ><
? I x
N ?
Ib I
I?
I? I
I
1
s
a
S?
0
?r
0
c ?• \
c m 1 1
1• 1
O { ? r
o
U
L-AL
I S?; Itl ,%'?
Od ?'
I
i
1
a
} I yNpy.
3 +? ? C ?1ZW
QO^ NN
I ? NI Vim;
l W
Il I 1 N" T
n rm
I ? I i ? ? ?2y m nO
0 1A
r
m ?? I I e Al
I I
-BL- 102 POT 13+58.08 = t
-L- STA 18+64.38 (13.88 LT) }- y
f
1 I
1

I r
?
i
,1 I
1 I 7
REVISIONS
j }
/ J
b?
( r
Ull
/ 91
1 ? -
?r
N
I S1 ?? `f! `„?
tJw \ ? f?
f IrJ-sly.
15
c
°m n?uo?
ooooE
NNW W m
B/
i
F9 a
m m
M. a
y
N N
N N
m m
N
Cr, CO
? C o
i
mN ?
rZ
0
r z-
zc
• m C
A n

l ?
NORTH CAROLINA
"I C
r
t
GRA MLLE
SITE
VICINITY
MAPS
Pe
Sheet•
N DOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJECT 3374811 (B-4524)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO 193
ON SR 1309
OVER SHELTON CREEK
07/31/08
w

t

y x f ry ?rt 3
Y i
? rc
k y ? «k`? ?. k ?
Fm(' ! r j F ?Yy
F
F ?

I f If

P'roj`ect°
F

a
A
... .. W
.... a.
_ ,.,
..,.
...? ?
... -? ? «....... _ ...
...» ..,
.
e
_-..??..
/ ? yi ! 3
Ci
?µ
R t
?1?
?
..
E ...
I
t? F

F 3 ?`
x ?
? F
e i

, F g ? ? ?,.w-•• i .,, ? ?' ? C? J r +.. Yj ??.+ } rte- a w? °?°+
0 2;000 ` 4,00`0 6 000 - 8,000
Feet
£
te
} e7 777
_'?" '^ /
a I F
i
1 indi equals 2 000 feel
N DOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

LOCATION GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJEC
T 337481 1 (B-4524)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO 193
ON SR 1309
rmDrawing OVER SHELTON CREEK
Sheet of
07/31108
uCr ?? %l -ut C ,F rxa?t l?, 1, il( ` 3 !q-, N„
N O
rl-

W OD
oo 1:T N
c
Z
NLU

U N Z O v
C\j
D ZUcn Fa-} }
O Irz° o? z
a J
o
? = o

Cc
UM: W - co
U
Z U o
W

Z =?o

E- MU- w? N
J r-
?O Jc`')
? YZ
W O O O Z
j

O

cnXrn
Q
U
d- W W
CO CO
C\l CL CO ? 5
Z
a o ?
0
m
a
W °C
Z U

a J
0 J
Z cr
OW
M 2P
W wUW
CL
F- <a
O 0 -3 2

?. J ad W
ZZm
F-
?
W U)
Z
O F- W
C
C O m
CL U)
Q

O
Z
a rNm
m

a
X
CL
O
d
2
U
tp
E
N
Ir
X
a
O
W
N

N

M
Z
O

F
C
y N
a
m
z
U O
F = U y
O p
z ?

LU

a m x
w

h

+ N
S U

F
-
m
c
c
? ?
a
m ?
o y
U
z

D oL
U) N O

b

c, o

cl) a cn
? v c Q
w cu
IL 0 3:

4D

a) '0
?

LT-

CL

U e'
E
(0
O
O

O ?
N
a

n 8 x
F
a ti

C
19 r
a
X
? ? N Z
Z
N
O) C U d .-.
c M
E
Q
=
w U ? Z
?
U
a

_
Q'
c
N
C C U C

? s
W U E
d
W
U
LL
y
O
S ? .... 0
F

Q

N
N m
3 m ?
<°
o
0
U E cn 0 0

a a
-
? v

0
Q
N
-a
N O
C C
?
l9
U

3
U U
f-
U c
?
a `
s
? (U U
C O? Q
Z
Z U
w
?
g
F
W

?
N
a5 ?

Q
? ? z
LL3?
C y
C
f0 _ co
Q
E ? z
a 3

?
? F w

U

fn m
O ?
O
?
M
? LL
V
J

J
? O H
to z p
m
N
F•

I I I I I III
LPONTAUCT.- TIP PROJECT: B-4524_
N
O 7O
Z Z
mop
X m
m Z?
N
ZXZ
Np
T T
^ o
C-4
M
o Iz
N
-n X
OOm
?c
Nvr
D 3
O m N
m
Am0
?T1
m
s
i
m
r
o
H ?° n
m
m o O
p

y
O
O ?
O CU
1
I Q
r ,o
I cp
SyE\?s\
O Q
4
O rn
r
I
rn
c?
'a
O
rn
c)
A
A
Vi
N
A

Y
r\S?. JAS ,T? -Sf
`?sC?? REEK/st
I
m
m
s
2
0
L4
g
0
`O r 2
` 0 10
W In `i
rn?
0
orI
o?
? I
o ?
N
N
S
4?
O
T
T
N_
mm
v
O
c
I
O?
0 ROB
rT `V
O .-r
O
m
c?
n
O
ti
4
ID
T?
cb

?.g
'N
It, 0
m RNA
o o ?1
b ego (n -' _
OQ w" O
A ?
0. ? III
h
? a
'A "0
Sr m
ISO
d
10
o r
,z
=z
sT
?r
sy
'z

IW W ? ? ?
W W
?4
I i4
e

I? r p
a

Ln e

IW
lo W
o

e

IVI
I ? ?
O

m

=
I I
I m ' mi
I N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVISIONS
09\25\08 08 22 IT -
r \hyd...I ws\p.-is\b4524 hyd-prm -et dqn g?lT?gq
i
E
jai R
A
s
A
r ,
n?
s
O
SEe Ea
-L- POT STA 10+05.59 (1509 LT)
. n
- ^r
S x
y 33 ?
B4524-1 PINC 6+75.35 NCOOT GPS =
-L- POC STA 11+81.13 (15.09 LT)
z ?15 , p
? O o°o
N ? P
x
-BL- 101 PINC 9+T6.63
-L- POC STA 14+82 85
rrrer?
???owN
r
1
r r 4 e r rtn
n ?!?lai?44?
?iSbUniQtntn?
? yt?m
y
BL 102 POT 13+58 08 I I
-L- STA 18+64.38 (13 88 LT) -
t>
1
{• . T?
NS
D
Z
W
T
rL ,,
y O
D _ ws
ut '
?i
`a
/0
V

Q

ul
/ ? \sr
?? I r rl
!5
p
rc 00
m cm
az xz r
?o mo
D -.
? nm
'^In min
Zti =Z
Ins ,D.?v
C. mn
ay
? N
:K Z
A
N v
=r -t
T m
N r
Z r
z
0
y
oo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r s
REVISIONS
09\25\08 08; 0 39
r \hydroullcs\permrts\b4524_hyd prm_wet con d n
t ?t <

< r
I

I `
<
i
x

? r
a I ? I
i I I

s

i $
>i 48 r
4s+ S' 9 -BL- 100 POT 5+00.00 #
?t A -L- POT STA 10+05.59 (15.09 LT) x` *1;
88
K ?! t z
zrr ?? $ WI I
ILA
y a
A -4
rn
o-?
f
84524-1 PINC 6+7535 NCDOT GPS 3 5 zr
Z f
-L- POC STA 11+81.13 (15.09 LT)
tJfl_ _ cs O
-BL- 101 PINC 9+76.63
-L- POC STA 14+82.85
I U
?a Ivia
N
r r
1
r y
I a
D-
u ? 0 4 ? Rti
x ?w4q°
S \
<
r
IO
V
Z
Q
L
I
y ? 1
a
'I• •I
v ,,,r 3c_ ?sr?
• IC T
.1 8m
250
'' ?srJ
V 4
IS
rN
DNti
-Dppy
e V ? O
n ;
LM
LM
3 _
Ir
1
V ?w
? , ytr? a
ry L
? v m
f i
-BL- 102 POT 13+58.08
LT)
-L- STA 18+64.38 (13 F<
5 ?
f

pp NO
yZ Cm
n ? Z,
Nm nm r
?.
N mn
Z. tic D?

ry ay
? ? N
A A
m?
= Z
0
b

I
A
o
T
2?

CID

0
m
Am A
V
I
P Z x ,p m
2
b
O
z0 O
cv
q? x
A? E
z
0

OO 10 10
O 0 O

O I
IJ
0
,
? I I

0 I
I ,
- ? -

r
r

m
N_ ,
1

Z
i
I I ?
n.
O
Z,
mm
?
C
1
X
IM r
v

T AI
mZ mW,

i I 1^ i m^r1' ? pOQ
Y
0 , _ c
m
z

1
1 r
?
?Nr
ll ? fAZ
•" / G7 mA+v>
+A
I I , ?

[]
y
1
AO
vN+
ZNZ,VZ
r*+0 O
w
I I
? r I
f7 , j
I i
% w
O 00 ?yw
_ II
CA) C m A G A
T i I Ow H
_9 T.

O
Nr V
?m- ? m
7C

- - -
- --
- -- 1
o (l r
II II 0:1
p
I 0 ?
I I 2e II
7o O 14

A O r-nm'

O y 1 I
A rip ____--- rv

Z
O
p
nr 7Ccaca I=
II
151 II
??

_ _ _ I _ _

N =

-

m

Amami _ _

t
m
II O1
N N
_ _
A + Opp
P
o

D
Dm *
- co o >D
? o o A
m Z

L

; 00
m
z r cr

` O N r
OuD

I of
i m0+
?
? P
N

i
1

I
1 J
V ?

?
?
I

I

, I

' I

r

C ?
i
i
?

i
i
?
I
i

`
1
orn
IZ)
gggmm
om)
o

?o2za
rl

rn" ol,,rn

'
' rr-q c- ?
? rn
=
I
?
I
I
' ' 2 O
y C

, I I I
, 0 2
I Zorn Do
?
? I i II II II II II II II II II ?
I i
10 1010 1 10 IN No IU Kb
Ic.
1 n
, 1 IW Iv I
I la 10 0.D
1a 1810 10 w
I I I I

I I
I yD,??:?>-n y::>1,
(.n (/) Ln Ln Ln Ln
CD
T
?
? 9
O O
I v I 'Lr
?
? tt Z?
y

I ra z
o

I
I I
, I
? ?'
Z o
mF

ODD O N y f-n
' O O 10 O O o
- T-
25- AUG d- 200yy80 7.3r\55
EEESU,lwa????X Er453! 4524-rdy_fah.dgn
1C.nVTVlAr.T*
0 0
N N
N 10
O U o U h?
m °
m =
G?C
0
70
y
N
-U. 0
n ° 0
y
? b
A
CO)
aR < v o $
n e a n a u x
3ZR 0o b
T `? a
a da
N
Q1
7 ?
cc to
O_ S ?
0 O
2 a
3
T T
0 0
m' y
N N N
r
0
w• y ?i+
° 'O17
154,
.
ca
° m
° a. O b
wx
b O 3
?0 a
1-4
a H N
° V
rn
m (/?
lb
? b
l d
! G M ?yj .4
Y
? +O
ti ?y
by 1023 YY
W]rP nunTT.!'T. V ACIA
0
a C) `
m
1
12I x
ti
1
.? I? I p r
ml? I 1+ OD
rnl\ I Co A
?I I g
ICI
I I /
FF ins
is
o
b c
O
Z
O
A ~ ?
a: ? w
na
Q ?y
? W
V `OA
V
A
a.
? a
i
N N a n
W
? W
'4
4
A
D
O OD ?l

AA
N 4L

G ?
rn

C ??
N y
9?
REVISIONS
9 SFP-2008 09 39
_, ?r ??auoy\Nr o?\ba524 ^ dy psh dgn

0 I
z
a
0
s/ , , i
7/31/2008
R \Ro dwcy\XSC\64524 rdy_xpl dgn

-

?

Sf^

FF"?'

NN

- !--

- I

tt.J711

-r -

1

- i

, n/tsi7y
--
? I (?j ? {

- - - -

- I

-- - -

--- --- -
'
(
•I
' _ t 1

' -- ---- -- _-
iii - f - I -_ --I-
' ---' i 1 i -
-
I
-1 7

f I I
,

( 3

1
I '

t 1 I ? a l I ? r? I ? 1 '? !
I i ? I I

I I --r = _, _ - I t

I

? I

m

b st
10
A
m i

m
-
I -- - - I C 1( 1 ?I
1 { I k
'I

I 4 f ? I ! I t
,
_ I .
1
I ? ' (
, _--- I Itlf
f __ _ _± I ?
-
---- .- --- - -- --

?( I ! 1 I I I I I C ? ?_
j
!

I
j` '

?

"( r

I I
I -! ? j
't
I
1 1
?

I

'
I
I
I
? I
-
j
I
I C , -I

I ? t ? 'I ! I ? ' 1 I i k I
I I I

11? (
_ _ 1 I I
I
I I
f '
! ? `
-I -[ am

I
I t
I `Q1 - j - ? ?, tr o o
1
' ? ? ! U
? !
'! I
? ? I
{ '
I I r
I , , I I
1 I ( f
I ! ! I
7/31/2008
R \R..d-y\XSC\b4524_,dy_.p1 dgn
?-- -

?1 _ ..._. - I ____t_......
cc??aa , f ?,I ..?._..,_:.I
11 i
' ?
r I 11
-i----__:- - , ; I I ? I ` I I r ?? _.,_... •}}(---?-?? I ? V..,-(.-., _...
II _
I I t
L IL
Ill
y,?._ _
I I I ? JI ?

G I
(

i 1
1 I I _ '_ t
? I

I

1

? I

? J

I

r t
m f j

4
10
I I - , i I ; i r

a - _ - c- ---
? I
`
? t
i i t
I I 1 ( i , ? 1 I )
)
I I ? Q I
I I ' ' 7
+
4 OI
!
l ?I
° A 1 !
DD
1
i
II -
? -- + -i m I j
' I i 1,
' I 1 I. I I 1 i t I I f
' 11 , I 1 I I

' - TI

I #A
I I -- -

i ? 1 I I

I :
I I

I i

I I- _ t
I i
' ' ? " -- -

I

I
_ i

I I
77 ' - - ?

I I i

I
I
? J '
I
1
' ' 1 1 I ?

11 I ?

? - r l

I I

I

- i ? - I I ? ? -?--- -

( --- I I 1 ?
- f F- !
, ( _ ? I
I
-?
I
1--
?
_ -. ..
I'
-- I
- - '
?-
- -1
t
I
I I

_
, f I }

' I I I I ? I I 1 r, ? ;?, i I
,
? I f
I ! l i
? ? I r II ; I I I i
I I i I
? I ? ,
I ? ? I , ? ?_ I C I

I?
---
? 4_7
?-? 'I; -, .I ' ! ? +??' r - X 11 .+I ?:-?
,
? _
, __ , ?
-
I r J
i l 1
l t
' J '
I B I V ! ?
, - I
I
I ? I i
? I I I ? I I
7/31/2008
R \Roodwey\XSC\b4524_rdy_xpl dqn
T_I seh
A/77/99
G

# . _ I t I

' 1
1 1 ;
1 I 1 , 1 . 1 } I l
I .
,
i

,

u
' i
`
t
I

CC2

- -w I

I

--
- 1

- - ;

`-
-

-

=
_'
,I
Ito

to-1I
- -
--
t

?
I

r
-'-
; i

- y
?
i ?
O ; r
?? - 1 ;
? i 1
I1
ti V3
+
v
i

-?- XTI
?",
1
•
? I I 1
j
ao
,
?

,
I - -------------- -
I
-

ii
I oo o f
lit

( cn o tla °

C - -- G7 ; ON
{
? , trf - 7- -

I 01 { t

,-
to - - ?-___ ._.- ?------ I t
I
N

N -----?----

N

-

r- --
1
01
?-- - --r--- ---?-- - -- -- -- -t- --- --u.- --

t I I .

?-

i? - -
?
r tA

?„ CA
71
?,?
i I v? r
?
i ! o ., o ,

I

p l

IiI i
,
.1
E ? . r ? ,
. I 1 ? ( I ?i I ? 1 I 1_
?I
i i
f 1
ii }}
1 I
-
1
tl 1 I
I
r 1 1,11 ? -? -
t

I
1

? ;T
? __.. _
$__.. _ :_......___. -?--__?___-7-?.?-
{ ____..----f_ ?_----. ?
__LL__•-?-? I _
I _ I._..?___.-r
+ --I-?-- _ _.._.?.._ f.
' .... -f- ..; .' __-?__`._.?_'_? -I Bi-
4
i
r

!
t

a

i

+
I-

t
-
I
i

J _
N
I I ??

f I
I 1
-
- - -? - - +
,
' - i
1 1? I I o
- p - 1

Granville County
Bridge No. 193 on SR 1309 (Ben Thorpe Rd.)
over Shelton Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1309(5)
W.B.S. No. 33748.1.1
State Project No. 8.2371601
T.I.P. No. B-4524
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
9/4(0101
ATE - Gregory J Thorpe, P ,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
?( ,?8 rra? :7?- 0 R-
D E John F Sullivan, III, Divisio nistrator
Federal Highway Administration
e

i
Granville County
Bridge No. 193 on SR 1309 (Ben Thorpe Rd.)
over Shelton Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1309(5)
W.B.S. No. 33748.1.1
State Project No. 8.2371601
T.I.P. No. B-4524
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By
C ARO
Z 12 6 /o $' aut?w ES S/d .
DATE Terrance A Hams Jr , P = : a SEAL ;
Project Planning Engineer :• 33730
Bridge Project Development Unit ??? ' FN ?Q; •• ??
CO
A, H
//11111111
2-12-4108 DA E BryanKluchar, PE
Project Engineer
Bridge Project Development Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Granville County
Bridge No. 193 on SR 1309
Over Shelton Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1309(5)
State Project No. 8.2371601
W.B.S. No. 33748.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4524
Division 5 Construction
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
This project falls within the Tar-Pamlico river basin Tar-Pamlico riparian buffer rules
shall apply
Install special sediment control fence along the top of the stream bank Install silt fence
along the toe of slope parallel to the stream Once the disturbed areas of the project
draining to the special sediment control fence have been stabilized, the special sediment
control fence and all built up sediment adjacent to the fence will be removed to natural
ground and stabilized with a native grass mix
A temporary access road for conveying construction equipment in the floodplam/buffer
will be stabilized with rock or timber matting A rock work pad or timber matting will
also be utilized between the streambank and the interior bent in the river for removal of
the interior bent
Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner to prevent
surface runoff/drainage from discharging directly in the riparian buffer All interim
surfaces will be graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices Temporary
berms, ditches, etc will be incorporated as necessary to prevent temporary runoff from
discharging directly into the riparian buffer (As specified in NCDOT BMP Manual)
The NCDOT Resident Engineer is responsible for providing a written invitation to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission Non-game and Protected Species Branch
and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to attend the Pre-Construction meeting
Roadside Environmental Unit
Design standards in sensitive watersheds will apply
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
Green Sheet
February 2008
PD & EA Natural Environment Unit
NCDOT will complete a pre-construction mussel survey approximately 1-2 months prior
to LET Any Federally Protected mussel species will be moved out of the project
footprint The Natural Environment Unit will provide a copy of the survey report to
USFWS
Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2
Green Sheet
February 2008
Granville County
Bridge No 193 on SR 1309 (Ben Thorpe Rd )
over Shelton Creek
Federal Aid Project No BRZ-1309(5)
W B S No 33748 1 1
State Project No 8 2371601
T I P No B-4524
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No 193 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible
for the Federal-Aid Highway Bridge Program The location is shown in Figure 1 No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion"
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No 193 has a sufficiency rating of
23 7 out of a possible 100 The bridge has a substructure condition of 4 out of a possible 9,
therefore, based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards, the structure is
considered structurally deficient making the bridge eligible for FHWA's Bridge Replacement
Program The bridge is also functionally obsolete because of a deck geometry appraisal of 2
out of a possible 9
Bridge No 193 has a fifty-one year old timber substructure with 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 members are damaged or prematurely
deteriorated However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber structures become
impractical to maintain and upon eligibility are programmed for replacement Bridge No 193
is passed its useful life
Components of both the timber superstructure and substructure have experienced an
increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities
The posted weight limit on the bridge is down to 11 tons for single vehicles and 19 tons for
truck-tractor semi-trailers The bridge is passed the end of its useful life Replacement of the
bridge will result in safer traffic operations
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the northern area of Granville County between Oak Hill and Oxford
(see Figure 1) Development in the area is agriculture and residential in nature
SR 1309 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and it is not a National Highway System Route This route is not a designated bicycle route
and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1309 has an 18-foot pavement width with grass shoulders
The roadway grade is in a sag vertical curve through the project area The existing bridge is on
a tangent The roadway is situated approximately 14 0 feet above the creek bed
Bridge No 193 is a four span structure that consists of timber decking on timberjoists with an
asphalt-wearing surface The substructure is composed of timber caps on timber piles with
spread footings on the interior bents The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in
1956 The overall length of the structure is 62 feet The clear roadway width is 19 2 feet The
posted weight limit on this bridge is 11 tons for single vehicles and 21 tons for TTST's
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure or in the immediate area of the bridge
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low
The current traffic volume of 380 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 800 VPD
by the year 2030 The projected volume includes one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and two percent dual-tired vehicles (DT) The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour in the
project area Three school buses cross the bridge twice daily on their morning and afternoon
routes
There was one accident reported in the vicinity of Bridge No 193 during a recent three-year
period The accident was not associated with the alignment or geometry of the bridge or its
approach roadway
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 100 feet long The bridge
length is based on preliminary design information including hydraulic requirements The
bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two 10-foot lanes with 5-foot offsets on each
side
The roadway grade of the new structure will be slightly higher than the existing grade at this
location
The existing roadway will be widened to a 20-foot pavement width to provide two 10-foot
lanes Four-foot unpaved shoulders (seven feet with guardrail) will be provided on each side
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
One alternative for replacing Bridge No 193 was studied in detail as described below
Alternate 1 (Preferred)
Alternate 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately
280 feet to the south and 290 feet to the north of the new structure A design exemption for the
sag vertical curve K factor and vertical stopping sight distance will be required Traffic will
be detoured offsrte (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 offsrte detour The offsrte detour for this project would include
SR 1316 and SR 1315 The majority of traffic on the road is through traffic The detour for
the average road user would result in 2 minutes additional travel time (1 mile additional
travel) Up to a 6 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 offsrte detour are
acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the detour
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1309
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition
These deficiencies are as follows west end of bent 1 cap has 20 inch deep end decay that
extends under joist 1 of span 3, foist 1 of span 3 has lost approximately 50 percent of its
bearing area
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No 193 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2
NCDOT Division 5 concurs with the preferred alternative
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on 2007 prices, are as follows
Alternative 1
Preferred
Structure $ 345,000
Roadway Approaches $ 147,000
Detour Structure and Approaches _0_
Structure Removal _
$ 20,000
Misc & Mob $ 121,000
En & Contingencies $ 93,000
Total Construction Cost $ 726,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 27,000
Utility Relocation -0-
Total Project Cost $ 753,000
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Physical Characteristics
Water Resources
The proposed project will impact surface waters of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin,
Hydraulic Unit 03020101 The project area is located in Tar-Pamlico subbasm
03-03-01
Jurisdictional Streams located within the study area are Shelton Creek and a unnamed
tributary to Shelton Creek Shelton Creek has been assigned a best usage classification
of WS-IV NSW [index #28-41 Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I undeveloped watersheds of WS-II predominately undeveloped watersheds),
nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 10 mi of project study area
Shelton Creek is not included on the 2006 Final 303(d) list nor does it drain to any
listed waters within 1-mile of the project study area.
Biotic Resources
Three terrestrial communities exist within the project area These are bottomland
hardwood forest, planted pine forest, and maintained/disturbed communities Two
aquatic communities may be impacted by the proposed project These include Shelton
Creek and an unnamed tributary to Shelton Creek Any construction related activities
in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions

Jurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Shelton Creek and its unnamed tributary are considered jurisdictional surface waters
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Shelton creek and its two unnamed
tributaries, UT1 and UT2 are located within the project area Shelton Creek and UT1
are jurisdictional streams UT2 is an ephemeral channel and therefore not
jurisdictional One forested wetland occurs within the study area (Figure 2) However,
the proposed improvements do not impact the wetland Jurisdictional were verified by
the USACE representative Eric Alsmeyer on January 14, 2005 It is anticipated that
there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition
Jurisdictional surface waters within the project area may be subject to the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin Buffer Rules These Buffer Rules apply to 50-foot wide riparian buffers
directly adjacent to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin This rule does not
apply to portions of the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing Any
change in land use within the riparian buffer is characterized as an impact The
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy and Protection and Maintenance of
Existing Riparian Buffers (15 NCAC 02B 0259) provides a designation for uses that
cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U S C
1344), a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 from the USACE is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project A
NWT No 33 may be required if temporary construction including cofferdams, access
and dewatermg are required for this project A North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to
the issuance of the Section 401 Nationwide 23 and/or NWP 33 The corresponding
Certification number for a NWP 23 is #3701 and NWP 33 is #3688 Since this project
is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, a Buffer Certification may be required from
DWQ for this project
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No 193 is a 62-ft long by 20-ft wide structure composed of a timber deck
with asphalt wearing surface on timber Joists superstructure, and timber substructure
with timber caps and bulkheads Bridge demolition will occur by removing the asphalt
surface prior to removal of the bridge structure The remainder of the timber
components will be removed without dropping them into Shelton Creek
Consequently, there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition
Because of the stream's silt and sand substrate, turbidity curtains will be considered
during bridge demolition
5
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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 As of January 31, 2008, the USFWS lists the following federally-protected
species for Granville County A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows
Table 1 - Federally Protected species for Granville Countv
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Halweetus leucoce halus Bald eagle Delisted
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf-wedge mussel E
Ptihmnium nodosum H erella E
Echinacea laevi ata Smooth coneflower E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species m danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range
Bald eagle Biological Conclusion: Not Required
The bald eagle was officially delisted on August 8, 2007 However, bald eagle still
receives protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Although the
project area has moderately large conifers, suitable for nesting, the stream at this
location is not large enough to provide suitable foraging habitat for the bald eagle and
there are no large streams or lakes within 1-mile of the project area The proposed
project will not affect the bald eagle
Dwarf wedgemussel Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Unresolved
NCDOT is currently in Section 7 consultation with the USFWS for the Dwarf-wedge
mussel It is expected that this consultation will result in reasonable and prudent
measures to minimize or reduce any adverse effects to this species
Smooth coneflower Biological Conclusion: No Effect
On August 9, 2006, NCDOT biologists Erica McLamb, Susan Thebert, Jim Mason,
and Sara Easterly surveyed for smooth coneflower within the project area Prior to the
survey, known populations of both species were observed Surveys for smooth
coneflower consisted of foot surveys, with complete visual coverage of potential
habitat Marginal habitat is located within the project area along the roadside of SR
1309 and along pasture edges The establishment of smooth coneflower within the
project area is limited by regular mowing of the roadside and pastures No specimens
of smooth coneflower were observed during the 8 man-hour survey
Harperella Biological Conclusion: No Effect
On August 9, 2006, NCDOT biologists Erica McLamb, Susan Thebert, Jim Mason,
and Sara Easterly surveyed for Harperella within the project area There is marginal
habitat within the project area consisting of the edges of rocky shoals for harperella
Surveys were conducted by wading with complete visual coverage of potential habitat
No specimens of harperella were observed during the 4 man-hour survey
6
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part
800 Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings
Historic Architecture
The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) reviewed the subject project and determined
that no surveys are required (see letter dated August 12, 2004)
Archaeology
In a letter dated August 20, 2004, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
recommended that an evaluation of Bridge No 193 be conducted based on the very
high probability that archaeological sites exist in the project area based the topographic
and hydrological situations
Brockington & Associates, Inc conducted an archaeological survey and evaluation on
behalf of NCDOT No archaeological resources or intact subsurface cultural deposits
were identified during the field survey A finding of "no historic properties affected"
with regards to archaeological resources is, therefore, considered appropriate for the
bridge replacement project The SHPO concurred with the findings of the report in a
letter dated May 10, 2005 A copy of this letter may be found in the Appendix
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation No change
in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects All construction will take place along existing alignment There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project

Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effect on any minority or low-income population
Noise & Air Quality
This project is an air quality neutral project in accordance with 40 CFR 93 126 It is not
required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and project level CO
or PM2 5 analyses are not required This project will not result in any meaningful changes in
traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing facility, or any other factor that would
cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build alternative Therefore, FHWA
has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act
criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns Consequently,
this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs Any burning of vegetation shall be performed
in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality compliance with 15 NCAC 2D 0520
Noise levels may increase during project construction, however, these impacts are not
expected to be substantial considenng the relatively short-term nature of construction noise
and the limitation of construction to daytime hours The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the
effects of intrusive construction noise
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area
Granville County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program There are no
practical alternatives to crossing the floodplam area Any shift in alignment will result in an
impact area of about the same magnitude The proposed project is not anticipated to increase
the level or extent of upstream flood potential

VIII. COORDINATION & AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development
U S Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Natural Resources, U S Fish & Wildlife
Service, N C Wildlife Resource Commission, N C Division of Parks & Recreation, North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Granville County Planning Department
In response from NCDOT's request for comments on the potential environmental impacts of
various bridge replacements, USFWS requested a survey be done and other various
conservation measures to be implemented See letter dated May 18, 2004
IX. 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
There is not substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project
X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project The project is therefore considered to
be a federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences
9
.
• { Oak ?, r 'r 9 • -N
NMI
3 • _, ftftrwhits 1333
.
3?2 <> t- 1 133
95
P11b o
? ?C' 1 t?7 8
+ 132D r+
law -? •??,,. 321 tlw 1
?? 1 e f ' o
328 ° o p G?
• ' 1317 •
t ?
' Q
' - 193 ( 1150
o Go+ktsn - . . N-
?-- 178 A
r- ? I
.
+ , • ?_ • O
f ;316 4
Jf-
30.9 - 9 to ) 1307
..
j
11315 M77
.? 164
1304
i w 1 1 4
•? 1.4 13113 `?.
- d• 1316 1337 0 • 'P234 d a
a
1315 ?? 13 1
13114
1310
a '?` ` • '
jail
1146
f? r /7 `l ? O

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
pORi{j
/?oF °+;yo
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
/1 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &

\
' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
`
?OF TpA
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO 193 ON SR 1309
OVER SHELTON CREEK
B-4524
Figure 1
r v c Ya3
j
~ ? •?`?'R'F••it, -_rte{ ?? ?•', ?. ?.? # T ? ,.? . ?-.'Q, X ?' _ s ?"` I
,H
-
r`
1 %07-400
. ... . _ .._...; x h
r7 7m, tt i lJol th ak t tass
B, idi!e No 193
Bi id ;e N o 19?
,nY,,,, 4
? North twat oltna Dep it tntLllt ()l
Q.
p
? 1 alitipi)t (,ltn)tl
y
l)itii?ti?II of 111gi tl INS
..?
u
? f rll3k t t 1)evt Itlplut nt ,'?
It?aE?+,a? l nlltitlutikntal Altaksis BI and)
(.I mlo the t oulltti
Relllat e litid,4e No 193 on'iR 1109
()ttt '4ll£ltoll CIL(k
B-4,24

d

"7

i F-
ice..
•. 4. ? yN ".
? I
F
s P ?
'. ? r'L r ,
1
F ?
9 a t
? ? II{

y?Sk
i i ? s
f@ r
f

t

SS ? A
f ,
f
?
1 r )

? .a
1 coikitt, east
(doiNtt,tt(.tut)
Looking west
(tlp5tt e.1III
Not th It at offfla Di. pal (111( lit ol
anspol tdttit#t
Division Ili 111"Im INS
?? i'r?iytit)lcrtl{t€ntttrtt.k?
rar IRA httanftnmett t.tl kn.ttti%ts €it attt tt
Ct tttNtllt t t:ttltt?-
RI.ptlu titIdgu No 191 oil "'R 1109
Mel "hettatrttika.1,
€1-4;2-t

????
4,01 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 17, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO David Faucette
School Transportation Director
anv a County coo s
104 Hicks Mill Rd
Oxford, NC 27565
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
FROM William T Goodwin, Jr PE
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT Replacement of Bridge No 193 on SR 1309 over Shelton Creek,
Granville County, Federal Aid Project No BRZ-1309(5), State
Project No 8.2371601, TIP No B-4524
The N C Department of Transportation has begun the planning process to replace
the above bridge, which is nearing the end of its useful life Construction is planned for
year 2007
Alternative methods of replacing the bridge will be studied Some alternatives may
require road closure at the bridge site In that case, all traffic would be detoured onto other
local roads
The type of bridge or structure that we select will determine how long the road
would have to remain closed However, the time of closure would not be longer than 8-12
months
We would like to know the specific number of bus crossings per day and if road
closure could be handled by re-routmg or other changes, or if it would create an
unworkable situation for your school bus operations Of course, closure is not a realistic
option for dead end roads In such cases traffic will be maintained on-site
We ask that you let us know your opinion in writing by using the enclosed
addressed envelope We need your reply by December 31, 2003
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Davis Moore at
[phone], ext 258,/
Attachment buses -rw C e /+ d
?/_? W.,-& _R'Cr0,1 4 .0 MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESS/TE W14W NCDOT ORG p? t RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 T 1 I 't C
r
Comments/Observations on Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects
State Pro tect #8.2371501 Replacement of Bridge on SR 1307 over Fox Creek Q - ors - 3
In reviewing this project, I see no significant impact on delivery of emergency
response as there is adequate access from both sides of the project area
State Project #8.2371601 Replacement of Bridge on SR 1309 over Shelton Creek Q _ u.s,2 I
In reviewing thus project, I see no significant impact on delivery of emergency
response as there is adequate access from both sides of the project area
State Project #8.2317101 Replacement of Bridge on SR 1412 over Grassy Creek
In reviewing this project, I see no significant impact on delivery of emergency
response as there is adequate access from both sides of the project area
State Project #8.2317801 Replacement of Bridge on SR 1435 over Mountain Creek B -
In reviewing thus project, I see no significant impact on delivery of emergency
response as there is adequate access from both sides of the project area
%?? EMS
2 If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset,
3 Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropnate vegetation,
including trees if necessary,
4 Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium penods associated with
rmgration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30,
New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
comdors,,
Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented,
7 Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants,
8 The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream,
9 Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constri cion of the channel or flood plain If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area
Federally Protected Species
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or earned out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process To assist you, a complete listing of federally-protected species
known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats, as well as
information necessary to conductaan effect determination and complete an initiation package can
3 A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected,
4 The extent and acreage of waters of the U S , including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Eamneers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U S Army Corps
of Engineers,
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and sirrular projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects,
Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat,
7 If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext 32
Sincerely,
Garland B Pardue, Ph.D
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
a
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 commurucation concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number
PBS xv
Attachments
1 Spreadsheet
16 Memos
cc Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Mary Pope Furr
?d MAa?
aW?
Michael F Easley, Governor
Ltsbeth C Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey ) Crow, Deputy Secretary
May 10, 2005
MEMORANDUM
I." .
North Carohna Department of Cultural Resource
State Histonc Preservation Office
Peter B Sandheck, Adtmtnstrator
Office of Archives and History
Dimon ofHtstortcal Resources
David Brook, Director
TO Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT
FROM Peter Sandbeck i?.e? Q?5
SUBJECT Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Replacement of Bridge No 193 on SR 1309 over
Shelton Creek, TIP B-4524, State Project No 8.2371601, Federal Project No BRZ 1309(5),
Granville County, ER 04-1320
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 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
t
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 5117 N Blount Strect, Raingh NC 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 17 [phone]/711-14!51
RESTORATION 515 N Blount Strect, Raingh NC 4617 Mail tierwice Centcr RaIMh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-0801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N Blount Srrecc, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Ce cc (rnrcr Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715.481)1