20081601 Ver 1_Complete File_20081205

mailbox:///C l/Documents%20and%20Settings/Rob_Ridings/Applicat...
Subject: Re: B-4524
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>,
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:39:30 -0400
To: Erica McLamb <[e-mail]>
I concur with all that and will only add that, for avoidance and minimization issues: our first choice for
this project, as with any bridge replacement, would be an offsite detour. But if DOT strongly beleives
that an onsite temporary bridge is needed, we strongly believe it should be on the other side of the
bridge, away from the two UT's & the small wetland that is adjacent to them.
If you need anything else, just let me know!
thanks,
-Rob. Ridings
Erica McLamb wrote:
Rob,
I just wanted to take a moment to summarize our meeting for B-4524 on June 29, 2006. Two streams
were evaluated. The first stream, UT1, was located on the west side of the road within a wetland.
This stream was composed of an intermittent and perennial segments. You concurred with our
determination of where these sections began. This stream is not located on the most recent soil
survey map or USGS topographic map, therefore it is not subject to the Tar-Pam buffer regulations.
However, this stream is subject to 401/404 regulations.
UT 2 is located approximately 260 feet west of the bridge. This stream is located on the soil survey
and topographic maps, however, it was determined that this is an ephemeral channel. UT2 is not
subject to the Tar-Pam buffer regulations.
Shelton Creek, the stream that will be bridged, is subject to the Tar-Pam buffer regulations.
If any of the above information is incorrect or if I have misunderstood any aspect of what was
discussed at the time of the site visit, please let me know. If you have any questions, feel free to
contact me at 715-1521.
Thank you,
Erica McLamb
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT
1 of 1 7/14/2006 10:40 AM
North Carolina Division of Water Quailty - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

! Date: Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: n Site: (,(T Longitude:
Total Points:
ittent County:
is
t l
t I
t
St
e Other
a
eas
erm
am
n
r
VVV"'' e.g. Quad Name:
If i 49 or erannial If k 30

A. Geomo holo Subtotal =Z Abwt.
Sratt
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosi 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle- ool.sequence 0 1 2 3
.4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1. 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3 '
8. De osltronal bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 , . 2 . 3
8. Recent alluvial de sits 1 2 3
9 e Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headeuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1 1.5 .
12. Natural valley. or drainageway 0 1 1.5:
13. Second or greattr..order channel on exxlsflns? ?/'?
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No 0 ? Yes = 3 .
evidence. ?./
Man-made ditches are not rated; sso dlscusslons In manual
B. HydMlogy Subtotal =
,
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 .
2- 3
15. Water in channel.and > 48 hrs since rain, or 1
IV 1
' 2 3 -
1 1
Water In channel - dry, or rowln season
.
1ti: i,eafltfter 5 .5
17. Sediment on cants or debris 0.5 !
18: Organlc debris lines or piles fWrack lines) 0 0.5
19. Hydrlc soils redoximorphlc features) present? No Yes =

C. Siolo $ubtotal =.
20 ..Fibrous roots In channel 1 0
21 . Rooted. plants•In channel 1 0
22, Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24: Fish toi_ 0.5 .
. 1 1.5
6 Amphibians ox 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity-and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5 .
• 27. Filamentous algae; perlph on 1 2. 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us. 0.5 1 1.5. ,
29 . Wetiand plants in streambed FAG.= 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV.•.r 2.0; Other 0
items 20 and 21 ocus•on the presence of upland plants, Item 20-focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. t
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch: -
s
C

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
D NDSANDST QI/AL? ?FJ
M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WA?FRBR%Cy
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 16, 2006
Mr. Rob Ridings
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Request for reverification of wetland and stream delineations and buffer requirements for
Bridge 193 over Shelton Creek on SR 1309 (Ben Thorpe Rd.) Granville County, Division 5,
WBS No. 33748.1.1, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1309 (5), T.I.P. No. B-4524.
Dear Mr. Ridings:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Natural Environment Unit has revised the
delineation of "Waters of the United States," for the above referenced bridge replacement project. A
jurisdictional determination (Action ID number 200421001) had been issued for this project based on
fieldwork completed in February 2004 by EarthTech biologists. However, during a site visit on May 2,
2006, NCDOT biologists determined the following changes have occurred:
• The boundary of Wetland A as determined in February 2004 is no longer accurate. Wetland A, a
riverine wetland, was delineated and the new boundary is as depicted on the attached aerial
photograph.
• An additional stream was identified in the project area. UT1 originates in Wetland A and consists of
intermittent and perennial portions. NCDWQ Stream Identification forms were completed. The
intermittent and perennials portions of the stream are identified on the attached aerial photograph.
This stream is not depicted on the most recent USGS topographic map or NRCS soil map, and is
therefore, not subject to the Tar-Pamlico buffer regulations.
• An updated North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Identification Form was
completed for UT2 and it was determined that it is an ephemeral channel. This stream is depicted on
the most recent USGS topographic map or NRCS soil map, however, because it is an ephemeral
channel is not subject to the Tar-Pamlico buffer regulations.
A field meeting is scheduled for June 29, 2006 to review the updated stream and wetland delineations and
buffer requirements for this project. Please see the attached supporting documents:
• Project vicinity map.
• USACE Routine Wetland Determination data form and DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets.
• DWQ Stream Identification Forms
• NCDOT aerial photography.
• USDA Soil survey map sheet 16 of Granville County.
• USGS Topographic map with site location.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone] Or
919-715-1335
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604

If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Erica McLamb
Environmental Specialist, Natural Environment Unit
N11 . _
flak.
Hal °? ? ? ??~ • , ? ?ZibatserwF?ltr, j 1333
i
96
6 f
` t97 fi
`? 1321 •' `. f 11501 r ti
ti o rt .L` p F{7 `?. `t.
ti` 323 4 .1317 r' GS
r ?"??o _?_..? ?• ?? 1tg0 ??
193 ,
178 a ? ? ? uh4ifOi7 S10B?1LbR ` ?? a4?
e
?' ? 3316 ?,.. • " ? }?? ? ° ? ? ?
} 3019
P17
a 5
E31
?--.? 164 ?,.
_ ? ? \ • ? 309 1304
? r 1318 •j €3?7 ?? ``? .
1315
r
1314
? 1811
{ s
coo

/a i Koarti Z4a NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
14 0` PROTECT DEVELOPMENT &
'?y oa?P ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
???OF TA Pl15Q/
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 193 ON SR 1309
OVER SHELTON CREEK
B-4524
Fieure 1
T_
t
O
r
Z n
D o
0
Z o
O T
?o
m
-- Z
x
r?
z
0
Ul
C j
TopoZone - The Web's Topographic Map Page 1 of 1
-. ?-t + r -- - - - . -,
lL.
\\J/ Vyl
l dT- I f \ k?-?i d r ! rl? : F?
' ? I r @D t ' ?. I zq
fjflYt)
L
41
1 _ -y J' 4I ,1 ),ff 1 J f { }
ff%
)e
1 !
?? t i 1 '?• i I lam' ?`,•-?, s? ? ? ?
? - I
~•?``,\ ? -} `'I `•. ?"?.,?jJtG7' ?'`- F?'?- 't w`_''i ??.- ?...r-' \. '? -?."??.+? ? f I :°'''r".r ?y 1 f
?. ' `•t ;,y4 ? _ + . _.'•. M1.? ?.i. fray Jf ?` _
AA yIt
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 km G
0 0.2 0.4 o.6 0.8 1 mi
Map center is UTM 17 701504E 4029272N (WGS84/NAD83)
Triple Springs quadrangle M=-8.929
Projection is UTM Zone 17 NA083 Datum G=1.333
http://www.topozone. com/print. asp?z=17&n=4029271.99990295&e--701504.000043 3 72&... 5/11/2006
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: ?` -? ?-4 \&! - --,- ! Date: ; f)
Applicant /Owner: County:
Investigator: E?! I- c-trr State: N C

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Y No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I. Nce(
2.?
10
3.

6
y 14.
7.;, r ?, 15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species ar are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. , Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other i Inundated
"
Saturated in Upper 12
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines

Field Observations: Sediment Deposits

f Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
V/_. Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes / No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Arrny Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: U Date:
Applicant / Owner: 1? C- J County: (? -rr..
Investigator: _ 1= %0 State: f•.1 ,-

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes y No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Y No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes -.! No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

3.r
4.1 12.
5. f '.: c ?- la. ?-P C 13.
6. (7 14.
u + O?c 15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species-are/are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
_ -Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: n (in.)
Secondary Indicators:

} ?? Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
=fin.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: ! (iii.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
ll Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
es) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsee
(inch
?
/

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: f ,`", (-voo I\"-4 (c'r, C
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes V No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes Nok
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: - Project: ` Latitude: -( Cs I?
Evaluator: Site: i Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent County: ` Other
9 Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial If a 30 I ti ( . - C p
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =! 9 -D) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 i 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 (-21' 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting '-0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain Q ! 1> 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches Q? 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0,) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ) 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees ( 0. 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ' 0) 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway (0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. -?
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = f )i
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter `-1.5 1 0.5 '767-
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? (-' No = 0)--\ Yes =1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves (0 1 2 3
24. Fish "1 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0) 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) (0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0;'
ILU1115 LU d11U 41 locus on Lne presence oT upiana plants, item za Tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. ~- -'
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
1 ?
? ? V
L c)-

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ( ! . ;`.?} Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude: ! i
0
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ` County Other
if z 19 or perennial if z 30 1 C5( % i e.g. Quad Name: I r,? r-'_,

A. Geomo hold (Subtotal = `t ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence (0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 C1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits /(31 1 2 3
9 8 Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts (0 1 2 3
1.1. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0. 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
N
Yes = 3
man-maae ancnes are not ratea; see oiscussions in manual
R- Hvriminnv /Siihtntal = A 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge ` 0 1 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 10 - 5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) r 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 - Yes =1.5)
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = L `'? )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel l 3. 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 LO
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0"> 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0'> 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton (0? 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 C 1.5`
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 `SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
RC l lt. LV dnu c I IOGUS on uie presence or upiano piants, nem za rocuses on the presence oraquatic-or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
r-? - - a -tfa -r r
-----------------------
L1
Z
ta.
rr
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date:
?^??
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent r ]]
if z 19 or perennial if Z 30 Q l
Project: _ L' C I
Site:
U-1 6_2c?_,
County:
Latitude: Z;?
Longitude: ?rl '1w
Other
e.g. Quad Name: S
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure; riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ilp 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activeirelicfloodplain 0 (97 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel (0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 .2 3
9 a Natural levees 0) 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls `'0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 /0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. /?` - --
No = 0
Yes = 3
iwan-mane oncnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual
r 1
B- Hvdroloov (Suhtntal = 0,
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 ?2? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
I—, !3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 _1 ( 0.5) 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 IF 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? rNo = 0') "- Yes =1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel ( 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel (13 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 ' 0.5? 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 , 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 075; OBI. = 1,5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
ncma cU anu 41 IUUUb un ure presence of upiano pianis, Item ZU TOCuses on the presence ot'aquatre or wetlano plants.
Sketch: G
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

05--e=,A -- OCa
"The rating system cannot be applied to s alt or oracxtsrn marsiic?) ui 3L1 -u- ?? •?••?•?•?
weiort
,
'
' x -
4.00 '
Water storage Wetland Score ;
Q

Bank/Shoreline stabilization

TTTT

x
-
4.00
-
Uy r
Pollutant removal 5.00
x 00
2
' Wildlife habitat .
Aquatic life value
x
4.00
N Recreation/Education x 1.00
G Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 1 0°/b nonpoint disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius
Wetland VVIUL _ e

Ii!, ? IM
Project name l3 -?Nearest road FZIJ
h f et
a ` _ k r dr 7 F < - +'"'` y*' '!':° _ 'fir lr?,,. •'+r $'
r r b ti F` r"^ y?•uro.'.?t-'r a xt R,. ?£-1?..,?'4,{ n ..,- ,f?
s
r i. ,- ..v.-.
l 'yam
Ir.
s ? a a.
W .:;? m "6 s +t? v r ? 4a ? r..t<???'"i q• e x $t? ?..:? R " w
_ w
ti AkK

f

I

m r

K
-?
!"w
?1
ell
? Q kt.
y
r ?w^f ? ?_ .?ie f?
C
x .?
yI ¢
I
ow. "
e O
`
fw-
?
.. z
o n to tl'
?
yo ~ A
!'w
v

?
z 0 Q
?a

a vs
M• O
W
r ? .y
tip,
y

Q A' r

r sr

t
?gjy6yyV pl
f" ee.'i ?R"e{
_ y
}
X 1;.
N -KQ e+. ` b fe v ,
3(D
? ? ? 4 fir' ? -r s'4 ". r?'" ? • .a+gr4?? ?.?'tiL?.sf .
+ . ,
-a
0 (D
i-1 ?fe
r. m 7 t0
'n Y + ° r :r r' T? .fir
0 Z)
,w :,? a ' _ . ` 5 ) '". 'try" ' .af ,g' ,? '•
36
rtes r :. 4 `+ '
W F 4r
d} 0 1
? "S ?V a p ?? ?'4ti - -
1?d 1 ,.. 7}L "?
y. ae.
i 1, ??- ? ???,?,• ,??.' _ J r "7' 3' -•
wrt
i x z ''>
Vo '5v

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: / / ( 'L Project: 4 j 0--0)ONJT?06 Latitude:
Evaluator:Mi„? f.(? Site:d? ea C. C., ?.? Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: (,J t? ?? ??f J
if>_ 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 6 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence % 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 (Z 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches ® 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees ITb 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls (P> 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 cuf>
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ,
Yes ?5
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hxirirninnv fRiihtntal =," /d. '.5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1 - 0 3
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C_ Rinlnnv (Suhtntal = 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 _0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 a
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 .5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 .5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV Other= 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
r
?0? W AT?9 p
1Ir'? p
> 1 :;
o ?
February 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, NCDOT Project Development Engineer ,?'y
FROM: Nicole Thomson, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Uni l??
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-4523, B-4524, B-
4525, B-4526, and B-3169
In reply to your correspondence dated April 29, 2004 (received May 6, 2004) in which you requested
comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
1. Proiect-Snecific Comments
B-4523 Bridize No. 164 over Fox Creek, Granville Co.
Fox Creek are class WS-1V; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of sediment runoff to Fox
Creek. Storm water should be transported through vegetated conveyance to the greatest extent
practicable. Because Fox Creek are nutrient sensitive waters, any required engineered storm water
controls are required to be constructed wetlands, bio-retention areas, or grassed swales. Refer to 15A
NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(ii) and 2B .0258.
yB-4524 Bridze No. 193 over Shelton Creep Granville Co.
Shelton Creek are class WS-N; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation
and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of sediment runoff to Shelton
Creek. Storm water should be transported through vegetated conveyance to the greatest extent
practicable. Because Shelton Creek are nutrient sensitive waters, any required engineered storm water
controls are required to be constructed wetlands, bio-retention areas, or grassed swales. Refer to 15A
NCAC 2B.0216(3)(b)(ii) and 2B.0258.
,-B'4525 Bridge No. 133 over Grassy Creek, Granville Co.
Grassy Creek are class C waters of the State. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this project.
Creek are class C waters of the State. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this project.
Eno River are class WS-IV; B; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of sediment runoff to Eno
River. Storm water should be transported through vegetated conveyance to the greatest extent
practicable. Because Eno River are nutrient sensitive waters, any required engineered storm water
controls are required to be constructed wetlands, bio-retention areas, or grassed swales. Refer to 15A
NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(ii) and 2B .0258.
Noce Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit d ?'atllrally .
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
i

II. General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace
the bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide
Permit 23.
2. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict
adherence the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401
Water Quality Certification.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream
and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by
bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
4. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour.,
holes' vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream... Please refer to NCDOT Best Management
Practices. for the Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is.
mostly made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium
carbonate is very soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete
or cement will change the pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other
macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or
mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than
10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed.
Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving
the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath
the bridge.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly,
especially following rainfall events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent
sedimentation of water resources.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock
berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation
in flowing water.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels,. lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
III. General Comments if Replacing the Bridize with a Culvert
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe
invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural
thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be
placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These
should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing
sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Sufficient water depth
should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a
manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by
depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organ'i'sms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s)
should provide a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during
normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid
channel realignment. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at
the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally
designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure.
If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland
impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be
on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-
year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area
should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in
riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to
wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.

Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson 919-715-3415.
pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Gary Jordan, USFWS
File Copy

1314 `\- ?. 1311
Act two ?` ~ ?1
/ pf HORT{? q9? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
m of
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &

?v?„0_f 7FtA?.%? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 193 ON SR 1309
OVER SHELTON CREEK
B-4524
Figure 1
?`J ~

?
Oak

322 ? 1$3

?
' 17 A

'j T323 ? ?+? ? ?,

•? ?-
.+
3?3 4 1317

193

S?Ji?? 178
j
ell ? , r
1347 p a
3316 ~
o •

?.
] 309 -
ti a
3
?

T
L315 ? 1? P17
O
164
1309 1304

-
1373

r
- _. 1337

1316 '? g, y - 23 ?

° d 1
.40-
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 3, 2006
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 15, .2006 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 193 on Ben Thorpe Road (SR
1309) over Shelton Creek in Granville County (TIP No. B-4524) may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). These
comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information provided, a single dwarf wedgemussel shell was collected
approximately 100 meters downstream of the bridge during a May 2006 habitat assessment of
the project site. A full mussel survey was conducted at the project site on July 24, 2006. Mr.
Gary Jordan from the Service participated in this survey with NCDOT staff. The survey
extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1309. No specimens of dwarf
wedgemussel were found; however, good habitat for the species was present. Large numbers of
Elliptio complanata and Lampsilis sp. 2 were observed, as well as one specimen of Villosa
constricta. Since dwarf wedgemussels are known to occur farther downstream in Shelton Creek,
it is possible that the species may be located near the project area.
Your letter and attached information do include some -conservation measures such as completely
spanning the channel with a structure, special erosion control measures, and an off-site detour.
However, additional conservation measures may be necessary. The Service recommends the
following conservation measures be incorporated into -the project design and clearly stated as
commitments. If any of the recommended conservation measures are impractical, please contact
us to discuss them.
• Remove existing bents during the lowest possible. flow and/or utilize a turbidity curtain if
possible. Since two bents are present within the channel, a turbidity curtain should be placed
around one bent at a time and tied in with the bank upstream and downstream. Remove the
concrete footer within the curtain-protected area, and then relocate the turbidity curtain to the
other bent and repeat the process.

• Remove existing bents with as little disturbance to -the channel bottom as possible.
• For the use of heavy equipment, utilize timber work pads in work areas and access roads.
• With the exception of removing the existing bents, avoid all other in-stream work.
• Remove all existing unneeded fill from flood plain.
• Where possible, pull the proposed bents back from the edge of the stream bank at least ten
feet.
• Use Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities.
• Use Special Sediment Control Fence at the toe of slope parallel to Shelton Creek. Standard
silt fencing can be used at the toe of slope perpendicular to Shelton Creek.
• If construction has not started by July 2008, conduct additional mussel surveys.
• Do not channel storm water runoff from the road directly into the stream. Allow the runoff
from the roadway to dissipate and sheet flow over the natural vegetation before reaching the
stream, or direct it into an approved sediment detention basin.
At this time the Service cannot concur with your biological determination. However, if the
recommended conservation measures above are incorporated as project commitments in addition
to your previously stated commitments, the Service will likely be able to concur with a "may
affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for the dwarf wedgemussel. If you have any
questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
r
?'- Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC .
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC