20120737 All Versions_Complete File_20100726

MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, NCDOT
FROM: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ, Transportation Permitting Unitex
THROUGH: John Hennessey, NC DWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit .
April 25, 2006
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects: B- 384.1 (Granville County)
In reply to your correspondence dated March 22, 2006 (received March 28, 2006) in which you requested comments for
the above referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
Project-Specific Comments
B-3841, Bridge No. 83 over Tar River, Granville County
1. This part of the Tar River is class WS-IV NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion
control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to the Tar River and its tributaries. DWQ
requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as
detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
2. This project is within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized to
the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0259. Please note that while buffer impacts from bridge
structures over streams are categorized as "Allowable", other buffer impacts from the road project, such as approach
widening, are categorized as "Allowable With Mitigation" in the rules.
General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Projects
DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from bridge replacement projects.
NCDOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
2. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ believes the use of a
Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of Engineers to determine the required
permit(s). Also please take note of written concurrence requirements and thresholds of DWQ's corresponding
General Certifications. One
?? W ATF? Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q
d G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
? North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
0 ?
Transportation Permitting Unit
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
N Carolina
aturWib
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
4. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless otherwise
authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a
condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
5. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within
the stream or grubbing of the stream banks and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish
passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
6. 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 the most current version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management
Practices.
7. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct contact between
curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to
surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills,
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and
elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species
should be planted. 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 soil disturbance.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained in
accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise approved by NC
DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance
Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used 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.
13. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure and
offsite detours. 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 and restored 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.
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 Rob Ridings at (919) 733-
9817.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
John Sullivan, Federal Highway Administration
Jon G. Nance, PE, Division 5 Engineer
Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Pete Benjamin, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy
4Tyd?.a STATF4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVIF.NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 22, 2006
Mr. John Hennessy
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
tog @ [9 N 9 1
MAR 2 8 2006
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1621
DS AND S [ENR-WATERQUAUTY
BRANCH
Dear Mr. Hennessey:
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 83 on SR 1138 (Culbreth Road) over Tar River in
Granville County.
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is completing the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the following project: B-3841. The project is
included in the 2006 - 2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled
construction in fiscal year 2008.
The alternatives under consideration at this time for each of these bridge replacement projects is
as follows:
1) Replace-in-place using an offsite detour to maintain traffic.
2) Replace to the west of existing while maintaining traffic onsite.
We are providing a copy of the Executive Summary of the Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR) for your use. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Categorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by June 1, 2006 so
that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning any of these projects, please contact Tracy A. Walter at 715-2120.
Please include the TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
Sincerely,
IZ,c Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728-168 CAPITAL BLVD.
1551 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1551

NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bridge No. 83 on Culbreth (SR 1138) over Tar River
Granville County, North Carolina
TIP B-3841
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1122(4)
NMS Element 38442.1.1
D
Prepared for: AR 2
ft?STTFR?8 /A?(l0. Iy 6
AFB' "R?'/
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Erica McLamb, Environmental Specialist, NCDOT
March 2006
a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B-3841
GRANVILLE COUNTY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 83 on Culbreth (SR 1138) over Tar River in Granville
County.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project, Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) No. B-3841 will replace Bridge
No. 83 on Culbreth (SR 1138) over Tar River in Granville County, North Carolina. The bridge,
constructed in 1951, is currently in poor condition and in need of replacement. The replacement
is intended to provide a safer bridge structure consistent with federal and state bridge standards.
No alternatives for the proposed project have been defined. The project study area is comprised
of an area approximately 2550 feet long with a width ranging from 400 to 640 feet. The project
study area consists of nearly 30.8 acres.
Granville County is lies in the north-central portion of North Carolina Piedmont physiographic
province. The elevation of the project study area is approximately 400 to 450 feet above Mean
Sea Level (MSL) as depicted on the Berea, North Carolina, USGS topographic quadrangle map.
The land uses surrounding and within the project study area are mainly agriculture and forestry.
One of the four soil series found within the project area, combination of Chewacla and
Wahadkee soils, is classified as hydric soil because it is saturated for a significant period during
the growing season.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The Tm River and 3 unnamed tributaries (UT) of the Tar River represent the surface waters in or
near the project study area. Surface waters in the project study area are situated in NCDWQ
Sub-basin 03-03-01 and the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is 03020101. The Tar River is a
perennial stream that flows northwest to southeast underneath the bridge proposed for
replacement. UT 1 is a perennial stream that flows southwest to northeast into the Tar River
approximately 200 feet east of the bridge. UT 2 is an intermittent stream located approximately
80 feet outside the southwestern portion of the project study area and will not be impacted by
this project. UT 3 is an ephemeral stream located in the southwestern portion of the project study
area.
The Tar River is classified as "WS IV- NSW" waters. Class "WS IV" denotes waters protected
as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. The
suppitmiental lassificat on utrrentSensitive?W-ater (NSWydenotes-waters sulsiect-ta ------
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation growth requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominantly undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.0 mile of project study area. The Tar River is not on the NCDWQ 303(d) list of impaired
waters.
The Tar River is not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC) as containing Mountain Trout Waters (MTWs).
The Tar River does not support anadramous fish species and is not designated as essential fish
habitat.
Biotic Resources
Four terrestrial communities were observed in the project study area: Mesic Mixed Hardwood,
Pine Stand, Mixed Pine Hardwood, and Maintained/Disturbed. Design alternatives have yet to
be identified for this project, therefore, no estimated area of impact to these natural communities
has been calculated at this time. Table 1 describes the acreage of plant communities within the
project study area; however, actual impact acreage within the construction limits will be less.
Table 1. Land Use within the Project Studv Area.
Community Type Acres Percentage of Project Stud Area
Mesic Mixed Hardwood 20.90 79
Pine Stand 2.12 8
Mixed Pine Hardwood 1.67 6
Maintained/Disturbed 1.88 7
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Tar River and UT1 are jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). There are no wetlands located within the project study area. Since no alternatives have
been selected, specific impacts to "Waters of the United States" cannot by determined, however,
some surface water impacts could be anticipated for the proposed project. Approximately 990
feet of jurisdictional streams are located within the project study area; however, actual impacts
within the construction limits will be less.
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.
_ Design alternatives have yet to be identified for this project, therefore, no estimates of impact to
streams and buffers has been calculated. Every reasonable effort will be made to avoid and
minimize stream and buffer impacts. Table 2 below states the possible impacts of each stream
within the project corridor. Usually, project construction does not require the use of the entire
study area; therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
11
Table 2. Estimated impacts to streams and Tar-Pamlico Buffers within the study corridor
Stream Stream status Length (ft) Buffer Zone 1
ft') Buffer Zone 2
ft2
Tar River Perennial 750 22500 15000
UT1 Perennial 240 7200 4800
Totals 990 29700 19800
All of Bridge No. 83 over the Tar River may be considered potential fill except for structures that
are all steel and timber. The existing bridge consists of 8 spans of reinforced concrete deck with
continuous I-beams supported on reinforced concrete cap with timber pile end bents and
reinforced concrete post and beam interior bents. Due to the deterioration of the structure, steel
crutch bents have been added for extra support.
Permits
In accordance with the Federal Register (January 15, 2002), Part II, Volume 67, Number 10, the
project will likely require authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit #23 (Approved
Categorical Exclusions). A Nationwide Permit # 33 (Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering) may be needed for temporary construction access if that is not addressed in the
NEPA document. A final permitting strategy cannot be developed until a design alternative is
selected.
Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications for NWP #23 and #33 are No. 3361 and 3366,
respectively. Written concurrence from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is not
required provided all standard conditions of these Certifications are met. Additionally, buffer
certification will be required for any impacts to riparian buffers. NCDOT will coordinate with
the USACE and NCDWQ after the completion of final design to obtain the necessary permits.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of
United States" and riparian buffers have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
It is anticipated that no compensatory mitigation will be required for this project although final
determination rests with the USAGE.
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 ESA. According to the January 29, 2003 USFWS_ listing, there are 4 federally _
protected species listed for Granville County (Table 3). ^^
iii
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Granville County
Common Scientific Federal Habitat Biological
Name Name Status Present Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus T* Yes No effect
leucoce halus
Dwarf-wedge Alasmidonta E Yes May affect, not
mussel heterodon likely to
adversely affect
Harperella Ptilimnium E Yes Unresolved
nodosum
Smooth Echinacea E Yes Unresolved
coneflower laevi ata
Notes: E-Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range), T- Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. *Proposed for
delisting.
Haliaeetus eucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Threatened
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan reaching 7 feet. Adults have a dark brown body
with a pure white head and tail, whereas the juvenile plumage is chocolate brown to blackish
with white mottling on the tail, belly and under wings. Adult plumage is fully acquired by the
fifth or sixth year.
The bald eagle is primarily associated with coastal areas, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near
large bodies of water where it feeds. It preys primarily on fish, but will feed on birds, mammals,
turtles, and carrion when fish are unavailable.
The breeding season varies throughout the U.S., but typically begins in the winter for the
southern populations and progressively shifts toward spring the further north the populations
occur. Large nests up to 6 feet across and weighing hundreds of pounds are constructed from
large sticks, weeds, cornstalks, grasses, and sod. Preferred nesting sites are usually within one-
half mile of water, have an open view of the surrounding area, and are in the largest living tree,
usually a pine or cypress. Excessive human activity may exclude an otherwise suitable site from
use. Wintering areas generally have the same characteristics as nesting sites, but may be farther
from shores.
The bald eagle ranges throughout all of North America. Breeding sites in the southeast are
concentrated in Florida, coastal South Carolina, and coastal Louisiana, and sporadically located
elsewhere.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
On January 9 and February 9, 2006 biologists from NCDOT surveyed all areas within a 0.5 mile
radius of the project area. A 0.5-mile survey was considered appropriate for this location
because the Tar River at this location is small and does not provide appropriate foraging habitat
iv
(Jordan 2005). The survey required approximately 34 person-hours and utilized pedestrian
transects spaced approximately 75 feet apart.
Habitat within the surveyed areas was marginal. The project area has a few moderately large
trees located along the banks of the Tar River and in portions of the southeastern section of the
surveyed area. Additionally, the project study area is too distant from suitable foraging habitat to
serve as potential bald eagle nesting habitat. The Tar River at this location is too small to provide
optimal foraging. No suitable rivers or lakes exist within one mile of the project area. A search
of the NHP database found no occurrence of this animal within one mile of the project area. It
can be concluded that this project will have no effect on this species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf-wedge mussel) Endangered
The dwarf-wedge mussel rarely exceeds 1.5 inches in length. It is the only American freshwater
mussel that has two lateral teeth on the right valve, but only one on the left. The shell's outer
surface is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with faint green rays that are most
noticeable in young specimens. The male and female shells differ slightly, with the female being
wider to allow greater space for egg development.
The dwarf-wedge mussel inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately 6
feet (2 m) wide), with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been
described that range from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel. In North Carolina they
often occur within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate
types used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition. These areas must be silt free. The dwarf-wedge mussel occurs in at least 25
stream reaches along the Atlantic Coast from New Brunswick, Canada, to North Carolina. A
documented population of the dwarf-wedge mussel is known to exist approximately two miles
downstream from Bridge No. 83.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of the dwarf wedgemussel include water
quality degradation and loss of habitat. The mussel needs slow to moderate currents and a silt
free environment, conditions that often are modified by dam construction. Another significant
factor is the exclusion of its anadromous fish host from some habitat areas by impoundment and
dams. Increased acidity, runoff of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, and the mussel's
sensitivity to potassium, zinc, copper, cadmium, and other elements associated with industrial
pollution also contribute to its decline.
Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
On July 27, 2005 biologists from Alderman Environmental Services and NCDOT surveyed
within 400 meters downstream and 100 meters upstream from the bridge location. The survey
re uired 4.5 person-hours and_util z_esl-zoth visuuaLandi tactile-methods._Sinoe_water-w_as- elativeLy__ __
warm, examination of mussels was limited to small individuals or potential rare species.
During the survey no dwarf wedgemussels were observed. However, a search of the NHP
database found documented occurrence of dwarf wedgemussel at the project location. Due to
v
NHP documentation of the dwarf wedgemussel occurring at this location during the past decade,
the species should be considered present for project planning purposes. The high species
diversity also suggests the potential presence of dwarf wedgemussel. Therefore,, the biological
conclusion is "may effect, not likely to adversely effect," and NCDOT will seek concurrence
from US Fish and Wildlife Service following an on-site meeting.
Ptilimnium nodosum (Harperella)
Endangered
Harperella is an annual herb that grows to a height of 6 to 36 inches (0.2 to 0.9 m). The leaves
are hollow, quill-like structures. The small, white flowers occur in heads, or umbels, not unlike
those of Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota). It is found in pond and riverine habitats.
Flowering begins in May in the pond habitats, late June or July in the riverine habitats, and
continues until frost. Seed set is apparently profuse and populations in localized areas can
achieve a high density and number of individuals each year.
Harperella appears to prefer periodically disturbed sites. It typically occurs in two habitat types:
(1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift-flowing stream sections; and (2) edges of
intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain. It does not compete well with other species
without periodic disturbance.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of this plant are its tolerance and possible
requirement of a very specific and unusual water regime. This includes moderately intensive
spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing vegetation. Harperella is readily
eliminated from its habitat by alterations of the water regime resulting from impoundment, water
withdrawal, and drainage or deepening of ponds. Other factors such as siltation, pollution, and
shoreline development also threaten harperella populations.
Biological Conclusion:Unresolved
A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this plant within one mile of the project
area. This portion of the Tar River, during site visits on October 4 and November 14, 2005, had
slow to moderate flow. However, there are rocky or gravelly shoals located within the project
study area. Due to the recommended survey window from the USFWS, it cannot be concluded
that the project will not impact this endangered species at this time. Therefore, the biological
conclusion will remain unresolved pending a survey of the area at an appropriate survey time
(late July through October during periods of low water).
Echinacea laevigata (Smooth coneflower) Endangered
The smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 4.9 feet (1.5 m) tall.
The largest leaves are the basal leaves, which reach 7.8 inches (19.8 cm), in length and 3 inches
(7.6 cm) in width. The basal leaves have long stems, are elliptical to broadly lanceolate, tapering
to t e base, ansmoot to slightly roug?i. The plant as -smooth sterns with few cau me eaves.
The rays of the flowers (petal-like structures) are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and 1.9
to 3.1 inches (4.8 to 7.9 cm) long. Flower heads are usually solitary. Flowering occurs from
May through July.
vi
The known range of the smooth coneflower consists of 22 populations found now only in
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Six of the populations are in North
Carolina and are found in Durham and Granville counties. Most of the populations are small,
containing less than 100 plants each. Four of the populations contain less than 10 plants each.
In North Carolina the habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides,
clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on magnesium- and
calcium-rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase. Full sunlight and little competition in the
herbaceous layer characterize optimal sites. Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, are part of
the history of the vegetation in this species' range and many of the associated herbs are also sun-
loving species, which depend on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and competition of
woody plants.
The major factors contributing to the endangered status of this species are collecting, residential
and industrial development, shade from woody vegetation, highway construction and
improvement, and certain types of roadside and power line right-of-way maintenance. Like most
coneflowers, this species is intolerant of dense shade.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP files found no occurrence of smooth coneflower in the project vicinity.
Open habitat is present along the sides of Culbreth Road and the pasture located in the
northeastern portion of the study area. However, because these areas are maintained through the
use of mowing and herbicides plants, plants would be limited marginal habitat located along the
edges of the adjacent forests. Due to the recommended survey window from USFWS, it cannot
be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species at this time. Therefore, the
biological conclusion will remain unresolved pending a survey of the area at an appropriate
survey time (late May through October).
"Critical habitat," as defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is a term for habitat given
special protection for the benefit of a listed species. Critical habitat, as defined by the USFWS,
is not designated for any species listed in Granville County, North Carolina.
CONCLUSIONS
The Tar River and the unnamed tributaries (UT) of the Tar River represent the surface waters in
or near the project study area. Approximately 990 feet of jurisdictional streams are located
within the project study area; however, actual impacts within the construction limits will be less.
The Tar River is classified as "WS IV- NSW" waters. Class "WS IV" denotes waters protected
as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. The
supplemental classification, Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) denotes waters subject to growths
of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominantly undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
vu
1.0 mile of project study area: Tar River is not on the NCDWQ 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Riparian Area Rules for Nutrient Sensitive Waters apply to the Tar River and UT1.
Tar River does not support trout or anadramous fish and is not designated as essential fish
habitat.
There are no wetlands located within the project area.
Four federally endangered or threatened species are listed for Granville County, the bald eagle,
dwarf wedgemussel, harperella, and smooth coneflower. The biological conclusion for bald
eagle was "no effect". The biological conclusion for the dwarf wedgemussel was "may affect,
not likely to adversely affect." Biological conclusions for harperella and the smooth coneflower
are unresolved pending surveys at appropriate survey times.
Impacts to surface waters and riparian buffers can be minimized by Strictly enforce Best
Management Practices (BMP's) to control sedimentation during project construction;
Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity; reestablishing vegetation on exposed areas; judicious
use of pesticides and herbicides; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and minimization of
roadway footprint width. Also, impacts can be minimized by replacing the bridge in its existing
location, lengthening the bridge to avoiding sensitive areas by spanning the river, and using an
offsite detour.
viii
..,? + 4 AI r 1301 '
o ?IN+ow
- r
61
107 ? 1300 j• .: -,`'
rr??
?? ? _ -? ? 1?L ? { •-". ? ,? t tee .?
lam
ITS] f "
F 111` ..r , -9,
2$' •-' 7 11ss '
1139 Pro?ictea
10
o
02
Na 150 96
x'256
00 R J Irv
?j 7
1 F48 lob
4. 8 - 1449 o
1?? + %,,.150 ;J 4 1 l53? r o
1147 ;•?? a 3139
~I
300
V 1141 / 01136
1.'' ? d is r C?broAL 01\ .?......
Q
114 x'252
11 ?k3 P 1 32fi 4 f• tl ?
?• P269 a
a '
P26
AT,
S
Bu lock . i

Stova
n
- yONT%r
?,•o C?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
OsM Hdl
15
Wi11i
i?e~
TRANSPORTATION
96
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
- L E `- - ?- -- ----- ---- lw -PROiEcT DEVEL-OPMENM --
'

Bees ?
4

V
ENviRoNmENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

•
+OX rd
\ of Tp1
fO91d•"? GRANVILLE COUNTY
1
-y^ci?•m ?; 9 13 REPLACE BRIDGE N0.83 ON SR 1138
OVER TAR RIVER
II: . wuco° B-3841

15 Geearnoo. Fr
ure I
Fi
_ ,NOW - Slat- 10 g
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project f'.-2. _ -2 C Latitude: o a G) S i °
Evaluator. Site: ?j g'
(? f?i??22 ???`?Lon 'Longitude: L0
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent County: Other
If 219 or perennial If a 30 e.g. Quad Name: f?
A. Geomo hoio Subtotal =
18. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
(3)
2. Sinuosity 0 1 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 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel ( 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 B. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headmds 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 5.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on exiRna.
USGS or NRCS map or other documented

evidence.
8.
No = 0
Yes = 3
R 14vriminnv Mithtntal = 1
14. Gmundwaterflow/discharge D 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season
( 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 (p
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 (redo)imorphic features) present? No = Yes =1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =_ )
20°. 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. Rsh 0 0.5 1 ' 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macmbenthos (note diversity and abundance) (V) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; her = 0
nems cu ana 4"1 rocus on uie presence oT upjano plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for addifional notes.)

? ?rpgs, !fl
h?C???n?, ?nmo J

1 o??n
l
Grp ? '
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version M
Date: 11. _ ?S Project: 3 . U Latitude: U o
Evaluator. C U?m? Site: T?? 1?i\?2 U-r Z Longitude: V Kn -s v)
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ?' County: r`? f I _ der
ifa 19 or perennial IFa 30 L e.g. Quad Name: L? e.&
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = )
ta. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches cd) 1 2 3
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 6.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on ew'stina
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
MU1I-MUL g UI[Gngs king noc rausa; sae u=ussions in manual
B- Hvdroloev fSuhtntal = ?? 1
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 60p, 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? Igo = 0 Yes =1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = -Lo-)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25.. Amphibians b 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; her = 0
items zu ano n mcus on me presence of upiano pants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or watiand pfa /
Sketch:
Notes: (use bade side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Dater Project: - 3 l Latitude:
Evaluator. M G Site: T( "1e r -73 Longitude: ur'1?
Total Points: J Other
Stream is at feast intermittent C County `
if z 19 or perennial ff a 30 1' ' ? ";I (-V, 1 L e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =,Z)

18. Continuous bed and bank imm"I"111i

0 111111

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. Activetrelic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headarts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
.via, rn 1 wua cummab are nor ramu; aee omwswons in manual
B_ Hvdrninnv (Suhtntal = l
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season no 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
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? o = 0 ` Yes =1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = `4 1
2. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish '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. Other = 0
wvu..a ..V o.,... L , - VI. U.. F ,-.11 1 ul Upial lu pal w-, uem zz juwaea on rrre presanae or aquauc or wauana piarm.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: C DDT 2. Evaluator's name: M C Lpwrnb
3. Date of evaluations:?D- - Dq - OS 4. Time of evaluation: A,-?P f n n CXl
5. Name of stream: O
' I rnF 7-&C 1???? e SL 6. River basin: 2 -
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order:i cc?
10. County: (-y(-(twA Lt /
12. Subdivision name (if any): Q. / k
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle} GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any) p
15. Recent weather conditions: (e 4 rc)?? y C)Czlr?, ?) o/'S
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 6'l rv), 1 FM??-? G?r 'o-F-,omo On c k,- A?? Ci-?
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed 04V)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? OYES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?D% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ?a% Agricultural
(QL% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( n )
22. Bankfull width: 11t t• 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Pl-t- k
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _X _Gentle (2 to 4?0) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight K -Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot he evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:'
Evaluator's Signatur zf w Date © S
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
_.._._
gathering the data required by the United States Arm Co s o? E -' ears to mhke a renaina assessment of stiream =
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
v 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ #
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: A '
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: ER i c r-\ I ?i C L A rf\
3. Date of evaluation: ``? - - 4. Time of evaluation: C? -0 Ca'1
5. Name of stream: 1- 3 ©? 1 A2 v, I f2. 6. River basin: A2 - ?
7. Approximate drainage area: n
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
8. Stream order:
10. County: (°?'?aY1?l `2
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ea. 34.872312): Longitude (es. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle} GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluati notte nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
c } 1 O F P?r d CAP ?, I ?1
C!
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>100/6)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander +Very sinuous Braided charnel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there ale obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): _0 - Comments:
r ? j 7?
Evaluator's Signa a Date / / - l/
This channel evaln on form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
n ears 'fo ma a `a reTimma assessmen?o F=sfream - - `
atherin the data re utre a United es rm corps -of i
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
u-r s
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
sMSfATFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
4
JAN 2 4 2MI
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 23, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3841, Granville County, Replacement of Bridge No. 83 on
SR 1138 over the Tar River, State Project 8.2371201,
F. A. Project BRSTP-1138 (10)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Roadway Design
Conference Room at the Century Center on December 7, 2000.
The following people were in attendance:
Derek Bradner Location and Surveys Unit
Betty Yancey Right of Way Branch
Ben Brown Hydraulics Unit
Dan Duffield Hydraulics Unit
Paul Ervin Structure Design
John Lansford Roadway Design Unit
Jacqueline Graham Roadway Design Unit
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Jon Nance, Division Five Engineer, recommended an on-site detour due to the
weight limitations on the off-site detour route, as SR 1138 carries heavy truck traffic. In
addition, he recommended improvements to the horizontal alignment to eliminate curves.
David Faucette, Director of Transportation for Granville County Schools, stated
that there are 2 school buses that cross Bridge No. 83 daily. He stated that they would re-
route school buses in the event of road closure.
Curtis Yates of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Division commented that this section
of SR 1138 is not a part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as needing
incidental bicycle accommodations.
Clay Willis, Natural Systems Specialist, observed that Bridge No. 83 is located in
the Tar-Pamlico Basin, which has buffer rules of 50 feet (15.2 m). Clay noted that the
Tar River contains know populations of the Dwarf-wedge mussel, which will require a
survey. Clay did not note any wetlands at the project site based on preliminary analysis.
Ben Brown of Hydraulics recommended the existing bridge be replaced with a
new 150-foot (45.7-m) long bridge at approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing bridge. For a temporary on-site detour, Ben recommended a
135-foot (41.1-m) long temporary detour bridge located east (downstream) of the existing
bridge.. Ben stated that the temporary bridge could be placed 3 feet (1.0 m) lower than
the elevation of the existing bridge.
Derek Bradner of Location and Surveys observed no utilities at the project site.
However, Derek noted a U.S.G.S. horizontal station, "GRA 24", on the northeast
headwall of the bridge.
John Lansford of Roadway Design recommended analyzing an alternate replacing
the bridge in existing location with an off-site detour, as well as an alternate replacing the
bridge west of the existing alignment. John stated that realigning SR 1138 to the west
might improve the sight distance to the bridge slightly.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Proiect Schedule:
The Categorical Exclusion document from the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch is due in January of 2002. The right-of-way acquisition
date is scheduled for March 21, 2003 and the construction let date is scheduled for March
16, 2004.
Bridee Information:
Bridge No. 83 was completed in 1951. The bridge contains eight spans, totaling
140 feet (42.7 m) in length. The bridge deck is 21.9 feet (6.7 m) wide. The bridge
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor with steel beams. The substructure
consists of timber end bents with concrete caps and reinforced concrete post and beam
interior bents.
Traffic Information:
The estimated average daily traffic (ADT) across Bridge No. 83 is 1400 vehicles
per day (vpd) for the year 2000 and 2800 vpd for the year 2025. Approximately 2% of
the traffic are dual-tired vehicles (DT) and 1% of the traffic are truck transfer semi-
trailers (TTST).
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, John Lansford of Roadway Design agreed to
complete preliminary cost estimates along with a functional design by July of 2001.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 83 with a 150-foot (45.7-m) long bridge at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Detour
traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 83 with a 150-foot (45.7-m) long bridge west
(upstream) of the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using the existing bridge during
construction.
It
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 3, 2006
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1551 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1551
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
9,0
m
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 83 on
SR 1138 over Tar River, Granville County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3841): These comments
provide information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
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 carried 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.
With regard to the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), the
Service has been involved in informal section 7 consultation with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) on this project since 2002. The upper Tar River contains a good
population of dwarf wedgemussel and is important for the recovery of the species. The dwarf
wedgemussel was collected at/near the project site during a 1998 survey. Although subsequent
surveys conducted in 2002 and 2005 did not reveal dwarf wedgemussel, the presence of the
species cannot ruled out. Due to their scarcity and cryptic nature, dwarf wedgemussels are
difficult to locate and easy to overlook. The species has also been collected farther, upstream and
downstream on the Tar River and in nearby tributaries.
Depending upon the project design, construction methodology and any future survey results, it
may be prudent for the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) to initiate formal section 7
consultation. During a March 30, 2006 phone conversation between Mr. Gary Jordan (Service
biologist) and Mr. Tracy Walter (NCDOT project manager), it was stated that the let date for this
project may be extended out to 2012. Since mussel surveys are generally valid for two. years, an
additional intensive mussel survey should be conducted after 2007 but prior to project let. After

that additional mussel survey is conducted and additional design information is available, a
decision whether the project requires formal section 7 consultation should be made. The
decision should be made such that sufficient time is allowed for a formal consultation to be
conducted prior to project let. The Service requires a total of 135 days to complete a biological
opinion after a complete biological assessment is received from NCDOT/FHwA.
To avoid or minimize effects to dwarf wedgemussel, NCDOT should strongly consider the
following conservation measures:
• Do not utilize an on-site detour.
• Remove existing bents with as little disturbance to channel bottom as possible.
• Remove existing bents during the lowest possible flow and/or utilize turbidity curtains if
possible.
• Completely span the channel with a box beam design or steel structure.
• Pull back proposed bents from the edge of the stream bank as far as possible.
• If bridge bents are necessary within the channel, place the bents at the edge of the water (not
in the center) to minimize permanent and temporary impacts.
• Remove all existing fill from flood plain.
• Use Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities.
• This project area is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. All special procedures
for clearing and grubbing, grading, and seeding and mulching will apply.
• Special Sediment Control Fence will be used at the toe of slope parallel to Tar River.
Standard silt fencing will be used at the toe of slope perpendicular to Tar River. If during the
final plan design phase, it is determined that the Special Sediment and Erosion Control
Fencing is not practical to use at this location, then a moratorium on clearing and grubbing
will be adhered to during the non-growing season (dates as per USDA soil survey) from the
top of bank out 50 feet from the stream
• Avoid clearing and grubbing within 50 feet of the stream banks during the non-growing
season (dates as per USDA soil survey).
• For the use of heavy equipment, utilize timber work pads in work areas and access roads.
• If drilled shaft construction is utilized, no slurry will be allowed to enter stream.
• No deck drains will be allowed to discharge into the stream.
• Storm water runoff will not be channeled from the road directly into the stream. The runoff
from the roadway should be allowed to continue to dissipate and sheet flow over the natural
vegetation before reaching the stream or directed into an approved sediment detention basin.
• Due to the proximity of a federally protected species, all unstabilized areas of the project
located within a fifty foot riparian buffer area will be temporarily stabilized during active
grading utilizing erosion control blankets, fabric, plastic, or other material(s), approved by
the Roadside Environmental Unit, prior to any rain event, as directed by the Engineer on site.
The temporary stabilization should be adequately anchored and utilized to prevent the loss of
sediment into the water course unless runoff from these areas can be diverted to an
adequately designed sediment basin or until the area is stabilized with vegetation.
Should it be determined that formal section 7 consultation is required, additional conservation
measures may be necessary, as well as reasonable and prudent measures to minimize take of the
species.
In addition to the dwarf wedgemussel, the Natural Resource Technical Report Executive
Summary addressed the federally protected bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). The Service concurs that
the project will have no effect on the bald eagle. NCDOT has yet to render a biological
determination for harperella and smooth coneflower. It is understood that surveys will be
conducted for these species during the appropriate survey time window.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. 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.
Pete BVJamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsymeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC