20081706 Ver 1_Email_20091013

1
Ridings, Rob DW _ 1-70CO
From: Ridings, Rob ?U C-Y/` _e
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 1:46 PM
To: Montague, Heather W
Cc: Murray, Christopher A, Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW; '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: FW: B-4307 mod request for pulling piles instead of sawing
Attachments: image001.gif; image002.png; image003.png
Heather,
This looks good for me. I'll file this information away and I do not believe you need a modification to the 401.
Thanks,
Rob
From: Gary_][e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:35 AM
To: Montague, Heather W
Cc: Murray, Christopher A; Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW; Ridings, Rob; Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FW: B-4307 mod request for pulling piles instead of sawing
Heather, Eric and Rob,
Attached is an amendment to the Service's BO for B-4307. The BO allows for the breaking off and pulling out
of the timber piles. The way I have worded it does not mandate it, but allows for it. The hard copy is going to
John Sullivan at FHWA.
(See attached file: B-4307.AmendedB0.pdJ)
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] ext. 32
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
'Montague, Heather W" <[e-mail]>
"Montague, Heather W"
<[e-mail]> To"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
10/08/2009 03:59 PM cc"Ridings, Rob" <rob.ridings cr ncdenr.gov>, "Alsmeyer,
Eric C SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"Murray, Christopher A" <[e-mail]>
SubjectFW: B-4307 mod request for pulling piles instead of
sawing
Gary-
1
C
The management with Atwell construction has decided to wait on a permit modification to allow
pulling the piles verses sawing. Since we've discussed this with Eric, he is aware that we were
potentially headed towards a permit modification (but like you will be away from the office until
Tuesday). Rob can confirm this, NCDWQ may likely be satisfied with written documentation from the
USFWS on this change, to file for their records.
When you return to the office next Tuesday, if you'll email Rob and Eric as your earliest convenience
explaining this revision to the BO then that would facilitate the necessary permit modification from the
USACE. Eric in turn will email the modified permit to us. Thanks.
-Heather Montague
From: Ridings, Rob
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:59 AM
To: Montague, Heather W
Subject: RE: B-4307 Warren County (US 401 over Shocco Creek)
Heather,
This is fine from my perspective. When it comes to these issues, I'm sure Wildlife is better suited to determine
which is better. I believe a test pull is fine as long as how it is done; as well as its results, are documented and
shown to be beneficial to the project.
Thanks,
Rob
.From: -Montague,. Heather. W
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Ridings, Rob; Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW
Cc: Murray; Christopher A
Subject: FNL': B-4307 Warren County (US 401 over Shocco Creek)
Rob and Eric-

Please see attached email. This was sent (to NCDOT mussel specialist, Jay Mays) in order to
determine whether the underwater sawing plan will meet the intent of minimizing potential impacts to
the dwarf wedgemussel at this site. Jay called me back to say that their is no expected harm of the
diver walking in the water to perform the cuts. However a question arises: which is worse a potential
quick sediment plume from pulling the piles or the continual sediment disturbance from the diver
walking to each pile. Timing of this discussion presents'us with the opportunity to have Jay and Gary
Jordan to come up to the job to watch a proposed "test pull." This test pull would serve more as a
demonstration for experiment sake for future reference rather than a effort to skirt the conservation
measures from the BA/BO for this specific project. Depending upon how the test pull goes, a decision
may be made regarding whether the remaining piles are pulled or sawed.
Gary and I just got off the phone after discussing how from a legal perspective even one test pull is in
violation to the NCDWQ permit which states the project must be constructed in accordance with our
application promising sawing the piles and the USACE permit which includes the special condition
outlining mandatory compliance with the conservation measures from the BA/BO which indicate the
piles will be sawed. However, Gary does feel that this test pull would be beneficial and he is willing to
allow this activity, as long as we notified your offices of our plans. Tentatively I've arranged for Jay
2
and Gary to be onsite Thursday at 1 pm.
-Heather
From: Montague, Heather W
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:58 PM
To: Mays, Jason W
Cc: Murray, Christopher A
Subject: B-4307 Warren County (US 401 over Shocco Creek)
Jay-
The replacement of the bridge on US 401 over Shocco Creek is underway. The contractor has
removed the bridge rails and the asphalt from the deck. Soon they plan to lift off the concrete sub-
structure and then remove the old timber piles.
As outlined in the BA, BO, permit application, and permits: Existing bents will. be cut at substrate level
to minimize disturbance to the substrate.
There are three bents in the water with five piles per bent, so 15 pilings to be cut. The contractor has
arranged for a diver to cut the piles using an underway hydraulic chain saw. This method will involve
a person walking to each pile and standing in the water while performing each. cut. Additionally.
creosote shavings from this activity will be dispensed into the water. I just wanted to make sure that
your intentions to minimize disturbance to the substrate and to protect the dwarf wedge mussel were
met through this action., .
If you feel that this sawing plan is not satisfactory, the contractor is willing to try to pull up the pilings.
They could watch the first pile to determine whether the substrate is disturbed and then if not, all piles
would be pulled up or at worst snapped off at the mud line. Let me know whether to have the
contactor proceed with this saw plan or to attempt pulling these piles. Thanks.
-Heather Montague
[phone]
[phone]
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
United States Department of the Interior
FISII AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 13, 2009
John F. Sullivan 111, PE
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan:

i t.:

w
C

This constitutes an amendment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion (BO)
for the replacement of Bridge No. 4 over Shocco Creek on US 401 located in Warren County, North
Carolina (TIP No. B-4307), and its effects on the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (A)asmidonta .
heterodon, DWM) in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This amendment is in response to decisions made at an October 8, 2009
field meeting attended by staff from the Service, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and -
Atwell Construction.
The Service issued its BO on November 14, 2007. One of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures of that . • ..
BO stated "All Conservation Measures previously described in this BO must be implemented." One of.
those Conservation Measures stated "Existing bents will be cut at substrate level to minimize disturbance
to the substrate." During the October 8, 2009 field meeting, Atwell Construction demonstrated the
superior efficacy and minimal environmental impact of using heavy equipment located out of the water to
break off the timber piles below the substrate and then pulling them out with a steel cable. This method is .
considerably less expensive than utilizing a hydraulic saw within the water column. The Service believes'
that breaking and pulling the timber piles out, specifically as demonstrated during the October 8 site visit,
will not increase the level of take on the DWM.
The Service amends the BO to allow for the removal of the timber piles by using heavy equipment
located out of the water to break off the timber piles below the substrate and then pulling them out by
cable as described.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that
obligations under Section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of
this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in
this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this
identified action. If you have any questions regarding this amendment, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at
[phone] (Ext. 32).
Pete:
Field