U-3310_complete file

# *W
S
di yswn?
,py
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR
July 28, 2003
SECRETARY
Project No.: 8.2472004 (U-3110A)
F.A. No: STP- 1311 (4)
County: Alamance
Description: New Route along SR-1311 (Cook RD) & SR-1301 (Shallowford Church RD) from US-70
at St. Marks Church Rd. to SR-1309
MEMO TO: Mr. S. D. Dewitt, P. E. ETLODS1401 GRQUr
State Construction Engineer AIM
? i eJ C J?J,j
FROM: Mr. J. M. Mills, P. E. ?, ?,,L(.lrJ ,?/ T t1
Division Engineer °??IERIJ??d?ITVAr
._
ru.
SUBJECT: Permit Conference
A permit conference was held at the project site on Thursday, July 10, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. with the
following personnel in attendance:
Ed Satterfield
Russell Broadwell
Jerry Parker
John Thomas
Brad Wall
Donnie Huffines
Greg Johnson
Donald Pearson
Steve Styers
David Hundley
NCDOT
NCD OT
NCDOT - DEO
US Army Corp. of Engineers
NCDOT
NCDOT
NCDOT
NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Key Constructors
NCDOT
336-516-3410
336-570-6830
336-256-2063
919-876-8441 /25
336-334-3192
336-570-6830
336-570-6830
919-715-1759
434-374-2125
336-334-3192
The remarks recorded below substantially represent the discussion that occurred during the meeting.
Page 170 - Site #I - Onsite Stream Relocation: Mr. John Thomas advises that construction of the
new stream in the dry should be completed including ground cover before diverting the existing
stream. No ditch liner is required, but seeding of the stream bed is permissible. Mr. Thomas will
submit to the Department the standard seed mix required. Fescue is not recommended, but
switchgrass and bluegrass is acceptable. Once the new stream location is completed and ready for
water, Mr. Thomas shall be notified for inspection. The tie-ins will be constructed with an impervious
dike and pump around. Mr. Steve Styers of Key Constructors questioned de-watering techniques of
the new stream during construction after heavy rains. Mr. Thomas advised the use of stilling basins
or stilling bags.
P. 0. Box 14996, Greensboro, NC 27415-4996 Telephone No. [phone] Fax No. [phone]

Mr. S. D. Dewitt Page -2- July 28, 2003
Page 183 - Site #2 - Culvert Construction: Silt bags are permissible in lieu of stilling basins. Mr.
Thomas recommended that the culvert floor elevations be checked to confirm one foot below water
elevation. Discussed what measures are required for erosion control at the outlet end. Mr. Thomas
stated that rip rap was not required in the stream bed, but was needed along the banks. Donald
Pearson questioned the possibility of using a matting material in the stream bottom to prevent wash
outs. Mr. Thomas will consider this option after Mr. Pearson supplies him with more information.
Erosion Control
Mr. Thomas advised that the Contractor be aggressive with erosion control within site 1&2.
Other Comments
Borrow and waste areas have to be approved by Jerry Parker and Donald Pearson.
Construction outside the footprint of the project is not anticipated but if the need arises, a permit
modification is needed.
The Contractor reported that there is some erosion problems occurring from off site and pictures
were presented to show same. Mr. Thomas recommended that this be reported to Land Quality and
properly recorded if possible before construction begins.
Donald Pearson recommended the use of wooden spikes to hold down the matting at site # 1.
Monitoring of sites 1&2 will begin when reforestation of the areas begin and not when the project is
completed.
The Contractor also directed those in attendance to an area adjacent to the culvert site where beavers
are constructing dams in the first pond belonging to parcel no. 1. This is causing water to back up
into the area that is designated for the new culvert and will cause problems when construction
starts. Mr. Styers will confer with the owner of the pond concerning this problem and report back to
the Resident Engineer.
This permit expires December 31, 2006. Mr. Thomas advised that if the project will extend beyond
this date, a notification should be given to the Corp. of Engineers before the expiration date.
Review of Contract Special Provisions - Pink sheets
PAGE DESCRIPTION
146 * Authority granting permit
148 • Permit expiration date: December 31, 2006 - If project limits are to extend `
beyond this date, notify Arm Corp. of Engineers before expiration date.
155 DWQ certification 401
170 • Site no. 1 plan view
183 • Site no. 2 plan view
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Two copies of the construction minutes are being furnished to the contractor who is requested to
review, amend as necessary, and return one signed copy as being representative of the discussions
that occurred.
SIGNATURE DATE
Mr. S. D. Dewitt
Page -3-
July 28, 2003
JMM/JBW/dlh
cc: John Thomas (ACOE), ohn Hennessy (DWQ), Mathew Gant (DENR), Jerry Parker, Donald
Pearson, V. G. Davis, P. E., B. R. Trivette, P. E., Matthew Lauffer, P. E., Donnie Huffines, Key
Constructors, Inc. (2), file
j o Yl t HF yir1 e 5S j
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Caroling 27636,3726
July 15, 2003
Bill Biddlecome
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Biddlecome:
This letter is in response to the June 30, 2003 report on the sampling and laboratory analysis of
sand for potential use as beach fill along NC 12 in Kitty Hawk, Dare County, North Carolina
(Public Notice ID No. 200310613). The report was produced by the Geotechnical Engineering
Unit of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. These comments are provided 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).
The following discussion relating to compatibility is relevant only to sea turtle and other wildlife
habitat issues.
The native sediments at the NC 12 Kitty Hawk beach were sampled in 18 locations throughout
the project area. These sediments are tan to gray, medium to coarse grained sands with 0 to 59 %
coarse material (greater than .2 mm in size), 0 to 2.0 % fines (less than 1/16 mm in size), and less
than 1 to 2.5 % shell material (calcium carbonate). The beach sediments average 20 % coarse
material, 0 %o fines, and less than 1.5 % shell material
Three potential upland mines were evaluated for use as a sediment source(s) for the proposed
beach fill. The first mine, Coastal Contractors of the Outer Banks Pit, is located near Wanchese
in Dare County. Sediment could be mined up to 36 feet below ground level at this pit. The
material at this mine is coarse to fine grained sand that is tan to gray in color. Pea gravel and
shell material are present, in increasing percentages at deeper depths. The proportion of shell
material ranges from an estimated less than 1 % to 4.0 %, which is compatible with the native
beach sediments. An incompatible dark gray to black, silt and clay layer ranging between 0.5 and
3.5 feet thick is also present at this mine, occurring between 15 and 19 feet depth. The surface
sediments are also not compatible, containing excessive fines. The Service recommends that the
surface sediments (0 to 4 ft) not be mined for beach fill and that the clay seam be avoided as
well. Excavation of the most compatible material would be between 4 and 1.5 ft in depth; if
additional material is needed, it should be mined from 20 to 36 feet in depth to avoid the clay
seam and associated dark colored sediments.
The second mine is the Green Acres Pit, which is located west of US 158 between Jarvisburg and
Olds in Currituck County. Mining could excavate material up to 36 feet below ground level.
The sediments are light brown to varying degrees of gray (light to dark) and are medium to fine
sand grained. This mine has less shell material than the native beach and the other two mines,
with all sediment samples containing less than 1 % shell material; this is compatible with the
native beach sediments. The surface sediments - the top 3 to 5 feet of material - contain
incompatible clay or silt, and some are dark brown in color and also contain organic material.
The mine sediments are finer than the native beach, having less coarse material (greater than 2
mm) than the project area beaches; but the proportion of fines ranges from 0.8 to 7.9 % and is
relatively compatible. One of the bore holes encountered dark gray sediments at depths greater
than 28 feet. Overall this mine would provide the most compatible materials of the three sites
evaluated. The Service recommends that the surface sediments (uppermost 3 to 5 ft) not be
mined for this project but be treated as topsoil overburden, and the excavation avoid dark gray
sediments (limiting the mining to depths shallower than -28 ft).
The third potential mine for the beach fill is the RPC Pit, which is located east of US 158
between Harbinger and Powell's Point in Currituck County. This mine could be excavated up to
65 feet below ground level. The sediments at the RPC Pit are tan to dark gray in color and coarse
to fine sand size. The proportion of shell material ranges from an estimated less than 1 % to
6.8%, which is compatible with the native beach sediments. At deeper depths (30 to 65 feet) the
material becomes incompatible - dark gray silt and clay. A clay seam was found in two of the
four borings at depths between 16 and 24 feet. The surface sediments (0 to 3 ft) also contained
incompatible clay and/or silt. The presence of incompatible surface material, incompatible
material below approximately 30 feet, and an intermittent clay seam in between (16 to 24 ft)
indicate that this mine is not likely to provide a sufficient quantity of compatible material with
the native beach and dune sediments of the Kitty Hawk project area. The Service recommends
that this mine not be utilized as a sediment source for beach fill at Kitty Hawk.
If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-
4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: David Allsbrook, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Don Conner, NCDOT, Edenton, NC
Clay Willis, NCDOT, Edenton, NC
Dave Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Matthew Godfrey,NCWRC, Beaufort, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Ron Sechler; NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Sara Winslow, NCDMF, Elizabeth City, NC
3 ? ?Hh ITl?'iness?
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
July 16, 2003
Brett Feulner
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Feulner:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 30, 2003 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 44 on SR 1,649 over Crabtree Creek
and Bridge No. 45 on SR 1649 over Turkey Creek in Wake County (TIP No. B-3259) is not
likely to adversely affect the federally-endangered dwarf wedge mussel (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 you submitted, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on
May 3, 2003. The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of each
crossing. No dwarf wedge mussels were observed.
Based on the mussel survey results, and given that the dwarf wedge mussel has never been
identified near the project area, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the proposed
bridge replacements are not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedge mussel. 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.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Dave Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC