20110172 Ver 1_Application_20110218

SURD
? ?ww..J

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
USACE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
February 14, 2011
110172
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRE"rARY
Q?@a L9
FEB 1 8 2011
- WA
'cppmW a er.ncn
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 61 over Sandy Creek on SR 1451 (Leonard Road) in
Franklin County. TIP No. B-5218; WBS Element No. 42815. 1.1
*Note: NCDENR-DWQ $240.00 Debit to WBS Element No. 42815. 1.1
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 61 over
Sandy Creek on SR 1451 (Leonard Road) in Franklin County. The existing five-span bridge, which has
three in-stream piles, will be replaced with a new bridge structure. This new structure completely spans
Sandy Creek and significantly increases the spill through under the bridge deck.
There will be 35 linear feet of permanent stream impact associated with rip rap streambank stabilization.
Additionally, there will be 0.10 acre permanent fill in wetlands, 0.08 acre temporary fill in wetlands and
0.07 hand clearing impact. Sandy Creek is subject to the Tar-Pam Riparian Buffer Rule. Buffer impact:
here include 3,940 square feet in Zone I and 2,820 square feet in Zone 2.
A Biological Conclusion of May Affect: Not Likely To Adversely Affect was rendered for dwarf
wedgemussel and Tar River Spinymussel was proposed by the NCDT. The USFWS concurred with
these findings be letter dated February 2, 2011. These documents are attached to the permit application.
A pre-construction notification (PCN) form is attached to this letter. A Categorical Exclusion (Type 1113)
will be completed for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact Mr. Chris Murray at [phone].
Sincerely,
- ?-
A• J. W. Bowman, P.E.
M4'r ? Division Engineer
e: Division 5 file. NCDOT
Rob Ridings, NCDENR-DWQ
Division Five -2612 Nonh Duke Street, Durham. North Carolina 27704
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

PCN Form
o2?F W A-r
e9QG
h Y
1
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 and 13 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
N 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express N Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely forth e record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes N No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes N No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes N No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes N No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes N No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 61 over Sandy Creek on SR 1451 (Leonard Road)
2b. County: Franklin
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Centerville
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B-5218
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: NCDOT
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h . Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. AgentlConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 10
PCN Form -Verson 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A

1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
- Latitude: 36.165120 Longitude: -
78.123856
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 2.3 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Sandy Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C NSW +
2c. River basin: Tar-Pamlico
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Existing bridge is structurally deficient and must be replaced. Land use in vicinity of project is comprised of wooded land.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.25
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
90 ft in 90 ft Right-Of-Way and Permanent Utility Easement
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Replacement of structurally deficient bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of existing bridge with a new bridge. Equipment will include excavator, back hoe, crane, etc.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:

® Yes ? No ? Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
®Preliminary ? Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Phil May on March 10, 2010 Agency/Consultant Company: Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Action ID No. 2010-01416 dated January 18, 2011
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
-
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2
f
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ? T Permanent Fill Bottomland HWF ® Yes
? No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.10
W2 ? P ® T Temporary Fill Bottomland HWF ® Yes
? No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.08
W3 ? P ? T Hand Clearing Bottomland HWF ® Yes
? No ® Corps
® DWQ 0.07
? Yes ? Corps
W4 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W5 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W6 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.25
2h. Comments: Temporary fill impact area covers installation of EC devices and clearing/grubbing.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear feet)
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet)
S1 ? P ® T Temporary Sandy Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 60 ft 35 ft
causeway
S2 ® P ? T Rip rap bank
stabilization Sandy Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 60 ft 35 ft
(Concurrent)
? PER ? Corps
S3 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S4 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S5 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S6 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 56 ft
3i. Comments: Construction of bridge will require installation of a temporary rip rap causeway to remove the existing three in-
stream bents. Rip rap used in the causeway will be completely removed by the contractor except as noted on the plans.
The plans indicate that rip rap (underlain with filter fabric) will remain on both streambanks extending from below the OHW
mark up to the new upland piles to provide long-term stability. Note that the 35 ft of temporary impacts for causeway is
cnncurrP.nt with the limits of the oermanent streambank impact. _
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number -
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
T 4b.
Name of
waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 0.0
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
K Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 5of10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ®Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f.
.
69
Buffer impact
number- Reason . Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary impact required?
T
B1 ® P N T Bridge
Const. Sandy Creek El Yes
® No 1,495 1,380
B2 ? P ®T Utility Sandy Creek ® Nos 2,445 1,440
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 3,940 2,820
6i. Comments: Bridge construction impacts and utility impacts (i.e. hand clearing) for aerial phone lines are "allowable"
activities.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Construction of bridge will require installation of a temporary rip rap causeway to remove the existing interior piles. Most of
the rip rap in the water (i.e. causeway) will be removed. Rip rap will remain only on the bank for permanent stability. Impacts

.
to wetlands outside the permanent fill are considered temporary
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The contractor will review site conditions to determine how much of the temporary causeway is necessary to remove the
existing interior piles. All efforts will be made during construction to minimize impacts to both streams and wetlands.

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ . ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
41h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
NCDOT will provide mitigation through the EEP if requested by the regulatory agencies. This mitigation, if requested, is
reported by Division 5'on a quarterly basis to the EEP.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that
requires buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zo ne 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g . If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h . Comments: Zone 1 and Zone 2 impacts are associated with bridge construction and utility clearing activity. Both these
activities are listed as "allowable."
Page 7 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a, diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Stormwater runoff from the project is conveyed through a pipe system ® Yes ? No
that discharges onto a rip rap pad in a bottomland hardwood wetland.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 20%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Construction of this project WILL NOT add any additional impervious surface at the project. Stormwater runoff from the
project is discharged through a pipe system that discharges onto a rip rap pad in a bottomland hardwood wetland.
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
® DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
El NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HOW
4a . Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b . Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
E-1 Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
51b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes
? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a . Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b . If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a . Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Project will not generate sewage disposal.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ®Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
h
ille
? A
ev
s
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Consultation with PDEA-NEU biologists and USFWS.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Available mapping.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Consultation with NCDOT Cultural Resources Experts.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain haw project meets FEMA requirements: Project lowers the 100-yr floodplain elevations at the site.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Available mapping.
Chris Murray for J.W. Bowman, February 14,
PE 2011
Applicant/Agent's ignature Date
ApplicanUAgent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Franklin County
Bridge No. 61 on SR 1451
Over Sandy Creek
W.B.S. No. 42815.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-5218
Division Five Construction, Resident Engineer's Office - Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Franklin County Schools should be
contacted at [phone] at least one month prior to road closure.
Franklin County Emergency Services needs to be contacted at [phone] at least one month
prior to road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
Division Resident Engineer - Sensitive Watersheds
Sandy Creek is designated, as Class C:NSW;+ waters and will be subject to all Design Standards
for Sensitive Watersheds
The following "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" [15A NCAC 0413.0124 (b) - (e)J are
incorporated into NCDOT prgjects that occur within or upstream of water bodies that contain
federally protected aquatic species. Within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the following
shall apply:
In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Contractor may perform
clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately prior to beginning
grading operations.
Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work shall
progress in a continuous manner until complete.
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, erosion control devices shall be
installed immediately following the clearing operation.
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, "Seeding and Mulching" shall be
performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately following final grade
establishment.
• In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, seeding and mulching shall be
done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet in height measured along
the slope, or greater than 2 acres in area, whichever is less.
Bridge Demolition
I . The contractor will remove portions of the existing bridge deck and bridge structure as
necessary without dropping components into the stream. Natural ground and existing
embankment will be graded down to a suitable elevation as noted on the plans (or
determined by the Engineer) and a temporary rock causeway (underlain with filter fabric)
will be constructed within the footprint of the bridge deck.
2. Install temporary turbidity curtains around the interior piles.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
Green Sheet
February 2011
3. The temporary rock causeway (underlain with filter fabric where practical) will extend
into the suemn to the concrete piles and spreader footers. The rock causeway will need
to surround all sides of the concrete spreader footer.
4. Only one in-stream causeway will be constructed at a time.
5. The contractor may remove the concrete piles and spreader footer by one of the following
methods and following NCDOT best management practices:
• Attempt to rock or shake the concrete piles and spreader footer for removal. This will
likely cause some amount of shattering. This material will then be broken into smaller
pieces by a hoe ram or excavator bucket and removed as practical.
• Cut the concrete piles and spreader footers for removal. The remaining portions will then
be broken into smaller pieces by a hoe ram or excavator bucket and removed as practical.
• In either method, the contractor must attempt to remove all of the concrete spreader
footer. If the Engineer determines that this is not practical, it will be removed to depth of
one foot below the natural streambed.
6. Rip rap and all other material used as part of temporary causeway will completely be
removed by the contractor except as noted on the plans. Rip rap (underlain with filter
fabric) will remain on both streambank extending up to the new piles to provide long-
term stability.
Additional Measures
The following are additional measures intended to further reduce deleterious construction related
effects to the waterway:
• An offsite detour will be utilized for this project.
• Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during
the removal of the existing bridge.
• No new bents will be constructed in the stream. New bents will be constructed within 10 feet
of the top of bank. However, the Class II rip rap will be installed on the streambank to
prevent scour and permanently stabilize the streambank.
• Rip rap will be installed as toe protection in areas where the fill slope extends into wetland
areas. This rip rap must be installed immediately after establishment of fill slope.
• Special sediment control fence will be installed along the top of the steam bank. Standard silt
fence will be installed along the toe of slope parallel to the stream. Once the disturbed areas
of the project draining towards the stream have been stabilized, the special sediment control
fence and all built up sediment adjacent to the fence will be removed to natural ground and
stabilized with a native grass mix.
• All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, will be
properly maintained, to ensure proper function of the measures.
• Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner to prevent surface
runoff/drainage from discharging untreated into the riparian buffer. Instead all interim
surfaces will be graded to drain to temporary erosion control devices to treat runoff before
discharging into Sandy Creek (As specified in NCDOT BMP Manual).
• The resident engineer's office will invite the USFWS and NCWRC to the pre-construction
meeting.
Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2
Green Sheet
February 2011
Roadway and
Bridge
Permit
Drawings

Z
0
? o
g m
L S Z N
U O
Z
S U O,
LL LL Z
O O
a
Z Z C
W O a W
K O
[. j LL
a Q K
m
m
0
U
2
W

S
m

1
0

4
S

? E c

v
Z ? 0
N m C ["] n
U w m n wi
,
L
E ~
d w U

? C
C
?
yf
F C U C
C ?p N
'K
N
?
N
m
a m m n E
'x L E c
W U d
W
U
a N
>
n O
?
h > ry U
F N? m O
p o

C
v N
C U ^
m ? q U
} E N n m
E y
C a
Q
N

7 ?
a
c ? m u
y m ? 5 ? m

U
n
C
G N ? ?
^
f' t m v m
,.
D m U ?
K
W I
-
U ? '
a a ?

a „
o a
Z ? v m o
Q D m ? ? ;i
J Z ?`
?
W g w
w
3
a
a c c
(n
M
N
m
_ N U O O O O
F jL y? 0 O O O
3
C N
v a
c c c

(O

m

o
N_ N V O O O
E ?y W? O O O O
a ?

C7
D

v n m

2 v
N b b m
?
_
? qN? N
V
r m
T
C1
H F

O O O
N m
U
C e N
N
N p O O O [7

N J J a'
a' ?
N N
O N
O
+ O

M
4
O + I
N
J
O O f
N Z O

N
Z
Z wn
w Z
w 2 o
LL w
LL C)
7:) Q
Co
w
LLU ZO c
0- N
J
^
?
r
Q
r
w
J
m
N
W rv
LD Z r
F o

wr
o s

N
J
O
? w r
U co
N
Q
a
o w
Z o
m O
N
m °m
m
C a p o? ?
G ? J
- J
(n Q W m m
2 r N N v
O

U
Wr
J
J (?
J
a

? w w
LU F o x x
LL m
LL
D o?
co
0
0
?
w
U
O O
r r
zo r r
O C r r

r?
J J
J J
O O
r
rn w N
m
v
+
N ?

? T (O K
N m
w w ?

U r '? ? m
? X
? O
r m
m
O J
Z a
w F
o
F

Utility Permit
Drawings
I .

a
F
0 y
6 S
F
Z Z Z N
U O
z
S U C
0 0 ? '
F z i

o m
m
y
m
0
U
z

w

IL s
y

e

4

m E c
m m?
2 w w =
Z N ?
y C C U V
U ? m n m
.
X L
E ?
d w V

C
C
V
W C
C
c. c m m
s
r a E
E `
? w
w V
w a
U
Q y
? d> V U
E
o m

c
m
c 3 v ?
E
? a
a

C m U
ry C ? ? O O
f/1 m?_? n o 0 o p

U
a
a y

H m m d m
L N
V
U 5
R'
W H
U ?

d o v
Z ;?
a 0 rv
m__
J Z 3
?
W g w
F
W y

3 a
d- N V
F LL
j
>
C
C y

N _ N ?
E LL
? O
Q
p
3
a ? ?

. o
N
m N
m ?
m
?F Q
N m
N N
V
m
OI
Cl

N
p? N
O r
(O
C 0 f Q 0

O Q

N v F F H

?p N
OI Q
N
p
} }
M }
r

J
m 'J F
fn Z Q
H
N
Z W r
W Z 'Y
W :E NN v
LL Ll
LL U
J
d7
LU w-
:
LL ZO
c
N
J
^
h
O
H
w
J
m
N
W rv
Z r
F O "

Wry
Z c
O
N

} 0
W ?
m N
a
C
C a z o
n o
m
n Q
v
C d o O- e
C ? J N
- J
a W r ? ? O
Z C v
O N

V w

a ?
Q<
a
?
a

LU w
LLB F o x x
LL m
LL
??
m
°o
K
0
U

z O H F
O C m H

O
K
w o
? o
Q o 0 0 't
o m X v
N M

N m
W W <

N F N N m
U x
?
W O

N ? m
cn
O J
z Q
w F
? O
? F
USAGE
Preliminary JD
6+
U.S. ARNIY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILNIINU MN DISTRICT
Action ID. 2010-01416 Comity. Franklin U.S.G.S.Quad: Centerville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERIVIINAT
Property 0%vner/Agcnc NCDOT: Division 5
Address ATTN:.I.W. Bowman, P.F.
2612 Duke Street
Durban, North Carolina 27704
Telephone No.: (919.220.4633 (Chris Nlurrov
Property description: Study area for'I-IP M-5218; On_ SH
Centerville, NC.
Size (acres) N/A
Nearest Waterw ay Sandv Creck
USGS HUC 030*
Preliminary Determination
'?
i
c z,
1451 (Leonard Road), Bridge 61 over Sandy Cicely southwest of
NcarestTown Centerville
River Basin "far
Coordinates N 36.165 W -78.123
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area. This
preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR
Part 331).
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CANIA). You
should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a
violation of Section 301 of tire Clean Water Act (33 USC ? 131 1). Fyou have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps
regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmever, at 91 9-554-4884. Gxt. 23.
Remarks
6/3/2009 field inspection The drawin• Fi••u e 3• B-5214 Jurisdictional Features Map dated 3/10/2010 (copv att.), submitted on
4/28/2010. L?enerally depicts the auuatic features of the US within the subject studv area.
Corps Regulatory Official Date: 1/18/2011 Determination Expiration Date: 1/18/2016
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help its ensure we continue to do so; please
complete the Customer Satisfaction Survev located at our wcbsitc at hnDspei2 nwn usace arnn•.mil/survev.himl to complete the survey
online.
Copy furnished (W/ att.):
Phil May/Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
3208 Brian Court
Garner. NC 27529
Q010--1?'i'qi6
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): .
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Philip May ?of N'-- DoT D;Y s F V75
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
8208 Brian Court D((1? 5
Garner NC 27529
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: S NG?? B/g
VC/0-?lyl6
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: B-5218 5R 1X51
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES G ean??(i4R6?
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: N/A
Center coordinates of site ([at/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.1652°
N, Long. -78.1236° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Sandy Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 100 linear feet: 60 width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0.4 acres.
Cowardin Class: Forested
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: n/a
Non-Tidal: n/a
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date* 61312,0 / 00 ??YL
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or.
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre-construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be"waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
? Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:USGS, Soil Survey, Aerial Photography.
? Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
29 Office concurs, with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
? U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000
Centerville NC.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: Franklin County Soil Survey.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Centerville NC.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
? Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Franklin County, 2007.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Other information (please specify):
later jurisdictional determinations.
i?- C
Signature and date ibf
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
61-3110
re and'date of
person requesting preliminary
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
B-5218
Preliminary JD
Estimated
amount of
aquatic
resource Class of
Cowardin in review aquatic
Site Latitude Longitude Class area resource
WA 36.1659 -78.1229 Emergent 0.1 Section 404
WB 36.1657 -78.1234 Forested 0.2' Section 404
WC 36.1651 -78.1232 Forested 0.1" Section 404
WD 36.1656 -78.1226 Forested 0.2" Section 404
WE 36.1650 -78.1243 Forested 0.2' Section 404
WF 36.1649 -78.1239 Forested 0.1- Section 404
Total acreage of WB, WD, & WE which are connected outside study area
" Total acreage of WC & WF
Biological
Assessment
(NCDOT)
Biological Assessment
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Transportation Improvement Program No. B-5218
Bridge 61 (SR 1451) over Sandy Creek
Franklin County, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Heather Renninger
Environmental Specialist
NC Department of Transportation
Biological Surveys Group
[phone]
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered Species...... I
Project Description for B-5218 ....................... :................................................................ 1
Removal of Existing Bridge ............................................................................................ I
New Bridge Construction ................................................................................................ 2
Avoidance and Minimization .......................................................................................... 3
Standard Measures ...................................................................................................... 3
Additional Measures ................................................................................................... 3
Defined Action Area ......................................................................................................... 4
Species Descriptions ............................................................
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) ................
Distribution and Habitat Requirements ........................
Threats to Tar River Spinymussel ................................
Species Status ...............................................................
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) ................
Distribution and Habitat Requirements .......................
Threats to Species ........................................................
Species Status ...............................................................
Environmental Baseline .....................................................
Historical Survey Results .................................................
Survey Methods and Results ............................................
Effect Analysis ....................................................................
Dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel .............
Conclusion and Determination ....................................
......................................... 5
........................................ 5
......................................... 5
............................ :............ 5
......................................... 9
10
....................................... 10
....................................... I 1
....................................... 12
.......................................12
....................... 12
13
.......................................13
....................................... 13
........................................ 14
Additional Species .........................................................................
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) ............................................
Conclusion and Determination ...............................................
Biological Conclusion: No EffectLiterature Cited ....................
Literature Cited .............................................
List of Preparers
............................ 14
............................ 14
............................ 15
............................15
16
....................19
Appendix A 1:24,000 Scale Vicinity Map
Appendix B Erosion control plan indicating temporary causeway
Appendix C Freshwater Mussel Survey, The Catena Group, January 12, 2004
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Introduction
The propose of this biological assessment is to review the proposed project,
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project # B-5218, in sufficient detail to
determine whether the proposed action may affect any of the threatened, eiiuangered or
proposed species listed below. This biological assessment is prepared in accordance with
legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1536 (c)).
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered
Species
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Tar River spinymussel (Elliplio steinstansana) Endangered
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Endangered
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michausii) Endangered
Project Description for B-5218
Removal of Existing Bridge
Removal.of the existing structure will require the construction of a temporary
causeway in the stream. The temporary causeway will be 30 feet wide and will be
located in the footprint of the drip line of the proposed bridge. The temporary causeway
will extend from both banks of Sandy Creek to the three existing interior bents.
Temporary impacts to surface waters due to construction of the temporary causeway are
anticipated to be about 1,050 square feet. The removal of existing bents within the
stream channel has potential for negative effects to the aquatic habitat within the stream.
In an effort to address this, NCDOT proposes the following commitments to minimize
the potential for negative effects.
1. The contractor will remove portions of the existing bridge deck and bridge
structure as necessary without dropping components into the stream. Natural
ground and existing embankment will be graded down to a suitable elevation as
noted on the plans (or determined by the Engineer) and a temporary rock
causeway (underlain with filter fabric) will be constructed within the footprint of
the bridge deck.
2. Install temporary turbidity curtains around the interior piles.
3. The temporary rock causeway (underlain with filter fabric where practical) will
extend into the stream to the concrete piles and spreader footers. The rock
causeway will need to surround all sides of the concrete spreader footer.
4. Only one in-stream causeway will be constructed at a time.
5. The contractor may remove the concrete piles and spreader footer by one of the
following methods and following NCDOT best management practices:
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Attempt to rock or shake the concrete piles and spreader footer for removal.
This will likely cause some amount of shattering. This material will then be
broken into smaller pieces by a hoe ram or excavator bucket and removed as
practical.
Cut the concrete piles and spreader footers for removal. The remaining
portions will then be,broken into smaller pieces by a hoe ram or excavator
bucket and removed as practical.
In either method, the contractor must attempt to remove all of the concrete
spreader footer. If the Engineer determines that this is not practical, it will be
removed to depth of one foot below the natural streambed.
6. Rip rap and all other material used as part of temporary causeway will completely
be removed by the contractor except as noted on the plans. Rip rap (underlain
with filer fabric) will remain on both streambanks extending from below the
ordinary high water mark up to the new piles to provide long-term stability.
New Bridge Construction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes
replacement of Bridge 61 on SR 1451 in Franklin County, NC. The bridge will be
replaced in place with an offsite detour. The new bridge will provide a less obstructed
hydraulic cross section by reducing the number of bridge bents from 8 to three and by
eliminating bents in the waterway.
The new bridge will be 260 feet long and will have four spans measuring
approximately 50 feet, 95 feet, 50 feet and 65 feet in length. The bridge structure was
designed to eliminate placement of structure foundations (bents) within the river channel
to prevent disturbance to aquatic habitat. New bents will be constructed on the upland
floodplain within 10 feet of the top of bank. However, Class II rip rap will be installed
on the adjacent banks to prevent scour and to provide permanent stabilization.
The implementation of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters" will minimize unavoidable effects to the water quality of Sandy Creek.
Several of the practices that will be employed include: the minimization of staging areas
in lowland sites; careful containment of oil, gasoline and other hazardous materials near
streams and tributaries; reducing vegetation removal near streams; revegetating with local
flora; and the implementation of strict erosion and sedimentation control procedures.
During project construction, embankment construction and grading shall be
managed in such a manner to prevent surface runoff/drainage from discharging directly
into the riparian buffer. Instead, all interim surfaces will be graded to drain to temporary
erosion control devices. Silt fencing, special sediment control fencing, and a floating
turbidity curtain will be used to control suspended sediment generated during
construction. All sedimentation and erosion control measures; throughout the project
limits, will be monitored and maintained to ensure proper function of the measures.
Special sediment control fence will be installed along the top of the steam bank. Once
the disturbed areas of the project draining to the special sediment control fence have been
2
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
stabilized, the special sediment control fence and all built up sediment adjacent to the
fence will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with a native grass mix.
Stormwater runoff from the completed bridge and adjacent roadway surface will be
directed to an adjacent floodplain wetland. Additionally, "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (description below) will be utilized on this project to further reduce effects
to aquatic habitat.
Avoidance and Minimization
The NCDOT is committed to planning, designing, constructing, maintaining and
managing an interconnected transportation system while striving to preserve and enhance
our natural and cultural resources. Pursuant to this stated goal, the following avoidance
and minimization measures will be implemented to ensure that negative effects to the
habitat of endangered species within the project action area are minimal and short in
duration.
Standard Measures
The following "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" [15A NCAC 04B.0124 (b) -
(e)] are incorporated into NCDOT projects that occur within or upstream of water bodies
that contain federally protected aquatic species. Within the Environmentally Sensitive
Areas, the following shall apply:
The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations
until immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
Once grading operations begin, work shall progress in a continuous manner until
complete.
Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing
operation.
Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction
immediately following final grade establishment.
Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are
greater than 20 feet in height measured along the slope, or greater than 2 acres in
area, whichever is less.
Additional Measures
The following are additional measures intended to further reduce deleterious construction
related effects to the waterway:
An offsite detour will be utilized for this project.
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
implemented during the removal of the existing bridge.
No new bents will be constructed in the stream. New bents will be constructed in
the upland floodplain within 10 feet of the top of bank. However, the Class 11 rip
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
rap will be installed on the streambank to prevent scour and permanently stabilize
the streambank.
Rip rap will be installed as toe protection in areas where the fill slope extends into
wetland areas. This rip rap must be installed immediately after establishment of
fill slope.
Special sediment control fence will be installed along the top of the steam bank.
Standard silt fence will be installed along the toe of slope parallel to the stream.
Once the disturbed areas of the project draining towards the stream have been
stabilized, the special sediment control fence and all built up sediment adjacent to
the fence will be removed to natural ground and stabilized with a native grass
mix.
All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits,
will be properly maintained, to ensure proper function of the measures.
Embankment construction and grading shall be managed in such a manner to
prevent surface runoff/drainage from discharging, untreated, into the riparian
buffer. Instead, all interim surfaces will be graded to drain to temporary erosion
control devices to treat runoff before discharging into Sandy Creek (as specified
in NCDOT BMP Manual).
The resident engineer's office will invite the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) to the pre-construction meeting.
No stormwater BMP device is being designed for this project. This is because the
discharge point is in a wetland. Pre-formed scour holes are not constructed in wetlands
due to the increased impact. Also, it would be underwater for at least a third of the year.
Furthermore; the USACE and NCDENR-DWQ both approve of discharging stormwater
runoff into wetlands.
Defined Action Area
Project related activities are anticipated to affect the aquatic environment within
the immediate area of the limits of construction, right of way (ROW) as well as some
limited distance upstream of the ROW and a longer distance downstream of the ROW.
Drainage of rain water from the construction site will be routed through a network of
erosion and sedimentation control devices, as outlined in the NCDOT "Best Management
Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities" handbook. This treated runoff
will eventually be discharged into Sandy Creek where the potential conveyance of
sediment and other pollutants may cause a limited amount of habitat alteration.
The action area proposed for the subject project includes all of the area within the
ROW plus a 50' buffer to account for any site runoff discharged into areas outside of the
ROW, plus a 1,312' extension along Sandy Creek intended to contain any areas
measurably affected by project related activities. Based on the design of the new
crossing structure within the footprint of an existing structure, we do not anticipate
measurable changes to the stream form. NCDOT erosion control standards are designed
to remove 70-75% of suspended sediment from water leaving the construction area. In
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
this circumstance, the effects of the additional sediment are not expected to appreciably
affect the existing conditions and the commonly used downstream limit of 1312' seems
sufficient to contain the environmentally relevant effects of construction related habitat
alteration.
Species Descriptions
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana)
Status: Endangered
Listed: July 29, 1985
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar River system.
Currently it is known to occur in relatively short stretches of the Tar River and three
creeks (Shocco, Sandy/Swift and Little Fishing/Fishing) in the Tar drainage and from the
Little River in the Neuse Basin. Historically the Tar River spinymussel (TSM) was
collected in the Tar River from near Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt
County (approximately 78 river miles) (USFWS 1992). Clarke (1983) located TSM in
only a 12-mile stretch of the Tar River in Edgecombe County. Clarke collected 11 live
individuals and 3 shells from this area between 1977 and 1982, and described this area as
the type locality for the species. More recent findings include 1 live individual found by
John Alderman and Judy Ratcliff near the town of Tarboro water supply intake and 2 live
individuals found by Tim Savidge near the NC 33 crossing in 2001. In 1998 the TSM
was found in the Little River of the Neuse River Basin, its first recorded occurrence in
this river basin (John Alderman personal communication). Recently (2008), biologists
from the NCWRC have located live TSM in Fishing Creek of the Tar River Basin. This
is the latest known sighting of live individuals of this species in the wild.
The preferred habitat of the TSM in Swift Creek was described as relatively fast
flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant swings in
water velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt-free loose gravel and/or
coarse sand (USFWS 1992). Due to the few known populations and their wide range
from moderate size creeks to rivers it may be that this description from a single site is
inadequate to characterize the requirements of this species. It does appear that this
species is particularly sensitive to disturbances, as its patchy distribution suggests that it
has become extirpated in many places before its species associates.
Threats to Tar River Spinymussel
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point source discharge, stream modification (impoundments, channelization etc.),
coupled with the apparent restricted range and small population size, have contributed to
the decline of TSM throughout its range.
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals and are
restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding, or drought as well as human
influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads.
Siltation or sedimentation resulting from improper erosion control of various land
usage, including agricultural, forestry, and removal of streambank vegetation has been
recognized as a major contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS
1993). Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations
by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants
and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment
accumulations of less than 1 inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonto heterodon), because of
accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
The damming and channelization of rivers has resulted in the elimination of
historically suitable habitat. Immediately upstream from dams, conditions (including
heavy silt deposition and low oxygen levels) are detrimental to mussel species.
Immediately downstream from dams, daily water level and water temperature fluctuation
resulting from intermittent power generation and hypolimnetic discharges can occur and
are stressful to mussels. Hypolimnetic discharges from reservoirs produce cold tailwater
conditions that alter the typical fish and benthic assemblages. These changes associated
with inundation adversely affect both juvenile and adult mussels and native fish fauna,
thereby eliminating possible fish hosts for glochidia (USFWS 1993).
Point source discharges are direct discharges from a fixed point. They include
wastewater from industries, towns (for example sewage and stormwater) and agriculture.
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that
recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of
chlorinated sewage effluent.
Non-point source discharges contain pollutants from a source that is not required
to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. They account for a
large amount of pollutants detected in a concentrated water source such as a stream, river
or lake, and come from a wide range of sources. The source is the accumulation of
pollutants as a result of common, wide spread activities in both urban and rural areas.
Highway runoff is considered non-point source discharge.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff, including various
metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.), sediment, pesticides, deicing salts, nutrients (nitrogen,
phosphorus) and petroleum hydrocarbons (Gupta et al. 1981). The sources of these
runoff constituents range from construction and maintenance activities, to daily vehicular
use. Hoffman et al. (1984) concluded that highway runoff can contribute up to 80% of
6
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
the total pollutant loadings to receiving water bodies. Petroleum hydrocarbons,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) were some of the pollutants
identified in this study.
The toxicity of highway runoff to aquatic ecosystems is poorly understood. A
major reason for this poor understanding, is a lack of studies on highway runoff alone.
Potential impacts of highway runoff have often been inferred from studies conducted on
urban runoff. However, the relative loadings of pollutants are often much greater in
urban runoff, because of a larger drainage area and lower receiving water dilution ratios
(Dupuis et al. 1985). The negative effects of urban runoff on benthic macroinvertebrate
communities have been well documented (Garie and McIntosh 1986, Jones and Clark
1987, Field and Pitt 1990). Lieb (1998) found the macro invertebrate community of a
headwater stream in Pennsylvania to be highly degraded by urban runoff via a detention
pond. Improvements were observed at continual distances downstream from the
discharge point. However, all sites examined were still impaired compared to a reference
community not receiving urban runoff.
The few studies that examined actual highway runoff show that some species
demonstrate little sensitivity to highway runoff exposure, while others are much more
sensitive (Dupuis et al. 1985). Maltby et al. (1995) found elevated levels of
hydrocarbons and metals in both stream sediments and water column below a heavily
traveled British motorway. They demonstrated that the benthic amphipod (Gammarus
pulex) experienced a decrease in survival when exposed to sediments contaminated with
roadway runoff. However, this species showed no increase in mortality when exposed to
water contaminated with roadway runoff. Unfortunately, most of these studies only
measured acute toxicity to runoff and did not examine long-term impacts.
Augspurger (1992) compared sediment samples and soft tissues of the common
Elliptio mussel (Elliptio complanata) upstream and downstream of the I-95 crossing of
Swift Creek in Nash County, North Carolina. The sediment samples as well as the
mussels (n=3) exhibited higher levels of aliphatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, lead, zinc and
other heavy metal contaminants in the downstream samples. Because of the small sample
size, the effect on the health of these mussels was not studied. The North Carolina
Mussel Research Program, which consists of representatives from various federal and
state conservation and regulatory agencies, academia and NCDOT, identified this issue,
as a major research need.
NCDOT has recently funded a study that investigates the impacts of highway
runoff on the health of Elliptio complanata (Levine et al. 2005). Twenty sites were
assessed; 10 forested, 9 agricultural, and 1 urban road crossing under construction. The
study showed a decrease in mussel numbers in the first 164 meters downstream of the
crossing, but no difference was seen when considering the entire 984 meter research area.
The differences in mussel numbers can likely be attributed to the physical nature of the
structure rather than the chemical runoff. Mussels downstream of the crossing showed
increases in some contaminants, generally corresponding to the number of cars crossing
7
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
the bridge. The mussel health parameters studied were not affected by the increased
contaminants, but effects to other mussel species are still unknown.
Land use changes, especially along riparian corridors, can affect aquatic species
inmany ways. Tree removal from stream banks alters the amount of organic material and
light reaching the stream, impacting the temperature and dissolved oxygen, critical
factors for both fish and mussels. By protecting the floodplain, many pollutants could be
filtered through the floodplain to keep them from getting in the stream at such high
concentrations.
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corhicula fluminea)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats
to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major
river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still
supporting surviving populations of the TSM. Concern has been raised over competitive
interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at
the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997).
The zebra mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral
Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s
and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of
the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to disruption of the
natural food chain and will affect the entire aquatic communities of infested lakes and
streams if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States (USFWS
1992).
There is anecdotal evidence that TSM might spend a significant portion of its life
submerged below the substrate surface. It has been theorized that the spines of TSM are
an evolutionary adaption to a subterranean lifestyle in relatively loose sandy substrates.
If correct, this lifestyle might also account for the species modern decline. Living in the
subsurface environment would require a substrate that is able to diffuse oxygen in the
interstitial water. Clean coarse sand would allow for diffusion of water into the
interstitial spaces and would have low biological oxygen demand due to low organic
carbon content. Land disturbing activities tend to involve the runoff of fine sandy and
clay materials that can clog the interstitial spaces in the substrate and reduce the depth of
diffusion of oxygen into the substrate. The addition of organic matter, such as algal
matter derived from eutrophication of streams by fertilizers and animal/human waste
would increase the demand for oxygen in the subsurface dramatically and would
essentially confine oxygen to the top few centimeters of substrate. If this species is in
fact an obligate inhabitant of the subsurface, the effects of erosion and eutrophication
could be the dominant process in the decline of this species.
8
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Species Status
Due to the extreme rarity and recent taxonomic description (Clarke 1983) of TSM
very little is known about this species or its status. Surveys for this species indicate that
it is a very narrow endemic; confined to the Tar River Basin and a single stream of the
Neuse River Basin in NC. In all of the known populations; numbers of this species
appear to be very low and there is little or no indication of reproduction. The low
numbers of live individuals encountered during a typical survey are so low that
population trends are speculations at best. However, mussels in general appear to be in
steep decline and the observed decline of species that are assumed to be species
associates of TSM within streams that are known to have supported TSM is a strong
indication that TSM populations are also in decline.
In the Swift Creek population, perhaps the largest and best studied population, the
observations of shells far out number the observations of live individuals. During the
period from 1987 to 2005, 54 live individuals and 288 shells were observed by various
researchers. In August of 1990, a mussel kill occurred in Swift Creek and many TSM
shells, including juveniles, were recovered. The population appeared to have survived
the insult, with observations of live individuals continuing to the recent past, but the
numbers of shells observed declined drastically and the number of live individuals
decreased to an average of 1 per survey after 1992. Flours of effort are available for only
a portion of the data. The data that was available for live mussels is presented in Figure
1. Data on collection of shells is not presented due to lack of effort data. This data was
collected from NCWRC aquatic species database.
CPUE Live TSM
5
4
W 3
+ Series 1
U 2
1
0
m m rn rn rn m rn o 0 0
rn rn rn rn rn m rn o 0 0
v ? v v v v v v v v
m w o? ao m m w m m m
Date
Figure 1. Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) in mussels/person hour for live TSM
Survey results from Swift Creek could be interpreted in two ways. Standard
survey methodology could be inadequate to accurately predict the size of the population
and low numbers from surveys of known populations may be common despite a healthy
population. Increased shell occurrences in the period from 1989-1992 could have been
solely the result of die off as a result of a short lived toxic insult and the lack of shells

t,

YET
? xF
i ` ih ,F} 4
i
aYr
+r?i?1
.. 5{E
1k "f AtY
?
?? ?I??rt?
1 T
'
Eb
?`?
?
?
M1
'F a? {, {
f
.rR
N.?
I
3
}
rytl 19 'i
$
?
?
N ?
?h?
L3M Y
.?.^S +
I I
.

TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
from 1992 to the present would represent a return to normal levels. Alternatively, low
numbers during surveys could represent a diminished population and lack of shell
material could be the result of this decline.
The recent invasion of Asian clam into aquatic systems have changed the
behavior of muskrats in the systems where they-are common (NCDOT staff, personal
observation). Muskrats appear to have a preference for the clams over the native
mussels. Muskrat middens (trash piles) were once a good indicator of the native species
in a stream and a rich source of shell material for biologists. More recently native mussel
shells have become rare in muskrat middens. This trend could be the result of preference
alone, diminishing native mussels as a food resource for muskrats, or more likely a
combination of both.
The observations of TSM from its other known populations indicate either that the
species is extremely rare or has a life history that makes it much less available for
detection than other unionid mussels. If this species does indeed lead a subterranean
existence, it would be necessary to modify survey methods to include some amount of
substrate excavation and sifting to get an accurate idea of its true population numbers.
This method is not advocated due to its destructive nature. Alternatively, the yet untested
method of searching during times of year expected to coincide with TSM's reproductive
requirements could produce better results and will be employed during the
preconstruction survey for this project.
Due to the lack of verifiable data and unknown life history traits that could
dramatically affect estimations of population trends it is not possible to make an
adequately defensible statement about the status of TSM. However, based on my
personal observations of this species (by Jason Mays) and its associate species over the
last eight years, it is my opinion that this species is highly fragmented, in moderate to
steep decline and is eminently threatened with falling below a population level that can
adequately sustain the genetic viability of the species in the future.
Current efforts led by researchers at NC State University, supported in part by
the NCDOT, are underway to investigate the methods of captive propagation of TSM.
This effort is in a preliminary stage, but shows promise that this species can be
propagated and could be reintroduced into streams within its historic range in the fixture.
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Status: Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Listed: March 14, 1990
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The dwarf wedgemussel (DWM) 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, from coarse sand to firm, muddy sand to gravel
10
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
(USFWS 1993). In North Carolina the DWM often occurs within submerged root mats
along stable streambanks (John Alderman, personal communication 2004). The wide
range of substrate types used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is
likely as important as the composition.
The historic range of the DWM was confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the
Peticodiac River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River in North Carolina.
Occurrence records from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in I 1
states and 1 Canadian Province existed (USFWS 1993). Strayer et al. (1996) conducted
range-wide assessments of remaining DWM populations, and assigned a population
status, to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size, number of
individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed are
considered "poor", and two others are considered "poor to fair" and "fair to poor",
respectively. The 5 year review for DWM provides a minimal account of the status of
the known existing populations (USFWS 2007). Interpretation of the 2007 review
indicates 33 watersheds where DWM has been demonstrated in the past decade. Of those
33 sites only 13 have record of producing greater than 10 live specimens. This is an
arbitrary distinction, but demonstrates the rarity of this species and a potential measure of
which of these populations are capable of being sustainable. Only 3 streams with greater
than 10 individuals are located outside of New England, all of these are in the Tar River
Basin on North Carolina. These three populations have suffered enormous losses due to
a prolonged drought lasting from 2007 to the present. Personal observation of these
streams leads me to believe that the only population of DWM south of New England that
has the potential to persist long term and may be usable as a source population for
reintroduction is the Shelton Creek, Tar River population. The other NC populations
have been reduced to very low demonstrable numbers or are below detection and are
likely extirpated in some cases.
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of many factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point source discharges, and stream modifications (impoundments, channelization etc.)
have contributed to the decline of many mussel species throughout their respective
ranges. Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land uses, including
agriculture, forestry, and development activities, has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading
substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and directly
smothering mussels (Ellis 1936; Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of
less than 1 inch (2.5 cm) have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species
(Ellis 1936).
Populations of DWM appear to be declining throughout its range. Exceptions are
the Neversink River population in New York, which has an estimated population of over
30,000 mussels and the Connecticut River in New Hampshire and Vermont with over
100,000 mussels. All of the other populations are generally small in numbers and
restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the
11
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding, or drought as well as human
influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads. An example
of one of these events occurred in Massachusetts, when a bridge construction project
decimated a population of DWMbecause of accelerated sedimentation and erosion
(Smith 1981).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam and zebra mussel has
also been shown to pose significant threats to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic
clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the United States (Fuller
and Powell 1973), including those streams still supporting surviving populations of the
DWM. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food and
oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995).
Species Status
The 2007 five year review for dwarf wedgemussel (USFWS 2007) indicates that
this species is in decline in the southern portion of its range. The 2007 report was
compiled prior to the prolonged drought conditions experienced in the southern half of
this species' range during 2007, and the subsequent dry conditions that have persisted
since then. Most of the southern populations were small and highly fragmented
compared to nor-them populations in the Connecticut, Ashuelot, and Neversink Rivers.
Additionally, southern populations tend to be found in the headwater portion of fall line
streams that are particularly vulnerable to prolonged dryness. Jason Mays' personal
observations are that DWM cannot be easily found in at least two populations where it
was previously regularly found, Fox Creek and Rocky Swamp of the Tar River Basin.
Additionally, numbers are significantly diminished in places Shelton Creek, where the
species was formerly abundant. In general it appears that the species is highly imperiled
in the southern portion of its range.
Environmental Baseline
Historical Survey Results
According to NCWRC and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records, the
most recent occurrence of Tar spinymussel in Sandy Creek is from 1998. This record is
approximately 2.0 miles downstream from B-5218. There are no records of Dwarf
wedgemussel from Sandy Creek or any of its tributaries.
On September 29, 2003 The Catena Group, Inc. conducted a survey of the area
approximately 400 meters downstream and 100 meters upstream of the project site. 578
Ellipto spp., four Elliptio lanceolata, and two Fusconia masoni were found during this
survey. The survey report is included in Appendix C.
12

Survey Methods and Results
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
In 2010 NCDOT personnel performed two mussel survey efforts within Sandy
Creek near the project area. The first effort was a standard mussel survey that consisted
of a visual and tactile search within a 1312' reach of stream downstream from the bridge
and 328' upstream. The second effort covered a 2 mile reach of Stream extending
downstream from SR1451 to US 58. During the first survey effort, the stream was found
to have an abundant population of the common mussel Elliptio complanata. In addition,
4 Fusconaia masoni, 1 Elliptio lanceolata and 1 Elliptio fisheriana were found. These
mussels are relatively rare and are often found in association with TSM. F. masoni is
also commonly found with DWM, due to its broad range of habitat tolerance. DWM and
TSM are almost never observed within the same reach of stream due to slightly different
habitat preference. The habitat observed within the action area is habitat more closely
related to TSM, but not exclusively outside of the habitat range for DWM. No DWM or
TSM were observed during this effort. The longer 2 mile survey effort failed to discover
additional species.
On November 18, 2010, Jason Mays and Mike Sanderson of the NCDOT
Biological Surveys Group performed a project footprint survey. The purpose of this
survey was to further reduce the likelihood that either mussel species will be directly
affected by project activity within the project footprint. No TSM or DWM were
encountered within the project footprint. Sixty-six individuals of the species Elliptio
complanata were encountered. The majority of these individuals were located along the
right bank on the downstream side of the bridge or the southwest quadrant of the project.
E. complanata is a common mussel species, but its presence does suggest that the habitat
in which it is found is stable enough to support either of the two listed species. These
two species are almost always found in association with E. complanata.
Effect Analysis
Dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel
Due to the nearly identical utilization of in stream habitat and common
susceptibility to the threat of negative effects that are possible from bridge construction,
the effects of this project on the Tar River spinymussel and the Dwarf wedgemussel will
be evaluated in a single effect analysis.
DWM is not known to have been collected from Sandy Creek watershed, but the
essential habitat constituents are present and the action area is located within a
geographic region where it is not inconceivable that DWM could be present. TSM has
not been found within the project action area, but records from 1998 exist and
demonstrate that this stream was suitable for this species in the past and may continue to
harbor this species. Based on the results of recent survey efforts, TSM is absent or
undetectable within the action area.
13
TIP B-52 IS
Biological Assessment
NCDOT is aware that the cryptic nature of these species, the complexity of their
life cycle (microscopic juveniles and parasitic glochidia), and the unknown attributes of
these species life history (potential subterranean preference) complicate the certainty with
which negative survey data can be interpreted. Accordingly, project B-5218 was
designed to be as minimally disruptive to aquatic habitat in the Sandy Creek as is
practicable. A long bridge structure and elimination of bents in the stream will limit the
amount of permanent stream alteration and the effects of hydraulic disturbance caused by-
maintaining a permanent stream crossing. The use of design standards in sensitive
watersheds, along with adherence to the Tar River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0259)
will reduce the impact of project runoff into the river.
The implementation of this project will affect potential habitat for the TSM and
DWM within the action area. This project has been designed such that the disturbance to
the stream habitat is within the range of natural disturbance that is commonly
encountered within stream habitats and will pose no lasting negative effect that will
measurably decrease the potential utilization of this habitat by the listed species from the
baseline level of potential for utilization possessed by this habitat in its current state. As
such, we are unable to demonstrate that the minimized, yet unavoidable, negative effects
of this project are measureable in the context of constituting take for either species and
are accordingly characterized as discountable.
The replacement of bridge 61 is a replacement such that an aging structure is
replaced with a newer structure that is enhanced only in attributes that address its safety
and adherence to modern standards of construction, but that is not enhanced for reasons
that might serve to directly influence or increase usage or to attract the opportunistic
activity of other entities, public or private, that might constitute a cumulative effect
within the action area. No cumulative effects are anticipated to be associated with this
proj ect.
Conclusion and Determination
Biological Conclusion: May Affect: Not Likely To Adversely Affect
Additional Species
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxil)
Status: Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Listed: September 28, 1989
Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows
in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well-drained sands or
sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy
or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in
14
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and
utility rights-of-way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns
and/or storm damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to
moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other
artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont,
it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocksaThe plant is shade intolerant and,
therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g:, mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire)
maintains its open habitat (USFWS 2010)
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac was present at the site. Maintained utility corridors
as well as disturbed edges were surveyed by NCDOT personnel on July 14, 2010.
Michaux's sumac was not observed.
Conclusion and Determination
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
15
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Literature Cited
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages
98-107 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer and T.J. Naima,
cds.1997. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels 11 Initiatives for
the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis,
Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Ilinois.
293p
Augspurger, T. 1992. Environmental Contaminant Impacts of Highway Runoff on
Freshwater Mussels, Swift Creek, Nash County, North Carolina, US Fish and
Wildlife Service. Ecological Services, Raleigh Field Office, NC.
Clarke, A.H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spiny mussel. Final Report to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service with supplement. 6' )pp.
Dupuis, T. V., N. P. Kobriger, et al. 1985. Effects of Highway Runoff on Receiving
Waters; Resource Document for Environmental Assessments. U. S. D. T.
FHWA.III: 153.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Field, R., R.E. Pitt 1990. "Urban storm-induced discharge impacts: United States
Environmental Protection Agency research program review." Water Science and
Technology 22(10/11):1-7.
Fuller, S.L.H., C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula mandensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2): 59.
Garie, H.L., A. McIntosh. 1986. "Distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream
exposed to urban runoff." Water Resources Bulletin 22(3): 447-455.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment effluents on
mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final Rep.,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Serv. 128 pp.
Gupta, M. K., R. W. Agnew, et al. 1981. Constituents of highway runoff Volume II,
Procedural manual for monitoring of highway runoff. U. S. D. O. Transportation.
FHWA/81/043: 121. Biological Evaluation U-3826 20
Hoffman, E.J., J.S. Latimer 1984. Stormwater run-off from Highways. "Water, Air, and
Soil Pollution" 25: 349-364.
16
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Jones, R., C. Clark 1987. "Impact of Watershed Urbanization on Stream Insect
Communities." Water Resources Bulletin 15(4).
Levine, J.F., W.G.Cope, A.E. Bogan, M. Stoskopf, L.L. Gustafson, B. Showers, D. Shea,
C.B. Eads, P. Lazaro, W. Thorsen, D. Forestier, E.F. Anderson, 2005 Assessment of
the impact of highway runoff oh freshwater mussels in North Carolina streams.
Final Report # 2001-13, FHWA/NC/2004-03, The Center for Transportation and the
Environment and North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, 109
PP.
Lieb, D. A. 1998. The effects of urban runoff on the benthic macrobinvertebrate
community of Thompson Run, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Master's Thesis,
Pennsylvania State University: 130.
Maltby, L.A., B. A. Boxall 1995. "The effect of motorway runoff on freshwater
ecosystems: 2. Identifying major toxicants." Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 14(6): 1093-1101.
Marking, L.L.J.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock
Island IL. 270 pp.
NCDOT BMP Manual 2003. Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh
NC
Neves, R.J., J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull. (5):1-7.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha):an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet.
New York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual.
Engineering, Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D.L., S.J. Simpson, S. Claypool. 1996. A range-wide assessment ofpopulations
of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel(Bivalva:Unionidae).
J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Revised Tar spinymussel Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 34pp.
17
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Recovery Plan. Hadley, MA. 52pp.
USFWS 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan.
Atlanta GA. 47 pp.
USFWS. 2007 Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) 5-Year Review: Summary
and Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS Hadley, MA.
USFWS 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Michaux's Sumac in North Carolina.
http://www fws gov/nc-es/plant/michsumae.html. (Accessed: December 14,
2010).
18
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
List of Preparers
Investigator: Jason Mays, Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, March 2004-
December 2010
Education: B.S. Biological Sciences, UNC Chapel Hill
M.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Science, NC State University
Experience: NCWRC Field Biologist May 2002-October 2003
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations, protected species (terrestrial/aquatic)
surveys, 404/401 permitting, wetland delineation/ determination,
GIS studies
Permit No.: NC-2009 ES 133
Mailing Address: NC Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Telephone: [phone]
Investigator: Heather Renninger, Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, February
2007-present
Education: B.S. Ecology/Environmental Biology, Appalachian State
University
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, February 2007- present
Environmental Biologist, H.W. Lochner, Inc., 2003-2007
Biologist, Earth Tech, Inc., 2000-2003
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations and documentation, benthic
macroinvertebrate collection, 401/404 permitting, protected
species (terrestrial/aquatic) surveys, NEPA documentation,
wetland delineation, stream restoration, invasive species, avian
ecology and behavior.
Mailing Address: NC Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Telephone: [phone]
19
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Appendix A
1:24,000 Scale Vicinity Map
20
Bus
3+r:• ,
,Fl m- ' i? r
..--) !•---- I - Ceilterville
l'
C_ ? rl b?, I j \ ? II ;
j
7 'K1.
Site Location _ - f
1
';Cems
J ) der, .
1 \
/7 I I i
0 0.25 0.5 Miles ( ! r t
_.i
DOW: Figure
The Decemhe12005
Catena Project Location Scale:
Group SR 1451 over Sandy Creek As Shown
Franklin County, North Carolina Jot) No.
3019

TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Appendix B
Erosion control plan indicating temporary causeway
21
1:
TIP B-5218
Biological Assessment
Appendix C
Freshwater Mussel Survey, The Catena Group,.January 12, 2004
22
410.8 Millstone Drive
Hillsborougi, NC 27278
[phone]
Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek_
Franklin County
North Carolina
Prepared For:
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough, North Carolina
January 12, 2004
-ArUa-?z
Tb?
Timothy W. Savidge
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the bridge
over Sandy Creek on SR 1451 in northwestern Franklin County, North Carolina (Figure
1). Sandy Creek occurs within the Swift Creek Subbasin of the Tar River Basin. The
federally endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and the Tar
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) are listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
(USFWS) as occurring in Franklin County, and are known to occur in Sandy Creek
downstream of the project crossing. In addition to the dwarf-wedge mussel and Tar
spinymussel, there are several other rare freshwater mussel species known to occur in the
Swift Creek Subbasin of the Tar River. These include the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), the
green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), creeper
(Strophitus undulatus), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiate), and the notched rainbow
(Villosa constricts). The Atlantic pigtoe, yellow lance, yellow lampmussel, and green
floater are Federal Species of Concern and are considered Endangered in North Carolina.
The triangle floater, creeper, and eastern lampmussel are considered Threatened in North
Carolina and the notched rainbow is considered Special Concern.
WATERS IMPACTED: Sandy Creek
The proposed project will impact Sandy Creek, which arises approximately 27
miles upstream of the crossing and flows into/ becomes Swift Creek approximately 20
miles downstream of the project crossing near Hilliardston, NC. Swift Creek then joins
the mainstem of the Tar River south of Logsboro, NC.
The stream channel in the survey reach was approximately 6 meters (18 feet)
wide with streambanks in the approximate range of 1 meter (3 feet) in height. The
streambanks are moderately eroded in parts of the surveyed reach. The eroded sites are
most often caused by fallen trees. The substrate within the survey reach is predominately
sand, with some areas of gravel, and clay banks.
SPECIES DESCRIPTION
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf-wedge mussel)
Status: Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Listed: March-14-1990
Characteristics
The dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) (DWM) was originally
described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914) subsequently placed it in the
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
2
genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1914) placed it in a monotypic subgenus Prolasmidonta,
based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller (1977) believed the
characters of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to fill generic rank and renamed the
species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (1981) retained the genus name Alasmidonta
and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus Pressodonta
(Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon, refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of
this species, which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has
two lateral teeth on the right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other
laterally dentate freshwater mussels in North America normally have two lateral teeth on
the left valve and one on the right. The DWM is generally small, with a shell length
ranging between 25 mm and 38 mm. The largest specimen ever recorded was 56.5 mm
long, taken from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire (Clarke 1981). The periostracum
is generally olive green to dark brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or
salmon colored towards the umbonal cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with
the females having a swollen region on the posterior slope, and the males are generally
flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed description of the species.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the DWM; however nearly all
freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involves a larval
stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel
species have specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based
upon laboratory infestation experiments, Michaelson (1993) determined that potential
fish hosts for the DWM in North Carolina include the tesselated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi) and the Johnny darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Began (2001) and Pennak
(1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive
biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM was confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the
Peticodiac River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina.
Occurrence records exist from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in
I1 states and 1 Canadian Province (USFWS 1.993). It is currently believed to have been
extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina (USFWS 1993).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range-wide assessments of remaining DWM populations,
and assigned a population status, to each of the populations. The status rating is based on
range size, number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20
populations assessed are considered "poor", and two others are considered "poor to fair"
and "fair to poor" respectively. In North Carolina populations are found in portions of the
Neuse and Tar River basins. In Granville County this species has been recorded only in
the Tar/Pamlico River Basin
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately 2
meters wide), with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 3
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
described that range from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). 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.
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, chamuelization etc.) have
contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. With the exception of the
Neversink River population in New York, which has an estimated population of over
80,000 mussels, all of the other populations are generally small in numbers and restricted
to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted
range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation
from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may
consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events
such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including
agricultural, forestry and development activities has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading
substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by
direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment
accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of DWM, because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the
diversity and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988)
found that recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below
points of chlorinated sewage effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented
(USFWS 1992a, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic
habitats, which results in changes with aquatic community composition. The changes
associated with inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as
fish community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia.
Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for
naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with
t9 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of the river basins within the
DWM's range have been impounded and this is believed to be a major factor contributing
to the species decline (Master 1986, USFWS 1993).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 4
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major
river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still
supporting surviving populations of the DWM. Concern has been raised over
competitive interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels,
possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The zebra
mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic
freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s and has rapidly
expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic
slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space
with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20
freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992 b). The zebra mussel is not currently known from any river.
supporting DWM populations (USFWS 1993).
Elliptio steinstmrsana (Tar River spinymussel)
Status: Endangered
Listed: 7/29/85
Characteristics
The Tar spinymussel (TSM) grows to a maximum length of 60 millimeters. Short
spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and
symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as many as
12 spines that project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally.
However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they mature (USFWS 1992c). The
TSM is distinguished by its shiny periostricum, parallel pseudocardinal teeth, and the
linear ridges on the inside surface of the shell.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992a),
however, nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which
involves a larval stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a
fish. Many mussel species have speci fie fish hosts which must be present to complete
their life cycle. McMahon and Began (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted for
a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar River system,
currently occurring in relatively short stretches of the Tar River and three creeks (Shocco,
Sandy/Swift and Fishing/Little Fishing) in the Tar drainage. Historically the TSM was
collected in the Tar River from near Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt
County (approximately 78 river miles). Clarke (1983) located TSM in only a 12-mile
stretch of the Tar River in Edgecombe County. Recently (1998) the TSM was found in
the Little River of the Neuse River Basin. The preferred habitat of the TSM in Swift
Creek was described as relatively fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutrak pH water
5
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
in sites prone to significant swings in water velocity, with a substrate comprised of
relatively silt-free loose gravel and/or coarse sand.
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point discharge, stream modification (impoundment's, channelization, etc.), coupled with
the apparent restricted range, have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its
range. The effects of these factors on the Tar spinymussel are similar to those described
above for the dwarf wedgemussel.
SURVEY EFFORTS
Sandy Creek is a perennial stream that is known to provide habitat for the Tar
spinymussel and could provide potential habitat for the dwarf-wedge mussel, and thus
surveys for this and other freshwater mussel species were conducted for NCDOT.
Pre- survey Investigation
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review of survey work previously
conducted in the Sandy Creek drainage was performed. Sources consulted include the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) systematic inventory (database) of rare
plant and animal species, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The
pre-survey searches revealed records of the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and
yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), both Federal Species of Concern and state
Endangered, within one mile of the SR 1451 (Leonard Road) crossing of Sandy Creek. It
is important to mention that approximately two miles downstream of the project crossing
there are records of the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) as
well as the rare yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), triangle floater (Alasmidonta
undulata), creeper (Strophitus undulates), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), and
notched rainbow (Vi/losa constricta). The yellow lampmussel is a Federal Species of
Concern and considered Endangered in North Carolina.
Mussel Surveys for this Project
Tim Savidge and Shannon Simpson of The Catena Group, Inc., and Ron Johnson
of EarthTech, Inc. visited Sandy Creek on September 29, 2003. Mussel surveys were
conducted from a point approximately 400 meters downstream of the project crossing to
a point approximately 100 meters upstream.
IvIethodology and Results
Visual (using batiscopes, mask/snorkel) and tactile methods were used to survey
for mussels. Water clarity was good during the site visit. Water level ranged from less
than 1 foot to 3.0 feet in depth. Timed searches were conducted for 3.5 hours (10.5
person/hours) during the September 29, 2003 survey. Mussels were identified, counted
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 6
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
and returned to the substrate. Data points were taken at the starting point 400 meters
downstream and at the ending point of the survey, 100 meters upstream of Sandy Creek.
Within the survey reach, three freshwater mussel species were found, the Atlantic pigtoc
(Fusconaia masoni), the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolate), and Elliptio species (Table 1).
The introduced Asian clam and the aquatic snails (Campeloma decisum) and (Elimia
catenaria) were found to be common in the stream. The dwarf-wedge mussel and Tar
spinymussel were not found during the survey efforts.
.. n_....1...,..4- Mnecalc in .g9nfiv Creek
Scientific NamelUf f'1CJf Common Name Number CPUE#/person hr
Elliptio sp . Elliptio mussels 578 55.05
Elli do lanceolate yellow lance 4 0.38
Fusconia masoni Atlantic pigtoe 2 0.19
Discussion
The survey results indicate that a viable (multiple age classes observed) mussel
population occurs in Sandy Creek throughout the survey reach and that rare species are
present within the project area. Due to the presence of these rare species and potential
presence of federally endangered species, special measures should be taken to
avoid/minimize impacts to the mussel populations occurring in Sandy Creek. Since the
dwarf-wedge mussel and Tar spinymussel were not found during the September 29, 2003
surveys, it can be concluded that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" the dwarf-wedge mussel or Tar spinymussel. It is recommended that NCDOT
receive concurrence with this biological conclusion from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, due to the known populations of protected mussel species that occur in Sandy
Creek. Additionally, a pre-construction survey should be performed within the project
footprint prior to beginning construction.
LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages
98-107 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds.
1997. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis,
Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Ilinois.
293 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar spiny mussel. Final report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, (326), 101
PP
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey, 7
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1977. Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks. In: J.E. Copper et al., (eds.),
Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. NC State
Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. pp. 143-194.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corhicida manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment
effluents on mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia.
Final Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Lea, I. 1829. Description of new genus of the family of Naiades (etc.). Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, new series. 3:403-456.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock
Island IL. 270 pp.
McMahon, R.F. and A.E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalva. Pp. 331-429. In: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and Classification of North American
freshwater invertabrates. 2°d edition. Academic Press.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heteroclon: results of a global status survey and proposal
to list as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
Michaelson, D.L. 1993. Life history of the endangered dwarf-wedge mussel,
Alasmidonta heterodon (Lea 1830) (Pelecypoda: Unionidae), in the Tar River,
North Carolina and Aquia Creek, Virginia. MS Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 122 pp.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C.
Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island
LL. 189 pp.
Neves, R.J., and J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull.
1(5):1-7.
O'Neill, CR., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha):
an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact
Sheet. New York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey 8
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC

Ortmann, A.E. 1914. Studies in najades. Nautilus 28:41-47.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Mollusca
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
Simpson, c. T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades or pearly freshwater mussels,
Vol. 1-3. Bryant Walker, Detroit.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachussetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual.
Engineering, Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D.L., S.J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of
populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalva:Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. Atlanta GA. 47 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf-wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash.
D.C. 1,070 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992c. Tar spinymussel (Efliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
9
APPENDIX A: Photographs of Mussels
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
10
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
Elliptio spp. From Sandy Creek

Fusconaia masoni from Sandy Creek
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
I1
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
'fCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
12
SR 1451 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, NC
Elliptio lanceolata from Sandy Creek

USFWS

Concurrence
Letter
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, Notch Carolina 27636-3726
February 2, 2011
Heather Renninger
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Ms. Renninger:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 25, 2011 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. 61 on SR 1451 over Sandy Creek
in Franklin County (TIP No. B-5218) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar River spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no effect
on the federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). 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).
Although the Tar River spinymussel was observed approximately two miles downstream of the
project area in 1988, mussel surveys conducted in 2003 and 2010 did not reveal either Tar River
spinymussel or dwarf wedgemussel. These surveys involved intensive search efforts 100 meters
upstream and 400 meters downstream of the SR 1451 crossing, as well as a search within
suitable habitat for a distance of two miles downstream from the crossing.
NCDOT has committed to several conservation measures in order to avoid and minimize impacts
to aquatic life, to include fully spanning the channel and stringent erosion control measures.
Based on the mussel survey results and the commitment to the conservation measures listed in
your letter, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel.
NCDOT surveyed the project area for Michaux's sumac on July 14, 2010. The species was not
observed. Based on the survey results, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project
will have no effect on Michaux's sumac. 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,
A 0
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USAGE, Wake Forest, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC