20130981 Ver 1_Application_20130911

Page 1 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4January 2009
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. _____________
DWQ project no. _______________
Form Version 1.4January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 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):
401 Water Quality Certification – Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification – Express Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
Yes 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 No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. Yes No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
2b. County:
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
2d. Subdivision name:
2e.NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
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:
SR1600(HopewellChurchRoad)-BridgeReplacementProjectoverDuckCreek
Union
Fairview
BridgeNo.890006
NCDepartmentofTransportation
LouisMitchell,PE-DivisionEngineer
716W.MainStreet
Albemarle,NC28001
704-983-4400
704-982-3146
[e-mail]
NWP3
Page 2 of 10
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.Agent/Consultant 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:
LarryThompson,PWS,LSS
NCDepartmentofTransportation
716W.MainStreet
Albemarle,NC28001
704-983-4400
704-982-3146
[e-mail]
DivisionEnvironmentalOfficer
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4January 2009
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: Longitude:
1c. Property size: acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin:
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:
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
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?
Yes No Unknown
Comments:
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):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
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.
-80.51629
DuckCreek
C
Yadkin-PeeDee
Theexistingbridgeisatimber-deckedbridgeonasecondaryunpavedroadinaruralresidential/agriculturalsetting.Thepropertythatsurroundsthis
bridgeiscurrentlyundevelopedandisvegetatedbyamixeddeciduousforest.
0
Theexisting42footlongtimber-deckedbridgehasafailingsuperstructureandsubstructure.Crutchbentswereaddedtothestructurein2009tokeep
Theexistingbridgewillberemoved,thefloodproneareawillbeopenedupanda70footlongcoredslabbridgewillbeconstructedinitsplace.Constr
35.174363
60
USACEandNCDWQwereincludedinscopingprocess
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4January 2009
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams – tributariesBuffersOpen 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.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g.Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
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.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Chooseone ChooseoneYes/No-
Yes/No-
Yes/No-
Yes/No-
Yes/No-
Yes/No-
BridgeDemoDuckCreekPERCorps2540
40
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
T
-
-
-
-
-
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Page 5 of 10
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)
O1
O2
O3
O4
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
FloodedFilledExcavated FloodedFilledExcavated
P1
P2
5f.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:
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 any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.Project is in which protected basin? Neuse Tar-Pamlico Catawba Randleman Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number –
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
6h.Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
ChooseoneChoose
Chooseone
StableShoulderSlopesDuckCreekNo3,000
PreformedScourHoleDuckCreek2,500
5,500
Thebufferimpactsshownareapproximateandareconsideredtobe"allowable".
-
-
-
-
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Choose
Choose
Choose
Chooseone
P
P
-
-
-
-
No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
)
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4January 2009
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): DWQ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
Mitigation bank
Payment to in-lieu fee program
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type:
Type:
Type:
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
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:
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
4h. 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.
Theproposedstructureisalongerspanningstructurewithalarger floodplainopening.Nopermanent fillisbeingproposedwithinthejurisdictional
limitsofthestream.Theprojecthasbeendesignedforasensitivewatershedwithspecialemphasisonerosioncontrol.
Aspreviouslystated,thisprojecthasbeendesignedwithsensitivewatersheddesignedstandards.Specialemphasisisbeingplacedonerosion
controlandthestagingoferosioncontrolmeasures.Thecontractorforthisprojectwillberequiredtosubmitabridgedemolitionplanfortheproject
whichmustbeapprovedbytheLeadEngineer,DivisionEnvironmentalOfficerandAreaRoadsideEnvironmentalEngineerpriortoanydemolition
activitiestakingplace.
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Chooseone
Page 7 of 10
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)
Zone 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:
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4January 2009
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the projectinclude or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes No
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? %
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:

2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? Yes No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? Yes No
13
Vegetatedditchlinesandapreformedscourholehavebeenproposedforthisproject.Bridgedeckrunoffwillberoutedtothepreformedscourhole
andagrassswalepriortocontactwithGooseCreek.
NCDOT
NCDOTNCS000250
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4January 2009
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes No
1b. 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
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Yes No
1c. 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
letter.)
Comments:
Yes No
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,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
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
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes No
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.
Page 10 of 10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
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?
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
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
_______________________________
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)

Date
_________________________________________________
AApAAAA llpliicanaat/Agent's Signature
(AgAggAgAggent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Asheville
A BiologicalAssessmenthasbeenperformedforthisprojectandhasbeenattachedtothispackage.
IncludedwiththeprojectBiologicalAssessment.
NationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesandNCStateHistoricPreservationOffice
ProjecthasbeenconsideredforFEMArequirementsandtheNCDOTHydraulicsUnithascoordinatedwithFEMA.
FEMAmapping.
LarryThompson July24,2013
1
ATTACHMENT

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): July 23, 2013

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:

Larry Thompson
NC Department of Transportation
716 W. Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

SR 1600 (Hopewell Church Road)

(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County/parish/borough: Union City: Fairview
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.
35.174363° N, Long. -80.51629° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Duck Creek

Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 60 linear feet: 25 width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0 acres.
Cowardin Class:

Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non-Tidal:

2
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
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
3
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: Larry Thompson - NCDOT.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
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: Midland – 1 inch
equals 1200 feet.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: .
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date):Union - 2010.
or Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: .
Other information (please specify): Liz Hair involved with original scoping
of project.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.

_________________________ __________________________
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager person requesting preliminary JD
July 24, 2013
4
SAMPLE
Site
number Latitude Longitude Cowardin
Class
Estimated
amount of
aquatic
resource in
review area
Class of
aquatic
resource
1 35.174363° -80.51629° Riverine 60 linear feet section 10 –
non-tidal

Concord Hwy
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
Duck Creek
Clear Creek
Goose Creek
Goose Creek
G o o s e C r e e k
Brief Rd E
Hopewell Church Rd
Unionville-Brief Rd
Concord Hwy
East Old Dutch Rd
Price Tucker Rd
Clontz Rd C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
Union Co. - Bridge No. 890006 (Hopewell Church Road)
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800600Feet Figure 1
³
Bridge No. 890006
Concord Hwy
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
Duck Creek
Clear Creek
Goose Creek
Goose Creek
G o o s e C r e e k
Brief Rd E
Hopewell Church Rd
Unionville-Brief Rd
Concord Hwy
East Old Dutch Rd
Price Tucker Rd
Clontz Rd C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
Union Co. - Bridge No. 890006 (Hopewell Church Road)
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800600Feet Figure 2
³
Bridge No. 890006
Concord Hwy
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
Duck Creek
Clear Creek
Goose Creek
Goose Creek
G o o s e C r e e k
Brief Rd E
Hopewell Church Rd
Unionville-Brief Rd
Concord Hwy
East Old Dutch Rd
Price Tucker Rd
Clontz Rd C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
Union Co. - Bridge No. 890006 (Hopewell Church Road)
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800600Feet Figure 2
³
Bridge No. 890006
(V
e
r
s
i
o
n

1
.
2
;

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
d

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2
)
17
B
P
.
1
0
.
R
.
5
0
Co
u
n
t
y
(
i
e
s
)
:
Un
i
o
n

Page 1of 3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

T
y
p
e
:
D
a
t
e
:
Ph
o
n
e
:
Ph
o
n
e
:
Em
a
i
l
:
Em
a
i
l
:
Co
u
n
t
y
(
i
e
s
)
:
CA
M
A

C
o
u
n
t
y
?
De
s
i
g
n
/
F
u
t
u
r
e
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
:
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
:

Pr
i
m
a
r
y
:

Du
c
k

C
r
e
e
k
Ya
d
k
i
n
-
P
e
e

D
e
e
13
-
1
7
-
1
8
-
3
ag
a
m
b
e
r
@
w
e
t
h
e
r
i
l
l
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
10

f
o
o
t

t
r
a
v
e
l

l
a
n
e
s

w
i
t
h

3

f
o
o
t

s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
1
0

f
o
o
t

t
r
a
v
e
l

l
a
n
e
s

w
i
t
h

n
o

s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
Go
o
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
NC
D
W
Q

S
t
r
e
a
m

I
n
d
e
x

N
o
.
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
/
T
I
P

N
o
.
:
NC
D
O
T

C
o
n
t
a
c
t
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.
:
17
B
P
.
1
0
.
R
.
5
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

/

D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
:
rh
e
n
e
g
a
r
@
n
c
d
o
t
.
g
o
v
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
:
5/3/2013
55
9

J
o
n
e
s

F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
9
9
-
1
5
9
0
Su
i
t
e

1
6
4
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Hi
g
h
w
a
y

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T

P
L
A
N

FO
R

L
I
N
E
A
R

R
O
A
D
W
A
Y

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Ra
n
d
a
l
l

H
e
n
e
g
a
r
,

P
E
Br
i
d
g
e

R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
ac.
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
:
Ty
p
i
c
a
l

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:

Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

180
0.
2
3
Av
e
r
a
g
e

D
a
i
l
y

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

(
v
e
h
/
h
r
/
d
a
y
)
:
ac
.
Ot
h
e
r

S
t
r
e
a
m

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:

We
t
h
e
r
i
l
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
/
T
o
w
n
:
91
9
-
8
5
1
-
8
0
7
7
15
9
0

M
a
i
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
:
91
9
-
7
0
7
-
6
7
2
6
Un
i
o
n
No
NC
D
W
Q

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r
30
3
(
d
)

I
m
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
s
:
Ri
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
(
s
)
:

Pr
i
m
a
r
y

R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

W
a
t
e
r
:

Cl
a
s
s

C
Bu
f
f
e
r

R
u
l
e
s

i
n

E
f
f
e
c
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

L
a
n
d

U
s
e
:

Wo
o
d
e
d
0.
0
7
18
0
0.
2
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

B
u
i
l
t
-
U
p
o
n

A
r
e
a

(
a
c
.
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

S
i
t
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

L
e
n
g
t
h

(
l
i
n
.

M
i
l
e
s

o
r

f
e
e
t
)
:

(V
e
r
s
i
o
n

1
.
2
;

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
d

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2
)
17
B
P
.
1
0
.
R
.
5
0
Co
u
n
t
y
(
i
e
s
)
:
Un
i
o
n

Page 2of 3
Sh
e
e
t

No
.
St
a
t
i
o
n
(F
r
o
m

/

T
o
)

Fe
a
t
u
r
e

Im
p
a
c
t
e
d
Wa
t
e
r

/

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

/

Bu
f
f
e
r

T
y
p
e
Re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

Wa
t
e
r

N
a
m
e
NR
T
R

M
a
p

ID
NC
D
W
Q

S
t
r
e
a
m

In
d
e
x
NC
D
W
Q

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

Wa
t
e
r

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
30
3
(
d
)

Im
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
s
Ty
p
e

o
f

Im
p
a
c
t
Existing SCM
11
+
0
6

R
T
13
+
2
5

L
T
Cl
a
s
s

C
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
Du
c
k

C
r
e
e
k
4
G
o
o
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
No
n
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

M
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
r

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

A
l
l

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

S
C
M
s

l
i
s
t
e
d

m
u
s
t

a
l
s
o

b
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

S
w
a
l
e
s
,

P
r
e
f
or
m
e
d

S
o
u
r

H
o
l
e
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

E
n
e
r
g
y
D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
o
r
s
,

o
r

O
t
h
e
r

S
t
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Proposed SCM PFSHN/A
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Hi
g
h
w
a
y

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

13
-
1
7
-
1
8
-
3
F
i
l
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
/
T
I
P

N
o
.
:
*
L
i
s
t

a
l
l

s
t
r
e
a
m

a
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

w
a
t
e
r

i
m
p
a
c
t

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s

o
f

j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

o
r

s
i
z
e
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Bu
f
f
e
r

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
e
r

P
i
p
e
s

t
o

b
e

n
o
t
e
d

a
s

a

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T

P
L
A
N

FO
R

L
I
N
E
A
R

R
O
A
D
W
A
Y

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
(V
e
r
s
i
o
n

1
.
2
;

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
d

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2
)
17
B
P
.
1
0
.
R
.
5
0
Co
u
n
t
y
(
i
e
s
)
:
Un
i
o
n

Pa
g
e

3
o
f
3
Sh
e
e
t

No
.
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
En
e
r
g
y

D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
o
r

Ty
p
e
R
i
p
r
a
p

T
y
p
e
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e

A
r
e
a
(a
c
)
Q10 (cfs)V10 (fps)
*
R
e
f
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

N
C
D
O
T

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
en
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

T
o
o
l
b
o
x
,

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

1

(
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
8
)
,

NC
D
O
T

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
t
a
il
s
,

t
h
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

A
d
m
in
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
H
W
A
)

H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

C
i
r
c
u
l
a
r

N
o
.

1
4

(
H
E
C
-
1
4
)
,

Th
i
r
d

E
d
i
t
i
o
n
,

H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

D
e
s
i
g
n

o
f

E
n
e
r
g
y

D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
o
r
s

f
o
r

Cu
l
v
e
r
t
s

a
n
d

C
h
a
n
n
e
l
s

(
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
6
)
,

a
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,

f
o
r

d
e
s
i
g
n

g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
a
n
d

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
4
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Hi
g
h
w
a
y

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
0.
0
8
Cl
a
s
s

'
B
'
0.4
Pr
e
f
o
r
m
e
d

S
c
o
u
r

H
o
l
e
s

a
n
d

E
n
e
r
g
y

D
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
o
r
s
Pi
p
e
/
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

Di
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
(i
n
)
Pi
p
e
Co
n
v
e
y
a
n
c
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
/
T
I
P

N
o
.
:
PF
S
H
12
+
8
2

L
T
0.1
15
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
v
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,

a
s

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

N
C
D
O
T

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

T
o
o
l
b
o
x

(
2
0
0
8
)
,

N
C
D
O
T

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
,

o
r

F
H
WA
HE
C
-
1
4

(
J
u
l
y

2
0
0
6
)
,

b
e
e
n

m
e
t

a
n
d

v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
,

a
s

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
?

I
f

N
o
,

p
r
ov
i
d
e

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

e
x
p
l
a
n
a
n
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
h
y

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

w
a
s

n
o
t

m
et.

S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T

P
L
A
N

FO
R

L
I
N
E
A
R

R
O
A
D
W
A
Y

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
YE
S
NO
Ha
n
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
T
e
m
p
.

E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
z
e
d

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

T
e
m
p
.

C
h
a
n
n
e
l
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

Si
t
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
F
i
l
l

I
n
F
i
l
l

I
n
i
n

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
i
n

S
W

S
W
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
S
t
r
e
a
m
No
.
(
F
r
o
m
/
T
o
)
S
i
z
e

/

T
y
p
e
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
i
n

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
T
e
m
p
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
(a
c
)
(
a
c
)
(
a
c
)
(
a
c
)
(
a
c
)
(
a
c
)
(
a
c
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)

1
1
2
+
1
0

t
o

1
2
+
5
0
B
R
I
D
G
E
<0
.
0
1
4
0
TO
T
A
L
S
:
<.
0
1
4
0
AT
N

R
e
v
i
s
e
d

3
/
3
1
/
0
5
5/3/2013
17
B
P
.
1
0
.
R
.
5
0

(
D
B
1
0
-
8
9
0
0
0
6
)

W
E
T
L
A
N
D

P
E
R
M
I
T

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
SU
R
F
A
C
E

W
A
T
E
R

I
M
P
A
C
T
S
WE
T
L
A
N
D

I
M
P
A
C
T
S
UNION COUNTY
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N

O
F

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
S

Biological Assessment of Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) and Designated Critical Habitat

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Transportation Improvement Program
Bridge No. 6 over Duck Creek on SR 1600
WBS Element No. 17BP.10.R.34
Union County, North Carolina

Contact Person:
Mike Sanderson
Senior Environmental Scientist
NC Dept. of Transportation
Biological Surveys Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Federally Endangered Species: Union County, NC .................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.1. Purpose and Need Statement ....................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Construction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.3. Defined Action Area .................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE – CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER ............................................ 2
3.1. Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter) .............................................................................. 2
3.1.1. Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 2
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................................. 4
3.1.3. Distribution in Goose/Duck Creek ......................................................................................... 5
3.1.4. Threats to Species (Particularly Goose/Duck Creek Populations) .......................................... 5
3.1.4.1. Sedimentation ................................................................................................................ 6
3.1.4.2. Toxic Contaminant ........................................................................................................ 6
3.1.4.3. Habitat Alterations ........................................................................................................ 9
3.1.4.4. Urbanization/Impervious Surface Area ......................................................................... 9
3.1.4.5. Thermal Pollution ....................................................................................................... 11
3.1.4.6. Invasive Species .......................................................................................................... 12
3.1.4.7. Other Causes of Habitat Degradation .......................................................................... 12
3.1.4.8. Identified Action Area Threats .................................................................................... 13
3.2. Designated Critical Habitat ...................................................................................................... 14
4.0 SURVEY INFORMATION ............................................................................................................. 18
4.1. September 24, 2011 ................................................................................................................... 18
4.2. March 8, 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 18
4.3. Surveys of Critical Habitat Unit 1 (Duck Creek) March 8, 2012 .............................................. 19
4.4. Surveys of Critical Habitat Unit 1 (Goose Creek) August 30-September 1, 2011 ..................... 19
5.0 AVOIDANCE and MINIMIZATION MEASURES ...................................................................... 20
5.1. Standard Measures .................................................................................................................... 20
5.2. Additional Measures .................................................................................................................. 22
6.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ON CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER AND CRITICAL HABITAT ........ 22
6.1. Direct Effects ............................................................................................................................. 23
6.2. Indirect Effects .......................................................................................................................... 23
6.3. Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 24
6.4. Conclusion of Effects Carolina Heelsplitter .............................................................................. 24
6.4.1. Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect ....................................... 24
6.5. Conclusions of Effects-Critical Habitat .................................................................................... 24
6.5.1. Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect ....................................... 24
7.0 ADDITIONAL SPECIES FEDERALLY LISTED (UNION COUNTY) ..................................... 24
7.1. Rhus michauxii (Michaux’s Sumac) .......................................................................................... 24
7.1.1. Biological Conclusion: No Effect ......................................................................................... 25
7.2. Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz’s Sunflower) ..................................................................... 25
7.2.1. Biological Conclusion: No Effect ......................................................................................... 25
8.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX A Figure 1: Project Location Map & NHP Data
APPENDIX B Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds

1
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to review the proposed project, the
replacement of Bridge No. 6 on SR 1600 (Hopewell Church Road) over Duck Creek, in
sufficient detail to determine whether the proposed action may affect any of the species
listed below or their designated Critical Habitat. 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)).
1.1. Federally Endangered Species: Union County, NC
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. Purpose and Need Statement
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replacement
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1600 (Hopewell Church Road) over Duck Creek in Union County,
North Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1). As the project is state funded, The United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the federal action agency for the project. NCDOT
Bridge Management Unit records indicate the current structure has a sufficiency rating of
60.9 out of a possible 100 for a new structure; however the structure sufficiency rating
was 31.8 in 2009 prior the installation of two crutch bents.

The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to a superstructure condition appraisal
4 out of 9, substructure condition appraisal of 6 out of 9, and structural evaluation
appraisal of 4 out of 9. The bridge also meets the criteria for functionally obsolete due to
deck geometry appraisal of 4 out of 9.

Bridge No. 6 has a timber deck on I-beam superstructure and mass concrete abutment and
timber crutch bent substructure whose components are experiencing an increasing degree
of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities. The bridge is
approaching the end of its useful life.

Bridge No. 6 carries 180 vehicles per day as of 2011. The substandard deck width and
general poor condition of the bridge is becoming increasing unacceptable. Replacement
of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
2.2. Construction
Bridge No. 6 is a one span bridge that totals 42 feet (ft) in length and has a clear deck
width of 23 ft. The existing approach roadway with shoulders is 19.5 ft wide asphalt with
earth shoulders.

2
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
The replacement structure will be a one-span bridge approximately 70 feet long,
providing a minimum 27 ft 10 inches clear deck width. The roadway will include 10 ft
wide lanes and 3 ft wide shoulders. The roadway will be designed using Sub Regional
Tier Design Guidelines for Bridge Projects with a 40 mile per hour design speed.

Traffic will be maintained by use of an offsite detour during the construction period. The
offsite detour for this project would include SR 1547 (Brief Road) and US 601. The
detour for the average road user would result in 2 miles additional travel. No
improvements to the offsite detour are anticipated. Utility conflicts are also not
anticipated to result from this project.

As this project is part of the express design build program, existing bridge removal and
preliminary design will be developed by the design build team. However, as the project
action area occurs within a sensitive watershed and known federally protected species
habitat, the project will include measures specified by NCDOT’s “ Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds” (15A NCAC 04B.0124) and NCDOT Environmentally Sensitive
Area (ESA) special provisions, as detailed in Appendix B. The removal and design will
adhere to project specific avoidance and minimization measures, as detailed in Section
5.0.
2.3. Defined Action Area
The project action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the
Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action, [50 CFR
§402.02]. For this type of bridge replacement, the limits of the effects are generally
considered to include the limits of construction of the approach, and any area receiving
runoff from the construction activity including the receiving river extending 400 m (1314
ft) downstream and 100 m (328 ft) upstream of the structure.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE – CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER
This section discusses the characteristics and current status of the Carolina Heelsplitter
throughout its range and within the proposed Action Area.

3.1. Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter)
Status: Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Listed: July 2, 2002
3.1.1. Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), originally
described as Unio decoratus by (Lea 1852), synonymized with
the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) (Conrad 1835,
Johnson 1970), and later separated as a distinct species (Clarke
1985), is a federally Endangered freshwater mussel, historically
known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee

3
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee, Savannah, and possibly the Saluda
River systems in South Carolina.

The Carolina Heelsplitter is characterized as having an ovate, trapezoid-shaped, un-
sculptured shell. The outer surface of the shell ranges from greenish brown to dark
brown in color, with younger specimens often having faint greenish brown or black rays.
The shell’s nacre is often pearly white to bluish white, grading to orange in the area of the
umbo (Keferl 1991). The hinge teeth are well developed and heavy and the beak
sculpture is double looped (Keferl and Shelly 1988). Morphologically, the shell of the
Carolina Heelsplitter is very similar to the shell of the Green Floater (Clarke 1985), with
the exception of a much larger size and thickness in the Carolina Heelsplitter (Keferl and
Shelly 1988).

Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), the Carolina Heelsplitter had not
been collected in the 20th century and was known only from shell characteristics.
Because of its rarity, very little information of this species’ biology, life history, and
habitat requirements was known until very recently. Feeding strategy and reproductive
cycle of the Carolina Heelsplitter have not been documented, but are likely similar to
other native freshwater mussels (USFWS 1996).

The feeding processes of freshwater mussels are specialized for the removal (filtering) of
suspended microscopic food particles from the water column (Pennak 1989).
Documented food sources for freshwater mussels include detritus, diatoms,
phytoplankton, and zooplankton (USFWS 1996).

McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted for a general
overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology. Freshwater mussels have complex
reproductive cycles, which usually include a larval stage (glochidium) that is an
obligatory parasite on a fish. The glochidia develop into juvenile mussels and detach
from the “fish host” and sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop,
provided suitable substrate and water conditions are available (USFWS 1996). Often,
this relationship is quite species-specific with a mussel being able to infect only one
species of fish or a small group of closely related species. Many of the fish host
associations have been documented by direct evidence on wild-caught fishes or
implicated in laboratory infestation experiments (Watters 1994).

Until recently, nothing was known about the host species(s) for the Carolina Heelsplitter
(USFWS 1996, Bogan 2002). Starnes and Hogue (2005) identified the most likely fish
host candidates (15 species) based on fish community surveys in occupied streams
throughout the range of the Carolina Heelsplitter.

Captive propagation efforts for this species had not been attempted in the past; however,
due to the critical level of imperilment of the North Carolina populations, acting on
recommendations from the NC Scientific Council on Mollusks, the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) funded a life history/captive propagation study, which
allowed for salvage of individuals from the Goose/Duck and Sixmile Creek populations

4
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
to be used in the study. A total of nine minnow species (Cyprinidae) were identified as
suitable, and two sunfish species (Lepomis spp.) were identified as marginally suitable
host species (Eads et al. 2010). All of these species may occur in habitat types known to
be occupied by the Carolina Heelsplitter; however, “it is always possible that it may use a
combination of fish host species and some may not be native to all streams inhabited by
this mussel” (Starnes and Hogue 2005).

Another member of the genus Lasmigona, the Green Floater, perhaps a close relative to
the Carolina Heelsplitter, has been documented to be capable of in situ early development
with glochidia developing within the marsupium of the female (Barfield and Watters
1998), thus it is possible that the Carolina Heelsplitter may also be able to propagate by
direct transformation.
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Currently, the Carolina Heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until
recently, it was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river (USFWS
1996); however, recent discoveries have increased the number of known populations to
eleven:

Pee Dee River Basin:
1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek – Mecklenburg/Union counties, NC
2. Flat Creek/Lynches River – Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw counties, SC
Catawba River Basin:
3. Sixmile Creek (Twelvemile Creek Subbasin) – Lancaster County, SC
4. Waxhaw Creek – Union County, NC and Lancaster County, SC
5. Cane Creek/Gills Creek – Lancaster County, SC
6. Fishing Creek Subbasin – Chester County, SC
7. Rocky Creek Subbasin (Bull Run Creek/UT Bull Run Creek/Beaverdam Creek) –
Chester County, SC
Saluda River Basin:
8. Redbank Creek – Saluda County, SC
9. Halfway Swamp Creek – Greenwood/Saluda County, SC
Savannah River Basin:
10. Little Stevens Creek/Mountain Creek/Sleep Creek/Turkey Creek (Stevens Creek
Subbasin) – Edgefield/McCormick counties, SC
11. Cuffytown Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin) – Greenwood/McCormick counties,
SC
Habitat for this species has been reported from small to large streams and rivers as well
as ponds. These ponds are believed to be millponds on some of the smaller streams
within the species’ historic range (Keferl 1991). Keferl and Shelly (1988) and Keferl
(1991) reported that most individuals have been found along well-shaded streambanks
with mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates. However, numerous individuals in

5
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
several of the populations have been found in cobble and gravel dominated substrate,
usually in close proximity to bedrock outcroppings (Savidge, personal observations).
The stability of stream banks appears to be very important to this species (Keferl 1991).
3.1.3. Distribution in Goose/Duck Creek
The Carolina Heelsplitter was first discovered in Goose Creek in 1987 (Keferl 1991) and
in Duck Creek in 2000 (NCWRC Database). Between 1993 and 1999 a total of 15 live
individuals had been recorded in Goose Creek. NCWRC surveys in early 2002 found 16
live individuals in Duck Creek (NCWRC Database); however, following extreme drought
conditions in late 2002, where much of the streambed in both creeks was totally dry,
status surveys in Duck Creek yielded only four live and more than 40 fresh dead. One
fresh-dead shell was also found in Goose Creek during the 2002 drought surveys just
below US 601. Pools and wet streambeds were much more common in lower Goose
Creek, apparently providing refuge from desiccation during the drought.

Between 2004 and 2005, four live individuals were found at two locations within Goose
Creek, and 12 live individuals were found at six locations within Duck Creek. Prolonged
severe drought conditions persisted in the Goose Creek watershed in 2006 through 2007.
A total of nine individuals, have been found in Duck Creek between 2006 and 2009.
Three of the individuals were found on more than one occasion. Four of these individuals
were taken into captivity, as much of the stream channel was totally dry when they were
found.

A survey conducted in 2011 of Goose Creek from the Rocky River confluence to the NC
218 crossing, located a total of 12 live individuals, all of which were taken into captivity
for propagation efforts. The majority of the individuals were estimated to be <5 years of
age based on shell condition and growth rests, indicating relatively recent reproduction.
Repeated survey efforts in Duck Creek in 2011 and 2012 have not located any live
individuals post drought. Appendix A, Figure 1 shows locations of Carolina Heelsplitter
relative to Bridge No. 6 on SR 1600.

In addition to declining numbers, the occupied range of the Carolina Heelsplitter in Duck
Creek has declined. Distribution and relative abundances (based on Catch Per Unit
Effort), of freshwater mussel species known to occur in the Goose Creek watershed have
generally declined since 2003, to the extent that mussels are increasingly rare in the
subbasin. Species like the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and Notched Rainbow
(Villosa constricta) may be extirpated (NCWRC Database).
3.1.4. Threats to Species (Particularly Goose/Duck Creek Populations)
Habitat degradation, water quality degradation, and changes in stream flow (water
quantity) are the primary identified threats to the Carolina Heelsplitter. Specific types of
activities that lead to these threats have been documented by the USFWS in the Recovery
Plan, Federal Register and other publications (USFWS 1996, 2002a, 2003). These
specific threats include the following:

6
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
 Siltation resulting from poorly implemented agricultural, forestry, and
developmental activities;
 Golf course construction;
 Road construction and maintenance;
 Runoff and discharge of municipal, industrial and agricultural pollutants;
 Habitat alterations associated with impoundments, channelization, dredging, and
sand mining operations; and
 Other natural and human-related factors that adversely modify the aquatic
environment.
These threats, alone and collectively, have contributed to the loss of the Carolina
Heelsplitter in streams previously known to support the species (USFWS 2002a). In
addition, many of the remaining populations occur in areas experiencing high rates of
urbanization, such as the Charlotte, NC and Augusta, GA greater metropolitan areas. The
low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of each of the surviving populations
make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or
activity (USFWS 1996). The cumulative effects of several factors, including
sedimentation, water quality degradation, habitat modification (impoundments,
channelization, etc.), urbanization and associated alteration of natural stream discharge,
invasive species, and other causes of habitat degradation have contributed to the decline
of this species throughout its range (USFWS 1996).

Extensive threats to the species, including sedimentation, toxic contaminants, habitat
alterations, urbanization/impervious surface area, thermal pollution, invasive species, and
other causes of habitat degradation, are discussed in further detail below.
3.1.4.1. Sedimentation
Sedimentation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage practices,
including agriculture, forestry, and development activities, has been recognized as a
major contributing factor to the degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996, Brim
Box and Mossa 1999, Chapman and Smith 2008). 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, Markings and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than one inch
have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).
Accelerated sedimentation and erosion resulting from a bridge construction project in
Massachusetts lead to the extirpation of a population of the Dwarf Wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon), a federally endangered freshwater mussel (Smith 1981).
3.1.4.2. Toxic Contaminant
The presence of toxic contaminants has been attributed as a contributor to widespread
declines of freshwater mussel populations (Havlik and Marking 1987; Bogan 1993;
Neves et al. 1997). Toxic contaminants can produce lethal or sub-lethal responses to
freshwater mussels. The sensitivities of freshwater mussels to toxic contaminants is

7
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
variable based on species, life stage (glochidium, juvenile, or adult), and environmental
conditions, as well as concentration and exposure route (water column, sediments, etc.),
frequency, and duration. Several studies have indicated that freshwater mussels are
among the most sensitive aquatic organisms to various toxicants, particularly cadmium,
copper and ammonia (Gabarkiewicz and Davis 2008).

Freshwater mussels are extremely sensitive to ammonia, a form of nitrogen (Goudreau et
al. 1993; Augspurger et al. 2003, Bartsch et al. 2003, Newton et al. 2003; Wang et al.
2007a; 2007b). Anthropogenic sources of ammonia in surface waters include sewage
treatment effluent, industrial wastewater effluent, and runoff and ground water
contamination from lawn/turf management, livestock operations, and faulty septic
systems. 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 might not occur for up to two miles below
discharges of chlorinated sewage effluent. Similarly, surveys in the Goose Creek
watershed show a dramatic absence of mussel fauna below the Oxford Glen WWTP on
Stevens Creek for a considerable distance (approximately 1.6 km/1mi) below the
discharge point (NCWRC 2010). A study conducted in the Goose Creek watershed
documented that baseflow concentrations of chlorine nearly double directly downstream
of the Hunley Creek WWTP located on Goose Creek (Allan 2004).

Recent studies indicate that current federal and state water quality standards for many
pollutants commonly found in wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff are likely
not protective of freshwater mussels and current regulations controlling the discharge or
runoff of these pollutants are not protective (Augspurger et al. 2003). However, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a draft revision of the current federal
standards (acute and chronic) for ammonia to be inclusive of freshwater mussels (USEPA
2009). Water quality monitoring by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ 2002) identified average and maximum concentrations of ammonia in Goose
Creek as being among the highest of any monitored sites in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River
Basin.

In addition to ammonia, several other pollutants have been identified as exceeding levels
of concern in Goose Creek, including, but not limited to, sediment/suspended solids
(NCDWQ 2000; Chen et al. 2001; Allan 2005), copper (NCDWQ 2002), chlorine
(NCDWQ 1998), and phosphate, a form of phosphorus (Chen et al. 2001; NCDWQ 2002,
2003; Allan 2005). While phosphate itself is not toxic, concerns with extremely high
concentrations of phosphate pertain to increased biological production, such as algal
blooms, which can result in lowering of dissolved oxygen (Binkley et al. 1999).

Concentrations of several of these pollutants in Goose Creek, including ammonia, appear
to be on an increasing trend (Chen et al. 2001; Service et al. 2005). Currently there are
no water quality standards or monitoring requirements for ammonia, copper and
phosphorus in North Carolina (USFWS 2007); however, the Goose Creek Site Specific
Management Plan (NCDENR 2009) requires that for any direct or indirect discharge that
may cause ammonia toxicity to the Carolina Heelsplitter, action shall be taken to reduce

8
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
ammonia (NH3-N) inputs to achieve 0.5 milligrams per liter or less of total ammonia
based on chronic toxicity defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0202. This level of total ammonia
is based on ambient water temperature equal to or greater than 25 degrees Celsius
(NCDENR 2009).

In addition, recent studies indicate other toxicants present in wastewater effluent such as
pharmaceuticals and personal care products (fluoxitine, estrogenic compounds, opiate
derivatives etc.) cause a wide array of neurotoxicological (Gagné et al 2007a),
reproductive (Bringolf et al. 2007, Gagné et al 2007b) and behavioral (Heltsley et al.
2006) impacts to freshwater mussels.

Other sources of toxic contaminants in surface waters arise from highway and urban
runoff. 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 (Yousef et al. 1985, 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 the total pollutant loadings to receiving water bodies. Petroleum
hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, lead, and zinc 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 focusing solely on highway runoff.
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 inputs on benthic
macroinvertebrate communities have been well documented (Garie and McIntosh 1986;
Jones and Clark 1987; Field and Pitt 1990). Lied (1998) found the macroinvertebrate
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.

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 the 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 effects.

The effects of highway runoff on freshwater bivalves have not been studied extensively.
Augspurger (1992) compared sediment samples and soft tissues of three Eastern Elliptio

9
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
(Elliptio complanata), a relatively common species upstream and downstream of the I-95
crossing of Swift Creek in Nash County, North Carolina. The sediment samples as well
as the mussels 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. In another study,
contaminant analysis of stream sediments showed an increase of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and some metals downstream of road crossings, although there was no
direct correlation found between increasing contaminant levels and decreasing mussel
abundance at these crossings (Levine et al. 2005). The Eastern Elliptio was the only
mussel species that was found in large enough numbers for statistically valid
comparisons. The Eastern Elliptio is generally considered more tolerant of water quality
degradation than many other mussel species. Further research is needed before the
effects of highway runoff on sensitive mussel species such as the Carolina Heelsplitter
can be determined.

In addition, contamination of surface water from toxic spills along roadways is known to
have significant impacts to aquatic communities. A toxic spill resulting from a tanker
truck accident that was carrying Octocure 554 (a chemical liquid used in the rubber
making process), killed several miles of mussel populations in the Clinch River near
Cedar Bluff, Virginia. The spill killed thousands of fish and mussels, including three
federally protected species. The Clinch River contains one of the most diverse mussel
faunas in the United States. The stretch of the river affected by the spill was one of the
few remaining areas that contained a reproducing population of the Endangered Tan
Riffleshell (Epioblasma florentina walkeri). The toxic spill is believed to have
eliminated this population (Richmond Times Dispatch 1998).
3.1.4.3. Habitat Alterations
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented (USFWS
1992a, Neves 1993). Dam construction transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats,
which results in changes within aquatic community composition. Muscle Shoals on the
Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for mussels in the world is
now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir, covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b).
Large portions of all of the river basins within the Carolina Heelsplitter’s range have been
impounded; this is believed to be a major factor contributing to the species decline
(USFWS 1996). This is especially true in the larger river habitats within the species
historic range, such as the Catawba and Savannah Rivers, where impoundments have
significantly altered habitat. The two extant populations in the Savannah River Basin are
functionally isolated from each other by an impoundment on Stevens Creek, as such,
there are considered two separate units for management (USFWS 1996).
3.1.4.4. Urbanization/Impervious Surface Area
The correlation of increasing development within a watershed and decreasing water
quality is well documented (Lieb 1998, Crawford and Lenat 1989, Garie and McIntosh
1986, Lenat et al. 1979), and is largely associated with increases in impervious surface
area. These increases in impervious surface area can indirectly affect water quality in a

10
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
variety of ways, particularly with regard to changes to stream flow, water temperature,
total suspended sediment, and pollutant loadings.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that water quality and stream ecosystem degradation
begins to occur in watersheds that have approximately 10% coverage by impervious
surfaces (Stewart et al. 2000, Schueler 1994, Arnold and Gibbons 1996). The NCWRC
recommendations for management of protected aquatic species watersheds are to limit
imperviousness to 6% of the watershed (NCWRC 2002).

The percentage of impervious surface has increased dramatically in the Goose Creek
watershed in recent years. The current baseline of 13% imperviousness (Baker
Engineering 2010) has increased by 6.1% since 2003 when the impervious surface area in
the basin was calculated to be 6.9% (HNTB 2003), far exceeding the threshold proposed
by NCWRC. This trend is expected to increase, and a 17% level of imperviousness is
predicted for the year 2030 (Baker Engineering 2010).

Increases in impervious surface area within a watershed can result in extremes in peak
discharge, runoff volume and base flow conditions. The Carolina Heelsplitter may
inherently be more susceptible to the consequences of these extremes than other mussels.
While most mussels will usually dig into the substrate such that only the siphons are
exposed or the very top of the shell, the Carolina Heelsplitter is usually found with about
1/3 of its shell lodged in the substrate (Catena personal observations). As a result, it is
much more prone to dislodgement during high base flows and less able to bury itself in
the substrate during low flow conditions. This factor likely makes the Carolina
Heelsplitter more prone to predation and desiccation, even during periods of normal
precipitation, than other freshwater mussels.
 Peak Discharge
Peak discharge is the maximum rate of stormwater flow expected from a storm event,
measured in cubic feet per second. Peak discharge is often one metric used in analyzing
impacts from development. Peak discharge affects channel stability (or instability),
which is one of the identified Constituent Elements (Section 3.2). Increases in peak
discharge equates to higher velocity, which in turn increases the scouring effect (surface
erodibility) of the runoff. Accordingly, sedimentation will increase as erosion rates
increase. Allan (2005) documented dramatic increases in sediment and nutrient
concentrations during high flow events in the Goose Creek subbasin.

Increases of peak discharge rates, coupled with deforestation, have been shown to result
in stream narrowing and incision and subsequent loss of ecosystem function (Sweeney et
al. 2004). Increased runoff volume and peak discharge (from typical and atypical storm
events) destabilize the stream channel.
 Runoff Volume
Runoff volume is the amount of stormwater expected from a storm event, measured in
acre-feet. Like peak discharge, runoff volume is another metric often used in
determining impacts of development, especially on the aquatic environment. For

11
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
example, increases in the amount of runoff normally equates to increased sediment.
While the two indicators are related, when analyzed separately, both are useful in
assessing impacts to aquatic systems.

In a stable system, an increase in the velocity may have little impact if volume does not
change, provided that measures to slow the increased velocity have been implemented.
However, the increased runoff volume may have enough sediment to cause detrimental
impacts. Regardless, it is important to consider both the rate (peak discharge) and the
amount (runoff volume) when assessing impacts to aquatic systems. Again, sufficient
stormwater controls accompanying future development activities in any given watershed
is essential for conservation of sensitive aquatic species such as the Carolina Heelsplitter.
 Decreased Base Flow
Increases of impervious surface lead to decreases in infiltration and base flow
(groundwater flow) within adjacent streams. This can result in the following:

 During periods of reduced base flow, there is less water to cover the stream
bottom.
 Widened streams have less overhanging tree cover and are exposed to more
sunlight, resulting in increased water evaporation and temperature, especially in
areas with shallower water.
 If base flow is reduced, yet WWTP discharge remains constant or increases, it
takes longer for the stream to dilute the nutrients and other toxins in the effluent,
thereby extending the WWTP effluent “plume” further downstream.
 Permitted and un-permitted water withdrawals for crop and turf/lawn irrigation
further exacerbate this effect. Currently, there is an irrigation withdrawal from
Goose Creek at approximately mid-length of its course. During summer months
withdrawals of up to 188 gallons per minute (gpm), or 0.42 cubic feet per second
(cfs) can significantly affect the available dilution for downstream dischargers
(Belnick, 2001).
3.1.4.5. Thermal Pollution
Concerns over affects of thermal pollution from urban runoff on aquatic systems have
increased in recent years. Elevation of stream temperature can raise Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD), lower dissolved oxygen (DO), and alter faunal composition (Roa-
Espinosa et al. 2003, Poole et al. 2001). Typically, runoff from a developed impervious
area will have a temperature similar to the temperature of the impervious area. During
the hot summer months, this could potentially make the stormwater runoff reach
temperatures up to and above 90°F, which could be detrimental to the aquatic life.
Traditional structural stormwater controls, such as open storm-water detention
ponds/basins that do not allow for infiltration, do not protect receiving water bodies
against adverse temperature effects. For these and other reasons, the USFWS has stated
that the Goose Creek Site Specific Management Plan (NCDENR 2009) will not provide
adequate protection to the Carolina Heelsplitter, because the plan states that although

12
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
measures to promote infiltration and groundwater recharge are to be "considered," such
measures will not be required (USFWS 2008). Various stormwater BMPs have been
shown to be effective in ameliorating temperature effects (NC State Cooperative
Extension 2006a). Bioretention devices were shown to reduce runoff temperature by 5-
10°F in Greensboro, NC (NC State Cooperative Extension 2006b).

The loss of riparian buffers as well as peak discharge-related channel widening can also
contribute to stream temperature increases, by increasing sunlight exposure and
decreasing water depth.
3.1.4.6. Invasive Species
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and
Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to
native freshwater mussels. The zebra mussel is not known from any waterbodies
supporting the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS 1996); however, the Asian Clam is
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 Carolina
Heelsplitter (USFWS 1996).

Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food, and oxygen with
the Asian clam and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlack
1987, Alderman 1997). In addition, under high densities, Asian Clam beds are subject to
large die-offs, which have been shown to dramatically increase porewater ammonia, and
reduce DO during low-flow summer months (Cooper et al. 2005).
3.1.4.7. Other Causes of Habitat Degradation
Loss of riparian buffers can lead to degradation of adjacent aquatic habitats. The role of
forested riparian buffers in protecting aquatic habitats is well documented (NCWRC
2002). The Recovery Plan for the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS 1996) identifies the
establishment of stream buffer zones as a major Recovery Objective (Task 1.4). Riparian
buffers provide many functions including pollutant reduction and filtration, a primary
source of carbon for aquatic food web, stream channel stability, and maintenance of
water and air temperatures. Numerous studies have recommended a range of buffer
widths needed to maintain these functions. Recommended widths vary greatly depending
on the parameter or function evaluated. Wide contiguous buffers of 100-300 feet (30-91
meters) are recommended to adequately perform all functions (NCWRC 2002). The
NCWRC recommends a minimum of 200 foot (61 meter) native, forested buffer on
perennial streams and a 100 foot (30 meter) forested buffer on intermittent streams in
watersheds that support federally endangered and threatened aquatic species (NCWRC
2002). Although not officially adopted, the USFWS uses the NCWRC recommendations
as guidance when addressing federally protected aquatic species in North Carolina. The
Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the Goose Creek Watershed (NCDWQ
2009) requires undisturbed riparian buffers within 200 feet of waterbodies within the
100-year floodplain and within 100 feet of waterbodies not within the 100-year
floodplain. The USFWS has stated that this level of protection is not sufficient to protect
the Carolina Heelsplitter, as Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0607 exempts or potentially allows

13
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
(with NCDWQ approval) numerous activities within the “undisturbed” buffers, with no
requirement for mitigation (USFWS 2008).

Another human-related factor adversely impacting habitat of the Carolina Heelsplitter is
recreational all terrain vehicle (ATV) use. ATV tracks have been noted crossing streams
as well as traveling stream channels within Carolina Heelsplitter habitat, in particular in
several segments of Goose Creek. In addition to directly running over mussels, ATVs
destabilize stream banks and floodplains, causing sedimentation and buffer degradation.
While there is no quantitative data available on ATV use, locally, this can have
significant impacts.
3.1.4.8. Identified Action Area Threats
The Goose Creek populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter are threatened by numerous
sources of degradation. This watershed experienced rapid urbanization in recent years
(Catena 2007, NCDWQ 2009) which have contributed to, or exacerbated these threats.
Specific threats to Carolina Heelsplitter populations in the Goose Creek watershed are
listed in Table 1.

Table 2. Threats to Carolina Heelsplitter in the Goose Creek Basin
Threat/Concern Specific Problems Potential Sources
Water Quality
Degradation
Fecal coliform
Ammonia
Nitrate/Nitrite
Chlorine
Phosphorus
Dissolved oxygen
Copper
Pesticides
Other toxicants
Wastewater treatment facilities
Agricultural runoff
Golf course runoff
Lawn care chemicals
Urban runoff
Fertilizer applications
Isolated spills
Habitat Degradation
Sediment
Total suspended solids
Riparian buffer loss
Stream scour
Stream/bank instability
Changes in stream flow
Increased stormwater runoff
Construction
Land development
Recreational use (ATV)
Poor land management practices
Water Quantity
Degradation
Mussel dislodgement
Drought mortality
(desiccation and
increased predation)
Increased stormwater volume/velocity
Reduced infiltration and ground water
recharge
Increased impervious cover
Invasive Species
Competitive
interactions, water
quality effects
Asian clam

14
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
3.2. Designated Critical Habitat
In accordance of Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists of:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it is listed in which are found those physical or biological features
(constituent elements) that are:
a. essential to the conservation of the species, and
b. which may require special management considerations or protection
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it
is listed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a
determination by the Secretary that such areas are “essential for the conservation
of the species.”
When designating Critical Habitat, the USFWS identifies physical and biological features
(primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection. The primary
constituent elements essential for the conservation of the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS
2002) include:
1. permanent flowing, cool, clean water
2. geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks
3. pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel
4. stable substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment
5. moderate stream gradient
6. periodic natural flooding
7. fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter was designated in 2002 (USFWS 2002).
The designated area totals approximately 148 kilometers (92 miles) of nine creeks and
one river in North and South Carolina. These areas are considered essential to the
conservation of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Six areas (Units) have been designated as
critical habitat, as shown on Figure 3, and a description of each follows.
Unit 1. Goose Creek and Duck Creek (Pee Dee River system), Union County, NC
Unit 1 encompasses approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) of the main stem of Goose Creek,
Union County, NC, from the N.C. Highway 218 Bridge, downstream to its confluence
with the Rocky River, and approximately 8.8 km (5.5 mi) of the main stem of Duck
Creek, Union County, NC, from the Mecklenburg/Union County line downstream to its
confluence with Goose Creek. Details regarding recent surveys in Goose/Duck Creeks,
and conditions within the Critical Habitat Unit are discussed in Section 4.4.
Unit 2. Waxhaw Creek (Catawba River system), Union County, NC
Unit 2 encompasses approximately 19.6 km (12.2 mi) of the main stem of Waxhaw
Creek, Union County, NC, from the N.C. Highway 200 Bridge, downstream to the North
Carolina/South Carolina state line. Very few Carolina Heelsplitter individuals have been
found in Waxhaw Creek since they were first discovered in 1987. Keferl (1991) found

15
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
one live individual in 1987 and two in 1990. Subsequent surveys failed to find any
individuals until one weathered shell was found in 1996, followed by one live individual
in 1998, one weathered shell in 2005, and two live individuals at three separate sites in
2006 (NCWRC Database). Additional surveys of historically occupied sites by NCWRC
in 2011 did not detect any Carolina Heelsplitter in Waxhaw Creek. Catena surveyed the
SR 1113 crossing of Waxhaw Creek in September 2011 and also did not detect the
Carolina Heelsplitter. Significant habitat degradation and stagnant conditions were
noted. While live Elliptio mussels were found, the number of recently deceased far
outnumbers live individuals found (Catena personal observations). Surveys of Waxhaw
Creek in South Carolina, conducted in 2004, documented only two live individuals at a
single site – one of only a couple of sites in the stream below the North Carolina/South
Carolina state line that appeared to provide suitable substrate for the Heelsplitter
(USFWS 2007).
Unit 3. Gills Creek (Catawba River system), Lancaster County, SC
Unit 3 encompasses approximately 9.6 km (6.0 mi) of the main stem of Gills Creek,
Lancaster County, SC, from the County Route S-29-875, downstream to the SC Route 51
Bridge, east of the City of Lancaster. One 88.0 mm fresh shell and one 67.0 mm live
individual discovered in 1998, initially represented this population (Alderman 1998).
Additional surveys in Unit 3 located one shell in 2010 and one live individual in 2011 (J.
Fridell, pers. comm.). In 2006 Catena discovered the species (two live and one shell) at
three sites in Cane Creek, a tributary to Gills Creek (USFWS 2007). While Cane Creek
is not within the boundaries of Unit 3, Gills Creek and Cane Creek are considered a
single population from a management perspective, as there are no physical barriers that
would isolate the two areas. The discovery of the Carolina Heelsplitter in Cane Creek
demonstrates that this population has been reduced to small pockets of habitat in the
watershed.
Unit 4. Flat Creek (Pee Dee River system), Lancaster County, SC, and the Lynches River
(Pee Dee River system), Lancaster, Chesterfield, and Kershaw Counties, SC
Unit 4 encompasses approximately 18.4 km (11.4 mi) of the main stem of Flat Creek,
Lancaster County, SC, from the SC Route 204 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with
the Lynches River, and approximately 23.6 km (14.6 mi) of the main stem of the Lynches
River, Lancaster and Chesterfield Counties, SC, from the confluence of Belk Branch,
Lancaster County, northeast (upstream) of the U.S. Highway 601 Bridge, downstream to
the SC Highway 903 Bridge in Kershaw County, SC. Within this unit, the Lynches River
local population was represented (2005 to 2007) by 14 live and two fresh dead shells (54-
87mm) found above SC 265 Chesterfield/Lancaster Co. SC and by 13 live and one shell
found in the same vicinity in 2012 (Catena, personal observations). Also, a total of 10
live, some of which were juveniles, were located in the vicinity of the SC 903 bridge in
2007(Catena, personal observations). Between 1994 and 1997, the Flat Creek local
population was represented by 28 live individuals ranging in length from 54.15 to 94.1
mm and by four shells ranging in length from 41.0 to 86.1 mm (Alderman 1998). In
2007, Alderman conducted surveys of two reaches of Flat Creek, one in upper Flat Creek
and one in middle-lower Flat Creek, and documented 16 live Carolina Heelsplitters,
including several age classes, some likely less than five years of age based on shell

16
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
measurements USFWS 2007). In 2010, Alderman found 42 live and one weathered shell
in Flat Creek, with a large number of size classes represented (Alderman 2010, pers.
comm.).
Unit 5. Mountain and Beaverdam Creeks (Savannah River system), Edgefield County,
South Carolina, and Turkey Creek (Savannah River system), Edgefield and McCormick
Counties, SC
Unit 5 encompasses approximately 11.2 km (7.0 mi) of the main stem of Mountain
Creek, Edgefield County, SC, from the SC Route 36 Bridge, downstream to its
confluence with Turkey Creek; approximately 10.8 km (6.7 mi) of Beaverdam Creek,
Edgefield County, from the SC Route 51 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with
Turkey Creek; and approximately 18.4 km (11.4 mi) of Turkey Creek, from the SC.
Route 36 Bridge, Edgefield County, downstream to the SC Route 68 Bridge, Edgefield
and McCormick Counties, SC. Within this unit, a single shell of the Carolina Heelsplitter
was found in Beaverdam Creek in 1995 and one live and one shell were located during
extensive surveys in 2010 (USFWS 2012). This portion of the population appears to be
extremely small and highly vulnerable to extirpation (USFWS 2012).

The Turkey Creek local population is represented by one live Carolina Heelspltter found
in 1995; two in 2006; two in 2007; and one in 2010 (USFWS 2012). The Mountain
Creek local population is represented two live Carolina Heelsplitters found in lower
Mountain Creek in 1995, six in the upper and middle reaches of the stream in 2001, and
nine at sites scattered throughout this stream in 2009-2010 (USFWS 2012). Some of
those found were <60 mm in length (one was <40 mm in length), indicating the presence
of multiple year classes and relatively recent reproduction (USFWS 2012). Two
additional local populations of Carolina Heelsplitter were discovered within the Turkey
Creek Subbasin, one in Little Stevens Creek in 2006 and one in Sleepy Creek in 2004.
The Little Stevens Creek local population was represented by seven live and one
moribund individual in 2006 and only one individual found in 2011 (USFWS 2012). The
Sleepy Creek local population was represented by seven live individuals ranging in
length from 51.1 to 73.0 mm and by three shells ranging in length from 61.4 to 71.0 mm
(Alderman 2002). Most recently in 2011, a total of 18 live Carolina Heelsplitters were
found in a ~6.63-km (~4.12-mi) reach of Sleepy Creek (USFWS 2012).
Unit 6. Cuffytown Creek (Savannah River system), Greenwood and McCormick Counties,
SC
Unit 6 encompasses approximately 20.8 km (12.9 mi) of the main stem of Cuffytown
Creek, from the confluence of Horsepen Creek, northeast (upstream) of the SC Route 62
Bridge in Greenwood County, SC, downstream to the U.S. Highway 378 Bridge in
McCormick County. Within this unit, the population is represented by five live
individuals (three discovered in 1998 and two discovered in 2001) with lengths ranging
from 53.5 to 71.5 mm and by one shell discovered in 1998 with a length of 63.0 mm
(Alderman 1998, 2002). During surveys in 2010, two live Carolina Heelsplitters were
found at two separate sites (USFWS 2012).

17
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
Five of the eleven Carolina Heelsplitter populations listed in Section 3.1.2: Sixmile
Creek, Fishing Creek, Rocky Creek, Redbank Creek, and Halfway Swamp Creek, were
discovered after Critical Habitat was designated. These populations are all limited in size
and distribution.

Conditions within Critical Habitat Unit 1

Water quality and stream habitat conditions within the Goose and Duck Creeks have
deteriorated significantly in recent years, to the level that several of the Constituent
Elements have been significantly altered to the extent that they may no longer be present.
The habitat degradation has coincided with the rapid urbanization of the watershed,
which was discussed in Section 3.1.4.4. Each of the Constituent Elements of Unit 1 and
the way they have been compromised are discussed below:

1) permanent flowing, cool, clean water: The mainstems of both Goose and Duck Creeks
have experienced several prolonged periods of interrupted flow (Catena, personal
observations, John Fridell, pers. comm.). This has resulted in mortality of several
individuals (John Fridell, pers. comm.). In addition, various toxic contaminants have
been reported in the watershed (Section 3.1.4.2.), and both Goose and Duck Creeks are
listed as impaired.

2) geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks: The effects of
urbanization on peak discharge and channel stability were discussed in Section 3.1.4.4.
Channel incision, headcutting, and numerous streambank failures leading to new channel
cuts have occurred in the Goose Creek watershed in recent years, especially in the
mainstem of Goose Creek (Catena, personal observations, John Alderman and John
Fridell, pers. comm., Allen 2005).

3) pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel: While these habitat sequences are
still present within the Critical Habitat Unit, large accumulations of fine sediments occur
in many of these areas (see below).

4) stable substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment: As a result of
channel instability, and erosion from the landscape, large accumulations of fine sediment
occur throughout the channel of Goose Creek, and to a lesser extent Duck Creek (Catena
personal observations, John Alderman and John Fridell, pers. comm., Allen 2005). As
stated above, Allan (2005) documented dramatic increases in sediment concentrations
during high flow events in the Goose Creek subbasin.

5) moderate stream gradient: This constituent element is generally still present; however
significant channel incision has occurred throughout much of the Goose Creek channel
(see below).

6) periodic natural flooding: The effects of urbanization on stream channel scour, and
the subsequent effects on freshwater mussels and mussel habitat are discussed in Section
3.1.4.4 The mainstem of Goose Creek has incised significantly in recent years to the

18
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
level that in many areas the floodplain is inaccessible from the channel except during
extremely high flows (Catena personal observations, John Alderman and John Fridell,
pers. comm.), which further contributes to channel instability and habitat degradation.

7) fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them: There have
been no documented extirpations of any fish species within the Goose Creek watershed,
and Starnes and Hogue (2005), found several of the species of cyprinids (minnows) in the
watershed, which have been identified as fish hosts for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Eads et
al. 2010). However, the habitat degradation (high levels of silt, channel scour etc.)
discussed above may be compromising spawning habitat for the host species.
4.0 SURVEY INFORMATION
The Carolina Heelsplitter has been recorded within the project vicinity, and the project
action area includes portions of Duck and Goose Creek that are designated Critical
Habitat for the conservation of this species. Thus, updated survey efforts for this and
other freshwater mussel species were conducted as part of the Section 7 Consultation
process.

Catena has conducted standard 500 m (1641 ft) surveys (400 m (1,312 ft) downstream,
100 m (328 ft) upstream) twice in the last two years in the action area. All habitat types in
the survey reach (riffle, run, pool, slack-water, etc.) were sampled. Visual, bathyscope
(glass-bottom view buckets), and tactile methodologies were employed where
appropriate. Upstream and downstream survey limits were recorded using a hand-held
Garmin e-trex Vista GPS unit. Searches were timed in each reach to generate a catch per
unit effort (CPUE) for each species. Searches were also conducted for relict shells. The
presence of a shell was equated with presence of that species; however, it was not
factored into the CPUE.
4.1. September 24, 2011
Tom Dickinson and Jonathan Hartsell of Catena with assistance from John Fridell of the
USFWS surveyed Duck Creek on September 14, 2011. Water was very low, with an
intermittently dry channel. A total of 2.95 person hours were spent surveying the
standard reach during which three shells of the Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata)
were the only freshwater mussels located. The Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) was
uncommon, and a Physid (Physella sp.) and Two-Ridged Rams Horn (Helisoma anceps),
both aquatic snails, were common with patchy distributions (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of survey efforts within Duck Creek Br. No. 6 Action Area; September 24, 2011.
Common Name Scientific Name Number CPUE
Eastern Elliptio Elliptio complanata 0 live, 3 shells 0.0

4.2. March 8, 2012
Tom Dickinson, Jonathan Hartsell, and Ivy Kimbrough of Catena with assistance from
Jason Mays of the USFWS surveyed the project action area in Duck Creek on March 8,

19
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
2012. Water was normal and free flowing. A total of 5.67 person hours were spent
surveying during which eight shells of the Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata) and one
shell of the Carolina Creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) were the only freshwater mussels
located. The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) was uncommon, and a Physid (Physella
sp.) and Two-Ridged Rams Horn (Helisoma anceps), both aquatic snails, were common
with patchy distributions (Table 4).

Table 4. Results of survey efforts within Duck Creek Br. No. 6 Action Area; March 8, 2012.
Common Name Scientific Name Number CPUE
Eastern Elliptio Elliptio complanata 0 live, 8 shells 0.0
Carolina Creekshell Villosa vaughaniana 0 live, 1 shell 0.0

4.3. Surveys of Critical Habitat Unit 1 (Duck Creek) March 8, 2012
Due to the project occurring in designated Critical Habitat for Carolina Heelsplitter,
further surveys were conducted for this Biological Assessment in order to update the
environmental baseline for the species. Tom Dickinson, Jonathan Hartsell, and Ivy
Kimbrough of Catena surveyed Duck Creek from its confluence with Goose Creek to the
US 601 crossing on March 8, 2012 for a total of 16.13 person hours. Four species of
freshwater mussels were found during these efforts (Table 5). Several of the Carolina
Creekshell and Eastern Elliptio found were in the 50mm length range indicating
relatively recent reproduction in this section of Duck Creek, likely representing
individuals of post 2007-2008 drought ages.

Table 5. Duck Creek Critical Habitat Surveys
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 21 1.30
Strophitus undulatus Creeper 1 0.06
Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell 2 0.12
Villosa vaughnaniana Carolina Creekshell 7 0.43
4.4. Surveys of Critical Habitat Unit 1 (Goose Creek) August 30-September 1, 2011
Due to the project occurring in designated Critical Habitat for Carolina Heelsplitter and
the project action area extending into Goose Creek, additional surveys conducted in
Goose Creek are included here for informational purposes. Tim Savidge, Tom
Dickinson, and Jonathan Hartsell of Catena with assistance from John Fridell and Jason
Mays surveyed the 4.5 miles of Goose Creek that is designated Critical Habitat (from the
NC 218 crossing to its confluence with the Rocky River) on August 30-September 1,
2011 for a total of 55.4 person hours. Seven species of freshwater mussels were found,
including 12 live specimens of Carolina Heelsplitter during these efforts. Table 6 lists
the seven species and the totals found.

Table 6. Goose Creek Critical Habitat Surveys
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 501 9.04

20
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
Elliptio icterina Variable Spike 95 1.71
Elliptio sp. cf hatcheti Hatchet-shaped Elliptio 9 0.16
Elliptio producta Atlantic Spike 4 0.07
Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter 12 0.22
Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell 9 0.16
Villosa vaughnaniana Carolina Creekshell 28 0.50

5.0 AVOIDANCE and MINIMIZATION MEASURES
The following will be incorporated into the design and construction of this structure to
avoid and minimize impacts to Duck Creek and the Carolina Heelsplitter.
5.1. Standard Measures
“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.

 Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within a
sensitive watershed shall be so planned, designed and constructed to provide
protection from the runoff of the 25-year storm which produces the maximum
peak rate of runoff as calculated according to procedures in the “Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual” or according to procedures
adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

 Sediment basins within sensitive watershed shall be designed and constructed
such that the basin will have a settling efficiency of at least 70 percent for the 40
micron (0.04mm) size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of the
two-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated
according to procedures in the “Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual” or according to procedures adopted by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.

 Erosion and sedimentation control measures will include the use of flocculants in
appropriate areas to improve the settling of sediment particles and reduce
turbidity levels in construction runoff. The use of flocculants will conform to
Division of Water Quality approved product list.

 Newly constructed open channels in sensitive watersheds shall be designed and
constructed with side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a
vegetative cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper
slope or where the slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural
devices or other acceptable ditch liners. In any event, the angle for side slopes
shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion.

21
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
 Provide ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any
portion of a land-disturbing activity in a sensitive watershed within 14 calendar
days following completion of construction or development.

As the project is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area, special procedures will
also be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossings, and grading
operations. This also requires special procedures to be used for seeding and mulching and
staged seeding within the project.

The Environmentally Sensitive Area shall be defined as a 50-foot buffer zone on both
sides of the stream or depression measured from top of streambank or center of
depression.

 Clearing and Grubbing
In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Contractor may
perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately prior
to beginning grading operations as described in Article 200-1 of the Standard
Specifications. Only clearing operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this
buffer zone until immediately prior to beginning grading operations. Erosion
control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.

 Grading
Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas,
work shall progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction
within these areas shall progress in a continuous manner such that each phase is
complete and areas are permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase.
Failure on the part of the contractor to complete any phase of construction in a
continuous manner in Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be just cause for the
Engineer to direct the suspension of work in accordance with Article 108-7 of the
Standard Specifications.

 Temporary Stream Crossings
Any crossing of streams within the limits of this project shall be accomplished in
accordance with the requirements of Subarticle 107-13(B) of the Standard
Specifications.

 Seeding and Mulching
Seeding and mulching shall be performed in accordance with Section 1660 of the
Standard Specifications and vegetative cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be
installed immediately following grade establishment. Seeding and mulching shall
be performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately following final
grade establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into the contract time
without stabilization of slopes, ditches and other areas within the Environmentally
Sensitive Areas.

 Stage Seeding

22
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
The work covered by this section shall consist of the establishment of a vegetative
cover on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses. 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. Each stage shall not
exceed the limits stated above.
5.2. Additional Measures
The following are additional measures intended to further reduce deleterious construction
related effects to the waterway:

 An offsite detour will be utilized, with no expected improvements to the detour
route.
 Bridge length will increase from 42 feet to 70 feet resulting in no bents in water,
and an increase in the hydraulic opening
 Method II Clearing will be utilized with clearing and grubbing to slope stake line
and clearing to only five feet beyond stake line for erosion control measures
 A ten foot bench with no riprap from toe of end bent protection to top of bank will
be utilized
 Riprap spill through will not extend beyond the end of bridge
 No deck drains over water
 Minimum 0.3% grade will be maintained
 Low growing live stakes within rip rap will be utilized outside of drip line of the
bridge for shading of riprap
 Abutment will be cut one foot above normal stream level of which the footing
will remain for stabilization. Bank will be laid back and stabilized under bridge.
 Oversized Preform Scour Holes will be utilized for drop inlets
 A storm water management plan will be designed and prepared by the design
build team at the same time bridge survey report is submitted
6.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ON CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER AND CRITICAL
HABITAT
Project-related threats to the Carolina Heelsplitter can be separated into direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects. Direct effects refer to consequences that are directly attributed to
the construction of the project, such as land clearing, stream channelization, and erosion.
Indirect effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action
and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. Cumulative effects are
those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are
reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to
consultation [50 CFR §402.02]. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the
Carolina Heelsplitter and its critical habitat which may result from the project are
discussed here.

23
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012

Project construction such as bridge replacement can also result in beneficial species
effects. Removal of existing instream bents and fill materials can stabilize and improve
habitats that were previously unsuitable.
6.1. Direct Effects
Carolina Heelsplitter individuals have been observed in the immediate action area of the
proposed bridge replacement at the confluence of Duck and Goose Creeks as recently as
2004. Furthermore, the critical habitat surveys conducted in 2011 in Goose Creek
confirmed the presence of Carolina Heelsplitter from Goose Creek and this and
subsequent surveys of suitable habitat for the species. Therefore, it should be assumed
the Carolina Heelsplitter is still extant at this site.

Under normal conditions, the replacement of a bridge over a stream is a relatively minor
disturbance to the stream habitat; however, construction activities do invariably have
some adverse effect on the aquatic habitat by increasing the amount of erosion, siltation,
and chemical pollution to the impacted waters. The above-mentioned conservation
measures will be incorporated by NCDOT to avoid/minimize effects to Duck and Goose
Creeks and Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter. Strict implementation of these
measures will reduce the chance that the effects will be detrimental to the Carolina
Heelsplitter or its Critical Habitat.

The unavoidable effects of bridge construction are expected to adversely affect existing
Critical Habitat in Duck and Goose Creek immediately downstream of the project area,
but these effects are anticipated to be temporary. Effects caused by bridge replacement
are not likely to prevent the re-colonization of the Carolina Heelsplitter into the action
area in the future, and are also not expected to compromise any of the constituent
elements in Critical Habitat Unit 1.
6.2. Indirect Effects
The indirect effects of bridge replacement are not well known. The initial construction of
a bridge is known to cause changes in the flow of the stream and corresponding erosive
processes that can alter the adjacent habitat. Adding, removing or altering bents and
abutments during replacement is likely to change the flow patterns which would require
the river to erode and deposit until reaching a state of semi-equilibrium. These changes
are not expected to be as drastic as those caused by initial construction of new structures.
In this case, the existing bents will be removed from the riverbed, reducing constriction
and the velocity of the flowing water. Reduced velocity usually corresponds with less
erosion and could benefit a stream by allowing banks to naturally stabilize.
Alternatively, reducing velocity can cause areas of deposition that would tend to degrade
mussel habitat by covering it with silt, loose sand, or detritus. Within the action area,
there is sufficient heterogeneity of substrate types and velocities that neither scenario is
particularly likely. The most likely scenario is that the minor change in bridge type will
have little noticeable indirect adverse effect on the habitat in the action area. The existing
bents have resulted in the temporary trapping of logs and woody debris on the upstream

24
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
side of the crossing, a condition that will be alleviated by replacement, and ultimately be
a small beneficial effect.

Because this project involves the replacement of an existing structure on an existing
alignment there are no anticipated land use changes associated with this project.
6.3. Cumulative Effects
No other planned projects, State or private, are known to exist within the action area of
this project.
6.4. Conclusion of Effects Carolina Heelsplitter
Carolina Heelsplitter is assumed to be present in the project area. As such, NCDOT has
committed to take extra precautions during construction in order to prevent the
degradation of the downstream habitat. Impacts to Duck and Goose Creek and the
Carolina Heelsplitter have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable; however,
unavoidable adverse effects to this species are expected to occur. These adverse effects
are expected to be minor and to have no effect on the long term viability of this
population.
6.4.1. Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
6.5. Conclusions of Effects-Critical Habitat
Portions of Goose Creek and Duck Creek are designated as Critical Habitat (Unit 1) for
the Carolina Heelsplitter (See Section 4.2). As discussed in Section 3.2, water quality
and physical habitat conditions in the Goose Creek watershed have deteriorated in recent
years to the extent that the some of the constituent elements may no longer be present.
Additionally, the amount of impervious surface area and water quality degradation is
expected to continue to increase in the Goose Creek watershed. As concluded in Section
6.4, project-related direct effects to Duck and Goose Creeks and the Carolina Heelsplitter
may occur, but these effects are anticipated to be temporary and minor and are not
expected to compromise any of the constituent elements.
6.5.1. Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
7.0 ADDITIONAL SPECIES FEDERALLY LISTED (UNION COUNTY)
7.1. Rhus michauxii (Michaux’s Sumac)
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federal Status: Endangered, September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June – July
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: Late August - October
NC Distribution: Cumberland, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Johnston, Mecklenburg,
Moore, Nash, Orange, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, Union, Wake, and Wilson
Counties.

25
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012

Michaux’s Sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods on sandy or sandy loam soils
with low cation exchange capacities and appears to depend upon some form of
disturbance to maintain the open quality of its habitat. Michaux’s Sumac can occur on
circumneutral soils, loamy swales, or on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks,
depending on the physiographic province where it occurs. Most extant populations can
be found on open disturbed areas, such as railroad, road, and utility rights-of-way that are
periodically maintained and/or managed for the species. This species, like many others
that grow in similar habitats, depends on periodic disturbances such as natural fires and
grazing to reduce the shade and competition of woody plants.

Habitat for the Michaux’s Sumac exists in the project study area, which was surveyed by
Jason Dilday of NCDOT on September 13, 2011. A visual inspection of roadsides and
other mowed or disturbed areas in the action area, approach, and offsite detour resulted in
no observed individuals or populations of the species. Since the NHP database shows no
records of the species within 1.0 mile of the project study area, and no individuals were
found during field visits, it is anticipated that this project will have no effect on this
species.
7.1.1. Biological Conclusion: No Effect
7.2. Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz’s Sunflower)
Plant Family: Astereaceae
Federal Status: Endangered, May 7, 1991
Flowers Present: Late August until first frost
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May - October
NC Distribution: Anson, Cabarrus, Davidson, Gaston, Mecklenburg, Montgomery,
Randolph, Rowan, Stanly, Stokes, Surry and Union Counties

Schweinitz’s Sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont physiographic region of North and
South Carolina. Current habitats include roadsides, periodically disturbed or maintained
utility rights of way, old pastures, and sunny or semi-sunny woodland openings. While
the plant occurs on a variety of soils, it is generally found on shallow, poor, clayey or
rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rock.

Habitat for Schweinitz’s Sunflower exists in the project study area, which was surveyed
by Jason Dilday of NCDOT on September 13, 2011. A visual inspection of roadsides
and other mowed or disturbed areas in the action area, approach, and offsite detour
resulted in no observed individuals or populations of the species. Since the NHP
database shows no records of the species within 1.0 mile of the project study area, and no
individuals were found during field visits, it is anticipated that this project will have no
effect on this species.
7.2.1. Biological Conclusion: No Effect

26
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
8.0 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 Illinois.
293 pp.
Alderman, J.M. (1998). Survey for the endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) in South Carolina., A Final Report prepared for the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources: 67.
Alderman, J.M. (2002). Lasmigona decorata Monitoring and Habitat Evaluation, final
report. F. S. USDA, Francis Marion and Sumpter National Forests: 29.
Alderman, J.M. (2010). President: Alderman Environmental Services Inc. Pittsboro,
NC. Personal communication regarding 2010 mussel surveys in Flat Creek.
Email: Mar. 23, 2010.
Allan, C.J. (2004). DRAFT Water quality and Stream Stability Monitoring for Goose
Creek Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC 2001-2003, Dept. of Geography and
Earth Sciences, UNC Charlotte: 94.
Allan, C.J. (2005). Water Quality and Stream Stability Monitoring for Goose Creek,
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina, 2001-2003. Department of
Geography and Earth Sciences, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC.
Arnold, C.L., and C.J. Gibbons (1996). Impervious surface coverage—the emergence of
a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association
62:243–258.
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.

Augspurger, T., A.E. Keller, M.C. Black, W.G. Cope and F.J. Dwyer. (2003). Water
quality guidance for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from ammonia
exposure. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22: 2569-2575.
Baker Engineering (2010). Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Quantitative Analysis
(Monroe Connector/Bypass R-3329/R-2559). Prepared for the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority.

27
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
Barfield, M.L. and G.T. Watters. (1998). Non-parasitic life cycle in the green floater,
Lasmigona subviridis (Conrad, 1835). Triannual Unionid Report 16:22.
Bartsch, M.R., T.J. Newton, J.W. Allran, J.A. O’Donnell, and W.B. Richardson. (2003).
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(11):2561-2568.
Binkley, D., H. Burnham, and H.L. Allen (1999). Water quality impacts of forest
fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus. Forest Ecology and Management
121:191-213.

Bogan, A.E. (1993). Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): A search for
causes. American Zoologist 33:599-609.
Bogan, A.E. (2002). Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina.
North Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC, 101
pp, 10 color plates.
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. (1999). Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: Prospects
and problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 99–117.
Chapman E.J., and T.A. Smith (2008). Structural Community Changes in Freshwater
Mussel Populations of Little Mahoning Creek, Pennsylvania. American
Malacological Bulletin 26 (1-2): 161-169.
Chen, Z., C. Perrin, S. Gale and J. Fisher (2001). A Preliminary Review of Five-year
Water Quality Trends in Goose Creek. North Carolina Division of Water Quality
and North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.
Clarke, A.H. (1985). The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II:
Lasmigona and Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399: 75.
Conrad, T.A. (1835-1840). Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of
Lamarck, (fresh water bivalve shells) or North America, illustrated by figures
drawn on stone from nature. 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J.
Dobson.
Cooper, N.L., J.R. Bidwell, and D.S. Cherry (2005). Potential effects of Asian clam
(Corbicula fluminea) die-offs on native freshwater mussels (Unionidae) II: pore-
water ammonia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:381–
394.

28
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
Crawford, J.K. and D.R. Lenat (1989). Effects Of Land Use On The Water Quality And
Biota Of Three Streams In The Piedmont Province of North Carolina. Prepared
for US Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4007.

Dupuis, T.V., N.P. Kobriger, W.K. Kreutzberger and V. Trippi (1985). Effects of
Highway Runoff on Receiving Waters-Vol. III. Resource Document For
Environmental Assessments. Report FHWA/RD-84/064. FHWA, U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, 153 p.
Eads, C.B., R.B. Bringolf, R.D. Greiner, A.E. Bogan, and J.F. Levine (2010). Fish Hosts
of the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a federally endangered
freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American Malacological Bulletin. In
press.
Ellis, M.M. (1936). Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.

Field, R. and 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., and C.E. Powell. (1973). Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.

Gagné, F., P. Cejka, C. André, R. Hausler, and C. Blaise (2007a). Neurotoxicological
effects of a primary and ozonated treated wastewater on freshwater mussels
exposed to an experimental flow-through system. Comp. Biochemistry and
Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology 146(4):460-470.

Gagné, F., C. Gagon, P. Turcotte, and C. Blaise. (2007b). Changes in Metallothionein
Levels in Freshwater Mussels Exposed to Urban Wastewaters: Effects from
Exposure to Heavy Metals? Biomark Insights 2:107-116.

Garie, H.L. and 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, et al. (1988). Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents on
Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS:
128.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves and R.J. Sheehan (1993). Effects of wastewater treatment
plant effluents on freshwater mollusks in the upper Clinch River, Virginia, USA.
Hydrobiologia 252: 211-230.

Grabarkiewicz, J. and W. Davis (2008). An introduction to freshwater mussels as
biological indicators. EPA-260-R-08-015. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.

29
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012

Gupta, M.K., R.W. Agnew, and N.P Kobriger (1981). Constituents of highway runoff
Volume I, State-of-the-art report: Federal Highway Administration Final Report
FHWA/RD-81/042. 121 p.

Havlik, M.E. and L.L. Marking (1987). Effects of Contaminants on Naiad Mollusks
(Unionidae): A Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Resource Publication 164. Washington, D.C. 20 pp.

Heltsley, R.M., W.G. Cope, R.B. Bringolf, C.B. Eads, and D. Shea (2006). Prozacelicits
spawning in native freshwater mussels. 232nd Annual Meeting of the American
Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA. September 10-14, 2006.

Hoffman, C.D., E.J. Mills, J.S. Latimer, and J.G. Quinn (1984). Urban runoff as a source
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to coastal waters. Environ. Sci. Technol.
18(8): 580-587.

HNTB (2003). Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis, Union County, North Carolina.
Monroe Bypass TIP R-2559 and Monroe Connector TIP R-3329., prepared for
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of Human Environment.
Johnson, R.I. (1970). The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae
(Mollusca:Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bulletin of the
Museum of Comparative Zoology 140(6): 263-449.

Jones, R.C. and C. C. Clark (1987). Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect
communities. Water Resources Bulletin 23(6):1047-1055.

Keferl, E.P. (1991). "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
A freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly (1988). The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta
robusta), Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service: 47.
Lea, I. (1852). Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates.
Lenat, D.R., D.L. Penrose, and K.W. Eagleson (1979). Biological evaluation of non-point
source pollutants in North Carolina streams and rivers. Biological Series Number
102. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

30
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
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, and E.F. Anderson (2005).
Assessment of the Impact of Highway Runoff on Freshwater Mussels in North
Carolina Streams: 109 p.

Lieb, D.A. (1998). The effects of urban runoff on the benthic macroinvertebrate
community of Thompson Run, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Masters of Science
Thesis Pennsylvania State University, 130pp.

Maltby, L., A.B.A. Boxall, D.M. Forrow, P. Calow and C.I. Betton (1995). The effects
of motorway runoff on freshwater ecosystems: 2. Identifying major toxicants.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14 (6):1093-1101.

Marking, L. L. and T. D. Bills (1979). Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Upper Mississippi
River bivalve mollusks. J. L. Rasmussen. Rock Island, Illinois, UMRCC: 204-
211.
Mcdougal, L. A. (1997). Southern region mussel survey data sheet for a survey of Turkey
Creek near CR 68 on October 7, 1997., USFS.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan (2001). Mollusca: Bivalvia. Ecology and classification
of North American freshwater invertebrates. J. H. Thorpe and A. P. Covich,
Academic Press: 331-429.

NCDENR (2009). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Biennial Protection Plan,
Natural Heritage Areas Priority List, Raleigh Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation.

NCDWQ (2002). Basinwide Assessment Report Yadkin Pee DeeBasin. NCDENR.
Raleigh NC. 2005.
NCDWQ (2004). Basinwide Planning Program: Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
NCDWQ (2009). North Carolina Division of Water Quality May Environmental
Management Commission Agenda Item # 09-23: Interpretive Ruling on
Longview South. May 2009.

NC State Cooperative Extension. (2006a). Internet Site:
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/topic/bmp-temperature/)

NC State Cooperative Extension. (2006b). Internet Site:
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/Bioretention2006.pdf

NCWRC (2010). Aquatic species database, NC Wildlife Resource Commission.

31
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak (1987). Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels
(Bivalva: Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological
Bulletin 1(5): 1-7.

Neves, R.J. (1993). A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C.
A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island
IL.189 pp.
Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, et al. (1997). Status of Mollusks in the Southeastern United
States: A downard spiral of diversity. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. G. W. Benz and D. E. Collins. Decatur, GA, Special Publication1,
Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Designs and Communications: 31-85.
Newton, T.J., J.W., Allran, J.A., O’Donnell, M.R., Bartsch, and W.B. Richardson (2003).
Effects of Ammonia on juvenile unionid mussels (Lampsilis cardium) in
laboratory sediment toxicity tests. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
22(11):2554-2560.

Pennak, R. W. (1989). Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to
Mollusca. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Poole, G., J. Risley and M. Hicks (2001). Spatial and temporal patterns of stream
temperature (revised) Issue Paper 3, prepared as part of EPA Region 10
Temperature Water Quality Criteria Project.

Roa-Espinosa, A., T.B. Wilson, J.M. Norman and K. Johnson (2003). Predicting the
impact of urban development on stream temperature using a thermal urban runoff
model (TURM). Pp 369-389 in Proceedings of National Conference Urban
Stormwater: Enhancing programs at the local level, Chicago, Ill.,17-20-Feb. 2003.
US EPA National Risk Management Laboratory, Cincinnati OH.

Schueler, T. (1994). The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection
Techniques. 1(3):100–111.

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.

Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue (2005). Investigations into potential fish hosts for the
Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices.

Stewart, J.S., D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman (2000). Influences
of riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209–214
in P.J. Wigington, Jr. and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water

32
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-land use watersheds. Portland, Oregon.

Sweeny, B.W., T.L. Bott, J.K. Jackson, L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, L.J. Standley, W.C.
Hession, and R.J. Horwitz (2004). Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and
loss of stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 101 (39) 14132-14137.

Torrey, J. and A. Gray (1841). A Flora of North America. 2 vols. Wiley & Putnam, New
York.
USEPA (2009). Draft 2009 Update of aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for
ammonia-freshwater. EPA-822-D-09-001. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
USDOT (2002). Endangered Species Act: Section 7 Interagency Cooperation, Raleigh,
NC, Eastern Resource Center.
USFWS (1992a). Special report on the status of freshwater mussels.

USFWS (1992b). Endangered and Threatened species of the southeast United States (The
Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered Species, Southeast
Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.

USFWS (1996). Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan,
Atlanta, GA: 47.

USFWS (2002). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule, Dept of the Interior. Federal
Register 67(127):44501-44522.
USFWS (2007). Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 34 pp.

USFWS (2008). Letter to NCDWQ detailing USFWS comments regarding proposed
rules to implement the Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the
Goose Creek Watershed. June 30, 2008. Asheville, NC.
USFWS (2012). Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 31 pp.

Wang, N., Ingersoll, C.G., Greer, I.E., Hardesty, D.K., Ivey, C.D., Kunz, J.L.,
Brumbaugh, W.G.,Dwyer, F.J., Robers, A.D., Augspurger, T., Kane, C.M.,
Neves, R.J., and M.C. Barnhart (2007a) Assessing contaminant sensitivity of
early life stages of freshwater mussels (Unionidae): Acute toxicity testing of

33
Br. No 6 over Duck Creek Biological Assessment May 2012
copper, ammonia, and chlorine to glochidia and juvenile mussels. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 38pp.

Wang, N., Ingersoll, C.G., Greer, I.E., Hardesty, D.K., Ivey, C.D., Kunz, J.L.,
Brumbaugh, W.G., Dwyer, F.J., Robers, A.D., Augspurger, T., Kane, C.M.,
Neves, R.J., and M.C. Barnhart (2007b). Assessing contaminant sensitivity of
early life stages of freshwater mussels (Unionidae): Chronic toxicity testing of
juvenile mussels with copper and ammonia. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 35pp.

Watters, G. T. (1994). An annotated bibliography of the reproduction and propagation of
the Unionoidea (Primarily of North America). Ohio Biological Survey
Miscellaneous Contributions No. 1: 158.

Yousef, Y. A., H. H. Harper, L.P. Wiseman, J.M. Bateman (1985). Consequential species
of heavy metals in highway runoff: Florida Department of Transportation Final
Report FL-ER-29-85. 153 p.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

NCDOT DESIGN STANDARDS IN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (15A NCAC 4B
.0124)

The Department of Transportation will adhere to the following guidelines when operating
within sensitive watersheds.

A. Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within a
sensitive watershed shall be so planned, designed and constructed to provide protection
from the runoff of the 25 year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as
calculated according to procedures in the “Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual” or according to procedures adopted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation

B. Sediment basins within sensitive watershed shall be designed and constructed such
that the basin will have a settling efficiency of at least 70 percent for the 40 micron
(0.04mm) size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of the two-year storm
which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to procedures
in the “Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual” or according to
procedures adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

C. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will include the use of flocculants in
appropriate areas to improve the settling of sediment particles and reduce turbidity levels
in construction runoff. The use of flocculants will conform to Division of Water Quality
approved product list.

C. Newly constructed open channels in sensitive watersheds shall be designed and
constructed with side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a vegetative
cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the
slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable
ditch liners. In any event, the angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain
accelerated erosion.

D. Provide ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any portion
of a land-disturbing activity in a sensitive watershed within 14 calendar days following
completion of construction or development.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS:

Description

This project is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. This designation requires
special procedures to be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossings, and
grading operations within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas identified on the plans
and as designated by the Engineer. This also requires special procedures to be used for
seeding and mulching and staged seeding within the project.

The Environmentally Sensitive Area shall be defined as a 50-foot buffer zone on both
sides of the stream or depression measured from top of streambank or center of
depression.

Construction Methods
(A) Clearing and Grubbing

In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Contractor may
perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately prior
to beginning grading operations as described in Article 200-1 of the Standard
Specifications. Only clearing operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this
buffer zone until immediately prior to beginning grading operations. Erosion
control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.

(B) Grading

Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas,
work shall progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction
within these areas shall progress in a continuous manner such that each phase is
complete and areas are permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase.
Failure on the part of the Contractor to complete any phase of construction in a
continuous manner in Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be just cause for the
Engineer to direct the suspension of work in accordance with Article 108-7 of the
Standard Specifications.

(C) Temporary Stream Crossings

Any crossing of streams within the limits of this project shall be accomplished in
accordance with the requirements of Subarticle 107-13(B) of the Standard
Specifications.

(D) Seeding and Mulching

Seeding and mulching shall be performed in accordance with Section 1660 of the
Standard Specifications and vegetative cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be
installed immediately following grade establishment.

Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction
immediately following final grade establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse
into the contract time without stabilization of slopes, ditches and other areas
within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

(E) Stage Seeding

The work covered by this section shall consist of the establishment of a vegetative
cover on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses. 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. Each stage shall not
exceed the limits stated above.

Additional payments will not be made for the requirements of this section, as the cost for
this work shall be included in the contract unit prices for the work involved.