19930154 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

N
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ,? ;? Inns
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 14, 1993 V,'ETLA;;D
t'
IN REPLY REFER TO _ ATFR nUl,! Il'f ;_;
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199301400 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference is made to our letter to you of April 23, 1993, concerning your
application for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge fill
material into Sandy Creek to effect the replacement of Bridge Number 79 on
S.R. 1403 south of Aventon, Nash County, North Carolina (State Project No.
8.2320401, TIP No. 3-2154). In that letter, you were informed that we could
not confirm authorization of the project under nationwide permit until
concerns over impacts to the Federally-endangered Tar River Spiny Mussel were
addressed and resolved in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act.
According to Mr. Barney O'Quinn's letter of December 2, 1993, coordination
between your agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has
resulted in a modified project design which should not adversely affect this
endangered species. Mr. O'Quinn's letter included a copy of a May 5, 1993
letter from the USFWS which concurred with this finding.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists NWPs (NWP). Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined,
pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work or discharge
is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively has a significant effect on the human environment, and the Office

-2-
of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
As discussed previously, our regulations (33 CFR Part 330) state that no
activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species
proposed for such designation as identified under the Endangered Species Act.
Accordingly, your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished
in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions, and the following special
provision:
The project will use either of two designs: (1) a cored slab on driven
piles utilizing silt curtains during pile driving, and an expert in mussel
identification will be present onsite at the time of pile driving to look for
and relocate any mussels found in the immediate vicinity; or (2) if piles
cannot be driven, a single span with steel I-beams will be utilized to span
the entire stream, eliminating all in-stream construction.
This NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other
required State or local approval, including section 401 water quality
certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water
quality certification.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the NWP authorization is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during
the 2 years, the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is
modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and
conditions of the NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under
construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will
remain authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the
date of the NWP's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary
authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or
revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
-3-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
M;'!" John Dorney
water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Mr. Mike Crocker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Dennis Stewart
North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564
Mr. Larry Odom
Nash County Office of Planning
Nash County Agriculture Building
1006 Eastern Avenue, Room 111
Nashville, North Carolina 27856
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
N REPLY REFER TO April 23, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301400
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
ATTN: L. Jack Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
i
Reference your application of February 22, 1993, for Department of the
Army authorization to discharge fill material within waters of the United
States, causing impacts to Sandy Creek, for the construction of a replacement
of Bridge Number 79 on SR 1403, south of Aventon, Nash County, North Carolina
(TIP Project B-2154).
Based on a conversation between Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of my Raleigh field
office staff and Ms. Janet Shipley of your staff, we understand that your
representatives met with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission on
March 26, 1993, to discuss alternatives to the proposed project which would
lessen impacts on the endangered Tar River Spiny Mussel, Elliptio
steinstansana, and that you are evaluating these alternatives.
General condition 11 of the nationwide permits described at Title 33, Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal Register on
November 22, 1991, states that no activity is authorized under any nationwide
permit which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened
or endangered species. Therefore, we cannot confirm authorization of the
proposed activity under the nationwide permit at this time, but must ensure
that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied.
Please keep us informed of the progress of your alternatives investigation and
any comments or determinations made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission concerning this issue. When the
issue is resolved, we will make a determination concerning project
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Z' a :
-2-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Larry Odom
Nash County Planning Dept.
Nash County Agricultural Center, Rm. 111
Nashville, NC 27856
Mr John Dorney
Dater Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn.: Mr. Mike Crocker
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Attn.: Mr. David Yow
P.O. Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564

N. C. DEPARTMENT OIL TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
?,a? _q 3
TO: 1 -?
Mr. J X11 n ?LJct?'lltl (i REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVES
IG
T
T
A
E AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IM+IS B. BUNT. IIZ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GO VI KNOR P.O. 110X 25201. RALLIGI 1. N.C. 27611-5201
February 22, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SAM HUNT
SI.CUTARY
?r3 21J
VJkZLAIlDS GR? CTIGtJ 3
Subject: Nash County, Replacement of Bridge No. 79 over
Sandy Creek on SR 1403, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1403(2), State Project No. 8.2320401, TIP No.
B-2154.
Attached for your information are three copies of the
project planning report for the subject project. The project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
z ,?t?
.6
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-9770.
Sincerely, B J. )ant Quinn- PE
Assi Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
fir. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
Mr. Doug Huggett, Planning and Environmental Branch
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C.A. Gardner, Jr., PE, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. J. Bissett, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Nash County
SR 1403
Bridge No. 79 over Sandy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1403(2)
State Project No. 8.2320401
T.I.P. No. B-2154
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
l ? 93
DATE L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
I,: Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
-
ATE L Nic las raf, P.E.
Division Ad inistrator, FHWA
FEB 2 6 ?.,.,
_
_._V:F{U%ASGROUP
Nash County
SR 1403
Bridge No. 79 over Sandy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1403(2)
State Project No. 8.2320401
T.I.P. No. B-2154
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1992
Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G di Grimes, .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
/ Z-/-
J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager
Nash County
SR 1403
Bridge No. 79 over Sandy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1403(2)
State Project No. 8.2320401
T.I.P. No. B-2154
Bridge No. 79 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program. The location is
shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion'.
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has recommended that an intensive archaeological
survey be completed. This survey will be completed prior to ROW acquisition.
NCDOT will initiate Section 7 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service concerning
the extant freshwater mussel populations and avoidance or minimization of impacts on these
species prior to starting the design of the replacement bridge.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 79 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It should be
replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 28 feet and length of 165 feet.
The structure will provide a 22 foot travelway and 3 foot shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be raised as much as possible within the
recommended approach work. See Section VI. for an explanation.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 22 foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $501,000. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $399,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1403 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. The paved secondary road serves a rural area of Nash
County several miles north of Red Oak (see Figure 1). The land use is predominately wooded
and cultivated fields in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 1403 has a 19 foot wide pavement with six foot shoulders (see Figure 2).
The approach roadway slopes slightly down toward the bridge from the south and is relatively
flat to the north. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a short 3°00' curve
approximately 120 feet from the bridge to the south, and a 3°45' curve about 400 feet to the
north. The roadway is situated about 20 feet above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 400 (VPD) vehicles per day is projected to increase to 500 VPD
by 1995 and 900 VPD by the year 2015. The volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted, therefore assumed to
be 55 mph.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1952. The superstructure consists of a timber
floor on a steel girder floor beam system and timber joists, and the substructure consists of
some timber caps and piles and some reinforced concrete caps with timber piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 160 feet. Clear roadway width is 24.2 feet. The posted
weight limit is nine tons for single vehicles and 16 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 79 has a sufficiency rating of 28.1, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from January 1, 1989 to
December 31, 1991.
Three school buses cross the bridge twice a day.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternative alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment
would result in excessive cost and undesirable environmental consequences.
The 'do-nothing' alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1403.
The alternative of providing on-site detours is not feasible due to excessive cost and low traffic
volumes.
The Division Engineer concurs with closing the bridge and detouring traffic along existing
roads during construction (see Figure 1).
The Nash County School Transportation Supervisor has no objections to Bridge No. 79 being
closed during the construction period.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Structural Removal $ 19,360
Structure 258,720
Roadway Approaches 68,320
Miscellaneous & Mobilization 63,600
Engineering & Contingencies 65,000
ROW/Construction Easements/Utilities 26,000
TOTAL $ 501,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 79 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure having a length of
approximately 165 feet. Minor improvements to the existing approach on the south side of the
bridge will be necessary for a distance of about 200 feet. Additional improvements are
recommended on the north approach where SR 1404 intersects with SR 1403 from the west.
It is recommended that SR 1404 be realigned as shown in Figure 2 to move the intersection
away from the bridge. This will provide safer traffic operations at the bridge and intersection.
Traffic will be detoured on existing roads during the approximately nine month construction
period as shown in Figure 1. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternate.
A 22 foot wide pavement with six foot graded shoulders will be provided on the approaches
and on the SR 1404 improvements. A 28 foot clear roadway width is recommended on the
replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide
a 22 foot travelway with three foot shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 60
MPH for the bridge replacement section and 40 MPH for the SR 1404 realignment.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 165 feet. Also, based on the estimated design frequency of the 25 year
storm plus freeboard, the elevation of the proposed structure should be approximately two feet
higher than the existing bridge. However, it may be desirable to keep the bridge at
approximately the existing roadway grade since; historically the existing bridge has never
been overtopped, the entire area between the project site and the bridge over Gideon's
Swamp (located approximately 2000 feet north) would be inundated during the 100 year
storm, and it would be necessary to raise the roadway for about 3500 feet to prevent
overtopping in a 100 year storm. It is therefore recommended to raise the elevation of the
proposed bridge only as much as can be achieved within the amount of approach work
recommended and shown in Figure 2. It is anticipated that this will result in elevations of the
new structure being slightly higher than that of the existing bridge. The length and height
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydrologic studies.
3
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
This project proposes to replace the bridge on SR 1403 spanning Sandy Creek in Nash
County, NC. Biologists visited the project site on two occasions: June 9, and July 2, 1992.
The first visit occurred during and the second visit several days after periods of heavy regional
rains. Conditions for field data collection were poor in June but excellent in July.
The local topography is gently rolling, typical of the eastern Piedmont and especially of a
specific area known as the Fall Line, where Piedmont creeks descend to the Coastal Plain.
Locally, about 100 feet of elevation separates ridge tops from bottomlands.
Approached from the southeast, the existing bridge crosses Sandy Creek at S 50 deg E,
roughly at a right angle to the creek, forming four quadrants. In the project area land
surrounding the current bridge is largely agricultural land, except for (1) a telephone
right-of-way about 25 feet wide that parallels the road immediately south of the existing bridge,
and (2) narrow strips of forest cover between 40 and 100 feet wide that parallel Sandy Creek.
At the southern edge of the project area these strips widen considerably.
This investigation examined the vegetation and other conditions surrounding the highway
bridge in order to (1) search for protected plants, and evidence of protected animal species;
(2) identify unique or prime-quality communities; (3) describe the current vegetation and
associated habitats; (4) identify wetlands; and (5) provide information to avoid or minimize the
adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement project.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 300 feet. Plot center was located in the
middle of the existing bridge. Plant communities within this plot were delineated from aerial
photographs and ground-checked on site. Forest community types follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990). Within each community, a list of member plant species and general site
description was developed on-site. Dominance (ft2/ac) of the upper tree canopy was
determined by the variable plot method (Husch, Miller, and Beers 1972). Dominance (percent
foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or communities was determined by ocular estimation, using
foliar cover guides developed by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For communities dominated
by trees, tree age, stem diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (dbh), and total height were
measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from 2-mm increment borings; dbh and
height were measured using d-tape dendrometers and Abney-level hypsometers, respectively
(Wilson 1976). Ground distances were determined by measurements taken on aerial
photographs, but all other measurements were developed from on-site reconnaissance.
Inquiries were made concerning NC Natural Heritage Program records of listed species in the
vicinity. On-site, evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was sought through close
observation of all available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities,
and typical wildlife communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special
attention was given to features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened,
endangered, or deserving special concern.
Aquatic system features were noted at three locations on the site: at the bridge, 100 feet
upstream, and 100 feet downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of
4
water quality was reviewed (NCDEM 1989, 1991). Wetland determinations followed
procedures described by the Corps of Enqineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental
Lab. 1987).
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three plant communities occur within the study area, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest,
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory, and Roadside. Compared to forest community groupings of the
Society of American Foresters (1967), the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is most
similar to Type 87, Sweetgum-Yellow-Poplar and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory is comparable to
Type 52, White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. In the project area, the Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest occurs on well-drained to moderately well-drained soils along Sandy Creek,
except for the southeastern quadrant where the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory community occurs.
Water-level of the creek is generally three to four feet below the general surface of the
bottomland, and the bottomland within the project area is therefore non-wetland. Within Nash
County as a whole, bottomland hardwoods occupy 35,752 acres; 20 percent of the total forest
cover (Thompson 1990).
The upper canopy contains sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron
tuli ifera , red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black cherry (Prunus serotina), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), boxelder (Acer negundo), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), river birch (Betula nigra), and American elm (Ulmus americana). The
largest trees are sweetgums, about 50 years old, 24-inches dbh, and 85 feet tall. Basal area
for canopy species equals 120 ftZ/acre; yellow-poplar and sweetgum provide the most area,
about 30 fe/acre each; sycamore and river birch provide about 20 fe/acre each; the other
species listed above provide the remaining 20 fe/acre. Stand quality is low, owing to the
narrow width which causes edge-effect conditions throughout the stand. Thus, more light
penetrates into the stand, providing habitat for weedy understory species.
The lower canopy contains American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), red mulberry Morus
rubra , bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia), and flowering dogwood (Comus florida). The shrub
layer contains elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), possumhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), silky
dogwood (Comus amomum), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). The ground layer contains
few species, mostly woody including poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera iaponica), greenbrier Smilax
rotundifolia) summer grape (Vitis aestivalis), fall panic grass Panicum sp.), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus guinguefolia), cross-vine (Anisostichus capreolata), false nettle (Boehmeria
lindrica , and uniola grass (Uniola laxa). Foliar cover of the ground layer averages 60
percent, much higher than would be typical in less disturbed conditions. Poison ivy provides
40 percent of this total, and greenbrier and Japanese honeysuckle provide 20 percent.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory. The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory community occurs only in the
southeastern quadrant, where a small bluff along the creek elevates land about five feet
higher than elsewhere in the project area. This greater relief increases soil drainage, and
5
plants typical of dryer conditions occur. Within Nash County as a whole, oak-hickory forests
occupy 50,291 acres, 28 percent of the total forest cover.
The overstory contains mostly white oak (Duercus alba) and American beech Fa us
grandifolia), but sweetgum (Uguidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), shagbark
hickory (Carya ovata), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white ash (Fraxinus amedcana), and
American elm (Ulmus amedcana) occur also. Dominance of the overstory averages 100
fe/acre. White oak and beech provide about 40 felacre each, and the remaining 20 fe/acre is
approximately equally shared by the other canopy species. The widest tree was a well-formed
shagbark hickory, measuring 27-inches dbh, but most trees were smaller, between 14 and
18-inches dbh. The tallest tree is a sweetgum, measuring 90 feet tall. The oldest tree is
probably the large shagbark hickory, which possibly survives from a previous stand. It is
roughly estimated to be 100 years old.
The lower canopy contains red mulberry (Mores rubra), winged elm (Ulmus alata), American
holly (Ilex opaca) and American hombeam (Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub layer contains
pinxter (Rhododendron nudiflorum), possumhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), serviceberry
(Amelanchier arboreum), privet (Ligustrum sinense), and strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus). Interestingly, pinxter forms two large colonies along the top of the bluff. The
ground layer contains poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), partridge berry (Mitchella repens),
beech drops (Epifagus virginiana), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Solomon's seal
(Polygonatum biflorum), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus guinguefolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier Smilax
bona-nox , trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), goldenrod Solida o sp.), Christmas fem
(Polystichum acrostichoides), wild yams (Dioscorea villosa), bedstraw (Galium circaezans),
common blue violet (Viola papiljonacea), cross-vine (Anisostichus capreolata), and along the
top of the bluff yellow-root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima). Foliar cover of the ground layer
averages 15 percent, most of which is provided by Japanese honeysuckle and greenbrier.
The remaining species occur as widely scattered individuals. The heavy shade cast by the
American beeches undoubtedly limits ground layer development.
Roadside. The Roadside community occurs along the road and south of the existing bridge,
where a telephone line right-of-way about 25 feet wide is regularly cleared of vegetation. This
community, with a single vegetative layer contains poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), fall
panic grass Panicum sp.), bracken fem (Pteddium aguilinum), trumpet creeper (Cam psis
radicans , touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), common
blackberry (Rubus argutus), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), horse nettle Solanum
carolinense), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), tall goldenrod (Solidago altissjma), leather-flower
(Clematis vioma), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
curly dock (Rumex crispus), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia),
common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), day-lily
(Hemerocallis fulva), common plantain (Plantago major), geranium (Geranium carolinianum),
and seedlings/sprouts of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and American elm Ulmus
americana). Foliar cover of this community averages 70 percent, and about one-third of the
member species are weedy exotics.
6
Wildlife (General)
The hardwood forest and agricultural plant communities surrounding this project site provide
varied habitat for upland terrestrial wildlife species, while Sandy Creek provides a high quality
water resource for aquatic species as well as terrestrial species drawn to the riparian zone for
water and foraging. Raccoon (Procyon lotor tracks were observed in the mud under the
bridge, and crayfish (Cambarus dio eves were observed in the water. The narrowness of
the mature forest cover adjacent the bridge precludes habitat for forest interior species but
provides maximum edge for transition zone species, especially songbirds and small mammals.
The existing forest canopy is well stratified, allowing for maximum avian diversity among
typical Piedmont species. A large tract of forest land southeast of the bridge site was
harvested in 1990 and is presently regenerating naturally, thus provides abundant early
succession habitat, usually prime habitat for rodents and prime hunting grounds for raptors.
Overall, terrestrial habitats are unexceptional and characterized by past disturbance in the
forest cover types and ongoing disturbance in the cultivated areas.
The presence of freshwater mollusks at this site has been documented by John Alderman
(NCWRC) in a recent study submitted to NCDOT. These mollusks include a number of state
and federally listed mussel species (see Jurisdictional Topics section), as well as freshwater
snails (Compiloma sp.) and the widely common Asiatic Clam Corbicula fluminea . Key
indicators of water quality, freshwater mussel populations have been declining in North
Carolina. The presence of the Carolina Mudpuppy Necturus lewisii , an amphibian species,
has also been recorded in the vicinity.
Physical Resources
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on metamorphic rocks, mostly meta-mudstone and
meta-argillite, of the Eastern Slate Belt, in the lower Piedmont physiographic region (Brown
1985). Specifically, the region surrounding the project site is part of the "Fall Line" region.
Soils within the project area are mapped as Wehadkee loam, which may be frequently flooded
(Allison 1989). Wehadkee series soils are formed in loamy sediment washed from upland
soils and they typically occur on floodplains where slope is from 0 to 2 percent.
Water
Sandy Creek arises in southeastern Vance County and crosses Warren and Franklin Counties
before entering Nash County. At SR 1403, Sandy Creek runs north on its way to becoming
Swift Creek near Hilliardston, about two miles downstream from the project area. Swift Creek
later joins the Tar River in Edgecombe County, eventually emptying into the Pamlico.
The use classification of Sandy Creek is "C,' water rated as suitable for agricultural uses, fish
and wildlife propagation and secondary recreation, but not rated for human consumption and
contact recreation (NCDEM 1991 b). At a BMAN site on Swift Creek at SR 1310 near the
village of Hilliardston, the rating was 'Good' in July 1986, following a "Good-Fair' rating in
1984 (NCDEM 1989, 1991a). The stream was not rated in 1988. The recorded and observed
presence of freshwater molluscan species at this location gives further evidence that water
quality in Sandy Creek is generally good (refer to Protected Species section). However, the
7
attention must be called to the fact that the observed high silt loads are clearly a detrimental
factor in water quality and, moreover, chemical pollution from non-point sources upstream is
quite likely to be associated with high silt loads.
Where SR 1403 crosses Sandy Creek, the channel is 50 feet wide with banks ranging from
five to six feet high, except immediately under the north side of the bridge, where the bank
steepens to 15 feet (see Table 1). Due to recent heavy rains, the current was very strong and
the water more than three feet deep when examined. The water was fairly turbid, apparently
carrying silts eroded from agricultural lands and creekbanks upstream.
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Sandy Creek Crossing.
Observation Point Upstream Existing Downstream
Substrate Rock, Gravel, and Mud
Current Flow Strong
Channel Width (ft) 50.0
Bank Height (ft) 5 to 6 15 N/6 S 6.0
Water Depth (ft) 3.0+
Water Color Turbid following heavy regional rainstorms
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation Weeds near the bridge; none elsewhere
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwoods Weeds Hardwoods
Wetlands Associated Bank to bank
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Other than in the channel itself, no wetland conditions occur at the bridge site. While
Wehadkee soils may exhibit wetland inclusions, the hydrologic evidence and vegetation
observed at this location are not indicative of a wetland regime. The USGS Quad map
indicates a wetland area 200 to 300 feet upstream, thus south and well removed from the
project site.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
8
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Lasted Species:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the federally-listed species in Table 2. Habitat
requirements and site conditions for these species have been reviewed, and conditions at the
bridge site have been examined in light of those requirements. More specifically, following
Table 2, the investigators have evaluated whether habitat exists in the project impact area for
federally-listed species in this county and, if existing, whether habitat is being used by the
species.
Table 2. Federally listed Species Potentially Occurring in Nash County, NC.
Species Status* NC Distribution
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E Eastern NC
Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon PE Tar and Little
Rivers
Tar River Spiny Mussel Elli do Canth da steinstansana) E Sandy Creek
*E= endangered T= threatened; CH= critical habitat determined; P= proposed; SA=status
due to similarity of appearance to another species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpecker nesting colonies usually occur in mature pine (preferably
Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where pines dominate the
surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. 'Suitable habitat consists of pine or
pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older.' Although some
colonies may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred,
this situation is relatively rare.
The description of plant communities above should make it obvious that suitable habitat does
not occur in the project area. As a result, no colonies were observed on the site, and no
impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker will occur as a result of the proposed project.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
The Dwarf Wedge mussel is a bottom dwelling mollusk that requires high quality water,
relatively free of siltation and pollutants. (See discussion in impacts section below).
9
Tar River Spiny Mussel Elli do Canth ria steinstansana)
The Tar River Spiny mussel is a bottom dwelling mollusk that requires high quality water,
relatively free of siltation and pollutants. (See discussion in impacts section below).
State Listed Species:
According to Steve Hull, with the NC Natural Heritage Program, a number of aquatic species
occurring at the project site have been listed by the State of North Carolina in several
categories.
The Tar River Spiny Mussel Elli do Canth ria steinstansana) has been listed as
endangered. Species listed by the State of North Carolina as threatened include the Yellow
Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Atlantic Pigtoe (Susconaia masoni), Yellow Lamp Mussel Lam silis
cariosa , Brook Floater (Alasmidonta undulata), Squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus , and the
Carolina Mudpuppy Necturus lewisii . The first five of these species are mussels, bottom
dwelling filter feeders highly susceptible to siltation and other pollution insults.
The Carolina Mudpuppy is an amphibian endemic to North Carolina. According to Martof et
al. (1980), it inhabits 'main streams and larger tributaries of the Tar and Neuse Rivers from
well above tidewater into the lower Piedmont. It prefers leaf beds in quiet water in winter; only
infrequently is it found in summer.'
The NC Natural Heritage Program considers the Notched Rainbow Mussel ilosa constricta
significantly rare, thus due special concern similar to the considerations given the formally
listed species.
Unique and/or Prime-Ouality Habitat.
Since the proposed project will only impact vegetation in the Roadside community, no unique
and/or prime-quality habitat will be impacted.
Impacts
The proposed project will replace an existing bridge with a slightly wider structure at the same
location. Since the preferred alternative to accommodate traffic is a road closure and an
off-site detour, no cutting or clearing of forest cover will be required by this project. Thus, no
significant adverse impact to forest cover is expected from the proposed project. Any
additional space required by the slightly wider bridge will be accommodated from the existing
Roadside community. This weedy community contains many exotic species, therefore no
significant adverse impact will result from reducing the area occupied by this community.
The proposed project will also have no adverse impact on terrestrial species and should not
appreciably affect their habitat. Since construction activity will occur during daylight hours,
nocturnally active species will still have access to the site without disturbance.
The most serious potential impact is to aquatic species susceptible to water quality
degradation due to siltation or chemical pollution. Freshwater mussel populations are
declining throughout the region due to a number of factors, but chiefly sedimentation and
pollution. As filter feeders, mussels are especially sensitive to increased turbidity resulting
10
from erosion caused by poor soil management practices and unchecked construction runoff.
Once native mussels are eliminated from a particular location, their recovery is exceedingly
slow and usually doubtful.
As noted above, several Federal and State protected freshwater mussel populations occur in
Sandy Creek and, in fact, John Alderman (NCWRC) has reported that they occur at the
existing bridge site. Based on a conversation with Mr. Alderman (6/30/92), the potential exists
for this project to adversely affect Sandy Creek's Tar River Spiny Mussel and other freshwater
mollusk populations unless caution is exercised during the construction process.
The preferred alternative, a road closure with off-site detour, offers a less detrimental option
than an on-site detour, which would necessitate the grading of approaches, a temporary
structure, and would increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation. Closing the road will
contain all construction activity within the existing bridge site. High water quality erosion
control procedures will be specified during construction to avoid and limit any disturbance
within the channel limits of the construction area and act to ensure that erodible materials and
chemical spills are prevented from entering the creek.
However, it must be noted that observed conditions discussed in the Water Resource section
above suggest that non-point source pollutants from upstream may already be having a
deleterious effect on the mussel populations at this site. The best precautions activated
during this project's duration cannot hope to mitigate broader-based negative impacts caused
by careless activities farther upstream in the watershed. Thus the intention, in relation to the
proposed project, must be to avoid and in any case minimize additional insults to the aquatic
system and its protected Inhabitants.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into Waters of the United States.'
Since the subject project is classified as a categorical exclusion and since less than one acre
of wetlands will be impacted by the project, it is likely that this project will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is 'categorically excluded'
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. High water quality
erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction
activities to minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems.
11
Consultation will be initiated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the extant
freshwater mussel populations and avoidance or minimization of impacts on these species
prior to starting the design of the replacement bridge.
Literature Cited
Allison, J. B. 1989. Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina. USDA Soil Cons.
Serv.,Washington, D. C. 127 p.
Belanger, R. P. and R. L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note SE-352.
2p.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rep. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. 100 p. , appendices.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration. The Ronald Press
Company, NY. 410 p.
Martof, B. S., W.M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 p.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.,
Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
acroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and Rec., N. C. Dept.
of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. 325 p.
Society of American Foresters. 1967. Forest Cover Types of North America (Exclusive of
Mexico). Soc. of Amer. For., Washington, DC. 67 p.
Thompson, M. T. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Northem Coastal Plain of North Carolina, 1990.
USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Bul SE-113. 52 p.
Wilson, R.L. 1976.Elementary Forest surveying and Mapping. State Univ. Book Stores, Inc.,
Corvallis. 183p.
12
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The bridge, built
in 1952, and two modern houses, are the only structures located within the APE.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register within the
APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has recommended that an intensive archaeological
survey be completed. This survey will be accomplished prior to ROW acquisition.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition
and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed project
will impact farmland soils and if necessary, to complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating. The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to the SCS, the proposed project will not impact soils defined as prime, statewide
or local important farmland soils. Therefore, this project is exempt from further consideration
under the act.
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air
quality for Nash County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient
13
Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Nash County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. The alignment of the project is
perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
14
?L 1 'a

%?kite Octh 1506
J P
. 1.1 36°10'
?Q 11

N Q
?-
A 1
1• ?
?
N 1506
1004 1401 1
.? 1501 •?
1507 1.4

3 `
1402 Aventon -
1401 1585 1501
O D

Gideon
1403 3

?

_ N
ri
1501
S
munity -? BRIDGE NO. 79 C'
'°

Ch

n

9s Q
k
e
. 1504
150
t
1.3 -
1004 3.0 Q Q 1
1
? .
.
- 1404
1404

-
1500 1509
15

02
0-

~

•
?.
O

G``??
.321
;
;'
43

9
2

_ 1403

•

ocial Union

1310 •6
Swift
d Ch
`
t? :•
1004 ,t? 1420 . 1500
•
1321 N ;• :•

t
D
l
?• .2
1 5 1310
--- 1421
.
e
ight 1 A 117 Hillardston MOUTH CAROLINA D13PAIXTUnNT OF

TU"13POBTATION
DIVMIOIF OF III0UVAT0
PLLI TMG AND nYfVIUONUMfTLI.
eft np."CH
BRIDGE NO. 79
NASH COUNTY
B-2154
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 4
15/92 Q mi. FIG. 1 I
;?
?v?,.i ?? ., : ?Fi i f' Y t-? t.. - 'j_. ?J :??. ? Se ?~IF? ` 3 ?- ?:.:?

BRIDGE NO. 79
NASH COUNTY
B-2154
LOOIUNG NORTH
SIDE VIEW
NASH COUNTY
1?Mp
i
100-YEAR FLOODPLAI

ZONE C
FIGURE 4
STATE "
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES G. MARTIN Wilson, North Carolina
GOVERNOR September 9, 1992
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Memorandum To: Mr. L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
ATTENTION MR. J. A. BISSETTE, JR., PE
PROJECT MANAGER
From: C. A. Gardner, Jr., PE
SUBJECT: Draft Reports:
Wayne County, SR 1920, Bridge No. 298 over Stoney
Creek, F. A. Project BRM-5491(1), State Project
8.2330601, B-2660
Nash County, SR 1403, Bridge No. 79 Over Sandy Creek
F. A. Project BRZ-1403(2), State Project 8.2320401,
B-2154
We have reviewed the draft reports as prepared by DSA Design
Group of Raleigh, NC, for the replacement of Bridge No. 298 on SR 1920
in Wayne County and Bridge No. 79 on SR 1403 in Nash County.
These reports are as discussed with Mr. Keith D. Lewis, PE, and
James H. Hoskins, PE, at their on-site review; therefore, we are in
agreement with the recommendations contained in the draft reports and
concur with the improvements and detours noted.
The one exception that was not mentioned in the draft report for
Bridge No. 79 on SR 1403 is we had recommended the new bridge be
shifted in a northwesterly direction as Sandy Creek is migrating in
that direction and is at present undermining the end bent.
Should you desire additional information, please advise.
JHH/sjt
c /Mr. Keith Lewis, PE
An Ecual Oooortunity/Affirmative Action Emoiover
v'

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
0
JUL 201992
H/GNWOF
q <<'?
YS Q,
9?SE.4RC?`?/
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCOOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCOOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
U' David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L.J. Ward 109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett

Replace Bridge No. 79 on SR 1403 over Sandy Creek,
Nash County, B-2154, ER 92-8528
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed bridge replacement upon
archaeological resources without a map indicating the location of the proposed
project. Please forward a map and a project description as soon as possible so
that we may complete our review.
July 16, 1992
STA7r
?s
North Carolina Department of Cultural !i _SqS * ,_
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 21, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #79, B-2154, Nash County, ER 92-
8528
Dear Mr. Graf:
.` ".,
e Pvision of Archives and History
William S. 99ce, Jr., Director
?.
C`p?C .
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1992, concerning the above project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However,
the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location of
significance of archaeological resources. While the bridge replacement will be at the
existing location, it is likely that the realignment of SR 1404, on the floodplain of Sandy
Creek, may affect as yet unrecorded archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may
be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sinc ely,
David-Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: -,O'C. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A
U.S. Department of Agricuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I /ro .7e cornore-ra by =ecc?l Age c,11 I Oats Of Lino , /,: l ?crouat.
/3
Name Q1 Project Feoeras yancY IMOIYa?
uno use
PART 11 (To at comalerea by SCSJ I uste neDUM nccsevco LAY siw4
Does the site contain prime, unique. statewide or Ioc=1 important farmiand? Yes No Acttrs Imgased
flf no. MAP FPPA does nor aoo/y - ao not compere aad/dort:l pmts of rnis form/. ? "_ Average Firm Sa[e
Major ClODI1/

Major
G iI r ??- Pwwazie band in Gant. Juntaccuon
Aat s: p H Sl ?, Amount Of Fernnavxs.v OetineD in PA
Acres: A ?2 U
'
Nana Or Lana Evat uon System Used tWna Of 6000 5i9e Ao=ff M System Oato Lino ehi6man Hetumest UY S=

PART 111 (T .alternative Site ati
o be comoleted by Federal Agency) Site A site a Sits, C Site 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly ?" -? O_ G,
8. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectl
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by SCSJ Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland I I
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland I
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Caunty Or Local Govt Unit To So Converted 1 o / • I
0. P-ne nsage Of Ferrniand in Gwt. Junsdicnon With Sanr Or Ml;ter RWtrn V&1ua
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Gri=m
• Relative Value Of Farmland To 9@ Converted (SclaOfOto 100Poi=)
I
(
I
I
PART V 1 (ro to completed by Federal Agency)
Sm A?vnent Critene (Thos crftsyrar are s:ntaindln 7 CJeA 4r.7 J(bl mall ntum
Pants I I I
1. Area In Nonurban Use I I I
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use I
3. Percant at Ste Being Farmed I I
4. Prota=on Provided By State And Local Govcrnffmnt
5. Oisunca From Urcan Builtuo Area
0. Oistanca To Urtsan Support Servicas
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Averap I
IL Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availabilitv Of Farm SuooorT Sa viccs
iQ On-Farm InvesQttents
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooort Servic:cs
12 COmostibill With Existing Agricultural U=
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 1co
PART V11 (To be completed by Federal Agerxy)
Rotative Value Of Farmland (From Part Vl 100
Total Site Assessment ( rom Parr VI above ora /oC/
are assrsrrtenr/ 1C0
TOTAL P01 NTS Moral of above ? lines/ 2C0 I
rr? A 6a= sate At.+.W n%XTs user
Site Selected: Oata Of Sclaction Yes ? No ?
For Seaectton:
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
JATEj rT
To.
A REF NO. R ROOM, BLDG.

/PR,om: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

4
'o (
0 CWT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 2, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nash County, Replacement of Bridge No. 79 over
Sandy Creek on SR 1403, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1403(2), State Project No. 8.2320401, TIP No.
B-2154, COE Action ID. 199301400.

On February 22, 1993, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation requested Department of the Army authorization
to discharge fill material within Waters of the U.S. at the
site of the above referenced project. On April 23, 1993,
correspondence from your office was received indicating that
Nationwide Permit 23 authorization could not be confirmed
until an endangered species issue was resolved in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act.
Coordination between NCDOT and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has resulted in a design that NCDOT believes
will not adversely affect the Federally-listed endangered Tar
River spiny mussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The enclosed
May 5, 1993 letter from Mr. Michael Crocker states the
concurrence of the USFWS that the project, as proposed, is
not likely to adversely affect this endangered species.
NCDOT now believes that this issue is fully resolved,
and therefore would like to request that the appropriate
permit authorization be issued. If you have any questions or
PHONE [phone] FAX[phone]

need additional information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
B. 0 n, PE
Assi nt Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C.A. Gardner, Jr., PE, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. J. Bissett, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
TARES v
United States Department of the Interior a.?c
;FIS -AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
....,. .Raleigh Field Office _-
Post Olflee Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 5. 1993 ,s
Mr. L.J. Ward. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways -
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement #79 over Sandy Creek on SR 1403. Nash County;
TIP B-2154; State Project 8.2320401
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to Ms. Janet Shipley's April 26. 1993 memorandum to Mr. Jay
Bissett on the subject bridge replacement. Ms. Shipley requested our
concurrence in support of the conclusion of no adverse impacts to the
Federally-endangered Tar River spiny mussel from the proposed action. -This
report is submitted in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Service has reviewed the project plans as described in the April 26.
1993. The project would use either of two designs: (1) a cored slab on
driven piles. including use of silt curtains during pile driving, and an
expert in mussel identification would be present on-site at the time of pile
driving to look for and relocate any mussels found in the immediate
vicinity; or. (2) if the geotechnical report indicates piles cannot be
driven. a single span with steel I-beams would be used to span the entire
stream, with no in-stream construction necessary.
We concur that the project, as proposed, is not likely to adversely affect
the Federally-listed endangered Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio
steinstansana). Therefore, the requirements of Section 7 of the Act are
fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely yours.
Uichael Crocker
Acting Supervisor
A STATE
E
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 2, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. BOX 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Subject: Nash County, Replacement of Bridge No. 79 over
Sandy Creek on SR 1403, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1403(2), State Project No. 8.2320401, TIP No.
B-2154, COE Action ID. 199301400.
On February 22, 1993, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation requested Department of the Army authorization
to discharge fill material within Waters of the U.S. at the
site of the above referenced project. On April 23, 1993,
correspondence from your office was received indicating that
Nationwide Permit 23 authorization could not be confirmed
until an endangered species issue was resolved in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act.
Coordination between NCDOT and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has resulted in a design that NCDOT believes
will not adversely affect the Federally-listed endangered Tar
River spiny mussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The enclosed
May 5, 1993 letter from Mr. Michael Crocker states the
concurrence of the USFWS that the project, as proposed, is
not likely to adversely affect this endangered species.
NCDOT now believes that this issue is fully resolved,
and therefore would like to request that the appropriate
permit authorization be issued. If you have any questions or
(
PHONE [phone] FAX[phone]

need additional information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at
733-3141.
Sincerely,,
B. 0 ._Q n, PE
Assi nt Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C.A. Gardner, Jr., PE, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. J. Bissett, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
,f J
fST Op
- TAKEc-.--'-? e?
United States Department of the Interior Fax In
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
.._::-.Raleigh Field Office
Post Offee Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 2766-3726
May 5. 199 x -
Mr. L.J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways -
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement #79 over Sandy Creek on SR 1403, Nash County;
TIP B-2154; State Project 8.2320401
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to Ms. Janet Shipley's April 26, 1993 memorandum to Mr. Jay
Bissett on the subject bridge .replacement. Ms. Shipley requested our
concurrence in support of the conclusion of no adverse impacts to the
Federally-endangered Tar River spiny mussel from the proposed action. This
report is submitted in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Service has reviewed the project plans as described in the April 26,
1993. The project would use either of two designs: (1) a cored slab on
driven piles, including use of silt curtains during pile driving, and an
expert in mussel identification would be present on-site at the time of pile
driving to look for and relocate any mussels found in the immediate
vicinity; or, (2) if the geotechnical report indicates piles cannot be
driven, a single span with steel I-beams would be used to span the entire
stream, with no in-stream construction necessary.
We concur that the project, as proposed, is not likely to adversely affect
the Federally-listed endangered Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio
steinstansana). Therefore, the requirements of Section 7 of the Act are
fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely pours,
Michael Crocker
Acting Supervisor