19970865 Ver 1_Complete File_19971008

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
April 8, 1998
Nash County
DWQ Project 970865
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS and Neuse River Buffer
Rules
Mr. Frank Vick
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Frank Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact acres
of wetlands or waters for the purpose of replaceing a bridge on NC 97 over Turkey Creek, as you described in your
application dated March 31, 1998. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this impact is covered
by General Water Quality Certification Number 3114. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 33 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Neuse River buffer
rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233). In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or
CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills
for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the
attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
Banks must be vegetated (if impacted) at 320 stems/acre using sweet gum, red maple, swamp chestnut oak,
willow oak, and ironwood.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
Box 27447, Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask
for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Ps
n Howard, E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Feld Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
970865.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
# •
STA7r
STATE c*r NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. 11.0. I30x 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-52oI E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 24, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer,
MAR 3 1998

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33, TIP B-3006,
NASH COUNTY.
On November 6, 1997, the Army Corps of Engineers issued North Carolina
Department of Transportation a Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Action ID. 199820060) for
the replacement of bridge 31 on NC 97 over Turkey Creek in Nash County. It has
subsequently been determined that a temporary causeway will be needed for construction
of drilled shafts at bent 2.
Two platforms will be required. The first will fill approximately 0.019 acres of
surface waters and be used to drill the new shafts. The second will fill approximately
0.016 acres and will be used to remove the existing bent. Both platforms will consist of
washed, Class II Rip Rap, have 1.5:1 slopes, and be about 4 feet thick. Their estimated
volume is 5200 cubic feet.
Each platform will be in place for approximately three months, starting on or
about May 1. They will not be in place at the same time. The rip rap will then be
removed from the creek to the extent practicable without disturbing the creek bottom. It
is expected some residual will remain.

It is anticipated that the above mentioned activities will be authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering) and
NCDOT is requesting the issuance of the permit. By copy of this letter, it is also
requested that a General Water Quality Certification #3114 be issued by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood at [phone] Extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/hrs
Attachment
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
w ,
CORPS ACTION ID:
DEM ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT B):
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT; Planninq & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Offic Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manaqer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Nash NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Whitley's
Crossroads
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 31 over Turkev Creek on NC 97
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Turkey Creek
RIVER BASIN: Neuse
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[X] NO[ ]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): Action ID 199820060
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 0.035 ac.
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE: N/A
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Placement of temporary fill in channel
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY):
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To remove existing bents and
construction of a new one.
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): Bridqe replacement over stream
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: See CE (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
Document
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See CE Document
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
See CE Document
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Wooded
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A'SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.

OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 199820060 CAInty Nash
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE)
Property Owner: NCDOT, Division of Highways
Address: ATTN: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone No.: 733-7844, ext. 306 (M. Wood)
VERIFICATION
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.): NC 97 crossing Turkey Creek, near
Whitleys Crossroads, in Nash County, North Carolina (TIP B-3006).
Description of Activity: Discharge of till material impacting a total of 0.40 acre (0.07 acre permanent till, 0.3
temporarily cleared) of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, for construction of a replacement bridge on the o
alignment. Please note that this verification does not include any temporary tills for dewatering or access, and t
NCDOT has committed to using turbidity curtains or other appropriate means to restrict movement of sediment
the removal process..
® 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
F1 SL. 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Fj Section 404 and Section 10.
23 Nationwide Permit Number.
Any violation of the conditions of the Nationwide Permit referenced above may subject the permittee to
work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve the undersigned permitter
responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee may need t(
contact appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the C(
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmever at telephone number [phone], extension
Regulatory Project Manager Signature - Tel. No. 919-876-8441, ext.23
Date November 6, 1997 Expiration Date Novem er 6, 1999
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED T(
FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
„ •? • '? i Menton
l9
i ?` cetui?t
I /
f ,e
N
r ? t -
` ,n
• Hope tth
` la
I •
e _
•00, 0.0-0 as a
0-0 •
p 1?
•
1i37
Gold Volley VT\
7. y Crossroads
o F Frazier °
1_ °? ?= C a' b Crossroads
Cross -7
Flood's Stanhope
_Samatia a' --Lit Chapel -? -
1 - - Bissette's -
-- c f ,Q . - - ?j? Crossroads - -'
WhiHey's D a .
Cross-
-_ .¦
' --- roads ` _ -
D, 1 106 1
1 'c h - 3
BRIDGE NO. 31 Studied Detour Route
167 <23''?
n i12° ? i iyC 1i?2
/
2.0
n- (r' Vi911 ,e if North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
2° 25 G? NASH COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 31
a St. ON NC 97 OVER TURKEY CREEK
- % B-3006
C? Stony Hill
I ' 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
n / C8 t 1 J Figure 1
I• =° ..
- n milne 1 n mitre 2.t)
I,
?I
II
?l
,j

rtiN
In
?°ly `4 ,X I "`nJ
1 1(1
I
i
J
V I. /14__.
I rU'%I '13
0 4I I Z
?' I N
t
^I ? 1 I? u
4 I ? r.
4I n I._. ? 5
1 rU %1 '1
a; 1 J
1 ??
xai'^ I ?
--------------
8a,
IL I
tr, I
I ?
LAJII
I? .j T }? ? ?1, W N
I v,N.`? y-I ,YrW I n
o ;22 - 41
1" 4I ?It I QI
1
r?L ?.7 } ru'WL'77?
'00 71 `- l\\ w a
1
\? ? aY
m I N
T ? ollff??J ?
Jlu ?` ? ?P? 4y 4
NW
W
t
O '
" 3w

>- 7

rCJ
I ?
L{)
rc?
7 U rrl V,
1 _
..1
U U >

Ul n w ! V IY r'r
N
l9
U -L
Z(j) rY o-F,v
cl:}
LLj 0

;hut;

x?4
rc^

W
O

IN

11

S
T?
?o
g
?
4
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN
TO: National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island, NC FAX [phone]
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]C
State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creed-moor 2-- FAX [phone]
1. A ION ID: 199$70653
2. AP NC97/e-3006
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 3/30/98
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal): 4/3/98
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10..days from response deadline): 4/13/98
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN: Eric Alsmayer
FAX [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached PCN to the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for review and
comment concerning any likely affect to any threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat within those
agencies, jurisdiction.

TO'd bSsST 866T'LZ•i0
6Moiuin@38 HE131UN WOMB

or
4011ISSLEL
V M.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 24, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
6
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A NATIONWIDE PE IT 23 TO EPLACE
BRIDGE NO. 31 ON NC 96 OVER TURKEY CREEK IP NO. B-3006.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion
Classification Form and the Natural Resources Technical 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 December 13, 1996, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing a copy of the CE document and
Natural Resources Technical Report to the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
A preconstruction survey for the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) was
performed by Mr. Tim Savidge of the NCDOT and Mr. John Alderman of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission on September 5, 1997. Dwarf-wedge mussels
were not found at the bridge site. The full survey report is attached.
9
nssl Vt.
9`0865
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, Planning & Environmental

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201
September 09, 1997
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
Attention: John Williams, P.E., Project Manager
From: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Subject: Preconstruction survey for the Dwarf-wedge mussel at Bridge No.
31 over Turkey Creek on NC 97; Nash County; TIP No. B-3006.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 31 over Turkey Creek
in the existing location. The federally Endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) is known to occur in Turkey Creek. One of several environmental
commitments made by NCDOT as part of the Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
consultation process was to conduct a final preconstruction survey for the dwarf-wedge
mussel in the immediate project footprint.
A survey was conducted using scuba and tactile survey at the bridge site on
September 05, 1997 by Tim Savidge (NCDOT) and John Alderman (NC Wildlife
Resources Commission). Water depth averaged around 4 feet and the visibility was very
poor. A large amount of debris (concrete, glass, metal etc.) was accumulated around the
bridge site. The substrate consisted mostly of cobble and debris. Mussels were not found
at the bridge site, however, elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.) were found easily upstream of
the bridge. No dwarf-wedge mussels were found in the project footprint.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.. Environmental Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Michael Wood, Permit Specialist
File: B-3006
File: Aquatic Issues
tic"
i TIP Project No. B-3006
State Project No. 8.1321501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-97(1)
A. Project Description :
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 31 on NC 96 over Turkey Creek
in Nash County. The bridge will be replaced with a 30-meter (100-foot) long
bridge at the existing location. The new bridge will have a 9.6-meter
(32-foot) clear deck width. This will provide a two lane 7.2-meter (24-foot)
travelway and a 1.2-meter (4-foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be detoured along SR 1141, SR 1158, and NC 231 during
construction (see Figure 1). Presently SR 1141 and SR 1158 have a
pavement width of approximately 5.5 meters (18 feet). Approximately
0.3 meters (1-foot) of pavement width will be added along each side to bring
the total pavement width to 6.0 meters (20 feet). NC 231 currently has
6.0 meters (20 feet) of pavement width. All three routes will be patched and
resurfaced prior to detouring traffic onto them.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 31 has a sufficiency rating of 48.5 out of 100. The structure is a
two lane bridge with 6.0 meters (20 feet) of bridge roadway width which is
below the standard for modern bridges. For these reasons, Bridge No. 31
needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Tyne I Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
2

street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
2. High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed and properly
maintained throughout project construction.
All effort will be made to design the new bridge so that drainage directly off the bridge
deck into the stream will be minimized.
4. The existing bridge will be dismantled from the top down.
5. Pilings from the existing bridge will be cut off at the streambed or natural ground
elevation. Turbidity curtains or other appropriate means will be used to restrict the
movement of any sediment disturbed during this process.
3
6. A final survey for the Dwarf wedge mussel will be conducted before construction begins.
The NC WRC will be notified of the survey results. If the surveyor discovers endangered
mussels, NCDOT (as an agent of the Federal Highway Administration) will initiate
formal consultation proceedings.
7. Ms. Candice Martino of USFWS (919-856-4520), Mr. Tim Savidge of NCDOT Planning
and Environmental Branch (919-733-3141), Mr. David Cox ofNCWRC (919-528-9886),
and Mr. John Alderman of NCWRC (919-542-5331) will be invited by the Resident
Engineer to attend a pre-construction meeting.
8. The State Historic Preservation Office has requested that if possible, the bridge plates be
preserved for a museum display they are organizing. If the plates can be retrieved in one
piece, they should be forwarded to John Williams of NCDOT's Planning &
Environmental Branch.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 800,000
Right of Way $ 26,000
Total $ 826,000
Estimated Traffic: Current - 2000 vpd, Year 2020 - 3200 vpd
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.6-meter (12-foot) paved lanes
Shoulders - 3.3 meters (11 feet) wide grassed shoulder tapering to
2.4 meters (8 feet) where guardrail is not required.
Design Speed: 100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification: Rural Collector
Division Office Comments: The division supports the proposed action.
4

E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists Dmly of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any -- -
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? 11
X
i
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely -- -
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding _ - -l
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters i X
(HQW)? _
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
5
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel --
changes? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned -
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land -
use of any adjacent property? X
6

I
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic -
volumes? X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing -
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or --- - -
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
J
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for -
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
7
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to question 2 on page 4 - Endangered Species
Turkey Creek, in the project area, is suitable habitat for the Dwarf wedge mussel.
Special project commitments and coordination with the USFWS have resulted in a
determination that this project is not likely to adversely affect the Dwarf wedge mussel. [See
attached memo from USFWS]
Presently, there is a rift form of DEHNR's Protection Plan for the Dwarf Wedge
Mussel in Turkey and Moccasin Creeks. This plan has never been authorized. However,
NCDOT has advised DEHNR of the proposed project and DEHNR agrees that the proposed
cored slab bridge minimizes overall risk to the Dwarf wedge mussel. (See attached letter
from DEHNR)
8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3006
State Project No. 8.1321501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-97(1)
PrQject Description :
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 31 on NC 96 over Turkey Creek
in Nash County. The bridge will be replaced with a 30-meter (100-foot) long
bridge at the existing location. The new bridge will have a 9.6-meter
(32-foot) clear deck width. This will provide a two lane 7.2-meter (24-foot)
travelway and a 1.2-meter (4-foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be detoured along SR 1141, SR 1158, and NC 231 during
construction (see Figure 1). Presently SR 1141 and SR 1158 have a
pavement width of approximately 5.5 meters (18 feet). Approximately
0.3 meters (1-foot) of pavement width will be added along each side to bring
the total pavement width to 6.0 meters (20 feet). NC 231 currently has
6.0 meters (20 feet) of pavement width. All three routes will be patched and
resurfaced prior to detouring traffic onto them.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: TYPE II (B)
Approved:

Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
.9-1 C) -cl 7

Date Proje t Planning Unit Head

4
Date PO;ect anning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
a 11q 7 C-
Date j
vision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
`•r•••Q` _SJ/Oy°.? li
<a
.
SEAL -
0 2255 2
6 F ', c
9
J
i
t Aventon
/3
Castalu Oold
?I Red Oak
i/ 10 '' r V
'Hove / as+ll 7
0000.• ?I 7 r 730
a.
64
?•
-•? ?4sal aia •
0000 •
`•
- 0
•
1137 2 Gold Valley
71 - y Crossroads)
L3
'O t Frazier o
Crossroads
7 -7 1141,
1=C 115 195= S I??
y Cross _7 u, T -
G y _
Flood's Stanhope
°?c o
?Samario e 1 6 Bisseffe's Chapel o,
- - ' E Q - ¦. - - ??' ? Crossroads / _ \ \
Gl j • _ - ?T' •A y, Whitley's
L Cross- - 7
g \ > ° roads
=Li 1 163 - 1 62 i 68 i ' 77:"Kr,
a?
n
A 11C6 ?
1121
6c J
T
BRIDGE N0.31 r Studied Detour Route -
/ _ oa
?I\, 167 231,,
2. 0 1 1 2S C 1132
v rn s
f" n, Vill A.. North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
F Q
7C'
Planning & Environmental Branch
o 1126
? n 11215 • 126' 09 NASH COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 31
73 a . 5 e _ S St. ON NC 97 OVER TURKEY CREEK
^? r B-3006
1C9 Stony Hill
.. ?8 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
I I• , 20 { /' t_ Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
ENT OF Thy/ym
A_
N O
X
gfgocH 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 3, 1997
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
ATTN: Mr. Johns Williams, Project Manager
GE/
MAR 0 g 1991
RE: Proposed Replacement of Bridge #31 Over Turkey Creek in Nash County;
TIP Project #B-3006
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Service) has reviewed your February 12, 1997
letter regarding the above-referenced project in Nash County in North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Based on the North Carolina Department of Transportation's agreement to
implement the proposed environmental commitments, the Service concurs
that this project is not likely to adversely affect the Federally-
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) or any Federally-
listed endangered and threatened species or their formally designated
critical habitat.
The Service would like to point out that in order for turbidity curtains
to be used effectively, they must be weighted at the bottom.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by
the identified action.
Thank you for your cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
ield Super isor
John M. He ter
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:3-3-97/919-856-4520:WP51:NCDOT:Brd#31NH.NE
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, •
Health and Natural Resources / •
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Linda Bray Rimer, Assistant Secretary for Environment Protection ED F= Fl'
January 7, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hefner, US Fish & Wildlife Set-vice, Raleigh Office
FROM: Linda B. Rint ?
SUBJECT: Section 7 consultation with NCDOT for replacement of bridge
#31 on NC 96 over Turkey Creek in Nash county
John Williams of the Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT, has contacted the
administrative staff of our department concerning the mode of replacement for bridge #31 over
Turkey Creek. It is our understanding that John Alderman of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission has recommended the use of cored slab type construction to minimize
potential sedimentation at the site.
Based on conversations with the staff of the Natural Heritage Program and the water quality
certification unit, the department supports Mr. Alderman's recommendations.
While this type of construction does not lend itself to a closed drainage system, our water
quality staff have requested that every effort be made to minimize drainage directly into the
stream channel under normal flow conditions. It may be possible to close those weep holes
directly over the nonnal channel without sacrificing vehicle safety.
Thank you for your efforts on this project.
cc. Frank Vick, NCDOT
John Alderman, WRC
John Dorney, DWQ
David Foster, DEHNR
P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
STT. TE, W?
- 5111
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 10, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #31 on NC 97 over Turkey
Creek, Nash County, B-3006, ER 96-9023
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
CE!
,11
c° JUL 1 1996
' ???Ji dtvl`1't?
On July 9, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the only structure over fifty years of
age within the project area is Bridge #31, which was built in 1926. We
recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the bridge for
National Register eligibility and report the findings to us. No further historic
architectural survey is recommended for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
01
13
Nicholas L. Graf
7/10/96, Page 2
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.
Sipcerely,
oAok
. d , r ook
David B
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

t
Federal Aid r"r • °1'1 t . TIP u, t" 3aoL
t?Ayt-4
County
CONCURRENCE FORIM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description IzEPtYAz*- 6P10Crt3 t`J• • °:?I of t NC.9-7 ^SP- Tua.u.E 4ff-F-tL
On 1Je`/ l4 1`116 rearescntativcs of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Othcr
reviewed the subject project at
A scooing meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph rc-Acw sessior/consultation
Othcr
All parties present agreed
there arc no;prop,:rtics over fim• years old %-,ithin the project's arca of potential cnccts.
? there arc no propcrtics less than fi,?y years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
? there arc properties over ii'ty vicars old (list attached) %%ithin the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each proocrty, properties
identified as UR.tDUE, tJo: 171 AWP *tA-v%1Je. 1 arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National. Rezistcr-listed properties A%ithin the project's arca of potential effects.
Siencd:
Rcpres&4ti.il-`NCDOT .
/l Iq '/6
Date
%vrj(/for the Division Administmtor, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative,

Statc V toric Prescn•ation Oiccr Dar
11'a survey report is prepared, a tin3l cnoy oMis Conn and the attached list will be included.
•? i.w Ni
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
17 February 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
FROM: Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 31 on NC 97 over Turkey
Creek; Nash County; TIP No. B-3006, State Project
No. 8.1321501; Federal Aid No. BRSTP-97(1).
ATTENTION: John Williams, Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories
and descriptions of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along
with analyses of probable impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of
project construction. Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided, with respect to regulatory concerns which must be
considered. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report
copied onto disk format.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3006

Replacement of Bridge No. 31 on NC 97
over Turkey Creek
Nash County
TIP NO. B-3006
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1321501
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-97(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-3006
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
19 February 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................................1
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS .................................................. ...............................................2
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR .............................. ...............................................3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................... ...............................................3
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................... ...............................................3
2.2 SOILS ....................................................................................... ...............................................3
1.3 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................. ...............................................4
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .................. ...............................................4
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................... ............................................... 4
2.3.3 Water Quality .................................................................. ............................................... 5
2.3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ......................................... ...............................................
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................. ...............................................7
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................ ............................................... 7
3. 1.1 Disturbed Roadside Community .................................... ............................................... 7
3.1.2 Loblolly Thicket .............................................................. ............................................... 8
3.1.3 Floodplain Alluvial Forest .............................................. ............................................... 8
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .............................................................. ...............................................8
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................ ............................................... 9
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ............................... ............................................... 9
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities ................................... ............................................. 10
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................... .............................................11
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ................................................. ............................................. 11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .......... ............................................. 11
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................... ............................................. 11
4.1.3 Permits ............................................................................ ............................................. 12
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ............................. ............................................. 13
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................. ............................................. 14
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .......................................... ............................................. 14
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species . ............................................. 17
5.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................19
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The
purpose of this document is to inventory and describe the natural resources which
occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of
probable impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with
recommendations for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern which may
affect the current alignment and necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning
stages of the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the
most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document are
relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary project boundaries and
design. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations
may be necessary.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project calls for the replacement of bridge no. 31 on NC 97
over Turkey Creek (Figure 1) in Nash County. The existing structure will be
replaced on site with traffic detoured on secondary roads during construction.
The project length is 152 m (500 ft). The existing right-of-way is 18 m (60 ft) and
the proposed right-of-way is 24 m (80 ft).
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources
utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Middlesex)
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200)
• Soil Conservation Service (SCS), currently called Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey of Nash County, North Carolina
(1989).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity
Base Map of Nash County (1995)
r f Arfnlon
/ t
C/fU i• Cold
r pfd Ofk 1
_ to r -. L1 d
r
? • E
r?r' `• '
age
l+ ,

1
71A., 74?---T
N21
1137 581 \
2 Gold Valley (TN
/ `1 171 p ` ' Y Crossroads
o•
?/• , L 11I=71 27 d3
1 1 1 . - -?
A ?- > 3 Frazier a
153 1155 C 1 1 d' b Crossroads
I \ 7 T 1145 X, -? 14C
r`. C g 11=a ° 1951
15-
1 152 Q '1952
Cross Q 1160 _ 1 • 1 137 . C , 1.2
l'. E y Flood's Stanhope
io 1' `' V I d 1 1 30 o Chapel 0 195c 1 c
1151 ¦amaria - Bissette s -- --- - - - -
--- i_c 1 1= ,Q -• i T- - -. - ?- • - - - 97 Crossroads
Whrt1?s
? 0 9 x1138
Cross- ` r
roads 1128 '1 17711m I c0 1 163 1 162 s= 1 t 6a }•--? • 2
- 113'• ', \ 137 n -
a \ - v d y c I
1-16d •? fl F \ /. 11CE' •> 113°j ? loci
112d
l 6 1.0 13d 19=2 \0
1129 a'` 8 7
1131 ` 11 CE l l , 3 A
Studied Detour Route -?--?- ?- '
BRIDGE NO. 31 ?c
1167 31 1 / 1' -
112° 130 1132
2 0 ` ( J h Bror
G?r l d R 1 1 7 7 1 1.
i 127 112c 1:09
/
1 1 ? 1'c5 11251
-? S }
11i2 o •-• 8 '
'25~ l r n X109 'I! Stony H(II
T,\ i ca
North Carolina Department Of
,p Transportation
f' Planning S Environmental Branch
r NASH COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 31
ON NC 97 OVER TURKEY CREEK
B-3006
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
i 1 ----4 Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
2
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in
the study area was obtained from the FWS list of protected and candidate species
(23 August 1996) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented
sightings of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural
areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT Environmental Biologist Tim Savidge on 22 November 1996. Water
resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and described.
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal
taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980),
and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial
photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing
vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative
communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted
using a hand held dip net; tactile searches for benthic organisms were
administered as well. Organisms captured during these searches were identified
and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands
in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were
classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used
concerning the limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes
the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the
project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0 km (0.6
mi) on all sides of the project area, and "project region" denotes an area
equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map,
i.e. 163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi).
3
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator Timothy W. Savidge
Education: BS Biology, Guilford College
Experience: NEPA documentation, terrestrial and aquatic ecology,
freshwater mussel biology, protected species surveys, section
7 consultation, wetland delineation
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed
below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site
topography significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction,
along with other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
Water resources within the project area present important management limitations
due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction
activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting
downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic
communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Nash County lies on the physiographic boundary between the Coastal
Plain and the Piedmont of North Carolina. The proposed project is located in the
southwestern portion of the county (Figure 2). The topography of Nash County is
characteristic of the Piedmont in the west and northwest of the county and the
Coastal Plain in the northeast and southeast of the county with the area between
exhibiting characteristics of both. Topography in the vicinity of the project is well
dissected with narrow ridges and flood plains and long slopes that are variably
steep. The elevation in the study area is approximately 61 m (200 ft) above mean
sea level. Nash County is underlain by soft, weathered Carolina slate or granite
saprolite.
The economy in Nash County is centered around agriculture. These
activities account for the majority of land use in the county.
2.2 SOILS
Soils located in the project area are of the Wehadkee loam, frequently
flooded (Wh) map unit. This map unit is listed as a hydric soil. It is poorly
V
I - _ Mill
pond
_ :` _ ram I":Cen :• cem.
' ?, ?• .212 - i /
J:/ _
77-
cam
Cem
Middlemi
Snip T
210
'
:L
r 1 _ ! y NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
If 121 J ;? TRANSPORTATION
f (/ 01VI31ON OF HIOHWAY3
'` 1 ' '• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH r
op"
_ I l' • ' ` Nash County
Replace Bridge No. 31 on NC 97
` ~- • ••Cem 1 ?• Over Turkey Creek
B-3006
--
- _.-? __._ ••••-•""? SCALE 1:24000 FIGURE2
4
drained and nearly level and found on low flood plains along most of the streams
in the county. This soil has very slow surface water runoff and moderate
permeability, it is susceptible to flooding and ponding after rain events.
Wehadkee loam presents a slight erosion hazard'.
' describes the potential for future erosion, inherent in the soil itself, in
inadequately protected areas. Based on tons of soil lost/acre/year.
1.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely
to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the
physical characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the
water resources, along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems.
Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Water resources located within the study area are located in the
Contentnea Creek subbasin (030407) of the Neuse River Drainage Basin. NC 97
crosses one perennial stream (Turkey Creek). The proposed action will not result
in the construction of any new stream crossings, but will require the replacement
of the existing crossing. Turkey Creek originates approximately 11 km (7 mi)
north of NC 97 and flows south to its confluence with Contentnea Creek in Wilson
County. The stream course is approximately 23 m (75 ft) wide and of
undetermined depth. The natural substrate was undetectable at the time of the
field survey but is presumed to be composed of sand and gravel. Stream banks
are poorly defined and forested. The waterway at the site is slow moving and
shows evidence of moderate staining from tannin leached from decomposing
leaves.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Turkey
Creek [DEM Index No. 27-86-3-(1)] is classified as "C NSW" (5/1/88). Class C
waters are defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters)
refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
5
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-1 or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of project study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the
project area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters
from both point sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are made based on published resource information and existing
general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of
water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide
habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
Sedimentation and runoff from agricultural activities are likely to be the
primary sources of water quality degradation to the water resources located in the
project vicinity. Runoff from agricultural activities can include aquatic nutrients,
herbicides, pesticides, and animal waste. Agricultural activities include the
farming and livestock production. Nonpoint source pollution from these activities
is difficult to measure but is considered to be a major source of pollution in rural
areas.
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which
addresses long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water
quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macro invertebrates
organisms, which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are
evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera] (EPT), samples are also assigned a "biotic index"
(bioclassification) that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each
collection. The bioclassification and EPT values primarily reflect the effects of
chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical
pollutants as sediment. No BMAN data is available for Turkey Creek.
6
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
administered by the DWQ. All dischargers are required to register for a permit.
The DWQ NPDES report lists no permitted dischargers into Turkey Creek in the
project vicinity.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action which affects water quality can have an adverse affect on aquatic
organisms. Although these actions may be temporary during the construction
phase of the project, environmental impacts from these processes may be long
term or irreversible. Sources of aquatic impacts associated with project
construction include: the removal and construction of spanning structures,
streambank vegetation removal, grading, and pavement installation.
The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from
project construction:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Removal of streambank vegetation results in an increase in nonpoint source
nutrient loading from these exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction,
and toxic spills.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
should be enforced during the construction phase of the project
7
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based
on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to
the same organism refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the
site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (').
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project
area: Disturbed Roadside Community, Loblolly Thicket, and Flood Plain Alluvial
Forest. Some areas may contain characteristics of more than one community.
3.1.1 Disturbed Roadside Community
The disturbed roadside community occurs on the approaches to the
existing bridge with a thicket of rose (Rosa multif/ora) found on the southeast
slope. Common species found in this community are: Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon), fescue (Festuca sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
nightshade (Solarium carolinense), and glechoma (Glechoma hederacea).
This community provides foraging opportunities for permanent residents of
other communities in the project vicinity. Foraging opportunities exist for species
which feed on seeds, insects, and carrion. Larger predators which commonly
feed on small animals will also find foraging opportunities along roadside
shoulders. Vertebrate species known to utilize habitats provided by this
community include: gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis)", American crow (Corvus brachyrhychos)", turkey vulture (Cathartes
aura)", northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)', northern short-tailed shrew
(Blarina brevicuda), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), eastern kingbird
(Tyrannus tyrannus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivacaus), and American toad (Bufo
americanus). Invertebrates commonly found utilizing roadside habitats include:
silver spotted skipper (Epargyreus clarus), red-banded hairstreak (Calycopis
8
cecrops), and black swallowtail butterfly (Papilio polyxenes), also present are
various grasshoppers (Orthoptera), flies (Diptera), moths (Lepidoptera), beetles
(Coleoptera), bees (Hymenoptera), and garden spider (Argiope aurantia).
3.1.2 Loblolly Thicket
The loblolly thicket community is located on the eastern approach to the
existing structure and is less frequently disturbed than the roadside community.
Saplings of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
are dominant throughout this community. This community offers better cover
opportunities for the fauna found in the study area, still, species utilizing this
community are likely to be similar to those found in the adjacent committees.
3.1.3 Floodplain Alluvial Forest
This community is located on the north and south sides of the existing
bridge and extends beyond the right-of-way along the banks of Turkey Creek.
The canopy is composed of: sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple
(Acer rubrum), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), willow oak (Q. phellos),
and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub and herb layer in this community
is composed of: poison ivy, American holly (Ilex opaca), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), green brier (Smilax rotundifolia), river oats (Chasmathium latifolia),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and ironweed (Veronia sp. ).
Habitats found within this community support a highly diverse association
of fauna. Raptors such as red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and barred owl
(Strix varia) roost in the canopy and hunt in the adjacent communities. Northern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), and various mice (Peromyscus
spp.) can been heard searching in the leaf litter for worms and insect larvae.
Avian species such as white throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)" and tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor)" are frequent visitors in the dense understory. Larger
vertebrates such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)" and many of the
species that forage in the disturbed community seek shelter in this and other
forested communities.
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the
physical characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource.
Terrestrial communities adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic
community composition and structure.
9
The aquatic community of Turkey Creek is typical of that found in slow
moving coastal plain streams. Birds such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
alycon)* and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) can be observed hunting along
the channel for juvenile fish and minnows. Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)
and water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus)* are found basking on logs and
exposed mudflats during warmer months. The piscine component of this
community provides a prey base for many of the creatures found in this and
surrounding communities. Fish likely to occur in habitats found in Turkey Creek
are: darters (Etheostoma spp.), shiners (Notropis spp.), redfin pickerel (Esox
americanus), and chain pickerel (E. Niger). The following species of mussels are
known to occur in the Turkey Creek Proposed Critical Habitat (PCH): triangle
floater (Alasmidonta undulata), dwarf wedge mussel (A. Heterodon), Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconia masons), and squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus). Freshwater
mussels (Elliptio spp.)* were observed in the study area during the cursory site
visit and serve as food for a wide array of vertebrate predators.
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due
to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of
community area. Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities,
resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities
reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Estimated impacts are derived based on the project length 152 m (500 ft), and the
entire proposed right-of-way width of 24 m (80 ft). However, project construction
often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
10
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Disturbed Roadside Community 0.05 (0.12)
Loblolly Thicket <0.01 (<0.01)
Floodplain Alluvial Forest 0.04 (0.1)
Total Impacts 0.09 (0.23)
The projected loss of habitat resulting from project construction will have a
minimal impact on populations of native fauna and flora. Although the impacted
natural communities are valuable as wildlife habitat, only a small area of the
forested community will be disturbed. Construction will primarily impact the
disturbed community which is already highly altered from its natural state. Plants
and animals found in this community are generally common throughout North
Carolina and are well adapted to persisting in disturbed areas. Animals
temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas of
suitable habitat following project completion. Narrow zones along the edge of the
forested community may be impacted by project construction, which would reduce
the amount of suitable habitat available for interior species and increase
opportunities for edge species. If forested tracts become too small in area,
interior species will not repopulate.
Indirect effects on wildlife populations are anticipated to be minor. While,
mortality among migratory species can be expected from project construction,
these effects are anticipated to be minor, since the existing roadway already
serves as an effective barrier against wildlife migration.
In order to minimize impacts to natural communities in the project vicinity it
is recommended the bridge be replaced so as to avoid impacts to the forested
community to the extent possible and that all cleared areas along roadways and
embankments be revegetated immediately following project completion.
3.3.2-'Impacts to Aquatic Communities
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic
communities will occur from increased sedimentation, increased light penetration
and loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms and filter feeders,
inhibiting their ability to feed and obtain oxygen. Increased sediment loads and
suspended particulates in the water column can lead to the smothering of fish
eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of
dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light
penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may also increase water
temperatures.
11
In order to minimize impacts to aqautic communities in the project area it is
recommended that instream activities be kept at a minimum.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two
significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected
species. These issues retain particular significance because of federal and state
mandates which regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the
construction. impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to
project
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
(CRF) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into
surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or
recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all
or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Extensive wetlands are located adjacent to
the study area to the north and south of the existing bridge. Fringes of this
alluvial wetland are located within the existing right-of-way for the proposed
project. These wetlands are part of the Floodplain Alluvial Forest Community and
are unlikely to be impacted by project construction. Soils are described as having
a thick organic layer and low chroma values [ 0-4 in. 2.5Y 4/1, 4-16 in. 2.5Y 7/1 ].
Hydrologic indicators are: water stained leaves, drainage patterns, surface
saturation, and sediment deposits.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Highway construction impacts can severely affect the functions that
wetlands perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow
regimes by intercepting and storing storm runoff which ultimately reduces the
12
danger of flooding in surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have been
documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from
water that flows across them. The presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways
can act as filters to runoff pollutants and toxins.
The proposed project may impact approximately 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) of
jurisdictional wetlands. Anticipated wetland impacts were determined using the
entire proposed ROW width of 24 m (80 ft). Project construction generally does
not require the entire right-of-way width, therefore, actual wetland impacts may be
considerably less. These impact estimates include only wetland areas directly
disturbed by construction within the ROW, additional wetland areas might be
indirectly affected due to changes in water levels and siltation from construction
activities. In order to minimize/avoid impacts to wetlands in the project area best
management practices should be adhered to.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from
the proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water
quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that
agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) 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 have a significant effect
on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency' or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
13
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The
issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section
404 permit.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of he United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope
and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology
and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction to median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions
and Values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
14
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
development. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 23 August 1996, the FWS lists three
federally protected species for Nash County (Table 2). A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species along with a
conclusions regarding potential project impacts follows Table 8.
Table 2: Federally Protected Species for Nash County.
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel Endangered
Elliptio steinstansana tar spiny mussel Endangered
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" (a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada
to the Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in
portions of the Neuse and Tar River Basins.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 cm to
3.8 cm in length. It's shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half
15 `
and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark
brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Successful reproduction is dependent on the attachment of larval mussels
to a host fish. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to
survive.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The proposed project is located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) upstream of the
proposed critical habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel and individuals are known to
occur in Turkey Creek. A Section 7 consultation for he proposed project was held
on 17 January 1997 in order to determine the possible affect of the proposed
project on the dwarf wedge mussel. Commitments needed to avoid adverse
impacts to this species are detailed in the 12 February 1997 Section 7 Biological
Conclusion Memo.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 29 July 1985
The Tar river spiny mussel is currently found only in the Tar River drainage
basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash County. Existing
populations occur in Swift Creek and the Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash
counties.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated,
circumneutral pH water. The bottom is composed of uncompacted gravel and
coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a
species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar river spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60 millimeters.
Short spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one
valve and symmetrical to the other valve, others have two rows of spines on each
valve. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior). Young
specimens have an orange-brown peristracum with greenish rays and adults are
darker with inconspicuous rays. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as
many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly
ventrally.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
This species of mussel is known only from the Tar-Pamlico Drainage Basin.
The proposed project lies within the Neuse River Basin and therefore, does not
16
provide suitable habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel. No impacts to this species
will result from construction of the proposed project.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to
southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in
coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills
and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely
black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male.
The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a
large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine (Pines palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand
must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively
in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres).
This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in
trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are
located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average
9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the tree. The large incrustation of sap is believed to
be used as a defense by the RCW against possible predators. A clan of
woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from
previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38
days later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan
share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects
but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Forested communities potentially impacted by project construction do not
contain a predominance of mature pine trees that would support suitable foraging
17
or nesting habitat for the RCW. A search of the NHP database of rare species
and unique habitats showed no records of the RCW in the study area. Therefore,
no effect to this species will result from construction of the proposed project.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are seven federal species of concern (FSC) listed by the FWS for
Nash County (Table 5). Federal species of concern are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to
change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) are defined as a species which is under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species
Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if
afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area
for each species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the
protection status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal candidate and N.C. protected species for Nash County.
Ellipfio lanceolafa yellow lance T Yes
Fusconia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T Yes
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T Yes
Lasmigona subviridis green floater E Yes
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly --- Yes
No
Lilium irdollae sandhills bog lilly ---
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum Carolina least trillium E No
NOTE: NC Status
• "E" (Endangered) any native or once-native species whose continued
existence is determined to be in jeopardy or any species determined to be an
'endangered species' pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "T" (Threatened) any native or once-native species which is likely to become
an endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
Y

18
The Atlantic pigtoe and green floater are known to occur in Turkey Creek.
Surveys for federal candidate species were not conducted during the site visit, nor
were any of these species observed.
19
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds (6th
ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
plant species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation
manual. Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A distribution survey of
North Carolina mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural
History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995.
animal species of North Carolina
Program.
Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
North Carolina Natural Heritage
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians
and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of
North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina
streams: benthic macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in
water quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards for North
Carolina river basins. Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources.

NCWRC. 1990. Endangered wildlife of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
20
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's endangered,
threatened and candidate plant species. Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural
communities of North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
SCS. 1989. Soil survey of Nash County, North Carolina. US Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. North
Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States., U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
4011SSLIEP.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RAITIGI 1. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 31 on NC 97 in
Nash County over Turkey Creek, B-3006
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for July 9, 1996 at 9:00 am in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 235.
JW/pl r 03vy0 1
Attachment- z7-W-3-0
I <a ?, WWIa,-s
„off c ?s

7
YI"J

/V.S 1,J
7 ??? V?

BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
B-3006
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DATE: 5-22-96
DIVISION 4
COUNTY Nash
ROUTE NC 96
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 31 on NC 96 over Turkey Creek in
Nash County.
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 16.2 METERS; WIDTH 7 METERS
STRUCTURE: 53 FEET 23 FEET
TRAFFIC: 1996: 2000 5% Dual, 4% TTST, 15% DHV, 65% DIR
2020: 3200
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 225,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 245,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Major Collector

c Q l
/ 37
I tr
i
G
2 Gold Valley
' 71 Crossroads -?

?
-1 0 ?

153 ?

\ Frazier o

Crossroads
1 O ?Q G:
Imo/ -7 2 14011 C
1i 1951
G? S ?
1 152 59 19
Cross 1 ? ; T 2
r Flood's Stanhope
c 1p 5 i jSarnoria _ 41 136 ° Bissette's Chapel L ?5c 1 c
Crossroads
G?% - - •A _ yj Whitley's
? - ^ \ ? ? .\?•- -?''.,g 9 1138 ? ?
' 9 \ ; _+; '? • P Cross-
150 163 -- 1162 ?? 1168 ?l'77r, 2 1.
S 137 1
113°!10' 0
?6_ A \ 110E ?
.6 , s 34 19t2
1129
'.'
\ a _ _ 1 7 p ?? \
1 06 a a
2 a
`' ? ? BRIDGE NO. 31 ?' 1 ? ? 1 ? G
T? 1 167 <23 \1, /
2.0 112° 130 1132
to ror
n' • Villa
? 1 12E 1 12,'
1 125 i1G6?
1 173 a• 3 8 S C" St.
- 1 ' "? n 0Q\ I7 Stony 'Hill 1 C
I I, , 2fl 2 2 /'
n -T
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
F` Planning & Environmental Branch
NASH COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 31 ON NC 96
OVER TURKEY CREEK
B-3006
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
S I 1 Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
co k,
U ,(-LIIDDLESEX UADRF
CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINI
AL RESOURCES 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPC
VELOPMENT SW/4 SPRING HOPE Is QUADRA
-AROLINA - '5a 'S°
v 1C 2 250 003 FEE? 5'
CC ,),L, V4 AO.D::' _ l
/ Cem
Cem _
Alurmys
Millpond • - Y j'
CND
- r= Cen
Cem - l • - I, Cem.
co-
. ?? • SaI2;81'ii.. • - 26, -? r ;1'i 1 . Cem
Cem ?,--
Ce.. ev.
I 3: `r Pri1i?19 _
_ I
ems. -
Cem
Middlese>: _ ly
Lr nding ' 24 cn
Strip Cerr,
/
-279
230
230
em - c ?!/ r
J
M SfATF,?
40115SL?? ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Govi:RN R P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality
FROM:
SUBJECT
John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
RECEIVED
AUG u 7 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL 80IF.N!'ES
NC 97, Nash County, Replacement of Bridge No. 31
over Turkey Creek, State Project 8.1321501,
F. A. Project BRSTP-97(1), B-3006
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Highway Building on
July 09, 1996.
The following people were in attendance:
Betty C. Yancey Right of Way
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Ray Moore Structure Design
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preseveration Office (SHPO)
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Ellis Powell Structure Design
John Williams Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters are Class C and requested Normal Soil
and Erosion Control Measures. If a temporary alignment is used, the landscape will be
restored to the original contours and revegetated with native tree species. He requested
that hydraulics study using no weep holes on the bridge.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended replacing the bridge in place with a new
bridge 30 meters (100 feet) long at approximately the same elevation. If a temporary
bridge for traffic maintenance is considered it would be approximately 18 meters (60 feet)
long with an elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) below the elevation of the existing
bridge.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO requests that the bridge be evaluated for National Register
eligiblity. No other architectural or archaeological surveys are required.
David Cox of Wildlife Resource Commission called to state that there may be
dwarf wedge mussels in the area. Therefore, High Quality Waters Soil & Erosion
Control will be required. An informal Section 7 Consultation will be required.
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRFIARY
N
The Division 4 Office wrote in comments recommending that the bridge be
replaced in place and that traffic be detoured along NC 231, SR 1158, and SR 1141. The
Divsion also states that these roads need to be patched and paved with 2 inches of I-2
prior to placing the detoured traffic on them.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
Alternative 1 - Replace the existing bridge with a bridge on the existing location. Traffic
would be maintained on secondary roads during construction. Patch and
pave NC 231, SR 1158, and SR 1141 with 5 centimeters (2 inches) of I-2
prior to placing detoured traffic on these roads. The detour should have a
minimum 9.0-meter (20-foot) roadway width.
Alternative 2 - Replace the existing bridge with a bridge on the existing location.
Maintain traffic with a temporary bridge and alignment to the south of the
existing bridge during construction.
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT B-3006 DIVISION 4
STATE PROJECT 8.1321501 COUNTY Nash
F. A. PROJECT BRSTP-97(1) ROUTE NC 97
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
There will be no special funding by municipalities or developers on this project.
STRUCTURES
BRIDGE LENGTH 19.2 METERS; WIDTH 6.1 METERS
NO 17: 63 FEET 20 FEET
PROPOSED LENGTH 30 METERS; WIDTH 9.6 METERS
BRIDGE: 100 FEET 32 FEET
DETOUR LENGTH 18 METERS; WIDTH 8.5 METERS
BRIDGE: 60 FEET 28 FEET
COSTS
TIP ESTIMATE
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ....................................... $ 225,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................... + ? 20.000
TIP TOTAL COST ......................................
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
NOT YET AVAILABLE
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Collector
TRAFFIC
Current - 2000 VPD, Year 2020 - 3200 VPD, 5% DUAL, 4% TTST
$ 245,000