19960867 Ver 1_Complete File_19960905

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water (duality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
/ • F
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 10, 1998
Nash County
DWQ Project 960867
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. David Robinson
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Robinson:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, for the
purpose of repacing bridge # 11 in Nash County, as you described in your application dated July 2, 1998.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this impact is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3026. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers. 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
replaces the Certification issued on September 7, 1996.
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.
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. 276 1 1-7447. 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 Dorney at 919-733-1786.
i er y, L
re on Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
960867.1tr
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
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 401 iSSUEE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. MORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 26, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 ?' ,1Y1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 9
7
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator WETLANDS ^GROUPOM1!
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT:.. ' RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT-23 FOR BRIDGE
NO. 11 R SWIFT CREEK, NASH COUN, TIP B-3007.
The Corps of Engineers-(C-OE) issueo)a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the subject
project on April 29, 1996 Action 199605'This permit expired on December 31, 1997. The
replacement of the Bridge 1310 is not scheduled to be let to construction until
August 1998. Consequently, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) needs
to renew authorization for this work.
While the information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the programmatic Categorical Exclusion and the Natural Resources Technical
Report in a letter dated March 8, 1996, it can be clarified that no wetlands will be impacted and
impacts to surface waters will be less then 0.10 acre. The bridge will be replaced on existing
location. An off-site detour will be utilized during bridge replacement as traffic will be
maintained along secondary roads.
Swift Creek supports populations of Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), a
federally listed endangered species. Construction procedures which will avoid adverse impacts
to the mussel were discussed at a September 20, 1995 field meeting. Fourteen provisions were
agreed upon and are attached.
Provision 7 required NCDOT examine the feasibility of eliminating deck drainage
directly above the creek. This was found to be feasible and no deck drains will discharge directly
into surface waters.
14'$
2
Provision 11 states a final survey for the Tar River spinymussel is to be conducted in the
project footprint before construction begins and if any individuals of the species are found, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will initiate Section 7 formal consultation with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). One survey was conducted on May 19 failed
to identify any individuals. However, a second survey conducted on June 3 did reveal one
individual of the species in the project footprint which was relocated by NCDOT biologists. The
finding was reported to USFWS. The USFWS, in coordination with NCDOT, agreed that as
long as one more survey is conducted immediately before construction, then the Section 7
obligations will be fulfilled.
The NCDOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in
Johnston County under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water Quality
Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested. If you have any questions or
nee#*dditional information please call Mr. Michael Wood at 919-733-7844, Extension 306.
Sincerely,
c
L
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., Asst. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/hrs
Attachment
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Michele James, Planning & Environmental
I

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 199605807
County: Nash
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent: North Carolina Department of Transportation/Bridge No. I 1/S.R.
1310/TIP No. B-3007/State Project No. 8.2321101, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1301(1)
Addr s : ATTN: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager. Planning & Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone No.: [phone]
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town etc..l: Bridge No. 1 1 on S.R.
1310, approximately 1.0 mile northeast of llilliardston. North Carolina. The project is located
adjacent to, and below the headwaters of, Swift Creek.
Description of Activity "
Filling activities associated with the replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge on the
present alignment. There will be no jurisdictional wetland impacts. Traffic will be detoured
along existing roads. Please note that the 14 Environmental Commitments outlined in the
letter to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) (fated October 13, 1995 from.
your office must be implemented in their entirety to prevent any adverse impacts to the
federally listed endangered species (Tar River Spinymussel).
X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
23 Nationwide Permit.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal
action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve
the undersigned permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or
local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies
before beginning work.
Regulatory Project Manager Signature ?-'-i ?` `
Date September 12, 1996 Expi ation. Da e December 311\99
v
?'nr sUR., Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Attention: Vince Barone
Dear Mr. Graf:
October 13, 1995
SUBJECT: Section 7 Field Inspection for Federally Endangered Tar River
Spinymussel; Bridge No. 11 over Swift Creek on SR 1310; Nash
County; Federal Aid Project BRZ-1310(1); State Project 8.2321101;
TIP No. B-3007
On September 20, 1995 a field inspection was conducted by
representatives of NCDOT"and USFWS for the above referenced project. The
purpose of this field review was to discuss provisions for protecting the
Federally Endangered Tar River Spinymussel. A list of the attendees are
shown below:
Jim Wilder
Dean Sarvis
Ray Moore
Abdul Rahmani
H. L. Davis
Ken Pace
Byron Moore
Owen Anderson
Frank McBride
Ken Graham
James Hoskins
Tim Savidge
Bill Goodwin
John Williams
Michele James
Construction Unit
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Construction
Roadside Environmental
Roadside Environmental
NCWRC
NCWRC
USFWS - Raleigh
NCDOT - Division 4
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Project Engineer, Michele James, began the meeting with a
description of the project and the need for the Section 7 consultation.
NCDOT Biologist, Tim Savidge, elaborated on the Tar River Spinymussel, of
which a known population exists in Swift Creek.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETi' JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
(9
October 13, 1995
F Page 2
Mr. Jim Wilder of the NCDOT Construction Unit began discussion of
provisions to protect the Tar River Spinymussel. Several options to replace
the bridge were discussed. The following provisions to protect the Tar River
Spinymussel were agreed upon:
1. The replacement structure will not have bents in the creek
(two-span or three-span bridge).
2. The grade will be raised on one end of the bridge which will
require more approach work.
3. The bridge deck will be removed from the top.
4. The bridge deck drainage on both approach spans will have stone
lining underneath.
5. Rip-rap will be placed on the slopes.
6. The existing timber piles will be cut with a pneumatic saw at the
mudline and lifted out.
7. During the design phase of the project, the feasibility of
eliminating deck drainage directly above the creek will be studied
in detail and if possible, will be incorporated into the final
plans.
8. Modification of stream flow will be avoided.
9. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. Fertilizers, herbicides,
and pesticides will be used carefully and as little as possible.
10. Storm-water runoff will not be channeled directly into the stream.
11. A final survey for the Tar River Spinymussels will be conducted in
the project footprint before construction begins. If the survey
reveals the presence of any Federally-endangered Tar River
Spinymussels, the Federal Highway Administration will need to
initiate formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service in
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The
decision to relocate Federally-endangered mussels will be
considered during the formal consultation process and will be
dependent on specific biological factors relative to the geographic
area of impact and the species in question.
12. The Fish and Wildlife Service will be sent a copy of the plans
before construction begins.
13. The contractor will notify NCWRC, USFWS, and the NCDOT
Environmental Unit, in writing, of the construction begin date.
October
Page 3
14.
13, 1995
High Quality Water Best Management Practices will be impleme ted.
Sincerel ,
H. ranklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
MJ/rfm
cc: Ms. Candace Martino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. David Cox, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Alderman, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Jim Wilder, P. E., State Bridge Construction Engineer
Mr. Jimmy Lynch, P. E., State Traffic Engineer
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Archie Hankins, Jr., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Hal Bain, Environmental Unit
Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Unit
Mr. James Hoskins, P. E., Division 4 Construction Engineer

.a STATEo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
August 26, 1996
ji 401 ISSUED
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:

GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
aLr 0 S IN
6*IR AE
"RA N^AL SCIENMS
SUBJECT: Nash County, Replacement of Bridge No. 11 over Swift Creek on
SR 1310. TIP No. B-3007, State Project No. 8.2321101, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1301(1).
Attached for your information are copies of the categorical exclusion action classification
form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification o. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one opy of the document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and a_tural esources, Division
of Water Quality, for their review.
'?J

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
H. ranklin 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, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E., Planning & Environmental
1
L .
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3007
State Project No. 8.2321101
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1301(1)
A. Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN NASH
COUNTY OVER SWIFT CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 11 ON SR 1310
(TAYLOR'S GIN ROAD) WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING
LOCATION WITH A BRIDGE APPROXIMATELY 60 METERS (197 FEET)
LONG WITH A 8.6-METER (28-FOOT) CLEAR DECK WIDTH. THE
STRUCTURE WILL PROVIDE A 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS 1.0-METER (3-FOOT) SHOULDERS ON EACH SIDE. THE
BRIDGE ELEVATION WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS THE EXISTING
BRIDGE WITH A MINIMUM GRADIENT OF 0.3% TO FACILITATE DECK
DRAINAGE. A 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) ROADWAY WITH 1.2-METER
(4-FOOT) TURF SHOULDERS WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE
APPROACHES. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC WILL BE
DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 11 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING
OF 18.7 OUT OF 100. THE BRIDGE IS POSTED FOR 12 TONS FOR
SINGLE VEHICLES AND 16 TONS FOR TRUCK TRACTOR SEMI-
TRAILER. BECAUSE OF THE DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE
NO. 11 SHOULD BE REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
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 driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
1
t
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
to 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.
5. 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
f

2
t
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
D.
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 qualify for a CE
only where the 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.
Special Project Information:
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
NO HIGH QUALITY WATERS, WATER SUPPLIES (WS-I OR WS-II) OR
OUTSTANDING WATER RESOURCES OCCUR WITHIN 1.6 KM (1.0 MI)
OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA. WETLANDS WILL NOT BE IMPACTED
BY THE PROJECT.
A SECTION 404 NATIONWIDE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO REQUIRE A 401
WATER QUALITY GENERAL CERTIFICATION FROM THE DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
NATIONWIDE PERMIT.
3
. r
ESTIMATED COSTS:
CURRENT TIP
* CONSTRUCTION - *$ 700,000 $ 700,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY - $ 22,000 $ 22,000
PRIOR COST $ -0- $ 90,000
-------
TOTAL $ --------
722,000 $ 812,000
*COST INCLUDES 15% FOR ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES
TRAFFIC INFORMATION:
CURRENT YEAR - 1996 -- 600 VPD
DESIGN YEAR - 2020 --1300 VPD
TTST - 1% DHV - 12%
DUAL - 2% DIR - 60%
THE DESIGN SPEED IS APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH (100 KM/H).
SR 1310 IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR COLLECTOR.
UNDERGROUND CABLES EXISTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY WHICH
ARE AERIAL ACROSS THE STREAM. A USGS STREAM GAGE IS ATTACHED
TO THE SOUTH (DOWNSTREAM) SIDE OF THE BRIDGE. IMPACTS TO
UTILITIES ARE EXPECTED TO BE LOW.
THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
THE SHPO RECOMMENDED THAT NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OR
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY BE CONDUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
PROJECT.
FIVE SCHOOL BUSES CROSS BRIDGE NO. 11 TWICE DAILY FOR A TOTAL
OF TEN CROSSINGS PER DAY.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
4
0

ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ? X
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened Fx I
species may occur? -
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? F X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary ?
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by
proposed construction activities?
?x
F-I x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
F-I x
F-I 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 "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
e
YES NO
F-1 X
X
F-1 X
(13) Will the project result in the modification F X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
X F?
1-1 X
?x
6

(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on ?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an F X
increase traffic volumes?
permanent local traffic patterns or X
community cohesiveness?
YES NO
(21) Is the project included in an approved
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in 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 ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
7

in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
RESPONSE TO QUESTION #2
AS OF MARCH 28, 1995 THE USFWS LISTS THREE FEDERALLY
PROTECTED SPECIES FOR NASH COUNTY: THE DWARF WEDGE MUSSEL
(Alasmidonta heterodon), TAR SPINYMUSSEL (Elliptio
steinstansana), AND RED COCKADED WOODPECKER (Picoides
borealis). SURVEYS FOR THE SPECIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED
BY NCDOT BIOLOGISTS.
THE DWARF WEDGE MUSSEL DOES NOT OCCUR IN SWIFT CREEK. A
REVIEW OF THE NHP DATABASE FOR RARE SPECIES AND UNIQUE
HABITATS WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE SITE VISIT OF THE
NCDOT BIOLOGIST. THIS SEARCH REVEALED NO DOCUMENTED
OCCURRENCE OF THE DWARF WEDGE MUSSEL IN THE STUDY AREA.
SURVEYS BY THE WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION FROM JUNE
1987 TO JULY 1992 REVEAL NO OCCURRENCE OF DWARF WEDGE
MUSSEL IN SWIFT CREEK. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT
IMPACT UPON THE DWARF WEDGE MUSSEL.
A REVIEW OF THE NHP DATABASE FOR RARE AND UNIQUE HABITATS
REVEALED KNOWN POPULATIONS OF THE TAR SPINYMUSSEL DOWN-
STREAM OF BRIDGE NO. 11. CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES FOR
REPLACING THIS BRIDGE WERE DISCUSSED DURING A SEPTEMBER
20, 1995 SECTION 7 CONSULTATION FIELD MEETING. BASED ON
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOURTEEN ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS AGREED TO AT THE MEETING, THE U. S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCURS THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT LIKELY
TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED TAR
SPINYMUSSEL AND THESE PROCEDURES WILL HELP TO PRESERVE
THE HABITAT AND SPECIES. A COPY OF THE FOURTEEN
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND THE CONCURRENCE LETTER FROM
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IS ATTACHED.
THE PROJECT STUDY AREA DOES NOT PROVIDE HABITAT (PINE
FORESTS) FOR THE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER. A REVIEW OF
THE NHP DATABASE FOR RARE AND UNIQUE HABITATS WAS
PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE SITE VISIT BY THE NCDOT BIOLOGIST.
THIS SEARCH REVEALED NO DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCE OF THE RED-
COCKADED WOODPECKER IN THE STUDY AREA. NO IMPACT TO THE
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER WILL RESULT FROM PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION.
8
f
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3007
State Project No. 8.2321101
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1310(1)
Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN NASH
COUNTY OVER SWIFT CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 11 ON SR 1310
(TAYLOR'S GIN ROAD) WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING
LOCATION WITH A BRIDGE APPROXIMATELY 60 METERS (197 FEET)
LONG WITH AN 8.6-METER (28-FOOT) CLEAR DECK WIDTH. THE
STRUCTURE WILL PROVIDE A 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS 1.0-METER (3-FOOT) SHOULDERS ON EACH SIDE. THE
BRIDGE ELEVATION WILL REMAIN THE SAME AS THE EXISTING
BRIDGE WITH A MINIMUM GRADIENT OF 0.3% TO FACILITATE DECK
DRAINAGE. A 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) ROADWAY WITH 1.2-METER
(4-FOOT) TURF SHOULDERS WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE
APPROACHES. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC WILL BE
DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE I I (B)
Approved:
-71219,47,
at Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
7-c? - 96 21
Date Project Planning Unit Head
z-
Date ro ect Plan ing ineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
s 9C C _.' 4?
Date ro.- D vision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
1

lA ??[ q
4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
April 26, 1995
Jul )
Nicholas L. Graf ?G C E v?
Division Administrator Q
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue 'APR 2 8 1995
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 2
Re: Replace Bridge 11 on SR 1310 over Swift Creek, 2 DfVISICN OF
Nash County, B-30 Federal Aid BRZ-1310(1), (f t4IGIgWAYS
State Project 8. 21101, ER 95-8558 ? 1FION VV?P
Dear Mr. Graf:
On April 11, 1995, 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 and for
our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
The aerials and photographs show no structures in the vicinity of the bridge.
Therefore, there are no historic structures located within the area of potential
effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted 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
. -A
Nicholas L. Graf
April 26, 1995, 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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
d
Preservation Officer

STArt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
October 13, 1995
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Attention: Vince Barone
Dear Mr. Graf:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Section 7 Field Inspection for Federally Endangered Tar River
Spinymussel; Bridge No. 11 over Swift Creek on SR 1310; Nash
County; Federal Aid Project BRZ-1310(1); State Project 8.2321101;
TIP No. B-3007
On September 20, 1995 a field inspection was conducted by
representatives of NCDOT"and USFWS for the above referenced project. The
purpose of this field review was to discuss provisions for protecting the
Federally Endangered Tar River Spinymussel. A list of the attendees are
shown below:
Jim Wilder
Dean Sarvis
Ray Moore
Abdul Rahmani
H. L. Davis
Ken Pace
Byron Moore
Owen Anderson
Frank McBride
Ken Graham
James Hoskins
Tim Savidge
Bill Goodwin
John Williams
Michele James
Construction Unit
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Construction
Roadside Environmental
Roadside Environmental
NCWRC
NCWRC
USFWS - Raleigh
NCDOT - Division 4
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Project Engineer, Michele James, began the meeting with a
description of the project and the need for the Section 7 consultation.
NCDOT Biologist, Tim Savidge, elaborated on the Tar River Spinymussel, of
which a known population exists in Swift Creek.
m
October 13, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Jim Wilder of the NCDOT Construction Unit began discussion of
provisions to protect the Tar River Spinymussel. Several options to replace
the bridge were discussed. The following provisions to protect the Tar River
Spinymussel were agreed upon:
1. The replacement structure will not have bents in the creek
(two-span or three-span bridge).
2. The grade will be raised on one end of the bridge which will
require more approach work.
3. The bridge deck will be removed from the top.
4. The bridge deck drainage on both approach spans will have stone
lining underneath.
5. Rip-rap will be placed on the slopes.
6. The existing timber piles will be cut with a pneumatic saw at the
mudline and lifted out.
7. During the design phase of the project, the feasibility of
eliminating deck drainage directly above the creek will be studied
in detail and if possible, will be incorporated into the final
plans.
8. Modification of stream flow will be avoided.
9. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. Fertilizers, herbicides,
and pesticides will be used carefully and as little as possible.
10. Storm-water runoff will not be channeled directly into the stream.
11. A final survey for the Tar River Spinymussels will be conducted in
the project footprint before construction begins. If the survey
reveals the presence of any Federally-endangered Tar River
Spinymussels, the Federal Highway Administration will need to
initiate formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service in
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The
decision to relocate Federally-endangered mussels will be
considered during the formal consultation process and will be
dependent on specific biological factors relative to the geographic
area of impact and the species in question.
12. The Fish and Wildlife Service will be sent a copy of the plans
before construction begins.
13. The contractor will notify NCWRC, USFWS, and the NCDOT
Environmental Unit, in writing, of the construction begin date.
A
1
October 13, 1995
Page 3
14. High Quality Water Best Management Practices will be impleme ted.
:;ncerel ranklin Vick, P. E., Manager
MJ/rfm
cc: Ms. Candace Martino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. David Cox, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Alderman, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Jim Wilder, P. E., State Bridge Construction Engineer
Mr. Jimmy Lynch, P. E., State Traffic Engineer
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Archie Hankins, Jr., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Hal Bain, Environmental Unit
Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Unit
Mr. James Hoskins, P. E., Division 4 Construction Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
o?PP?MENT OF Tye/ym
+ 9
N O
X
ACM ?b
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 9, 1995
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
G h
NIfVG &
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your ?,-?.?r
October 30, 1995 letter regarding the replacement of bridge No.
11 over Swift Creek, 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 implementation of the fourteen (14) environmental
commitments, the Service concurs that this project is not
likely to adversely affect the Federally-endangered Tar
spinymussel (Elliptio Canthyria steinstansana) or any
Federally-listed endangered and threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently
proposed for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act,
as amended.
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: 11) 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,
Tom AugspuT_?er
Acting Supervisor
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:11-9-95:919/856-4520:WP51\NCDOT\SWFT-NAS.NE

?i
r .. su11
0
!S ~r
a?
v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. NZ 27611-5201 SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
22 November 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Hart. Unit Head
Project Planning
FROM: Phillip Todd, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources investigation for proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 11 on SR 1310 over
Swift Creek, Nash County; TIP No. B-3007;
State Project No. 3.2321101; Federal Project
No. BRZ-(310(1).
REFERENCE: (1) James' Section 7 Field Meeting Minutes,
dated 13 October 1995.
(2) Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC)
Biological Inventory: Swift Creek;
Alderman, et al., dated 01 March 1993.
(3) Savidge's Section 7 Biological
Conclusion for the Federally-Endangered
Tar Spinymussel, dated 19 October 1995.
ATTENTION: Michele James, Project Manager
The following report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE). A
completed Ecological Threshold checklist for Type II PCE is
also included. This report contains information concerning
water resources, biotic resources, Waters of the United
States, permits, mitigation and federally-protected species.
The proposed project,;involves replacing Bridge No. 11
over Swift Creek. The current bridge will be replaced on
existing location, and SR 1310 will be closed to traffic
during construction.
METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations;
these information sources include U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Red Oak), and Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps of Nash County. Water

2
resource information was obtained from publications of the.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993) and from the Environmental Sensitivity Base Map
of Nash County (N.C. Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis, 1992). Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected, and candidate species and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and.unique
habitats. _
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Phillip Todd and Logan Williams
on 08 November 1995.'•.Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
WATER RESOURCES
Swift Creek (Figure 1) originates approximately 8 km
(5 mi) upstream of the project study area at the confluence
of Sandy Creek and an unnamed stream. These two streams
merge east of the SR 1004 crossing of Sandy Creek. From the
study area, Swift Creek flows southeasterly and empties into
the Tar River north of Tarboro. During the site visit, Swift
Creek had a width of 9.1 m (30 ft). Water Now was fast as
the stream had overrun its banks due to precipitation the
previous day.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) assigns
streams a best usage classification. Unnamed tributaries are
attributed the classification of streams to which they are a
tributary. Swift Creek, DEM Index No. 28-7S-(0.5), has a
best usage classification of C NSW. "C" refers to Class C
waters that are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) is a
supplemental classification and refers to waters requiring,
limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding'Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DEM. This program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. A BMAN monitoring site is located at
the SR 1310 crossing of Swift Creek. This site received a
BMAN rating of GOOD during a July 1986 sampling.

I// NW 21.
?\ ?? ? -/ •/• .,,? l?-'? -,rte ?,f1?`//,.1\J
/ .:
.: 1 188• ? ? •I
41
,xr2c?/ICU
Hilliardston
h&PA
J ) \
11v? O 1 ?? 2 O?
I I ? ^ ?, I 11I ? .
\`•`., ? r\.iI?• ' • /? it \i;?T?- ! ` -
I
I?V
18
r.ngtcin
iCom? v J X/9t
213 239
y - -- J ' II
' "?1 1 I 227 ' ./
?. o
r 222
5
Swift-
1J4__ \v?' :4 Sch
iiLook ut
/ I
?? • .?'? ??'? I -'?`-Tower •r?`
\ ?.?... _? '?^_?, ===moo=?/•. ?.._ I I
n i
/q/,- Zoe.
tI )ill ?."
Figure 1. Project Study Area
Water Resources
Red Oak Quadrangle Not to Scale
Swift Creek
Bridge No. 1 1

T

3
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. No dischargers
are located upstream of the project study area.
NCDOT High Quality Water Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and sedimentation guidelines should be administered
throughout the entire project to prevent degradation of Swift
Creek which could effect aquatic fauna (see Aquatic-Community
discussion). It is also recommended that the streamside
embankment be vegetated immediately after construction.
These measures will help in reducing the. wash of sediment and
toxic compounds into hater resources.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section briefly describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna likely
to occur in each community-are described and discussed.
Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an
asterisk (*).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two distinct terrestrial communities have been
identified in the project study area: disturbed community and
coastal plain levee forest. Many faunal species are highly
adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed.
DiST-URBED COMMUNITY
The disturbed community includes those habitats
frequently disrupted by human activities and can be divided
into roadside shoulder and early successional habitat. Plant
species growing in the roadside shoulder habitat are fescue
(Festuca sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) and
pokeberry (Phytolacca americana). Saplings of sweet-gum
(Li4uidambar styraciflua) grow along the roadside
embankments. Dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) dominates
the early successional habitat. Turkey vulture* (Cathartes
aura), red-tailed hawk* (Buteo iamaicensis) and bluebird*
(Sialia sialis) are commpnly encountered in these habitats.
4
COASTAL PLAIN LEVEE FOREST
Sycamore (Planatus occidentalis) and river birch (Betula
ni$ra) dominate the canopy of this forest. Box elder (Acer
negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsvlvanica), overcup.,oak
(Ouercus lvrata), mulberry (Morus rubra) and American beech
(Fagus grandifolia) are commonly found in the canopy.as well.
Winged elm (Ulmus americana), dogwood (Cornus amomum),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese) and viburnum (Viburnum
prunifolium) are common constituents of the understory.
Vines found in this community type are grape (Vitis sp.),
greenbrier (Smilax sp:), Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and trumpet vine (Campsis radicans).
Herbaceous species found here are Japanese grass
(Microstegium vimineum), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), chickweed (Stellaria media), violet (Viola
papilionacea) and pokeberry. Polygonum (Polygonum sp.)
dominates areas under the bridge and along the stream.
Spikegrass (Chasmanthium latifolum) grows commonly along the
streamside as well. Animal species encountered in this
forest include white-throated sparrow* (Zonotrichia
albicollis), song sparrow* (Nielospiza melodia), Carolina
wren* (Thrvothorus ludovicianus), beaver* (Castor canadensis)
and southern cricket frog* (Acris gryllus).
AQUATIC COMMUNITY
Swift Creek is a perennial Coastal Plain Stream and is
part of the Wildlife Resource Commission's (WRC) Proposed
Critical Habitat for the Tar spinymussel. Swift Creek has a
diverse assemblage of aquatic species. Fish species commonly
encountered in Swift Creek are eastern mosquitofish*
(Gambusia holbrooki), blue-ill (Lepomis macrochirus),
pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon
oblongus), white shiner (Notropis albeolus), chain pickerel
(Esox niger), American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and
tessellated darter* (Etheostoma olmstedi). The NHP database
of ra3-e species includes a 1994 element occurrence of the
federally-Endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana). Several populations of the Tar spinymussel
are located downstream of project study area. Other mussel
species found in Swift Creek include Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconia masoni), notched rainbow (Villosa constricta),
triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa), eastern lampmussel (L. radiata) and
squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus). Atlantic pigtoe and yellow
lampmussel are listed as federal candidate species (C2) but
are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 197,3. Atlantic pigtoe, triangle
floater, yellow lampmussel and squawfoot are state listed
Threatened species and eastern lampmussel is a state Special
Concern (SC) species. Species listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of
Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection
under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Aquatic species, especially mussels, are sensitive to
even small changes in their environment. Strict
administration of NCDOT High Quality Water BMPs and,
sedimentation guidelines should be-enforced throughout the
entire project (Reference 1). These measures will help in
leducing the wash of sediment and toxic compounds Into Swift
Creek and in protecting aquatic species.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States." Criteria to
delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No
jurisdictional wetlands occur in the study area although
surface waters will be impacted by the subject project.
PERMITS
Impacts to surface waters will occur from the proposed
project. A permit will be required from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 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 is designated for projects classified as Categorical
Exclusions. Final decisions concerning permit applicability
rest with the COE.
In addition, this project will also require a 401 Water
Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Section 404 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.
MITIGATION
The COE has adopted a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined
and includes: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impact. Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimizatidn and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
6
Encroachment into Waters.of the United States is
unavoidable in order tc achieve the purpose and need of the
project. Impacts to Waters of the United States can be
minimized in several ways such as strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMPs, reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity and reduction/elimination of direct
discharge into streams. Compensatory mitigation is not
usually required with projects authorized under a Sect.ion 404
Nationwide Permit according to the 1989 Memorandum-of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE. Final decisions concerning compensatory
mitigation rest with the COE.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. As
of 28 March 1995, the FWS lists the following federally-
protected species for Nash-County (Table 1). A brief
description of these species characteristics and habitat
follows.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species
for Nash County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spiny mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half 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.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found in,Middle Creek and the Little River of
the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar,
Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system. This
mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with
well oxygenated water to survive.
7
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The dwarf wedge does not occur in Swift Creek. A review
of the NHP database for rare species and unique habitats was
performed prior to site visit. This search revealed no
documented occurrence of the dwarf wedge mussel in the study
area. Surveys by the WRC from June 1987 to July 1992 reveal
no occurrence of dwarf wedge mussel in Swift Creek (Reference
The proposed project will have no impact upon'=the dwarf
wedge mussel. -
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spinymussel) E
The Tar spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage
basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash
County. Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can be
found in streams of the Tar River Drainage Basin and of the
Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires
oxygenated, circumneutral
of uncompacted gravel and
relatively silt-free. It
freshwater fish to act as
larvae.
a stream with fast flowing, well
pH water. The bottom is composed
coarse sand. The water needs to be
is known to rely on a species of
an intermediate host for its
The Tar spinymussel is a very small mussel.. This mussel
is named for its spines which project perpendicularly from
the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12
spines can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in
texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white
(posterior).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
A review of the NHP database for rare species and unique
habitats revealed known populations of the Tar spinymussel
downstream of Bridge No. 11. Construction procedures for
replacing this bridge were discussed, during a 20 September
1995 field meeting, in order to preserve the habitat and
species. A summary of these procedures can be found in
Reference'1. Concurrence from the FWS has not been received
since this biological conclusion has been rendered (Reference
3).
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
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.
8
The RCN uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus 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 RCW
lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project study area does not provide habitat (pine
forests) for the red-cockaded woodpecker. A review of the
NHP database for rare species and unique habitats was
performed prior to site visit. This search revealed no
documented occurrence of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the
study area. No impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker will
result from project construction.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3007

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists onlv 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 or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
,,.species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of
U. S. Forest Service lands?
?6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by
proposed construction activities?
F7
17
(7) Does the project involve waters classified a
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of i
the United States in any of the designated ?
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known ?
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
4
16 300 - '
Date: 1/93 !
Revised: 1/94
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAIMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone a nd/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ?
Resources Act resources?
-
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be F
1 ?
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification F-1
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ?
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(13) Will the project induce substantial impacts ?
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ?
any family .or business? t
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project•involve any changes in ?
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use or adjacent ?
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on a
permanent-local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Pc F'E?CRA-1?.? - CN?fvfaG?L-E-(? DEL I ? ? `t?-h.=
©F Tl-?, ?tf?^17(a - Ac OIACa?C?1 C_ CAN(,W -45+P r'j 'O(=
W zt-v +r-e SE-¢a'' (E NHS ?-jar 6c F.. Si'= c ?. E? ?( Cf
6
.1.
7.
?nAT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 19. 1995
IE\ IOR.- NDUN I TO: P. Wavne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTE\TI(')\: NlichAc James. Project Manager
FRCS\I: Tun Sayidge, I nyironimntal Biologist
Enviiromnental Unit
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJEC"I': Section 7 Biological Conclusion for the Federallv Endangered
Tar spinymussel. relating to Proposed Replacement of
Brid(e 11 Over Swift Creel:. Nash County. State Project
4.2321101. TIP-B-3007.
REFERENCE: Section 7 Field Meeting Minutes. October 13 1995 prepared
Michelle James
The reference minutes summarizes the construction provisions discussed and agreed
upon at the site meetings held on September 20. 1995. These enm.iromnental com-mitments will
be adopted by \CDOT during the construction phase of this project.
BIOLOGIC.U. CONCLUSION-: Not Likely to adversely.-Ufect
If provisions mentioned in the referenced report are strictly adhered to, it can b
concluded that construction of this project is not likely to impact the Tar spiny mussel
population in Swift Creek.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D.
Hal Bain; Enviromnental Supervisor
He B-3007
File Section 7 Aquatic Issues

i" , ,
ST Tr.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October-13, 1995
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Attention: Vince Barone
Dear Mr. Graf:
SUBJECT: Section 7 Field Inspection for Federally Endangered Tar River
Spinymussel; Bridge No. 11 over Swift Creek on SR 1310; Nash
County; Federal Aid Project BRZ-1310(1); State Project 8.2321101;
TIP No. B-3007
On September 20, 1995 a field inspection was conducted by
representatives of NCDOT"and USFWS for the above referenced project. The
purpose of this field review was to discuss provisions for protecting the
Federally Endangered Tar River Spinymussel. A list of the attendees are
shown below:
Jim Wilder
Dean Sarvis
Ray Moore
Abdul Rahmani
H. L. Davis
Ken Pace
Byron Moore
Owen Anderson
Frank McBride
Ken Graham
James Hoskins
Tim Savidge
Bill Goodwin
John Williams
Michele James
Construction Unit
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Construction
Roadside Environmental
Roadside Environmental
NCWRC
NCWRC
USFWS - Raleigh
NCDOT - Division 4
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
NCDOT Project Engineer, Michele James, began the meeting with a
description of the project and the need for the Section 7 consultation.
NCDOT Biologist, Tim Savidge, elaborated on the Tar River Spinymussel, of
which a known population exists in Swift Creek.
0
,
October 13, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Jim Wilder of the NCDOT Construction Unit began discussion of
provisions to protect the Tar River Spinymussel. Several options to replace
the bridge were discussed. The following provisions to protect the Tar River
Spinymussel were agreed upon:
1. The replacement structure will not have bents in the creek
(two-span or three-span bridge).
2. The grade will be raised on one end of the bridge which will
require more approach work.
3. The bridge deck will be removed from the top.
4. The bridge deck drainage on both approach spans will have stone
lining underneath.
5. Rip-rap will be placed on the slopes.
6. The existing timber piles will be cut with a pneumatic saw at the
mudline and lifted out.
7. During the design phase of the project, the feasibility of
,. eliminating deck drainage directly above the creek will be studied
in detail and if possible, will be incorporated into the final
plans.
8. Modification of stream flow will be avoided.
9. All. disturbed areas will be revegetated. Fertilizers, herbicides,
and pesticides will be used carefully and as little as possible.
10. Storm-water runoff will not be channeled directly into the stream.
11. A final survey for the Tar River Spinymussels will be conducted in
the project footprint before construction begins. If the survey
reveals the presence of any Federally-endangered Tar River
Spinymussels, the Federal Highway Administration will need to
initiate formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service in
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The
decision to relocate Federally-endangered mussels will be
considered during the formal consultation process and will be
dependent on specific biological factors relative to the geographic
area of impact and the species in question.
12. The Fish and Wildlife Service will be sent a copy of the plans
before construction begins.
13. The contractor will notify NCWRC, USFWS, and the NCDOT
Environmental Unit, in writing, of the construction begin date.
October 13, 1995
Page 3
14. High Quality Water Best Management Practices will be impleme ted.
Sincerel ,
H. ranklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
MJ/rfm
cc: Ms. Candace Martino, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. David Cox, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Alderman, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Jim Wilder, P. E., State Bridge Construction Engineer
Mr. Jimmy Lynch, P. E., State Traffic Engineer
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Archie Hankins, Jr., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Hal Bain, Environmental Unit
Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Unit
Mr. James Hoskins, P. E., Division 4 Construction Engineer
N C. DEPARTMENT 'OF TRANSPORTATION!
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
Imr. ode. 6m ROOM' ;S
FROMt
• REF. ?I*. on IqOOM.!4mc.
E
AC IbN
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOT[ AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REgU1ST•
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILG ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL ??.
? NOTE AND 919 ME ABOUT THIS. ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS`
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? 'TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. - ? INVESTIGATE AND RR??RT
COMMENTS:

I
I
i
.4w-
• MR M? ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
Govi.RNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SLCM:I'ARY
June 14, 1995 RECEIVED
JUN 1 91995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb ENV/RONMENTA(g;,lEftCE,
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on SR 1310 over Swift
Creek, Nash County, State Project 8.2321101, F. A.
Project BRZ-1310(1); B-3007
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on April 11, 1995
at 9:00 AM in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following were in attendance:
Jerry Snead Hydraulics Unit
Dean Sarvis Roadway Design
Tom Tarleton Location and Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Olivia Farr Traffic Control Unit
David B. Foster DEHNR-Hwy. Environ. Evaluation
Betty C. Yancey Right-of-Way
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Darin Wilder Program Development
James Hoskins Division 4
Michele James Planning & Environmental Branch
Attached is the revised scoping sheet which includes additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
David Foster of DEHNR commented that Swift Creek is classified as
Class C. Implementation of high quality erosion control measures was
suggested.
Tom Tarleton of Location and Surveys reported that there were
utilities on both sides of the bridge.
Me)
June 14, 1995
Page 2
The Hydraulics Unit recommends that the bridge be replaced with a
bridge 60 m (197 ft.) in length at the same location and approximately the
same elevation as the existing bridge with a minimum gradient of 0.3% to
facilitate deck drainage.
A USGS stream gage is attached to the south (downstream)
side of the bridge.
Debbie Bevins reported that no archaeological or
architectural surveys were needed.
James Hoskins of the Division Office commented that the road could be
closed during construction.
Information received from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
indicated the presence of the Tar Spiny mussel, an endangered mussel
species, at the bridge site. A Section 7 Informal Consultation will be
necessary.
The alternatives to be studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge on existing location. During
construction, the road will be closed and traffic would be
detoured along existing secondary roads.
Alternate 1A - Replace the bridge on its existing location. Traffic would
be maintained by a temporary on-site detour on the north
side of the bridge.
Based on available information, it appears that Alternate 1 is the
preferred alternate. A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended
replacement is $ 735,000.
MJ/wp
Attachment
406
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3007 DIVISION: FQj1B.__
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1310(1) COUNTY: _IA H
STATE PROJECT: 8.2321101 ROUTE: __SR .La10
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 11 on SR 1310 over Swift Creek
in Nash County.
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET(S):
STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM:
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST COST ................................ $ 450,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 35,000
TIP TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 485,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ...................... $ 700,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.) .............. $ 35,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE ............................... $ 735,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO __X_
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) (%) _
TRAFFIC: CURRENT UQ_ VPD; DESIGN YEAR -1 24 VPD
TTST 1 % DT
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH ?9y1_ Meters WIDTH ?.yl_ Meters
Feet 20.0 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH _6U_ Meters WIDTH Meters
_197__ Feet __28_ Feet
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Michele James DATE 06/13/95
.a?
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DA
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO-
Emir Coal-amb REF. NO. ROOM, ILLLOG
-lfA-lXmw
FROM 1 R NO. OR ROOM, SLOG.
m
L" IldL I CL
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR PEQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ASOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? 'TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
719
p,H STA7(,.
STATE OF NORTI i CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. III, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALFIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 6, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
RECEIVED
M14R 091995
EWRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RRd nIpW
R. SAMUEL. HUNT II I
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 11 on SR 1310
over Swift Creek, Nash County, B-3007
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 April 11, 1995 at 9:00 A. M. 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 Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842, Extension 233.
C ? ?C, 2--
MJ/pl r
Attachment

0v
AJ lit
V L
m u ?? al b49 ? ?t- ? C
?4:1*41

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT:
F. A. PROJECT:
3-3007 DIVISION: FOUR
COUNTY: HASH
STATE PROJECT: ROUTE: NC 43
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 11 on SR 1310 over Swift Creek
in Nash County.
PROJECT USES QUAD SHEET(S): RQd
STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: Minor. collector
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 450,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 35,000
PRIOR YEARS COST...................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 485,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($)
, (%)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST % DT %
EXISTING TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 4;)-_)- Meters WIDTH 6
)-_1Meters
I_ Feet Z0.0 Feet
COMMENTS: F u ding ,mod tr'ef j,? j?_ oration P-r-QY-idf-d at a
s c Q p i n °' IIl t.?I1.?_ _
PREPARED BY: Michele James DATE 03/02/95

(N)
OF
I
[WAYS
ENVIROtiNENTAL
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 11
OVER SWIFT CREEK ON SR 1310
NASH COUNTY
I 0 mile 1
? ? ? FIG. 1