20011594 Ver 1_Complete File_20011031

F
t
A~, o
MAY-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 2002
DEPARTSNTV? OF TRANSPORTA
EC Cecil L. Jones
Andy Brown,PE
Eddie Bunn, PE
Don Smith
L. R. Ward, PE
David R. Henderson, PE
Troy Peoples, PE Don G. Lee
W. F. Walker, PE Victor Barbour, PE
Bryant Bunn, III, PE Haywood Daughtry, PE
A. B. Reid Richard Chrisawn
Willie Bryant Aydren Flowers
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
May 3, 2002
State Project: 8.2321501 (B-3495)
Contract No. C200353
F. A. Number: BRZ-1435(2)
County: Nash
Description: Bridge No. 137 over Stoney Creek on SR 1435
MEMORANDUM TO: Steven D. DeWitt, PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi O. Johnson, PE OQ `36
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference Minutes
We are transmitting an approved copy of the minutes covering the preconstruction conference for
the above project, which was held on April 17, 2002. The Contractor, Sanford Contractors, Inc.,
has approved the minutes as recorded.
/t
Attachment
C John Wadsworth (FHWA) \ Mike Bell (US Army Corps of Engineers)
Jean B. Manuele (US Army Corps of Engineers) \John Hennessy (NC DEHNR)
John Holley (DEHNR Land Quality Section) David Cox (MCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries) Dr. Garland Pardue (US Fish & Wildlife)
Carolina Power & Light (Bob Campbell) Sprint (Chris Dees)
U
Steve D. DeWitt, PE
Page 2
May 3, 2002
Andy Pridgen
Mike Robinson, E
Bill Moore, III
John Williamson
Charles Bruton, Ph. D.
Lloyd Johnston, Jr
Jimmy Marler
Judith Johnson (NCWRC)

PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE MINUTES
Project: 8.2321501 (B-3495)
al Aid No.: BRZ-1435(2)
No.: C200353
Nash
on: Bridge No. 137 over Stoney Creek on SR 1435
preconstruction conference for the above project was held in the Wilson Division Office Conference Room
April 17, 2002, with the following persons in attendance:
AME REPRESENTING
chard Holshouser Sanford Contractors, Inc.
indy Richardson Sanford Contractors, Inc.
iff Harris H. C. Harris, Jr. Engineering & Surveying, P.A.
)b Campbell Carolina Power & Light Company
illie L. Bryant NC DOT - Civil Rights
)bert L. White NC DOT - Geotechnical Unit
-ad Batchelor NC DOT - Division 4 Right of Way
inn Ward NC DOT - District Engineer
idie J. Bunn NC DOT - Resident Engineer
mn Raynor NC DOT - Asst. Resident Engineer
)rey McLamb NC DOT - Construction
Steve Joyner NC DOT - Construction
E. Nichols NC DOT - Construction
A. Weaver N C DOT - Construction
B. Creech NC DOT - Nash County Bridge Maintenance
endi Oglesby Johnson, PE, Division Construction Engineer, presided over the conference. She asked
eryone present to introduce themselves and their company affiliation.
Randy Richardson will act as Project Superintendent and Traffic Control Coordinator for the Contractor.
. Steve Joyner will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the DOH.
Johnson asked when and where does the Contractor plan to begin work. The Contractor advised they
i to begin work on April. 29th putting up signs and getting ready to close the roadway. Will mobilize
first week in May and begin work on the new bridge. The Contractor advised his intent is to complete
new bridge before any clearing and grubbing is performed.
OF WAY
Brad Batchelor covered the right of way for this project. All right of way necessary for the construction of
project has been acquired. No claims were filed for condemnation. He furnished the Resident Engineer a
er and copies of right of way agreements and deeds.
were no 200 series items on this project.
ion Conference Minutes
495
e2
e is no known asbestos contamination, underground storage tanks or soil contamination within the right of
of the project.
Contractor is reminded not exceed the right of way or easement areas during construction of the project
out written permission from the property owner.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
s. Johnson called on Mr. Willie Bryant with our Civil Rights office to cover this portion of the contract.
Contractor's EEO Officer and Minority Liaison Officer is Barbara R. Angell.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Resident Engineer furnished the Contractor with required posters for his bulletin board. The Contractor's
D Policy Statement is to be posted on the projects Bulletin Board that should be weather proof along with
following posters:
Davis-Bacon Minimum Prevailing Wage Rate Schedule,
"Wage-Rate Information -F/A/ Project", Form PR-1495,
"Notice Relating to False Statements," Form PR-1022,
EEO Poster -'Discrimination is Prohibited".
Contractor is urged to document, in writing, all actions taken in complying with Equal Opportunity of
)loyment Provisions, Training Provision, and Minority Business Enterprise Provision. This includes
icant referrals, meeting with employees, on-site inspections, wage evaluation, etc.
goals for this contract are established at 9.0%.
subcontractors and suppliers are responsible for meeting the same requirements as the prime contractor,
it is the prime contractor's responsibility to oversee that both are in compliance.
Contractor requested estimate period for this project end on the first of the month.
alleged discriminatory violations should be brought to the attention of the Resident Engineer.
State and/or FHWA will conduct a Contract Compliance Review sometime during the life of this contract.
efore, fair employment practice should be maintained at all time.
inage and Prompt Payment - Contractor at all levels, prime, subcontractor, or second tier contractor,
within 7 calendar days of receipt of monies, resulting from work performed on the project or services
;red, pay subcontractors, second tier subcontractors, or material suppliers, as appropriate.
provision for prompt payment shall be incorporated into each subcontractor or second tier subcontract
d for work performed on this project or for services provided.
Contractor will withhold up to 3% retainage if any subcontractor does not obtain a payment and
)rmance bond for their portion of the work.
F ' ure of any entity to make prompt payment as defined herein may result in: 1) withholding of money due to
t *t entity in the next partial payment until such assurances are made satisfactory to this provision; or 2)
Conference Minutes
3
of an approved contractor from the prequalified bidders list or the removal of other entities from the
i subcontractors list.
porting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation - When payments are made to Disadvantaged
siness Enterprise firms, including material suppliers, contractors at all levels shall provide the Engineer with
accounting of said payments.
T PAVEMENTS
. Gary Starling with our Division QA Lab asked the Contractor if he had any questions of the Special
visions outlined on pages 21 - 28.
. Starling advised the Special Provisions in this contract are dated 1/15/02 and he would like to point out the
Contractor advised that Barnhill Contracting would perform paving on this project.
. Starling called attention to the limits of precision for nuclear and core sample testing on page 23 of the
itract. He asked Mr. Holshouser if he knew what type of density testing Barnhill would be performing, and
s advised this was not known at this time.
contractor was advised that he should maintain the QC testing forms and records for one calendar year
the forms are completed in lieu of the previous 90-day requirement.
Bunn pointed out the a fixed string line is required for paving this project according to project special
?visions. The Contractor did not indicated whether nuclear or core method would be used to determine
of asphalt.
was no further discussion concerning these Special Provisions.
ILITY CONFLICTS
CP&L - Power - Mr. Bob Campbell advised he was meeting the tree removal crew out on the project
today. They had advised that they hope to have the trees out of the way next week. The line crew plans to
begin work on May 7th. He advised that he also plans to meet this crew on the project. Mr. Bunn stated
that the Contractor plans to begin work on the 29th and asked ifthere is any way the tree and line work can
be completed as close to that date as possible. Mr. Holshouser concurred with this request. Mr. Campbell
advised that he would be able to give a more positive date after his meeting today and he thought he would
be able to move his schedule closer to April 29. CP&L have one pole in place that can be graded around.
Line will be removed but the pole will remain in place. Mr. Bunn advised this would be no problem as the
Contractor will be able to perform work around this pole. Mr. Campbell left his card with the Contractor
and Resident Engineer.
Sprint (telephone) - Sprint has completed relocation of all their utilities.
Johnson asked everyone turn to page 1 of the contract, and the following was discussed:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Conference Minutes
3495
.se 4
Johnson advised, any of the special provisions that are not covered will be as stipulated.
Time and Liquidated Damages:
date of availability for this contract is April 29, 2002, except that work in jurisdictional waters and
:lands shall not begin until a meeting between the DOT, Regulatory Agencies, and the Contractor is held as
ulated in the permits. The delay in availability has been considered in determining the contract time for this
contract completion date December 5, 2002.
en the Special Provisions require observation periods, they are not a part of the work to be completed by
completion date and/or intermediate contract times stated in the contract. Should an observation period
end beyond the final completion date, the acceptable completion of the observation period shall be a part of
work covered by the performance and payment bonds.
Damages - $750.00 per calendar day.
edule of Estimated Completion Progress - The Contractor is advised if he anticipated accelerating the
gress shown, he should submit a request, and approval would have to be obtained should he want payment
performing work beyond that progress noted.
Contractor presented his progress schedule which will be checked and he will be advised if satisfactory.
copy of these minutes, we are advising the Contractor that his progress schedule has been checked and is
proved as submitted.
mission of Records -Federal Aid Projects - Payrolls are not required on this project. Also, this project is
located on the National Highway System; therefore, federal form FHWA-47 is not required.
ety Vests - All Contractors' personnel, all subcontractors and their personnel, and any material suppliers
their personnel must wear an OSHA approved reflective vest or outer garment at all times while on the
ject. Ms. Oglesby advised that non-reflective orange shirts are acceptable for all project personnel except
;gers. Contractor advised all of his personnel wear hard hats.
Rip Rap - Contractor shall remove existing rip rap under bridge and use to supplement areas of rip-
areas along roadway approaches.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
WAY
ig and Grubbing - Clearing and grubbing shall be by Method III unless superseded by permit drawings.
and Fill Slope Material - Required shoulder and slope construction for this project shall be
1 in accordance with requirements of Section 226 of the Specifications except as noted in the
the 6" (150 mm) of shoulder and fill slopes with soils capable of supporting vegetation.
ion Conference Minutes
495
e5
ride soil with P.I. greater than 6 and less than 25 and with a pH ranging from 5.5 to 6.8. Remove stones
other foreign material 2" (50 mm) or larger in diameter. All soil is subject to test and acceptance or
-tion by the Engineer.
shall be obtained from within the project limits or an approved borrow source.
nforced Bridge Approach Fills - The Contractor is to be guided by the Special Provisions and all work
R be done in the presence of the Engineer or Inspector. Contractor was reminded that proper certifications
to be submitted.
. Bunn asked if the Contractor knew Barnhill's source of borrow material. The Contractor advised he did
at this time.
SION CONTROL
Johnson covered erosion control items listed on pages 31-40 in the contract. Mrs. Johnson advised the
ct Inspector for DOT that he is to give the Contractor a weekly erosion control list advising Contractor of
that need to be done in a timely manner. She advised that erosion control is very important to DOT.
'aste Areas and Borrow Sources - Payment for temporary erosion control measures, except those made
,cessary by the Contractor's own negligence or for his own convenience, will be paid for at the appropriate
?ntract unit price for the devices or measures utilized in borrow sources and waste areas. All erosion and
diment control practices which may be required on a commercial borrow or waste pit will be done at the
s expense.
ironmentally Sensitive Areas - This project is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. This
gnation requires special procedures to be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossing,
grading operations within the area identified on the plans. This also requires special procedures to be
t for seeding and mulching and staged seeding within the project.
"Environmentally Sensitive Area" shall be defined as a 50' (16 meter) buffer zone on both sides of the
an measured from top of stream bank. Contractor may perform clearing but grubbing cannot be
)rmed until Contractor begins grading operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed
ediately following the clearing operation.
grading operations begin, work will progress in a continuous manner until complete.
actor shall establish an early stage of vegetation sufficient to restrain erosion immediately following
establishment.
ig and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately following final
establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into the contract time without stabilization of slopes,
and other areas within the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as indicated on the erosion control
will be placed under guardrail. The sod sub-contractor shall be responsible for taking sufficient soil
for testing by the Department of Agriculture, Soil Testing Division to determine the soil pH.
ion Conference Minutes
6
Construction Entrance - Contractor shall install a Gravel Construction Entrance in accordance with the
in the plans and at locations as directed by the Engineer.
g and grubbing is by Method III. Do not want to clear any more than necessary. Most clearing is at the
site. Follow the permit requirements before applying Method III criteria.
S
die Bunn covered this portion of the contract. He advised these Special Provisions are standard; however,
would like to point out the following:
idled Piers - Drilled piers are a straight shag type and vertical. The Contractor/Subcontractor and the
)erintendent performing the work is required to have installed drilled piers of both diameter and length
vlar to those shown on the plans and have a minimum of 5 years experience with underwater concrete
cement prior to the bid date for this project. This work is performed under the supervision of the
,ntractor's/Subcontractor's superintendent who is knowledgeable and experienced I the construction of
lied piers using casing and/or slurry. Equipment that has the capacity to undertake the work and is sufficient
complete the work within the specified contract time shall be used.
T verify the ability to construct drilled piers for this project, the Contractor/Subcontractor shall submit a list
c taining a description of at least 2 project completed in the last five years on which those responsible for the
dr.Hed pier construction have installed drilled piers of similar size as shown in the plans and with similar
e avation techniques anticipated for this project. This list should include the names and phone numbers of the
qe ject owner's representative who can verify the Contractor's/Subcontractor's participation on the project.
Contractor has submitted this information to the Resident Engineer.
bsurface data shows drilled piers will be terminated in solid rock and slurry will not be permitted according
plan notes.
A construction sequence plan for all the drilled piers shall be submitted for review and acceptance 30 days prior
to beginning construction of the drilled piers. Sequence plan should include items 1 thru 13 listed on page 52
o the contract. This plan was submitted at the pre-construction conference.
Engineer will review the drilled pier construction sequence plan for conformance with the plans,
ifications and special provisions, and will notify the Contractor within 15 days of receiving the plan of any
tional information required and/or changes that are necessary. Any changes for re-evaluation of any
tisfactory part of the construction sequence plan that is rejected should be submitted to the Engineer. The
ineer responds to the Contractor within 7 days after receiving the proposed changes.
?uld any changes in the procedure be made during construction of the drilled piers, the Contractor shall
arm the Engineer in writing and await approval of the proposed modifications prior to the construction of
remaining drilled piers.
to any drilled pier work beginning and after acceptance of the construction sequence plan, a drilled pier
nstruction conference shall be scheduled with the drilling superintendent, Concrete Supplier, Resident
ineer, including the inspector, Area Bridge Construction Engineer, Soils & Foundation Design Engineer
other pertinent personnel to discuss construction and inspection of the drilled piers.
Conference Minutes
7
. Bunn stated regarding Item F, that DOT will require an 8' rock socket according to plan notes.
vation - Excavation of the drilled pier shall be performed with a drill rig of adequate capacity. Contractor
use a rig that is capable of drilling through soil and non-soil including rock, boulders, timbers, man-made
As and any other materials encountered. Blasting is not permitted to advance the excavation. Blasting for
removal is only permitted when approved by the Engineer. Use a drill rig capable of drilling a minimum of
deeper than the deepest drilled pier shown in the plans. Drilling tools equipped with vents designed to
lize the hydrostatic pressure above and below the tool during extraction from the excavation shall be used.
Bunn asked the Contractor what he intends to do with spoils or rock that is removed and the Contractor
vised that it will be used for the lower portions (sub base) of the slope protection rip rap or in fill areas if
ssible.
the tip of the drilled pier excavation is in rock, de-water the excavation to the satisfaction of the Engineer.
1e minimum diameter of the drilled pier excavation in rock is 2 inches (50 mm) less than the design drilled
er diameter shown on the plans.
. Bunn reviewed the special provision relating to permanent casing wall thickness.
pages 47-49 as it refers to slurry, which is not permitted on this project.
. Bunn called attention to the 2nd paragraph on page 50 regarding cleaning the bottom of the excavated drill
r. He asked if the Contractor would send someone into the drilled shaft to clean the bottom. Mr.
Ishouser advised that his drilled pier subcontractor, McKinney does normally send someone down to clean if
editions are favorable.
Bunn advised DOT would require a test hole to determine bearing capacity in the drilled shafts.
SPT and SID testing are not required according to plan notes.
page 51, under Item B, The Contractor shall use one of the following inspection procedures listed to check
cleanliness of the pier excavation bottom prior to placement of the reinforcement steel and concrete.
Bunn called attention to the 2nd paragraph under Item 5.0, Reinforcing Steel.
has submitted concrete mix design for drilled pier concrete.
Loss Test noted on page 54 is not required.
hin the first 16 hours after a drilled pier has achieved its initial concrete set, do not drill adjacent piers, do
install adjacent piles, and do now allow any equipment wheel loads or "excessive" vibrations to occur at
point within a 20 foot radius of the drilled pier.
will be determined at the drilled pier pre-construction meeting if Soils and Foundations will require the
illed piers to be tested with the NDT equipment. They normally do not unless there are problems during the
,nstruction of the shaft.
58 and 59 give description of pay items. Permanent Steel Casing
ion Conference Minutes
Bunn advised there is a list of approved pile points listed on page 60 of the contract. If the listed options
not utilized, the contractor will have to provide a submittal. Mr. Holshouser advised they would submit
-king drawings to the Structure Design Unit with copies to the Resident Engineer.
hanical Butt Splicing of Reinforcing Steel is required by the plans. Mr. Holshouser acknowledged that
would be using Bar Lock Couplers. This is an approved mechanical splicer
62-65 do not apply to this project.
Bunn called attention to pages 69 thru the top of page 73 regarding submission of working drawings and
?mittals. He advised the Contractor that Greg Perfetti is now the State Bridge Design Engineer.
nstruction, Maintenance and Removal of Temporary Access at Station 17+82.00-L-: If detailed on the
ns the construction of a temporary rock causeway within the limits shown on the plans is permitted. The
iseway shall be built as stipulated in these special provisions and as detailed on the plans. Contractor shall
npletely remove all causeway material including pipes and return the entire causeway footprint to the
ginal contours and elevations immediately after the purpose of the causeway has been served or as required
the permits. NCDOT's environmental commitments require the causeway to be removed within 30 days
er it is no longer in use.
-. Bunn also advised the Contractor, if noted on the plans, the construction of a temporary work bridge is
rmitted. Contractor shall submit details of the temporary work bridge to the Engineer prior to construction
the work bridge to ensure conformance with the plans and all permits. Make sure that the temporary work
dge satisfies all permits. Completely remove the temporary bridge prior to final acceptance or otherwise
luired by the permits. Shall be removed within 30 days.
a causeway is detailed on the plans, the construction of a temporary work bridge in lieu of the causeway is
rmitted. If this option is exercised, prepare all necessary documents required for permit modifications, if any.
Bunn advised that the existing bridge contain lead paint according to the plan notes. The contractor
old follow Article 107-1 of the 2002 Standard Specifications while removing these girders. No lead paint
come in contact with Stoney Creek. He acknowledged that his office is reviewing their submittal for the
olition of the old bridge and should complete this review by the date of availability.
. Johnson advised the US Army Corps of Engineer and DENR (DWQ) has issued a permit for this project
the Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit conditions during construction of this project.
of the permitting authority will periodically inspect the project for adherence to the permits.
uld the Contractor propose to utilize construction methods (such as temporary structures or fill in waters
/or wetlands for haul roads, work platforms, cofferdams, etc.) not specifically identified in the permit
ividual, general or nationwide) authorizing the project it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to
rdinate with the appropriate permit agency to determine what, if any, additional permit action is required.
Contractor shall also be responsible for initiating the request for the authorization of such construction
hod by the permitting agency. The request shall be submitted through the Engineer. The Contractor shall
utilize the construction method until it is approved by the permitting agency. The request normally takes
ion Conference Minutes
9
iroximately 60 days to process; however, no extensions of time or additional compensation will be granted
delays resulting from the Contractor's request for approval or construction methods not specifically
ltified in the permit.
x "Description of Activity" the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Permit reads, "Mechanized land
ing, excavation, and the discharge of fill material into Stoney Creek and its adjacent wetlands associated
the replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge on the current alignment. Replacement of the
will result in the permanent loss of 0.09 acre of a swamp hardwood community. Construction of the
orary access roads for bridge construction will result in the discharge of approximately 30 cubic yards of
i fill, impacting 30' of stream channel (0.006 acre of surface water). Traffic will be maintained by off-site
ars. Once the temporary access is no longer needed, all temporary fill material will be removed to pre-
truction contours within 30 days.
Johnson called attention to the specific permit drawing on pages 77, 78 and 79 of the contract. She
sed the Contractor that his personnel and DOT personnel should be familiar with these drawings.
:print on drawings should not be exceeded.
Contractor should contain his work within the footprint shown on the plans. Any deviation would be in
Ltion of the permits. The permit does not cover waste or borrow within wetlands.
standard procedures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Johnson advised the Contractor he and his personnel should make themselves familiar with the conditions
gated in the permits.
de-watering of drilled piers is performed DOT will furnish Contractor with silt bags (erosion control device).
T. Bunn stated that the silt bag should be located outside any wetlands or buffer zones located on the project.
rs. Johnson stated that we should decide on the placement before we construct the drilled piers. This is to
ohibit confusion and to assure NCDOT that the erosion control device will not inadvertently be placed in an
ea in conflict with our permit.
White with the Geotechnical Unit asked if there were any questions concerning quantities, and there were
Very little earthwork is required for this project and his unit was not contacted to perform an
stigation. Mr. Bunn stated that the project has less than 500 cubic yards of earthwork (unclassified and
ow excavation combined) and he was pleased with the undercut quantity provided in the contract.
Contractor presented a letter advising names of persons authorized to sign supplemental agreements in
junction with this project.
were no further questions and/or comments and the meeting was adjourned.
SANFORD CONTRACTORS, INC.
49:?p 'PIRESLOENr
ATE APPROVED NAME AND TITLE
SrA7Z
?d ? Y A
011594
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 15, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele
NCDOT Coordinator

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 137 on SR 1435, over Stoney Creek, Nash County,
State Project No. 8.2321501, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1435(2), TIP No. B-
3495.
Dear Ma'am:
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion [Type II(B)] and Natural Resources
Technical Report for the above-referenced project, which is scheduled to be let in February
2002. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 137 over Stoney Creek in Nash County. Replacement will be at the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The cross-section of the 160-foot (49-meter) long new
bridge will include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 3-foot (1-meter) offsets. Approach work
will consist of resurfacing and tying in to the existing alignment. Guardrail will be installed
where warranted. The total project length will be approximately 1,020 feet (311 meters) long.
Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
The existing structure, constructed by NCDOT in 1967, carries SR 1435 over Stoney
Creek in Nash County. The bridge consists of a 26-foot (8-meter) wide deck and 19-foot (6-
meter) approach roadways with grassed shoulders. The superstructure is composed entirely of
timber and steel. The substructure consists of concrete posts and beams. The superstructure will
be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the U.S. However, there is
potential for the concrete posts and beams to be dropped in Waters of the U.S. The resulting
temporary fill associated with the concrete posts and beams will amount to no more than 12
cubic yards. As part of the bridge removal process, all temporary fill material will be removed
from the creek as quickly as possible.
Stoney Creek is the only jurisdictional surface water resource in the project area. It is
located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (HU 03020101) and carries the DEM classification of C
NSW (Index No. 28-68),1/1/90). There are no waters classified as HQW, WS-1, WS-II, or ORW
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
`a
within 1 mile of the project study area. There are two jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
The proposed project will impact 0.09 acres of wetlands. The impacts are evenly divided
between a swamp hardwood community (PSS1C) on the western side of the bridge and a
bottomland mixed/pine hardwood community (PF01A) on the eastern side. There are no
surface water impacts (see attached permit drawings, Sheets 4 - 6).
This project is subject to the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules. According to the
Rules, this bridge replacement project is allowable without mitigation because there are no
practical alternatives and buffer impacts are fewer than 150 linear feet and 0.3 acre.
Approximately, 0.001 acres in Zone 1 and 0.005 acres in Zone 2 will be impacted (see
attached permit drawings, sheets 7-8). Please note that "wetland impacts in buffer" on Sheet 8
are a subset of "wetland impacts" on Sheet 6.
Federally protected Tar spiney and dwarf-wedge mussels are endemic to this drainage
basin. A May 15, 2000 survey by NCDOT endangered species specialist Tim Savidge revealed
no protected mussels in or near the project area. In a September 14, 2000 correspondence from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Service concurs that this project is "Not Likely to
Adversely Effect" the dwarf-wedge mussel and will have "No Effect" on the Tar spiney mussel.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" (CE) 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 23 in
accordance with 61 Federal Register 65874, 65916 (December 13, 1996) and as amended in the
Federal Register: March 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 47, Pages 12817-12899).
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project because of the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules requirement of
written authorization. One copy of the CE document and the Natural Resources Technical
Report is being provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Elizabeth Lusk at
73°3-7844, ext. 335.
Sincerely,
?' . C
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc. w/attachment:
Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
w/o attachment:
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Engineer
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. D.R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Karen Orthner, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Hal Bain, Unit Head, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
File: B-3125
t6 umberr ?Pandlet ,
iornsrsue •a a? W"'
I Galeha
sI ?•
A N .. I ? ! Norlina S ... ';-: r y - f , Ise * ? y yy pL : t . . - copra S ISi
awimsb«a a[ew; ! Macon s f t ittleton OaGl7 E RPIQ ! lSe Ir r
alT .' reu ben •?' I'••"}"+7; esrilt . N• AMPTON .
an son 7 - ® \t[ - M;Irasskes f tr
sddleba[ errenton SuroysiA sa t !_ _.
s ! t a - •rrr .7 t I S i+? F •t, 1a ! a 'art aotecai .4
i
- T a tut R. R E f
• N _ + 1 t 'y H « -? Ln 12se
Liberia
t Greystene `='' "•
-`TI-"'?; JA&Il ooa?i
?c Z WI t •./3 t .r._; ? Aidre ?
to abfas 'J' P••' Gt«[e ?IH
S ,sa t .' ?sK . L ?:c. t Nfiaaasa? +. Eibe.oe L . eek s N + R°an ?ae?. t''~ ' °' -. a...•- :::.. s
a :
®! eu GdibvL ::/;r Arc a tI"' P"f Brink7tykrillt ? 7 Y f • .. ! I - •`
s .. /• + t x ?$`. (lrrs torn - • % 2 g;':
'4' .•- Inet 1a 1 HesNSsville an t 1?. Tillery mch Square 1
E/taw Alert s t / orlister - S•t 30S S 1 i u y?•"• S Aulandl
IKittrdl t ,r•-
9w I
"L ^.: i { e Wood S t ?' r••^X . i r Ro:obei df:
f Ingleside eer.terriR :I- / yl?, r• a
Glenrier 7 ,Enfield .IL 25e I Kell«d +•A
r ..r S r- r >~ y s- S ?.,
a. 0 Scatter.-..-.
f PROJECT .r !
I ':'cis • tb ` _' a f L t--
lie
nWiAIS /' /"L 1' ?' cast' is 13 4 R t +• 1i bitsker 17 ;-D get tf ' P myrs ?J
" i C
!!! lice G.,. R i B
% v r_._.._
Red 0ait 1 ? ! - f Nob[ood 'Q i••, 1
`\rO roun[srille } 3916 p ut i b 301 S lair.... 7 s t
u s ' at • IC OUA
NerH e 1 9 it Let[ett L t 'Oak city / 12 / Q
?`,{/` • t a 8 n Spin[ Momge O i Speed\ f \ 11-
No" E
„t I t o°roi? WA a a h I '``t`,`^r ! B + amitton
e A
1 Rolesrille Imo, Pe rces .t a ! 7 etx r f. s4s ?. 1 °\ a 64
Pilot l ®, t Na sell f
s tat r -.f. r>{ ' cpfa I
----°-- \tt SS ? 7 . - ._ 7 t/ a +Tarhar Vr?saeviile + It .' Pant Eraetts
j -t I- _°u harpsb« _ 7_!sa; t 2. [ 1 .
tbro It :} EtWaakefiat I 2 9T s f Stanhope -/ . !}'..-1 ft 1 -\ ^ 3?,s= a ;< e.
?a ei h r5 ! ul °" y Iy 2 2 zse Corset tts u Roberswv-
f ebul" S 26t a . i Elm city _Cioe4 s1 pinetaps 1 -x I !2 f ' Bethel I arme? M
26+ 1 a¢le p '6ta i diest a?•t?l t ]\ f - t Bear GrasI
T ni[htdsle ROB f I a e f* Ytiibanks ?. Z t J l3 30 , f
Wendell is t 7 aim N+ 1a 2 ciis' • t t
' 1411, !Rock Ati - + +{•Macdesfield .. ! Stokes
di O T t t Wilson , /valkten tl 4
Garne ?kn«a i I
Aub« rFds her f os ro aas
t oil e_ t, 6 t y Bruce 3 I T i
! - .._ 1 7 t2 l- S .Q . Nf : fountain Ouse -•-
TO • Yt0 f ` 7 uca Santo La f Toddy Itl +3 ] i. ] fPactolus , ..
t t2 l yr 96 39 t \ i 30l Cr7 GBlack Cree ! t 9 f 264 I t ! !?
O H T ,O w r°,f°`i f f 1 a' e.c.u l(?K' ?tfps
f
s fk r I. C. Slantonsbur Ht lti • ell Art ur to G""??? +
708 J' saLler Walstonbur[ farmvI i c pspr °
+ Wr sons d / ?1 _ Mao Q(1 i S p f t i s T t Gn asland
S Fremont 9 U I7 P ( T T3
ithtield / I Eureka to to (3 Sra s ,
}C3 !
en s ? Pinkne y !I/, (Ai Arr.:k t 1 ? U lrtne ' s w?nterntle It Croco..r
il. It Pme Leval fl os'y;? s G R E I E (lou:+tree .? 5-ad lad
s A.a G..d...••sar+r t s 70A I mt Ns 117 s I 7 `
Holrr Lake '} t 70 Princeton 7 U? Pateto.n aury Or a ! 10 Ay a
]Four Oaks :1 S t" 1 1 70 /// •`Jr Saulstori U o. Hill t mo?dtr 1 • „en I1 Snelm erd`ne
4 1' , It phi S le ! ookern ?° e !
r 9 Rose-ood s ! ?7 oldSbQro` ! 1 t7 ?" \ / i. Calico
} v0 :?l ^•--?Sr. ( f ,• la,an 2? \ QGu tton ? !3
S 90 701 i:79n -.l e• O.i1. • ar f ° Ursa f ! 19 ` IJ 1
r t !° ra `?° 6?(1SN?oua 1 . .,.? , ,Is
Projecf Vici>Mifg ma p
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
o s Is Scale of Miles zo 30 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o to zo 30 40 dy NASH COUNTY
Sate of Kilo-etem
Orr h.1 a><.1h apercirv:<7 13 m;:?s and a?pro.ir.u;e} 21 Uon.aren.
PROJECT: 8.2321501 (B3495)
BRIDGE 137 OVER STONEY CREEK
ON SR 1435 NEAR NASHVILLE
SHEET -L OF 9 AUG. 29, 2001

PRCi ir-rT
D- Af 7J
Fain
Church

OFFSITE DETOUR ROUTE
vIlC]LIl icy Map
Eni,amgemment
i
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NASH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2321501 (B3495)
BRIDGE 137 OVER STONEY CREEK
ON SR1435 NEAR NASHVILLE
SHEET 2 OF I AUG. 29, 2001
LEGEND
- WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

L WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
® IN WETLAND ED DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE

WATER _-??-
ROOTWAD
•
? DENOTES MECHANIZED
• •
• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
- TB tom TOP OF BANK
- WE_ - EDGE OF WATER
- -c - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
. PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
X X X X
X XX LIVE STAKES
CD BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
m2b RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZI BUFFER ZONE 1
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NASH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2321501 (B3495)
BRIDGE 137 OVER STONEY CREEK
ON SR1435 NEAR NASHVILLE
4
SHEET 3 OF q AUG. 29, 2001
I:
II,

o
+
°° , •
N ? ?'?„• I
I
Z
a I

0
_ 41
a
I
.
J wOJ I
LL.
C)
OC
a),4 I
3X
ww
O
Z
v
\ 41 i! vc
L1
-/>4O
m?
I
I
1 ?
I
I C?
I O
I I r
I ?
0
I I a
I ? U

O
w >-
N Z Q U
Z O¢
=0 J d?N
uz
WX j0
LL x ZO=
W(nw
F Q
w J Q
Z
vs w w to
3
WU
~ F-3
O HJ
O J
Z W Z `.
?
O O
s
91 i a r p GREEK

O
? ? o00pp,
?
o
1 O O
0
?
r QmW Q
ZJW
W O
J J =

•

41 J
aN(O
<Ljo Z
-
?ooQ
dNN _

0>1
C7
?HWC> ?I>
t1]
V) :3< I
L
ozz N
Q ?a?
J O ?

z ZWMm ?

j W
?oa
N ? I
wmw
cr

« b
a
?
Y
i ?
V
O O VOVO

0O?O
0 ?

0
\ LL-
?
L z O

I
a
* Q o PLI
CL
V)
0 >
-
? CO
I J
I N V) O
Q °
J ?
V
.09 I
W

I I O N

W I I
p + i Icy
cr IZ <
m z

Q
W + 0
a
I
0-
> I .
'
O
O v I O

W??
N ?
m x
w I p
0? _ N 22
"N I m N
?
-N z Q M W Q

z W I co 0-
40 J
U
??v W ? I
I w
<
Ntnt-_i

o
i
I

u
Q03
ow
J az W.
m I I ?°_C=
o
1 M J CD
Z
I
I
N wuu
x

o 0
o
cr_

J DTI +
°° ILI
Q

- 4b- ,
1Y. 1 L II _ 3
it
-
1
t--
, Ld LL
D
v I I / ?
LLI
?,
I F---- ? F-
o-

I I z
MI LLI-i
o
i I I O
o
Cl-
Z I
cy-
2
I
CL
IN, > I
+ V I
x
-
N
W w
D _
N
+
+
° ti I
01
Q I

a
J 1

??o
C
)
CO
H . O U VIcp

I Cc. W
00 J
z I ?c?o
O i
CLWCI:
O

LLI
~LLJ Z?Q:W
0 O O _ O
cv 00?
F, UL V O?Q
F, 3
n v In
1.

O
N
Y
ZO
a? of
IL
f-D >- En
Q T > 3 0 3: C
m O N
fA(? Z.-(AZ
Z - D o

a)
O S O o

Oo Qo?'r
H !n Z U O
aj mZ
tn W
U) DO ° rno O
n '
a
119
U m
Z
W
W
S

CD M= Go

IL Cl
>
CL

IL
g

co

LL 0) C3
t3)?.
CY)
N °
C75
co (fl M
- CD

U) (D

a) J

O
C
l`0 O
Z
Z U)
O

Z
V X L CL
a W U ?

W ?- .?- O

C
W
U
Q
o
W
V
c
o o
c
O
=
ate
v

0
N
O

a ;? Z

°
U a?(D °
a g ..,
a
F_
m
O
3
W c
W O y o
o
Z
w "?
co
°
??

W
N

c m
to
o
m ? o 0
0
ma (D

r
O ?

N 7
Q
?O U p`c
:c cn
H
O W ..r
O
'.? tz1 ..a O
04
o w:I ? I i ?xN m z?
+ ?{ I I I ?I z z -? O Z
N I I I ?xC a ?a a"
OJ I w x ,. ?'
L
J
E-4 %M
w 0?
mZ I W P
JN I ry A 0-4
W can W
x I I I '? v a' c
p v,
ZLL. I I z m
l Q
oz Z u u
?I a a
CL "CL
\? $Z' i°o°o 0 o O o°o°o?
o00 00 00 00•
~Z ZOO
?? ? ?? ?? ? Wrl4 Q
C CL
w w w
71
c c ,oo coo c o
°v
+ L ?--?
?--
<MLLi
W JWtn ?2 J z
aW
z m3aQ o o wQO o
CL =)O JaJ Ln
a0 N0cr a- _ aaN
Q ??J
a- I-- LU OLL
a?WO I I ZF-C7
LLJ I I Z w? O
wpZZ ,09 I w Q
NQOQ I W
W CO W:2 -i
I t V
0 N
i

Z
O
a)
d
Q 0) ? V m
Q m L
m T o
c
0 3:
can
(D ZCD
N
O
1
U-
M
Z
U
O
=
W
OO
U-
Mm
00 <:-:--NW

LL Lu a? ZW ??

co
o

O o
D
U a
`
m
Z

Z0 o

C-) co
v co

D W

C
N

C:) CO f6

V) ct:
CO m
N

W CL
E
f0
CL

LLJ

U) H

z
W a
U
Z
¢
U N
g
a
W

W Zv
¢
LL N

m

W
LL Z L) ° O
? O g °

Z O

Z
Wv
° r
O
N v o
W O Q
0

Q 6p O
ZLL O
J

V/
N

p¢ °o °o
G. 2 r- o 0

- Z
? W
LL m z LLI
U
C)
0
LL W O :s
o 0
m d
n
0 n
0
z0 Q
N O O
O t

W W ?
CO
U ` m
? IW
(D fh

0
z
Q

O
Zoo
U
h-
Property Owner
Name Property Owner
Address
Claude J. Mayo, Jr. PO Box 1238
Rocky Mt. NC 27803
Ross L. Vaughan 7510 Heatherwood Ct.
Fort Worth TX 76180
NC Dept. of Transportation
Division of Highways
List of Property Owners Nash County
Project: 8.2321501 (B3495)
Bridge Over Stoney Creek
on SR 1435 Near Nashville
Sheet 9of q August 29, 2001
R

A.
B
C.
011594
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-3495
8.2321501
BRZ-1435 (2)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 137 over Stoney Creek on SR
1435 in Nash County. Bridge No. 137 will be replaced with a 160-foot (48.8-m)
long bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot _
(3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and tieing in to the existing alignment. Guardrail will be installed
where warranted. The total project length will be approximately 1020 feet
(310.9 m) long. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during
construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 137 has a 35.4 sufficiency rating out of a possible 100. The
deck and substructure of this 33-year old bridge are in poor condition. Therefore,
the bridge needs to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
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 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
O3 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
Q repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
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 zoning and located on or near
a 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 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
2

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:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 775,000
Right of Way 25,000
Total $ 800,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1300 vpd
Year 2025 - 2300 vpd
TTST - 1%
-Dual - 3%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-m)
lanes with 8-foot (2.4-m) grassed shoulders. The shoulder width will be
increased to 11 feet (3.3 m) where guardrail is installed.
Design Speed:
50 mph (80 km/h)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Four-Construction Office concurs in the recommendation to
replace the bridge in place and detour traffic along surrounding roads during
construction.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 137 is located on SR 1435 over Stoney Creek in Nash County.
The superstructure is composed entirely of timber and steel. The substructure
consists of concrete posts and beams. The superstructure will be removed
without dropping any components into Waters of the United States. There is
potential for the concrete posts and beams to be dropped into Waters of the
United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete posts and
beams is approximately 12 yd3.
3
.(
E. Threshold Criteria -
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL - YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or

important natural resource? - ?
X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X

(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-tenth (I/ 10)
of an acre and have all practicable measures to avoid
and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? a .
(5) Will the project require the 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
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X
(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
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(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)? X
(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

4
r

(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 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
(1.7) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X .
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) and
will all construction proposed in association with the bridge
replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
5
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ?
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation ?
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in
the Natural System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? ? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part sou be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Item 2 - Surveys for the dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and the
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) were conducted on May 15, 2000 at the
project crossing by NCDOT Biologists Tim Savidge and Logan Williams. The
survey concluded that the Tar spinymussel does not exist within the project area,
nor does typical habitat utilized by this species. Tim Savidge issued a Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" for the Tar spmymussel.
Habitat for the federally endangered species dwarf-wedge mussel was
found in the project vicinity. However, no active populations of the dwarf wedge
mussel have been reported from the project vicinity. NCDOT Protected Species
Tim Savidge issued a Biological Conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect"
for the dwarf wedge mussel. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred
in this biological conclusion. (Please see attached letters.)
Item 4 - Wetlands were found in the project vicinity in the form of Swamp
Hardwoods and Bottomland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest. The potential amount
of wetland impacts resulting from the proposed bridge replacement project is
approximately 0.54 acres (0.22 ha). However, the amount of potential wetland
impacts is based upon the proposed right-of-way width of 80 feet (24.4 m). The
entire proposed right-of-way widtlrmay not be utilized; therefore, actual wetland
impacts may be considerably less.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3495 -
8.2321501
BRZ-1435 (2)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 137 over Stoney Creek on SR
1435 in Nash County. Bridge No. 137 will be replaced with a 160-foot (48.8-m)
long bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and tieing in to the existing alignment. Guardrail will be installed
where warranted. The total project length will be approximately 1020 feet
(310.9 m) long. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during
construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
7-2-2-00
Date
q/,
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Wayne Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
g-12- DD
Date
Project
& Environmental
For Type II (B) projects only:
7-29-00
Date
D__?eL
1c? Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Branch
7
F7.

N
e
%e
NASHVILLE
1
i
12
POP. 3,965
130 -
1995 .2
e 19
2100 '
?. ®® ewe

r1 i N

O 1

?:
1.8
i
1438
1003 ?.

?,• J co

10104 417 6
143 23.10
itj
6
^ .7 16
143.2
1.1 _T t

.
Lt1 ?'
3 1688 i. 2 .
144 c, i
9 4321. .. 4
w • 1
436 ` •_. ? ? •.? co
%64
8
143
.,
` 6
1435
?-
232 •?"\ 6 .

- - 1687 17
3

-
1003 v --
rte L4
602

Bridge No. 137 ` 1.7
9 5 6 .7
.6 1814
w 145
1603
?' wA
r. `
19106'
s 900 x`490
1904 `
`•i 1 'j
,IMP .9
1145 ..........
1145
Detour Route
i
i T 1852 1703 '
K '62
1851 L
6
North Carolina
De]partment of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
Nash County
Replace Bridge No.137 on SR 1435
Over Stoney Creek
B M95
SCALE: 1 in = 1 mi Figure 1

d„• SGTF o?
.nun,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Betty
B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Ray McCain, Secretary
January 8, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 137 on SR 1435 over Stoney Creek,
Nash County, B-3495, ER 99-7704
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
ECF/
1
1999
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
December 8, 1998. However, Debbie Bevin met with Karen Orthner of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on January 4, 1999, to discuss
the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
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, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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 ??V
Nicholas L. Graf
January 8, 1999, 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 Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: i-W. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett
. SEAT-(,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
S B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 30, 2000
Memorandum To:
From:
Subject:
Elizabeth L. Lusk, Permit Specialist
B-3495
Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Mussel survey for proposed replacement of bridge No.137 over
Stony Creek on SR 1435; Nash County, B-3495.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 137 over Stony
Creek. The federally Endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) (dwm)
and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) (Tsm) are listed for Nash County.
Historically, dwarf-wedge mussel was known to occur in Stony Creek, however it has not
been found in the creek in recent years.
Surveys for mussel fauna were conducted on May 15, 2000 at the project crossing
by Tim Savidge and Logan Williams. Surveys were conducted by wading using view
buckets as well as tactile searching in the submerged root wads along the banks. The
survey area was from the crossing to approximately 200 yards upstream. The habitat
immediately downstream of the bridge is ponded and stagnant, with a heavily silted
substrate. This area is generally unsuitable for mussels. Approximately 1 hour was spent
at the site. Tim Savidge has recently conducted additional surveys for mussels in various
locations along Stony Creek for other TIP projects (B-2155, B-3381). Crossings
surveyed include the SR 1613, SR 1616 and US 301 Bypass crossings on May 11, 2000
and the SR 1613 crossing on June 12, 1998.
Eastern elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.) were found to be generally uncommon (40-
50 individuals found per hour) throughout Stony Creek. No other mussel species were
found during the 2000 surveys however, 1 lanceolate elliptio (Elliptio sp.) was found
during the June 12, 1998 survey at the SR 1613 crossing (B-3381). The introduced Asian
clam (Corbicula fluminea) is abundant throughout Stony Creek. A large spawning
aggregation of the pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus) was observed just upstream of
the SR 1613 crossing on May 11.2000. The pinewoods shiner is a Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) and is considered to be Significantly Rare (SR) in North Carolina and
may occur in the project vicinity (B-3490. _
Biological Conclusion DWM: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the dwarf-wedge mussel does not
occur in the project area. Recent surveys indicate that the dwm might no longer occur in
Stony Creek, however, because the dwm is historically known (as recent as the early
1990s) from this creek its presence in Stony Creek cannot be totally ruled out. Based on
the survey results and the adherence to Best Management Practices for protection of
surface waters (to avoid any potential impacts to downstream dwm populations) it can be
concluded that construction of this project "is not likely to adversely affect" the dwarf-
wedge mussel.
Biological Conclusion TSM: No Effect
Given the survey results it is apparent that the TSM does not occur in the project
area. This species has not been recorded from Stony Creek, and typical habitat (swift
current over gravel/sand substrate) utilized by this species is.not present in the creek. It
can be concluded that project construction will not impact the Tar spinymussel.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 14, 2000
Ms. Karen T. Orthner _
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Ms. Orthner:
Thank you for your letter of August 4, 2000, requesting comments or concurrence from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Survey Report for the federally listed dwarf-wedge
mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) in Stoney
Creek, Nashville, Nash County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3495). This report is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service considers this survey report to be an accurate representation of the surveys and
results for these species, and their habitats. Based on the information provided, the Service
concurs that this project, implemented as described, is "Not Likely to Adversely Effect" the
dwarf-wedge mussel and will have "No Effect" on the Tar spineymussel.
Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to the referenced species up to the date of the
report. Should additional information become available relative to other listed species, or the
referenced species, additional surveys may be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom
McCartney at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely
Garland B Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/14/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\B-3495mu.ssl
- y
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
October 4, 2000
? A6(1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
July 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM: Elizabeth L. Lusk, Environmental Biologist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 137 on SR 1435, over Stoney Creek, Nash County, TIP No.
B-3495, State Project No. 8.2321501, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1435(2).
ATTENTION: Karen T. Orthner, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
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 that must be considered.
Please contact me at extension 335 if you have any questions, or need this report copied onto disk
format.
cc: Hal Bain, Unit Head, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
File: B-3495
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
TAILING ADDRESS:
ROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
;ALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
I SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 137 ON SR 1435
OVER STONEY CREEK
NASH COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3495
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2321501
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1435(2)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-3495 .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ELIZABETH L. LUSK, NATURAL SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
July 11, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
1.2 Methodology
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Regional Characteristics
2.2 Soils
2.3 Water Resources
2.3,1 Best Usage Classification
2.3.3 Water Quality
2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
2.3.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers _
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Biotic Communities
3.1.2 Disturbed /Maintained Roadside_
3.1.3 Swamp Hardwood
3.1.4 Bottomland Mixed Pine/Hardwood
3.2 Wildlife
3.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna
3.2.3 Aquatic Fauna
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters _
4.1.2 Permits
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
5.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Table 1. Estimated Terrestrial Impacts .................................................................
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Caldwell County ..................................
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Nash County .........................................
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
15
1
....................................9
......:...........................13
..................................14
ii
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 report 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 that will minimize
resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may 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 crosses Stoney Creek (Figure 1). The project calls for the replacement of
Bridge No. 137 on SR 1435 over Stoney Creek in Nash County. The proposed structure, a two-lane
bridge with a 24-foot wide travelway and 3-foot offsets, will replace the existing two-lane structure,
consisting of a 26.2-foot wide deck and 19-foot approach roadways with grassed shoulders. The
proposed right-of-way for this project is 80 feet (24 meters). Project length is 1,020 feet (31 lmeters).
The proposed project replaces Bridge No. 137 over SR 1435 with a 160-foot long bridge at the same
approximate location and roadway elevation. Traffic will be detoured onto surrounding roads during
construction.
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 (Nashville).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil
Survey of Nash County, North Carolina (1989).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Maps of
Caldwell County (1995).
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service list of
protected and candidate species (December 20, 1999) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented
occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT Environmental
Biologists Elizabeth Lusk, Logan Williams, and Tim Savidge on May 15, 2000. 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 and on-
site surveys. 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 and tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered as
well. An in-water survey was conducted for two species of federally listed endangered mussels.
Organisms captured during these searches were identified and then released.
. Jurisdictional wetlands 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 0.8 km
(0.5 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)], with the
project study area occupying the central position.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Elizabeth L. Lusk
Education: Bachelor of Arts, Davidson College
Master of Forest Management, Duke University
Certification: Registered Forester, #995
Experience: Environmental Biologist, NC DOT, Raleigh, NC, August 1999 to present.
Biologist, CZR Environmental Consultants, Wilmington, NC, 1994 to1999.
Service Forester, NC Division of Forest Resources, Charlotte, NC, 1992 to 1993.
Service Forester, MD Forest Service, Baltimore, MD, 1990 to 1992.
Expertise: Bottomland hardwood mitigation, wetland delineation, hydric soil evaluation, biotic
community mapping, technical report writing.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that 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 is in the east-central part of North Carolina. It lies on the fall line of North Carolina, the
physiographic boundary between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont. The soils of the two regions
intermingle on well-drained landscapes in corridors running north and south through the west-central
part of the county. The county is primarily rural, covering a total of 347,161 acres (140,491 hectares).
County elevations range from 300 feet (91 meters) in the western and northwestern portions of the
Piedmont region to 100 feet (30 meters) on the eastern side or Coastal Plain region of the county. The
project elevation is approximately 140 feet (43 meters). The county is drained to the east and southeast
by several large streams. Fishing and Swift Creeks drain the northern sections of the county. The Pig
Basket, Stoney, and Sapony Creeks drain the central portion. The Tar River and the Toisnot, Turkey, .
and Moccasin Creeks drain the southern portion of the county. Surface waters from the Tar River and
the Sapony Creek Reservoirs supply the city of Rocky Mount and part of the town of Nashville.
2.2 Soils
There is one soil type mapped in the project area. Wehadkee loam (Wh) is a frequently flooded
hydric soil. This soil is poorly drained located on low flood plains along streams. Typically, the surface
layer is a grayish brown loam about 5 inches (13 centimeters) thick. Wehadkee soil has a very slow
surface runoff. Permeability and availability water capacity are moderate. The water table is at or near
the surface during all but the driest months. This soil is susceptible to flooding after prolonged rains and
ponding between rains. The main limitations of this soil are flooding and high water table. The
Wehadkee soil is in capability class VIw.
2.3 Water Resources
This Section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by
the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the best usage classifications, physical
characteristics, 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.
Most federal government agencies use a system of defining watersheds that is different from that used by
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Under this approach, a nationally uniform hydrologic unit system
was developed in 1974 by the US Geological Survey's (USGS) Office of Water Data Coordination. This
3
system divides the country into 21 regions, 222 subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging
(hydrologic) units based on surface hydrologic features. Under the federal system, the Tar-Pamlico
River basin is made up of five hydrologic units. Each hydrologic unit is defined by an 8-digit number.
By contrast, DWQ has a two-tiered system in which the state is subdivided into 17 river basins, and each
basin Js subdivided into subbasins. The Tar-Pamlico River basin is subdivided by DWQ into 8
subbasins. (NCDEM 1999)
Consequently, the proposed project is located in USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020101 (Upper Tar River)
within DWQ subbasin 03-03-02 (Upper Tar River and Swift Creek) of the DWQ Tar-Pamilico River
Basin. The Tar-Pamilico River Basin is the 4th largest river basin in North Carolina. This river basin
covers an area of 5,440 square miles, encompassing 16 counties and 51 municipalities, including North
Carolina's largest natural lake - Lake Mattamuskeet. The Upper Tar River and Swift Creek subbasin
contains an approximate 50-mile stretch of the Tar River from the community of Spring Hope in Nash
County to below the confluence of Swift Creek in Edgecombe County. Major towns include Henderson,
Nashville, and Rocky Mount. This subbasin also contains the entire Swift Creek catchment. Streams in
this subbasin are within the Piedmont ecoregion. The majority of the land cover within this subbasin is
forest/wetland, followed by cultivated cropland. (NCDEM 1999)
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
The single water resource within the. study area is located in the Tar-Pamilico River Drainage
Basin. Via Bridge No. 137, SR 1435 crosses Stoney Creek, a tributary to the Tar River.
Streams in North Carolina have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM). This classification
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Stoney Creek [DEM Index No. 28-68,
1/1/90] is classified as C NSW. Class C refers to waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation. and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water
where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no
restrictions on watershed development activities. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is a supplemental
classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general, management strategies for point
and nonpoint source pollution control require no increase in nutrients over background levels. No
waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) or Outstanding
Resource Waters. (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile (1.0 km) of the project study area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
There is one water resource in the project area. Stoney Creek at SR 1435 is approximately 13.7
in (45.0 ft) wide and is 0.9 to 1.2 meters (3.0 to 4.0 feet) deep. The creek has substrate composed
primarily of silt and sand. The water is not clear, most likely due to the natural tannins in the area.
Water flow was slow on the day of the site.visit. However, there is evidence of greater flow. This
stream was greatly affected by Hurricane Floyd as evidenced by the new rip-rap and fresh seeding on all
four banks. The stream banks display significant scouring on both sides of the bridge. As a result, many
undermined mature hardwoods have fallen across the stream and there are a few newly created sandbars
in the steam.
4
2.3.3 Water Quality
This Section describes the 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 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality-monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms,
which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all
species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The
biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There are no benthic monitoring
stations on Stoney Creek in or above the project area.
2.3.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
Point source discharge is defined "as any discharge that enters surface waters through a pipe,
ditch or any other well-defined point. The term commonly refers to discharges associated with
wastewater treatment plant facilities. In addition, discharges from stormwater collection systems at
industrial sites and in large urban areas are now considered point source discharges" (DEM, 1993). Point
source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit.
No registered point source dischargers are located in or directly upstream from the project study
area.
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snowmelt (DEM, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of non-point
source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of non-
point source pollution in North Carolina (DEM, 1993). Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to receiving streams and potentially elevate
concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be source of bacterial
contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils
contributes to the influence of stormwater pollutants into surface waters (DEM, 1993).
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and
5
pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the project
area.
• 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 and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• 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 will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream activities and
revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
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 that 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 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include 'terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described within biotic communities utilize resources from adjacent communities, making boundaries
between contiguous communities difficult to define. There are three terrestrial communities located in
the project area: disturbed/maintained roadside, swamp hardwood, and bottomland mixed
pine/hardwood.
6
3.1.2 Disturbed /Maintained Roadside
This maintained community is located on the all sides of the existing bridge and will be
impacted by the bridge replacement. It has recently been reestablished due to Hurricane Floyd
damage repairs conducted in the vicinity. Because of mowing and the use of herbicides this
community is kept in a constant state of early succession. The dominant species in this community
are the recently-planted fescue (Festuca. sp.), Carex (Carex squarosa), knot weed (Polygonum
pensylvanicum), vetch (Vicea sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), woods violet (Viola sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and panic grass (Panicum sp.).
3.1.3 Swamp Hardwood
This wooded community is located on the western side of the bridge on both sides of Stoney
Creek. This community qualifies as a jurisdictional wetland. The vegetation is strongly influenced by the
surface water which was present during the site visit and is, most likely present throughout the year. The
dominant herbaceous species found in this community include jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), lizard
tail (Saururus cernuus), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana).
Vines identified here include poison ivy, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle,
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Muscadine grape (Vitus rotundifolia), and trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans). The dominant. plants found in the shrub layer are privet (Ligustrum
sinense), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Tree species observed include
American elm (Ulmus americana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black walnut (Juglans nigra),
sycamore (Platinus deltoides), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black
willow (Salix nigra), black oak (Quercus velutina), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
3.1.4 Bottomland Mixed Pine/Hardwood
This community is located on the eastern side of the bridge on both sides of Stoney Creek. It is
somewhat similar to the Swamp Hardwood Community in species composition, but it lacks the surface
water observed during the site visit. Nevertheless, this community is also a jurisdictional wetland. A
high water table and frequent overbank flooding exerts a strong influence on the vegetation. Dominant
herbaceous species observed include jewelweed, lizard tail, woods violet, knotweed, may apple, and
Asiatic grass. In addition to the vines found in the Swamp Hardwood Community, greenbrier (S. bona-
nox) is also present in this community. Dominant shrubs include blackberry, elderberry, pokeweed, and
privet. Tree species observed include swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), slash pine (Pinus elliottii),
green ash, mulberry (Morus rubra), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), black oak, sweet gum, and red maple.
3.2 Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may utilize all biotic communities previously
discussed. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt, with little transitional area between them.
Nearly all of the forested parcels within the project area have received some degree of impact by human
activities.
7
3.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna
Because all of the habitats in the project area are disturbed, the faunal component is expected to
consist mostly of opportunistic animals, which are able to adapt to the edge habitats created by
disturbance. Conversely, species that require large undisturbed forests are likely to be absent.
Herbivorous mammals, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana)* and eastern cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridanus) frequent the vegetatively diverse edges of disturbed area and community borders.
Abundant food and shelter are available from the forested community, including mast, leaves, berries,
and insects. The Rufous-sided towee (Pipilo erythrophtalmus)* can be found foraging on the ground in
the duff layer. Primarily bird species, such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)*, great-crested
flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus)*, indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea)*, American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos)*, morning dove (Zenaida macroura)*, Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis)*, and
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)* utilize the tree canopy. However, gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon ltor)*, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), grey treefrog (Hyla
chrysoscelis), and eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) also utilize this stratum.
Many of the ground-dwelling species, including worm snake (Carphophis amoenus),
southeastern crowned snake (), southeastern shrew (Blarina carolinensis), and woodland vole (Microtus
pinetorum) are fossorial (living in burrows). Other species occupying the forest floor include the ground
nesting ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), Rufous-sided towee (Pipilo erythrophtalmus)*, American toad
(Bufo americanus), ground skink (Scincella. lateralis), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
Earthworms, insects and other invertebrates constitute the majority of these species' diets. The
woodland vole and eastern box turtle consume mainly plant material and fungi.
Several butterfly species were observed, including the spicebush swallowtail (Papilio troilus), silver
spotted skipper (Epargyreus clarus), violet dancer damselfly (Argia fumipennis).
Top predators expected to occur here include various hawks (Accipiter sp. and Buteo sp.) and
copperhead snakes (Agkistrodon contortix). A couple of red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus)* were
observed during the site visit. These species are important in maintaining populations of rodents, small
birds, and other animals. Because of the open, relatively non-stratified nature of maintained/disturbed
communities such as the roadside habitats, resident vertebrate fauna, are generally small in size. These
small mammals are important prey items for the black rat snake (Elaphe constrictor), red fox (Vulpus
vulpes), red-tailed hawk (Bueto jamacensis), and other birds of prey.
3.2.3 Aquatic Fauna
This community consists of Stoney Creek. The physical characteristics (size and water quality) of the
stream, as well as the adjacent terrestrial community, directly influence faunal composition of this
aquatic community. The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a limited
number of aquatic organisms. There were several piles of woody debris, which also provide habitat,
shade, and concealment pockets for several aquatic species.
Mayflies (Ephemeroptera)* and midges (Chinonomidae sp.)* were observed on submerged woody debris
within the project vicinity upstream of the bridge. Other insects observed in this community during the
site visit include whirly-gig beetles (Gyrinus limbatus)*, dragonflies (Odonta sp.)*, and mosquito larvae
(Culicidae sp.)*. Fish species observed either within the project area or upstream of the project within
8
the project vicinity include blue gill (Leponis macrochirus)*, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)*,
and mosquito fish (Ganfusia affnis)*. Three turtle species were observed: Eastern mud turtle
(Kinosternon subrubrum)*, snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)*, and the yellow belly slider
(Chrysemys scripta)*. Other aquatic wildlife observed includes the northern cricket frog (Acris
crepitans)), mussels (Elliptio spp.), Campeloma snail (Canspeloma decisum), and Asiatic clam
(Corbicula fluminea).
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. Since there is no on-site
temporary detour, all impacts are presented as permanent impacts.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the widening,
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 lengths described in Section 1.1 where they
intersect with the natural communities, and the entire proposed right-of-way width of 80.0 feet (24.4
meters) for the bridge replacement. However, project construction often does not require the entire-
right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated Terrestrial Impacts
Community Permanent Impacts
Wetland Upland Totals -
Maintained/Disturbed -- 0.27 ha (0.67 ac) 0.27 ha (0.67 ac)
Swamp Hardwood 0.11 ha (0.27 ac) -- 0.11 ha (0.27 ac)
Bottomland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.11 ha (0.27 ac) -- 0.11 ha (0.27 ac)
Totals 0.22 ha (0.54 ac) 0.27 ha (0.67 ac) 0.49 ha (1.21 ac)
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Stoney Creek will result from the replacement of Bridge
No. 137. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and
water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community
composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations
to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms and gills of fish
• Burial of benthic organisms
9
Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations, which deplete dissolved oxygen
supplies
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment load.
Increased water temperatures due to removal of riparian canopy
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMP's.
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 that. regulate their protection. This Section deals
specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States"
(Waters of the US), 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
Potential wetlands were evaluated using the criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual." For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must
be met:
1. presence of hydric soils,
2. presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and
3. hydrology or signs of hydrology.
There are wetlands in the project area on both sides of Stoney Creek. According to Cowardin's
classification system, the Swamp Hardwood Community on the west side of the bridge is a PSSIC
wetland type (palustrine, shrub-scrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded) and the Bottomland
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Community on the east side is a PFOIA wetland type (palustrine, forested, broad-
leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded) (Cowardin et al, 1979). Both wetland types are of medium
quality. Wetland impacts for the replacement of the bridge are approximately 0.54 ac (0.22)
[Table 1]. Vol
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that
are located within the proposed right-of-way. A length of 80.0 feet (24.4 meters) of Stoney Creek and
0.09 ac (0.04 ha) of streambed may be permanently or temporarily impacted by the proposed
bridge replacement.
10
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters 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 that 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's 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 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.
Projects located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin are subject to the recently-developed Tar-
Pamlico Buffer Rule, administered by the DWQ. These rules address loss of stream channel buffers for
field verified streams appearing on the USGS Topographic Quad and/or the NRCS Soil Survey. Bridge
construction is allowable provided that there are "no practical alternatives". As this bridge
replacement project is currently proposed, it is allowable under the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rule.
However, a written authorization is required from the DWQ. A request to the DWQ for the authorization
should be included in the cover letter of the permit application package.
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 137 is located on SR 1435 over Stoney Creek in Nash County. The superstructure is
composed entirely of timber and steel, which will be removed without dropping any components into
Waters of the US. The substructure consists of concrete posts and beams. There is potential for the
posts and beams to be dropped into Waters of the US. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete posts and beams may be approximately 12 cubic yards.
4.1.3 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 the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
11
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, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation is 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 that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that
result in the fill or alteration of.
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands;
• And/or more than 45.7 in (150.0 linear ft) of streams.
Compensatory mitigation may be required for those projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that
result in the fill or alteration of. more than .05 ha (0.1 ac) of wetlands or streams.
Because the wetlands impacted by this project total less than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) and are not high
quality wetlands, no mitigation requirement is anticipated. 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 (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
12
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 December 20, 1999, the FWS lists
three federally protected species for Nash County (Table 2). Brief descriptions of the characteristics and
habitat requirements for these species are included as Appendix A.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Caldwell County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spinymussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
An "E" status denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were found for the Tar spiny mussel and the red-
cockaded woodpecker. Although, no active populations of the dwarf wedge mussel have been reported
from the project vicinity, favorable habitat does exist for this species and there is record of a historical
population. According to a May 18, 2000 memo from Mr. Tim Savidge (protected species specialist for
the NC DOT) a Biological Conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" is issued at this time for the
dwarf wedged mussel. However, another survey should be conducted within one year preceding.
construction.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrences of
federally protected species in the project study area.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are eight federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Nash County (Table 3).
Federal species of concern (FSC) 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 are defined as species that are 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 (NCNHP) 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 the FSC, the state status of these species (if afforded state protection), and the
potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. A review of the NCNHP database of
rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrence of FSC species within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) the project
study area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species
may be upgraded in the future.
13
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Nash County
Scientific Name Common Name
Lythrurus matuinus
Elliptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis cariosa
Pinewoods shiner
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
NC Status Habitat
Yes, a
population was
SR observed upstream
May 11, 2000
T/PE Yes
T/PE Yes
T/PE Yes
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater +, E Yes
Speyeria dana Diana fritillary butterfly SR* Yes
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily T No
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum Carolina least trillium E No
NOTE: NC Status:
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The
species is generally more common elsewhere in its.range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
14
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
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 Distributional Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
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, N.C.
NCDEM. 1999. Tar-Pamlico Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. NC Department of
Environmental Management, Division of Water Quality Water Quality Section Planning Branch.
Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams: Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1997. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Plant Conservation Program. 1999. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and Candidate
Plant Species. North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Raleigh, N.C.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
15
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. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA, 1986. Soil Survey of Caldwell County North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
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.
16

APPENDIX A
Descriptions of Federally Protected Species found in Nash County, NC
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
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.
Populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina have been found portions of the Neuse
River and Tar-Pamlico River Basins. 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 Effect
Stoney Creek was surveyed for dwarf wedge mussel on May 15, 2000 by NCDOT environmental
biologists Tim Savidge and Logan Williams. Although there is favorable habitat in the project area, no
individuals of this species were found. (See Mussel Survey Memo dated May 30, 2000).
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spinymussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, Pitt, Vance, Warren.
Populations of the Tar spinymussel in North Carolina have been found portions of the Neuse River
and Tar-Pamlico River Basins.
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 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 No Effect
Stoney Creek was surveyed for Tar spinymussel on May 15, 2000 by NCDOT environmental
biologists Tim Savidge and Logan Williams. Although there is marginal habitat in the project area, no
individuals of this species were found. (See Mussel Survey Memo dated May 30, 2000).
A-1

Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
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 (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 200.0 ha (500.0 ac). 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 in (12.0-100.0 ft)
above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30.0-50.0 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
During the May 15, 2000 site visit, no suitable habitat was observed in the project vicinity.
A-2
S.
y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERINOR SECRETARY
November 5, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814 B -,
E3

.
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele ..
31 { Ci

d
3 2 ;
NCDOT Coordinator ?._
METER @KG0
MATER UALITY, SFMON
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 137 on SR 1435, `offer oney Fee ash County,
State Project No. 8.2321501, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1435(2), TIP No. B-
3495.
Dear Ma'am:
REFERENCE: Nationwide 23 Permit application, dated October 15, 2001
Project design has changed since the Categorical Exclusion was approved. Current
design calls for a temporary causeway to be utilized to construct the new bridge. The permit
drawings included in the October 15, 2001 correspondence are current. Please refer to them for
design specifications and impacts resulting from the temporary causeway.
Temporary impacts from construction of the temporary causeway may total up to
0.01 acres of fill in surface waters (Sheet 6 of 9). The temporary rock causeway is needed to
install the interior piers for the bridge. The piers will be drilled shafts. The outline of the
causeway is shown on sheet 4 of 9 of the permit drawings. The temporary fill below normal
water surface totals 30 cubic yards (shown on sheet 5 of 9). Although the temporary causeway
will be constructed of clean rock and will be removed from the streambed to the greatest extent
practical without extensive disturbance of the existing streambed after construction, some
residual may remain. Construction plans detailing the proposed causeway are depicted in the
permit drawings.
Therefore, in addition to the Nationwide 23 permit (application submitted October 15,
2001), the NCDOT is also requesting a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering) authorizing the construction of the causeway. Since the
temporary causeway is not covered in the CE, the requisite Pre-Construction Notification is
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] _
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT. STATE.NC.US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 -
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
attached. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
If you have any questions, please contact Elizabeth L. Lusk at [phone], extension
335.
/S? iinc/e?rely,
g `William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?
Cc: Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Engineer
Mr. D.R: Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. D.R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Karen Orthner, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Hal Bain, Unit Head, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
File: B-3495
a
a
Use Only: Form Version October 2001
SACE Action ID No.
DWQ No.
any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A rather than
aving the space blank.
Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
n Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a co esy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: M
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC DOT
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919/733-3141 Fax Number: 919/733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
•
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: B-3495
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3495
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Nash Nearest Town: Nashville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): first stream crossing on SR 1435
north of US 64 north of Nashville
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
. Same as is proposed
7. Property size (acres): 1.9 acres (project length of 1,020' x ROW width of 80')
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Stoney Creek
9. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico Basin HU 03020101
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 8
T
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Replace existing bridge with a new bridge at
the same location.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
Standard bridize construction equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: woodland
Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
1
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also.
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 8

•
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
1 Fill 0.006 Yes 0' PSS1C
1 Mech. clearing 0.081 Yes 01 PFOIA

?.,.,
List each impact separately ana mennry temporary Impacts. rrnpat;ti rut;iuue, uur arc uvr u1111MU w. iucuiairrccu ?i m lis, r. L16,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.087 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 Temporary Fill 30' Stoney Creek 45' Perennial

List each impact separately ana iaentity temporary impacts. impacts tnciuae, out are not umueu ta: cuivcns alur assvcrarcu „t,-lap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
* Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.us,s.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., ww•w.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0' permanent (30' temp.)
Page 4 of 8
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

List eacn impact separately ana iaemny temporary unpact?,. nupduN lnuiuuc, UUt aic uVL iuiuLcu w. 11.,, ?Alala-...., ,.....s...C,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): F? uplands E] stream E] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
Impact. Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
1. Offsite detour avoids impacts from constructing detour bridize.
2 Adherence (as much as possible) to exisiting location avoids new impacts.
3 Replacing bridge with another bridge rather than culvert.
Mitigation
DWQ = In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 5 of 8
i
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. , Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing; or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stn-ngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Impacts < 0.1 acres therefore no mitigation is required.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.hti-n. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No F-I
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 30 3 None
2 179 1.5 None
Total 209 None
* Zone 1 extends out su teet perpenaicuiar from near Manx of cnannei; cone L extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Per the DOT Roadway Design Standards the paved area on approaches will be increased from
20' to 24' and the bridize will be widened from 26' to 30'.
A crown in center of bridge causes water to run off bridge into deck drains in spans 1&3.
Funnel drains at the sag points drain storm runoff into wetlands outside of the Buffer Zones.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes F-1 No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
No federally protected species (Dwarf wedge and Tar-spines mussels) found in Stoney Creek.
US FWS say project is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" dwarf wedge mussel and will have
"No Effect" on the Tar spinet/ mussel.

Applicant/Agent's Sig ture Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
6
r
,wswt?
?d y. a o+a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 5, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 137 on SR 1435, over Stoney Creek, Nash County,
State Project No. 8.232150 1, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1435(2), TIP No. B-
3495.
Dear Ma'am:
REFERENCE: Nationwide 23 Permit application, dated October 15, 2001
Project design has changed since the Categorical Exclusion was approved. Current
design calls for a temporary causeway to be utilized to construct the new bridge. The permit
drawings included in the October 15, 2001 correspondence are current. Please refer to them for
design specifications and impacts resulting from the temporary causeway.
Temporary impacts from construction of the temporary causeway may total up to
O.Olacres of fill in surface waters (Sheet 6 of 9). The temporary rock causeway is needed to
install the interior piers for the bridge. The piers will be drilled shafts. The outline of the
causeway is shown on sheet 4 of 9 of the permit drawings. The temporary fill below normal
water surface totals 30 cubic yards (shown on sheet 5 of 9). Although the temporary causeway
will be constructed of clean rock and will be removed from the streambed to the greatest extent
practical without extensive disturbance of the existing streambed after construction, some
residual may remain. Construction plans detailing the proposed causeway are depicted in the
permit drawings.
Therefore, in addition to the Nationwide 23 permit (application submitted October 15,
2001), the NCDOT is also requesting a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering) authorizing the construction of the causeway. Since the
temporary causeway is not covered in the CE, the requisite Pre-Construction Notification is
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FAX: [phone] - TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER - WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

attached. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
If you have any questions, please contact Elizabeth L. Lusk at [phone], extension
335.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
D Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Engineer
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. D.R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Karen Orthner, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Hal Bain, Unit Head, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
File: B-3495
f
r
ffice Use Only:
Action ID No.
DWQ No.
any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
rving the space blank:
Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a c esy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: F
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC DOT
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919/733-3141 Fax Number: 919/733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Form Version October 2001
Page l of 8
1.
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map.
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: B-3495
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3495
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Nash Nearest Town: Nashville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): first stream crossing on SR 1435
north of US 64 north of Nashville
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Same as is proposed
7. Property size (acres): 1.9 acres (project length of 1,020' x ROW width of 80')
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Stoney Creek
9. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico Basin, HU 03020101
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 8
r
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Replace existing bridge with a new bridge at
the same location.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
Standard bridge construction equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: woodland
Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams '(intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and. delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 8

mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located.within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
1 Fill 0.006 Yes 0' PSS1C
1 Mech. clearing 0.081 Yes 0' PFOIA

t List eaen impact separately ana wenury temporary impacts. impacts mciuue, out are ?ot umneu tu: H,ecttauiccu c,cauug, giawug, uu,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at bttp://www.fema.,ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.087 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 Temporary Fill 30' Stoney Creek 45' Perennial

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts mciuae, out are not nmttea to: culverts ana associatea rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.top6zone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on, site: 0' permanent (30' temp.)

3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

List eacn impact separately ana iuenuiy Lemporary ui,Yaua. IIILPM w nwi uuc., UUL cam ,_.,L a=u- - w.
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
1 Offsite detour avoids impacts from constructing detour bridge
2 Adherence (as much as possible) to exisiting location avoids new impacts.
3 Replacing bridge with another bridge rather than culvert
Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 5 of 8
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stn-ngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Impacts < 0 1 acres therefore no mitigation is required.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.Lls/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
'If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or. North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are. not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No R
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the, applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No F-] If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 30 3 None
2 179 1.5 None
Total 209 None
* Zone 1 extends out all teet perpendicular from near banx of cnannel; Lone /_ extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 8

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)

Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Per the DOT Roadway Design Standards the paved area on approaches will be increased from
20' to 24' and the bridge will be widened from 26' to 30'.
A crown in center of bridize causes water to run off bridize into deck drains in spans 1&3.
Funnel drains at the sag points drain storm runoff into wetlands outside of the Buffer Zones.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes F No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
No federally protected species (Dwarf wedge and Tar-spinet/ mussels) found in Stoney Creek.
US FWS says project is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" dwarf wedge mussel and will have
"No Effect" on the Tar spinet' mussel.
C_ - ?a
,)4(, It 0
Applicant/Agent's Sig ture Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
f
rage 8 o 8