19950249 Ver 1_Complete File_19970115

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
h&4.?EHNF=1
January 21, 1997
Anson County
DWQ Project # 95249
TIP #B-2503, State Project No. 8.1651201
You have our approval to place temporary fill in 0.03 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
construct a replacement for Bridge 4, US 74, as you described in your application dated 15 January 1997.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 2727. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 33 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or
LAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
LsatonHowardV,Jr. P. .
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Alice Gordon; NC DOT
95249.Itr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
r [
a+•.AltnO
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
]AMEs B. HUNT) P. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GAR AND B. GARRETT JR.
GQVEKNQK P.O. BOX 23201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611'3201 SECRETARY
PLANNING & E,AWRONMENTAL BRANCH
. FAX COVER SIIEET

.t
Data:
Number YOU Are Calling.
Please deliver theeaoeo follorang pages to. Name: a/
Deparrmerlr rn1d(or Firm:
Address or Room N1mber:
This Mecopy is being sent by:
Name. C?.G L
Phone Number: 7 7
Remarks:
d i. .
Number of pages (Including Cover Shcct) 64
IF YOUDO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLEARLY, CALL (919) 733,3M1 AS
SO'ONAS POSSIBLF.
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRA.AFCHFAXN Y,8,6R - [phone]
b £
ON -BI NOdIAN3 QNd SNINNUi d:UI £S:£T CEM L6,-ST-Ntif
4ell- my__

From: Alice Gordon
To: intarnotcyndi bellQdem.elrnr.5tate.nc.us
Date: 1115/97 11:68am
subject: 8-2503, Anson County, 401 for NW33
The contractor needs to out in a temporary bridge across Lanes Creek in order to build this hridgo on US 74. Scott
MCLendan has been in correspondance with the contractor (Blythe Construcion) and has agrood to issuo a NW 33.1
said that we also need a 401' and that the moat efficient way to got tha info to DWQ would be for him to fax it to you,
Tho purpoco of thle C-Mail i0 to alort you to the isouoo.
The primary issue Is that tho CE should have committed to an April - May In-stream moratorium which the WRC had
requested but which had not gotten into the text of tho CE. Scott will I,= the NW33 rzut with the proviso that all.
mglgrial Is out of the stream by April 1. 1097. Ion outer for this to happen Scott suggests that we expldite tho
permitting. The sooner they start the sooner finished.
I want to get you as much info as possible so that tha OWa can see fit to expidite the process too. Hara's what I
have:
1 was In the midst of proparing the NW33 replete with PDN and diuvrings when Scott call to say he was ready to
issue tho 33 with the into received from tho contractor. The following paracdraph3 are from the cover letter and PDN;
that never got dono
Subject: Anson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 4 over Lanes Creek on US .74. Federal Aid
Project No. BRNHF-74(10), State Project No. 4.1651201, T.I.P. No. B-2503. Action I.D.
199501881.
On February 13, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Tranuportotion distributed a Categorical Exclusion
documont for tho oubject project, requesting concurrence by the corp* of Engineers for a Nationwide 23 pormit
otatuo end the NCOEM for a Section 401 Water Quality CertiAcation. The project was ©uthorlzed by the Corps of
Engineers on March 21, 1005. The project Is currently under construction. The contractor requested pormis8lon to
buud a temporary construction bridge to provide access to both sides of the crook during construction. The proposed
temporary structure to be located between the remaining beams from the domolition of the existing bridge. Thus the
structure will be within the study corridor described in the CE. No jurisdictional wotlands or federally protected
species were found within the study corridor.
The new bridge cannot be constructed without tho placement of o temporary creek crossing to provide Access
across Lanes Creek. The crossing will fnciiitato tho construction of the drilled oha113 and placement of the structural
start,
Restoration Plan; The temporary creek crossing construction wui require 0.03 acres of temporary 611 in Waters of tho
United States. No permanent flit will result from the Subject activity. Reference elevations are available for the area
of proposed construction of the creek crossing. Following Construction of the bridge, all material used in the
construction of the crack crossing will be removed. The creek cr0331no will be in placa for approximately 4 months.
The temporary fil will consist of Class B riprap, W-B' in size covered with 1' x 4' x 30' wood crane male. Two (2) 36°
diameter x 30' corrugated steel pipes will be placed under the dprap to maintain stream flow.
Wo hereby roquoot A 401 Conoral Cortification be issued by the NC Department of Water quality for the proposed
tomporrtry ccnatru(*on noccaa bridge.
Hero I
The following Information Is provided to you concerning the creek crossing to be installed by Blythe Construction,
Inc. at Lanes Creek for Project 8.1051201, TIP B-2503. If you need additional information, pleasa advise.
Information for Joint Form:
5. Location/County: Anion County
Nearest Town: Peachland, NC
Specific Locatien: US Hwy. 74 just west of Peachland, NC
6. Closoot StreamfRivor: Loma Creek
7. River Bo3in: Poo Dee
4. Yes
9. Yes
10. Est. total number of acres of water of the US located on project situ:
?- Zed biE11 :ON -BI NOJIAN3 QNU 9NINN1d-1d:QI bS:Ei c[3m L5,-Si-NO f

0.1 ocr03 (pormanant)
11. Number of acres of waters of the US impacted by the project:
Flllod: 0.03 acres (temporary)
Drained: 0.0 acres
Flooded: 0.0 acres
Excavated; 0.0 acres
Total Impacted: 0.03 acres (temporary)
12. DasCription of proposed work: Roplzcomont of atructura over Lanca Creek.
13. Purposo of proposed work: Publlc Transportation
15. Yes
16. Yea '
17. A) N/A i
B) N/A
C) WA i
D) Alice, if this refers to erosion control plan, we do havo one for this project and I will send it to you if required.,
E) Rosidenlial/Commercial
F) N/A
SUMMARY SHEET
SITE STATION FILL IN TEMP. FILL IN
WETLANDS SURFACE WATERS
(ACRES) (ACRES)
5+780 -L- 0.0 0.03
TO
5+1100 •L-
CC: Ocrashin, GOrimos
PT 24 :ON Tdl NOd I f1N3 GNU EN I NNU-1d : U I
i
SS:ES mM L6l-SL-Not.

12/93 SCALE =1:60 000
0 1 2 1
(kilometers FIG. I
. II
ON -31 NOdInN3 GNU 9NINNH-ld:QI SS:ET G3M L6,-Sti-Nj,f-• --

I
..In. 290 OIA4 '07 09::47 lInU `I'THE: C,W T, _tT N!; 704 :37F "+$]d PAGE: 2
. 5
a? STQ ? ? , c
10
991. p
gag

I
S
Sod Vi2It

Y e ?•n/
r ?r
y r
3 ?
r,
17
,o
IL
:ON X31 NOdInN3 QNU SNINNU?d:QI LS:Ei aim Ls,si-Nd.
?il

1L.E No. 290 01/14 '97 0$::31; 1G:,1.1'THE (.LT IX.
. 1
704 0114
Blythe Constll.ue tiol , Inc.
11.31. IA,i :11 ILIA. Ghnrlik"11. INC x11231
T.•1. )dH.?,. ?'I)t) 3-15.1141 1. Fun 17111137:-7111.1 1
January 13, 1997 •'ti,
Mr. Scott McLindarr : r rnN r q '
ptpnrtn=ofilia Arley
WilminVton Oistrict.:Corim of Engincers
P.O. Box 139Q:
Wilmington, k 28402.1890
i
ttererence NCDD'T Prgiect No. 8.1651201 . Anson County. Blythe Project 60027/540
U.S. Army Corps orEnginmra Action (.D. No. 10501981
Mar Mr. McLlndew
Per our phone ConVerllAtion earlier Way, I have mcloscd a detail of ilia litrcalli cros34118 wo wish to utilixe
on tha abova roforenccd project. Ilia 2.671 x 3.25' concrete beams, rennainnig from the demolition oft le
existing bridges. will be used ns a bise to help di5ltlbLaotile load across the bed of ilia stream. Two (2) 36"
diameter x 30' corrugated steel pipes will be pvsitlamzd between thu beams to maintain constillt,
unintorruptodflow. An overlay ofNCDOT Class B Riprap. 6%8" in size, will bo placed on and arowtdtlut
Beams. and pipe Lo prov"ide q level road surf ice, Lure 1' x 41.V 30' wood erano nizts will then be placed ou
'the road 91t ee to allow heavy equipment to cross the stmim.
1116 btrum, Crossing will sttva three main put-poles. First, it wilt serve as nn access road for our drllf.ed
shaft subcontractor, Coastal C1tiSsou. enabling them to position thr.ir largo truck-mounted drill r1g cn the
oast side ofibe crock, olla ving them to drill rho shafts for Sent Two. Without this crossing, it would bo
impossible Tor Coastal Cniason to complete ifb scope ofwork. Second, die crossing Will serve its acckss
For our forages to complete ilia comtrucrion of Dtnt Two, allowi)zg for tlia efficient trpnnfor of material)t and
egwpolent. Finally, the crossing will serve as a&mss for our track crane during stnictural rccl opcraT :ions,
The crane will be required to sot up ntAr tho center O tha crossing. in order co assist in placing tho
structural steel for spans B and C. Aftor placement of the stnicntral itecl, schcdulcd for mid-April, 1947,
the crossing will he removed and the stream will be ragtorcd to its original state.
f if ndditionnl infamuition is rogrllred, please notify ma Inunedi iEaly. Tlinnl; you for your n'sistanco.
Sincerely,
Blythe Coristtuctioll, Inc.
kl(5
_Q. Riehgrd 0. Ku{cutian. E.I.T.
Axxistent Project MM,08 1!
Enclosure
cc: COy Daucom, Stcvc Lci6hton/R.S.'H0lms/File
Jimmy Dennis. NCDOT Resident Engineer
90d V124 :ON -31 N0211AN3 GNU 9NINI,t d:M 8S:2T mfg
z5,-s>:-Ndr
r r.?•G 1

0Em4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAh1ES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 13, 1995
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
??1'I iSSUru
SUBJECT: Anson County, TIP No. B-2503, State Project No. 8.1651201, Federal
Aid No. BRNHF-74(10).
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General 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,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sip er
HFV/gec
Attachments
cc: Mr. Rudolf Schiener, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. F. E. Whitesell, PE, Division 8 Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Philip Harris, Project Planning Engineer
H Franklin Vick, Manager,
Planning and Environmental
P. E.
Branch
a

Anson County
US 74
Bridge No. 4 over Lanes Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRNHF-74(10)
State Project No. 8.1651201
T.I.P. No. B-2503
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
j,
did
e.H'Franklin
Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DA E
C
? Nich s L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
7??11
DATE
Anson County
US 74
Bridge No. 4 over Lanes Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRNHF-74(10)
State Project No. 8.1651201
T.I.P. No. B-2503
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1994
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
41 P 6
V
°Q
o -
c °
.
S /?/?/?1
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gai rimes E., Unit Head
Consul t Engin ring Unit
6?& _-? - da44'i? aE
Phil Ham
Project Planning Engineer
Anson County
US 74
Bridge No. 4 over Lanes Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRNHF-74(10)
State Project No. 8.1651201
T.I.P. No. B-2503
Bridge No. 4 is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
2. Detailed hydraulic studies will be performed during the final design stages to determine
bridge length and height necessary to accommodate peak flow.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 4 will be replaced in its existing location (westbound lanes) as shown in Figure 2.
It will be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 11.4 meters (38 ft) and
a length of 76 meters (249 ft). The structure will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway and 1.2
meter (4 ft) shoulders inside and 3.0 meter (10 ft) shoulders outside. The minimum grade on
the structure will be 0.2 percent.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
grade.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
inside shoulders, 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved, and 3.6 meter (12 ft) outside shoulders, 3.0 meter (10
ft) paved.
Traffic will be detoured on-site by placing two-way traffic on the existing two-lane, eastbound
bridge (See Figure 2). The eastbound structure has a clear roadway width of 12.2 meters (40
ft) and is 25 years old. It has a sufficiency rating of 95.6 and a remaining life of 40 years.
The total estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,132,000 including $32,000 for right-of-
way and $1,100,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-
2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $1,132,000 including $32,000 for right-of-way,
$1,100,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 74 is classified as a principal arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a major east-west connector between Piedmont North Carolina and the coast (See Figure 1).
The land use is woodlands, agricultural and commercial in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Woodlands are concentrated on slopes bordering the creek. An upland plateau to the west has
been converted to agricultural use while that to the east has been cleared for a commercial
enterprise.
In the project area, US 74 is a four-lane, median divided facility with two lanes eastbound and
two lanes westbound. The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge on both sides.
The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a 1745 meter radius (1 degree) curve
approximately 160 meters (525 ft) from the bridge to the east. The west approach is tangent
throughout the project limits. The roadway is situated approximately 12.5 meters (41 ft) above
the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 11,500 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1995 and 20,800 VPD for
the design year 2015. The volumes include 12 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 5
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers per hour (55 miles per
hour).
The existing bridge was built in 1946 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of five reinforced
concrete deck girder spans. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete spillthrough end
bents and four post and beam interior bents.
The overall length of the bridge is 75.9 meters (249 ft). Clear roadway width is 7.9 meters (26
ft). There is no posted weight limit on the structure.
Bridge No. 4 has a sufficiency rating of 8.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported at the bridge during the period from January 1, 1990 to March 31,
1993.
An aerial phone line is located on the north side of US 74, but should be outside of the
construction zone.
School buses cross the bridge five times daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternative alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment would
result in excessive cost and undesirable horizontal alignment.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by US 74.
The alternative of providing off-site detours is not desirable because an on-site detour is readily
available.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternative studied, based on current prices, is as follows:
Structure Removal $ 35,295
Structure 455,516
Roadway Approaches 210,493
Detour Approaches 80,696
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 175,000
Engineering and Contingencies 143,000
Right of Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 32,000
TOTAL $1,132,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 4 will be replaced on its existing location (westbound lanes) with a new structure
approximately 76 meters (249 ft) in length. Improvements to the existing approaches will be
necessary on each end of the bridge.
The substructure units on the westbound lanes will be lined up to match the skew and span
arrangement of the substructure on the eastbound lanes to accommodate widening of both bridges
in the future.
3
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) inside shoulders, 0.6 meter (2 ft)
paved, and 3.6 meter (12 ft) outside shoulders, 3.0 meter (10 ft) paved will be provided on the
approaches. An 11.4 meter (38 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement
structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 7.2 meter
(24 ft) travelway with a 1.2 meter (4 ft) shoulder inside and a 3.0 meter (10 ft) shoulder outside.
The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). The existing eastbound bridge
has a clear roadway width of 12.2 meters (40 ft) and will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 ft)
travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders for two-way traffic.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
approximately the same as the existing bridge. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new
bridge will be the same as the existing bridge grade. The length may be increased or decreased
as determined by final hydraulic design.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methodoloay
Materials and research data in support of this investigation were derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles (Marshville, NC),
National Wetland Inventory mapping, Soil Conservation Service soils information (U.S.
Department of Agriculture unpublished), and 1992 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200) furnished
by the NCDOT.
The site was visited on October 22, 1993. Plant and animal communities likely to be impacted
by proposed improvements were walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Surveys
were conducted within a study corridor approximately 45 meters (150 ft) in width extending from
the north edge of the eastbound roadway to the north of the existing westbound roadway.
However, impact calculations were based on potential encroachment 18 meters (60 ft) to the
north of the centerline of the existing westbound roadway. Special concerns were evaluated
including potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Lanes
Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
have been modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the
three parameter approach (vegetation, soils, hydrology) following U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic
organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980;
4
Potter et al. 1980; Hamel et al. 1982; Webster et al. 1985). Animal species names follow
nomenclature found in Webster et al. (1985) for mammals, the American Orinthologist's Union
Checklist of North American Birds (1983) for birds, Martof et al. (1980) for reptiles and
amphibians, and Menhinick (1991) for fish. Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) 1989, 1993).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
A listing of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Anson County were
requested and received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to initiation of
field studies. In addition, N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records documenting
presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing this investigation.
Physiography and Soils
Anson County is situated in the lower Piedmont Plateau, on the South Carolina border.
Topography is characterized by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage.
Elevations in the immediate project area range from 128 meters (420 ft) along upland ridge lines
to 113 meters (370 ft) along creek bottoms.
The county is underlain by igneous and metamorphic rocks, consisting mainly of schist, gneiss,
granite, and diorite. Local changes in subsurface geology are common and large, homogeneous
masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity are dominated by the presence of the Badin Channery series in upland
communities and McQueen soils in floodplain terraces. Badin Channery soils are characterized
by being moderately deep, well-drained soils found on 2 to 8 percent slopes. McQueen soils are
characterized by being very deep, well-drained soils formed in loamy alluvial deposits (U.S.
Department of Agriculture unpublished). There are no hydric soils in the project area.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
Bridge No. 4 crosses the middle reaches of Lanes Creek. Lanes Creek flows north into the
Rocky River at the Stanly County line. Lanes Creek and subsequent receptor systems are part
of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
Lanes Creek is a Class C stream, indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival,
5
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project site.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM
1989). The species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. There are no
BMAN sampling stations on streams in the immediate vicinity of this project.
Stream Characteristics
Lanes Creek originates in southeastern Union County approximately 23 kilometers (14 miles)
above the project site. The stream is approximately 18 in (60 ft) in width on each side of the
existing bridge. Depth varies from 15 centimeters (6 in) to 60 centimeters (2 ft). Currently, the
main body of the channel is bridged. Flow is slow to moderate, possibly influenced by
downstream beaver activity. Substrate is sandy with a mixture of gravel and pebbles.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project:
upland hardwood forest, agricultural and urban/disturbed. Specific communities exhibited slight
variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography,
human uses, etc.).
Upland Hardwood Forest
The stream banks and adjacent land support a gallery forest dominated by mature oaks. The
canopy consists primarily of northern red oak (Ouercus rubra) and white oak (_Q. alba , with
willow oak (O. phellos) along the stream banks. There is a well-developed subcanopy which
consists of the canopy species plus red maple (Acer nibrum), flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida , mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). A dense shrub
thicket is composed of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and saplings of red maple and winged
elm (Ulmus rubra). The herb layer is sparse due to shading and consists primarily of Japanese
6
honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica) and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Agricultural
Farming is an economic mainstay of rural Anson County. The upland plateau west of Lanes
Creek has been converted to agricultural land. The margins of this land support a mix of invader
species such as hairy crabgrass (Digitaria san uinalis), calico aster (Aster lateriflonis), lespedeza
(Lespedeza vir inica), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.) and
goldenrods (Solidauo spp.).
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed roadside margins and residential and commercial
yards in the vicinity of the project. These sites are characterized by a scattered shrub/sapling
layer of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Chinese privet, redbud (Cercis canadensis) and
winged sumac (Rhus copallina). Invasive grasses and herbs, similar to those of the fallow field,
are also common at these sites.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
The following table summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from
proposed bridge replacement.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
Hectares (Acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY
Upland Hardwood Forest
Agricultural Land
Urban Disturbed
TOTAL IMPACTS
---- ---------------------------
ESTIMATED IMPACT
0.10 (0.25)
0.11 (0.27)
0.76(l.88)
0.97 (2.40)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow strips
immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway segments. This in-place bridge
replacement is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge
and approach improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits which currently
do not support significant natural communities.
7
Wildlife
Terrestrial
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside and suburban development.
Clearing and conversion of large tracts of land for agricultural, residential, and commercial uses
has eliminated cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species. Even so, remaining
natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forested area and associated ecotones, do
serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering Lanes Creek has all the necessary components
(food, water, protective covering) for mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. This system also
serves as a travel corridor through developed areas.
Sightings or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc) were noted for several species of mammals
including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virg_iniantts), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis vir ing iana) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
The observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont landscape where a patchwork of habitat
types is available. Species encountered in the woodlands include northern flicker (Cola tes
auratus , Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Pants carolinensis),
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Species seen in and above roadsides and agricultural fields include American kestrel (Pandion
haliaetus , red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). A flock of Wood
Ducks and a single Belted Kingfisher were observed over the creek.
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the corn snake (Elaphe utg> tata),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene caroling) and the American toad (Bufo americanus).
Aquati
c
Lanes Creek supports an ecological classification of largemouth bass for recreational fishing (Fish
1968). Species that occur in Lanes Creek include largemouth bass (Microptents salmoides),
sunfish (Lepomis spp.), catfish (Ictalurus spp.) and suckers (Catostomus spp.). A number of
small fish were noted or likely exist in the creek including eastern mosquitofish Qambusia
holbrooki , creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) and shiners (Notropis spp.).
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitats for amphibians
and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), several frog species (Rana spp. and Hyla spp.), snapping
turtle (Chelydra seMp j tina), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) and northern water snake (Nerodia
si edon .
8
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
The proposed action will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant
or animal habitat. The primary habitat affected is urban/disturbed land. This habitat is already
utilized by opportunistic, mobile species such as rodents, lizards, snakes and passerine birds that
can recover quickly from construction impacts. The hardwood forest bordering Lanes Creek will
receive minimal disturbance and will continue to provide a travel corridor and food and cover
for a variety of local species such as toads (Bufo spp.), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), raccoons (Procyan
lotor and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir inianus).
Temporary impacts to downstream aquatic habitat from increased sediment during construction
will be minimized by implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters, as applicable.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA
1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, there are no jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
Floodplain terraces bordering Lanes Creek fail to show evidence of inundation or saturation for
a significant portion of the growing season in spite of the presence of facultative wetland species.
However, surface waters within the embankments of Lanes Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Bridging is
expected to eliminate the need for direct encroachment into Lanes Creek.
Permits
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 has been issued by the COE for federal agency projects which
are assumed to have minimal impacts. Several other NWPs are available for use, including NWP
No. 26 for above headwater impacts and NWP No. 14 for minor road crossings. In addition,
minor impacts due to bridging and associated approach improvement are allowed under General
Bridge Permit (GP) No. 031 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) before issuance of a nationwide or general permit. NWP No. 23 and No.
14 and GP No. 031 require prior notification by DEM before certification can be issued. NWP
No. 26 requires DEM notification only if impacts are greater than 0.13 hectares (0.33 ac).
9
Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines, it is likely this project will be subject to the Nationwide
Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23). This permit authorizes any activities, work and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
by another federal agency that 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 environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the COE.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented as applicable, to
minimize adverse impacts.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federally Protected Species
Species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Proposed Threatened and Proposed
Endangered (PT and PE) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). Candidate species (C,C2) do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The following federally protected and candidate species
are listed for Anson County:
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - E
Bald Eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - C2
Shortnose sturgeon - The shortnose sturgeon is a heavy-bodied, large-scaled, bottom-feeding fish
known to occur in Atlantic seaboard rivers from Florida to Canada. It ranges from 26 to 39
inches in length (60 to 100 centimeters). In North Carolina, this species has only been reported
from Brunswick (Cape Fear Basin) and Anson (Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin) Counties. However, this
species may potentially occur in other major coastal rivers (Menhinick 1991). The Anson
County record, from the lower reaches of Jones Creek in the southeastern corner of Lanes Creek,
is not expected to support populations of shortnose sturgeon due to poor water quality and
isolation from larger streams.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
10
Bald Eagle - This bird has a wingspan of up to 1.8 meters (6 ft). Adults are dark brown with
a white head and tail, and immatures are a mottled brown until their fourth year. The Bald
Eagle's primary habitat is late successional, riparian ecosystems occurring along the coast or in
close proximity to large rivers or other bodies of water. Bald Eagles prefer nesting in large
pines or cypress, living or dead.
The habitat is poor for eagles at the project site due to the absence of a large body of water in
the vicinity and the lack of suitable nesting habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) - This medium-sized woodpecker is 17.5 to 21.5 centimeters
(7 to 8.5 inches) in length. It is boldly checkered black and white on the back, has a black cap
and white checks. The males have a tiny red cockade behind the eye. Primary nest sites for
RCWs include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story
development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30
years of age or older.
No suitable habitat for the RCW was found to exist within 805 meters (0.5 mi) of the project
site.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) is a Federal candidate species. The habitat of the bog
spicebush is peaty seepage bogs in headwaters of blackwater streams. There is no appropriate
habitat for this species within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project site.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et
seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). NCNHP
records indicate no known populations of state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1
mi) of the project site.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plans or zoning regulations. No significant
11
change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 31, 1994, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined
that the bridge was neither listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor
located in or adjacent to any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register.
Therefore, the SHPO had no comment on the project with regard to historic structures.
Also, the SHPO determined there are no known archaeological sites in the area and it is unlikely
that any archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
will be affected by project construction on existing location. However, the SHPO requested the
opportunity to review proposed detour routes and alternatives on new location. As noted above
and in Figure 2, the detour will be constructed in the existing median. The closed bridge will
be replaced along the existing alignment. Since the SHPO requested additional consultation only
in the case of new location, no additional coordination with respect to archaeological resources
is needed for this project as currently proposed. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the
Appendix. No further compliance with Section 106 is required.
Since the bridge will be replaced in its existing location and the temporary detour will be
constructed in the existing highway median, the Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Fayetteville Regional Office
of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Anson
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
This project consists of replacing a two-lane bridge in its existing location with a slightly wider
typical section. Traffic volumes will not increase as a result of this bridge replacement. The
project's impact on noise and air quality will be insignificant.
12
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Anson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the recommended
alignment would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will
be taken to minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
13
REFERENCES
American Ornithologist's Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition.
Allen Press, Inc., Kansas.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Report 89-08, NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Broad River Basin. NC Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries. Raleigh, NC.
Hamel, P.B., H.E. LeGrand Jr., M.R. Lannartz, and S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1982. Bird Habitat
Relationships on Southeastern Forest Lands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
SE-22.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chape1Hill, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.
Page, R.W. and L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the
DOE concerning the determination of mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 401(bxl)
guidelines. Washington, DC. 6 p.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Shafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Unpublished. Soil survey information provided by the
Anson County Soil Conservation Service office, Wadesboro, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
14
A
1719
1727\
I
lk Dee /
141 t Spring
Ch.
07
4 ]414 21Q ?
140
' 1728 14 I,(1?? 7J, Itl
Har y
173 Ch. 141 t
1404
1416
172 1
BRIDGE NO. 4
1735
1733 1728 140
1732 ?:'
1401 140 1 403
10A 74
P FAP . •v?:' EACHLAND
w FA ''236} POP. 506
FrS {
1900 O ?? F .•
123 /
Q 1257 1251
1901 1901 • ?? _
1
OI O .? ?• 240
_ 1900
1236
1986 1.
Creek . 38
1904)y J i

a
•C•R1
r Hdl L
? 3 A, \
24
?? 1
O 9
/ Alru v//
s •
0 109 Full.
' •? Iktlo /,ukv
to ,
6 Peschls d I - rIesrdle
+WsdtsDoro O I 1
Pee De ?
' A?N S e0 N
WMt! Slat 09 II It 9 i ?•?
r Abrren ?.?
?
13 4 y • 52 ?•

1240
NORTH CAROLINA DLPARTMUNT OF
t TRANSPORTATION
S DIVISION OF MG1IWAT3
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 4
ANSON COUNTY
B-2503
12/93 SCALE =1:60 000 FIG. I
0 1 2
r
(kilometers)

4
i
1
1
'
§
+
I Poo
1 e
. ?'?? 3 ' 4 < t
44

? tt
TT
, ? 4 A
?•
?' ` 4 ?
kk ? _ a1 1 x t ? ? T` b
li ( .'"..v?i
9 S ?' 1 ! 4f"

v ?? e/
yP j§i f t ( fi ??
2 4 1

'AN '
?a
? t
Sri e j''??y :fir 8i
T u ? A y f'
BRIDGE NO.4
ANSON COUNTY
,.? _ :... ; B-2503
LOOKING EAST

LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW

FIGURE 3

? J
41
41
ANSON COUNTY A ZONE
TOWN
AREA
o J
40.4
I ?q co
? l
I
I
ZON E A
I \ \ 1
1?...9 co

I V<J- 1 GHR F LVVVI-LHIIV

? r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT PJMEW COHI3HNTS Charles H. Gardner
Wlillam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Q Director
Project Number: /y- VeRe County: f}NSCJic/
Project Name: O y?Z
Geodetic Surve
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior'to construction at P.O. Box' 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment-and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation control commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
4:_ 1181,7¢
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 a Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunlty Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: ?D
-Department of Environment, Health, -and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
94
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law. -
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Ti-

C
IS
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer .... --.. Construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days).
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site Jnspection. - -- 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
- 30 days
Water Use Permit
•.
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A) .
7 days
Well Construction Permit
- - - Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820. (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accomnan the plan (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
1 Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces=
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
rs 1C:
Continued on reverse

?
rt
Nor. •.a! Pruccss
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety-bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C... .10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well -conditional that any well opened by drill operator bhall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
-descriptions & drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 2250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 350.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office - ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127-Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
- 1(1.!11 - 9-
. %
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager &Xt,? SGJ?"?
Habitat Conservation Program DATE: January 27, 1994
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 4 on US 74 over Lanes Creek,
Anson County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2503, SCH
Project No. 94-0482.
Biologists on the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) staff conducted a site visit on January 20, 1994 and have
the following preliminary comments on the replacement of Bridge
No. 4 on Lanes Creek in Anson County. Our comments are provided
in accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
Lanes Creek is a medium sized Piedmont warm-water stream.
Fish habitat in the area of the bridge is good with a fair to
moderate fishery. Species that occur in Lanes Creek include
largemouth bass, sunfish, suckers, catfish, and a variety of
minnows.
We recommend replacement of the existing structure with a
bridge, onsite with an onsite detour. This can be accomplished
by diverting traffic onto one bridge while the other is replaced
or renovated. We also request that there be no instream work in
the months of April and May to avoid interfering with fish
reproduction.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
requests NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and
wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures
throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement

Memo Page 2 January 27, 1994
of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to
pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning
structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing
habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David Cox,
Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for
the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
cc: Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swiharl;?Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0482; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #4 Over Lanes Creek, Anson County
B-2503, US74 (Westbound Lanes)
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Lanes Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification maybe denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10492er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 59% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
_y? IAA
N
Vr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 31, 1994
Lisa S. Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
4911 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27606
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 4 on US 74 over Lanes
Creek, B-2503, ER 94-8103, Anson County, CH 94-E-
4220-0482
Dear Ms. Hilliard:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse,
as well as your letter of December 29, 1993.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant
archaeological resources will be affcted. We would still need to review the proposed detour
before recommending that no archaeological investigations be conducted.
If the replacement is to be in a new location, please forward a map to us indicating both the
new alignment and any detour. We will then evaluate the potential effects of the
replacement on archaeological resources.
We have conducted.a search of our maps and files and determined that this structure is not
located in or adjacent to any property which is listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. In addition, the structure is neither listed in nor eligible for
listing in the National Register as an individual property. We, therefore, have no comment
on the project with regard to historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
9191733-4763.
Sjncerely,
r
G
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw ?
cc: //State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 F= Jo= Strict • Rakigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM
o`
10
I-- X? ?
Q? 5= (}
FEB -
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart', Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0482; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #4 Over Lanes Creek, Anson County
B-2503, US74 (Westbound Lanes)
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Lanes Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10492er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post-consumer paper