19930488 Ver 1_Complete File_19930621

i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 WETLANDS GROUP
June 18, 1993 WATER UALITY SECiIc;N
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199302840 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. B. J. O'Quinn, P.E. ;
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
Reference your application of June 3, 1993, for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to replace Bridge No. 288 over Lanes Creek on S.R. 1901
(State Project No. 8.2690701, Tip No. B-1406. The project is also to require
the construction of a temporary rock accessway (approximately 12 feet upstream
from the existing bridge) to facilitate the bridge construction. The project
was authorized in 1986 as a categorical exclusion under Nationwide Permit No.
23 (NWP23). However, the original project application did not identify the
need for a temporary accessway. Due to regulation changes pertaining to
nationwide permits effective January of 1992, you are requesting that the
bridge replacement and required accessway be reauthorized to allow completion
of the project.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
of the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that
the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and 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.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401
water quality certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) and, in the coastal area, a consistency determination from
-2-
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). You should contact
Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water quality
certification. This NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain
other required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be
Field Office, Regulatory Branch,
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
addressed to Mr. Bob Johnson, Asheville
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Mr. Steve Benton
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
pl-
17
JUNE .... 7 +9,
sir
STATE or Nmri 1 CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IAMIs IS. I ZUNI. IR. DIVISION 01 1-I1GHWAYS SAM I It IN I
60VIRNOR SICRI: ARY
I.O. Rc)X 25-101. RAI,I;IiI 11, N.C. 27611 5201
June 3, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Union County, Replacement of Bridge No. 288 over
Lanes Creek on SR 1901, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1901(1), State Project No. 8.2690701, TIP No. B-
1406.
The above referenced project was processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion"
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The Categorical
Exclusion document was signed by FHWA on June 9, 1986.
Therefore, the project was authorized by Nationwide Permi. 23
in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23).
ups ream
crossing plan narrative and plan drawings). Because no
mention of this accessway was made in the CE document, it was
felt that this action is not presently permitted under NWP
23.
Construction on this project has begun. However, the
contractor has requested that he be allowed to construct a
temporary construction accessway approximately 12 feet
t from the existing structure (see enclosed stream
In that the site of the proposed accessway structure is
in such close proximity to the bridge, the findings of the CE
document can reasonably be expected to apply to the temporary
accessway site as well as the bridge replacement site. NCDOT
therefore is requesting that the Corps of Engineers and, by
copy of this letter, the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, modify the Nationwide Permit 23 to allow for
construction of this temporary accessway. All fill
associated with the accessway will be removed to a high
r
ground site following project completion.
Included for your information is a copy of the stream
crossing plan narrative and plan drawings, as well as a copy
of the 1986 CE'document. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-
9770.
ncerely,
lT ??DG'
B. J. 0 Quinn, PE
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: Mr. Bob Johnson, COE-Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Randy Henegar, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. J.D. Goins, PE, Division 10 Engineer
s
Bridge over Lanes Creek
Union Co. 8.2690701
Project #0120
STREAM CROSSING PLAN NARRATIVE
The following sequence of construction is provided to allow for
a safe and environmentally sound fording of Lane's Creek without
deleteriously affecting the creek's natural base flow:
1) Begin at the west bank of Lane's Creek, approximately
twelve (12) feet upstream from the existing structure,
and place two (2), forty-eight (48) inch diameter
cofrugated-metal' pipes side-by-side in the center of
the creek.
2) Place Class B riprap around the pipes and spanning from
the western to the eastern banks of the creek in such a
thickness as to allow for a safe crossing without damaging
the pipe, and to keep the tracks and/or wheels of the
equipment that shall use the crossing above the water
level.
3) The riprap will act as a filter for sediment as well as
the intended use as a stream crossing.
4) No equipment shall be left on the crossing overnight,
and the crossing shall be blocked off on the ends to
prevent unauthorized use of the crossing.
5) The debris that becomes trapped in the stone during the
normal flow of the creek shall be cleaned out on an
"as needed" basis.
6) The stream crossing shall be removed upon the completion
of the project and disposed of in an acceptable manner.
P.03
W
STRCANi CtWSs?NG
PLAN
W 410a Co u 0-Y
STRUCTUCE APID APPRoAci4es
ON 5. R. 19 o I oVC2 I--wag CCG?r
1'oa too. ?.2-?Q n'fo1
u
W
Gr
t

P. 04
5???4nr? C Ro s s r?l 6-
PLAt,J
t4olow COL41,ITY
sTRUc'ru'REANI> App?o?cµ?5
ON S.R. 1901 Dvlex LANe5 CRLq-'c
Tog t o, e. Z,6q 0701
SECT1 oN Q-Q

Union County
Bridge # 288 on SR 1901 over, Lanes Creek
State Project # 8.2690701
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1901(1)
B-1406
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Date C. D. Adkins
Manager of Planning and Research Branch, NCDOT
Date neth Bellamy
?? ivision Administrator, FHWA

-1- B-1406
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Union County
Bridge u 288 on SR 1901 over Lanes Creek
State Project # 8.2690701
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1901(1)
B-1406
Union County Bridge No. 288 is included in the NCDOT 1986-1995
Transportation Improvement Program as a candidate for replacement
under the Federal Aid Replacement Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. The sufficiency rating of this bridge is 32.6 (structurally
deficient) as compared to 100.0 for a new structure. Recommendations
presented herein will not significantly alter the existing environ-
ment; therefore, the project will be processed as a categorical exclu-
sion, in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b) (9).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Bridge No. 288 be replaced at its existing
location, on approximately the same grade. During construction,
traffic should be detoured locally via S.R. 1236, S.R. 1403, U.S. 74
and S.R. 1900 (see Figure 5).
The recommended replacement structure is a 120-foot-long bridge.
Recommended clear width is 26 feet (20-foot travelway). Approaches
will require approximately 100 feet and 300 feet of work to the west
and east respectively in order to connect the existing pavement width
with the recommended clear width on the bridge.
The estimated cost of the bridge replacement is $225,000.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 288 over Lanes Creek was constructed in 1957 with
creosote timber joists on steel I-beams with timber stringers all on
concrete bents and creosote timber piers. The structure consists of
fiv4 spans; four of approximately 15 feet and one of approximately 40
feet for a total length of 97 feet. Clear roadway width on the exist-
ing structure is 17 feet, 2 inches. The posted weight limit at the
bridge is 10 tons for a single vehicle (SU) and 13 tons for a truck-
tractor semitrailer (TTST).
The following types of deterioration exist on the bridge:
1. The wearing surface is in poor condition; cracks up to one
quarter inch wide can be found throughout. Numerous patches
are also present.
2. The deck is in poor condition; approximately 10 percent of
floor boards are decayed. Heavy leakage is also present.
-2-
B-1406
3. Pier caps are in poor condition; all are weather cracked and
are crushing up to 114 inch.
4. Waterway adequacy is poor; signs of high water on caps and
moderate bank scouring is present.
5. Approach roadway alignment is poor; west sight distance is
approximately 500 feet and east sight distance is approxi-
mately 250 feet.
SR 1901 is classified as a "rural local road" by the Functional
Classification System. The speed limit is 55 MPH although alignment
restricts operation at such speeds. Current average daily traffic
(ADT) crossing the bridge is 700 vehicles. Projected ADT for the year
2005 is 1100 vehicles. It is estimated that these volumes contain 1-2
percent TTST and 3 percent dual-tire trucks. The Union County School
Transportation Director has indicated that there are no daily bus
crossings over this bridge.
The typical roadway cross section consists of a 18-foot-wide
.4)ituminus surface treatment pavement with 4 foot-shoulders. The
existing horizontal alignment is very poor. The structure is located
on a short tangent approximately 50 feet from a 45 degree curve (25
MPH design) to the east. The existing vertical alignment is good.
The existing structure is located on a relatively flat grade. Exist-
ing passing sight distance in the vicinity of the bridge is very res-
tricted. Pavement marking for lane delineation is not present through
the sharp curve nor across the bridge. One accident has been reported
in this area for the period of January, 1982 through April, 1985.
This accident resulted in a rollover due to avoidance of a cow in the
middle of the roadway.
The topography in this area is moderate. The land is rural,
farmland. A private drive is located approximately 500 feet to the
west of the existing structure. A temporary U.S. Geological Survey
stream gaging station is located near the creek bank approximately 20
feet north of the western end of the bridge.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives for replacing the subject bridge were studied
(see Figure 2).
Recommended Alternative No. 1
Bridge No. 288 is recommended to be replaced at its existing
location on approximately the same grade. Based upon the route clas-
sification and ADT, along with consideration to the limiting design
speed (25 MPH) of the existing alignment, current policy recommends a
clear width on the replacement structure of 26 feet (20-foot travel-
way). The length of the bridge should be approximately 120 feet.
Approximately 100 feet of work would be required on the western
approach in order to connect the existing 18-foot pavement with the
-3- B-1406
clear width of the bridge. A minimum 20-foot-wide pavement should be
extended approximately 300 feet on the east to provide a safer
approach through the 45-degree curve. It is recommended that center-
line and edgeline paint striping be added to both approaches continu-
ing on the eastern approach to the county line. During construction,
a local detour via S.R. 1236, S.R. 1403, U.S. 74, and S.R. 1900 should
be utilized. This detour- would create a maximum of 4.4 additional
out-of-direction miles for through traffic and a maximum of 6.4 miles
for local traffic. Estimated excess road user cost for a minimum clo-
sure time of 6 months is $116,000.
The Assistant Division Engineer for Construction concurs with the
above recommendation.
The estimated costs for recommended Alternative No. 1 are as
follows:
Roadway Approaches $ 25,000
Replacement Structure 167,000
Existing Structure Removal 8,000
Engineering and Contingencies 25,000
TOTAL COST
$225,000
Alternative NO. 2
This alternative replaces Bridge No. 288 approximately 100 feet
south (upstream) of its existing location. Approximately 950 feet of
construction work would be required for the approaches, combined. The
estimated replacement structure is a 140-foot-long bridge. The max-
imum curvature for approaches should be 12 degrees providing a design
speed of 40 MPH. Based upon the route's classification, ADT, and
recommended design speed the recommended clear width on the replace-
ment structure is 28 feet (22-foot travelway). It is recommended that
the approaches consist of 22-foot-wide pavement tying into existing
18-foot pavement on either end of the project. Six-foot shoulders
should be maintained for the approaches. During construction, traffic
could use the existing bridge and roadway (see Figure 2).
F
-4-
The estimated costs for Alternative No. 2 are as follows:
Roadway Approac:he; $ 90,000
Replacement Structure 210,000
Existing Structure Removal 8,000
Existing Approach Removal 4,000
Engineering and Contingencies 42,000
Right-of-Way 6,000
TOTAL COST $360,000
Alternative No. 3
B-1406
S.R. 1901 would be realigned such that Bridge No. 288 would be
located approximately 350 feet south (upstream) of its existing loca-
tion. The realignment would require approximately 1400 feet of con-
struction work for the new approaches, combined. The estimated
replacement structure is a 170-foot-long bridge. Maximum curvature
would be 8 degrees for a design speed of 45 MPH. The realignment
cross section would consist of 22-foot-wide pavement, with 6-foot
shoulders. Based upon the route's classification and ADT, the recom-
mended clear width on the replacement structure is 28 feet (22-foot
travelway). During construction, traffic could use the existing
bridge and roadway (see Figure 2).
The estimated costs for Alternative No. 3 are as follows:
Roadway Approaches $115,000
Replacement Structure 255,000
Existing Structure Removal 8,000
Existing Approach Removal 7,000
Engineering and Contingencies 53,000
Right-of-Way 6,000
TOTAL COST $444,000
Summary of Recommendations
It is recommended that the existing horizontal alignment on the
section of roadway in the vicinity of Bridge No. 288 be retained,
replacing the structure in its existing location with minor improve-
ments to the approaches. The sight distance,although sharply reduced
in the vicinity of the bridge, is not unreasonable considering the low
traffic volume (700 ADT), no bus traffic and the low recent accident
history (1 accident for the period of January, 1982 through April,
1985). It is felt that the additional $135,000 to $219,000 for re-
-5-
alignment is not justified.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
B-1406
The proposed bridge replacement will riot have a significant
adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with
the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications. Therefore,
this project is classified as a categorical exclusion. No families or
businesses will be displaced by the proposed project.
Environmental Setting
Lanes Creek is a meandering, perennial Piedmont stream flowing
between fairly high and steep banks where SR 1901 crosses on Bridge
No. 288. No wetlands exist in the impact area. A narrow margin of
trees occurs along the stream in the western and northwestern qua-
drants, but only the southeast quadrant provides true forest cover in
a strip approximately 200 feet wide. Agricultural fields border the
forested margin on the southwest, northwest, and northeast quadrants.
Vegetation will be detailed in the next subsection.
Lanes Creek has a cobble and mud bottom and a fairly strong
current. Despite rains through the night before the site was exam-
ined, the water was clear. Considerable algae growth (probably Spiro-
gyra sp.) attached to rocks and submerged logs may indicate eutrophi-
cation due to agricultural runoff. But water quality appears to be
good, and the sanitation classification is C. A classification of C
indicates the water quality is suitable for fish, wildlife propaga-
tion, secondary recreation and agricultural uses.
Old bridge abutments exist northeast and northwest of the current
bridge, and a temporary U.S. Geologic Survey stream gaging station
stands just to the northeast. Evidence of the previous approaches to
the old bridge can be seen in the wooded area upslope east of the
stream and in the waste area between SR 1901 and the tilled field
northwest of the existing bridge.
Vegetation
Fields cultivated in row crops dominate the land surrounding the
bridge on SR 1901 over Lanes Creek, except for (1) a narrow strip
(about 30 feet wide) of more-or--less natural vegetation, growing on
the creek bank, and (2) the southeastern portion of the impact area,
which is forested. The vegetation on the creek bank is highly dis-
turbed, as evidenced by the creekside footpaths that eliminate the
groundcover, by the abundance of weedy shrubs and herbs, and by the
variable density of the tree cover. This disturbance has undoubtedly
reduced the species richness of the impact area.
Growing in the creekside strip are the following trees: American
elm (Ulmus americana), ash (Fraxinus sp.), white oak (Quercus alba),
red maple (Acer rubrum), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), winged elm
(Ulmus alata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Southern sugar
-6- B-1406
maple (Ater barbatum), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and boxelder (Acer
negundo). The shrub community contains bramble (Rubus sp.), green-
brier (Smilax sp.), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), musclewood
(Carpinus caroliniana), and especially multiflora rose (Rosa multi-
flora). The ground layer includes wild onion (Allium sp.), poison-ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
dogbane (Apocynum sp.), aster (Aster sp.), wingstem (Verbesina
occidentalis), crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), grape (Vitis sp.),
evening primrose (Onothera biennis), and bittercress (Cardamine hir-
suta).
This strip of creekside vegetation was enlarged several years ago
in the northwestern portion of the impact area, when a section of the
adjacent cultivated field was abandoned. This area contains some see-
dlings of trees growing in the creekside strip, as well as broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus), silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), smooth
sumas (Rhus glabra), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), bramble
(Rubus sp.), Eastern redceder (Juniperus virginiana), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and a thick tangle of
kudzu (Pueraria lobata).
Forestland occurs only in the southeastern portion of the impact
area. Mesic or wet-mesic hardwoods occur on the creek bank, since
Lanes Creek rarely floods. The more commercially valuable trees were
selectively logged from the stand at some earlier time, leaving either
unmerchantable or low-quality trees, and degrading the quality of the
stand. Indeed, many trees are crooked, limby, leaning, or rotten.
The tree canopy contains white ash (Fraxinus americana), Southern
sugar maple (Acer barbatum), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), winged
elm (Ulmus alata), American elm (Ulmus americana), boxelder (Acer
negundo), white oak (Quercus alba), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraci-
flua). The largest trees are oaks, measuring up to 36 inches dbh.
The shrub layer contains American holly (Ilex opaca), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), flowering dog-
wood (Cornus florida), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora), and along the forest edge common elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis). The ground layer includes bedstraw (Galium
sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), crossvine (Bignonia
capreolata), panic grass (Panicum sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radi-
cans), sedge (Carex sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), wild onion (Allium
sp..), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
Upslope these hardwoods grade into a pure stand of Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana), containing a sparse understory of Northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), Eastern redceder (Juniperus virginiana), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), white oak (Quercus alba), Southern red oak (Quercus
falcata), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), persimmon (Diospyros virgini-
ana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), American holly (Ilex opaca), and hophornbeam
(Ostrya virginiana). An occasional shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata),
-7- B-1406
occurs in the overstory or along the forest edge. The ground layer
contains Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), spotted pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens),
greenbrier (Smilax sp.), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens),
and crossvine (Bignonia capreolata). The largest trees in the stand
are Virginia pine, measuring up to 12 inches dbh, and an abandoned
roadbed runs through the stand, more-or-less parallel to the creek.
The roadbed is completely covered with forest litter, and it contains
the same plants found elsewhere in the stand, except that Japanese
honeysuckle is more abundant.
During the field investigation, no threatened or endangered
plants were observed, and no unique conditions exist either.
Wildlife
The most notable feature at this site is the multitude of fresh-
water mussel (Elliptio spp.) shells along the creek banks, especially
near the existing bridge. These shells range in size up to 6.0 cm
(lengthwise) and undoubtedly have been left by foraging raccoons (Pro-
cyon lotor). The abundant discarded shells indicate a thriving mussel
population in Lanes Creek and water quality able to support fish
species. Fish serve as hosts during the mussels' reproductive cycle.
The extent to which conditions are being degraded through eutrophica-
tion cannot be determined readily, but the algae growth mentioned
above suggests agricultural runoff is having some impact. However,
siltation does not appear to be severe at this point.
Agricultural activity dominates the terrestrial environment in
areas adjacent to the riparian corridor, except for the forested area
in the southeast quadrant. Even in that quadrant, however, cultivated
fields exist across the road from the forest stand and some 1100 feet
upstream from Bridge No. 288. Hense, the patch of forest cover exists
as an island amid cleared areas, with only the riparian corridor link-
ing this forest cover with forested areas some distance away. Edge
effects will therefore dominate the wildlife species mix on this site.
Passerine birds will occupy the forest stand in season, and small mam-
mals will forage here. But the limited size of this stand will
prevent woodland species from using it unless in transit.
4 These habitats are not suitable for any of the endangered or
threatened terrestrial wildlife species in North Carolina. The fresh-
water mussels in Lanes Creek, however, deserve special attention dur-
ing construction activities.
Fact of Promised Alternatives
The preferred alternative, replacing the existing structure in
place, will have no significant impact on the habitats in question.
Even a widened structure with widened approaches will have little
effect.
-a- 0-1406
Erosion and potential siltation must be controlled during con-
struction in this area, due to the population of freshwater mussels in
Lanes Creek. These organisms are highly susceptible to changes in
water quality and regime. The abundant population at this location
should be protected to the greatest extent possible. For even though
the species discovered here is not suspected to be among endangered
mollusc species listed in North Carolina, freshwater mollusc popula-
tions in general have declined due to impoundment projects and reduced
streamwater quality.
Either alternative relocating the bridge and approaches would
further fragment portions of the forest cover southeast of the exist-
ing bridge. Both alternatives are also likely to increase silt loads
in Lanes Creek, thereby affecting the water quality and risking the
mussel population.
The preferred alternative, if best soil management practices are
used, avoids negative impacts on environmental quality.
Floodplai_n Impact
Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. A copy of a section of the USGS Quadrangle map del-
ineating the 100 year floodplain is included as Figure 4. The recom-
meryJed replacement structure will have no impact on the floodplain.
Air Quality and Traffic Noise Analysis
The project is located within the Metropolitan-Charlotte Inter-
state Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Union
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Air
Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation
control measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply
to this project.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with applica-
ble local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina
State Implementation Plan for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D. 0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will
be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort
of motorist or area residents.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volume.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
-9- B-1406
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but
will be temporary. This evaluation completes the noise and air qual-
ity assessment requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 and no additional reports
are required.
Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, 36 CFR Part 800, and Executive Order 11593 "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment," the State Historic Preserva-
tion Office has acknowledged that the proposed bridge replacement is
"likely to affect potentially significant archaeological resources."
More precisely, they acknowledged "B-1406 is situated within a high
probability area." It is their recommendation that a comprehensive
archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
prior to project implementation in order to determine the effect of
the project upon significant archaeological remains. A copy of this
letter is attached.
After completion of the preliminary design plans and prior to
beginning of ground disturbing activities, the NCDOT will undertake
additional coordination with the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources and conduct archaeological surveys as required.
Farmland Impact
' The project has been coordinated with
vice as required by the Farmland Protection
servation Service has stated that there are
covered by the Farmland Protection Policy
is attached.
Permits
the Soil Conservation Ser-
Policy Act. The Soil Con-
no lands taken that are
Act. A copy of this letter
It will not be necessary to apply to the Corps of Engineers for
an individual permit as the Nationwide Section 404 Permit provisions
of 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) are applicable and the provisions of 330.5(b)
and 330.6 will be followed.
Conclusive Environmental Impact
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no
significant adverse environmental effects will result from implementa-
tion of this project.
If..
,..`.? ;7_7,4
r '
Gw • L. p:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James C. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
r
February 25, 1986
Mr. Thomas R. Hepler, P.E.
Project Manager
William G. Daniel and Associates
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 140
Cary, N.C. 27511
Re: Bridge Replacement Projects, ER 86-7649
B-1199, Gaston County
B-1337 and B-1338, Richmond County
B-1405 and B-1406, Union County
B-1258 and B-1259, Jones County
B-1308, Onslow County
B-1488, Bladen County
B-2057, Moore County
Dear Mr. Hepler:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986 and the rest of the
photographs we had requested for the above referenced bridge projects.
In our opinion, the following bridge replacements are likely to affect
potentially significant archaeological resources: B-1405 in Union
County, B-1406 (A and B) in Union County, and B-1259 in Jones County.
Bridge B-1405 bisects archaeological site 31Un5, an extensive distribu-
tion of Archaic remains. However, because of local identification of
this area as "the Indian mound site," more recent materials may also be
likely. Both B-1406 and B-1259 are situated within high probability
areas.
All other bridge replacements are considered unlikely to result in
adverse effect to potentially significant archaeological resources.
Therefore, we recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an
experienced archaeologist to determine the effect of the projects upon
significant archaeological remains at B-1405, B-1406, and B-1259.
Enclosed is a list of the members of the North Carolina Archaeological
Council which has been provided to this office by the NCAC as a guide to
the professionally employed archaeologists in North Carolina. This
office also maintains a file of letters from other individuals and
organizations who have expressed interest in conducting contract work in
North Carolina, which is available for examination. If additional names
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Federal Building, Rm 535
United States Soil
Department of Conservation 310 New Bern Avenue
j Agriculture Service Raleigh, NC 27601
February 18, 1986
Thomas R. Hepler, P.E.
William G. Daniel & Associates
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Mr. Hepler:
Using aerial photos and
soils to be affected by
projects:
1. B-1199 -
2. B-1337 -
3. B-1338 -
4. B-1405 -
5. B-1406 -
other maps that you
the following Depar
Gaston County 6.
Richmond County 7.
Richmond County 8.
Union County 9.
Union County 10.
sent us, we identified the
tment of Transportation
B-1258 - Jones County
B-1259 - Jones County
B-1308 - Onslow County
B-1488 - Bladen County
B-2057 - Moore County
Projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 as listed above, will not affect
farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Project 3, as
listed above, will affect farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection
Policy Act. The farmland impacted by project 3,is indicated on aerial
photos or other maps of the project areas that we are returning to you.
We have not yet completed the land evaluation process for the soils in
the above counties. Therefore, we were unable to fill out Part IV of
Form AD 1006 for the projects.
If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.
S rely,
C A. Garrett
S to Conservationist
Enclosures
4 The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
Thomas R. Hepler
February 25, 1986, Page Two
are desired, we recommend that you consult the current listing of the
members of the Society of Professional Archeologists, or contact the
society's secretary/treasurer, Mr. William Lovis, Michigan State University
Museum, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Any of the above persons, or any
other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted in order to conduct
the recommended investigations.
t
In addition, the majority of the replacements appear to be in rural
areas with few or no structures nearby. However, the bridge replacement
in Belmont, Gaston County (B-1199), appears to be within a residential
neighborhood. Early in the 1980s an inventory of Gaston County's
historic resources was carried out and several significant structures
were identified in the vicinity of the bridge.
From our project maps, it appears that the bridge is on Central Avenue,
although your maps only identify it as SR 2560. Please verify this and
provide additional information concerning structures within the vicinity
of the bridge itself, as well as information relating to the technical
aspects of the bridge replacement. For example, will there be changes
in approach, taking of adjacent land, etc. We will complete our review
of this particular bridge upon receipt of that information.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
!
?David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
O?
I-
1 U
I
O
7
^I
n I'7 I I?• '
Cll
V
_ ?? _ 11I
?L
O'
W
?d 4
.. ........... ?i
1?_7 m s
i? I
-l it
Ll. _
o ?
t_-
x or
W
w m cr
1- z :D
_
a aN 0)

azz? >-
w cl.
Q
Z 2 2 Q
J Q T Z
O
c W
cr E
o
0 t- LL Q U O V Z
a X o c?
U 2 Z Z
op
(f) co
0
O
2 (n O Z ?
N W 't
1-- LI?
o
ir -1 .1
z(o z
O Z J 130 U
4 o
?
W
cr O
W
O

N
0
0
C o
O o
? p
N
Q
W ?
n
U
LOOKING EAST

NORTH C AROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPO RTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
UNION COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 288 on SR 1901
OVER LANES CREEK
B - 1406
12/85 FIGURE 3A
?l AV
1 L...
r y
}
LOOKING NORTH

r'
r a A V
-7 1
I
w..1
y?
LOOKING NORTHWEST

l'

VIEW OF
SOUTH SIDE
NORTH C AROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPO RTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
UNION COUNTY
BRIDGE No.2e e on SR 1901
OVER LANE S CREEK
B- 14 06
12/85 FIGURE 3B

i?~?.
;`.
"Po
-`GJ\?
01
'IV
- -•,_. _ _ 1 ??ii - ??? ?l ?' _ q mss' ,: 1.??? \? ? ? ? ?? ?? :.V
_ r ?' lam. `t-j ? ? ti ? ? ??; ? ??Jj??{ ?. ?,?,?- ? ??( A ??+? `,? •?/? 00/ ?I/f ? \?' ;??r
???..JJ ?'; J//? , G;II^`\`'-\\ ,•/(?.? ,- BRI DGE NO. 288 J ??; ?,I?-T•?,
\ J ?',?,
t r 111 / ?`

Al"
i \ 7 B- 1406 ,
UNION COUNTY!,?.
-"-° ?Cr I 1724 wyi /0 O 1.414 "As
726 g- 1406
1 /
/ 1744 3 Ivg??_B I413I
9 1 ,
,1743 UNION COUNTY.
4 ~ 1727 Deep
,
,? / O 1• ^ 141 t p Spring
(,` \ 9 / 'S Ch.
\? o Q 171 1784 ?•0 1407 p
1773 \ 1726 1414
•? 1.0 ? ; ?i
1741 .7
11727 1405 A n
11728 \ 1406 L
40 1736 1736 3 ~ Harmony
•,v Ch. 1411
1404 1.0 1117
t` 1737.7 •S .? ? 1.4.16
.4 .2' '? _ i
1711. b ?. •3
1 1729 ifiEPSN7
v, \ 1719
140 1
735 •6 1728 oo 1 402
205 1733 1732 'B 1401 14031.{} l 5 p
40 5
.3.14::.:fAP .•..:,,EACHLAND S
I.: :... P .. - RAILROA 4 6 }••:•••. '?'' FP
_ POP. 506
FAS 1236
fA 1'0 . t1 N
3
BRIDGE NO. 288 151
MARSHVI 1 1239 'Q 1
LP ?T257
POP. 2,011 1240
2.8
- c? 1901 19_ ? .
v
1900 u ! /? 1236
•o• \ I ?
966 1 .? 1005 ' .
1973 1 1240
1902
a \ ,?? I
\ \ Cis wy /3
?.
? 1?\ ^ 1238 125.2
/ 1904 I g /6
Y QUO` 1240
1968 n V
0111 .: 1235 Mineral Springs i
li?`lici1 Al I 1 1236 Ch.
\ ?LP JL .7 q
a
1903 '. \b b a .
190 ?n
1902 1005 4 1236 1252 1246
t+ ?' 1983_ i + 1245.
137 1903 /•? 1929 1905 1274 .? b
1936 -? - v
4 \? Barker Branch J/ 1233
O
1934 1
235 ? 1929 ?J

,aeh U
1929
.6
1932
. 1905
r 1908 IN
19
.8
3 Slurdiva
2.4
FAS 1005 !y
-- 190'
?? I .0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
UNION COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 288 on SR 1901
OVER LANES CREEK
8 - 1406
STUDIED DETOUR
12/85 1 ois 1.0 mi.
FIGURE 5