20051325 Ver 1_Complete File_20060503

,. STA7r °
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GoVERNOR
%
of ?9y0
os tiR. ?
?Y?sT TFR Q?6'
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
April 27, 2006
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
C61-5 z S U. Z
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Request for Nationwide Permit 33 Modification for the replacement of Bridge
No. 33 over Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek on US 74 in Anson County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRNHF-74(42) State Project No. 8.1651401. WBS
33377.1.1. TIP Project No. B4009. Division 10.
Reference: USACE Nationwide Permit dated September 16, 2005, Action ID 200232492-
2493.
Dear Mr. Lund:
The purpose of this letter is to request modifications to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Nationwide
33 Section 404 Permit. This project is currently under construction. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing two temporary causeways in the area
around bents 1 and 2, moving the permitted temporary work bridge and adding a second
temporary work bridge.
The temporary causeway is needed for construction of interior bent #1 and #2. The temporary
work bridges are needed to access the area between the two streams. The proposed temporary
impact for the two causeways is 0.035 acre and the temporary workbridge will impact 0.028 acre.
No permanent impacts are proposed for the construction of the causeways and workbridge.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
The NCDOT respectfully requests that the referenced 404 USACE Permit (and Modification) be
modified to reflect the revision to the project area. We are providing seven copies of this
modification request to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality for their review.
Enclosed is a copy of the permit drawing showing the temporary causeways and the temporary
work bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548

If you have any questions, concerns, or need any additional information please contact Mr. Chris
Underwood at [phone].
Sincerely,
1
p.. Gregory Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CC: W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Barry Moore, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, Division 10 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Jennifer Evans, P.E., PDEA

0 0
x a
m s
n ?
rn z
o m
W -?
0
s y
? N
Z ?
? r
v o
s s
m m
0 0
N VI
3
O
1
?y
O
ro m ? - .+
CO r N=D` Y
??^?ip Y4 q??I?? ,
?? un aE
or ??c
e?
z
,l
S
0

O
m
n
c,
m
H
0
r
m
n
m
l
cc]
CC) m
m
- MO-
.n -u ....
n
D
` o
Z
z
m m

n
A =X W
DZnOD -1
?
0 o ?r o
O
m
-
u
"
T =
m
(nOm00-1

m
mr?C7?7
r-
0 7;z M
z r
)>
X--AO -u
00 C:)F--I ;
C Z a To
DN?70 ?+ m
0 z
W
--------- ------- -- ••mm
%rn n_
_UW ?
> v1Om z
m
m N
H ? m
z a m

`I O

Z N

n.
O (ll
r "-?
o '?
n O N n -
w v Ln
O
L f W
- Y
N ,
m
O +
w
+ O r m
Zr n O
• W . I
-1
pr

=

O
o
o m m

n
C
r
z
? r
1 -+ m n
00 ? m
.
Ul
-1
? n
r

.
.
w
:

• W
I
1
1

'
- --?- } --- --- - -
.

---
.
-------
.

a u. m
O O O
Z>.
n -u
>o r 1 m
nx I 1 vm
r• p c?
"x I lnnnz
L, -q
0" -O V1 "
j--4 n ZH W 1 VIA+p
oz o I moNZ
C) M 1 WZWrI N
1 W -'l '? VI
1 r ro °'
M -4
I J m w
' 71U!
1'-6I?
I ?
it
I
i 1
v 1 ?
IH r
N 1??
? 1 ? Ut
O 1
H ul
lH
I
m I
P N m 1
I
a a N ?
O M o I
Cu M \
m
z
m o
? t
N ?n C
Ul r H
W
N O 'DOZ
K m
r
m
Q

n m
nz 1
Z # N ? 1
m O

H H

m
m \

?
1^

c
To °

v

0

w 1 MCI p
:n \ 1,, m rr- ?
"
i o C, rn
D
m
m

O m
a v
(A
C? r t
il
I O
H
mo N m
a I
\\ \` . ?\ \ \.,, z a O I rn
•? l .' O µ 1 DHC
- ?1 fll #
.` \\? `\ V1 1 O ar
N N
\ r?-=---=?-=rte n t_ ! ? m ° -
zm
oW +m HN O m
r
r N
Z
O
m (A 0
o' a I r= r
1/1???111 H
Ila
r 7 N?0?6 O o 1 `D CO mo - w
3y vom o a
cz X Hm o
? o
G7 r \ -
. u r)
p ? \ s
N
i w \ wmrn-m
1 m
araN
I ?
\ Vama
\ X C)
.
o 1.
. 1 1
1 I 1
1
CD I
m I
Z m I
? x
-;-C-1- - --`-I--- 0
' -N o W m? I
-+ z m + t
o n Mm
z
HO Ql ' Ord -..O71 H41 I
?o l^ -l
v m '?? r• <C,
... 00 a' O , X HV'' OH <O? I m
m 8 H r
00 p
m -v a
m~ ;u i r0 N
v w
i mo I ?? m
H O
m? I o
rn •,
m? 1------- ?.
-------------
m 1
' 1 1
m
' ? ' Z a 1
# If 1
N ' O A I
n Z"
I 1
?Z I
? 0--l m I
+ I Ufx
• z
u, O •vai I r-
? M I ?x
o m o 1
' . ( rw
m
. I
' MATCH LINE A-A SHEET I OF 8 ----- +,
MATCH LINE A-A SHEET 2 OF 8 -----
. l
V) -D '
D O
C-
H
Z D n
z p
co O
O
0
Z o
W
0
-}- W
o I
O C) O I C 0
co
r Z
I

O
N =
O --1
D
o m
Z7n N rN
r
H
on vx
O
nV)
m H
mw
o lHI Z in
L
m
? r
m N
z a
-? o

H
#
1-• L

D
I?
Z
D
lz
I
lz
C') k2!

0
Iln
D
Z
m
h
m II N `i
m °c
D Qwc
oc
D ?

N N + N \.-) N
LA a In m
n O O O
m
Ln
i
O
r
-n
n
rn
m
O
H
T
n
0
m
H
In
z
0
x r
o D
mz
x1l
0
n
.Z7
H
1
;
,
' o
I z
;
;
I
MATCH LINE B-B SHEET 2 OF 8 _ --------I , _
MATCH LINE B-B SHEET 3 OF 8
zn------ I
av I
cm
;uo I
nx I
m I
mH I
o v, 1
zoZ I
? I
m
r?
i n
N N N
pD • lD
O O . O
ID
D
Z
L
a
?l mH co
D <r a ao
p 0uw N
Fri . Nom}
L"t
p o0 0
a
-i ° o 0
D r, o
--- -------- - --- ---r----
[ o
T
n I M t

' N O

'
n zm
xm
?z O I
I a o -i I

v +
+ r

, I

-? ---------- - -- ----

m
z

1 m
1 x

N

o t -?

0 N

m
x -i

rnx I m
m D

Z
,
4
-
O V 1 Im
o
?m•- I <?
a
7C
I mH
mz
7 I r l
r
-ux I Ox
G
)
mcn
-+ r-w I m?
m I 0

' K
o
m ?' r
1
m0
' y r
'
Q7 r
a I m
1
I
r
r
m
z o
. _ ._.i_._-._. . _

N
T-._.-- -.--?

' n
._...I M

I
o a
Zm
--I
??
- O I
r '-------
° r? 0 m I N
0
r o
I - m
- .
H
1
r
, ' I r0 N Z
1 my
I v
m
m
N

r
_ -n
r-'
m o
O

'

) 1
m 1 A
m r
,
m
N

-I
CO O I rn
o w 1 1
?
bC
;
N -.r)
,
m z
a Q-4
=lE ..•. ' H
?+ oo ; m N?O?g 9
,
r
r I ,
.
---------- ----------
N 0 I
O ff
-.?
n zm
-i m

.? + o -zi
r o
• in i
a o ; • o
N w Lnn
;
o
,
' z

m
r
,
, -
m
ro
N ? •
m Z
W D
A
cfb
- -------- -- -- --
0
z 3
cL, V
O t ? '1C
1 m
G' ,
y o

I m
z
?

n

f a
mm
Zo

r v .

+
a `n
-n
v s
D +
•m m rn
m H
n m
m -1
Zn
n
-' O a
N
r)

O
O H
z N
T } m
•
N t7 =o

Vf p

r
oW r
n°
mr
.;; ......... z
o
^9s' 0 r
ov, m I .

a o
CD (A
m 1)
-{
D Tf
N
O
0
no
?
,
m v
m w
-?
c-
Fri L
m0
? ° ° D
-'
z m
m ? --I m ? z
m A ?m
? m N Z
?r
0 0 0 C,
z
m-um"
A w
co

°
?
Om

z
a 0 1
C
-
+
?
z m
OH
e Oo
Z <z
n Ln
O
o O
O
C M G H I C LD
D o r-
v+ m z ? z I -I
W 0 n -<
?o
H r
?a
;U,A
>H
U14
H m
z µ
O
1 -I I
z:
#
F+
/
D N ?

O 1 ?
O

z
o 1 rn
m
O ? 1
m
r 1 r,H
= mo
resin

O 1 t° ao D m
o 0

µ 1 m
rn ?
r ?
Z

I o
? v
? n;-D ;u m
m
m r \ wmr m° a
r N \ Orf
D v to
O -
a \
po --4 0
J O \ W ;O D
O
L
CD I
m
z
1
w A I
?w I
:v
.MHO I
m p0 1m
;o Hr Ir
n
(A I
I m m
-0H ?0 to f
m
Z
p
Co
m
Z
N
r
N
0
M
D
IN
Z
K
D
I?
Z
Z
O
,
xrnC?
0 Er- H
n C r O
< O D
a -ern r
H X"T-
Z m"-A
o ?'
m
m
A D H
ma, z
-m
,umN?
(n-+O
mooz
In H • •?
"=or-
r O
' rrri
? m
n r
v
m? n
n
Sao
O a m
H
Z?+@
Amrn
minz
roo
N r m
m
m z
m
Ln N
C
z
n
m v,
X H
O '*1
D H
<m
?v
H rn
o -r
Z;u
m
O?O? WAT ?qQG
? r
o. ?
NIENIORANDUNI
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
a ,[10Vr=
[R Mg
DEG 2 8 2005
parttt - WAINQUA+l
TO: Christopher Underwood, NCDOT tvTt?9t?9fi+?I ?I?
FROM: Polly Lespinasse, NC Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 20, 2005
SUBJECT: Revised Scoping Comments for NCDOT's Proposed Bridge Replacement Project B-4009 in Anson
County
The NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) originally issued comments with respect to the above referenced project on
October 31, 2001. In response to your request received December 19, 2005, to revise the original Scoping comments,
DWQ offers the following comments:
1. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict adherence the
Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. All work shall be performed during low flow or normal flow conditions.
3. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable.
If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed
and the natural grade restored within 30 days after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
4. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream and do not
require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
5. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Storlnwater should be directed across the bridge and
pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before
entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
6. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is mostly made up
of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very soluble in water
and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete or cement will change the pH of fresh water to
very basic and will cause fish and other macro invertebrate kills.
7. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground elevations
immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and
minimizes disturbed soil.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Intemet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone[phone]
Fax [phone]
One
hiCarolin
Nora
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
x?
-.- Eco Stul l
- I'1--
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Mr. Steve Lund
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear I'vIr. Lund:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
B-4009, Replace Bridge 33 over Brown Creek on US 74 Westbound, Anson
County; Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040104); Southern Piedmont
(SP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 0.28 acre of riverine
wetland impacts associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Riverine Wetland Preservation (10.1) in Same Eco-Region
Drowning Creek II/Rankin (Richmond and Moore Counties) 2.80 acres
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
F,
Wi 'am D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4009
FKWI
11 -- NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
Y
--,Eco yste_ m
?? t ' i s3 i '-- j-1 ?•
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4009, Bridge 33 over Brown Creek on US 74 Westbound, Anson
County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information
supplied by you in a letter dated May 11, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03040104 of the
Yadkin River Basin in the Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.28 acre
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided
in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
ill' rDGilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4009
; i kVXW'
i?CL?i rL.., ?r?r!C?ri;???'_+ .. '. ._.iL ' V'Ii'??? NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
3
NM . SiNZ
?? osFti? ?f ?:
.p G Q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 15, 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue / Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application. The proposed replacement of Bridge No.
33 over Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek on Westbound US 74 southeast of
Polkton, Anson County, Federal Aid Project: BRNHF-74(42), State Project No.
8.1651401, WBS Element 33377.1.1, TIP B-4009.
Please find enclosed one copy of the Pre-Construction Notification form (PCN), permit
drawings, Categorical Exclusion, project commitments, and %2 size plan sheets, for the above
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace existing Bridge No. 33 on the westbound lane of US 74 over Brown Creek (DWQ Index
# 13-20) and Little Brown Creek (DWQ Index # 13-21-1) in Anson County. The project involves
replacement of the existing 643-foot structure with a new structure at the existing location. The
proposed replacement structure is a bridge 653 feet long. Traffic will be maintained with an on-
site detour that utilizes the eastbound bridge located adjacent to the replaced westbound bridge
during construction. Existing eastbound US 74 will be divided into one lane in each direction.
Westbound traffic will cross on a temporary roadway section constructed in the median and
utilize the'passing lane' of existing eastbound US 74.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF TIIE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the 03040104 Hydrologic Unit of the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin. Brown Creek originates north of Pageland, South Carolina, and flows in a
northerly direction through the project study area to its confluence with the Pee Dee River on the
Anson/Richmond County line. Little Brown Creek originates in Wadesboro, North Carolina,
north of US 220, and flows in a northerly direction through the project study area to its
confluence with Brown Creek. A Best Usage Classification of "C" has been assigned to both
Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek. From Bridge No. 33 downstream, Brown Creek has been
placed on the 303d impaired waters list. The cause of impairment is low dissolved oxygen and
sediment possibly from agricultural sources.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WIMN.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Wetlands within the project area are palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally
flooded (PF01 C) wetlands. They are dominated by black willow (Salix nigra), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciJlua), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Permanent Impacts: Wetlands present in the floodplain of Little Brown Creek and Brown Creek
will be impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project will result in
0.28 acre of permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. These impacts are caused by grade
alterations to the approach east of the bridge. Bents necessary for the new structure will
permanently impact 0.001 acre of surface water.
Temporary Impacts: There will be temporary impacts to Brown Creek consisting of 0.02 acre of
surface water and 27 linear feet. There will be temporary impacts to Little Brown Creek of 0.03
acre of surface water and of 25 linear feet of stream caused by the installation of a temporary
causeway and a temporary bridge.
After construction activities are completed, the temporary causeway and bridge associated with
the demolition and construction will be removed and revegetated.
UTILITY IMPACTS
There are no utilities attached to the bridge. An overhead utility line runs parallel to the upstream
side of the bridge. A second overhead utility line crosses the roadway 100 feet west of the
western end bent. There will be no impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with relocation of
utility lines on the project site. In addition there will be no relocation of water or sewer lines as a
result of the construction on this project site.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing bridge consists of reinforced concrete deck girders, trestle bents on concrete piles,
concrete posts, and web bents with concrete abutments at both Brown Creek and Little Brown
Creek. Bridge components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any bridge
components into Brown Creek or Little Brown Creek. There are no special restrictions beyond
those outlined in the Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed to avoid any
temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.
RESTORATION PLAN
The material used for installation of the temporary causeway, bridge, and pipes within the
surface waters will be removed after its purpose has been served. The temporary fill areas will
be restored to their original contours. After the temporary causeway and bridge are no longer
needed, the contractor will use excavation equipment to remove all material within jurisdictional
areas. All material will become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to
submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all material off site.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a November 15, 2005 Let date with a review date of
August 27, 2005.
2
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States". Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the project
study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is committed to incorporating
all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and
to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design. As part of this
commitment, impacts to Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek were minimized by replacing the
bridge in the same location, using the eastbound bridge for a detour and utilizing 2:1 slopes in
wetland areas. Because of the 303(d) impaired waters listing for Brown Creek sedimentation
will be reduced by following the Design Standards for Sensitive Matersheds.
Mitigation:
In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR), and the NCDOT, it is understood that the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) will assume responsibility for satisfying the Clean Water Act. EEP
will therefore fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects listed in Exhibit
1 of the MOA during the EEP transition period, which ends on June 30, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2, the necessary compensatory mitigation to offset
unavoidable impacts to waters jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act will be provided by EEP.
Compensatory mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets already in place within the same
8-digit cataloguing unit (Hydrologic Catalog Unit 03040104). NCDOT has avoided and
minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as described above.
The remaining unavoidable impacts will be offset as follows.
• Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 0.28 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be
provided by the EEP program. Please see the attached EEP acceptance letter dated May 31,
2005.
• Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for temporary impacts to 0.05 acre of surface
water and 52 linear feet of perennial stream.
FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions. of. Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003 the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists five federally protected species for Anson County (Table 1). The USFWS
concurred with the biological conclusions in a letter dated April 5, 2002 included in the
Categorical Exclusion. No species have been added to or deleted from this list since the
completion of the CE (May 2005).
3
Table 1. Federally Protected Species in Anson County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
Shortnose sturgeon Aci enser brevirostrum Endangered No Effect
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halos Threatened No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No Effect
Carolina heels litter Lasmi ona decorata Endangered No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzi Endangered No Effect
Field surveys were initially conducted in 2001 and it was determined that the project area does
not contain habitat for the shortnose sturgeon, bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, and
Schweinitz's sunflower. Therefore a biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been given for
these species. Suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter does exist within the project study
area. Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek were surveyed on August 29, 2001 under the
supervision of NCDOT biologists. Because of suitable habitat and the high diversity of mussels
found during the initial survey, the site was revisited by NCDOT biologists for a second review
in October 2001. Field investigations showed no evidence of Carolina heelsplitter within the
project study area. Therefore a biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been given for the
Carolina heelsplitter species.
Due to the amount of native mussels located within the impact area of the project, the USFWS
has requested that NCDOT remove them to a safe location upstream during construction. After
the bridge is completed, the mussels are to be replaced. The relocation is scheduled for October
2005.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January
15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General. Water Quality Certification number 3403 will
apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certification will be met.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a), we are providing copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality for their review.
A copy of this permit will be posted on the NCDOT web site at
http:/www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/pennit.htrnl.
4
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Chris Underwood at
[phone] if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, DEO, Division 10
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT, Program Management
Mr. Michael Penney, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
5
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
v`J
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to tlus project, please enter "loot Appticame" or "INCA .)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed'on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699- 1 548
Telephone Number: (919)-715-1451 Fax Number: (919)-715-1501
E-mail Address: csunderwoodRdot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address: n ?? .? . _ _
D
JUFa t9oi?905
WATER QUALITY
WETLI;+DS AND STORAMWATER RRdIJIIU
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ' may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 33 over Brown Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4009
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Anson Nearest Town: Polkton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Polkton take US 74
East to the city limits Bridge No 33 over Brown Creek is the westbound lane just beyond
the city limits
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): UTM 17 574329 E 3873076 N
6. Property size (acres): Approximately 9 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project area lies in the western part of Anson County.
The project is located at the edge of the small community of Polkton and is surrounded by
forest land.
Page 2 of 8
9. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
will consist of replacing the old bridge over Brown Creek with a new bridge approximately
653 feet in length Approach work is limited to grade alterations to accommodate the new
structure Traffic will be maintained with an on-site detour that utilizes the eastbound bridge
located adiacent to the replaced westbound bridge during construction. Construction
equipment will consist of heavy-duty trucks earth moving equipment cranes, etc.
10. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
and structurally deficient Replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and
more efficient traffic operations
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
it is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 0.19 acre of fill in
wetlands and 0.09 acre of mechanized clearing due to grade alterations. There will be 0.05
Page 3 of 8
acre of temporary fill in the surface waters and impact 52 linear feet of stream channel due
to a temporary construction causeway and bridge
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
?P - -tPly list imnartc dnt-. to hnth stnlcture and flooding.
Located within Distance to Area of
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland 100-year Nearest Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) (es/no linear feet
2 Fill/Permanent Forested Yes 680 0.19
2 Mechanized Forested Yes 680 0.09
clearing/Permanent

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.28
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.7
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, and then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact

Number
indicate on ma

Stream Name

Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average

Stream Width
Before Impact Impact

Length
linear feet Area of

Impact
acres
1 Brown Creek Temporary Fill Perennial 50 27 0.024
1 Little Brown Creek Temporary Bridge Perennial 25 25 0.025

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 52 0.05
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
- fill PYra.,atinn dredsrinrr_ flnnding. drainage. bulkheads. etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number Name of Waterbody
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Area of
Impact
(indicate on ma (if applicable)
ocean, etc.
acres

N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project
Stream Impact (acres):
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.28
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.28
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Due to the presence of surface
waters and wetlands within the project studyarea, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The
proposed alternative a new bridge on same location, minimizes impacts to wetlands.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8
It
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://b2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/strmgide.btYnl.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
EEP will assume responsibility for compensatory mitigation.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are willing to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wm/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.28
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
It
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.__
Impact Required
F Zone* lr-_" Multiplier AA.+;, +,-
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0244, or.0260.
N/A
Page 7 of 8
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This project involves the replacement of a bridge with a bridge.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
-? -7 0 S
Appliiant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY
MAIDS
ANSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33377.1.1 (B-4009)
BRIDGE NO. 33 OVER BROWNS
CREEK ON US 74 WBL
(MIDDLE RD.)

T
co N
A

0

CD m

:3 m ? -1

C) t
w
w
CL 7 -I

CD s
Fr m n?i

z

?'
d
c
M
M
g
,
?CrJ
?
N
N
-0 :3 m 3
n
o
? 7 7 'p m
(40 z?
Lo
z o
-JO
??
o
?o xa

W

O CO
W
N
9
0
o a
cc)
`" o
z

Z
D N

1

-1 °
m
r

A (J
O
U1 01
CI1
T
j j O
3
+
0 +
0 0
0 ?

r r
m
3
C,
7 67
C N
(D
O
7
(D N
(D
? - n

? C
N ? N

m
d
O

O O (D "T1
O.
N m

-"

H D m

? x
o D 3
i
n
7 0 n

? C
?n?
o
?
0 0 . 7 '
d 7
N
- O
O
A
•?
v a

O
C) O v (D
:3
O C
N N (n V
v
T

a
? ?
T
D
n

-?

3 (? m D
n
0 N
0 0 ? 7 c
d(D 10
N ?
to N C
7
7

r
N
r-r
O
M
DMZ o

CD 0
O CD
M CD
-v o
Z N•
n o ED
co N
K)
-?
O O
O

O
50
O W ?
? O
Z X
n ? n
to
co
J
W

T Z
0
rt
p o m
W
C-
m
'U
D
5
O f z -1
c) CO
Z
4 Z
~
O 20
i C ? ?

TCD
DZ
/) 'D
co
o
O

i T
N

N O
Co Z

p. -7- 0000+96'oJ5
9 133HS 33S 3Nnuii 11
g
04
m? ? I I? j ?? I? I ;` T $
ts, I
Sb I I ? « ? ? ? $
a
H ?r? ? I ,Sr 1
>G'. I ?r II n I T
r w 3 ..
W @I
(r? I;? $ a
ty I r 1 ?El? 9? // N
-? I r 1 1 $ kf . d'. ' case + N
? f aaunl
92
??\ • tJ V
1 NI I I ?,
W ? d
?` i t I I I
II'
Lr-
f
? I II
I I ?.
wLU I I I ?
(A 0

I N
t t
t t ?
t t
t h
1 N
t

W W

?m I I I g
? I it ¢
? I dl
a I I I f ?•
lU= I I 1
• ?i gpONM CACCR
r I I I .?
1; ? 1
1 1
SC ?I 41
: E
(
? I. I' I 1
m I ;? I I I?? f
a I : I' ! I
3 I
j of C
1? I
jl I ? r I
AIATCHUNE SEE SHEET 4
Sta.MfOODO -L-

old
M
n
D
M
l7 ? R
C4 pi in
+CIgW
MIOaI?
YJ M q
M) -1
«>u>C4OUa
• W ti 2
O
V.

N N
6

1 ?. .

J.

t
I _? 1

1-1
1-1
1
0
N
caws OUOj afro
t!
a 2
.; p 9 139HS-73S3NnHi1Vi1
G
Z
v
C
u

V

0 V

'
0 L
1
N Q
r°. o n c3

N ly 1U
++N W
? O

CIO
V •O
D
in to
N
(?
W
?
r

J ...JJJ CJ
? L'1V S ,
OtA
g ? s a. $ Q

1 N
1 1
? 1 °
1 ?
1 h
Y N
Y

i

ua-
W
W ?? W

F-
w
?o
M
?tO? ttl
V K W
Cn9?W0
nu
.n J
.?I TM
?uux
0

1-1

vwr um
a" vw

UNWIUIVC -,)Zr- J"GL/ "f
Sto.33fo= -L-

to
z d t?

?S
Fot I
_5L-6 E?Ey11.4304.73
a
N
co
N
N
N
•C
N °
N
z

< -3
a.I
M'-

\

1
4
I

I
m zs r8
a e
I

?
I
w
N
I

W r

? I I
1° I
I
W ? I
O
I
N
? I i
I
? N
II
I
?
I
?
1
I I???? I I=I

Q7
?
?I i
?? I ?
I
? ~ N
N
I ?\\ ? ? .
?
I
I
+ I
+ I
? O
I- LO
11
,
? ?/ i 5 \ to
U I
55

w ?.
i ?I I \ in
l
I
' f1 I ry// I I N ? N 0 .
1e G a • I z
ry
a
II ICI` I m> I I ? ????
?W
?m
"
41
I ?I
x
D
l l ?
?° ?
I .
m
?
, I I
l I ?
,
a
?
I j
?? ? s
? AE
?
I
?
?
?
I l
I r
I
?
?
?
I
Q? ?W '. I ; I I I
M 11? ?
I I
O I J ?
1 ' J?
1
I r? ' N
I

r;???,?
a I I ,?
o
,1
{jll II II II IIWU i I ? ? I 17 M N
Pf
I I
I;; I ,
?r N Ll.
I ? ?
-H + CY
O 4 s, N

C-4 4- to z
CY 0 P4
V)
N N J
to
#
O
+1
09

N \ N

44 I I I j?
-? l a I ? ? n a
-M
di v
(/?
••• I
Cpl tY
W ?
I

r I Z
I ¦ I / co
aNut

i0
? 0
to
I
o r ?
l
oN. u?+
a

? I =
h co
®' I ?
1C 11
W ? ? I
v
I ? i I
I
?° I
C5 I
JI I

I

?
v

°?o?
b
b
?

u II
6111
?
„ II
II O??C I
'W" • ® r
13
%0
-7- 00'00+96'olS
9 133HS 33S 3NnHOIVn
O
l
co
%0
N N N N N
.awu.
ev
.or acw
bb/LI/H I
uvJ vru
oo
Z
r
z

z gg? u

PO'
i3 I
-BL-6 ElEVi7'43 4 0?

N
C 0
00

N 0

N 0
%0

N 0
Ln

N

C t

I
m s a
zs a
I
I
I
?
?
I

LLJ i
I ¦
I I ?
1 I ? ,
I I
I?

W ?
I o
? Q I
o m
? ?

1 ? .. H
L
y /'
? O

?
? II
? / I I
Il Ln
i1
O
55 Won
N

W r `; \ In
I ? U
1!1 -

W ?
?n
D
.7
n

I V I
S?
o
N

?l /
o n u I ?e
1 tICY
? •N .;V cH
•
.H
, R
h 1 N

N m / / N y+
?
0 16,
@ nS2
Ln toN W.WJ k D
05 •' I 1 ?m7 `n
? I I I ? JWCO
II

.H

O

'H?
`
\
}
9 k

d
J 60 0%
'jl
N

41
Vol

1,4:

?

? ?

V N tyt??

10?
t C. W >
-M
~ I co

Q? I J I ; n

T? ? o??
Gr
H f }
I'
W I i / ref
a
?
bi?o? f ?

o
cnu
nu uu ""
` ? .
\
n
?
?1? d r
am `,3?J?nvWi? l3 .p
-7- 00100f96
S 133H5 33S 3NnH0.Lvn
a
co
N
N N N N N
____ ____ ____ ____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ MAW mm " aura

s7WUlriwu
tuvat:ura
?sl
4
!I 1!
I
r I ?;

?
®
A v
?.,
P

©
p
f?

k?

---
--- ----------- I
---
---- ---------
1 Qj

1 .. , K
1 O '
1

?

1
?
1 F
1 a
1 U
1 0
i F' ,

1 T
? 1

1
1

1 1
1 a ' W
,
1 ,
1 N j ?'L
'
i ? 1 vZiW
1
1 ? , ILIA
v

'
t tn?

1

1
1 1?

U

- - - - -
- - Q. :a
_J=
- - - - - - - -
1--- 1
1
1 :: 1 ,
1
1 `
?
i

1 ,
1 1
i ,

' 0 1

1
A
1
1
I 1
J 1
•' I t
1
1 O 1
lZ 1
1

1

?
?2 + 1
Lf) 1
1
1
d li ti t
' 1 y 1
1
(gy ,
m
1 1
1 i

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• 1 ;. 1
1 •• 1
1 1

... j 1

_-
- - - - - -

- - - - - -
1-------- - - - - - -
,
1 ,
• 1 1
? JI 1
1

1 / ? 1
y
y $ .
p ti
K y
IL
am'
60
1 ,
1 1a??7 ,
cil
1
1 ? 1
' ??C11 1
1 ? t
1 ,
1 1
1 ? V 1
t ,
t 1
1 1
1 ,
t ,
1 ,
1 .Z 1
1 O 1
1 ? 1
1
1-------------------------------------J
?.IL??Ill??BYdI ?IGII ?JL
W
(Q(?
64
?a
?O
a e,
K.
k
/1..YY1
r?^
pM.A W
Al
a
p
u tl
H
{h ? 6
IM vj
ci
s
I NI
f?
K1 ?
?: va
^N
•r
N
0. ?
nS ?e
F} M
4`.{1
C?
r.
i
rl ra
tµ
F,
F •I
r.?
C7
r
IC
lf. 1?,
11.i IfR
1?,1

A tM ?1
S! L.i
AA??
C'd
1

M

FM

? U
?
4rl
C x t7
p
7
'
IAA ?
i
.
r ?

G. G LPf
L6. Ca:
{? L9.

a f
13 $ ~
1-•

..? 1 h
pT, k f _ 4
^'J

b/H{0/bb 11. 1 • -1.14,t
i?
d ?3 .
? ? a {;, .. ? SF I
a
sl
a o
ti
a I
r ?I

wl 7i
e
a ?
a,
X
;II
R LS
W?
?y
'l
--------------
--------------
___-Y_-___-_..
s"
0
4{
as
as
O
? tiTp?9?Ib?4
i
i
i QQQQQQ
g a
D
O
n
N
---------------------
---------------------
--------------------- --------------
--------------
--------------
I I
O
v
N
%a
N
tc1
c?
CV)
M
c7
N
N
C.)?
a
?
n

?+

N O
?
II M
QQ
=7NW
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- --
u

- -- -- - -- --- -- ---
-- -- -- -- -- -- -

-- -- -- - --- -- -- --
O.
- - - - - - N
- - - - -- - - -
--
--
---
-
-
-
--
-

--
-- --
-- -- -- - -- --
-
-
-
--
-
-- -- - -- -- - -

- - --- -- -- -- --- - - - - -- -
- -

N
a

v
c
r

ti
N
to
wU .-

-
- c "i

r
41!
T -- - -- - - --- - -- - -- -- --
-- - -- -- -- -- - - - -
- - -- - ---
-- - -- -- -- -- - --
L
a
%0
N

- --- - -- -- -- - -- - -
N
-
--- -- -- - -- -- -

- -- -- -- -- - --
-
- - -- -- -
- -- - - -- - --
- -- - - -- -- -- --

N

-- -- -- - --- - -

N
N N?,vrm
fJIM$ ema
rout av
-----------------
-----------------
A ?
J u>SS
a
O
09
a

rl
S6 `s
F
ti ry?
d P op
h c,?' M
Rid N
1"o ?
i

1 1?1
{n p 1 1 1
a 4o.,tiCcvtui??
e
5
w
o
P
l0 11
VI'
).`
i $
?g
d
A
ry? 0ti
N
tW ?
In g
v+
OV3
-a"'
H N
WH
to G? w
W
O
O
wr o,
- - ----------
aag
W N W
i6
tV 1
Ln
in O
in
a
w
V'
n
%0
tn
v
tv)
IT
Ha! gm
1 '
c a :?
-7-
D" .L?73HSoo-L17s.?NlIHJ1V/1'
! ?'` "T•
s
Ito
9- M.x
of
.gl s 281s'26. w
IN 118.2
N ?
w n$ ? h
n
I'
I
0
>Y
3
rR? ? II
sa ??
"I 1
a 1
6/LI/e -----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
a
oid.t
?S
4
rA
0
i
h
?o
d\ ?
.
INI
0
n
IM!,
O
h r
c'f t't
n?
N
~a
ql W
0
I II\
--Li I ol I I- J ol I I 1 N N LC,.on4
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
swols"
c?
N
O
cv
a
N
co
N
N
10
N
in
N
N
N
N
N
r-
N
O
N
rout mror suro
ans av
f?
at
7
a
56
a
e'? ?}r
,3t Y'f? Lnw
Sz ? Z r?V?ita?'Y
-7- 00100f96'DIS
13HS 93S 3N17Hoivm
N s?sa
E 3?
O
?O

41
mI
V'

rrrrrrrrr r r
j
? ? aaa 3?
-LLJLLLI.1 LI III Jill
5 33'56'59'
2W:36TM
?? gppMM CREEK
N
? Q
V ? j1Y5
N
ji
O i{?i W
---------------
------------ -
pba$ M .la W I 1 ?? ` N? tu: b
7' S S. 1
Lap paapp ?$
I -V
1 I- =
utG:lu ? ? [L 1 : Yo ? 1 ? ?n?
Ito al uy 1 °?,?
lid
Ag p s
961
{?4 tpar?p i? 1 r I 1
4? QO.Eh a;v??j
MATCHUNE SEE SHEET 4
Sto:33f00A0 -L-
---------- ---
66/LI/B -------------------------------------------°_____---------------------------___-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.1?OISSA?f

O
i?'l
Go
cv)
N
cl)
Ln
cn
M
co
taut vu
I?
?I
.I
99
? qq Ot I
a?
I
I
a I I
g I
,old
4? I
I
I
I
I

\ u
W ;
x vi ? ? I I W ? ?ti I o
i/ I I b a n I
I I? Q m I ?
?z N v I ¢
.. ?? ? i I w 11 ?, l lr I : ??
ar-
o Q°$$ga 1 10; 1 1
'4 .4 Mt
O;F
L4
a?? ? 'I r I
r ' C= ? I S
-7- WOOIL90T6
9 133HS 33S 3NnH.)lvff
'67779
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Si101?AJ71
O
O?
N
0
o i'f
0"Ca
vLO Ca
N
W W W
0
co
N

N
NI 1 (V
---------
---------
---------- -----------------
-----------------
----------------- -
-
-
Ln
in
11
to
CV)
LO
N
W)
LO
O
in
O1
14
lA

?o
v
O
snot ?turot ;uro
NW m?
Qnsrteffl ;
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Mr. Steve Lund
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28 80 1-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
B4009, Replace Bridge 33 over Brown Creek on US 74 Westbound, Anson
County; Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040104); Southern Piedmont
(SP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 0.28 acre of riverine
wetland impacts associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Riverine Wetland Preservation (10:1) In Same Eco-Region
Drowning Creek II/Rankin (Richmond and Moore Counties) 2.80 acres
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Wr 'am D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4009
¦ E
1
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
Eco stem r.
?rA
-.11 1
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4009, Bridge 33 over Brown Creek on US 74 Westbound, Anson
County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information
supplied by you in a letter dated May 11, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03040104 of the
Yadkin River Basin in the Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.28 acre
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided
in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Zi7DGmore, P. E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4009
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
_4
Westbound US 74
Bridge No. 33 Over Brown Creek
Anson County
Federal-Aid Project: BRNHF-74(42)
State Project No. 8.1651401
T.I.P. No. B-4009
Categorical Exclusion
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved
I b.±;'IA ;a & -4.4 00
at b Gregory. h hD, Direct r
Project Developme t & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Date ??? Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
?'"-Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Westbound US 74
Bridge No. 33 Over Brown Creek
Anson County
Federal-Aid Project: BRNHF-74(42)
State Project No. 8.1651401
T.I.P. No. 8-4009
Categorical Exclusion
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
November 2002
Document Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc.
Iona L. Hauser ? 0%J1'
Senior Environmental Plann`?O?
x_.41
SEAL
1 92
Michael 1<6nni , P.E. %?p cry 10
s
Project Manager 4rE. its for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U'C?JNi
Teresa Hart, P.E., CPM
Consultant Unit Head
Z L.
John M. Penney, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Westbound US 74; Bridge No. 33
Over Brown Creek;
Anson County
State Project No.: 8.1651401
Federal Aid Project No.: BRNHF-74(42)
TIP No.: B-4009
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Special Conditions,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase
have been incorporated into the design and were standard commitments. Current
status, changes, or additions to the project commitments as shown in the environmental
document for the project are printed in italic font.
Design Services/Roadside EnvironmentaUDivision 5 Construction
Ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
This standard will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project.
Design Services/ Division 5 Construction
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to
the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain a 401
certification from DWQ.
This standard will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project.
Division 5 Construction
Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to only what is necessary to perform
the bridge demolition/removal and construction of the replacement structure. Heavy
equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order
to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into
the stream.
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
Division 5 Construction
All work shall be preformed during low flow conditions
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
B-4009 Green Sheet Page 1 of 1
Categorical Exclusion
November 25, 2002
Westbound US 74
Bridge No. 33 Over Brown Creek
Anson County
Federal-Aid Project: BRNHF-74(42)
State Project No. 8.1651401
T.I.P. No. 8-4009
Bridge No. 33 is included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. It is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition in FFY 2003 and to begin construction in
FFY 2004. The location of this bridge is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
PURPOSE AND NEED
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated that Bridge No. 33 has a sufficiency rating
of 42.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
and structurally deficient.
Replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 33 on the westbound lane of US 74 over
Brown Creek in Anson County (See Figure 1). US 74 is classified as a rural principal arterial.
Brown Creek is located in the Yadkin River Basin and has a drainage basin area of 93.4 square
miles south of the structure. The existing bridge is 643 ft (196 m) long, with at total width of 29 ft
(8.8 m) and two 11 (3.4 m) foot travel lanes. The existing bridge consists of reinforced concrete
deck girders, trestle bents on concrete piles and two (total of four) concrete post and web bents
at both Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek with concrete abutments. There is 26 feet (8
meter) of clear roadway width. The existing bridge is in a horizontal tangent, bents are skewed
90 degrees to the roadway to Brown Creek. 'Vertical grade on the bridge is relatively flat with
both East & West grades falling away from the bridge resulting in good sight distance.
There are no utilities attached to the bridge. An overhead utility line runs parallel to the
upstream side of the bridge. A second overhead utility line crosses the roadway 100 feet (30.5
meters) west of the western end bent.
Based on data from the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance, floodwaters have reached the bottom of
the bridge beams but never overtopped the road. No debris accumulation or scour was
observed around the bents, however bridge scour information for the existing bridge is not
available. The channel banks appear to be stable with trees and underbrush. There are
wetlands both upstream and downstream of the bridge. The existing bridge built was in 1922
and was reconstructed in 1941.
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 1
The posted speed limit is 55 MPH The 2001 average daily traffic volume is 8 300 vehicles per
day (vpd) The projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 17 000 vpd by the design
year2025
Nine accidents were reported in the vicinity of this bridge during the period from January 1 1997
to July 31 2000 Of the nine traffic accidents six caused property damage and three resulted in
injuries Seven of the nine accidents occurred during wet conditions
County school buses traverse the bridge 13 times per day
III ALTERNATIVES
A Project Description
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis in conjunction
with a field reconnaissance of the site The proposed replacement structure is a bridge
approximately 660 ft (2012 m) long The proposed bridge grade will be approximately the
same as the existing roadway grade Minimum grade on the bridge is proposed to be 0 3%
to facilitate deck drainage The length of the proposed bridge and the recommended
elevation may be adjusted (increased or decreased) to accommodate design floods as
determined in the final hydrologic study and hydraulic design Additional hydraulic analysis
will be performed during the final design phase of the project
The proposed bridge will consist of a typical section of two 12 ft (3 7 m) travel lanes an 8 ft
(2 4 m) interior shoulder and an 8 ft (2 4 m) outside shoulder
B Build Alternative (Figure 2)
The alternate for replacing Bridge No 33 is described below
Alternate 1 (Preferred) includes replacement of the existing 643± ft (196± m) structure with
a new structure at the existing location The new structure is proposed to be 660 ft (200 m)
in length The approach work will extend from approximately 360 ft (109 7 m) west to
approximately 320 ft (98 m) east of the existing structure Approach work is limited to grade
alterations to accommodate the new structure Traffic will be maintained with an on site
detour that utilizes the eastbound bridge located adjacent to the replaced westbound bridge
during construction Existing eastbound US 74' will be divided into one lane in each
direction Westbound traffic will cross on a temporary roadway section constructed in the
median and utilize the passing lane of existing eastbound US 74 The total project length is
approximately 1340 ft (408 m)
B 4009 Categorical Exclusion. Page 2
7
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternate 2 replaces the bridge on its existing alignment with a temporary detour structure
placed downstream. The proposed detour structure would be two bridges; one over Brown
Creek 110 ft (33.5 m), which has a drainage area of 78 square miles (20253.7 hectares) and
one over Little Brown Creek 60 ft (18.3 m), which has a drainage area of 15.2 square miles
(3936.8 hectares). The one-lane detour should be placed immediately downstream (in the
median) of the existing location. Alternate 2 was eliminated and not considered further
because of additional stream impacts and the considerable cost increases associated with
the detour structures.
No Action Alternate The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate removal of
the bridge effectively removing the westbound section of HWY 74 from traffic service.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 1, (the preferred alternative), proposes to replace the existing structure in place
with a new bridge approximately 660 ft in length. Alternate 1 was selected because of fewer
impacts to wetlands, better horizontal alignment, lower cost detour, and lower total
construction costs.
NCDOT Division 10 concurs with Alternate 1 as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
TART F 1 • FstimntAd Costs
Alternate 1
Preferred Alternate 2
Structure Removal (Existing) $159,506 $159,506
Structure (Proposed) $1,663,200 $1,663,200
Detour and Approaches $210,000 $566,580
Roadway Approaches $881,900 $895,400
-
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $764,394 $821,314
Engineering and Contingencies $571,000 $644,000
-
ROW/Const. Easement/Utilities $102,000 $102,000
Total $4,352,000 $4,852,000
8-4009 Categorical Exclusion
Page 3
?y
J
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. METHODOLOGY
The project study area is located on US 74 over Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek, in
Anson County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The bridge is located approximately 0.9 mi (1.4
km) east of the intersection NC 218 and US 74. The project study area comprises an area
approximately 3200 ft (976 m) in length and approximately 500 ft (152 m) in width. The
project study area is rural in nature and is dominated by forested natural communities and
agricultural uses.
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of natural resources in the project
study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) a delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters and preparation of a map depicting the
jurisdictional areas based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data; 2) an assessment of
natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation,
wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 3) an evaluation of
probable impacts resulting from construction and alternatives; and 4) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
quadrangle topographic mapping [Polkton, NC (USGS 1970) and Russellville, NC (USGS
1971)], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping,
the Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina (United States Department of Agriculture
2000) as prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and recent
aerial photography ( scale 1:2400) furnished by Wilbur Smith Associates.
Aerial photography served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant
community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field verified.
Plant community descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names generally follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytlc
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Jurisdictional surface waters
(i.e., streams) were delineated pursuant to current COE and North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) protocol. All jurisdictional areas were located using Trimble TM GPS
units and the collected data were differentially corrected and plotted to produce working
maps and site plans.
8-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 4
Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was obtained from the Yadkin-Pee
Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (DWQ 1998), and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using
current DWQ protocol. Fish populations were sampled using seine and dip nets. Fisheries
sampling is conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) under North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) Permit # 0616.
Additional resources utilized for this natural systems investigation include the most recent
list (March 7, 2002) of federally Threatened and Endangered species by county published
by FWS. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were also
reviewed on June 4, 2001 and periodically updated to determine if there are any
documented cases of listed species occurring within 3.0 miles (mi) [4.8 kilometers (km)] of
the project study area (most recent update February 25, 2002). 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, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992,
Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995).
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province. Topography in
the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level to gently sloping. Elevations
in the project study area range from 240 ft to 275 ft (73 m to 84 m) above mean sea level
(USGS 1970 and 1971).
The project study area contains two soil mapping units (USDA 2000). Wehadkee loam
(Typic Fluvaquents) is a hydric soil. Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) is non-
hydric soil that may contain hydric inclusions of Wehadkee loam in depressions adjoining
upland side slopes (USDA 2000).
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
(DWQ 1998) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03040104 (USGS 1974). Brown
Creek originates north of Pageland, South Carolina, and flows in a northerly direction
through the project study area to its confluence with the Pee Dee River on the
Anson/Richmond County line. Brown Creek, from the North Carolina-South Carolina
State Line to the Pee Dee River, has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 13-
20 (DENR 2002a, DWQ 1998).
8-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 5

Little Brown Creek originates in Wadesboro, North Carolina, north of US 220, and
flows in a northerly direction through the project study area to its confluence with
Brown Creek. Little Brown Creek, from its source to Brown Creek, has been assigned
SIN 13-20-1 (DENR 2002a, DWQ 1998).
2. WATER RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
A Best Usage Classification is 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. The reach of Brown Creek within the project study area has been
assigned a Best Usage Classification of C (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a). The reach of
Little Brown Creek within the project study area has also been assigned a best usage
classification of C (DEM 1993, DENR 2001b). The C designation indicates
freshwaters that support aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation is any activity involving
human body contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-1 or WS41
Waters occur within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area
(DEM 1993, DENR 2002a). Neither Brown Creek nor Little Brown Creek is designated
as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, or as a national Wild and Scenic River.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates permits for
projects involving the construction, alteration, and/or operation of any sewer system,
treatment works or disposal system and certain stormwater runoff, which would result
in a discharge into surface waters (DPA 1991). Point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted in these waters, pursuant to Rules .0104 and .0211 of 15A
NCAC 213; however, local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater
discharge of pollution are required. There are no permitted point source dischargers
located on Brown Creek, Little Brown Creek, or its associated tributaries (DENR
2002b).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends
in water quality at monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). This program has been replaced by the benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring program associated with the basinwide water quality
management plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (DWQ 1998). DWQ assigns
bioclassifications to streams and portions of streams based on species richness and
overall biomass, which are considered reflections of water quality. There is one
benthic macroinvertebrate sampling station located on Brown Creek. This site is
located in the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge at SR 1627 approximately 9.2 mi (14.7
km) downstream from the project study area. This location received a rating of Fair in
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 6
1996 (DWQ 1998, DENR 2002c). There are no benthic monitoring stations located on
Little Brown Creek.
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index
of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and
health of the fish community. Brown Creek was sampled in 1996 at SR 1230
approximately 10.8 mi (17.4 km) upstream from the project study area. This location
received a NCIBI rating of Good (DWQ 1998, DENR 2002c). No sampling has been
conducted in Little Brown Creek
3. Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Neither High Quality Waters (HWQ), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed,
or WS-II: Predominantly undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area.
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures in
the creek channel. In the short term, construction of the bridge and approach work will
increase sediment loads. Sediment loading can reduce flow and result in a decrease
in oxygen levels. The removal of trees that provide shade along the stream banks
could result in an increase in water temperature and a decrease in oxygen levels as
well.
The NCDOT, in conjunction with the Division of Water Quality has developed a
sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts formal best
management practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters. The following are
methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• Strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the
life of the project;
• Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water
bodies and minimization of activities conducted in the creek;
• Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to
reduce runoff and decrease sediment loadings; and
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing along the creek.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project,
the NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal. The guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 7

entitled "Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal," "Policy:
Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States," and "Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal." Guidelines followed for
bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best
Management Practices of the Protection of Surface Waters.
The superstructure consists of concrete deck girders. Although these components are
slated for removal in a manner, which will avoid dropping any component into Brown
Creek or Little Brown Creek, the potential exists for temporary fill of up to 310 cubic
yards.(237 cubic meters).
The substructure includes fourteen (14) concrete interior bents, five (5) of which are
located within the stream channel. Although these components are slated for removal
in a manner, which will avoid dropping any component into Brown Creek or Little
Brown Creek, the potential exists for temporary fill of up to 235 cubic yards (180 cubic
meters).
Bridge components are slated for removal in a manner, which will avoid dropping any
bridge components into Brown Creek. However, due to the presence of concrete in
both the superstructure and substructure of the bridge, the maximum fill is 545 cubic
yards (417 cubic meters) as a result of demolition activities.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the
alternative being considered.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Existing Vegetation Patterns
Terrestrial distribution and composition of vegetation communities throughout the
project study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology,
and past and present land use practices. When appropriate, the vegetation
community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP classification
system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local
variations within the project study area. Two natural communities were identified
within the project study area: Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Successional
Land. In addition to the natural communities, there are also areas of
maintained/disturbed land.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest - Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forests are
located in river and stream floodplains in which separate fluvial landforms and
associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish. These floodplains are
seasonally or intermittently flooded. The Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest within
the project study area is located adjacent Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek. This
8-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 8

community is forested with an open to dense understory or shrub layer and sparse to
dense diverse herb layer. Canopy species include American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), river
birch (Betula nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), and tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tullpifera). Understory species include ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and boxelder (Acer negundo).
Herbaceous species typically found in this community include yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans).
Successional Land - Successional Land includes clear cut areas and other types of
communities that have been recently disturbed such that the plant community is young
and consists of early successional or opportunistic species. These communities are in
the process of gradually reverting to a former vegetated community type, resembling a
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest, unless disturbed again. The layer of shrubs and
young trees that occupy this land consists of black willow (Salix nigra), red maple
(Acer rubrum), tulip poplar, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch, and water
oak.
Maintained/Disturbed Land - The maintained/disturbed land within the project study
area include such areas as roadsides, residential areas, and dirt roads/driveways and
are dominated by a mixture of ornamental and early successional species. Typical
species observed in this community are broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus),
plantain (Plantago spp.), and various maintained roadside grasses including fescue
(Festuca spp.), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), wild onion (Allium
canadense), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and golden rod (Solidago sp.).
a. Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Potential impacts to vegetation communities are estimated based on the area of
each vegetation community present within the proposed construction limits. A
summary of potential impacts to vegetation communities is presented in Table 2
in acres (ac) and hectares (ha).
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion
Page 9
°a
i

Table 2. Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities.
Potential Impacts
Acres (hectares
VEGETATION Alternative 1 (Preferred) Alternative 2
COMMUNITY Impacts Temp. Impacts Temp.
Construction Construction
Im actsa Im actsa
Piedmont/Low 0.16 ac 0.67 ac 0.16 ac 0.60 ac
Mountain Alluvial (0.06 ha) (0.27 ha) (0.06 ha) (0.24 ha)
Forest
Successional Land 1.03 ac 0.97 ac 1.00 ac 1.62 ac
0.42 ha 0.39 ha 0.40 ha 0.66 ha
Maintained/Disturbed 0.88 ac 0.52 ac (0.21 1.89 ac 1.62 ac
Land 0.36 ha ha 0.77 ha 0.66 ha
Total: 2.07 ac 2.16 ac 3.05 ac 3.84 ac
0.84 ha 0.87 ha 1.23 ha 1.56 ha
Total for Alternative : 4.23 ac 1.71 ha 6.89 ac 2.79 ha
Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not inciuaea in me
construction limits for the permanent structure.
b Totals for vegetation communities do not include the open water area attributed to Brown
Creek and Little Brown Creek or impervious road surface.
Potential impacts associated with a bridge replacement are generally limited to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach
segments. Both alternatives have similar potential permanent impacts to the
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Community. However, potential impacts
associated with Alternative 2 are higher than those associated with Alternative 1
due to the use of a temporary on-site detour. Additional potential impacts
associated with Alternative 2 are generally limited to communities that are
already significantly disturbed (successional land, maintained/disturbed land).
2. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife. Little evidence of wildlife was observed during the field effort. Forests along
streams such as Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek provide cover, food and function
as a migration corridor linking areas of more optimal habitats. Other expected wildlife
species are those adapted to ecotones between the maintained roadsides and
adjacent natural forest.
a. Terrestrial
Bird species observed include the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern parula (Parula americana), eastern towhee
(Pipilo erythrophtha/mus), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea). Other species
expected to occur in and around the project study area include great blue heron
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 10

(Ardea herodias), red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon).
Few mammal signs were observed within the project study area. Species
documented from the project study area include beaver (Castor canadensis) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana). Other species expected to be found in
and around the project study area include raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vu/pes vulpes), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
One species of terrestrial reptile, eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), was
observed within the project study area. Other species expected to occur within
the project study area include eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis),
ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Two species of terrestrial amphibian, Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei) and
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), were observed within the project study
area. Other species expected to occur within the project study area include
white-spotted slimy salamander (Plethodon cy/indraceus), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
3. Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes Brown Creek and
Little Brown Creek. Limited seining, dip-netting, and visual observation of stream
banks and channel within the project study area were conducted in Brown Creek. No
electro-shocking was conducted in Brown Creek or Little Brown Creek to minimize
potential impacts to freshwater mussel populations.
Benthic invertebrate organisms collected within the project study area were identified
to at least Order and Family, if possible (McCafferty 1998), and includes: the
dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Libellulidae, Protoneuridae), midges (Diptera:
Chironomidae), water boatmen (Hemiptera: Corixidae), mayflies (Ephemeroptera:
Caenidae, Baetidae), beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), scuds (Amphipoda), water
mites (Arachnids: Hydracarina), freshwater leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea), freshwater
mussels (Pelecypoda: Unionidae), freshwater clams (Pelecypoda: Sphaeriidae), and
campeloma snails (Gastropods: Viviparidae).
Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek were surveyed on August 3?d and 30`h, 2001, to
determine presence/absence of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter under
the supervision of NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge. Freshwater mussels observed
during the survey included the eastern creekshell (Vil/osa delumbis), eastern floater
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion.
Page 11
J
(Pyganodon cataracta), eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata complex), creeper
(Strophitus undulatus), lampmussel (Lampsilis sp.), and pondhorn (Uniomerus sp.).
The presence of potentially suitable habitat for a Federally endangered mussel species
precluded electro-shocking to sample the resident fish populations. Fish species
expected to occur within the project study area include chain pickerel (Esox niger),
redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
whitemouth shiner (Notropis alborus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), redbreasted
sunfish (L. auritus), warmouth (L. gulosus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), pumpkinseed (L.
gibbosus), and tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi).
One aquatic reptile species, redbelly watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster), was
observed within the project study area. Other species expected to occur within the
project study area include northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina) and eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys scripta).
Two aquatic amphibian species were observed within the project study area, bullfrog
(Rana catesbeiana) and southern leopard frogs (R. utricularia). Other species
expected to occur within the project study area include such species as green frog
(Rana clamitans) and pickerel frog (R. palustris).
4. Potential Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed
bridge replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known animal
populations. Wildlife movement corridors are not expected to be significantly altered
by the proposed project. Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be
avoided by bridging Long Creek to maintain regular flow and stream integrity.
Temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during
construction are expected to be minimized by limiting in-stream work to an absolute
minimum and use of a turbidity curtain during construction, except for the removal of
the portion of the sub-structure below the water. Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs) will be followed to minimize impacts due
to anticipated bridge demolition. BMPs for the protection of surface should be strictly
enforced to reduce impacts.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek are
subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters in Brown Creek within the
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 12
ti
project study area exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded (R21_161) waters (Cowardin et aL 1979). The waters of
Little Brown Creek within the project study area exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower
perennial, unconsolidated bottom, saturated, permanently flooded, excavated
(R2UBHx) waters (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Brown Creek is a perennial stream with moderate. to slow flow over substrate
consisting of sand and silt. The main channel is approximately 50 ft (15 m) wide and
approximately 10 ft (3 m) deep. A geomorphic characterization of the channel section
within the project study area indicates Brown Creek is a "G" stream type (Rosgen
1996). This stream type occurs in narrow valleys and is unstable, with grade control
problems and high bank erosion rates. The "G" designation indicates that the stream
is an entrenched "gully" with a low width/depth ratio on moderate gradients (Rosgen
1996).
Little Brown Creek is a perennial stream with substrate consisting of sand and silt. No
flow was observed in August 3, 2001 and the stream had been reduced to a series of
isolated pools. Perennial status was determined by the presence of live mussel beds.
The main channel is approximately 25 ft (8 m) wide and approximately of 5 ft (2 m)
deep. A geomorphic characterization of the stream section within the project study
area indicates Little Brown Creek is a "G" stream type (Rosgen 1996).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology within 12 inches [31 centimeters (cm)] the soil surface for a
portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on the three
parameter approach, four (4) jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project
study area. Vegetation within these areas is hydrophytic in nature and includes black
willow, sweetgum, Chinese privet, and cat tail (Typha latifolia). Soils exhibit hydric
characteristics (Munsell color 10 YR 5/2 with 2.5YR 4/6 mottles). Hydrological
indicators observed include the presence of water stained leaves and saturation within
12 inches (31 cm) of the soil surface. Wetlands within the project study area described
as palustdne, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded (PFO1 C) wetland
(Cowardin 1979). A summary of potential wetland impacts are presented in Table 2.
a. Potential Impacts to Waters of the United States
Potential impacts to open water areas are estimated based on the amount of each
jurisdictional area within the proposed construction limits. Open water areas of
Brown Creek (R2UB1) and Little Brown Creek (R2UBHx) are included in Table 2,
although impacts are not expected due to the use of channel-spanning structures.
During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including
erosion control measures; therefore it is anticipated that removing the existing end
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion
Page 13
bents will result in no impact to surrounding surface waters. A summary of
potential jurisdictional impacts is presented in Table 3 in acres and hectares or
linear feet and meters, as appropriate.
Table 3. Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas.
Potential Wetlands Impacts
Acres hectares
JURISDICTIONAL Alternative 1 Preferred Alterna tive 2
AREAS Temporary Temporary
Impacts Construction Impacts Construction
Impacts* Impacts"
PF01 C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 ac
0.17 ha
R2UB1 0.08 ac 0.13 ac 0.08 ac 0.13 ac
Brown Creek 0.03 ha 0.05 ha 0.03 ha 0.05 ha
R2UBHx 0.02 ac 0.05 ac (0.02 0.02 ac 0.05 ac
Little Brown Creek 0.01 ha ha 0.01 ha 0.02 ha
Total: 0.10 ac 0.18 ac 0.10 ac 0.59 ac
0.04 ha 0.07 ha 0.04 ha 0.24 ha
Total Wetlands 0.28 ac (0.11 ha) 0.69 ac (0.28 ha)
Impacts:
Potential Stream Impacts
Linear feet meters
Brown Creek 45 lin. Ft 140 lin. ft 45 lin. ft 140 lin. ft
14m 43m 14m 43m
Little Brown Creek 45 lin. Ft 85 lin. Ft 45 lin. ft 85 lin. ft
14m 26m 14m 26m
Total: 90 lin. ft
225 lin. ft
90 lin. Ft
225 lin. ft
27m 69m
L 27m 69m
Total Stream Impacts: 315 111n. ft 96 m 315 lin. ft 96 m
° Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not inciuaea in the
construction limits for the permanent structure.
Both alternatives avoid potential permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.
Alternative 1 avoids potential temporary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, while
Alternative 2 has potential temporary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Neither
alternative will cause shading of jurisdictional wetlands. The potential permanent
and temporary impacts to surface waters are similar for both alternatives.
2. Permits
a. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit is required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for projects of
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 14
ti
this type for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A general
permit may be issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category or
categories of activities when: those activities are substantially similar in nature
and cause only a minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or
when the general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication of
regulatory control exercised by another Federal, state, or local agency provided
that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular
activity, then an individual permit must be utilized. Individual permits are
authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the
proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a
type of general permit. Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical
Exclusions. This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in
part, by another Federal agency and that the activity 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. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all
terms and conditions of the particular permit. However, final permit decisions are
left to the discretionary authority of the USACE.
b. Section 401 Water Quality Certification
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the Division of Water
Quality, will also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
According to the Division of Water Quality one condition of the permit is that the
appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be utilized to prevent
exceeding the appropriate turbidity water quality standard.
c. Bridge Demolition and Removal
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures" is
labeled Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs) as well
as guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek resulting from
demolition. After construction activities are completed, abandoned approaches
associated with the existing structure and/or temporary detours will be removed
and revegetated in accordance with NCDOT guidelines. This project falls under
"Case 3" of the BMP-BDR, which requires no special restrictions beyond those
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion
Page 15

outlined in the BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999).
d. Coast Guard
Bridge replacement of construction over navigable waters used for commerce or
that have a maintained navigation channel may require U.S. Coast Guard (USCG
authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-115. Brown Creek is not classified as a
navigable water; therefore USCG authorization is not required.
3. Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance - Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the project
study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The proposed alternative minimizes
impacts to wetlands. Wetland and stream impacts are previously discussed in Section
4.1.1.
Minimization - The alternatives presented were developed in part to demonstrate
minimization of stream impacts. Impacts to the stream will be minimized during
demolition by removing bridge components in a manner, which will avoid dropping any
components into the creek channel. Bridge demolition impacts have been previously
discussed in Section 2.2. Employing 2:1 slopes where practicable can further minimize
wetland impacts.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not anticipated for this project due to the limited
nature of project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to
minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas within wetlands. Temporary
impacts associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by replanting
disturbed areas with native species and removal of any temporary fill material within the
floodplain upon project completion. Final mitigation requirements rest with the COE.
Mitigation may be required for wetland impacts >0.1 ac (>0.04 ha).
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are
listed for Anson County (US Fish and Wildlife Service list dated March 7, 2002).
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 16
L
Table 4. Federally Protected Species.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E No Effect
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E No Effect
Shortnose sturgeon - The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous, bottom-feeding fish,
which spends most of the year in estuarine environments and moves into fresh water
only when spawning (Gilbert 1989). Shortnose sturgeons are unmistakable in
appearance; size, snout characteristics, and the absence of scutes between the anal fin
and lateral row of scutes distinguish shortnose sturgeon from Atlantic sturgeon (A.
oxyrhynchus), which occurs within the same range (Rohde et al. 1994). Adult shortnose
sturgeon range in size from approximately 1.4 to 3.6 ft (0.4 to 1.1 m) and have a short
snout and wide mouth (Rohde et al. 1994). This species occurs in Atlantic seaboard
rivers from the St. Johns River, Florida, to eastern Canada.
Shortnose sturgeon occupies different habitats and occurs at different depths at different
times of the year, seasonal habitat requirements described here are based on Burkhead
and Jenkins (1991). In the fall and winter, shortnose sturgeon are typically found in
estuaries and lower sections of large rivers at depths of 33 to 100 ft (10 to 30 m); some
adults reportedly move into the Atlantic Ocean as well. In the summer, adults are found
in waters 6 to 33 ft (2 to 10 m) in depth. Shortnose sturgeon migrate upstream to spawn
near the Fall Line at sites having swift water flow over gravel and rubble. Juveniles
reportedly remain in deeper portions of the lower reaches of rivers in areas just above
the salt wedge (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of the shortnose sturgeon
within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the project study area. Neither Brown Creek nor
Little Brown Creek offer suitable spawning habitat for the shortnose
sturgeon. This species requires a swift water flow over gravel and rubble.
These creeks are slow flowing streams with a sandy substrate. Brown
Creek and Little Brown Creek are upstream of the Blewett Falls Dam
which impedes the migration of shortnose sturgeon. The area upstream
of this dam is not considered to be accessible for anadromous fish
spawning areas. This project will not affect the shortnose sturgeon.
Bald eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 ft (2 m).
Adult bald eagles are dark brown with white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion
Page 17
-a
with whitish mottling on their tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on
fish but may also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season
extends from December through May (Potter at a/. 1980).
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water and
forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching (Hamel
1992). Preventing disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 ft
(229 to 457 m) outward from a nest tree is considered critical for maintaining acceptable
conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). FWS recommends avoiding any disturbance
activities, including construction and tree-cutting, within this primary zone. Within a
secondary zone extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1.0 mi
(1.6 km) from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to
the non-nesting period. FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines
where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 ft
(457 m) of roosting sites.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of bald eagle nests within
3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the project study area. The project study area does not
contain large areas of open water, and therefore is not considered to be
suitable nesting or foraging habitat for bald eagles. This project should
not affect on the bald eagle.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - This small woodpecker [7.0 to 8.5 inches (19.3 to
23.4 cm) long], has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white
barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter at al. 1980). Primary habitat consists
of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-
leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. ellioth), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Henry 1989). Primary
nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or
no mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred
to as colonies (FWS 1985). Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed
hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas
which have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging
sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in
abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity
entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy
detection of active nest trees (Henry 1989).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of the RCW within 3.0 mi
(4.8 km) of the project study area. The project study area does not
contain potential nesting or foraging habitat for this species. No large
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 18
contiguous pine stands greater than 60 years old that are suitable for
nesting nor large contiguous pine stands greater than 30 years old
suitable for foraging occur within the project study area. This project
should not affect the RCW.
Carolina heelsplitter. The Carolina heelsplitter is a small native freshwater mussel.
Individuals grow to approximately 4.5 inches (12.4 cm) in length, 2.6 inches (7.2 cm) in
height, and 1.5 inches (4.1 cm) in width. Juveniles may be yellowish, greenish, or
brown, and have greenish or blackish rays; adults tend to be darker (Clarke 1985).
Carolina heelsplitter is thought to be endemic to the Pee Dee and Wateree-Santee River
systems of the Carolinas. This species is currently known to be extant at only a few
sites in Union County, North Carolina, and Chesterfield, Lancaster, and Kershaw
Counties in South Carolina. In Union County, Carolina heelsplitter has been recently
documented as occurring in Goose Creek and Duck Creek of the Rocky River drainage
system, and Waxhaw Creek of the Catawba River drainage system.
Potentially suitable habitat for Carolina heelsplitter is along the banks of stable, shaded,
perennial streams and small rivers that have slow to moderate current (Keferl 1991).
Substrate where Carolina heelsplitter has been found is described as composed of
muddy-sand, muddy-gravel, clay-gravel, sandy-gravel, or sand; however, this species
does not tolerate heavy silt deposits (Keferl 1991).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter
within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the project study area. Suitable habitat for the
Carolina heelsplitter does exist within the project study area. Brown
Creek and Little Brown Creek were surveyed on August 29, 2001 under
the supervision of NCDOT biologist. The site was revisited by NCDOT
biologists a second review in October 2001. Field investigations show no
evidence of Carolina heelsplitter within the project study area.
Schweinitz's sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous,
perennial herb that grows to approximately 6 ft (2 m) in height. The stem may be purple,
usually pubescent, but sometimes nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the
lower stem but alternate above; in shape they are lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times
as long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a few small serrations. The
upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft white
hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from late August to frost; the yellow flower heads
are about 0.6 inch (1.5 cm) in diameter. The current range of this species is within 60 mi
(97 km) of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle
slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture. The species needs open areas
protected from shade or excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies.
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 19

Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat
(FWS 1994).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower
of within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the project study area. Potentially suitable
habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower does not occur within the project study
area. Roadsides and medians are maintained too frequently to provide
suitable habitat. Successional communities are located within the Brown
Creek and Little Brown Creek floodplains and are too wet to provide
suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower. This project will not affect the
Schweinitz's sunflower.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The March 7, 2002 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under
the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso
1999 and Le Grande et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for
the following FSC species listed for Anson County.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern (FSC).
State
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Status'
Habitat
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 Yes SR
Robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum Yes Sc
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea No E
E-Endangered, SC-Special Concern, SR - Significantly Hare.
NHP records show no documentation of any FSC species occurring within 3.0 mi (4.8
km) of the project study area.
3. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list 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 et seq.).
NHP records do not document any state protected species within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the
project study area. During the survey for Carolina heelsplitter, the state listed
8-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 20
Threatened (T) creeper (Strophitus undulatus), a freshwater mussel, was documented in
Little Brown Creek within the project study area. Eastern creekshell, listed as
Significantly Rare by NHP, was also found in Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek; this
species is not afforded state protection. Little Brown Creek also contained a species of
lampmussel (freshwater mussel). NCDOT biologists performed a specific identification
survey, which did not reveal any listed species of mussels.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, coded at 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects) on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
The November 5, 2001 memorandum from the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO),
(see attached), requested a survey and evaluation of Bridge No. 33 since it is greater than
fifty (50) years of age. A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted
on March 19, 2002. The findings of the survey were presented to the HPO on June 18,
2002 and was determined not eligible for the NRHP (see attached concurrence dated June
21, 2002).
C. Archaeology
No archaeological survey was recommended by the HPO, see attached memorandum
dated November 5, 2001.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacements of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
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.
8-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 21
The project does not conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No Adverse impact on families or communities is anticipates. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. 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.
The are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of
this project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or the representatives to
consider potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils be all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Anson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Any noise levels increases 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 SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 213.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 722) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
As Examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department
8-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 22
of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in
the project area.
Anson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This site on
Brown Creek is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year floodplain.
A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, on which are shown the approximate limits of the 100-
year flood plain in the vicinity of the project is included (Figure 5).
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were taken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the
project development with a scoping letter. Additionally, newsletters detailing the alternatives
considered were mailed to the fifteen property owners within a half mile radius of the project
area. Comments were received from the Anson County Inspection and Zoning Division with
information regarding the location of water and sewer lines along the bridge. No comments
were received from private citizens.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety responded to the scoping
letter locating B-4009 in the Special Flood Hazard Area - Zone A (100-Year Floodplain). US
Fish & Wildlife & NCDENR Division of Water Quality provided comments, as did the State
Historic Preservation office. The US Army Corps of Engineers provided jurisdictional wetland
determination.
X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pp 321-409 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's
Endangered Species. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg,
Va.
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontidae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 75pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 23
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. Water Quality Stream
Classifications Downloaded from http;Hh2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alphaoid/yad. html
on19 February 2002..
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES Permits.
http;Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/download.xls on19 February 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002c. Biological Assessment
Unit. http://www.esb.enr.stae.nc.us/BAUwww/benthosdata.pdf on 19 February 2002..
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Qualityt (DWQ). 1998. Yadkin- Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh..
Division of Planning and Assessment (DPA). 1991. North Carolina Environmental Permit
Directory. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.122). U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 28 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Atlanta, Georgia. 13pp.
Kefed, E.P. 1991. A Status Survey for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
Freshwater Mussel Endemic to the Carolinas. Report prepared for the U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. 51 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh. 90 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
pp.
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion Page 24

McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
448pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management Practices For
Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Porter, D.M., and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991. Vascular Plants. Pp.51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.),
Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
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. 1138 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (CD-ROM).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1983 Polkton National Wetlands Inventory Map
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983 Russellville National Wetlands Inventory Map
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the
Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitfs Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 28
PP.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS) 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern, By County, In North Carolina. Asheville, NC. 51 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1970 Polkton Quadrangle.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1971 Russellville Quadrangle.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
B-4009 Categorical Exclusion
Page 25
Z y.
O
O 2
O F
z?g
0
U? 1
R?q
O ?I
•
W a
QO
N
O
a
A
o
? ? a

U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard
Commander
United States Coast Guard (Aowb)
Fifth Coast Guard District
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth. Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: Aowb
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
16590
May 22, 2002
Mr. Michael Penney
Project Development Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1549 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1549
Dear Mr. Penney:
This is in response to your letter dated May 14, 2002, regarding the replacement of Bridge No.
246 across Big Bear Creek in Stanly County, Bridge No. 99 across Long Creek in Stanly County,
Bridge No. 81 across Gum Long Creek in Cumberland County, Bridge No. 133 across Doomas
Creek in Montgomery County, Bridge No. 47 across Lumber River, in Scotland and Hoke
Counties, and Bridge No. 33 across Brown Creek in Anson County, North Carolina.
Since Big Bear Creek, Long Creek, Gum Long Creek, Doomas Creek, Lumber River and Brown
Creek are not subject to tidal influence, they are considered legally non-navigable for Bridge
Administration purposes. Also, since these waterways are not susceptible for use by interstate or
foreign commerce, they meet the criteria set forth in Section 107 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1982. This section of the Act exempts such waterways from Coast Guard
bridge permit requirements.
The fact that a Coast Guard permit is not required does not relieve you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or local agency who may have
jurisdiction over any aspect of the project.
if you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Linda Gilliam-
Bonenberger, Bridge Management Specialist, at [phone].
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200230735 County: Anson
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Owner: NCDOT Authorized Agent: Environmental Services, Inc.
Address: William D. Gilmore, Project Attn. Matt K Smith
Development and Environmental Analysis Address: 524 New Hope Road
1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27610
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone:[phone]
Telephone: [phone]
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.):
TIP No. B4009, Bridge over Brown Creek on US 74 at Polkton, Anson County
Basis for Determination: Delineation Map and Data Forms dated March 6, 2002
Indicate Which of the Following apply:
0 There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property.
0 On the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional line as determined by the NCDOT and/or
its representatives for the subject NCDOT project/corridor. A select number of sites were inspected and all were
found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The Corps believes that this jurisdictional delineation
can be relied on for planning purposes and impact assessment.
The surface waters and wetlands on this project have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction have
been explained to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
0 There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
0 The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
Steven W. Lund at 828-271-7980 x 4.
is
Project Manager Signature
Date: April 23, 2002 Expiration Date: April 23, 2007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM.
I
?? } 1.x.1 ti a t; r ?/ l`.'/ , ^ ? \ `? ? v U ?`' i ?• / ? ??'- 'l .n\ Uf•,Yi
1 cc` J \
'J
F B-4009
i 0 0 ?-:Z- .F &1 C-0-
h
i %

No*

0 0.25 0.50 Mi
0 025 0.30 Krt1
s and RunaMlls:2 9?, Polkton (1970) 7 f
Ouadrenylas

w ?; a
S ?...
21 330
ty,
L-'l
Location Ma Bridge B-4009 Figure: 1
Environmental Bridge Group 35
Services, Inc. Anson County, North Carolina Project: ER01049
Date: February 2002
i

EA W e+
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Br( --k ge G m %A C wo Date: _IV, 215 t l
Applicant/Owner: Nc0cJ7- County:
Investigator: State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ve Community ID: S1vccCss Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Transect ID: EA, 1
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ze'
Plot ID: 6A)Q}
(H needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicate Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Sa? ? X yli.?rc? S OB(_. 9. V?r+-pus o?g 4 ?, S FAG U
.2. T.401,10. 1 cL" i i a la
' ot3 L_ 10.
T
1
3. U
tuidAM?A? Siyrcdluk T
FACE'
11.
r
4. l S A%k'ru.vn Si hen se 5 FA C t
S. To;'%CbAcrtiiye n ra.?. canS V FAC 13.
6. 4CCr ?ubru M S F, NC 14.
7. Pyax i nuS QChM'J1VgnicA F7AC W 15.
8.C-`'a ?E Qc1 ?t? 5 Sr?fJ. S 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or -I
$ - g
FAC lexciuding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data IDescribe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
>C Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Other Water Marks
Water
LNo Recorded Data Available -
Lines
-Sediment Deposits
_Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
/ -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: r
On.) -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N (in.) -Local Sal Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series andPhase)'CySS A? _A. W>Sf
AlJ -Z0(- SLOP?-S Drainage Class: RR£Q q&-
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ??vvs+v , n t c ?y iTyrocrn?SP r5 Confirm Mapped Type: yes doh
Profile Descriot)on-
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsen Moist) Abundance/Co!%rzist Structure. etc.
0_18 ID 'j P- 512 2.5 yfLA?(P M,dlft jd.;sfi*4- -- C l °i
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other IExplain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No (Circle) (Clrc'e)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? 0Y., No
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) V
Project/Site: n 8 C b ulp C 2' ? OQ 1 Date: -71-2 01
Applicant/Owner: n/'Gp07 County: Aisne-)
Investigator: tS? State: N C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye Community ID: Svtc ejc ty
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: E
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID__
(lf needed, explain on reverse
VFGF'TATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indica Dominant Plant Species Strat-um Indicator
1. Sal I X_ n igrOl_ S a g? 9-
z.baxiro4r, per) tis(. A/van;cot T
- FACW 10.
3. n1phn f7i1:bJj 14 Q6L 71 _
4. 12.
5. 13.
S. 14.
7. 15.
a. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or `3' •3 a 1 O•?.
FAC {excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:

Aerial Photographs Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
`Other Water Marks
_No Recorded Data Available -
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
__
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
A'
D
' ?
2 Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
n
epth of Surface Water: / (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
-
Ycne
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
(in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol: Qrr.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ` ?.

SOILS
Map, Unit Name
C
-
ina
e Class: FR
?
,
(f
(Series and Phase):
w?ar.LP. -
u, g
.?
O F c,nnn&(
)_
ans ?LC•?:pta
('-
Taxonomy (Subgroup): t LUVg.;y
r Feld Observations
rrc?'t S ?c1?N,??S P TS Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
? ?
PrRescription•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon 1Munseg Moist) fMunseg Moist) _ Abundance/Contrast - Structure. etc,

s/ro yY c/
Hydric Sol Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing. Conditions -listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other flExplain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No Circle) (Circle)
Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HOUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93
VC k." -e-) f
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 0 - yooci AACOn Date:
Applicant/Owner: A/GO ri E County: _ 4ti So n
Investigator: S , State: /VC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (Y?s No Community ID: ?S,I r*)G L ?,, ?wor??
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Trlllnsect ID: o
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID.
C 23
Of needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. SUyrU(uS Ct;rrtuuC G L 9-
2- P01 4oA-g% lp H' 10-
3. Car CX
SA 11
1
4. kV i1 cA r v"in AruAJ.ncuar^ N (56 12.
6_ U)??S c+rrt.cn?cana S ?? ?6? 13_
6. &;n'wt v, eeg n -aZl
9 14-
7. 15.
8. 16-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or C QG
1
FAC (excluding FAC-) d
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
Aerial Photographs (/Inundated
v8aturated in Upper 12 Inches
,?- Other ?; Nater Marks
?_No Recorded Data Available ?brift Lines
-
Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Feld Observations: Secondaty Indicators 12 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -L,?Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Free Water in Pit: ?
Gn.) Local Sal Survey Data
-FAC-Neutral Test
,,..ll
Depth to Saturated Soil. V (in,) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Stll) S
Map Unit Name /
(Series and Phase): G4ewnC,l'a - CAr,slel
n L 0i1,410X Drainage Class: 3'oo) ,Ii nV
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): F1VV" ,Uen }i c y'_t?ruCti rr?tJ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes ?o
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle t"exture, Concretions,
linches) Horizon IMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moirst) ?lbundance/Coillast _ SttucTum- etc_

to
-? ? Y
e /?!
7,5 YaS16 cI
Hydric Sol Indicators:
_ H istoso( _ Concretions
_ Histle Epipedon _ High Otganic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor ` Orgarie Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gieyed or low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ??a.rcr lhgfd,rjo j cl+usj.,5 S01 ?d !oitr11' 10 ??Jfrc Cowl?4io?J ?y?.rq?(y
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? a No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? es Nd Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93
N? OF Tye t?
N a 9
? a
MggCH 3 ?e
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 5, 2002
Ms. Iona L. Hauser
Wilbur Smith Associates
333 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 1450
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Ms. Hauser:
?Q
3
FIC A,
Subject: Review of Bridge Replacement Group 35 for the North Carolina Department of
. Transportation, Stanly and Anson Counties, North Carolina
We have reviewed the subject projects and are providing these comments in accordance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
EFFECTS TO WATERS AND WETLANDS
We are pleased with the decision to replace bridges with bridges. The new bridge designs should
include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to
reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects
from the run-off of storm water and pollutants. The bridge designs should not alter the natural
stream and stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be
placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. The bridges and approaches should be designed
to avoid any fill that will result in damming or constriction of the channel or floodplain. If
spanning the floodplain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the floodplain portion of
the approach to restore some of the hydrological functions of the floodplain and reduce high
velocities of flood waters within the affected area.
For the two bridges where the preferred alternative is to replace the structure on its current
location, we recommend that, if possible, an off-site detour be provided rather than using
temporary structures near the existing bridge. This will minimize the amount of riparian
vegetation that must be removed and, in general, reduce the amount of disturbance to the stream.
We recommend that erosion- and sedimentation-control measures be in place prior to any
ground-disturbing activities, Wet concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with the
stream.
FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
Stanly County - B-3908 - Bridge 246 over Big Bear Creek and B-3909 and B-4276 - Bridges 99
and 73 over Long Creek (our Log Numbers 4-2-02-235, 4-2-02-236, and 4-2-02-237,
respectively).
In the Natural Resources Technical Reports for each of these projects, biologists considered the
two federally listed species in Stanly County--the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and the endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). No
suitable habitat for the bald eagle exists within the project areas, and there are no documented
occurrences in the vicinity of the projects. Surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower revealed no
individuals within the project areas. Based on the lack of habitat and negative survey
information, we concur with the conclusion of "no effect" to federally listed species for these
projects. In view of this, we believe the requirements under Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
Anson County - B-4009 - Bridge 33 over Brown Creek (our Log Number 4-2-02-238).
In the Natural Resources Technical Report for this project, biologists considered the five
federally listed species in Anson County--the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
and the endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Hehanthus schweinitzii), shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). No suitable habitat for the bald eagle, shortnose sturgeon,
red-cockaded woodpecker, or Schweinitz's sunflower exists within the project area, and there are
no documented occurrences in the vicinity of the project. Suitable habitat for the Carolina
heelsplitter was determined to occur in Brown Creek; therefore, field surveys were conducted for
this species. Although seven species of native freshwater mussels were found during surveys in
Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek, no federally listed species were found. With over
35 person-hours of surveys conducted for this project and in the vicinity of the project, no
Carolina heelsplitter mussels were located. Therefore, we concur with your conclusion of "no
effect" to the Carolina heelsplitter for this project. In view of this, we believe the requirements
under Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must
be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
As further protection for the native freshwater mussels that may be affected by the construction
of this project, we recommend that, if possible, they be removed from the area of impact. They
could be moved to suitable habitat upstream of the project or held in a secure location until the
construction is completed and then be placed back in Brown Creek at their original location.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. As noted
above, we have assigned log numbers to each project. Please reference these numbers in any
future correspondence concerning these projects.
Sincerely,
?21,
4?
?rian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Federal Aid # BRNHF-74(42) TIP 9 B-4009 County. Anson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 33 on US 74 WBL over Browns Creek
On 06/18/2002, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
. Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
(3' There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
/ There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
"I % i l.. C. C_ tt '5 " is considered not eligible for the National
Register d no further evaluation of it is necessary.
i
[Y There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
[3 ' There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
Representative, NCD T Date
FHWA, fort the Division Ad Ei:strator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representa?y, HPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer to Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
d„a SVlrfv q
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Bridge #33 on NC 4 WBL over Brown Creek, TIP B-4009, Anson County, ER 02-7899
Thank you for your letter of September 26, 2001, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or
architectural importance within the general area of this project:
Bridge #33 built in 1922
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any
structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The abov9'ebmments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 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 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Jan 8 '02 12:43 P.02
?/• •ry vv?Mwrn u. nwe??_, oeu,ew,r
pG North Carolina Depamnant of Environment and Natural Resources
r? .. r Gregory J. Thoriv, Ph.D.
::. Acting Director
Divielon of Water Quality
77
October 31, 2001
W90RANDUM
To: Elmo Vance, NCDOT Pxojr:lS&velopment `& Environmental Analysis Brandt
Through: John Domey, NC Di isio' :o€ Water Quali
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele;. N' 60' .-Coord? 6U,C W
.._Subject: Sc9pin&Comments.fot:Bridge,Reel:anement:i'roj6cts;.,33739Q$,B-3909,,B-4009,B-
4205. B-4276;$-3680.
This; memo is in reference to your correspondence "ed October 3, 2001. in which you requested
scoong comments for the above' projects...7'he;Division-of-Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the
following topics be addressed:
1. DWQ requests that. best management practices' (DWs) for bridge demolition shall be adhered to,
particularly on TIP Project-B-4205 in Momtgonw!y County, as Doomas Creek is listed as a High
Quality Water (HQW).
2. Disturbance-of the stream channels-must:be limnited:to only what is necessary to perform the
bridge demolition and nemoyal. Heavy equipnzer!E inust.be operated from the banks rather than in
the st oam channel in order. to ininimize'sedinadritatidn and reduce the likelihood of introducing
other pollutants into the stream.
3. Project B-4205 in Montgomery Col nty.shall'cgi4ly with the requirements for High Quality
Waters with regards to stormwater maneikement;. sedimentation and erosion control and buffer
requirements.
4. Ensure that sediment & erosion controlmeasums: are not placed in wetlands.
5. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wedands to tbe, ni m imum extent practicable. Prior to the
' approval of any.borrow/waate:site ir# "' ' rand'; the cotttractor:must obtaln.a 40k certification
from DWQ.
6. The information packet did not include-infonomition regarding the types of structures that will be
replacing the deficient bridges. Two voice. iraA` messages were left in regard to a request for
more information (and not eturned)..DWQ•p. refers that the structures that will be replacing the
deficient bridges will' be bridges : _ A. 11. stnretures'.shall be installed in. such. a manner that the
original stream profiles are.:.nat-altered. (i.e.: tbe;.deptl? of the channel must not be reduced. by a
widening of the streambed) Existing streartt dimensions are to be maintained above and below
locations of culvert extensions.
7. All work shall be performed:during lowl£low conditions.
8. All mechanized equipment operated-near. surface waters should be regularly inspected and
maintained to prevent contamination of stream.wkem from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.
North Camilre Dldlelon of Water Quallty, 4(" Vyetlamla Certification Unit,
1850 Mal Service Cantor, Raleiih Nei 270994850•-(Malbg Addrwas)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NO 27804-2260; (Location)
919.733-1798 (phone), 919:733-SU3.(fa*, http://h2o.enrstate.nc.ushtowetiandW
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax-919-733-9794 Jan 8 '02 1244 P.03
9. Written concurrence of 40I. !:Water Quality Ce ff catim'. may be required'foi these projects (e,g.,
applications requesting coverage.underf- W j4 or Rdgional General Permit 19$200031). Please be
aware that 401 certification ntay be-de nied if vi)etlandorwater impacts hive riot been avoided and
minimized to the maximu&.6ktetit-prkdcable:
Thank you for requesting our .input, at tMs4ime:-• Tf6 ;pOT is remixided.that issuanceof a 401 Water
Quality Certification- requites that appropfiate ineasures•be instituted to ensuie t6t-watex.gtrality
standards am met and designai6d uses are taot.degrad'ei ;or lost. If you-have, any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cytttliia Vati:Der-`Wiele at (919) 733.57.15.
PC: : USACE Wilmington Field•.Office;
CISACE Asheville field Office
Mvella Runcick, USFWS-Ashevihl -Held Office;
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC .
File Copy
j
L.
??C?vnO V CL ?o ?-
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 19, 2001
Bryan E. Beatty, Secretary
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
1549 Mail Service Center
Raliegh, NC 27699-1549 Q.T
Subject: RE: Bridge Replacement Proiects
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letters dated September 26, 2001 regarding the review of nine bridge replacement
projects. The North Carolina Division of Emergency Management has reviewed the proposed projects
and would like to provide comments to the Department of Transportation.
My staff has reviewed the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for your project areas. The majority of
these projects are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, also know as the 100-year floodplain. Please
ensure that the proposed projects do not cause an increase in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in these
areas and that they comply with Nation Flood Insurance Program guidelines.
Projects Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4009, Bridge No. 33 in Anson County - Zone A
• B-3830, Bridge No. 363 in Columbus County - Zone A
• B-4205, Bridge No_ 133 in Montgomery County - Zone A
• B-4273, Bridge No. 37 in Scotland County - Zone A
• B-3908, Bridge No. 246 in Stanly County - Zone A
• B-3909, Bridge No. 99 in Stanly County - Zone A
• B-4276, Bridge No. 33 in Stanly County - Zone A5
Projects Not Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4093, Bridge No. 81 in Cumberland County - Zone B (500-year floodplain)
• B-3680, Bridge No. 2 in Moore County - Zone X (500-year floodplain)
The Division of Emergency Management does not oversee the routing of Emergency Response Units on
a day-to-day basis. However, utilizing off-site detour routes has the potential to increase response times
of these units, especially if alternate routes are not available. Your agency should contact local
emergency management officials or the local representatives responsible for roadways. NCEM would
1830-B Tillery Place.* Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
also like to advise that you pay close attention to roadways that have been identified as evacuation routes
and the potential impacts your projects may have on evacuation travel.
If you have any further questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Steve
Garrett at [phone], extension 349.
Sincerely, I
Gavin Smith, Ph.D.
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
205 West Cabarrus Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Jjp
lei; \_'r1i - ,.? a' ?` ae?• , - ' , .. _ -- /nsr ?t-? ( 1. `?? ?'. ; ` 9 k1p
F` • t ? -, ? .,,`i;-; ? •.1 r 1 `` \'t ? ,`.`-- `. °, 'l.i_i i ? :`-- rr ?,.i?l.?°
/ ;1 ? ;T,?j??? _ i _1 ?) h , , f ? J'. r . ?? . - ? ??`?' ? ? ? f "?? ? ? ?? ? j? ' r,? ° +i ? 0," •l ~J?? S ?? 11\' i ,t?t???,??`1 ,,.:jf ?, 4 `?,?L;•-? •C ,i?".°.? ?c`(? tt .,-, '? };,?J/, Ce,?? r
1 1 • ?'? , k ?t ? /?} t SC's,..-x• !`,l?? . j '1 ? ?_' ? ?iI ? f ? 1 ,
'\ /ice -• V ? /l ?`J \ : ?
( ?
,?•? \ ; t , `r ?? a rte.} s `+, - .,. If
- y, ryyti
t ) ? ?• ?o ,\ l' ;,: ? ??? / is
J
/cp??'?/?!
Name: RUSSELLVILLE Location: 17 574329 E 3873076 N
Date: 10/10/2001 Caption: Anson County, 8-4009
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Bridgge no. 33 on US74 WBL over Brown Creek.
L=643ft, W=29.1ft, yr built 1922
Copyright ap ec nc.
wun
Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Refer to
Floodway Data Table where floodway width is shown at 1,70 inch.
Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of the shoreline.
This map incorporates approximate boundaries of coastal barriers established
under the Coastal Barrier Resources ,Ict (PL 97-3181.
Elevation reference marks are described in the Flood Insurance Study Report.
Corporate limits shown are current as cf the date of this map. The user shcuid
contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate limits hale
changed subsequent to the issuance of this map.
For adjoining panels. see separately printed MaD Index.
TOWN OF POLKTON
AREA NOT INCLUDED
n1
\ ZONE X
1

? o

\ it
I
,MAP REPOSITORY
Building Inspection Office, Law Enforcement Center, Wadesburo,
North Carolina (Maps available for -eference only, not for
distribution.)
INITIAL IDENTIFICATION:
JULY 15. 1977
FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP REVISION:
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE:
JUNE 18. 1990
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP REVISIONS:
To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or call
the National Flood Insurance Program at 1800) 638-6620.
Ai
APPROXimATE SCALE IN FEET
I
2000 O 2000
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ANSON COUNTY,

n
I
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ANSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 100 OF 225
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER:
370284 0100 B
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JUNE 18, 1990
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Anson County Inspection/Zoning
_ Z Fax [phone]
Phone [phone]
107-B Ashe Street
°?ra""°vT Wadesboro, N. C. 28170
October 12, 2001d''
tr ,:
3.
GO
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE., Manager
State of North Carolina 1.
Department of Transporation'jt
1549 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1549
Re: Anson County
B-4009, Bridge No.33 on US 74
WBL over Brown Creek
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
If captioned bridge structure is replaced utilizing an off site detour route, I would
like to point out the following facts:
1. Emergency Vehicles, particulary Anson EMS, go over this bridge
numerous times daily in route to Anson Community Hospital.
2. Sewer Pump Station and Lines on same side (see map).
3. Marshy land adjacent to bridge.
4. Main waterline.
5. No permits needed.
If any questions about water and sewer lines next to Hwy 74 West, please contact
Vance Gulledge, Anson County Utilities Director, Wadesboro, NC 704+694-5208.
If you have any questions regarding any comments, or if I can be of any help,
please advise.
Sincerely,
Marvin Deese, Director

O
t J?
zq ,,ft'

/111
i

Z
?Z
a?
S?

Y_'9,

74

\ ? I ro

ANSON COUNTY
svm r v RaMwAIM
MWUWV nsvQAWAIrr AM
ANvualom " AKALTM WZaE
BXZDGE NO. 33
US 74 WBL OVER BROWN CREEK
ANSON COUNTY
B-4m
VICINITY MAP
PIGURB I
m

¦

i •k

f
4
1
a t ti
{ ?
,,
t?-* ? mop / ?' '
hr ? ?t • • _?
, 1

W t

9 IN, IV? -Aim

+?A k ` ?
; ,.? ? ? ;
?
A 4
r ? ti w.?
y?+'A
iI,F
;% ? `
?
AL
1?
j
•
? 4
;?
?
3
t * r
M a
?
j
?
.. ` 'R
w
J1
F
w M ?.
yam, •??
f t. •?7 a yr.''t Syr .s? ,a . t.JY• 'ti- ???jj??,,? •?.

?
6 q V ,

r
Y

c IN

e
Ni
.

3 Sa ?1^ .;,yq;q

a r. ?'
„x 6 x. q? "5 t? e

?. a A

ppr©ach
Western
e
L

i
r ? I
I

w. ST'UF u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

S

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOvERNOR
May 11, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Director
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: The Replacement of Bridge No. 33 over Brown Creek on Westbound US 74
southeast of Polkton, Anson County, Federal Aid Project: BRNHF-74(42), State
Project No. 8.1651401, WBS Element 33377.1.1, TIP B-4009
NCDOT requests that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provide
confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the above-mentioned
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR, and the NCDOT. Bridge No. 33 will be replaced in the existing location
with a 652.5-foot bridge. The proposed bridge will consist of a typical section of two 12 ft travel
lanes, an 8 ft interior shoulder and an 8 ft outside shoulder.
There are jurisdictional riverine wetland impacts totaling 0.28 acres associated with this project.
The impacts consist of 0.19 acres of fill and 0.09 acres of mechanized clearing. The impacts are
due to adjustments in the approach grade. NCDOT is requesting mitigation for 0.28 acres of
wetland impacts.
The project is located in the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03040104 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Mr. Steve Lund at U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue/Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006.
Mr. Lund's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the project is November 15,
2005 for which the let review date is September 27, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed, the NCDWQ requires
a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr.
John Hennessy of NCDWQ with copies submitted to NCDOT.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
G
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
V1C4r. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Mr. Steve Lund, USACE
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Program Management
Ms. Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT Program Management