20190622 Ver 2_Draft_BP10R49_RGP50_Cover_Letter_and_Supporting_Information_20231207

Tnr�M
O�
qq�
'u C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.R. "JOEY" HOPKINS
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 5, 2023
Mr. Steve Brumagin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
SUBJECT: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Regional General Permit 50
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 (Morton Road) over Lanes Creek (Class C),
Anson County, NC
WBS Number: BP10.R049 (formerly 17BP.10.R.140; TIP B-5795)
Dear Mr. Brumagin:
We are requesting a Section 404 Regional General Permit (RGP) 50 for work associated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 217 with a new bridge at the same location over Lanes Creek (Class C) on SR
1654 (Morton Road) in Anson County. The project previously qualified as a non -notifying 404
Nationwide Permit 3 and was previously submitted as a for the record only Pre Construction Notification
(PCN) but has since expired under that authorization. Impacts have not changed from the previous
submittal. There will be 108 linear feet (LF) of temporary impacts to Lanes Creek necessary for
demolition and construction which completely overlaps the 55 LF of temporary impacts depicted for
dewatering. There are 74 LF of temporary impacts to Stream A, an intermittent unnamed tributary to
Lanes Creek. There is a total of 182 LF of temporary stream impacts for the project. There are 16 LF of
permanent impacts to Stream A for excavation and 12 LF of permanent impacts to Stream A for riprap
fill. There will be no wetland impacts (Attachment A). A delineation of Waters of the U.S. was conducted
for the project and a Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is included in Attachment B. Photo
pages have been included in Attachment C. As part of the environmental review, a Minimum Criteria
Determination Checklist was completed for the project and is included in Attachment D.
The replacement structure would be approximately 172 feet long and would be widened to a 27-foot wide
structure with two 10-foot travel lanes. The existing 16-foot one lane timber deck steel girder bridge will
be removed. Overall drainage patterns will be maintained. There are roadside ditches that flow towards
the bridge on either side of the structure. The drainage pattern of the ditches are being maintained and the
drainage from the bridge is being discharged into the ditches. Deck drains will be needed for proposed
structure to prevent spreading inside the travel lane. The deck drains will not discharge directly to the
jurisdictional stream. Deck drains will be located over the floodplain bench area as shown in the Bridge
Structure Report. Impervious dikes with special stilling basins shall be used to contain the sediment laden
water and prevent it from being discharged into the stream.
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax: [phone] WEST MAIN STREET
DIVISION 10 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001 Website: www.ncdot.gov

Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
website lists Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata), and Red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) as endangered, Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni) as threatened, and Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as proposed endangered
within the study area. There is habitat in the study area for Schweinitz's sunflower, Carolina heelsplitter,
and Atlantic pigtoe. No Schweinitz's sunflowers, were found during plant by plant field surveys of the
study area conducted on August 30, 2023 and October 6, 2023. A search of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database, accessed October 24, 2023, found no occurrences of Schweinitz's
sunflower, Carolina heelsplitter, Atlantic pigtoe, RCW, or Tricolored bat within 1.0 mile of the study
area. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for Schweinitz's sunflower. A Freshwater
Mussel Survey Report was prepared on March 5, 2019 and a subsequent Freshwater Mussel Survey
Report was prepared on December 1, 2023. The results of the mussel survey indicate that the study area is
suitable habitat for freshwater mussels; several mussel species were observed during the surveys. No
occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter or Atlantic pigtoe were identified during the mussel surveys. The
recommended biological conclusion for Carolina heelsplitter and Atlantic pigtoe is "May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect". Pine trees within the study area are 15 to 25 years in age and do not meet
age requirements for nesting or foraging. No RCW were observed during field studies. Based on the
literature review and field surveys it is determined that the project would have `No Effect' on RCW. On
September 14, 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to list the Tricolored bat
(Perimyotis subflavus - PESU) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. If listed, NCDOT will
resolve Section 7 prior to let as appropriate. Construction activities for this project will not take place
until NCDOT (in coordination with our lead federal agency) satisfies Endangered Species Act compliance
for PESU. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a biological conclusion of `Unresolved' for
Tricolored bat (Attachment E). Additionally, a Bat Survey Project Questionnaire is included in
Attachment E.
Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A desktop-GIS assessment of
the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0 mile radius of the project limits, was performed on
October 24, 2023, using the latest ESRI ArcGIS color aerials. Due to the low quality foraging habitat, a
survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally,
a review of the NCNHP database on October 24, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of this species
within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Section 106
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed
the project for Historic Architectural and Archeological Resources. A Historic Architecture and
Landscapes No Survey Required Form was provided by a NCDOT Architectural Historian on February
16, 2016. A No Archaeological Survey Required Form was provided by the NCDOT Archaeologist on
February 14, 2017 (Attachment F).

If you have any questions, comments, or need additional information after reviewing this material please
contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Joel Howard,
NCDOT Division 10 PDEA Engineer
Attachment A — Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
Attachment B — Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
Attachment C — Photo Pages
Attachment D — Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
Attachment E — T & E Supplemental Information; Freshwater Mussel Survey Reports; Bat
Survey Project Questionnaire
Attachment F — No Archaeological Survey Required Form; Historic Architecture and Landscapes
No Survey Required Form

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment A
Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan

�
H i hwa North Carolina Department of Transportation (_07,
StorrrY€er., HighwayStormwater Program%STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN o-`
(Version 2.07; Released October 2016) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 17BP.10.R.140 TIP No.: SF-030217 Count ies : ANSON Page 1 of 1
General Project Information
WBS Element:
17BP.10.R.140 ITIP Number: SF-030217 Project Type: Bridge Replacement Date: 5/31/2018
NCDOT Contact:
Marc T Shown
Contractor / Designer:
STV Engineers, Inc. / Shirshant Sharma
Address:
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Address:
900 West Trade Street, Ste. 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone:
[phone]
Phone:
[phone]
Email:
mshownancdot.goy
Email:
Shirshant.Sharmaostvinc.com
City/Town:
Wadesboro
County(ies):
Anson
River Basin(s):
Yadkin -Pee Dee
ICAMA County?
I No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
No
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
0.08 Surrounding Land Use: Rural, wooded, agricultural
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
0.3 ac.
0.2 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Roadway: Two 10' lanes, paved shoulders
Bridge: Two 10' lanes, no shoulders
Approach: Two 10' lanes, 4' shoulders
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Design/Future: 190 Year: 2025
Existing: 190 Year: 2013
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
STV Engineers, Inc. is providing engineering services for the bridge replacement project on SR 1654 (Morton Road) over Lanes Creek. The existing bridge is a 135.3'(1 @45'2",
2@45'1') triple -span bridge with a steel plank deck on I -beams and mass concrete abutments and interior bents. The proposed structure will be a 170' long bridge with a span
arrangement of 1 @50' (21" cored slab), 1 @70' (24" cored slab) and 1 @50' (21" cored slab). The proposed roadway alignment over the bridge is the same as the existing bridge
alignment. Overall drainage patterns will be maintained. There are roadside ditches that flow towards the bridge on either side of the structure. The drainage pattern of the
ditches are being maintained and the drainage from the bridge is being discharged into the ditches. Deck drains will be needed for the proposed structure to prevent spreading
inside the travel lane. The deck drains will not discharge directly to the jurisdictional stream. Deck drains will be located over the floodplain bench area as shown in the BSR.
Impervious dikes with special stilling basins shall be used to contain the sediment laden water and prevent it from being discharged into the stream.
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1):
Lanes Creek
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
13-17-40- 12
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Class C
Supplemental Classification:
None
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
Yes Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Yes
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? iYes
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
No
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)

r�o
ci
rn
0
L
0
EL
EL
0
r
0
t
L
E
L
(I
to
ci
t
ci
L
O
ci
E
L
a)
21
0
See Sheet to For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 1 B For Standard Symbology Sheet
I6zJyLRc�
�
w �p
I
r�-+
o'e
RANDgLL RD
(SR 1612)
RACE l RACK R
(SR 1452)
END
PROJ ECT
MD RT�fi64)
BEGIN
G�QPyQ-
PROJECT
o '-F
•--�� DETOUR
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION C HIGHWAYS
ANSON COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE #217 LANES CREEK ON SR 1654 (MORTON RD)
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 10 0 20 40
PLANS
20 10 0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 2 0 4 8
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2015 =
80
ADT 2025 =
160
DHV =
N/A
D =
N/A
T =
0%
V =
35 MPH
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
SUB REGIONAL TIER
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.140 = .126 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS 1711P.M.R.140 = .033 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS 17BP.IO.R.140 = .159 MILES
NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD, PE
Division Bridge Manager
STAR
9TATR PR.- RRPRRRNCR NQ
TOTALEET3
3H
i .�
UBPP10.R.140
STATR PRn1.Nn
P.A.-
OPSGRIPI'wN
17BP.10.R.140
P.E.
17BP.10.R.140
ROW & UTIL
0
N
z
80, 0' 80,
Permit Drawing
Sheet 1 of 7 GRAPHIC SCALE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY:
S7,� T _ STV Engineers, Inc.
1 V� 1�� 900 West trade St„ Suite 715
2(lQG� Cbanatte, NC 282D2
NC License Number F-0991
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
P.E.
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
NOVEMBER 9, 2018
SIGNATURE. -
ROADWAY
DESIGN
ENGINEER
P.E.
PROJECT ENGINEER
CLARK E. GROVES
LETTING DATE:
AUGUST 7, 2019
PROJECT DESIGNER
SIGNATURE:
®g 100Wpp
a a
s
a;
BFpr®� Yp aMSQ®��@

LEGEND
®DENOTES
TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS IN
®DENOTES
SURFACE WATER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.13
182
SW IMPACTS
PERMANENT
>0.01
28
SW IMPACTS
Q
LANES CREEK FARM LLC
DB 977 PG 326
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
(TYP.)
DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+53
TO STA. 15 + 68 RT
ram. .. .. � ..
\ C
—----------F----- -----
- — —-----------
-� PERMANENT IMPACTS
SR 1654 (MORTON ROAD) IN SURFACE WATER =S4
-------------------------------------- 16 FT
F— — — — — — — — — — F --
PERMANENT IMPACTS
--�JS� —15--JS 12 TURFA ✓E WATER =S5
JS� -
�S
�� JS
is
O
Q
LANES CREEK FARM LLC
0
DB 977 PG 326
s
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
L
IN U.T. =S3
E
a
o�
0
74 FT
C
E
0
N
N
E
40' 0'
40'
Q
GRAPHIC SCALE
Permit Drawing
J°
Sheet 2 of 7
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S2
FOR DEWATERING
55 FT
115" EMPORARY
PI (TYP.)
N
I
I
IMPERVIOUS DIKE I
(TYP.)
SEE
FIGURE
SITE 1
SITE 1
!�15" TEMPORARY
PIPE (TYP.)
ITV Engl I1C21'S, Inc.
ST`1�100 900 west Trade St. suite 715
e¢PCe- Charltt oe, NC 28202
NC Llrense Number F-0991
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
17BPJO.RJ40
2
PW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
0
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
N
Z
2
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
e
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
(TYP.)
O
LOUISE T. HOUGH
DB 339 PG 127
F\
aNaFRs+FF , �
I
DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6" F \\ \
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+53 \\ S
\
IN SURFACE WATER =S1 TO STA. 15+68 RT
FOR DEMO. & CONST. 1 F A
108 FT
'y4 Fa'is \ r of
I z
IMPERVIOUS D.1 E
w (TYP.) \\
W 4 \ \
U F
to
LU
2:a
J
O
LOUISE T. HOUGH
DB 339 PG 127

LEGEND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (Al
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.13
iS
SW IMPACTS
PERMANENT
0.01 N
28
SW IMPACTS
----- PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
'�� ',1',� � _ STV Engineers, inc.
_I'_
'�
;i��h
STUB too 90a�iouer NC 28202 Suite gib
17BPJORJ40
3
NC License Number F-099�
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
I'111 i III
\
iL1
\
\
iilii�
I11III�
N ItAh�
I
Ilk "I
w�
LU
1
kI 1
"III
cn
( �o
(\
�
a
1
Z
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
C'
i�i
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
kkk'
1
SITE
1
TEMPORARY IMPACTS S
IN SURFACE WATER =S2`
1 I 1 FOR DEWATERING /
11 55 FT
/ 11 /
II l
Up k CT
1F' TEMPORARY
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN (
(TYP.) 15" TEMPORARY
PIPE TYP. SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
/ \ I (TYP.) LOUISE T. HOUGI+
DECK DRAINS (TYP.)8"X 6` ( x �,I E E� DB 339 PG 127
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+53 ( <�
/ %L*ES /CREEK F/ RM ;LLQ / TO STA. 15+68 RT w
/ DB/ 977 'P /326,
�265� N ; 4o E C
cv . Ile I C CC
i
-�------ ----- _ — —
-- �- C------ _ _ 1
--- --- — -
-------------
\ -L- ----------- -- _
�
= / SR 1654,,?MORTON ROAD) IN SURFACE WATER =S4
16 FT
T
t
------------ -- -------------- --- - PERMANENT IMPACTS
- �-- -----®��F���
- -------- -----
- -- -- F WATER -S = --- - ��- ----- -
-- IN SURFACE W - 5 -- /!�5'��=-- --- ---
12 FT ✓ --- - - s= V.1 �� - -
�— - ---- „ --_- - -- -
�'�s
i 1
i,
--------
---
E
°i ----
ri
—_-------
1
_ DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
� _ _ -���� � � ( 5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+53
TEMPORARY IMPACTS (
a �SZ-----__-- `---LE1NS IN SURFACE WATER =S1, ( TO STA. 15+68 RT
FOR DEMO. & CONST.
rt�-- D13 7_PG- 25��� �����, 108 FT
--- - _
o--------------- IMPERVIOUS DIKE ��I',��
-------------
------ --�� A TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN U.T. =S3 I�� �'� ����(�; P�IOUs D.1 �\ F
E ---- A 74 FT Typ
° -----
------ --
L �V " 1 F
---------------
�� �. �\ � IIP� III
cn
a
ol E E / ---��� 1 LOUISE T. HOUGH
A l DB 339 PG 127
40' o' 40'`,F`�G U RE N
L ,
If
vv
GRAPHIC SCALE / /
' III
Permit Drawing
Sheet 3 of 7
N'If 11 X

LEGEND
®DENOTES
TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS IN
®DENOTES
SURFACE WATER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.13
182
SW IMPACTS
PERMANENT
>0.01
28
SW IMPACTS
DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+53
TO STA. 15+68 PT
— F--------- --
o r n
N '
� w
2 � U
M N
w
co
a SPECIAL STILLING BASIN X J
g O
+ 15" TEMPORARY
I PIPE (TYP.)
LANES CREEK FARM LLC
DEI 977 PG 326
E E E
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(TYP.)
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S2
�1 55 F DEWATERING
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S4
16 FT
w
/
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S5
12 FT
a
�
s
AIR
E E
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
s
IN U.T. =S3
E
74 FT
SEE
FIGURE
y
E
E
SITE 1
o
N
20' 0'
20'
O
Q
LANES CREEK FARM
LLC
GRAPHIC SCALE
DB 977 PG 326
Permit Drawing
J°
Sheet 5 of 7
STV EIlaII1CC1'S, lnl;.
PROJECT REFEREEN:C:E NCO,
SHEET NO.
STV�
q
100 900 West Trade St. Site 715
17BPro.RJ40
1 5
ha
e¢PCe- Crlotte. NC 28202
NC License Number F-0991
PW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
15" TEMPORARY
PIPE (TYP.)
SPECIAL STILLING BAST
(TYP.)
E E EE
LOUISE TT.. HOUGH
O 339 PG 127 ,
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S1
FOR DEMO. & CONST.
108 FT
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(TYP) 5' DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
CENTER FROM STA. 16+53
ITO STA. 15+68 RT
1
LOUISE T. HOUGH
DEI 339 PG 127
SITE 1
J I�
k�I

PARCEL NO.
1
01
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESS
LANES CREEK FARM LLC 5218 MARINE CLUB DR
WILMINGTON, NC 28409
LOUISE T.IHOUGIH
3051 RANDALL ROAD
POLKTON, NC 28135
CD® 1L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ANSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 17BP.10.R.140
BRIDGE #217 OVER
LANES CREEK ON SR 1654
(MORTON ROAD)
Permit Drawing
Sheet 6 of 7
SHEET 6 OF 7 5 / 2 / 2019

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft
Natural
Stream
Design
ft
1
15+01.75 / 16+74.25
CORED SLAB - 1 @ 45', 1 @ 70', 1 @ 45' - 27' OTO
>0.01
0.13
28
182
TOTALS:
>0.01
0.13
28
182

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment B
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replace Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek
Anson County, North Carolina
TIP B-5795
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1654(003)
WBS Element No. 45749.1.1
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Natural Environment Section
September 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS...................................................... 1
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES....................................................................................... 1
3.1 Soils.......................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Water Resources..................................................................................................... 2
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES.............................................................................................. 3
4.1 Terrestrial Communities........................................................................................ 3
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed........................................................................................ 3
4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest......................................................................... 3
4.1.3 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest ........................................... 3
4.1.4 Pine Plantation................................................................................................... 4
4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts......................................................................... 4
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife................................................................................................. 4
4.3 Aquatic Communities............................................................................................. 5
4.4 Invasive Species....................................................................................................... 5
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.................................................................................... 5
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S...................................................................... 5
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits....................................................................................... 5
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern .................... 6
5.4 Construction Moratoria......................................................................................... 6
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules............................................................................... 6
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ....................................... 6
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation............................................................................ 6
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts........................................................ 6
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts............................................................. 6
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species.......................................................... 6
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...................................................... 8
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species....................................................... 9
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................... 9
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 4. Terrestrial Communities Map
Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Appendix C Stream Forms
Appendix D Qualifications of Contributors
LIST OF TABLES
Table1. Soils in the study area....................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Water resources in the study area................................................................... 2
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area ....................... 2
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area .................................. 4
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area ............. 5
Table 6. Federally protected species listed for Anson County ..................................... 7

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5795, Anson County, N.0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge
number 217 on SR 1654 (Hough Road) over Lanes Creek (TIP B-5795) in Anson County
(Figure 1). The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) has been
prepared to assist in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed
project.
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Natural Environment Section
standard operating procedures and July 2012 NRTR template. Field work was conducted
on March 29, 2016. Preliminary jurisdictional determination request is in preparation at
the time of this writing. Documentation of the jurisdictional determination will be
inserted into the appendices upon finalization of the document. The principal
contributors to this document were:
Principal
Investigator: Hal Bain, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP
Education: M.S. Coastal Ecology Track, UNC Wilmington, 1989
B.S. Biology, Campbell University, 1985
Experience: Senior Environmental Project Scientist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl,
LLP, 2009-Present
Natural Resources Team Leader, ARCADIS, 2003-2008
Biological Surveys Group Leader, NCDOT, 1995-2003
Senior Biologist, NCDOT, 1992-1995
Biology Teacher/Coach, Wake County Public Schools, 1989-1992
Responsibilities: wetland and stream identification, natural community assessments, T/E
species assessment, agency determinations, NRTR document
preparation, and QA/QC
Investigator: Pete Stafford, PWS, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP
Education: B.S. Environmental Science, UNC Wilmington, 2000
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP, 2001-
Present
Responsibilities: Preparation of forms, wetland and stream delineations, T/E surveys,
natural communities assessment, NRTR document preparation
Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the field work and/or documentation
for this project were David Ward and John Merritt. Appendix D lists the qualifications of
these contributors.
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The study area lies in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina (Figure 2).
Topography in the project vicinity is comprised of gently rolling hills with narrow, level
September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP B-5795, Anson County, N. C.
floodplains along streams. Elevations in the study area range from 238-298 feet above
sea level. Land use in the project vicinity consists primarily of mixed forestland,
residential, and agriculture.
3.1 Soils
The Anson County Soil Survey identifies four soil types within the study area
(Table 1).
Table 1. Soils in the study area
Soil Series
Mapping
Drainage Class
Hydric
Unit
Status
Badin-Goldston complex, 8 to 15
BgC
Well Drained
Nonhydric
percent slopes
Badin-Goldston complex, 15 to 25
BgD
Well Drained
Nonhydric
percent sloes
Goldston channery silt loam, 25 to
GoE
Well Drained
Nonhydric
45 percent slopes
Shellbluff loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded
ShA
Well Drained
Nonhydric
3.2 Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the Yadkin River basin [U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03040105)]. Two streams were identified in the study
area (Table 2). The location of water resources is shown in Figure 3. Physical
characteristics of these streams are summarized in Table 3.
Table 2. Water resources in the study area
Stream Name
Map ID
NCDWR Index
Best Usage
Number
Classification
Lanes Creek
Lanes Creek
13-17-40- 12
C
UT to Lanes Creek
SA
13-17-40- 12
C
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area
Bank
Bankful
Water
Channel
Map ID
Height
Width
Velocity
Clarity
(ft
ft
Depth (in)
Substrate
Silt, Sand,
Lanes Creek
8
80 to 95
6 to 60
Gravel,
Slow
Turbid
Cobble
Stream SA
.75 to 2
3 to 7
0 to 6
1 Silt, Sand
Slow
Clear
2 September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5795, Anson County, N.C.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the study area. No waters
in the study area are designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a
National Wild and Scenic River. There are no designated Primary Nursery Areas (PNA)
present in the study area. The North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters
identifies Lanes Creek, within the study area and 1.0 mile downstream of the study area,
as being impaired due to a "Fair" rating from benthic monitoring.
No benthic or fish community samples have been taken within 1.0 mile downstream of
the study area. No benthic or fish community sampling sites or ratings are listed by
NCDWR within Lanes Creek, its headwaters, or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study
area.
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
4.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities were identified in the study area; maintained/disturbed,
mesic mixed hardwood forest, piedmont/mountain bottomland hardwood forest, and pine
plantation. Figure 3 shows the location and extent of these terrestrial communities in the
study area. A brief description of each community type follows. Scientific names of all
species identified are included in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
Maintained/disturbed habitat is present throughout the study area in places such as
roadside shoulders and agricultural fields. The vegetation in this community is
comprised of row crops, low growing grasses and herbs, including: fescue, crabgrass,
clover, annual bluegrass, Japanese stiltgrass and violet.
4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The mesic mixed hardwood forest community is located along the slope uphill of the
Lanes Creek floodplain. Dominant canopy species within this community consist of:
white oak, black oak, red maple, sweetgum, yellow poplar, and loblolly pine.
Constituents from the canopy, along with eastern red cedar and black cherry are dominant
in the understory and shrub layers. Roundleaf greenbrier, blackberry, and poison ivy are
present in the herb/vine layer.
4.1.3 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The piedmont/mountain bottomland hardwood forest community occurs along the
floodplain of Lanes Creek where infrequent overbank flooding occurs. Green ash, black
willow, black walnut, boxelder, hackberry, sweetgum, and willow oak dominate the
canopy while American hornbeam, Chinese privet, and constituents from the canopy
species are found in the understory. Multiflora rose, pawpaw, and Chinese privet are
September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5795, Anson County, N.C.
present in the shrub layer. The vine/herb layer is comprised of poison ivy, roundleaf
greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, violet, trout lily, wingstem, Asiatic dayflower, and
Christmas fern.
4.1.4 Pine Plantation
This community consists of planted pine species that are managed for timber production.
Loblolly pine is the dominant canopy species. The understory consisted of sweetgum, red
maple, and Chinese privet. The shrub layer contained constiuents from the understory
along with eastern red cedar and black cherry. The vine/herb layer is comprised of
Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, and wingstem.
4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. At this time, decisions
regarding the final location and design of the proposed bridge replacement have not been
made. Therefore, community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each
type within the study area (Table 4). Once a final alignment and preliminary design have
been determined, probable impacts to each community type will be calculated.
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community _&
Coverage (ae.)
Maintained/Disturbed
6.69
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
0.17
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
2.13
Pine Plantation
4.31
Total
13.3
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed
are indicated with *). Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and
stream corridors found within the study area include species such as gray squirrel*,
raccoon*, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed deer*. Birds that commonly use forest and
forest edge habitats include the red -shouldered hawk, American crow*, blue jay, Carolina
wren*, Carolina chickadee*, tufted titmouse*, yellow-rumped warbler* and northern
cardinal*. Birds that may use the open habitat or water bodies within the study area
include American kestrel, red-tailed hawk*, belted kingfisher*, eastern bluebird*, eastern
meadowlark, and turkey vulture*. Reptile and amphibian species that may use the
project study area include the black rat snake, eastern box turtle, and American toad.
4 September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5795, Anson County, N.C.
4.3 Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic communities are present in the project study area. Lanes Creek is capable of
supporting such fish species as largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, green sunfish, bluegill,
redbreast sunfish, American pickerel, golden shiner, and white sucker. Reptile and
amphibian species expected to occur in these communities include the northern water
snake, brown water snake, common snapping turtle, common musk turtle, river cooter,
bull frog and the green frog. Various benthic macroinvertebrates and crayfish would also
be expected.
4.4 Invasive Species
Four species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found
to occur in the study area. The species identified were Asiatic dayflower (Threat),
Japanese honeysuckle (Moderate Threat), Chinese privet (Threat) and multiflora rose
(Threat). NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate.
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Two streams were identified in the project study area (Table 5). The location of this
stream is shown on Figure 3. USACE and NCDWR stream delineation forms are
included in Appendix C. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of
Lanes Creek are detailed in Section 3.2. All tributaries in the project study area, have
been designated as a warm water stream for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area
Length I
Compensatory
River Basin
Map ID
ft.
Classification
Mitigation Required
Buffer
Lanes Creek
153
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
SA
521
Intermittent
Yes
Not Subject
No wetlands were identified within the study area.
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits
The proposed project has been designated as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the
purposes of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. As a result, a
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 will likely be applicable. A NWT No. 33 may also apply
for temporary construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or
temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation.
The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize
project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWR will be needed.
September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIPB-5795, Anson County, N.C.
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
Anson County is not one of the twenty counties under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). A CAMA permit from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM) will not be required.
5.4 Construction Moratoria
Lanes Creek is not considered an NCWRC trout water or anadromous fish habitat. No
moratoria will be required for this project.
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
No streams within the study area are subject to any North Carolina river basin buffer
rules.
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
There are no Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act located in
the project study area.
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The NCDOT has attempted to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable in choosing and designing the preferred alternative. No
impacts to study area streams or wetlands are anticipated at this time.
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
If impacts are determined as the project progresses. NCDOT will investigate potential on -
site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities. If unsuitable on -site mitigation is not
feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of July 14, 2015 the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species for Anson County (Table 6). A brief description of each species'
habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on
survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the
current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS.
6 September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIPB-5795, Anson County, N.C.
Table 6. Federally protected species listed for Anson County.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status*
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Lasmi ona decorata
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Undetermined
Unresolved
Helianthis schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
No Effect
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded woodpecked
E
No
No Effect
*E - Endangered
Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS optimal survey window: year round
Habitat Description: The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several
locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and
the Pee Dee and Savannah River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system,
in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the species is now known only from a
handful of streams in the Rocky and Catawba River systems. The species exists
in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet of shorelines, throughout its known
range. The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded
areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into clay banks between the
root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. The
more recent habitat where the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is in sections
of streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with sand and
gravel, and with wide riparian buffers.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved. NCDOT BSG will provide this information.
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August -October
Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower, endemic to the Piedmont of North and
South Carolina. The few sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in
relatively natural vegetation are found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is
also found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained power lines and other utility
rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and edges of upland
oak -pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or
semi -sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow
downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight.
It is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other vegetation.
Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in a variety of soil series, including Badin, Cecil,
Cid, Enon, Gaston, Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest,
Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among others. It is generally found growing on
shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or
shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks.
7 September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5795, Anson County, N.C.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2016, indicates no occurrence within
1.0 mile of the study area. Habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is not present in
the project study area. Vegetated habitat along roadside shoulders and utility
easements in the project study area is managed by intense mowing and herbicide
application or is densely overgrown. No sunflower species were observed during
field studies. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will not impact this
species.
Red -cockaded woodpecker
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round; November -early March (optimal)
Habitat Description: The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open,
mature stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and
nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in
living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age to provided foraging habitat. The foraging range of the
RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for RCW is not present in the study area. Vegetated habitat along roadside
shoulders and utility easements in the project study area is managed by intense
mowing, herbicide application or is heavily overgrown. A review of NCNHP
records, updated July 2016, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study area. Pine trees within the study area 15 to 25 years in age and do not meet
age requirements for nesting or foraging. No RCW were observed during field
studies. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will not impact this
species.
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13 mile
radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on March 7, 2016
using 2015 color aerials. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be
considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat
within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of
the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on
March 7, 2016 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact
September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIPB-5795, Anson County, N.C.
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this
species.
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of July 14, 2015, the USFWS lists no Candidate species for Anson County.
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat
There are no Essential Fish Habitat areas identified by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries in the study area.
9 September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP B-5795, Anson County, N.C.
6.0 REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals: North
America North of Mexico. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 255 pp.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians (Eastern
and Central North America). 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 450 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harrar, E.S. and J.G. Harrar. 1962. Guide to Southern Trees. New York: Dover
Publications. 2„ d ed. 709 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison I11. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press. 264 pp.
National Geographic. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 3`d ed.
Washington, D.C. National Geographic Society.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth
version.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2008. Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Yadkin/Pee-Dee River Basin. Raleigh,
North Carolina. https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
rpsources/planninglbasin-planning water-resource-plans/yadkin-pee-dee
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources.
2014.2014 Category 5 Water Quality Assessments — 303(d) List. Available at
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_ library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-55da-4b21-
aac3-f580ee810593&groupld=38364
N.C. Department of Transportation. 2012 Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2016. N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NCWAM) User Manual, Version 5. 49 pp., Appendices.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company. 490 pp.
Peterson, R.T., editor. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North
America. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 384 pp.
10 September 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIPB-5795, Anson County, N.C.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web
Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998.
Hydrologic Units -North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina
Ecological Services. 2014. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina:
Anson County. Updated March 25, 2015.
ht!p://www.fivs.p-ov/ralei-gh/species/cgiylist/Anson.html
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan.
Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). httl2://v.rww.f%vs.gov/nc-es/plant/schwsun.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North
Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species.
http://www.fws.gov/nc6s/es/plant survey.html.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
(Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center.
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/does/civilworks/regulatory/rep- supplEMP_
Piedmont_v2h.pdf
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
11 September 2016

Appendix A
Figures

0
0
n
R i
to �
Ln
rn
V�
r
f(H°1/gh Rd)
'00A '
r
•
d
f j
� �'��
NC OneM'a ANC \ ter for Geographic
Information and Anal sis. NC Dept. of
m NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
R PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
B-5795
BRIDGE NO. 217 ON SR 1654
OVER LANES CREEK
ANSON COUNTY
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1

}'
Ai If
C' . ♦ r i.�1 tiI
rI Q,l ! •'• a, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
�♦-r 4] f Q V' % TRANSPORTATION
1 C7 l `7 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
`O 741 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
44 ♦ a` ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
B-5795
BRIDGE NO. 217 ON SR 1654
+� Legend OVER LANES CREEK
+
J f ANSON COUNTY
•� Q Study Area
o USCS STUDY MAP
JSGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, POLKTON,NC FIGURE 2

n4 • ,
N
�:,� • RCS NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
!. TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PRO JECTDEVELOPMENT&
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
B-5795
` • ° BRIDGE NO. 217 ON SR 1654
t - OVER LANES CREEK
ANSON COUNTY
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES

FIGURE 4

Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Plants
Common Name
Scientific Name
American hornbeam
Carpinus caroliniana
Asiatic dayflower
Commelina communis
Blackberry
Rubus sp.
Black cherry
Prunus serotina
Black Oak
Quercus velutina
Black walnut
Juglans nigra
Black willow
Salix nigra
Boxelder
Acer negundo
Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense
Christmas fern
Polystichum acrostichoides
Clover
Trifolium sp.
Common rush
Juncus effusus
Crabgrass
Digitaria sp.
Eastern red cedar
Junipercus virginiana
Fescue
Festuca sp.
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Hackberry
Celtis occidentalis
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Japanese stiltgrass
Microstegium vimineum
Loblolly pine
Pinus taeda
Meadow grass
Poa annua
Multiflora rose
Rosa multiflora
Pawpaw
Asimina triloba
Poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
Red maple
Acer rubrum
River birch
Betula nigra
Roundleaf greenbrier
Smilax rotundifolia
Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Trout lily
Erythronium americanum
Violet
Viola sp.
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
Wingstem
Verbesina alternifolia
White oak
Quercus alba
Yellow poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera

Animals
Common Name
Scientific Name
American crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American kestrel
Falco sparverius
American pickerel
Esox americanus
American toad
Bufo americanus
Belted kingfisher
Ceryle alcyon
Black rat snake
Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
Blue jay
Cyanocitta cristata
Brown water snake
Nerodia taxispilota
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
Carolina chickadee
Poecile carolinensis
Carolina wren
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Common musk turtle
Sternotherus odoratus
Common snapping turtle
Chelydra serpentina
Crayfish
Cambarus spp.
Eastern bluebird
Sialia sialis
Eastern box turtle
Terrapene carolina
Eastern meadowlark
Sturnella magna
Gray squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis
Golden shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Green frog
Lithobates clamitans
Green sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
Northern cardinal
Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern water snake
Nerodia sipedon sipedon
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Redbreast sunfish
Lepomis auritus
Red -shouldered hawk
Buteo lineatus
Red-tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
River tooter
Pseudemys concinna
Tufted titmouse
Baeolophus bicolor
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura
Virginia opossum
Didelphis virginiana
White-tailed deer
Odocoileus virginianus
White sucker
Catostomus commersonii
Yellow-rumped warbler
Dendroica coronata

Appendix C
Stream Forms

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # ...... (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET --A-QO
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: P. Stafford, H. Bain
3. Date of evaluation: 03/29/16 4. Time of evaluation: afternoon
5. Name of stream: SA - UT to Lanes Creek 6. River basin: Yadkin
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 acres 8. Stream order: 1 st
9. Length of reach evaluated: 521 ft 10. County: Anson
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Latitude (ex. 3a.872312): 35.107425 Longitude (ex.-77.556610'; -80.183573
Method location determined (circle): �✓ GPS ❑ Topo Sheet []Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS []other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
See attached Figure
14. Proposed channel work (if any): No proposed channel work at this time.
15. Recent weather conditions: Rain on 03/27/16
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 72 degrees, Sunny, light breeze
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ❑section 10 ❑Tidal Waters ❑Cssential Fisheries Habitat
❑i'rout Waters ❑Outstanding Resource Waters ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed ❑(I -iv)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?❑YES NC❑✓ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?YES NO ✓❑ 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?❑YES NO[]
21. Estimated watershed land use: _,% Residential -% Commercial _% Industrial 15 % Agricultural
85 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 3-7 ft 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank) :.75-2 ft
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ❑Flat (0 to 2%) ✓❑Gentle (2 to 4%) ❑Moderate (4 to 10%) ❑teep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: ❑Straight [--]Occasional bends 1hrequent meander ❑Very sinuous ❑Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based or
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign point,,
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate eacl
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 46 Comments: Stream SA is an intermittent stream channel.
-��� Date 3/29/2016 Revised 9/22/201E
Evaluator's Signature Hal Bain ,�i�
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of strearr.
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply 2
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Stree
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5 1
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = maxpoints)
I
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-5
0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0: no alteration = maxpoints)0-6
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5 3
no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0: no dischar es = maxpoints)
„a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4 2
d
no discharge = 0. springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2 2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2 3
9
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2 0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4 3
extensive de osition= 0: little or no sediment = max oints
11
Size & diversity, of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5 3
(fine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5 3
>0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0. no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5 3
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
i 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5 3
substantial impact =0: no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0: wetl-developed = maxpoints)
dHabitat
17
complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6 2
(little or no habitat = 0: fre uent. varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5 3
x
no shading vegetation = 0: continuous cano v = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4 3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5 0
(no evidence = 0: common numerous types = maxpoints)
Presence
(j
21
of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4 0
O
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4 0
no evidence = 0• corm -non, numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5 1
no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max pointsl
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
46
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Stream SA
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 03/29/16 Revised 9/22/2016 Project/Site: B-5795
Evaluator: Pete Stafford, Hal Bain County: Anson
Total Points: Stream Determin aan (circle one)
Stream is at least intermittent .25 Ephemeral nterrlliften Perennial
if > 19 or perennial if z 30*
A- Genmarnhninav (Subtotal = 12-5 1 Absent I Weak
f_atitude: 35.107425
Longitude:-80.183573
Other Polkton
e.g. Quad Name:
Moderate Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1 J
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0❑
1 ❑
2 ❑✓
3 ❑
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 LJ
2 ✓
3
5,Active/relictfloodplain
0❑
1
2 El
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 ❑_
1 ✓
20
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 El
1 El
2
3
8. Headcuts
0 F1
1 El
2
3
9. Grade control
00
0.5 J
1 LJ
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5 M
1 F1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 IZI
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B- Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 4 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 ❑
1 0
2 ❑
3 ❑
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
001
1 ✓
2-D
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1 17771
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 ✓
171
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5 ✓
1 ❑
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0EZ1
Yes = 3
C_ Binlnnv fSrlhtntal = 4.75 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 J
1 171
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 ✓
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0 ❑✓
1El
2 D
3 EJ
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 J
1 El
2
3
22. Fish
0 ✓
0.5
1
1,5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5 ✓
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
OM
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0171
0.5 M
1171
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW = 0.75; E3L
= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Stream SA. an intermittent stream channel.
Sketch: See figures for sketch.

Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors
Investigator: David Ward, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP
Education: B.S. Geography, Bloomsburg University, 1999
Experience: GIS specialist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP
2002 - Present
Responsibilities: GIS surveys and mapping
Investigator: John Merritt, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP
Education: B.S. Biology and Environmental Science, Trine University, 1999
Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP, June
2016-Present
Environmental Biologist, NCDOT, March 2006-May 2016
Biology and Environmental Science teacher, Randolph County
High Schools, August 2002-March 2006
Staff Scientist, Professional Service Industries (PSI), July 2000 — July
2002
Responsibilities: Preparation of forms, wetland and stream delineations, T/E surveys,
natural communities assessment, NRTR document preparation

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment C
Photo Pages

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement May 2, 2019
Bridge 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP #50
Photograph 1 — View of the SR 1654 (Morton Road) bridge over Lanes Creek looking to the
west.
Photograph 2 — View of Lanes Creek from the SR 1654 (Morton Road) bridge, looking upstream
to the south.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP #50
Photograph 3 —
iL
View of Lanes Creek from the SR 1654 (Morton Road) bridge, looking
downstream to the north.
May 2, 2019
Photograph 4 — View of Lanes Creek flowing under the SR 1654 (Morton Road) bridge looking
to the southeast.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment D
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
WBS No.: 17.13P.l0.R.140
Project Location: Bridge No. 217 carrying SR 1654 (Morton Road) over Lanes Creek in
Anson County
Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
Division 10, plans to replace Bridge No. 217 carrying SR 1654 (Morton Road) over
Lanes Creek in Anson County, North Carolina. The existing bridge has one 16-foot lane
and is an approximately 135 feet long timber deck steel girder bridge. The existing right-
of-way of SR 1654 (Morton Road) is approximately 60 feet in width and is a single lane
structure constructed in 1957 with no existing sidewalk or bicycle facilities.
The proposed project is state funded. The project limits extent approximately 840 feet
and proposes replacing the existing one lane bridge with a two-lane bridge in place. The
replacement structure would be approximately 172 feet long and would be widened to a
27-foot wide structure with two 10-foot travel lanes; the proposed horizontal and vertical
alignment would match the existing horizontal and vertical alignment as the existing
structure. The proposed right-of-way width would be approximately 100 feet at its widest
point. Residential and business relocations are not anticipated. The project is scheduled
for right-of-way in May 2019 and has a LET date of August 2019.
Lanes Creek and the unnamed tributary (U.T.) to Lanes Creek have been designated as
Class C waters from their sources to the confluence with the Yadkin River. There are no
designated High -Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II)
within or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. Lanes Creek or the U.T. to
Lanes Creek are not designated as a North Carolina National or Scenic River or National
Wild and Scenic River. The North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters
identifies Lanes Creek, within the study area and 1.0 mile downstream of the study area
as being impaired due to a "Fair" rating from benthic monitoring.
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream,
Lane's Creek, which is classified as an AE floodplain and is at high risk of flooding
under the National Flood Insurance Program. Due to this, the Hydraulics Unit will
coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status of
project regarding applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of
a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR).
Bridge No. 217 carries 80 vehicles per day with 160 vehicles per day projected for 2040.
SR 1654 (Morton Road) is classified as a rural local facility with a 35-mile per hour
design speed. An approximately 5-mile off -site detour would be required for the full
duration of construction. The detour route will take travelers on SR 1654 (Hough Road),
Lee Road, SR 1612 (Rocky River Church Road) and SR 1610 (Cedar Grove Road).
06/11/19 1 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
Purpose and Need: NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 217
has a sufficiency rating of 40.11 out of a possible 100. The bridge's status is identified as
Structurally Deficient in the Structure Safety Report published by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) on 01/02/201S. The purpose of the project is to replace the
deficient bridge.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: A Nationwide Permit (NWP) No.
3 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is anticipated. It is estimated that
there will be 29.5 LF of permanent stream impacts, and 86.83 LF of temporary stream
impacts. Stream relocations and/or channel modifications are not anticipated. The
USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction. If a Section 404 NWP No. 14 is required, then a Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification No. 413.5 from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) would also be required. In the event that project impacts to waters of the U.S.
exceed 300 linear feet, or 1/2 acre in area, then a Section 404 Regional General Permit
No. 198200031 may be required which will allow for 500 linear feet of stream impacts
and up to 1 acre of impacts to waters of the U.S. If the project impacts can't be reduced
below the permitting thresholds, then a Section 404 Individual Permit may be required.
If mitigation is required, then it is anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services
(DMS) will be used. Anson County is not one of the twenty counties under the
jurisdiction of the Costal Area Management Act (CAMA). A CAMA permit from the
North Carolina Division of Costal Management (NCDCM) will not be required.
Cultural Resources: NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed the project for Historic
Architectural and Archeological Resources. A No Survey Required Form for Historic
Architecture and Landscapes was provided through ETRACS by a NCDOT Architectural
Historian on 2/16/2016. Additionally, a No Archaeological Survey Required Form was
provided by NCDOT Archaeologist on 2/14/2017.
Special Proiect Information:
Environmental Commitments: Greensheet Commitments are located at the end of the
checklist.
Estimated Costs (FY 2018):
Utility: $ 0
R/W: $ 14,000
Const: $ 1,520,000
Total: $ 1,534,000
Traffic Information:
Current (2015)
80 vpd
Year (2040)
160 vpd
TTST
15.0%
Duals
N/A
06/11/19 2 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There are no pedestrian or bicycle
accommodations for this project. SR 1654 (Morton Road) is not an NCDOT bike route
and there are no existing sidewalks. Evidence of bike and pedestrian activity was not
observed during site visit.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build — The no build alternative would not replace the deficient bridge, and
thus is not a viable option.
Rehabilitation — Rehabilitating the existing one -lane bridge to a two-lane bridge
is not a viable option.
Onsite Detour — An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the planned staged
construction.
New Alignment — Given that the alignment for SR 1654 (Morton Road) is
acceptable, a new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Offsite Detour — An approximate 5-mile offsite detour is preferred and would be
required for the full duration of construction. The detour route would take
travelers on SR 1654 (Hough Road), Lee Road, SR 1612 (Rocky River Church
Road) and SR 1610 (Cedar Grove Road).
Other A2ency Comments:
An EMS Impact Form was sent to the Anson County Emergency Services Emergency
Management Chief on 1/25/2019. Comments were received from Anson County
Emergency Services on 1/25/2019. Anson County EMS indicated that the project would
have a low overall impact on emergency service if the bridge were closed for up to a
year.
Response: Comment noted.
A School Impact Form was sent to Anson School System Transportation Administrator
on 1/25/2019; comments were received on 2/26/2019. The Administrator indicated that 2
buses make 2 daily trips along the corridor. Anson County School Systems did not have
any special concerns regarding the project.
Response: Comment noted.
A Planner Input Form was sent to the Anson County Planning and Zoning Department on
01/25/2019 and 02/26/2019. The input form was received with no special concerns or
comments regarding the project.
06/11/19 3 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92D05C
Public Involvement:
Public involvement was not required for this project.
06/11/19 4 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
Item Z to YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category'? #Reconstruction of existing crossroad or
railroad separation and existing stream
crossings, including, but not limited to,
pipes, culverts, and bridges.)
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
by the Engineer.0
YES
NO
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment'?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
❑
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department'?
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; ❑
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
06/11/19 5 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
S. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
YES NO
El H
If any questions 2 through 8 are answered "yes", the proposed project may not qualify as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state environmental assessment (EA) may be required. For
assistance, contact:
Manager, Environmental Analysis Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
(919) 707 — 6000
Fax: [phone]
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9- y LTWon E�ntal Officer.
YES NO
9.
Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
® ❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10.
Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
® ❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11.
Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12.
Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
ngin�
13.
Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of ❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Response to Question 9:
Three federally protected species are listed for Anson County; Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthis schweinitzii), and Red -
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). A review of the NC National Heritage
Program (NCNHP) records, last accessed March 2018, indicates no known occurrences
within 1.0 mile of the study area for both Schweinitz's sunflower and Red -cockaded
06/11/19 6 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
woodpecker. The biological conclusion for the Carolina heelsplitter is currently
unresolved, and a resolution will be required prior to design completion.
Response to Question 10:
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is
anticipated. Potential permanent fill impacts due to bridge construction may occur to
Lanes Creek and the U.T. but will be avoided if possible and minimized if necessary.
Temporary impacts from debris may result from the demolition of the existing bridge
which will occur after traffic has been routed to the detour.
Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental
Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource
agency may be required. If any questions in Part "C" are answered "yes", follow the
appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction.
06/11/19 7 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
PART D:t To be completed when either cateuory #8, 120) or #15 of the rules are
used.
Items 16- 22 to be eompleted by Division Environmental Officer.
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
19
20
21
22
Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
Total acres of wetland impacts:
Total linear feet of stream impacts:
Project purpose:
If Part D of the checklist is completed, send a copy of the entire checklist document to:
Don G. Lee
State Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mail Service Center 1557
Raleigh, NC 27699-1557
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
DocuSigned by:
Prepared b Auyiss� 6/11/2019
k—Mp y: tt,. Date:
=i9963LQM.0Ce
STV Engineers Inc., Transportation Planner
DocuSigned by:
Reviewed by: sat Date: 6/11/2019
1-494iiw"son, PWS, LSS
Division Environmental Officer
DocuSigned by:
�,evl,avLwvL woow Date: 6/11/2019
- I dkia wood, PE
Division Bridge Program Manager
06/11/19
8 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4E868BB3-EOF5-4D93-9BD1-17DA8D92DO5C
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
R-140
Carolina Heelsplitter
The biological conclusion for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate) must
be resolved before design completion; this will be coordinated through NCDOT
Division 10.
FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program
(FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT' S
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans
to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the
drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-
year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally
and vertically.
Section 404 Mitigation
A Section 404 Individual Permit may be required if the project impacts can't be
reduced below the permitting threshold. If mitigation is required, then it is
anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) will be used.
Stormwater
NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will
be utilized throughout the life of the project. Erosion and sediment will be
controlled through the specification, installation, and maintenance of more
stringent erosion and sedimentation control methods.
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
May 2019

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment E
T & E Supplemental Information,
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report,
Bat Survey Project Questionnaire

Threatened & Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
NCDOT Division 10 — Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek, Anson, NC
WBS Number: BP10.R049.1 (formerly 17BP.10.R.140; TIP B-5795)
Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP (RKK) conducted field reviews of an approximate 13.3-acre
study area on March 29, 2016. STV Engineers, Inc. (STV) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) performed a plant by plant survey for threatened and endangered species
on August 30, 2022 and October 6, 2023, respectively. A mussel survey was conducted by Three
Oaks Engineering on October 23, 2018 and a subsequent mussel survey was conducted by
Transystems on July 26, 2023. Prior to the field reviews, STV reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases for
information related to the occurrence of federal and state protected (threatened or endangered)
species in Anson County. The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) was used
to obtain an official species list on October 19, 2023. IPaC lists four federally protected species as
occurring or having the potential to occur in the study area (Table 1) as well as the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Additionally, the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) has been proposed endangered and is
included although the species is not currently protected. As of October 24, 2023, the NCNHP lists
no occurrences of federally protected species within one mile of the study area. A brief description
of each species, including habitat requirements and physical characteristics, and biological
conclusion rendered based on surveys of the study area follow. Habitat requirements for each
species are based on current available literature and/or the USFWS.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for the Study Areal
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Present
Conclusion
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
T
Yes
MANLAA
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
No Effect
Lasmigona decorates
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Yes
MANLAA
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
Unresolved
Red -cockaded
Picoides borealis
E
No
No Effect
woodpecker
' IPaC data checked on October 19, 2023.
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
PE — Proposed Endangered
MANLAA — May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Atlantic pigtoe
USFWS optimal survey window: March 1 — November 1
The Atlantic pigtoe is a freshwater mussel species with a chunky, rhombus shape, like that of a
pig's hoof/toe. There is a distinct posterior ridge. The outer surface of the shell is yellow to dark
brown and parchment -like, while the inner layer is iridescent blue to salmon, white, or orange.
Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic pigtoe rarely exceeds two inches in length. The
preferred habitat of the Atlantic pigtoe is coarse sand and gravel, and rarely in silt and detritus.
Supplemental Information — Anson 217

Historically, the best populations existed in small creeks to larger rivers with excellent water
quality, where flows were sufficient to maintain clean, silt -free substrates.
A mussel survey was conducted by Three Oaks Engineering on October 23, 2018, and a Freshwater
Mussel Survey Report was prepared on March 5, 2019. A subsequent mussel survey was
conducted by Transystems on July 26, 2023 and a Mussel Survey Report was prepared on
December 1, 2023. The results of the mussel surveys indicate that the study area is suitable habitat
for freshwater mussels; multiple mussel species were observed during the surveys. There were no
Atlantic pigtoe identified during the surveys. Due to the presence of suitable habitat the Biological
Conclusion for Atlantic pigtoe is "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect".
Biological Conclusion: MANLAA
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS optimal survey window: Late August - October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant species limited to the Piedmont regions
and counties of North and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall originating
from a cluster of tuberous roots. The plant's flower consists of yellow disk and ray flowers formed
on small heads less than 1.5 centimeter (cm) in diameter. The petals, or modified leaves, are two
to three cm long. The lanceolate leaves are arranged in an opposite pattern within the lower two-
thirds of the stem transitioning to alternate within the upper third. The typical habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower includes periodically maintained roadsides and utility line rights -of -way
(R/Ws), old pastures, edges of upland woods, and other disturbed open areas. Soils associated with
suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat generally include thin upland soils clayey in texture (and
often with substantial rock fragments) which have a high shrink -swell capacity. Flowering occurs
from August to the first frost of the year.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area along the SR 1654 roadside
shoulders and woodland edges. Plant surveys were conducted by NCDOT Environmental
Specialist Caleb BrabbleRose, throughout areas of suitable habitat on October 6, 2023, and STV
environmental scientist Joshua Kotheimer, PWS, and Chris Sheldon, conducted a plant by plant
survey on August 30, 2022. Both surveys took place during the flowering season and USFWS-
designated optimal survey window. There were no sunflowers observed during the surveys.
Review of the NCNHP records on October 24, 2023, revealed no documented occurrences or
populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the study area or within one mile of the study area. Based
on the literature review and field surveys it is determined that the project would have `No Effect'
on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS optimal survey window: March 1 — September 30
Habitat Description: The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations
within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah
River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the
species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and Catawba River systems.
Supplemental Information — Anson 217

The species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet of shorelines, throughout its
known range. The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in
large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or
in runs along steep banks with moderate current. The more recent habitat where the Carolina
heelsplitterhas been found is in sections of streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices
filled with sand and gravel, and with wide riparian buffers.
A mussel survey was conducted by Three Oaks Engineering on October 23, 2018, and a Freshwater
Mussel Survey Report was prepared on March 5, 2019. A subsequent mussel survey was
conducted by Transystems on July 26, 2023 and a Mussel Survey Report was prepared on
December 1, 2023. The results of the mussel surveys indicate that the study area is suitable habitat
for freshwater mussels; multiple mussel species were observed during the surveys. There were no
Carolina heelsplitter identified during the surveys. Due to the presence of suitable habitat the
Biological Conclusion for Carolina heelsplitter is "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect".
Biological Conclusion: MANLAA
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: Undetermined
The Tricolored bat is one of the smallest bats native to North America with a body length of 3-3.5
inches. The Tricolored bat is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur that is dark at the tip and
base and lighter in the middle. Tricolored bats often appear orange to a pale yellow but may also
appear black, chocolate brown, or silvery -gray. Young Tricolored bats appear much darker than
the grayer adults. The range for the Tricolored bat stretches from Central America to Canada
including central and eastern United States. During the winter, Tricolored bats are found in mines
and caves. Where caves are sparse like the southern United States, Tricolored bats have been found
roosting in road -associated culverts, tree cavities and abandoned water wells. During the fall,
summer, and spring Tricolored bats are found in forested habitats. Tricolored bats primarily roost
among dead and live leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. In the
southern portion of their range Tricolored bats will roost in Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides);
other roosting spots include, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), barns, beneath porch roofs,
bridges, and concrete bunkers. Female Tricolored bats often return to the same summer roosting
locations year after year. In early evenings Tricolored bats forage at or above the tree level. Later
in the evening the Tricolored bat is more commonly found foraging over waterways and forests
edges.
Review of the NCNHP records obtained on October 24, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of
Tricolored bat within the study area or within one mile of the study area. On September 14, 2022,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to list the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis
subflavus - PESU) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. If listed, NCDOT will resolve
Section 7 prior to let as appropriate. Construction activities for this project will not take place until
NCDOT (in coordination with our lead federal agency) satisfies Endangered Species Act
compliance for PESU. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a biological conclusion
of `Unresolved' for Tricolored bat.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Supplemental Information — Anson 217

Red -cockaded woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window: November -Early March
Habitat Description: The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands
of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW
excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provided foraging habitat. The foraging
range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles.
Habitat for RCW is not present in the study area. Vegetated habitat along roadside shoulders and
utility easements in the project study area is managed by intense mowing, herbicide application or
is heavily overgrown. A review of NCNHP records, updated October 24, 2023, indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Pine trees within the study area are 15 to 25 years
in age and do not meet age requirements for nesting or foraging. No RCW were observed during
field studies. Based on the literature review and field surveys it is determined that the project would
have `No Effect' on RCW.
Bioloizical Conclusion: No Effect
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced by the
USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0
mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on October 24, 2023, using the latest ESRI ArcGIS color aerials.
The study area, crossing over Lanes Creek, no lakes fall within 1 mile of the study area. Due to
the low quality foraging habitat, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the
project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on October 24,
2023, revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the
lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been
determined that this project will not affect this species.
Supplemental Information — Anson 217

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
WBS# BP10.R049
Bridge No. 030217 Replacement on SR 1654 (Morton Road) over Lanes Creek
Anson County, North Carolina
Division 10
View of Lanes Creek from bridge.
Prepared For:
F xoarH �,
4
OF [Ra
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Matt Haney
Biological Surveys Group -Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
[e-mail]
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
December 1, 2023

Prepared by:
TRANSYSTEMS
1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27603
Contact Person:
Chris Sheats
[e-mail]
919-417-2732

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
2.0 Waters Impacted..............................................................................................................1
2.1 303(d) Classification......................................................................................................1
2.2 NPDES Discharges.........................................................................................................2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions...............................................................2
3.1 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)................................................................................2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics...........................................................................................2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements..................................................................2
3.2 Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)..................................................................2
3.2.1 Species Characteristics...........................................................................................2
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements..................................................................3
4.0 Survey Efforts...................................................................................................................3
4.1 Survey Methodology.....................................................................................................3
5.0 Results..............................................................................................................................3
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions....................................................................................................4
7.0 Literature Cited................................................................................................................6
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Locations
Figure 2: USFWS Critical Habitat & NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: NPDES Discharges
Appendix B. Qualifications of Contributors

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge #
030217 (BP10.R049) on Morton Road (SR 1654) over Lanes Creek in Anson County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) GIS planning tool (IPaC Access date: October
16, 2023), the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) are identified as protected species that could be affected by this project. The Atlantic
Pigtoe is listed as Threatened and the Carolina Heelsplitter is listed as Endangered by the
USFWS under the Endangered Species Act and designated Critical Habitat has been established
for both species.
The nearest designated Critical Habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is in the Little River and West
Fork Little River of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin approximately 44 river miles (RM) away
(Figure 2). The nearest designated Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter is located
approximately 24 RM away in Goose Creek and Duck Creek of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP, Access date: October 16,
2023), the nearest Atlantic Pigtoe element occurrence (EO) (ID # 22093; Last Observation Date -
September 2022) is in Lanes Creek, approximately 17 RM upstream from the project (Figure 2).
The nearest Carolina Heelsplitter EO (ID #21454; Last Observation Date- March 2017) is in
Goose Creek and Duck Creek, approximately 24 RM away from the project.
TranSystems was contracted by the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group to conduct surveys
targeting the Atlantic Pigtoe and Carolina Heelsplitter as part of the federal permitting process
that requires an evaluation of potential project -related impacts to federally protected species.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Lanes Creek is a tributary within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]
Hydrological Unit Code 03040105). Lanes Creek flows into the Rocky River approximately three
RM downstream of the project.
2.1 303(d) Classification
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2022 Final 303(d) list was reviewed to
better understand water quality upstream of the project. Lanes Creek is listed from upstream of
the study area at the Marshville Water Supply Dam to the confluence with the Rocky River for
exceeding benthos (NCDEQ, 2022a).
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report December 2023
Page 1

2.2 NPDES Discharges
The closest permitted discharge is The Quikrete Companies, permitted for stone, clay, glass and
concrete products stormwater discharge into Wide Mouth Branch, a tributary to Lanes Creek,
approximately 13 RM upstream of the project (Permit # NCG070160) (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a freshwater mussel reaching up to 60mm in length. This species has a
sub -rhomboidal shaped shell with a distinct posterior ridge. The umbo is elevated well above
the dorsal margin and the beak cavity is shallow. The periostracum is yellow to dark brown and
has a parchment- like texture (Bogan 2002, Bogan and Alderman 2008). Pseudocardinal and
lateral teeth are well developed except for the anterior pseudocardinal tooth in the right valve,
while the interdental tooth is absent in the left valve (USFWS 2018b).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic breeder, gravid females have been found from late June to
early July (Fuller 1973). Fish hosts for this species include Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis
macrochirus), Shield Darter (Percina peltata), Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Rosefin
Shiner (Lythrurus ardens) and Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) (Watters and O'Dee 1997,
Wolf and Emrick 2011).
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Atlantic Pigtoe is endemic to the southern Atlantic Slope and is found from the Ogeechee
River Basin in Georgia to the James River Basin in Virginia. In North Carolina, this species is
known from the Catawba, Yadkin -Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Pamlico, and Roanoke River
basins (Johnson 1970, Bogan 2002). This species can be found in medium to large streams with
clean, swift waters and a stable gravel or sand and gravel substrate. Individuals are often found
on the downstream edge of riffle areas.
3.2 Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
3.2.1 Species Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel with an average length of 78 mm, an average
height of 43 mm and a mean width of 27 mm (Keferl and Shelley 1988). This species is
characterized by having an ovate trapezoid shaped shell with a distinct step down from the
umbo. The presence of an upturned dorsal shell margin, a double ridge along the posterior -
dorsal shell margin and an overall relatively thin shell are also distinguishing characteristics for
this species.
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
December 2023
Page 2

The Carolina Heelsplitters' reproductive cycle includes a larval stage in which the glochidium
will act as an obligate parasite on a host fish to continue development. Host fish of this species
include several species of minnows and some sunfish species (Eads et al. 2010).
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Carolina Heelsplitter was first described by Lea, 1852 as Unio decoratus from specimens
collected in the Saluda-Wateree River System in what was formerly known as the Abbeville
District in west -central South Carolina. The Carolina Heelsplitter is endemic to the southeastern
Atlantic Slope and historically occurred in Piedmont streams and small rivers in the Carolina and
Charlotte Slate belts. Currently, 11 extant populations are known including five from the
Santee, two in the Pee Dee, two in the Savannah and two in the Saluda basins. These
populations are believed to be small and highly isolated from one another by impoundments or
other extensive reaches of unsuitable habitats. Carolina Heelsplitters occur primarily in small to
mid -sized streams with stable, vegetated banks and substrates ranging from muddy sand to
muddy gravel (Clark 1985, Keferl 1991). Prior research on Carolina Heelsplitters is limited and
has primarily focused on aspects of reproductive ecology, habitat ecology and distribution
(Bogan 2002, Ward et al. 2007, Bogan et al. 2008, Eads et al. 2010, Bogan and Raley 2012).
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Field efforts were conducted by TranSystems personnel Chris Sheats (ES Permit # 23-ES00558,
23-SF00249), Tori Fowler, Jason Hall, Alex McCarn, and Bennett Kimball along with Matt Haney
from the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group on July 26, 2023.
4.1 Survey Methodology
A freshwater mussel survey extended from 100 meters upstream of the project to 400 meters
downstream, totaling 500 meters. Visual and tactile surveys were completed using bathyscopes
and snorkel gear.
5.0 RESULTS
A total of 40 freshwater mussels were observed in Lanes Creek. A total of six species were
observed including Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata), Eastern Floater (Pyganodon
cataracta), Florida Pondhorn (Uniomerous carolinianus), Eastern Creekshell (Villosa delumbis),
Carolina Creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), and Paper Pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis) (Table
1). One clam species, Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea), was abundant throughout the surveyed
reach. Two snail species were observed during the survey. The Two -ridge Rams -horn
(Heliosoma anceps) was abundant and patchy, while the Sprite Elimia (Elimia proxima) was
uncommon.
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
December 2023
Page 3

Table 1. Freshwater mussels observed in Lanes Creek (29 hours total survey time).
Common Name
Scientific Name
NC Status*
# Live
% of Total
CPUE*
Eastern Elliptio
Elliptio complanata
2
5
0.07
Eastern Floater
Pyganodon cataracta
17
42.5
0.59
Florida Pondhorn
Uniomerous carolinianus
4
10
0.14
Eastern Creekshell
Villosa delumbis
15
37.5
0.52
Carolina Creekshell
Villosa vaughaniana
E
1
2.5
0.03
Paper Pondshell
Utterbackia imbecillis
1
2.5
0.03
Total
40
100
1.38
*CPUE- Catch Per Unit Effort; E- Endangered
Lanes Creek had a series of riffle, run, and pool habitats throughout the reach. Stream width
ranged from 9 — 12 meters with depths of 0.5 — 1.5 meters. Substrate consisted of consolidated
silt, sand, cobble, gravel, boulder, and bedrock. Evidence of American Beaver (Castor
canadensis) activity was observed through the presence of gnawed branches. Riparian buffers
were wide with a surrounding land use of natural and active crop areas. The Atlantic Pigtoe and
the Carolina Heelsplitter were not observed during survey efforts.
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
Physical habitat conditions such as defined stream channel, native freshwater mussel presence
and diversity, and substrate composition that are associated with both target species were
present throughout the surveyed reach. Survey efforts resulted in no observations of the
Atlantic Pigtoe or the Carolina Heelsplitter in Lanes Creek. The survey efforts detailed in the
report serve to update species information within Lanes Creek.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Atlantic Pigtoe: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect
Although there were portions of the survey reach with appropriate habitat, there were no
Atlantic Pigtoe individuals found. Based on the presence of habitat in Lanes Creek and the
results of the survey, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Atlantic
Pigtoe.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Atlantic Pigtoe Designated Critical Habitat: No Effect
Designated Critical Habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is not identified in Lanes Creek. The nearest
designated Critical Habitat is located 44 RM away in the Little River and West Fork Little River,
of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The proposed project will have "No Effect" on the
designated Critical Habitat for this species.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Carolina Heelsplitter: May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
December 2023
Page 4

Although there were portions of the survey reach with appropriate habitat, there were no
Carolina Heelsplitter individuals found. Based on the presence of habitat in Lanes Creek and the
results of the survey, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Carolina
Heelsplitter.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Carolina Heelsplitter Designated Critical Habitat: No
Effect
Designated Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter is not identified in Lanes Creek. The
nearest designated Critical Habitat is located 24 RM away in Goose Creek and Duck Creek, of
the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The proposed project will have "No Effect" on the designated
Critical Habitat for this species.
The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is
recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the finding of this
document. The federal action agency, or its nonfederal designee (NCDOT) must render a
biological conclusion for both species.
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
December 2023
Page 5

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Bogan AE (2002) Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Bogan AE, Alderman JM (2008) Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South Carolina.
North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, North Carolina Freshwater Bivalve
Conservation Partnership.
Bogan AE, Raley ME (2012) Comparison of Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata (Lea,
1852)) populations (Molluscs: Bivalvia: Unionidae). Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC pp 1-32.
Clarke AH (1985) The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology pp 1-75.
Eads CB, Bringolf RB, Greiner RD, Bogan AE, Levine JF (2010) Fish hosts of the Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a federally -endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionidae). American Malacological Bulletin 28:151-158.
Fuller, SLH. 1973. Fusconaia masoni (Conrad 1834) (Bivalvia: Unionacea) in the Atlantic drainage
of the Southeastern United States. Malacological Review 6:105-117.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Molluscs: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
140(6):263-449.
Keferl, E.P. and Shelly, R.M. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta robusta),
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Keferl EP (1991) A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
freshwater mussels endemic to the Carolinas. Report prepared for US Fish and Wildlife
Service and North Carolina Wild Resources Commission pp 1-29.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)a. Division of Water Resources.
2022. 2022 North Carolina Final 303(d) List. https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files (Accessed October 16, 2023.)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)b. Online GIS NPDES Stormwater
Permits.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8d3108c9364b4ef3966cO
7118f2cf4f (Accessed October 16, 2023.)
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
December 2023
Page 6

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2023. Natural Heritage Element
Occurrence. (Accessed October 16, 2023.).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation. Online Linkage:
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (October 16, 2023).
Ward S, Augspurger T, Dwyer FJ, Kane C, Ingersoll CG (2007) Risk assessment of water quality in
three North Carolina, USA, streams supporting federally endangered freshwater mussels
(Unionidae). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6:2075-85.
Watters, G.T. and S.H. O'Dee 1997. Identification of potential host: Elliptio fisheriana (Lea,
1838), Fusconaia masoni (Conrad, 1834), Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque, 1820), and
Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819). Triannual Unionid Report No. 13:38.
Wolf, ED, and Emrick V. 2011. Propagation and Culture of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
December 2023
Page 7

APPENDIX A
Figures
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
December 2023
Page 8

�epwed By: �gpusd For BPI O.R049 Bridge #030217 Replacement v' �1 Figure
on SR 1654 (Morton Road)
TR�HYT F over Lanes Creek y
o 25D = M
Vicinity Map and Survey Locations �----
Anson County. North Carolina

r fl I
C WIN@
an
Little
apo Rive r
.yam.
y West Fork
Little River
Concord
4 1
AlbemarleDuck Creek
Prllnt Hil I
I.i Zk
l3urnsvi d
II r Tr .J1 ( a:
Polkton
Ylfiadesboro
Lane& Creek
Troy
ff
North Car
youth C a, .
��:sccY
ngl ,iw I
� [-,UIUIIIIU r1eelb.JIRLel [-,IILKC W rl&UILUL �a -
Saws: Fsri, HF-RE, C-armin, USGS)ntermap, NCRF-MErJT P, NRCen, Esri
5- Mile Buffer Japan, METI, EsriChir- --ng Kong), Esri , Esri.lThailand}, RGCC, {o}
OpenStreetr-:lar .=-Hr . theG15 Us unibr-
P7Epared By: PfE-pa�ed For: BP'IO.R049 Bridge #030217 Replacement . Fgure
on SR 1654 (Morton Road)
TOAYSTEM F over Lanes Creek° t
USFWS Critical Habitat &
�r NCNHP Element Occurrences 2
` Anson Count . North Carolina

... x Jrl
J
• f�''S. Y.F flrr r-h" I fY"• _._ +I- .� .�� --. �4�44 :!SI°°rx .�A •1
M1}: +d � - - - _ f -�I� ' L,_' .. ��• •��__ 1. ;M1 rc
�' ' r. ' i+ �� . � k 1 � - +. f ' ' '�\ 5��1 � � �u'• I � � Fhb _ -
'�'
i �� _ . �'+ i I • �I. J � ��' ' `fin ',� �_ � + } - ..
-� � ��� � � •?� � x.�~• Plrrss'�'+ I ?- -_ r' 1 41� _ ,{.pi7y � 1�1� _ -���
M1fFF1114*V - J- - fx x t -
'`.+_ r
Ne
Bridge # 03017
NPDES Discharge (N 070160) '.: I --' �: . 4• : ,, } :�._, {
303(d) Impaired Stream - - • i _ r _- _.r-
�5-Mile Buffer
31 -9 }ied ` fa I SCs I -.a, cC'�z
Repwed By: Rgp`ud For: BPIO.R.049 Bridge #030217 Replacement CrwtidBy: C,e&adBy: Figure
on SR 1664 (Morton Road) W-r CM11;
TR�HYSTEh�S F over Lanes Creek
NPDE Discharge and �000=rwilles
303(d) Impaired Stream Dut:
Anson-Countk,North Carolina DaDber=3

APPENDIX B
TranSystems Qualifications of Contributors
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report November 2023
Page 12

Principal
Investigator: Chris Sheats, PWS
Education: B.S. Botany, North Carolina State University, 2002
Experience: Biological Surveys Lead, TranSystems, 2022-Present
Biological Surveys Lead, SEPI, 2019-2022
Natural Resources Manager, Water & Land Solutions, 2018
Senior Project Manager, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-2018
Natural Resources Unit Head, The Catena Group 2005-2015
Staff Scientist, Arcadis G&M, 2003-2005
Permits: USFWS Native Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Permit
(ESPER0037836); NCWRC Endangered Species Survey Permit (23-ES00558)
Responsibilities: Freshwater Mussel Surveys, Document Preparation and Review
Investigator: Victoria Fowler
Education: B.S. Biology- Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Studies, 2016
M.S. Biology- Ecology and Environmental Studies, (In progress/December 2023)
Experience: Environmental Scientist, TranSystems, 2022- Present
Environmental Scientist, SEPI, 2020- 2022
Responsibilities: Freshwater Mussel Surveys, Document Preparation
Investigator: Jason Hall
Education: UNCW Environmental Studies, 1999
TranSystems 2022-2023
SEPI 2015-2022
CZR Incorp Biologist III 2011-2015
Center for Marine Science- Research Specialist 2000-2011 years
Responsibilities: Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Investigator: Bennett Kimball
Education: B.S. Biological Engineering - Ecological Engineering and Environmental
Engineering Concentrations
Biological Sciences Minor (Spring 2025)
Experience: Aquatic Scientist Intern, TranSystems, Summer 2023-Present
Responsibilities: Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Investigator: Alexander McCarn
Education: B.A. Public Policy, Urban and Regional Planning — 2017
Experience: Transportation Planner, TranSystems, 2022 — Present
Transportation Planner, TranSystems, 2017 — 2022
Responsibilities: Freshwater Mussel Surveys
Lanes Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report December 2023
Page 13

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654
Over Lanes Creek
TIP # B-5795
WBS Element # 17BP.10.R.140
Anson County, North Carolina
Lanes Creek during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Jared Gray
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
iaravQ�ncdot.goy
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
March 5, 2019

Prepared by:
461KEf fte
d93111
324 Blackwell Street, 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
tom.dickinson cbthrecoaksen iiiecriii�-,.ccfrii
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...................................................................... •................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted....................................................................................... ........................ l
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................ 2
2.2 NPDES discharges........................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions................................................................ 2
3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter).................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)................................................................................. 5
3.2.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 5
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements................................................... .. 6
...............
3.2.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Alasmidonta varicosa (Brook Floater)............................................................................. 6
3.3.1 Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 6
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 7
3.3.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Survey Efforts...................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Lanes Creek ........................................................ 8
4.2 Mussel Survey Methodology........................................................................................... 8
4.3 Results..........................................................................•...................................................8
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions.................................................................................... ..... 9
..............
6.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................. 10
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of bridge
number 217 over Lanes Creek on SR 1654 in Anson County (Appendix A, Figure 1). The
project crosses Lanes Creek of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. The Federally Endangered
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for Anson County. The Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), which could also occur
in the county, was proposed for listing under the ESA as a Threatened Species with Section 4(d)
Rule and Critical Habitat Designation on October 11, 2018. Additionally, the Brook Floater
(Alasmidonta varicosa), listed as State Endangered by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, is being considered for listing by USFWS, and is known to occur in Anson County.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) in approximate river miles (RM) for targeted
species for the Lanes Creek survey reach. Data is according to the NC Natural Heritage Program
database (NCNHP 2019), accessed January 24, 2019 (Figure 2).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
Distance
Species Name
EO ID
EO Waterbody
from
First Observed
Last Observed
Sta us*
crossing
RM
Carolina
21454
Goose and Duck
31
August 1987
March 2017
C
Heelsplitter
Creeks
Atlantic Pigtoe
22087
Goose Creek
31
July 1994
March 1998
C
21776
Brown Creek
32
July 1987
July 1987
H
Brook Floater
20865
Rocky Creek
47
August 1993
August 1993
C
* C-NCNHP Current, H-NCNHP Historic
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (30aks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct freshwater mussel surveys targeting the Carolina Heelsplitter, Atlantic
Pigtoe, and Brook Floater.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Lanes Creek is located in the Rocky River subbasin of the Yadkin -Pee Dee basin (HUC#
03040105). Lanes Creek flows approximately 3.4 RM to its confluence with the Rocky River.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page I

2.1 303(d) Classification
Lanes Creek is on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) -
Division of Water Resources 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams. It is impaired due to
fair benthos (NCDEQ 2019a) (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES discharges
The closest permitted NPDES discharge is approximately 11 RM downstream of the study area
(NCDEQ 2019b); Norwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit # NC0021628) is
located on the Rocky River (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter)
3. L I Species Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), originally described as Unio decoratus by (Lea
1852), synonymized with the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) (Conrad 1835, Johnson
1970), and later separated as a distinct species (Clarke 1985), is a federally Endangered
freshwater mussel, historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee
River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee, Savannah, and possibly the Saluda River
systems in South Carolina.
The Carolina Heelsplitter is characterized as having an ovate, trapezoid -shaped, un-sculptured
shell. The outer surface of the shell ranges from greenish brown to dark brown in color, with
younger specimens often having faint greenish brown or black rays. The shell's nacre is often
pearly white to bluish white, grading to orange in the area of the umbo (Keferl 1991). The hinge
teeth are well developed and heavy and the beak sculpture is double looped (Keferl and Shelly
1988). Morphologically, the shell of the Carolina Heelsplitter is very similar to the shell of the
Green Floater (Clarke 1985), with the exception of a much larger size and thickness in the
Carolina Heelsplitter (Keferl and Shelly 1988).
Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), the Carolina Heelsplitter had not been
collected in the 20th century and was known only from shell characteristics. Because of its
rarity, very little information of this species' biology, life history, and habitat requirements was
known until very recently. Feeding strategy and reproductive cycle of the Carolina Heelsplitter
have not been documented, but are likely similar to other native freshwater mussels (USFWS
1996). Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage
(glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish.
Many mussel species have specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle.
Until recently, nothing was known about the host species(s) for the Carolina Heelsplitter
(USFWS 1996, Bogart 2002). Starnes and Hogue (2005) identified the most likely fish host
candidates (15 species) based on fish community surveys in occupied streams throughout the
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 2

range of the Carolina Heelsplitter. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be
consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Currently, the Carolina Heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until recently, it
was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river (USFWS 1996); however,
recent discoveries have increased the number of known populations to eleven:
Pee Dee River Basin:
1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek — Mecklenburg/Union counties, NC
2. Flat Creek/Lynches River — Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw counties, SC
Catawba River Basin:
3. Sixmile Creek (Twelvemile Creek Subbasin) — Lancaster County, SC
4. Waxhaw Creek — Union County, NC and Lancaster County, SC
5. Cane Creek/Gills Creek — Lancaster County, SC
6. Fishing Creek Subbasin — Chester County, SC
7. Rocky Creek Subbasin (Bull Run Creek/UT Bull Run CreekBeaverdam Creek) —
Chester County, SC
Saluda River Basin:
8. Redbank Creek — Saluda County, SC
9. Halfway Swamp Creek — Greenwood/Saluda County, SC
Savannah River Basin:
10. Little Stevens Creek/Mountain Creek/Sleep Creek/Turkey Creek (Stevens Creek
Subbasin) — Edgefield/McCormick counties, SC
11. Cuffytown Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin) — Greenwood/McCormick counties, SC
Habitat for this species has been reported from small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds.
These ponds are believed to be millponds on some of the smaller streams within the species'
historic range (Keferl 1991). Keferl and Shelly (1988) and Keferl (1991) reported that most
individuals have been found along well -shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy
gravel substrates. However, numerous individuals in several of the populations have been found
in cobble and gravel dominated substrate, usually in close proximity to bedrock outcroppings
(Savidge, personal observations). The stability of stream banks appears to be very important to
this species (Keferl 1991).
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 3

3.1.3 Threats to Species
Habitat degradation, water quality degradation, and changes in stream flow (water quantity) are
the primary identified threats to the Carolina Heelsplitter. Specific types of activities that lead to
these threats have been documented by the USFWS in the Recovery Plan, Federal Register and
other publications (USFWS 1996, 2002, 2007). These specific threats include the following:
■ Siltation resulting from poorly implemented agricultural, forestry, and developmental
activities;
• Golf course construction;
• Road construction and maintenance;
■ Runoff and discharge of municipal, industrial and agricultural pollutants;
• Habitat alterations associated with impoundments, channelization, dredging, and sand
mining operations; and
• Other natural and human -related factors that adversely modify the aquatic environment.
These threats, alone and collectively, have contributed to the loss of the Carolina Heelsplitter in
streams previously known to support the species (USFWS 2002). In addition, many of the
remaining populations occur in areas experiencing high rates of urbanization, such as the
Charlotte, NC and Augusta, GA greater metropolitan areas. The low numbers of individuals and
the restricted range of each of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (USFWS 1996). The cumulative effects
of several factors, including sedimentation, water quality degradation, habitat modification
(impoundments, channelization, etc.), urbanization and associated alteration of natural stream
discharge, invasive species, and other causes of habitat degradation have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range (USFWS 1996).
All of the populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated
streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving
populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or
activity, much like the endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta heterodon, Strayer
et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as
well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or
industrial -municipal complexes.
Siltation resulting from substandard land -use practices associated with activities such as
agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental
to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to
other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979).
Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery of
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 4

mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely
affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate
possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of
Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of
the river basins within the Carolina Heelsplitter's range have been impounded and this could be a
major factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting populations of
the Carolina Heelsplitter. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food
and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black,
Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes
in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those
of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least
20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river in North
Carolina.
3.2 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
3.2.1 Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad (1834) from the Savannah River in Augusta,
Georgia. Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm (2 inches)
in length. This species is tall relative to its length, except in headwater stream reaches where
specimens may be elongated. The hinge ligament is relatively short and prominent. The
periostracum is normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young individuals may have
greenish rays across the entire shell surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum
in the left valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the
posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored,
while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In
addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent
aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season.
When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic (short-term) breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 5

(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O'Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner (Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhynichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2011) found White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Creek Chub, Swallowtail Shiner
(Notropis procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for
Atlantic Pigtoe.
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Johnson (1970) reported the range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extended from the Ogeechee River
Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however, recent curation of the H.
D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia (Sarah
McRae, USFWS, personal communication). It is presumed extirpated from the Catawba River
Basin in North and South Carolina south to the Altamaha River Basin. The general pattern of its
current distribution indicates that the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages
and most populations are represented by few individuals. In North Carolina, aside from the
Waccamaw River, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope river basin. Except for the Tar
River, it is no longer found in the mainstem of the rivers within its historic range (Savidge et al.
2011).
The Atlantic Pigtoe has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the
Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams less than
one meter wide to large rivers. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and
coarse sand, usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates
and lotic habitat conditions.
3.2.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Section
3.1.3.). All of the remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in numbers and
restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted
range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a
single catastrophic event.
3.3 Alasmidonta varicosa (Brook Floater)
3.3.1 Species Characteristics
The Brook Floater, described from the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,
by Lamarck (1819), is a small mussel reaching a maximum size of around 70 min. The shells of
the Brook Floater are long rhomboid in outline with a yellowish to greenish smooth
perisotracum, which darkens to brown in adults, with green to black rays possible. The ventral
margin can be straight, but is frequently arcuate, especially in older individuals. The posterior
ridge is broad, somewhat inflated, and round. There is a second faint ridge above and together
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 6

the posterior ridges end in a biangulate margin. The posterior slope is flat to slightly concave,
usually with numerous short, low corrugations radiating toward the posterior margin. The
umbos are large, a little inflated, projecting little above the anterior margin, and are directed
anteriorly. Each valve has one small thin, triangular pseudocardinal tooth. Lateral teeth are
vestigial or lacking. The nacre is glossy, bluish white, and grades into pale orange in the umbo
cavity. The foot and mantle color are usually bright orange in color.
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Brook Floater ranges from the lower St. Lawrence River Basin in Canada south to the
Atlantic drainages of South Carolina. While still common in some areas, the species has
experienced significant declines throughout its range. In North Carolina, it is found in the
Roanoke, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee and Catawba River basins (Clarke 1981, Adams et al.
1990, Bogan 2002).
According to Ortmann (1919), the Brook Floater is most abundant in small streams with gravelly
bottoms, and prefers strong currents; thus it is frequently found in or near riffles. Johnson (1970)
stated that the Brook Floater "lives among rocks on gravel substrates; also on sandy shoals,
especially in rapids and riffles of small rivers and creeks". According to Fuller (1977) the
characteristic habitat of the Brook Floater is the sand floors or gravel riffles of small, upland,
rapidly flowing, oxygen -rich streams in upper portions of river systems. Eugene Kefrel in
Adams et al. (1990) noted that the Linville River of the Catawba River Basin population of this
species occurred near the mouth of the Linville River and Lake James. Most of the naiades
collected or observed were found in a sandy or silt substrate in the cracks between medium to
large boulders along a steep bank in 1 to 3 feet of water. Habitat in the Chatuga River of the
Savannah River Basin is described as bedrock crevices in swift rapids (John Alderman, personal
observations). Williams et al. (1993) lists the Brook Floater as Threatened and it is considered
Endangered in NC.
3.3.3 Threats to Species
Threats to the Brook Floater are similar to those described for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Section
3.1.3) and have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. All of the
remaining Brook Floater populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short
reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of
the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single
catastrophic event.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by 30aks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 18-ES00343), John
Roberts, Lizzy Stokes -Cawley, and Nancy Scott on October 23, 2018.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 7

4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Lanes Creek
Habitat primarily consisted of a long, shallow pool with low discernable flow. The exception
occurred surrounding and bisecting a large mid -channel island downstream of the bridge where
three distinct channels were formed that contained riffle and run habitat. A large amount of
woody debris and detritus had accumulated along these channels on mid -channel islands, which
included numerous mussel shells. The main channel ranged from 50-70 feet (ft) wide with
unstable banks that ranged from 6-9 ft high. Substrate was dominated by sand, gravel, and
cobble, with areas of mud, silt, and bedrock. Banks consisted of clay, silt, and root mats. A
narrow forested buffer surrounded the surveyed reach to active agriculture.
4.2 Mussel Survey Methodology
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 ft (400 meters) downstream of the
subject bridge crossing to approximately 328 ft (100 meters) upstream of the crossing for a
distance of approximately 1,640 ft (500 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were
searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team
spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom
view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly in streambanks under
submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate.
Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each species. Relative
abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following
criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
4.3 Results
A total of 10.7 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with low numbers of five
species of freshwater being found (Table 2).
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Lanes Creek
Scientific Name
Common Nam:e7l
# live shell
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lliptio complanata
Eastern Elliptio
1,13
0.09/hr
yganadon cataracta
Eastern Floater
5,23
0.47/hr
Uniomerus carolinianus
Florida Pondhorn
1,3
0.09/hr
Strophitus undulatus
Creeper
0,3
Villosa delumbis
lEastern Creekshell
2, 10
0.19/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 8

Scientific Name
Common Name
# live shell
Abundance/
CPUE
Cam eloma decisum
Pointed Cam eloma
P-C
orbicula fluminea
Asian Clam
C
elisoma ance s
wo-rid e Ramshorn
P-C
h sella s
Ph sid
P-C
5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports low abundance of freshwater mussels of five
relatively common species. Two additional species not located in the previous September 2016
survey (Florida Pondhorn and Creeper) were found during this effort. The Carolina Heelsplitter,
Atlantic Pigtoe, and Brook Floater were not found during the surveys, but based on habitat and
associate species present, they do have the potential to occur in the reach.
Based on these survey results, impacts are unlikely to occur in the study area. Strict adherence to
erosion control standards should minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to occur.
Biological conclusions on potential impacts from the project are provided below.
Biological Conclusion Carolina Heelsplitter: May Affect Not Likely To Adversely Affect
Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: May Affect Not Likely To Adversely Affect
The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is
recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the finding of this
document.
While the Brook Floater is not currently federally protected and no biological conclusion is
necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if the species were to receive federal protection
the appropriate biological conclusion is as follows:
Biological Conclusion Brook Floater: May Affect Not Likely To Adversely Affect
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 9

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, W. F., J. M. Alderman, R. G. Biggins, A. G. Gerberich, E. P. Keferl, H. J. Porter, and A.
S. Van Devender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's
freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh. 246 pp, Appendix A, 37 pp.
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC, 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326:1-101.
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399: 75.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Conrad, T.A. 1835. Additions to, and corrections of, the Catalogue of species of American
Naiades, with descriptions of new species and varieties of Fresh Water Shells. Pp. 18, 9.
Appendix to: Synoptical table to New freshwater shells of the United States, with
ccoloured illustrations; and a monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis
of the American naiades. J. Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2011. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC. 15pp.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.Robinson,
John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula mandensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents
on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page10

Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). A
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta rohusta),
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47.
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. 1815-1822. Histoire naturelle des Ammaux sans Vertebres. 8 volumes.
Lea, I. 1852. Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogart. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American
freshwater invertebrates. 2ndedition. Academic Press.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2019a. 2016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2019b. NPDES Wastewater Facilities. Accessed January 23, 2019.
https: //nedenr.maps. arcgis. com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4ca77e79b68 e466cbc
ae9713a28dde7d
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 11

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2019. Biotics Database. Division of Land
and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. January 2019
version.
O'Dee, S.H., and G.T. Waters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater
mussels. Pp. 77-82 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Waters, B.J. Armitage, P.D.
Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings Part 1.
Proceedings of the Conservation, Captive Care and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels
Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account
of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):xvi-384, 21 pls.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh -water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J.
Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols,
A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010
Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in
North Carolina. Unpublished report of theScientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Molluscs, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue 2005. Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool. 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered
Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 12

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule, Dept of the
Interior. Federal Register 67(127):44501-44522.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2007. Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 34 pp
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.Conservation
status of the freshwater mussels in the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 13

APPENDIX A
Figures
B-5795 Lanes Creek Mussel Survey Report March 2019
Job# 18-316 Page 14

Prepared Fov Y Freshwater Mussel Survey
B-5795: Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654
over Lanes Creek
l Prciect Vicinity & Survey Reach
Anson County, North Carolina
nae
January 2019
III" 0 50 100 Feel
r r
Joe No, 18-316
Uennn tlr
Chac*od Ry
LSC
7
Figure
1
Job# 18-316 Page 15

IN
+
q de
'Jk
NC 24
NC 27
+
FCOD, 22087
V5 601 X
N4
0 GAY
W
,/E' 0 1 D: 0
21454
+
Vto
+
N. ..4
A
M., D,
EO ID: 21776
6j
k,.%b
Bridge 217 40 g'"
NCNHP Element Occurrence
Carolina Heelsplitter EO ID: 22093
Atlantic Pigtoe
Brook Floater
Stream
't
County Boundary (0 Op en, e�ef Map
�� %n) can I N3.r s. CC:8:Y�6JA st
Prepared For
Freshwater Mussel Survey
B-5795: Bridge No 217 on SIR 1654
over Lanes Creek
Dale January 2019 Figure
Scale o 1 2 W-
Ar.3,4
NCNHP Element Occurrences
Job No
18-316
Anson County, North Carol!
LSC "'TID

t �
l
Norwood WWTP
(NC0021628)
t
4
f
�I
v �
t
'1
OpenStre&M4 (and)
�6Y
,1lIEf;Pj ;-PwedFor Freshwater Mussel Survey
J` B 5795: Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654
c� over Lanes Greek
303(d) Listed Streams and
��1df�3N1`' NPDES Discharges
Anson County, North Carolina
Pee Dee
Nldrnnn!
Wildlife
Helu r
G e.r
)itutors. -BY-SA
rr''M January 2019
,Hale L OS 1 Miles
L. !!
.we No 18-316
uw-n By Cnerkod Ow
LSC I T
Figure

BP10.R049) Questionnaire:
Existing Structure:
Can the existing bridge/culvert be removed during the winter months November 16 - March 14 ?
According to the contract time, the existing bridge should be able to be taken out by Winter Month. However,
it is up to contractor choice to do it outside of winter months as well.
Trees:
Can the trees in the project footprint be cut during the winter months (November 16 - March 14)?
Yes
Blasting:
Will blasting be used for thisproject? If so, will it occur between March 15 and November 15?
Not Anticipated
Percussive Activities:
What type of percussive activities will occur? (e.g., pile driving, guardrail installation
Pile driving during bridge construction and guardrail installation
Lighting:
Will temporary lighting for nighttime construction be necessary between March 15 and November 15?
Does permanent lighting exist in the project area and if so, will it be removed, or will new lighting be
added as a result of theproject?
No lighting is proposed for this project.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 217 on SR 1654 over Lanes Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment F
No Archaeological Survey Required Form,
Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
16-02-0049
,r
t HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
" is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-5795 County: Anson
WBS No.: 45749.1.1 Document PCE or MCC
Type: _
Fed. Aid No: BRZ-1654(003) Funding: ❑State ®Federal
Federal ® Yes ❑ No Permit NWP 3 or NWP 14
Permits : T e s :
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No. 217 over Lanes Creek on SR 1654 (Morton Road). Replace structure at
existing location. The area of potential effects is 75 feet either side from the centerline of the
roadway/bridge and 300 feet from either end of the bridge. Project length is approximately 600
feet. New right-of-way is proposed from the existing 60 feet but the amount will vary. There will
be an off -site detour but no work is anticipated on the detour route. Temporary and permanent
easements are required for this project.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities results and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPOweb GIS mapping, historic designations roster, and indexes
was conducted on 2/16/16. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, DE, LD or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Built in 1957, Bridge No. 217 is not eligible
for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) according to the North Carolina
Historic Bridge Inventory. Tax records and aerial imagery indicate that there are no properties in
the APE over the age of fifty years old. The APE is located in the northwest corner of Anson
County and consists of wooded areas and cleared farmland. Therefore, because there are no
potential historic resources within the APE, a survey will not be required for this project.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SUI2 VGY RIiQUIRIiD form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qoahjied in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 2

Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably- redicti tg that there
are no unidentified si ni rcant historic architectural or landscape resources in the ro'ect
area:
HPO quad maps, HPOweb GIS mapping, Google Street View, Google maps and Anson County
property records are considered valid tools for the purposes of determining the likelihood of
historic resources being present. A survey is not required for this project.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) []Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
02 / Ilp
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY RGQUIREDjorin for Mina• 7ransporialion Projects as Quali +rd in the 2007 Prograoanatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 2

A4
L»a}SYJJfi
(
n � �
Ill
_i '..�N"O\' r �
��•�'
•r1:O�::L
'•
i
e

ni
ci
z
di
M
'a
.1
In

Project Tracking No. r
16-02-0049
o NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
s This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
r valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.��
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No
WBS No
B-5795
45749.1.1
F.A. No: BRZ-1654(003)
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes
County:
Document:
Anson
Libr Or Mcc
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
❑ No Permit Type: nwp 3
Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 0217 on SR 1654 (Morton Rd.) over
Lane's Creek north of Polkton in Anson County. The undertaking involves the bridge replacement, in
place, with an offsite detour. Detailed design mapping was not available at the time of the review. This
is proposed as a replace -in -place bridge with an offsite detour. The new bridge may feature a wider deck
or may be higher and new ROW and/or construction easements may be required for fill, cuts and
drainage. For purposes of this archaeological review, the maximum archaeological Area of Potential
Effects (APE) is approximately 75 feet to either side of the bridge centerline. A maximum project length
of about 600 feet along SR 1654, centered on the bridge, will taper back into the existing roadway facility
at each end. This is a federally funded project and a Nation Wide Permit 3 is anticipated from USACE,
therefore, this is a federal undertaking and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act applies
for archaeological review.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
USGS mapping (Polkton) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The immediate
surroundings along SR 1654 and Bridge No. 0217 are undeveloped on the wooded, sloped terrain west
of Lee Creek and relatively level agricultural land east of the creek. SR 1654 may be a soil road.
Virtual drive -by was unavailable using Bing or Google Maps. No cemeteries were noted on USGS
mapping or the cemetery database maintained by NCDOT archaeologist Paul Mohler.
The Office of State Archaeology was visited in February, 2016, to review archaeological mapping and
reference any known archaeological surveys and sites. Few studies were noted in the broader vicinity
within the county, perhaps due to a lack of development. Three locations close to Bridge No. 0217 were
labeled as having environmental review for archaeology, including the bridge itself. Little information
could be found on these reviews with the exception of ER 02-10259, a curve realignment about 4000 feet
north along SR 1613 (Lee Road). For that project, no survey was recommended by HPO/OSA based on
modifications to an existing road that contained no known sites. Information could not be tracked down
about the review for a minor bridge 2000 feet to the north or the current structure, subject of this current
consideration. Neither apparently resulted in recommendations for archaeological survey, based on
symbology present on scanned mapping, probably in part, like the previously mentioned project, to the
limited scale of new disturbances. No known archaeological sites are present in within the APE or
broader vicinity.
Soils for this undertaking mainly involve the fairly sloped Badin-Goldston complex on the west side of
Lane's Creek (BgC, 8-15 percent slope) along with Goldston channery silt loam (GoE, 25-45 percent
slopes) and Shellbluff loam (ShA, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded) east of the creek. The terrain
on the west is not likely to have archeological remains, especially not intact deposits, based on the degree
of slope. On the approach from the east, the soil is more attractive for habitation, being both level and
fairly drained. However, impacts from the construction of the current SR 1654 and plowing have likely
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED " form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
16-02-0049
compromised the soil stratigraphy. Since this project is a Low Impact Bridge Replacement (LIBR) with
an offsite detour, impacts will be limited.
For this undertaking, the proposed replace in place bridge project will have a relatively confined
construction footprint. New ROW or easements may be required resulting in a somewhat expanded
construction footprint, however, an offsite detour is available for use minimizing local impact. No survey
is recommended for this undertaking as currently proposed.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
This project involves replacing a bridge in place with an offsite detour. While some new ROW and
easements may be required, existing disturbances associated with the construction of the current facility
and plowing have altered the landscape, diminishing potential archaeological integrity on the eastern half
of the project with more favorable soils. The other half of the project APE, on the west, is too sloped to
expect encountering archaeological remains of human habitation, especially ones that would be intact.
There are no known sites within the APE. No archaeological survey is recommended. Therefore, this
federally funded and permitted undertaking should be considered compliant with Section 106.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
CDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
2/14/2017
Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEYREQUIRED"formfor the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 4