20201723 Ver 1_Dan River NC 704 Br 8 Biological Assessment Final_20201112

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMEN T
POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO JAMES SPIN YMUSSEL (Parvaspina collina)
AND ADDIT IONAL FEDERALLY LISTED SP ECIES
Bridge No. 8 Replacement over the Dan River on NC 704
WBS element # 17BP.9.R.72
Stokes County, NC

Existing NC 704 Bridge and Dan River in Action Area

Contact Person:
Amy Euliss
Environmental Officer
NC Dept. of Transportation
Division 9
[e-mail]
[phone]

May 24, 2019
Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT AND ACTION AREA DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 1
2.1. Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Purpose and Need Statement ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.3. Description of Action Area .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.4. Federally Listed Species: Stokes County, NC .............................................................................................. 2
2.5. Other Consultation in Action Area ............................................................................................................... 3
2.6. Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.7. Bridge Removal ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.8. Utility Relocation ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.9. Detour Route ................................................................................................................................................ 4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ................................................................................................................... 4
3.1. Baseline Watershed Conditions ................................................................................................................... 4
3.1.1. Best Usage Classification .................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2. Impaired 303(d) List ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.3. Point Source Pollution ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.4. Nonpoint Source Pollution .................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.5. Restoration Efforts .............................................................................................................................. 7
3.2. James Spinymussel (Parvaspina collina) ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1. Species Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................................... 8
3.3. General Threats to James Spinymussel ........................................................................................................ 8
3.3.1 Sedimentation ...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 Habitat Alteration ................................................................................................................................ 9
3.3.3 Toxic Contaminants ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.3.4 Hydrologic Changes Due to Changes in Land Use ........................................................................... 13
3.3.5 Thermal Pollution .............................................................................................................................. 15
3.3.6 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.3.7 Loss of Riparian Buffers ................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.8 Action Area Survey Information ....................................................................................................... 17
4.0 EVALUATION EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON JSM .................................................................. 18
4.1. Construction Effects ................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Stream Fill (Substrate (Habitat) Disturbance/Loss)........................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Fish Host Effects ............................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Erosion/Sedimentation from Construction ........................................................................................ 19
4.1.4 Alteration of Flows/Channel Stability ............................................................................................... 20
4.1.5 Effects Associated with Borrow/Fill, Staging and Storage ............................................................... 20
4.2. Operational Effects..................................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1 Alteration of Flows/Channel Stability Over Time ............................................................................. 21
4.2.2 Roadway Runoff................................................................................................................................ 21
4.2.3 Toxic Spills ....................................................................................................................................... 21
4.3. Induced Land Development ....................................................................................................................... 22
4.4. Conclusion of Effects –JSM ....................................................................................................................... 22
4.4.1 Construction Effects .......................................................................................................................... 22
4.4.2 Operational Effects ............................................................................................................................ 23
4.4.3 Induced Land Development Effects .................................................................................................. 23
4.4.4 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................ 23
4.4.5 Biological Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 24
Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page ii
4.5. Project Conservation Measures .................................................................................................................. 24
4.5.1. Erosion Control Measures ................................................................................................................. 24
4.5.2. Bridge Deck Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 26
4.5.3. Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................................ 26
4.5.4. Construction Practices ....................................................................................................................... 26
4.5.5. Preconstruction Survey, Potential Mussel Relocation, and Post Construction Monitoring ............... 27
4.5.6. Additional Measures to Minimize Effects to James Spinymussel ..................................................... 27
5.0 ADDITIONAL FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES (STOKES COUNTY) .................................................... 27
5.1. Small-anthered Bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) ............................................................................... 27
5.1.1. Species Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 28
5.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................................. 28
5.1.3. General Threats to Species ................................................................................................................ 28
5.1.4. Presence in Action Area/Survey Results ........................................................................................... 28
5.1.5. Biological Conclusion: May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect ............................................. 29
5.2. Schweinitz’s Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) ..................................................................................... 29
5.2.1. Species Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 29
5.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................................. 29
5.2.3. General Threats to Species ................................................................................................................ 30
5.2.4. Presence in Action Area/Survey Results ........................................................................................... 30
5.2.5. Biological Conclusion: No Effect...................................................................................................... 30
5.3. Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) .................................................................................... 30
5.3.1. Species Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 31
5.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................................. 31
5.3.3. General Threats to Species ................................................................................................................ 31
5.3.4. Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect .............................................. 32
5.4 Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) ............................................................................................................... 32
5.4.1 Species Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 32
5.4.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements ............................................................................................. 32
5.4.3 General Threats to Species ................................................................................................................ 33
5.4.4 Presence in Action Area .................................................................................................................... 34
5.4.5 Biological Conclusion: No Effect...................................................................................................... 34
6.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 34
7.0 RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................. 35

Table of Tables
Table 1 - Federally Listed Species; Stokes County, North Carolina ............................................................................. 2
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Dan River ................................................................................................ 18
Table 3 - Federally Listed Species; Stokes County, North Carolina ........................................................................... 34

Table of Figures
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................................................. 47

Appendices
Appendix A - Figures .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix B - Permit Drawings ................................................................................................................................... 49
Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page iii
Glossary of Endangered Species Act Definitions:
Action Area – All areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely
the immediate area involved in the action. [50 CFR §402.02].
Cumulative effects - those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the Action Area of the Federal action
subject to consultation. [50 CFR §402.02] This definition applies only to section 7 analyses and
should not be confused with the broader use of this term in the National Environmental Policy
Act or other environmental laws.
Discountable – extremely unlikely to occur.
Effects of the action - the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat,
together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action.
These effects are considered along with the environmental baseline and the predicted cumulative
effects to determine the overall effects to the species for purposes of preparing a biological
opinion on the proposed action. [50 CFR §402.02] The environmental baseline covers past and
present impacts of all Federal actions within the Action Area. This includes the effects of
existing Federal projects that have not yet come in for their section 7 consultation.
Insignificant - relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs.
Interdependent action- An action that has no independent utility apart from the proposed action
that is subject to consultation [50 CFR §402.02].
Interrelated action - An action that is part of a larger action, and that depends on the larger action
for its justification [50 CFR §402.02].

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of Bridge
No. 8 over the Dan River on NC 704 in Stokes County (WBS element # 17BP.9.R.72).
The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to evaluate the potential effects of the subject
project on federally listed and proposed species and designated critical habitat in accordance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)). Section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA (16 USC 1531-1544 and Section 1536) requires that each Federal agency shall, in
consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), ensure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an
endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Since the proposed project requires approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), the project is subject to consultation under
Section 7 of the ESA. This BA is provided to satisfy the action agencies’ (USACE) obligations
under Section 7 of the ESA (See Glossary on Page iv of this report).
This BA addresses potential effects to federally protected species associated with the proposed
bridge replacement. This BA is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under
Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)) and is consistent with the standards established in US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Region 4 guidance (USFWS 2005).
2.0 PROJECT AND ACTION AREA DESCRIPTION
2.1. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 8 on NC 704 over the Dan River in Stokes County
(WBS element # 17BP.9.R.72) (Appendix A, Figure 1). Bridge No. 8 is 287 feet long. The
replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 302 feet long providing a minimum 34-foot
wide clear deck width. The bridge will include two 11-foot lanes and a varying offset between 5
and 8.5 feet. The approach roadway will extend approximately 919 feet from the northeast end
of the new bridge and 724 feet from the southwest end of the new bridge. The approaches will
be widened to include a 22-foot pavement width providing two 11-foot lanes. Five-foot grass
shoulders will be provided on each side (8-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The
roadway will be designed as a Major Collector using Sub-Regional Tier Guidelines with a 60
mile per hour design speed (NCDOT 2015). The new bridge will be constructed along a new
alignment north of the existing bridge. Traffic will utilize the existing roadway and structure
during construction.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 2
2.2. Purpose and Need Statement
NCDOT’s Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 8 has a sufficiency rating of
53.24 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient
(NCDOT 2015) and functionally obsolete according to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) standards. Components of both the superstructure and substructure have experienced
an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities.
There is no posted weight limit on the bridge for single vehicles or for truck-tractor semitrailers.
The bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of the bridge will result in
safer traffic operations.
2.3. Description of Action Area
The project Action Area is defined as all areas to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the
Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR §402.02]. For
this type of bridge replacement, the limits of effects are generally considered to include the limits
of construction of the approach, the onsite detour, and any area receiving runoff from the
construction activity, including the receiving river extending 400 meters (m) (1,314 feet)
downstream as well as a 100 m (328 feet) buffer upstream of the structure (Figure 1).
2.4. Federally Listed Species: Stokes County, NC
Based on the official USFWS species list by county (dated June 27, 2018), the USFWS lists five
federally protected species as occurring in Stokes County (Table 1). The James Spinymussel is
known to occur in the Dan River in Stokes County and has been confirmed at the project site.
Table 1 - Federally Listed Species; Stokes County, North Carolina
Scientific Name Common Name Status Present in Action Area
Cardamine micranthera Small-anthered Bittercress E No
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s Sunflower E No
Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat T No
Parvaspina collina James Spinymussel E Yes
Percina rex Roanoke Logperch E No
E denotes Endangered, T denotes Threatened.
The official species list for this project is based on potential federally listed species in all of
Stokes County. The Action Area for this project is much smaller in area than the county limits.
Given this, the species on the official species list that are outside the Action Area and do not
require ESA Section 7 consultation are noted as “No” in Table 1. These species are addressed
briefl y in this report with determination of effects provided in Section 6.0 of this report.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 3
2.5. Other Consultation in Action Area
There are no relevant previous consultations under Section 7 of the ESA with USFWS for
projects within this project Action Area (as defined in Section 2.0).
2.6. Construction
Bridge No. 8 is a five-span structure that consists of an asphalt overlay on a concrete deck on
concrete T-beams supported by reinforced concrete abutments and four reinforced concrete
interior piers. The existing bridge was constructed in 1952. Average daily traffic in 2013 was
480 vehicles; a detour would take nine miles (NCDOT 2015). Bridge 8 will be replaced by a
structure immediately upriver and east of the existing structure. The alignment of NC 704 will
be shifted slightly to accommodate this new bridge location and new roadway alignment. Traffic
will remain on the existing bridge until the new bridge is complete (see permit drawings in
Appendix B). The existing bridge, with an overall length (OAL) of 287 feet (ft) and width of
26.5 ft, will be replaced with a bridge having an OAL of 302 feet providing a minimum 34-foot
wide clear deck width. The bridge will include two 11-foot lanes and a varying offset between 5
and 8.5 feet. The new bridge will be wider than the existing bridge to provide the required
shoulders necessary for roadway and drainage. The roadway will be slightly widened to provide
the minimum lanes for safe travel. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing structure. One interior pier will be placed in the water for
the new bridge, reducing the number of bents in the water currently from two to one.
2.7. Bridge Removal
The contractor will be required to submit a proposed demolition plan for approval by the
Resident Engineer. That plan will be submitted to USFWS for review and comment. Prior to
bridge demolition, all asphalt-wearing surfaces will be removed from the concrete deck in a
manner that does not allow asphalt to enter the river. The removal of all concrete deck, rail,
diaphragms, and girders will be done by saw-cutting or non-shattering methods. A containment
system will be used to catch debris that inadvertently falls into the river. If debris does enter the
river, it will be removed. If the debris cannot be removed without disturbing the stream bed,
USFWS will be consulted for removal.
Temporary causeways will be used for demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the
new bridge on each side of the river. The causeways will be staged and will not impede more
than half of the flow of the river at any time. Turbidity curtains will be utilized during in water
work, including causeway placement and removal and bridge bent installation and removal.
When bridge bents have been removed to the water surface elevation, the remaining mass of
concrete will be removed to streambed elevation by underwater sawing or the use of a hoe ram to

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 4
break the bent at the streambed interface and lift it out as a unit. The disturbance of the stream
bottom will be limited to a 3-foot-wide area around the perimeter of the bent. The existing
footing below the streambed will be left in place to avoid additional streambed disturbance.
No explosives will be used to remove the existing bridge. Saw slurry will be contained by
approved vacuum methods.
Activities in the floodplain of the Dan River will be limited to those needed to construct the
proposed bridge and remove the existing bridge. Any material deposited in the floodplain as a
result of the project will be removed and the floodplain restored after the project is completed.
2.8. Utility Relocation
There are currently CenturyLink utility lines north (upstream) of the existing bridge. The
CenturyLink lines will use existing power poles to cross the river during construction and will
not require relocation.
2.9. Detour Route
The existing bridge will remain open to traffic during construction of the new bridge. Therefore,
no off-site detour will be required.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section discusses the Dan River watershed and the characteristics and current status of the
James Spinymussel throughout its ranges and within the proposed Action Area.
3.1. Baseline Watershed Conditions
The project Action Area is within the Upper Dan River Subbasin, which runs along the North
Carolina / Virginia state line and contains a mixed land use of agriculture, forest, and some
residential areas. The Upper Dan River Subbasin is the western-most subbasin of the Roanoke
River Basin (HUC# 03010103). The Dan River arises in Virginia on the eastern slope of the
Blue Ridge Mountains. Upon entering North Carolina, it passes through Stokes, Rockingham,
and Caswell counties before reentering Virginia. The overall Dan River watershed encompasses
3,300 square miles with approximately equal areas in North Carolina and Virginia. The Dan
River flows approximately 155 river miles (RM) from Bridge No. 8 to its confluence with the
Roanoke River in Virginia at Buggs Island Lake (John H. Kerr Reservoir).
The Upper Dan River Subbasin runs along the North Carolina/Virginia state line, draining five
counties within North Carolina: Surry, Stokes, Forsyth, Rockingham, and Caswell, it is within
the Blue Ridge and Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina. The 2010 population

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 5
for the subbasin was 124,907. In 2011, land cover in the subbasin was estimated to be 8.1%
developed, 64.5% forested, 16.5% agricultural, 6.5% grassland/herbaceous, 3.1% shrubland, and
<1% wetlands, open water, and barren land (StreamStats Version 4). Please note: The NC
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) was formerly named the NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). When reference is made to the NCDWQ, it is because these documents were
released before the name changed. In addition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) was renamed the Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ); any
citations that refer to NCDENR were released before the name was changed.
3.1.1. Best Usage Classification
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) assigns a best usage
classification to all waters of North Carolina. These classifications, which are the responsibility
of the Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), provide a level of water quality protection to
ensure that the designated usage of that water body is maintained. The minimum designation of
Class C waters is defined as waters that are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Class C imposes a minimum standard of
protection for all waters of North Carolina; they are protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses suitable for
Class C. Trout Waters is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters which
have conditions which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout
on a year-round basis. This classification is not the same as the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission's Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters designation. Dan River, from the
North Carolina – Virginia state line to Big Creek is a Class C, Trout Waters (NCDWQ 2011).
3.1.2. Impaired 303(d) List
As mandated in Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required
to develop lists of impaired waters, which are defined as water bodies that do not meet water
quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point
sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology.
These water quality standards include designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-
degradation requirements as defined in 40 CFR 131. Failures to meet standards may be due to an
individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or unknown causes of impairment, originating from
point and non-point sources and/or atmospheric deposition. The law requires that these
jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDLs) limits of identified pollutants for these waters.
The 303(d) Category 5 streams require a TMDL or TMDL alternative. The 2016 303(d) list has
been finalized after receiving approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Dan River is not on the NCDWR 303(d) list of impaired streams. The closest impairment is

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 6
Big Creek, a tributary to the Dan River, approximately 6.74 RM downstream of the study area
(NCDENR 2016); it is impaired due to fair bioclassification.
The Dan River was listed as impaired by the NCDWQ for aquatic life due to high turbidity levels
in 2002 and high fecal coliform bacteria levels in 2008. The NCDWQ completed a Total
Maximum Daily Load assessment (TMDL) for turbidity on the entire Dan River in 2005 and
concluded that the dominant sources of sediment were rural erosion sites (NCDWQ 2012).
3.1.3. Point Source Pollution
Point source discharge is defined as discharge that enters surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or
other well-defined point of discharge. These include municipal (city and county) and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities, small domestic discharging treatment systems (schools,
commercial offices, subdivisions and individual residents), and stormwater systems from large
urban areas, and industrial sites. The primary substances and compounds associated with point
source discharge include nutrients, oxygen demanding wastes, and toxic substances such as
chlorine, ammonia, and metals.
Under Section 301 of the CWA, discharge of pollutants into surface waters is prohibited without
a permit by the EPA. Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program, which delegates permitting authority to
qualifying states. In North Carolina, NCDWR is responsible for permitting and enforcement of
the NPDES program. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the NPDES program. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. NPDES
dischargers are divided into two categories: individual and general. General permits are issued
for specific activities, including non-contact cooling water discharges, petroleum-based
groundwater remediation, sand dredging, seafood packaging, and domestic discharges from
single family residences. Individual permits are issued on a case-by-case basis for activities not
covered under general permits. Individual permits are divided into two classes: major and minor.
Major discharges are permitted to discharge one million gallons per day (MGD) or greater.
Minor discharges are permitted to discharge less than 1 MGD.
The NPDES Permitting Policy includes limits on various parameters, including, but not limited
to chlorine (since October 2002), ammonia, fecal coliform, biological oxygen demand (BOD),
dissolved oxygen (DO), flow, and temperature, for the existing facilities.
There are both NPDES individual permit discharges and NPDES general permit discharges in
this general portion of the subbasin (USEPA 2017). Individual NPDES permits are issued on a
case by case basis and are site specific. General permits, on the other hand, cover discharges
with similar operations and types of discharges that are applicable state-wide. The requirements
of a general permit are defined and known by the permittee. In general, an individual permit will

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 7
take longer to be issued than a general permit (NCDEQ 2017). The closest individual permitted
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge is on an unnamed tributary
of the Dan River that flows into the Dan River approximately 5.8 RM downstream of the study
area: North Stokes High School, NC0044962 (USEPA 2017). There are also several General
Permit facilities in the subbasin, however, they are not anticipated to significantly alter water
quality in the Action Area.
3.1.4. Nonpoint Source Pollution
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
or snowmelt. There are many types of land use activities that are sources of nonpoint source
pollution, including land development, construction activity, animal waste disposal, mining,
agriculture, and forestry operations, as well as impervious surfaces such as roadways and parking
lots. The effects of non-point pollution on aquatic species associated with impervious surface
area are discussed in detail in Section 3.3.4.
Various NPS management programs have been developed by a number of agencies to control
specific types of NPS pollution (e.g. pesticide, urban, and construction related pollution, etc.).
Each of these management plans develops Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control for a
specific type of NPS pollution. For example, financial incentives to reduce agricultural NPS
pollution are provided through North Carolina’s Agriculture Cost Share Program, administered
by the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation to protect water quality by
installing BMPs on agricultural lands.
When crossing an aquatic resource containing a federally listed species, as is the case with this
project, NCDOT has committed to implementing erosion control guidelines that go beyond both
the standard BMPs, as well as the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, regardless of the
NCDWR classification. These areas are designated as “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” on the
erosion control plans (see Section 4.1).
3.1.5. Restoration Efforts
The Upper Dan River Subbasin has been prioritized as an area of focus by the NC Watershed
Restoration Improvement Team (WRIT). The WRIT is comprised of representatives from
different NCDEQ and NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services divisions and
programs who are working to better coordinate watershed efforts across the state (NCDWQ
2012).
3.2. James Spinymussel (Parvaspina collina)
Status: Endangered

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 8
Family: Unionidae
Listed: July 22, 1988
Critical Habitat: None designated
3.2.1. Species Characteristics
The James Spinymussel (JSM) is a small freshwater mussel slightly less than three inches in
length. Adults have a dark brown shell with prominent growth rings and occasionally, short
spines on each valve. Young mussels have a shiny yellow shell with or without one to three
short spines.
Like other freshwater mussels, this species is a filter feeder. It feeds on plankton collected from
water that is passed over its gills. Females carry eggs in their gills. During spawning, the male
releases sperm into the water column and the sperm is taken into the female through the gills.
The resulting larvae (known as glochidia) are released from the female into the water column
and must attach to a fish host to survive. While attached to a fish host, development of the
glochidia continues. Once metamorphosis is complete, the juvenile mussel drops off the fish
host and continues to develop on the stream bottom. Known fish hosts for this species include
the Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus funduloides),
Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), Mountain Redbelly Dace (Phoxinus oreas), Rosefin
Shiner (Lythrurus ardens), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella analostana), Central Stoneroller
(Campostoma anomalum), and Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis procne) (USFWS 1990).
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The JSM is known to occur in portions of the James River Basin in Virginia, and the Dan River
Subbasin of the Roanoke River Basin in North Carolina and Virginia and is found in waters with
slow to moderate current and relatively hard water on sand and mixed sand-gravel substrates that
are free from silt. Prior to its decline, this freshwater mussel was found throughout the upper
James River above Richmond, Virginia and in all of its major upstream tributaries. At the time
of listing the species had not been recorded in the Dan River Subbasin; thus, historical
information regarding the distribution in the basin is unknown. The species has declined rapidly
during the past several decades and now exists only in small, headwater tributaries of the upper
James River Basin in Virginia and West Virginia and the upper Roanoke River drainage of
Virginia and North Carolina (NatureServe 2017a).
3.3. General Threats to James Spinymussel
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point
discharge, and stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. When mussel populations are reduced to a small
number of individuals and are restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are extremely
vulnerable to extirpations from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996).

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 9
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.
3.3.1 Sedimentation
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 (USFWS 1996). 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; Markings
and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than 25 mm (one inch) have been shown to
cause high mortalit y in most mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge
construction project decimated a population of another federally listed mussel species, the Dwarf
Wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta heterdon) because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion
(Smith 1981).
3.3.2 Habitat Alteration
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 5.79 meters (19 feet) of muck (USFWS 1992b). Several
impoundments occur on the Mayo River and Dan River. Without historic data on the
distribution of the JSM in the basin, it is difficult to determine if these structures had any impact
on the species.
3.3.3 Toxic Contaminants
Pollution in waterways is known to adversely affect aquatic organisms in a variety of ways.
Choudri and Baawain (2016) summarize the adverse impacts to aquatic organisms from multiple
types of pollutants. With regard to freshwater mussels, the presence of toxic contaminants has
been shown to contribute to widespread declines of populations (Havlik and Marking 1987;
Bogan 1993; Neves et al. 1997; Richter et al. 1997; Strayer et al. 2004; Henley et al. 2016).
Toxic contaminants can produce lethal or sub-lethal responses to freshwater mussels. The
sensitivities of freshwater mussels to toxic contaminants is variable based on species, life stage
(glochidium, juvenile, or adult), and environmental conditions, as well as concentration and
exposure type (water column, sediments, etc.), frequency, and duration. Several studies have

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 10
indicated that early life stages of freshwater mussels are among the most sensitive aquatic
organisms to various inorganic toxicants such as copper (Jacobson et al. 1993; Jacobson et al.
1997; Milam et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2007a; Wang et al. 2007b), manganese and ammonia
(NH3) (Archambault et al. 2017, Wade 1992; Augspurger et al. 2003; Bartsch et al. 2003;
Newton et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2007a; Wang et al. 2007b; Grabarkiewicz and Davis 2008).
Anthropogenic sources of ammonia and copper in surface waters include sewage treatment
effluent, industrial wastewater effluent, and runoff and ground water contamination from
agriculture, lawn/turf management, livestock operations, roadways, and faulty septic systems.
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 mussel populations might not occur for up to two miles below discharges of chlorinated
sewage effluent. Similarly, Gillis et al. (2014) found that mussels were absent for 7 km (4.3
miles) below a waste water treatment plant (WWTP) on the Grand River in Ontario, Canada.
Water quality measurements taken as part of this study demonstrated that ammonia and nitrate
concentrations, along with diel declines in oxygen, were associated with the extirpation of
mussels in that 4.3-mile reach. Mussels returned to the river below a large tributary suggesting
that the addition of the tributary improved water quality conditions to a level that supported
mussels (Gillis et al. 2017).
Additionally, exposure to raw sewage can have numerous impacts on aquatic organisms,
resulting in fish kills and damage to shellfish beds (USEPA 2011).
Recent studies indicated that previous federal water quality criteria for many pollutants
commonly found in wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff were likely not protective of
freshwater mussels; nationwide regulations controlling the discharge or runoff of these pollutants
are also not protective (Augspurger et al. 2003). The previous (1999) EPA-recommended
‘freshwater ammonia aquatic life ambient water quality’ criteria were based on the most
sensitive endpoints known at the time: the acute criterion was based primarily on effects on
salmonids (where present) or other fish, and the chronic criterion was based primarily on
reproductive effects on the benthic invertebrate Hyalella or on survival and growth of fish early
life stages (when present) (USEPA 2009). Research demonstrated that these standards were not
protective of freshwater mussel species, which are some of the most sensitive aquatic organisms
to ammonia. As a result, the EPA recently revised the freshwater ammonia aquatic life ambient
water quality criteria (acute and chronic standards) to reflect freshwater mussel species
sensitivity thresholds (USEPA 2013).
When publishing the five-year review for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata),
another federally endangered freshwater mussel species that occurs in North Carolina, the
USFWS stated that there were “currently no water quality standards, or monitoring requirements
for ammonia, copper and phosphorus in North Carolina” (USFWS 2012).

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 11
The Goose Creek Site Specific Management Plan (NCDENR 2009), which was developed to
provide protection for the Carolina Heelsplitter, requires that any direct or indirect discharge that
may cause ammonia toxicity to the Carolina Heelsplitter implement measures to reduce ammonia
inputs to achieve 0.5 milligrams per liter or less of total ammonia based on chronic toxicity
defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0202 (NCAC 1998). This level of total ammonia is based on
ambient water temperature equal to or greater than 25 degrees Celsius (NCDENR 2009).
While there are still no adopted standards or monitoring requirements for ammonia and
phosphorus in North Carolina, standards have recently been developed for copper, as updated in
the Triennial Review of Standards (North Carolina Register 2014).
In addition, studies indicate other toxicants present in wastewater effluent such as
pharmaceuticals and personal care products (fluoxitine, estrogenic compounds, opiate derivatives
etc.) cause a wide array of neurotoxicological (Gagné et al 2007a), reproductive (Bringolf et al.
2007; Gagné et al 2007b) and behavioral (Hazelton et al. 2013, Heltsley et al. 2006) impacts to
freshwater mussels (de Solla et al. 2016).
Other sources of toxic contaminants in surface waters arise from highway and urban runoff.
Gillis (2012) demonstrated that chronic exposure to a combination of WWTP effluent and
highway runoff negatively affected freshwater mussel health and life span in urbanized
watersheds; although, a specific cause was not identified, the assumption is that chronic exposure
to multiple contaminants negatively effects health and longevity. Numerous pollutants have
been identified in highway runoff, including various metals (lead, zinc, iron, copper, cadmium,
etc.), sediment, pesticides, deicing salts, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), and petroleum
hydrocarbons (Gupta et al. 1981; Yousef et al. 1985; Davis et al. 2001; Gillis et al. 2014). The
sources of these runoff constituents range from construction and maintenance activities to daily
vehicular use. Hoffman et al. (1984) concluded that highway runoff can contribute up to 80
percent of the total pollutant loadings to receiving water bodies; identifying, among others,
petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), lead, and zinc. PAH
compounds are largely derived from petroleum related sources (e.g., gasoline, oil) and are of
major concern from transportation-related runoff to aquatic systems due to their potential acute
and chronic (e.g., mutagenic and carcinogenic) toxic properties (Humphries 2006). The toxicity
of highway runoff to aquatic ecosystems is poorly understood. A major reason for this poor
understanding is a lack of studies focusing solely on highway runoff. Potential effects of
highway runoff have often been inferred from studies conducted on urban runoff; however, the
relative loadings of pollutants are often much greater in urban runoff, because of a larger
drainage area and lower receiving water dilution ratios (Dupuis et al. 1985). The negative effects
of urban runoff inputs on benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been well documented
(Garie and McIntosh 1986; Jones and Clark 1987; Field and Pitt 1990). Lieb (1998) found the
macroinvertebrate community of a headwater stream in Pennsylvania to be highly degraded by
urban runoff via a detention pond. Improvements were observed at continual distances

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 12
downstream from the discharge point; however, all sites examined were still impaired compared
to a reference community.
The few studies that examined actual highway runoff show that some species demonstrate little
sensitivity to highway runoff exposure, while others are much more sensitive (Dupuis et al.
1985). Maltby et al. (1995) found elevated levels of hydrocarbons and metals in both stream
sediments and the water column below a heavily traveled British motorway. They demonstrated
that the benthic amphipod (Gammarus pulex) experienced a decrease in survival when exposed
to sediments contaminated with roadway runoff. However, this species showed no increase in
mortality when exposed to water contaminated with roadway runoff. Most of these studies only
measured acute toxicity to runoff and did not examine long-term effects.
The effects of highway runoff on freshwater bivalves have not been studied extensively.
Augspurger (1992) compared sediment samples and soft tissues of three Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio
complanata), a relatively common species upstream and downstream of the I-95 crossing of
Swift Creek of the Tar River Basin in Nash County, North Carolina. The sediment samples, as
well as the mussels, exhibited higher levels of aliphatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, lead, zinc, and
other heavy metal contaminants in the downstream samples. Because of the small sample size,
the effect on the health of these mussels was not studied. In another study, contaminant analysis
of stream sediments showed an increase of PAHs and some metals downstream of road
crossings, although there was no direct correlation found between increasing contaminant levels
and decreasing mussel abundance at these crossings (Levine et al. 2005). The Eastern Elliptio
was the only mussel species that was found in large enough numbers for statistically valid
comparisons. The Eastern Elliptio is generally considered more tolerant of water quality
degradation than many other mussel species. However, Humphries (2006) did show that mussels
from streams with higher average daily traffic counts (ADTC) exhibited greater levels of genetic
damage compared to mussels from streams with lower ADTC values. Additionally, laboratory
data showed increasing DNA damage relative to increasing PAH concentration. Humphries
(2006) concluded that “PAHs are not likely contributing to acute toxicity of mussels in North
Carolina streams, but the chronic, long-term pervasive effect of PAHs on native freshwater
mussels remains uncertain.” Further research is needed before the effects of highway runoff on
sensitive mussel species such as the JSM can be determined.
While additional research is needed to document highway runoff effects on freshwater mussels
generally, contamination of surface water from toxic spills along roadways is known to have
significant impacts to aquatic communities. A toxic spill resulting from a tanker truck accident
that was carrying Octocure 554 (a chemical liquid used in the rubber making process) killed
several miles of mussel populations in the Clinch River near Cedar Bluff, Virginia (Richmond
Times Dispatch 1998). The spill killed thousands of fish and mussels, including three federally
protected species. The Clinch River contains one of the most diverse mussel faunas in the
United States. The stretch of the river affected by the spill was one of the few remaining areas

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 13
that contained a reproducing population of the endangered Tan Riffleshell (Epioblasma
florentina walkeri), the last viable population in the Tennessee River Basin. As part of a
settlement agreement with the trucking company and the Department of Interior, $3.8 million
was paid to a restoration fund for the river. A major component of the funds went toward
propagation and release of Tan Riffleshell back into the Clinch River (VDGIF 2018). Presence
of hazardous spill basins adjacent to crossings of waterways that support sensitive species
provides the potential to avoid/ minimize major kills such as this.
3.3.4 Hydrologic Changes Due to Changes in Land Use
The Dan River watershed has experienced a small degree of urbanization (see Section 3.1). The
correlation of increasing development within a watershed and decreasing water quality is well
documented (Lenat et al. 1979; Garie and McIntosh 1986; Crawford and Lenat 1989; Lieb 1998),
and is largely associated with increases in impervious surface area. These increases in
impervious surface area can affect water quality in a variety of ways, particularly with regard to
changes to stream flow, water temperature, total suspended sediment, and pollutant loadings.
Multiple studies have demonstrated that water quality and stream ecosystem degradation begins
to occur in watersheds that have approximately ten percent coverage by impervious surfaces
(Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Stewart et al. 2000). NCWRC recommendations for
management of protected aquatic species watersheds are to limit imperviousness to six percent of
the watershed (NCWRC 2002). The 2012 NCDWQ Roanoke River Basinwide Plan indicates the
North Carolina portion of the Upper Dan River basin is 8.3 percent urbanized. Impervious
surfaces make up approximately 1.4% of the entire Upper Dan River basin (including both North
Carolina and Virginia portions) (StreamStats Version 4). Increases in impervious surface area
within a watershed can result in extremes (either high or low) in peak discharge, runoff volume,
and base flow conditions.
3.3.4.1 Peak Discharge
Peak discharge is the maximum rate of stormwater flow expected from a storm event, measured
in cubic feet per second (cfs). Peak discharge is often one metric used in analyzing effects from
development and affects channel stability (or instability). Increases in peak discharge equates to
higher velocit y, which in turn increases the scouring effect (surface erodibility) of the runoff.
Accordingl y, sedimentation will increase as erosion rates increase. Increases of peak discharge
rates, coupled with deforestation, have been shown to result in stream narrowing and incision
and subsequent loss of ecosystem function (Sweeney et al. 2004). Shields et al. (1994) found
that during base flows, incised streams contained fewer habitat types, particularly pool habitats,
and lower fish species diversity than non-incised streams. Conversely, increases in peak
discharge can also result in channel widening, as streambanks become susceptible to mass failure
(Simon and Rinaldi 2006), which have been noted in a few areas in Swift Creek (Tim Savidge,

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 14
Three Oaks, personal observations). As stream channels begin to become unstable, incision is
typically the dominant result; however, once a critical threshold is passed, channel widening can
occur rapidly (Shields et al. 1994). Harvey and Watson (1986) found that increases in channel
cross- sectional area of up to 1,000% can occur within a few years. Increased peak discharges in
areas of streams dominated by bedrock and boulder outcroppings intersecting the stream channel
tend to widen the stream much more than deepening, as the energy gets dissipated horizontally.
3.3.4.2 Runoff Volume
Runoff volume is the amount of stormwater expected from a storm event, measured in acre-feet.
Like peak discharge, runoff volume is another metric often used in determining impacts of
development, especially on the aquatic environment. For example, increases in the amount of
runoff normally equates to increased sediment. While the two indicators are related, when
analyzed separately, both are useful in assessing impacts to aquatic systems.
In a stable system, an increase in the velocity may have little impact if volume does not change,
provided that measures to slow the increased velocity have been implemented. However, the
increased runoff volume may have enough sediment to cause detrimental impacts. Regardless, it
is important to consider both the rate (peak discharge) and the amount (runoff volume) when
assessing effects to aquatic systems. Again, sufficient stormwater controls accompanying future
development activities in any given watershed are essential for conservation of sensitive aquatic
species such as JSM.
3.3.4.3 Decreased Base Flow
Increases of impervious surface lead to decreases in infiltration and base flow (groundwater
flow) within adjacent streams. This can result in the following:
• Less water to cover the stream bottom during periods of reduced base flow.
• Increases in water evaporation and temperature in widened streams as a result of reduced
overhanging tree cover and increased exposure to sunlight, especially in areas with
shallower water.
• Extension of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent “plume” further
downstream, if base flow is reduced and WWTP discharge remains constant or increases,
as it takes longer for the stream to dilute the nutrients and other toxins in the effluent.
Just as the road network in a watershed affects peak discharge, it also can lead to a reduction of
base flow. While the total amount of water remains relatively constant, base flows decrease
because the rapid runoff (increases the timing and volume of peak discharge) reduces the total
amount of water that can infiltrate and be stored in the soil (Castro 2003).

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 15
The effects of lowered base flow as a result of changes in the landscape are further exacerbated
by water withdrawals. Permitted and un-permitted water withdrawals for crop and turf/lawn
irrigation further exacerbate this effect. In North Carolina, permits are required for water
withdrawals of one million gallons or greater for agricultural uses (100,000 gallons per day for
non-agricultural uses). Withdrawals less than this are not regulated and are often unknown.
Prolonged periods of drought have been shown to adversely impact mussel species (Johnson et
al. 2001; Golladay et al. 2005; USFWS 2012), as mussels may face increased water temperatures
and reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations (hypoxia, or eventually anoxia), increased
predation, and emersion or stranding (Johnson et al. 2001).
While drought is recognized as a major threat for many mussel species, the actual low flow
requirements of mussels is poorly understood. Johnson et al. (2001) and Golladay et al. (2005)
assessed drought impacts on mussel assemblages in a number of streams in the Flint River Basin
of southwestern Georgia. Flow rate, water temperature, water depth, and DO were monitored
throughout the study and sites were classified as flowing or non-flowing during the drought
period. Sites that ceased flowing during the drought had significant declines in the abundance of
all mussel species, some of which are endangered, as well as declines in species richness.
However, sites that maintained some flow during the drought had increases in stable species of
mussels and no change in special concern or endangered species through the drought. Mortality
of mussels at sites that ceased flowing was attributed to reductions in DO concentration, which
was highly correlated with water velocity.
3.3.5 Thermal Pollution
Concerns over effects of thermal pollution from urban runoff on aquatic systems have increased
in recent years. Elevation of stream temperature can raise BOD, lower DO, and alter faunal
composition (Poole et al. 2001, Roa-Espinosa et al. 2003). Typically, runoff from an impervious
area will have a temperature similar to that of the impervious area. During the hot summer
months, this could potentially make the stormwater runoff reach temperatures up to and above
90°F, which could be detrimental to aquatic life, such as freshwater mussels. Rising stream
water temperatures have been shown to have lethal and sub-lethal effects on freshwater mussels
during different life stages. Thermal stress on juvenile mussels was demonstrated to result in
reduced burrowing capacity and inhibited byssal thread production, which may hamper their
ability to escape predation or extreme high or low flows, as well as limit their attachment and
dispersal capabilities (Archambault et al. 2013). The thermal tolerance of freshwater mussels “is
controlled by multiple interacting and complex factors” (Pandolofo et al. 2012). For example,
mussels are not only limited by their own thermal tolerances, but also by those of their host fish
(Pandolofo et al. 2012). Pandolofo et al. (2010) suggested that freshwater mussels “already
might be living close to their upper thermal tolerances in some systems”.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 16
Traditional structural stormwater controls, such as open storm-water detention ponds/basins that
do not allow for infiltration, do not protect receiving water bodies against adverse temperature
effects. Various stormwater BMPs have been shown to be effective in ameliorating temperature
effects (NC State Cooperative Extension 2006a). For example, bioretention devices were shown
to reduce runoff temperature by 5-10°F in Greensboro, NC (NC State Cooperative Extension
2006b). The loss of riparian buffers as well as peak discharge related channel widening can also
contribute to stream temperature increases, by increasing sunlight exposure and decreasing water
depth. Increases in the level of imperviousness within a watershed can result in unnatural
widening of stream channels. This is due to increasing stormwater flows, that erode and widen
stream channels, which in turn decreases the vegetative shading and leads to increases in water
temperatures.
3.3.6 Invasive Species
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 surviving
populations of the JSM. 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 supporting
JSM populations.
3.3.7 Loss of Riparian Buffers
Loss of riparian buffers can lead to degradation of adjacent aquatic habitats. The role of forested
riparian buffers in protecting aquatic habitats is well documented (NCWRC 2002). Riparian
buffers provide many functions including pollutant reduction and filtration, a primary source of
carbon for aquatic food webs, stream channel stability, and maintenance of water and air
temperatures. Numerous studies have recommended a range of buffer widths needed to maintain
these functions. Recommended widths vary greatly depending on the parameter or function
evaluated. Wide contiguous buffers of 100-300 feet are recommended to adequately perform all
functions (NCWRC 2002). The NCWRC recommends a minimum 200-foot native, forested
buffer on perennial streams and a 100-foot forested buffer on intermittent streams in watersheds
that support federally endangered and threatened aquatic species (NCWRC 2002). Although not

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 17
officially adopted, the USFWS uses the NCWRC recommendations as guidance when addressing
federally protected aquatic species in North Carolina.
3.3.8 Action Area Survey Information
On October 13, 2016, Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson, Chris Sheats, Nancy Scott, and
Mary Frazer conducted surveys within a 500-meter (400 meters downstream and 100 meters
upstream) survey reach of the NC 704 bridge crossing of the Dan River. This portion of the Dan
River consisted of riffle, run, and pool habitat. The river channel was approximately 75 feet
wide with mostly vegetated banks five to eight feet high. Substrate was dominated by silt, sand,
gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock.
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 ft (400 meters) downstream of the
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.
A total of 14.7 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with three species of
freshwater mussel, the Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata), James Spinymussel, and Notched
Rainbow (Villosa constricta), being found (Table 2). Other mollusk species found during the
survey included the Asian Clam and the aquatic snail Crested Mudalia (Leptoxis carinata). All
of the freshwater mussels observed occurred within an approximately 60-feet section of the creek
between 120-180 feet downstream of the bridge and all but five individuals were found in a back
eddy habitat created by an embedded log along the left descending bank, approximately 120 feet
downstream of the bridge.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 18
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Dan River
Scientific Name Common Name # live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 271 18.44/hr
Parvaspina collina James Spinymussel 2 0.14/hr
Villosa constricta Notched Rainbow 1 0.07/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Asian Clam ~ C
Leptoxis carinata Crested Mudalia ~ P-C
4.0 EVALUATION EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON JSM
This section evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the project. The types effects to the
freshwater mussels and mussel habitat discussed above were used to frame the potential effects
from the subject project that were evaluated. The project related effects are presented in three
categories: Construction Effects, Operation Effects, and Induced Land Use Effects.
4.1. Construction Effects
Based on mussel survey data and habitat evaluations, JSM have been reported in the Action Area
of the proposed bridge replacement (Appendix B). The project is located in a section of the Dan
River that is occupied by this species. There is the potential for construction of the new bridge
and removal of the existing bridge to affect JSM, as described below.
4.1.1 Stream Fill (Substrate (Habitat) Disturbance/Loss)
Highway construction within and around water bodies often results in the placement of fill into
streams and adjacent floodplains. Two types of fill may occur, permanent and temporary.
Permanent fills consist of bridge piers and abutments, culvert and pipe construction or
extensions, and roadway fill slopes. Construction causeways and work bridges used for
equipment access are examples of temporary fill. The specific effects to the stream are as
follows: <0.02 acre for riprap at the embankment, <0.001 acre (29 square feet) permanent fill for
the instream bent, and 0.11 acre (4,791 square feet) of temporary fill for the work pads.
4.1.2 Fish Host Effects
There is the potential for fish infested with JSM glochidia to be present in the Action Area
during demolition of the existing structure and while the replacement crossing structure is being

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 19
constructed. Lethal and sub-lethal effects to these fish resulting from construction, would in turn
effect the attached mussel glochidia.
Mortality of individual fish can occur during construction in a variety of ways. Individuals can
be crushed during pile driving, or causeway placement. Causeway construction may also strand
individuals in areas that are dewatered or congregate them into ponded areas where temperature
and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels may impact their health and/or survival. Dispersal of host fish
from the areas being affected by construction/demolition may increase their susceptibility to
predation while they seek alternate habitats.
Acoustic, or noise impacts, can also occur to fish during pile driving and causeway placement.
Underwater sound waves emitting from these actions can cause tissue damage to fish that can be
lethal. There are several factors which affect the level of impact, including, frequency, sound
pressure, acoustic impulse and distance from source (Caltrans Office of Environmental
Engineering 2001). Anatomical and physiological traits of the fish species may also influence
their susceptibility to sound impacts. For example, shiners and other ostariophysan fishes
contain a series of small bones called Weberian Ossicles that connect the auditory system to the
swim bladder, whereas, darters and other species in the Neotelostei clade do not have a close
swim bladder-auditory system connection. Studies have shown that the level of inflation of the
swim bladder greatly influenced hearing sensitivity of species with Weberian Ossicles and had
no significant effect on species without this structure (Moyle and Cech 1988). The size of the
fish also influences sensitivity to sound effects, as larger fish appear to be able to withstand a
larger sound impulse than small sized fish (Caltrans Office of Environmental Engineering 2001,
Yelverton et al. 1975). A further summary of the effects of acoustics on fish, including, bridge
construction related effects, are provided in Caltrans Office of Environmental Engineering
(2001) and references contained within. Significant acoustic effects are not anticipated to occur.
As mentioned in Section 2.7, explosives will not be used during demolition of the existing
structure, limiting the potential acoustic effects to noise generated from sawing or hoe ramming
the existing bents during removal.
Sub-lethal effects on host fish from construction activities can range from physiological stress
(lower DO) associated with causeway de-watering, non-lethal tissue damage related to acoustic
effects, and non-lethal effects to the fish sensory system, which may impact their ability to detect
predators. All of these could in turn affect the ability of attached glochidia to successfully
transform into juveniles.
4.1.3 Erosion/Sedimentation from Construction
The detrimental effects of erosion/sedimentation on freshwater mussels are discussed in Section
3.3.4. Excessive suspended solids in the water column, sedimentation, and turbidity result in
reduced biodiversity as well as a decline in productivity at all trophic levels (Gilbert 1989). As

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 20
discussed in Section 4.5.1, NCDOT is committing to using the Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds [15A NCAC 04B .0124 (b) – (e)] throughout the project. With adherence to these
measures, the potential for erosion/sedimentation effects are greatly reduced; however, it cannot
be eliminated entirely. The amount of sedimentation/erosion that will result from project
construction and the level to which it adversely effects the JSM is difficult to predict and is
dependent on several factors, such as the frequency and duration of rainfall events during
construction that exceed the erosion control design devices, construction duration and adherence
to proper maintenance of erosion control devices, and the promptness to respond and remediate
erosion control failures. As such, some level of erosion/sedimentation effects are expected to
result from project construction within the defined Action Area. The level of effects and whether
they lead to any mortality cannot be determined.
4.1.4 Alteration of Flows/Channel Stability
Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks are essential for the survival and conservation
of many freshwater mussel species, including JSM. Stream channel instability can result directly
from bridge construction and culvert/pipe crossings. Natural stream stability is achieved when
the stream exhibits a stable dimension, pattern, and profile such that over time, the channel
features are maintained, and the channel neither aggrades, nor degrades. Channel instability
occurs when scour results in degradation, or when sediment deposition leads to aggradation
(Rosgen 1996). The placement of fill, such as bridge piers, culverts, pipes, and causeways, into
streams can alter the normal flow pattern of a water body by reducing flow velocities upstream,
increasing sedimentation and flow velocities downstream, and resulting in scour and erosion.
Based upon the preliminary design and NCDOT stormwater design flow standards, little to no
direct alteration of flows and/or channel stability are expected to the Dan River. As such,
alteration of flows/channel stability effects to the Dan River as a result of construction should be
minimal as the number of in-water bents will be reduced from two (current bridge) to one
(proposed bridge). This reduction in permanent structures in the stream will help restore channel
flow to more normal conditions, compared to current conditions and may actually result in a
small beneficial effect.
4.1.5 Effects Associated with Borrow/Fill, Staging and Storage
The contractor may use areas within the Dan River watershed for staging, storage, refueling,
borrow pit, or spoil areas. Any of these areas that occur within the watershed of occupied habitat
have the potential to result in direct effects to the JSM. The locations of borrow pits and spoil
areas will be excluded from Environmentally Sensitive Areas per NCDOT regulations (see
Section 4.5.1). However, areas outside of the buffers still have the potential to affect water
quality, and in turn freshwater mussels, through sedimentation, erosion, and introduction of toxic
compounds into streams via stormwater channels, ditches, and overland runoff or through losses
during the hauling process. The extent and magnitude of these effects is dependent upon

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 21
distance to occupied habitat, as well as soils and topography which influence transport of
sediment and toxicants to occupied habitat. The potential for these effects to occur can be
minimized by developing measures to control sedimentation, erosion, and introduction of toxic
compounds from entering streams in these areas.
4.2. Operational Effects
Operational effects include effects that arise from maintenance and daily vehicular use of the
facility once it is in operation, as well as natural responses over time to the proposed action’s
construction effects that occur post-construction.
4.2.1 Alteration of Flows/Channel Stability Over Time
As noted in Section 4.1.4, geomorphically stable stream channels and banks are essential for the
survival and conservation of many freshwater mussel species, including JSM. Once construction
is completed, stream channel instability can occur as over time streams adjust to the channel
alterations from construction, which could eventually impact occupied habitat and/or host fish
species. As concluded in Section 4.1.4, little to no direct alteration of flows and/or channel
stability are expected to occur in the Dan River as a result of construction; thus, channel
instability adjustment of the channel over time is not expected to occur.
4.2.2 Roadway Runoff
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff, including various metals (e.g., lead,
zinc, iron), sediment, pesticides, deicing salts, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), and petroleum
hydrocarbons (see Section 3.3.3 for details on how these pollutants effect freshwater mussels).
In addition, thermal effects to JSM can also occur from highway runoff. The freshwater mussel
populations near the Action Area are not expected to experience localized increased exposure to
roadway runoff as the bridge replacement is maintaining the existing 2-lane design, thus not
increasing traffic volume, or significantly increasing impervious surface area. NCDOT has
committed to eliminating deck drainage directly into any waterbody within the Action Area, as
well as a commitment to match the post-discharge to the pre-construction conditions. These
actions will reduce the potential for adverse effects from roadway runoff and the elimination of
direct discharge may result in a small localized beneficial effect compared to existing conditions
with the current structure which has direct discharge to the river.
4.2.3 Toxic Spills
Roadway construction can also affect the aquatic environment by increasing the potential for
toxic spills from vehicular accidents once the facility is in operation. As evidenced from the
Clinch River in Virginia (Section 3.3.3), toxic spills resulting from traffic accidents can be

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 22
devastating to mussel populations. The type (i.e. commercial truck, etc.) and volume of traffic
affect the potential for toxic spills to occur. The location where there is the highest potential for
hazardous spills to impact the JSM within the Action Area is at the project crossing of the Dan
River and any tributaries within 0.25 mile of the Action Area portion of the river, though any
spill within the watershed has the potential to affect the JSM population. There is no way to
accurately predict when and where toxic spills will occur. The Texas Department of
Transportation and the FHWA commissioned a study that evaluated roadway hazardous material
spill incidents associated with transportation on Texas highways. The study found that between
2002–2006, more than 900 hazardous material spills of varying volumes were recorded in the
state, and it was speculated that rainy/wet roadway conditions may be a factor in the frequency
of spills. The results were used to develop design guidelines and parameters to reduce the risk of
exposure to travelers and individuals responsible for spill cleanup (Thompson et al. 2011).
Since the proposed action involves replacing the bridge over the Dan River, in essentially the
same location, project construction will not increase the potential for toxic spill related effects, in
fact, the potential threat will be lessened from the existing conditions by the elimination of direct
discharge with the new structure. Furthermore, stormwater will be collected in roadside ditches
and then flow through a vegetated buffer to the maximum extent practicable. Rip rap may be
used if needed to control erosive velocities.
4.3. Induced Land Development
Project-induced changes in land use can be part of the indirect effects of a road construction
project, resulting from modifications in access to parcels of land and from modifications in travel
time between various areas (Mulligan and Horowitz 1986).
As this project is a bridge replacement and not new location roadway or widening of existing
roadway, there is expected to be no project-induced changes in land use.
4.4. Conclusion of Effects –JSM
While measures have been incorporated into the project design to avoid/minimize effects to the
JSM potential direct and indirect effects to this population in the Action Area cannot be avoided
entirely.
4.4.1 Construction Effects
The Action Area portion of the Dan River is occupied by the JSM. As summarized in Section
4.3.1, there will direct effects to habitat within the Dan River, including <0.02 acre for riprap at
the embankment, <0.001 acre (29 square feet) permanent fill for the instream bent, and 0.11 acre
(4,791 square feet) of temporary fill for the work pads. This amount of habitat loss is a small

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 23
fraction of the available habitat for the JSM within the Action Area. Any individual JSM
occurring within these fill areas will be adversely affected; however, the proposed pre-
construction survey/mussel relocation may lessen the level of effects and provide the relocated
individuals with a chance of survival.
As mentioned in Section 4.1.3, stringent erosion control measures will be implemented during
project construction; however, potential erosion/sedimentation effects cannot be eliminated
entirely. As such, some level of erosion/sedimentation effects are expected to result from project
construction within the defined Action Area. The level of effects and whether they lead to any
mortality cannot be determined.
Although potential sedimentation/erosion and introduction of toxic compounds effects could
originate from borrow/spoil areas, staging areas, equipment storage areas, and refueling areas
and enter the Dan River via unregulated stormwater channels, ditches, and overland runoff. At
this time, the locations of potential borrow/spoil sites staging areas, equipment storage areas, and
refueling areas have not been chosen. If any of these sites selected are within the Dan River
watershed, the commitment of NCDOT to adopt measures to avoid/minimize the potential for
adverse effects in non-regulated areas make it extremely unlikely (discountable) that project-
related direct effects could occur.
4.4.2 Operational Effects
As summarized in Section 4.2, the operation of the roadway after construction is complete is not
expected to result in any alterations of flow/channel stability over time, nor is it expected to
result in increases in roadway runoff, or in an increased threat of toxic spills. As such, no
indirect effects to the JSM population associated with operation of the facility are anticipated.
4.4.3 Induced Land Development Effects
As this project is a bridge replacement and not new location roadway or widening of existing
roadway, there is expected to be no project-induced changes in land use.
4.4.4 Cumulative Effects
In addition to the effects associated with the bridge construction addressed in this BA, other
effects to the JSM population in the Dan River have occurred and will continue to occur. These
types of effects are difficult to identify or quantify, but may include sedimentation/erosion
impacts from agricultural and residential land use, water quality effects (fertilizers, pesticides,
etc.) from agricultural and residential sources, small-scale littering into the river, impacts from
recreational uses of the river (fisherman disturbing the substrate or using fish as bait, etc.), and
others, all of which could adversely affect individual fish or their habitat. These potential

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 24
impacts are expected to be localized and small, and their cumulative effect is not likely to be
large enough to cause serious declines to the overall population.
NCDOT is not aware of any major private projects planned in the Action Area that would
threaten the viability of the JSM population in the Dan River. Conservation and protection of
riparian habitats in the watershed will help to alleviate some of the cumulative effects on this
species.
4.4.5 Biological Conclusion
Replacement of Bridge No. 8 may have direct effects as described above on the JSM population
in the Dan River. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed action “May Affect, Likely
to Adversely Affect” the JSM. Various conservation measures outlined in Section 4.5 will help
to offset the level of anticipated effects.
4.5. Project Conservation Measures
The following measures are being implemented by NCDOT to avoid/minimize and offset
potential effects from construction activities to the JSM.
4.5.1. Erosion Control Measures
For projects that occur in watersheds that contain protected aquatic species, NCDOT develops
erosion control measures. All current and applicable Best Management Practices (NCDOT
2003, NCDOT 2014, and NCDOT 2015) will be implemented. Additionally, the contractor will
incorporate the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 04B .0124 (b) – (e)],
regardless of the NCDWR stream classification. For this project, NCDOT will require Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds throughout the entire project.
NCDOT’s Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds are:
• Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within a sensitive
watershed shall be so planned, designed and constructed to provide protection from the
runoff of the 25-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as
calculated according to procedures in the “Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual” or according to procedures adopted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
• Sediment basins within sensitive watershed shall be designed and constructed such that
the basin will have a settling efficiency of at least 70 percent for the 40 micron (0.04mm)
size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of the two-year storm which
produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to procedures in the
“Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual” or according to procedures
adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 25
• Erosion and sedimentation control measures will include the use of flocculants in
appropriate areas to improve the settling of sediment particles and reduce turbidity levels
in construction runoff. The use of flocculants will conform to Division of Water
Resources approved product list.
• Newly constructed open channels in sensitive watersheds shall be designed and
constructed with side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a vegetative
cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the
slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable
ditch liners. In any event, the angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain
accelerated erosion.
• Provide ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any portion of a
land-disturbing activity in a sensitive watershed (HQW) within 7 calendar days following
completion of construction or development.
The areas within the Action Area will be identified as “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” on the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans. By definition, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas
will be identified as a 50-foot (15.2-meter) buffer zone on both sides of the river measured from
top of streambank extending 400-meters downstream and 100-meters upstream of the bridge
crossing. This Environmentally Sensitive Area also includes a 50-foot buffer zone on both sides
of the unnamed tributary into the Dan River. Within the identified 50-foot (15.2-meter)
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the following shall apply:
1. In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Contractor may perform
clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately prior to beginning
grading operations as described in Article 200-1 of the Standard Specifications. Only
clearing operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this buffer zone until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed
immediately following the clearing operation.
2. Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work shall
progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas shall
progress in a continuous manner such that each phase is complete and areas are
permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase. Failure on the part of the
contractor to complete any phase of construction in a continuous manner in
Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be just cause for the Engineer to direct the
suspension of work in accordance with Article 108-7 of the Standard Specifications.
3. Seeding and mulching shall be performed in accordance with Section 1660 of the
Standard Specifications and vegetative cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be
installed immediately following grade establishment. Seeding and mulching shall be
performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately following final grade
establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into the contract time without stabilization
of slopes, ditches and other areas within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 26
4. The work covered by this section shall consist of the establishment of a vegetative cover
on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses. Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages
on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet (6.1 meters) in height measured along
the slope, or greater than 2 acres (0.81 hectare) in area, whichever is less. Each stage shall
not exceed the limits stated above.
All sedimentation and erosion control measures, throughout the project limits, must be cleaned
out when half-full of sediment, to ensure proper function of the measures.
4.5.2. Bridge Deck Drainage
The design for Bridge No. 8 will eliminate deck drains into the Dan River. Stormwater will be
collected in catch basins and then flow through a vegetated buffer to the maximum extent
practicable. Rip rap may be used if needed to control erosive velocities.
4.5.3. Agency Coordination
NCDOT will invite representatives from USFWS, USACE, NCWRC, and NCDWR to an on-site
preconstruction meeting with the project contractor to discuss the provision of the Biological
Opinion and environmental permits. They will also provide the listed agencies notification of
start of work.
4.5.4. Construction Practices
NCDOT will strongly discourage the contractor from choosing borrow/waste site locations,
staging areas, equipment storage areas, and refueling areas within 0.1 mile of the Dan River by
putting such language in the project commitments. However, if the contractor opts to pursue
borrow or waste sites in these locations, the NCDOT Division Environmental Officer will
coordinate with the appropriate agencies during the approval process of any borrow or waste
sites. Note that the contractor must follow provisions in the Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures (January 2012) for borrow excavation (Section 230) and disposal of waste and
debris (Section 802).
Activities in the floodplain will be limited to those absolutely necessary to construct the
proposed bridge and remove the existing bridge. Areas used for borrow or construction by-
products will not be located within the 100-year floodplain.
All construction equipment will either be refueled outside the 100-year floodplain or utilize
refueling diapers and utilize secondary containment.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 27
4.5.5. Preconstruction Survey, Potential Mussel Relocation, and Post Construction Monitoring
NCDOT will conduct preconstruction surveys (just prior to construction) at the Dan River
crossing and remove mussels from a defined area (salvage area) and relocate them to appropriate
habitat within the Dan River outside of the salvage area (relocation site), or if deemed
appropriate after coordination with the USFWS and NCWRC, JSM individuals may be taken
into captivity to use as brood stock for propagation efforts. NCDOT and Three Oaks have
successfully relocated the JSM and other federally protected freshwater mussel species from
other project footprints. Preconstruction surveys will be incorporated into a Mussel Relocation
Plan, which will identify the salvage area and be developed in coordination with USFWS and
NCWRC.
Depending on the findings of the preconstruction survey, a post-construction monitoring plan
may be developed. If there are many individual JSM found during the pre-construction surveys,
then a post-construction monitoring plan will be developed. Such a monitoring plan would
involve an assessment of potential JSM habitat in the project area by a qualified individual two
years after project completion to determine the suitability of the habitat for reintroduction of this
species. The NCDOT will provide a report to the Service for each monitoring period outlined in
the relocation plan. If there are not many individuals found during pre-construction surveys, a
payment into a conservation fund held by NCWRC may be made.
4.5.6. Additional Measures to Minimize Effects to James Spinymussel
The following additional measures will be undertaken by NCDOT to further reduce construction
related effects to the Dan River at Bridge 8:
• Bridge length will increase from 287 feet to 302 feet, with three spans reduced from five.
• Existing bents will be removed to streambed elevation, and one bent will be placed in the
river (a reduction from two existing in-water bents).
• Disturbed stream banks will be revegetated with native riparian seed mix.
5.0 ADDITIONAL FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES (STOKES COUNTY)
5.1. Small-anthered Bittercress (Cardamine micranthera)
Status: Endangered
Family: Brassicaceae
Listed: September 21, 1989
Critical Habitat: Not designated

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 28
5.1.1. Species Characteristics
Small-anthered Bittercress is a biennial or perennial herb which grows erect and slender, with
fibrous roots and a simple or branched stem (occasionally multiple stems) growing 20 to 40
centimeters tall. Basal leaves have one or two pairs of small lateral lobes, while stem leaves are
alternate and mostly unlobed. The flowers consist of four white petals with six stamens and
small, rounded anthers. The fruit contains brown seeds, approximately one millimeter long each
(USFWS 2006).
5.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Small-anthered Bittercress is endemic to the Dan River drainage. It occurs in moist, wet woods
along small to intermittent sized streams, stream bank edges and seepages above the actual
stream channel, wet rock crevices, and sand and gravel bars of small streams. This species
prefers areas that are fully or partially shaded by shrubs and trees but can occasionally be found
in full sun (USFWS 2015a). Soil series that it occurs on include Rion, Pacolet, and Wateree.
Poorly viable occurrences may be found in disturbed areas subject to livestock trampling,
silviculture, or encroachment by exotic, invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle (USFWS
1991a).
5.1.3. General Threats to Species
Small-anthered Bittercress has been negatively affected by impoundments, channelization, and
increased stormwater runoff. The loss of stream buffers makes plants vulnerable to herbicides,
erosion, and siltation, as well as trampling by cattle. Lo gging can also lead to erosion and
siltation problems. Much of the seep habitat where this species historically occurred is now
gone, so remaining plants exist in the streambed on small sandbars, making them vulnerable to
flooding that can create scour and wash away the plants. Invasive species, such as Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) also contribute to the loss of habitat (USFWS 2006, 2015a).
5.1.4. Presence in Action Area/Survey Results
On May 11, 2016, Amy Euliss and Stephanie Braquet of NCDOT conducted a survey along an
unnamed tributary in the study area as well as 200 feet both up- and downstream of Bridge No. 8
on both banks of the Dan River. They also surveyed a small, vegetated mid-channel bar. Total
survey time was two man-hours. No Cardamine species were observed.
A review of the October 2018 NCNHP database indicated that the nearest known Small-anthered
Bittercress populations are less than a mile from the NC 704 crossing of the Dan River, both
upstream (Elk Creek) and downstream (Big Branch) of Bridge No. 8. Both of these occurrences
are outside of the project Action Area.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 29
5.1.5. Biological Conclusion: May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Although the Small-Anthered Bittercress was not found during project surveys, based on known
EOs of Small-anthered Bittercress within one mile of the project Action Area, and the presence
of suitable habitat, a No Effect call is not warranted; therefore, it can be concluded that the
project “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” this species.
5.2. Schweinitz’s Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Status: Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: May 7, 1991
Critical Habitat: None designated
5.2.1. Species Characteristics
Schweinitz’s Sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows one to two meters tall from a
cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots (USFWS 1994). Stems are usually solitary, branching only
at or above mid-stem. The stem is usually pubescent but can be nearly glabrous and is often
purple in color.
The leaves are opposite on the lower portion of the stem, changing to alternate above. In shape,
the leaves are lanceolate, wider near their bases, but variable in size, being generally larger on
the lower portion of the stem, and gradually reduced upwards. Lower stem leaves average 10 to
20 centimeters long and 1.5 to 2.5 centimeters wide. Upper stem leaves average about 5
centimeters long and 1 centimeter wide. Leaf margins are entire with a few obscure serrations
and are generally also somewhat revolute. The leaves are typically sessile to short-petiolate.
The texture of the leaves is rather thick and stiff and the pubescence of the leaves is distinctive.
The upper surface of the leaves is rough, while the lower surface is more or less densely
pubescent, with soft white hairs obscuring the leaf surface. From September to frost,
Schweinitz’s Sunflower blooms with comparatively small heads of yellow flowers. The nutlets
are 3.3 to 3.5 millimeters long and are glabrous with rounded tips. (USFWS 1994)
5.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Schweinitz’s Sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont physiographic region of North and South
Carolina. As of 2010, there were 78 extant populations in NC and 8 extant populations in SC
(USFWS 2010).
Historically, it is believed that Schweinitz’s Sunflower occupied open prairie and Post Oak-
Blackjack Oak Savannas that were maintained by relatively frequent fire (USFWS 1994).

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 30
Current habitats include roadsides, periodically disturbed or maintained utility rights of way, old
pastures, and sunny or semi-sunny woodland openings. While the plant occurs on a variety of
soils, it is generally found on shallow, poor, clayey or rocky soils, especially those derived from
mafic rock. Where Schweinitz’s Sunflower occurs in relatively natural areas, the natural
community is considered a Xeric Hardpan Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
NatureServe (2017b) characterizes Schweinitz’s Sunflower habitat as “clearings in, and edges of,
upland oak-pine-hickory woods and piedmont longleaf pine forests in moist to dryish sandy
loams.” In addition, Schweinitz’s Sunflower requires the “full to partial sun of an open habitat,
which was formerly maintained over the species’ range by wildfires and grazing by herds of
American bison (Bison bison) and elk (Cervus canadensis)” (NatureServe 2017b). Now most
occurrences are confined to roadsides and utility rights of way that are periodically maintained or
disturbed and/or managed for the species.
5.2.3. General Threats to Species
Schweinitz’s Sunflower is endangered by the loss of historic levels of natural disturbance (i.e.
fire, grazing by herbivores), development, mining, and encroachment by exotic species (USFWS
1994). The species requires fire or other vegetation management to maintain an open canopy
(NatureServe 2017b). Primary threats to this species occur from direct habitat loss, degradation,
and fragmentation due to residential, commercial, and industrial development, highway
construction and improvement, and intensive maintenance of roadsides and utility rights of way
(USFWS 1994).
5.2.4. Presence in Action Area/Survey Results
On October 20, 2016, Melissa Ruiz and Pam Ferral of Stantec reviewed the project area; no
suitable habitat was observed. A review of the NCNHP October 2018 database revealed no
known occurrences of this species within one mile of the project study area.
5.2.5. Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on survey data, a lack of suitable habitat in the Action Area, and no known occurrences of
Schweinitz’s Sunflower within one mile of the Action Area, it can be concluded that this project
will have “No Effect” on this species.
5.3. Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
Status: Threatened
Family: Vespertilionidae
Listed: April 2, 2015
Critical Habitat: None designated

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 31
5.3.1. Species Characteristics
The NLEB is a medium-sized bat species, with an average body length of 77 to 95 mm (3-3.7
in). Fur colors include medium to dark brown on its back, dark brown ears and wing
membranes, and tawny to pale-brown fur on the ventral side. As indicated by its common name,
the NLEB is distinguished from other Myotis species by its long ears, which average 17 mmm
(USFWS 2015b).
5.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The range of the NLEB includes much of the eastern and north-central United States, and
portions of all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory
and eastern British Columbia. (USFWS 2015b). In North Carolina, the NLEB occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain.
During the summer, NLEB roosts singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in
crevices of both live and dead trees. Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in
cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat has been found occasionally roosting in structures
like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat
houses. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings,
over water, and along tree-lined corridors. NLEB hibernate in caves and mines during the winter
months to conserve energy from increased thermoregulatory demands and reduced food
resources (USFWS 2015b).
5.3.3. General Threats to Species
The primary threat to the NLEB is white-nosed syndrome (WNS), a disease caused by the fungus
Pseudogymnoascus destructans that is known to kill bats. Since WNS was first observed in
2006, it has spread rapidly from the Northeast to the Midwest and Southeast; an area that
includes the core of the NLEB’s range where it was most common. Due to WNS, NLEB
populations have experienced sharp declines, up to 99%, as evidenced in hibernacula surveys.
WNS is expected to spread throughout the United States in the foreseeable future (USFWS
2015b).
Other threats to the NLEB include wind-energy development, winter habitat modification (i.e.
effects on hibernacula), summer habitat loss/modification (i.e. tree clearing from timber harvest,
development, natural resource extraction, etc.), human disturbance of hibernating bats, predation,
climate change, and contaminants (USFWS 2013).

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 32
5.3.4. Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
According to a review of the October 2018 NCNHP database, there are no known occurrences of
NLEB within five miles of the project Action Area. Since there are no known roosts or
hibernacula near the project Action Area, the proposed action is consistent with the final Section
4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and effective February 16, 2016. Section 7
responsibilities are therefore considered fulfilled.
5.4 Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex)
Status: Endangered
Family: Percidae
Listed: August 18, 1989
Critical Habitat: None designated
5.4.1 Species Characteristics
The Roanoke Logperch is a large darter with an elongate body up to 165 mm in total length. The
snout is conical or pig-like. The caudal fin is slightly emarginated, truncate or slightly rounded.
The body is straw-colored to pale olive dorsally, pale to yellow-olive on the lower side with a
white belly; the lateral line is complete. Markings are dark olive to black with green, gold or
blue iridescence on the side of the head and the prepectoral area. There are 8-11 lateral blotches.
The first dorsal fin has submarginal yellow or orange bands, while the second dorsal, caudal and
pectoral fins are distinctly tessellated (Terwilliger 1991).
The Roanoke Logperch feeds benthically on a variety of immature insects by overturning gravel
and small rocks with its snout (Terwilliger 1991). The average life expectancy is five to six
years. Spawning occurs in April or May in deep runs over gravel and small cobble. Logperch
typically bury their eggs and provide no subsequent parental care (USFWS 2015c).
5.4.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Roanoke Logperch can be found in larger streams in the upper Roanoke, Smith, Pigg, Otter,
Nottoway river systems, and Goose Creek in Virginia and in the Dan, Mayo, Smith river systems
and Big Beaver Island Creek in North Carolina. Its upstream range in the Dan and Mayo rivers
is presumably impeded by dams (USFWS 2015c).
Due to barriers such as dams, there are currently eight discrete populations of Roanoke
Logperch. The population in the upper Roanoke River is probably the largest and most
important in the species’ range (USFWS 2007).
The Roanoke Logperch occupies medium to large warm water streams and rivers of moderate
gradient and relatively unsilted substrates. Inhabited waterways have a moderate to low

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 33
gradient, and the fish usually inhabit riffles and runs, with silt-free sandy to boulder-strewn
bottoms. During different phases of life history and season, every major riverine habitat is
exploited by the Logperch. Young are usually found in slow runs and pools with clean sandy
bottoms. In winter, Logperch may be more tolerant of silty substrates, and may also inhabit
pools. Males are associated with shallow riffles during the reproductive period; females are
common in deep runs over gravel and small cobble, where they spawn (NatureServe 2015,
USFWS 1992c).
The species is usually in low abundance. The populations are small and separated by long
segments of river or large impoundments; it is nearly always rare, never abundant (Terwilliger
1991). In addition, the Roanoke Logperch’s low catchability, patchy distribution, and low
abundance make them difficult to detect. Extensive and intensive sampling by the Virginia
Transportation Research Council confirmed that Roanoke Logperch are difficult to detect even
with more sampling effort than typically is applied in general fish surveys (Lahey and
Angermeier 2007). It wasn’t until 2007 that individuals of this species were found in the
Roanoke River drainage (Smith and Dan Rivers) in Rockingham County, North Carolina
(NCWRC 2015).
Existing information on the distribution of Roanoke Logperch and habitat suitable for Logperch
is scarce and uneven in quality. Most previous surveys for Logperch focused on areas near
known occurrences, and information on habitat suitability has been scarce and inconsistently
gathered (Lahey and Angermeier 2007).
The present understanding of the Roanoke Logperch range and densities indicate that all
populations extend further and are denser than previously assumed when the species was
federally listed. Populations in the upper Roanoke and Nottoway show comparably high
densities (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2002 in USFWS 2007) and high genetic diversity
(George and Mayden 2003 in USFWS 2007). The species appears to be reproducing throughout
its range, however, a poor understanding of abundance at the time of listing makes it difficult to
determine whether populations are increasing, stable or declining over the long term (USFWS
2007).
5.4.3 General Threats to Species
Roanoke Logperch populations are threatened by dams/barriers and reservoirs, watershed
urbanization, agricultural and silvicultural activities contributing to non-point source pollution,
stream channelization, roads, toxic spills, woody debris loss, and water withdrawals (USFWS
2015c).
It appears that massive habitat loss associated with the construction of the large impoundments
of the Roanoke River Basin in the 1950s and 1960s (Roanoke Rapids, Gaston, Kerr, Leesville,

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 34
Smith Mountain, and Philpott Reservoirs) was the original cause of significant population
declines of this species. These reservoir systems resulted in major disruptions in the ability of
this species to move throughout its historic range. The populations in the Roanoke and
Nottoway basins probably represent remnants of much larger populations that once occupied
much of the Roanoke and Chowan River drainages upstream of the fall line. All the populations
are small and no genetic exchange occurs among them because they are separated by large
impoundments and wide river gaps. Each population is vulnerable due to its relatively low
density and limited range.
Small Logperch populations could go extinct with minor habitat degradation. 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 (USFWS 2015b).
5.4.4 Presence in Action Area
Roanoke Logperch is not known to occur in the Upper Dan River basin. The Dan River is
dammed near the Town of Madison, North Carolina, and this species has not been found above
this dam.
5.4.5 Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on there being no records of the Roanoke Logperch in the subbasin, the project will have
“No Effect” on this species.
6.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
NCDOT has made the following determinations for federally listed and petitioned species under
the ESA for the subject project (Table 2).
Table 3 - Federally Listed Species; Stokes County, North Carolina
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Present in Action Area Determination
of Effect
Cardamine micranthera Small-anthered
Bittercress
E No NLAA
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s Sunflower E No No Effect
Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared
Bat
T No NLAA
Parvaspina collina James Spinymussel E Yes MALAA
Percina rex Roanoke Logperch No No Effect
E – Endangered, T – Threatened, NLAA – Not Likely to Adversely Affect, MALAA – Likely to Adversely Affect.
NCDOT has determined that the project may affect-likely to adversely affect the James
Spinymussel and will not likely adversely affect the Small-anthered Bittercress and the Northern

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 35
Long-eared Bat. The NCDOT has determined the project will have no effect on Schweinitz’s
Sunflower or Roanoke Logperch.
7.0 RESOURCES
Alderman, J.M. 1995. Freshwater mussel inventory of the Stevens Creek Subbasin, Long Creek
Ranger District, Sumter National Forest, South Carolina. Unpublished report to the U.S.
Forest Service. 38 pp.
Archambault, J.M., C.M. Bergeron, W.G. Cope, P.R. Lazaro, J.A. Leonard, and D. Shea. 2017.
Assessing Toxicity of Contaminants in Riverine Suspended Sediments to Freshwater
Mussels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 395-407.
Arnold, C.L., and C.J. Gibbons 1996. Impervious surface coverage—the emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243–258.
Augspurger, T. 1992. Environmental Contaminant Impacts of Highway Runoff on Freshwater
Mussels, Swift Creek, Nash County, North Carolina, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Ecological Services, Raleigh Field Office, NC.
Augspurger, T., A.E. Keller, M.C. Black, W.G. Cope and F.J. Dwyer. 2003. Water quality
guidance for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from ammonia exposure.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22: 2569-2575.
Bartsch, M.R., T.J. Newton, J.W. Allran, J.A. O’Donnell, and W.B. Richardson. 2003.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(11):2561-2568.
Bogan, A.E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): A search for causes.
American Zoologist 33:599-609.
Bringolf, R. B., R. M. Heltsley, C. Eads, T. J. Newton, S. Fraley, D. Shea, and W. G. Cope.
2007. Environmental occurrence of fluoxetine and its effects on freshwater mussel
reproduction. 5th Biennial Symposium of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society,
Little Rock, AR, March 12-15, 2007.
Caltrans Office of Environmental Engineering 2001. Fisheries Impact Assessment Pre
Installation Demonstration Project for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span
Seismic Safety Project.” Caltrans Contract 04A0148.
Castro, J. 2003. Geomorphologic Impacts of Culvert Replacement and Removal: Avoiding
Channel incision. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR February 2003
Guidelines – Version 2.0, 19 pp.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 36
Choudri, B. S. and M. Baawain 2016. Effects of Pollution on Freshwater Organisms. Water
Environment Research, Vol. 88 No. 10, 1672-1692.
Crawford, J.K. and D.R. Lenat 1989. Effects Of Land Use On The Water Quality And Biota Of
Three Streams In The Piedmont Province of North Carolina. Prepared for US Geological
Survey. Water Resources Investigations Report 89 4007.
Davis, A.P., M. Shokouhian, and S. Ni. 2001. Loading Estimates of Lead, Copper, Cadmium,
and Zinc in Urban Runoff from Specific Sources. Chemosphere 44: 997-1009.
de Solla, S. R, E. A. M. Gilroy, J. S. Klinck, R. McInnis, J. Struger, S. M. Backus and P. L.
Gillis, 2016. Bioaccumulation of phamrmaceuticals and personal care products in the
unionid mussel Lasmigona costata in a river receiving wastewater effluent. Chemosphere
146, 486-496.
Dupuis, T.V., N.P. Kobriger, W.K. Kreutzberger and V. Trippi. 1985. Effects of Highway
Runoff on Receiving Waters-Vol. III. Resource Document for Environmental
Assessments. Report FHWA/RD-84/064. FHWA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. 153 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Field, R. and R.E. Pitt. 1990. Urban storm-induced discharge impacts: United States
Environmental Protection Agency research program review. Water Science and
Technology 22(10/11):1-7.
Fuller, S.L.H. and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in the
Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
Gagné, F., P. Cejka, C. André, R. Hausler, and C. Blaise 2007a. Neurotoxicological effects of a
primary and ozonated treated wastewater on freshwater mussels exposed to an
experimental flow-through system. Comp. Biochemistry and Physiology Part C:
Toxicology & Pharmacology 146(4):460-470.
Gagné, F., C. Gagon, P. Turcotte, and C. Blaise. 2007b. Changes in Metallothionein Levels in
Freshwater Mussels Exposed to Urban Wastewaters: Effects from Exposure to Heavy
Metals? Biomark Insights 2:107-116.
Garie, H. L. and A. McIntosh. 1986. Distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream
exposed to urban runoff. Water Resources Bulletin 22 (3):447-455.
Gilbert, O.L. 1989. The ecology of urban habitats. Chapman and Hall, London, 369.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 37
Gillis, P. L., 2012. Cumulative impacts of urban runoff and municipal wasterwater effluents on
wild freshwater mussels (Lasmigona costata). Science of the Total Environment 431,
348-356
Gillis, P.L., S.K. Higgins, and M.B. Jorge. 2014. Evidence of Oxidative Stress in Wild
Freshwater Mussels (Lasmigona costata) Exposed to Urban-Derived Contaminants.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 102:62-69.
Gillis P. L., R. McInnis, J. Salerno and E. M. Leonard 2017. Freshwater Mussels in an Urban
Watershed: Impacts of Anthropogenic Inputs and Habitat Alterations on Populations.
Science of the Total Environment 574, 671-679.
Golladay, S.W., P.L. Gagnon, M. Kearns, J.M. Battle, and D.W. Hicks. 2005. The effects of
extended low-flows on freshwater mussels in the lower Flint River Basin, Georgia: a
case study. U.S. Geological Survey Workshop, Linking Hydrological Change and
Ecological Response in Streams and Rivers of the Easter United States. February 8-10,
2005.
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.
Grabarkiewicz, J. and W. Davis 2008. An introduction to freshwater mussels as biological
indicators. EPA-260-R-08-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Information, Washington, DC.
Gupta, M.K., R.W. Agnew and T.L. Meinholz. 1981. Constituents of highway runoff Volume II,
Procedural manual for monitoring of highway runoff. Report FHWA/81/043. FHWA
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 121 pp.
Harvey, M. D., and C. C. Watson. 1986. Fluvial processes and morphological thresholds in
incised channel restoration.Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources
Association 22(3):359–368.
Havlik, M.E. and L.L. Marking 1987. Effects of Contaminants on Naiad Mollusks (Unionidae):
A Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource
Publication 164. Washington, D.C. 20 pp.
Hazelton, P.D., W.G. Cope, S. Mosher, T.J. Pamdolfo, J.B. Belden, M.C. Barnhart and R.B.
Bringolf. 2013. Fluoxetine alters adult freshwater mussel behavior and larval
metamorphosis. Science of the Total Environment 445-446; 94-100.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 38
Heltsley, R.M., W.G. Cope, R.B. Bringolf, C.B. Eads, and D. Shea 2006. Prozacelicits spawning
in native freshwater mussels. 232nd Annual Meeting of the American Chemical Society,
San Francisco, CA. September 10-14, 2006.
Henley, W.F., J.J. Schmerfeld, S.A. Budischak, C.M. Hall, R.J. Neves, S. Ciparis, and J.W.
Jones. 2016. Freshwater Mussel (Unionidae) Abundance and Diversity Upstream and
Downstream of a Superfund Site on the North Fork Holston River, Saltville, Virginia.
Journal of Shellfish Research Vol. 35, No. 4, 875-883.
Hoffman, E. J., J. S. Latimer, C. D. Hunt, G. L. Mills and J. G. Quinn. 1984. Stormwater runoff
from highways. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 25:349-364.
Humphries L.R.F. 2006. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure on three life
stages of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). MA. Sc. Thesis. NC State. Univ.
North Carolina. 1-41.
Jacobson PJ, Farris JL, Cherry DS, Neves RJ. 1993. Juvenile freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) responses to acute toxicity testing with copper. Environ Toxicol
Chem 12:879–833.
Jacobson, PJ, Neves RJ, Cherry DS, Farris JL. 1997. Sensitivity of glochidial stages of
freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to copper. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:2384–
2392.
Johnson, P.M., A.E. Liner, S.W. Golladay, and W.K. Michener. 2001. Effects of drought on
freshwater mussels and instream habitat in Coastal Plain tributaries of the Flint River,
southwest Georgia (July-October 2000). Final Report presented to the Nature
Conservancy. August 25, 2001.
Jones, R.C. and C.C. Clark. 1987. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect
communities. Water Resources Bulletin 23: 1047-1055.
Lahey, A.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Range-wide Assessment of Habitat Suitability for
Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). Virginia Transportation Research Council.
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/07-cr8.pdf
Lenat, D.R., D.L. Penrose, and K.W. Eagleson 1979. Biological evaluation of non-point source
pollutants in North Carolina streams and rivers. Biological Series Number 102.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 39
Levine, J.F., W.G. Cope, A.E. Bogan, M. Stoskopf, L.L. Gustafson, B. Showers, D. Shea, C.B.
Eads, P. Lazaro, W. Thorsen, D. Forestier, and E.F. Anderson 2005. Assessment of the
Impact of Highway Runoff on Freshwater Mussels in North Carolina Streams: 109 p.
Lieb, D.A. 1998. The effects of urban runoff on the benthic macroinvertebrate community of
Thompson Run, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Masters of Science Thesis Pennsylvania
State University, 130pp.
Maltby, L., A. B. A. Boxall, D. M. Forrow, P. Calow and C. I. Betton. 1995. The effects of
motorway runoff on freshwater ecosystems: 2. Identifying major toxicants.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14 (6):1093-1101.
Marking, L.L., and Bills, T.D. 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.
Milam, C.D., J.L. Farris, F.J. Dwye r, and D.K. Hardesty 2005. Acute toxicity of six freshwater
mussel species (glochidia) to six chemicals: Implications for daphnids and Utterbackia
imbecillis as surrogates for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 48:166–173.
Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech, 1988. Fishes an introduction to Ichthyology Prentice Hall, Inc. 559
pp.
Mulligan, P.M., and A.J. Horowitz. 1986. Expert panel method of forecasting land use impacts
of highway projects. Pp. 9-15 in Transportation Research Record 1079 land development
simulation and traffic mitigation, TRB National Research Board, Wash. DC, 36 pp.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Percina+rex. Accessed
9/8/15.
NatureServe. 2017a. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Parvaspina+collina.
Accessed 1/23/17.
NatureServe. 2017b. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Helianthus+schweinitzi
i. Accessed 1/23/17.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 40
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. Amer. Malacol. Bull. 1(5):1-7.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
Mollusks in the Southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz and D. E. Collins. Decatur,
GA, Special Publication1, Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Designs and
Communications: 31-85.
News & Observer. 2017. Johnston County sewer line bursts, spilling 250,000 gallons. April 17,
2017, http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/johnston-
county/article145069379.html
Newton, T.J., J.W., Allran, J.A., O’Donnell, M.R., Bartsch, and W.B. Richardson. 2003. Effects
of Ammonia on juvenile unionid mussels (Lampsilis cardium) in laboratory sediment
toxicity tests. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22(11):2554-2560.
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC). 1998. Title 15A – Environment and Natural
Resources. Chapter 2 – Environmental Management. Subchapter B. Section .0202 –
Definitions.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater Classifications in North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). ROANOKE RIVER BASIN PLAN 2012
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/roanoke/2012
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources
(DWR). 2014. North Carolina 303(d) List 2014 – Category 5.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/303d/303d-files
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources
(DWR). 2017. NPDES List of active individual permits.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/npdes-
wastewater/npdes-permitting. Accessed September 18, 2017.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 41
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2015. Structure Safety Report,
Structure 840008, Stokes County.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2018. Natural Heritage Data Explorer.
Division of Land and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. Available at: www.ncnhp.org. Accessed: November
21, 2018
North Carolina Register. 2014. Volume 28, Issue 24, Pages 2975-3111. June 16, 2014. Accessed
September 4, 2015. http://www.ncoah.com/rules/register/Volume%
2028%20Issue%2024%20June%2016%202014.pdf
North Carolina State Cooperative Extension. 2006a. Stormwater BMPs and Runoff Temperature.
Accessed November 30, 2015. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/topic/bmp-temperature/)
North Carolina State Cooperative Extension. 2006b. Urban Waterways: Bioretention
Performance, Design, Construction, and Maitenance. Accessed November 30, 2015.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/Bioretention2006.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). 2002. Guidance memorandum to
address and mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources and water quality, NC Wildlife Resource Commission.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). 2015. Roanoke Logperch (Percina
rex) Species Management.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Fish/RoanokeLogperch.aspx#2521719-
management. Accessed September 16, 2015.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). Unpublished Aquatic Species
Database, NC Wildlife Resource Commission.
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.
Pandolofo, T.J., W.G. Cope, C. Arellano, R.B. Bringolf, M.C. Barnhart and E. Hammer, 2010.
Upper thermal tolerances of early life stages of freshwater mussels. J. N. Am. Benthol.
Soc. 29(3): 959-969.2012
Pandolofo, T.J., T.J. Kwak and W.G. Cope, 2012. Thermal Tolerances of Freshwater Mussels
and Their Host Fishes: Species Interactions in a Changing Climate. Walkerana 15(1): 69-
82.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 42
Poole, G., J. Risley and M. Hicks. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of stream temperature
(revised) Issue Paper 3, prepared as part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality
Criteria Project.
Richmond Times Dispatch. 1998. Spill Poses a Danger to Mussel: Tan Riffleshell Eliminated
from Clinch, Professor Says. Rex Bowman. September 2, 1998.
Richter, BD; Braun, DP; Mendelson, MA; Master, LL. 1997. Threat to imperiled freshwater
fauna. Conserv Biol 11:1081–1093.
Roa-Espinosa, A., T.B. Wilson, J.M. Norman and K. Johnson. 2003. Predicting the impact of
urban development on stream temperature using a thermal urban runoff model (TURM).
Pp 369-389 in Proceedings of National Conference Urban Stormwater: Enhancing
programs at the local level, Chicago, Ill.,17-20-Feb. 2003. US EPA National Risk
Management Laboratory, Cincinnati OH.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO, Wildland Hydrology Books,
1481 Stevens Lake Road, Pagosa Springs CO. 81147, 385 pp.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
325 pp.
Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques.
1(3):100–111.
Sheilds, F.D., Jr., S.S. Knight and C.M. Cooper 1994. Effects of Channel Incision on Base Flow
Stream Habitats and Fishes. Environmental Management 18 (1), 43-57.
Simon, A. and M. Rinaldi, 2006. Disturbance, stream incision and channel evolution: The roles
of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response.
Geomorphology 79, 361-383.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Stewart, J.S., D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of
riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209–214 in P.J.
Wigington, Jr. and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources
Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land
use watersheds. Portland, Oregon.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 43
Strayer DL, Downing JA, Haag WR, King TL, Layzer JB, Newton, TJ, Nichols SJ. 2004.
Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North America’s most imperiled animals.
BioScience 54:429–439.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool. 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of
the dwarf wedgemusse1 Alasmidonta heterodon. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15(3):308-317.
Sweeney, B.W., T.L. Bott, J.K. Jackson, L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, L.J. Standley, W.C.
Hession, and R.J. Horwitz. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of
stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 101 (39) 14132-14137.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species, pp. 395-397, 785-788.
Thompson, D.B., A. Morse, J. Acker. 2011. Analysis of the Occurrence and Statistics of
Hazardous Materials Spill Incidents along Texas Highways and Suggestions for
Mitigation of Transport-Related Spills to Receiving Waters. Center for Multidisciplinary
Research in Transportation. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Texas
Tech University. June 2011.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2002. Endangered Species Act: Section 7
Interagency Cooperation, Raleigh, NC, Eastern Resource Center.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Draft 2009 Update Aquatic
Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia – Freshwater. EPA-822-D-09-001.
Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Keeping Raw Sewage and
Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public’s Water.
https://www3.epa.gov/region02/water/sewer-report-3-2011.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Aquatic Life Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Ammonia– Freshwater 2013. EPA-822-R-13-001. Office of Water,
Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Water. NPDES facilities
by permit type. NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed February 21, 2017.
https://watersgeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. James Spinymussel (Parvaspina
collina) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA. 38 pp.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 44
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991a. Recovery Plan for Small-anthered
Bittercress (Cardamine micranthera). Atlanta, GA: 22 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)1991b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Determination of Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz’s Sunflower) to be an
Endangered Species. Federal Register 56(88): 21087-21091.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species
of the southeast United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1,070 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex)
Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Schweinitz’s Sunflower Recovery
Plan. Atlanta, GA: 28 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft
Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Small-anthered Bittercress
(Cardamine micranthera).
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/SmallAntheredBittercress_factsheet.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). 5-
Year Review: Summary & Evaluation. Prepared by Virginia Field Office, Gloucester,
Virginia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Schweinitz’s Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Asheville, NC
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Review of Native Species That Are
Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened, Annual Notice of Findings on
Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed
Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 225/Wednesday, November 21, 2012.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 45
northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; listing the northern long-
eared bat as an endangered species; proposed rule. Federal Register 78 (191):61045-
61080.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Small-anthered Bittercress
(Cardamine micranthera). https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_small-
anthered_bittercress.html
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015b. Northern Long-Eared Bat Myotis
septentrionalis.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/NLEBFactSheet01April20
15.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015c. Roanoke Logperch.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_roanoke_Logperch.html. Accessed August 8,
2015.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) Status: Threatened with 4(d) Rule.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/
Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2018. Freshwater Mussel
Restoration – Clinch River. https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/freshwater-
mussels/restoration/. Accessed May 29, 2018.
Wade, DC. 1992. Definitive evaluation of Wheeler Reservoir sediment toxicity using juvenile
freshwater mussels (Anodonta imbecillis SAY). TVA/WR-92/25. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL, USA.
Wang, N., Ingersoll, C.G., Greer, I.E., Hardesty, D.K., Ivey, C.D., Kunz, J.L., Brumbaugh,
W.G.,Dwyer, F.J., Robers, A.D., Augspurger, T., Kane, C.M., Neves, R.J., and M.C.
Barnhart. 2007a. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of early life stages of freshwater
mussels (Unionidae): Acute toxicity testing of copper, ammonia, and chlorine to
glochidia and juvenile mussels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 38pp.
Wang, N., Ingersoll, C.G., Greer, I.E., Hardesty, D.K., Ivey, C.D., Kunz, J.L., Brumbaugh,
W.G., Dwyer, F.J., Robers, A.D., Augspurger, T., Kane, C.M., Neves, R.J., and M.C.
Barnhart. 2007b. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of early life stages of freshwater
mussels (Unionidae): Chronic toxicity testing of juvenile mussels with copper and
ammonia. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 35pp.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 46
Yelverton, John T., Donald R. Richmond, William Hicks, Keith Saunders, and Royce Fletcher.
1975. The relationship between fish size and their response to underwater blast.
Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, NM.
Yousef, Y.A., H.H. Harper, L.P. Wiseman, and J.M. Bateman. 1985. Consequential species of
heavy metals in highway runoff: Florida Department of Transportation Final Report FL-
ER-29-85. 153.

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 47

Appendix A
Figures

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 48

Bridge No. 8, Dan River Biological Assessment May 2019
Three Oaks Job# 16-111 Page 49

Appendix B
Permit Drawings

(Version 2.08; Released April 2018)TIP No.:17BP.9.R.72County(ies):StokesPage 1 of 1TIP Number:Date:Phone:Phone:Email:Email:County(ies):CAMA County?NoDesign/Future:Year:Existing:Year:Aquatic T&E Species?YesComments:YesN/ANoWetlands within Project Limits?James SpinymusselTrout Waters (Tr) NoneSupplemental Classification: Low Density Residential, Forest, AgriculturalDan River (North Carolina portion)22-(1)1.20.36Project DescriptionProposed ProjectRoanokeRiver Basin(s): City/Town:1.6Typical Cross Section Description: Surrounding Land Use: General Project Narrative:(Description of Minimization of Water Quality Impacts)[e-mail]-Salem, NC 27127Address:2/13/2019StokesDanburyDaniel Dagenhart, PE375 Silas Creek ParkwayWBS Element:Bridge ReplacementWBS Element:Joshua G. Dalton, PENCDOT Contact:(336) 747-7800905 Jones Franklin RoadRaleigh, NC 27606Contractor / Designer:[phone]Sungate Design Group, P.A.North Carolina Department of TransportationHighway Stormwater Program STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NCDOT PROJECTSProject Type:Highway Division 9Address:General Project Information17BP.9.R.72SF-840008Impairments:Other Stream Classification: Primary Classification: Project Built-Upon Area (ac.)The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has proposed the replacement of Stokes County bridge #8 on NC 704 HWY over Dan River. The proposed structure is a 1@80’, 2@110’ 39” box beam bridge with 4’ end caps. The existing bridge is 3@58’, 1@57’, and 1@56’ concrete deck on concrete bents with concrete abutments. No deck drains will be used on the proposed structure, reducing stream pollution associated with roadway runoff. The proposed structure has been designed to have as little environmental and surface water impact as possible. Rip rap is used at drainage outlets to dissipate energy and reduce erosion.N/ABuffer Rules in Effect:None460NC 704 HWY: 2 paved lanes (total 22') with 5' unpaved shoulder (8' with guardrail).Waterbody Information2017NCDWR Stream Index No.:NRTR Stream ID:Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):Existing SiteProject Length (lin. miles or feet): ac.Surface Water Body (1): Class CNCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Bodyac.NC 704 HWY: Open shoulder section, 2 paved lanes (total 20'), no paved shoulder, Varying fill and cut [e-mail] Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?N/ADeck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?(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)
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
SHEET 1 OF 5
PERMIT DRAWING
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH METHOD III.
DESIGN EXCEPTION NEEDED FOR SAG VERTICAL CURVE K
THIS IS NOT A CONTROL OF ACCESS PROJECT
17BP.9.R.72
TO NC 89
CHURCH ROAD
TO AARONS CORNER
VICINITY MAP
4 5
DAN RIVER801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh NC 27606
Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] www.Stantec.com
License No. F-0672
STANTEC CONSULTING
-L- POC STA. 11+75.00
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 17BP.9.R.72
-L- POC STA. 30+50.00
END CONSTRUCTION
END TIP PROJECT 17BP.9.R.72
-L-
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT 17BP.9.R.72 = .355 MI
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 17BP.9.R.72 = .057 MI
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 17BP.9.R.72 = .298 MI
FEBRUARY 2019
JULY 2018
MIKE LITTLEFIELD, PE
STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 8 (84008) ON NC 704
OVER DAN RIVER

GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE AND STRUCTURE

25 10050
25 10050
2.5 105
V
=
=
460

60 MPH

FUNC CLASS =
COLLECTOR
RURAL MAJOR
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
0
0
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)

17BP.9.R.72 PE
17BP.9.R.72 R/W & UTIL
17BP.9.R.72 CONSTR.

PROJECT LENGTH
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
DESIGN DATA
SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:09/08/9917BP.9.R.72DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0
00
2/12/201917BP9R72_Hyd_prm_wet_psh_01.dgnjharveyCONTRACT:TIP PROJECT: 17BP.9.R.72 ARTMEN
N ASO
H
DEPT
O
F TRA SPORTTIONTATEOFNRTCAR
O
LI
NASee Sheet 1-B For For Conventional Plan Sheet Symbols
NC 704
-DRWY1--DRWY2-
-Y1-
NCDOT CONTACT:
NCDOT DIVISION 9 BRIDGE MANAGER
ADT 2017
MIKE LINDGREN, PE
-Y1- POC STA. 11+72.00
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
-DRWY1- POC STA. 11+05.00
END CONSTRUCTION
-L- STA. 18+17.00
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
-L- STA. 18+29.00
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- STA. 21+31.60
END BRIDGE
-DRWY2- PT STA. 11+00.00
END CONSTRUCTION
DANIEL DAGENHART, PE
-L- STA. 21+43.60
END APPROACH SLAB65% PLANSSimmons
Rd.BowmanRd.WillSheltonRd.ElmerSheltonRd.Owens
Rd.SamMoirRd.
Sam
Shelt
onRd.
George
MillRd.SandsRd.
J.
Joh
nPo
well
Rd.
W. S. Tucker
Rd.
Tom
Mix Rd.Collins
Rd.
Rd.
George
Rd.Ray Loop
L.Nelson
Rd.
Forrest
Rd.
Otis StevensRd.
SchoolRd.
Hart
Rd.Hart
R
d.Puckett
Rd.
Horseshoe
Rd.SmithRd.Walt
er
Frye
Rd.
Lankford
Ed
Rogers Rd.Rocky Ridge Rd
Timber Ridge Rd
Overby Farm Rd
Elkcreek Ln
Big CreekPetersPetersCreekChurch
Primitive Baptist
Big Creek
Dan River
Elementary
School
FranciscoFrancisco
Presbyterian Church
Ray Cemetery
Harts
Store
Francisco
89
704
Church
Presbyterian
704
DAN
RI
VE
RDANRIVERRIVER704
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NAD 83/ 2011
SHEET 2 OF 5
PERMIT DRAWING
www.stantec.com
License No. F-0672
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
Suite 300
NAD 83/ 2011
MATCHLINE -L- STA. 24+00.00 SEE SHEET 5DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
2/21/201917BP9R72_Hyd_prm_wet_psh_04.dgnjharvey8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
17BP.9.R.72 4
69.6
8'
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
SITE 3
SITE 2
SITE 1
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
S
S
AT ANY TIME
SHALL BE ALLOWED
ONLY ONE WORK PAD
WORK PAD
TS
WORK PAD
TS
STEVEN WAYNE COX
ELIZABETH CORNETT
STEPHANIE J. SCRIBNER
MILTON W. SCRIBNER
EIP
EIP
EIP
EIP
EIP
SPIKE
RRNAIL
MAG
3
0.
0
0'
3
0.
0
0'REF. PB 8 PG 8330' ACCESS EASEMENTDAN RIVERDAN RIVER20' BST
NC HWY 704
1 5 ' BSTGEORGE MILL RD S.R. 1507TO DEAD ENDJOEL J. HART
JOANN HART HARRIS
BETTY A. STEVENS
THOMAS W. STEVENS
BASELINE DATA
(TYPICAL)
CONC HW & WW
MTL DECK W/BST OVERLAY
BRIDGE #8
T
SWITCH
SEPTIC PUMP
C
ONC
VAR. SOILGATE
MTL
T
T
SIGNWD
VAR. GRVAR. GR
VAR. GR
VAR. GR
STONE WALLVAR. HTVAR. SOIL V
A
R. S
OILVAR. SOILELK CREEK LN (PRIVATE)48" WD
PROTECTION
CONC SLOPE
PROTECTION
CONC SLOPE
S
VAR. BS
T
VAR
. BST
GATEMTL VAR. SOI
L18" CMP 15" HDPE
36" C
MP
RUINS
CONC BRIDGE
8.5' CONC HW
VAR
. SOIL
VAR. SOILVAR. SOILTUB
HOT
GR3
6"
G
R
3
6
" CONC
CONCCONC 36" CMPDILAPIDATED36" WWT
R E P E AT E R B OXWOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WELL
BK WALL
VAR. HT
GATE
MTL
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
GATE
MTL
GATE
WDBARNWDWOODS WOODS WOODSWOODS
WOODS
PUMP
SEPTIC
BST
SIGNMTLT
1
15" HDPE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1SBKD
1SBKD
RUINS
BARNWD SOLAR PANEL ATTACHED ON TOPHEIGHT=16' +/- ABOVE GROUNDSTATIONRIVER GAUGING50.00'EXISTING R/WEXISTING R/WELIZABETH CORNETT
60.00'60.00'60.00'EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W 10.00'REF. DB 437 PG 1041(5' EACH SI
DE OF CABLE)10' POW
ER EASEMENTSERVI
CE LI
NE30" CMP
42" CHL60
" WW
MTL
POST
WOODS
15" RCP
INV=914.84'
INV=906.94'
SHED
RU
INS
GR
R
/W
MON
POINT DESC. NORTH EAST ELEVATION
1 BL-1 (840008-1) 1009095.2798 1617272.7914 874.63'
2 BL-2 (840008-2) 1008575.4369 1616929.8829 866.77'
5 BL-5 1009822.1220 1617787.1540 931.64'
4 BL-4 1009299.8470 1617462.1520 892.20'
3 BL-3 1008058.9692 1616545.7822 916.67'
------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
CAROLYN
VAZQUEZ
W
O
O
D
SPLATS SHOWING AS 100' R/W
FOUND IN THE FIELD AND RECORDED
SHOWS 100' AS PER MONUMENTATION
EXTENDED SURVEYS BY STANTEC
PER STOKES COUNTY GIS SITE.
PREVIOUS SURVEY SHOWS 60' AS
NOTE: R/W CONFLICT HERE.
GREU TL-3
TYPE IIITYPE III
TYPE III
AT-1
AT-115+00AT-1
GREU TL-3
GREU TL-310+0020+00TYPE III SC (15' R)
HW
FLO
WABLE FILL
FLOW ABLE FILL
REMOVE HW
RETAIN
GRADE TO DRAIN
RETAIN
RETAIN
EXISTING DITCH
TIE TO
FALSE SUMP
TO TOP OF BERM
CLASS II RIP RAP
TO TOP OF BERM
CLASS II RIP RAP
RETAIN 22+01 -L-
END SBG
21+34 -L-
BEGIN SBG
TO ELEVATION 843'
EXCAVATE 1.5:1
EXCAVATION LIMITS
TO ELEVATION 840'
EXCAVATE 1.5:1
EXCAVATION LIMITS
TB 2GI
TB 2GI
36" RCP-IV
36" RCP-IV
JB w/MH
30" RCP-
I
V30" RCP-
I
VJB w/MH ELBOWS15" W/SEE DETAIL 3
EST. 108 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 62 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 3
EST. 790 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 451 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 1
EST. 121 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 66 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
2' BASE DITCH
SPECIAL LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 2
EST. 180 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 98 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
2' BASE DITCH
LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 4
EST. 252 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 139 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
SPECIAL CUT
SEE DETAIL 4
EST. 296 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 169 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
SPECIAL CUT
SEE DETAIL 5
EST. 108 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 57 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
'V' DITCH
SPECIAL CUT
SEE DETAIL 7
17 SY GEOTEXTILE
13 TONS CL II RIPRAP
RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT
SEE DETAIL 7
88 SY GEOTEXTILE
64 TONS CL II RIPRAP
RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT
SEE DETAIL 6
EST. 108 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 62 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
STANDARD
SEE DETAIL 6
EST. 41 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 24 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
STANDARD
SEE DETAIL 3
EST. 121 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 70 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
BASE DITCH
LATERAL 3'30" RCP-IV1.5:1D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+25 -Y1- RT
DETAIL 5
Max. d= 1.5 Ft.
Min. D= 1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
2:12:1D
( Not to Scale)
STANDARD BASE DITCH
B
d
FROM STA. 21+24 TO STA. 21+44 -L- LT
FROM STA. 18+93 TO STA. 19+43 -L- LT
DETAIL 6
B= 3 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 2.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural
Ground
Natural
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Geotextile
( Not to Scale)
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
FROM STA. 20+88 -L- TO STA. 21+24 -L- LT
FROM STA. 19+43 -L- TO STA. 19+50 -L- LT
DETAIL 7
Grade
Ditch
2.0
GEOTEXTILE
10'min.
1.0'min.
L
S
10:1 20
:1
( Not to Scale)
FALSE SUMP
STA. 13+45 -Y1- RT
Traffic Flow
Outside Ditch 1.0' Max0.5' Min.S=Ditch Slope C Proposed Ditch
DETAIL 8
d 2:1B
D
( Not to Scale)
Flatter4:1 or
SPECIAL LATERAL BASE DITCH
FROM STA. 24+00 TO STA. 25+00 -L- LT
FROM STA. 11+75 TO STA. 12+50 -L- LT
Slope
Fill
DETAIL 1
B= 2 Ft.
Max. d= 1.5 Ft.
Min. D= 1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
( Not to Scale)
LATERAL BASE DITCH
2:
1 D
B
b
d
2:1 1"/Ft.
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+50 -L- LT
DETAIL 2
b= 5 Ft.
B= 2 Ft.
Max. d= 1.5 Ft.
Min. D= 1.5 Ft.
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Slope
Fill
GEOTEXTILE
( Not to Scale)
LATERAL BASE DITCH
Flatter
2:1 or
D
B
b
d
2:1 1"/Ft.
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+00 -L- RT
FROM STA. 21+44 TO STA. 22+00 -L- LT
FROM STA. 13+50 TO STA. 16+50 -L- LT
DETAIL 3
b= 5 Ft.
B= 3 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 2.0 Ft.
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Slope
Fill
GEOTEXTILE
dFlatter1.5:1 or
B
D
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
Flatter4:1 or
FROM STA. 23+00 TO STA. 24+00 -L- LT
FROM STA. 16+50 TO STA. 17+59 -L- LT
DETAIL 4
B= 3 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Ditch
Slope
Front
Geotextile
RCP-IV 15"22+01 -L-
END SBG
21+52 -L-
BEGIN SBG
F
F
F
F
F
C
F F
C
F
C
F
F
F
F
F
C
F
F
C C
F
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
CC
C
FF
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
828828
829
829829
830830830830
830830
830830830831831
831831 831831831831831831831831831
8 32
8328328 32
832832832832832832832833
833833833
833833833833833833833833
834
834
834834834834834834834834834
835
835
835
8358358358358358358
3
5
835
836
836
8368 3 6 8368368368368368
3
6
836
837
837
8378378378378378378378378378378 3 8
838
838838838838838838838838838839839839839
839839839839839839839840
8408408408408408408408408408408418418418
4
1
8418418418418418
4
1
841841841 842842842842
8428428428
4
2
842
842842842843843843
843843843843843
843843843843843844844844
844844844844844
8
4
4
844
844844844845845845
845
845845845845
8
4
5
845845846846846
846
846846846846
846846
846846847847847
847
847847847847
847
8
4
7
847847847848848848
848848848
848848
848848848848849849849
849849849849
849
849
849849849850850850850850850850
850
850 850850850851851851851
8518
5
1
851851
851
851 851
851851852852852
852
852852852852852
8
5
2
852
852852853853853
8538
5
3
853853853 853853
853853854854854
854854854854854 854
854
854854854855855855
855855855855855 855
855
855855856856856
856856856856856856 856
856
856856857857857
8 5 7
857857857857857 857
857
857857857858858858
858858858858858858 858
858
858858858 859859
859
8 59
859859859859859 859
859
859859859860860860
860860860860860860 860
860
860860860 861861861
861861861861861861 861
861
861861861 862862862862862862862862862 862
862
862862862 863863863863863863863863863 863
863
86386386386486486
4
864864864864864864 864
864864864864
864865865865
865865865865865865 865 865
865865
865865866866
866
866866866866866866 866
866
866866
866866
866
866867867
867
867867867867867867
867
867
867867867
8678678688 6 8
868868868868868
868
868
868868868
868
868869869
869
869869869869869
869869
869
869869
869 870870
8708708708
7
0
870870
870870
870
870870 871871
8718718718
7
1
871
871
8718 7 1
871
871872872872
8728728728
7
2
8
7
2
872
872872872
872872 873873
873
873
873
873873873
8738738
7
3
87387387487487
4874874
874874874
8748748
7
4
874874875875
8
7
5875875
875875875
8758758
7
5
875875876876
8
7
6
876
876
876876876
8768768
7
6
876876 877877877877
877
877877877
8778778
7
7
877877878878
878
878
878
8788788788788788
7
8
878878879879879879
879
8798798798798798
7
9
8798 8 0880
880
880
880
8808808808808808
8
0
880880880
8 8 1
881
8
8
1
881
881
881881881881881881
8
8
1
881881
8 8 2
882
882
882
882
882882882
882882882
882
883
883
883
883
883
883883883
883883883
8
8
3
884
884
884
884
884
884
884884
8848848
84
884
885
885
885885
885
885
885885
885885885
885
886
886
886
886886
886
886886
886886886
887
887
887
887887
887
887887
887887887
888
888
888
888888
888
888888
8888888
8
8
889
889
889
889889
889
889889
8898898
8
9
890
890
890
890890
890
890890
8908908
9
0
891
891
891
891891
891
891891
891891891
892
892
892
892892
89 2
892892
8928928
9
2
893
893893893893893
893893
8938938
9
3
894
894
8
9
4
894
894
894
8948948948948
9
4
895
895895895
895
895
8958958958958
9
5
896
896
896
896
896
896
8968968968968
9
6
896
897
897897
897
897
897
8978978978978
9
7
897
898
898898
898
898
898
898898898898898
899
899899
899
899
899
899899899899899
900
900
900
900900900900900900
900901
901
901
901901901901901901
901902
902
902
902902902902902902
902
903
903
903
903903903903903903
903
904
904
904
904904904904904904
904
905
905
905
905905905905905905905
906
906
906
906906906906906906906
907
907
907
907907907907907907907
908
908
908
908908908908908908908
909
909
909
909909909909909909909
910
910
910
910910910910910910910
911
911
911
911911911911911911911
912
912
912
912912912912912912912913
913
913
913913913913913913 913914
914
914
914914914914914914 914915
915
915
915
915915915915915
916
916916
916
916916916916916
916
917
917917
917
917917917917917
917
918
918
918
918
918918918918918
918919919
919
919919
919919919919919
920
920
920
920920
920920920920920
921
921921921
921
921921921921921
922
9 2 2
922922
9229229229229
2
2
922
92
2
922
922922
923
9 2 3
923923
923923923923923923
923924
924
924
924
924924924924924
924
925
925
925
925
9259259259
2
5 925926
926
926
926
926926926926926
927
927
927
927
927927927927
928
928
928
928
928
928928928
929
929
929929929
929929929
930
930
930930
930930930930
931
931
931931
931931931931
932
932
932932
932932932933933
933
933
933933934
934
934
934
934934 935935
935
935
935936936
936
936
936937937
937
937
938
938938
939
939939
940
940940
941
941941
942
942
942
943
943
943
944
944
944
945
945
945
946
946
946
947
947
947
947
948
948
948
948
949
949
949
950
950
950
951
951
951 952952
952 953953
953 954954
9
5
4 955955 956956
957
957
958
958
959
959
960
960
961
961
962
962
963
963
964
964
965
965
966
966
967
967
968968969969970
970
971
971
972
972
973
973
974
974
975
975
976
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
SHEET 3 OF 5
PERMIT DRAWING
www.stantec.com
License No. F-0672
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
Suite 300
NAD 83/ 2011
MATCHLINE -L- STA. 24+00.00 SEE SHEET 5DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
2/21/201917BP9R72_Hyd_prm_wet_psh_04a.dgnjharvey8/17/99DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
17BP.9.R.72 4
69.6
8'
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
SITE 3
SITE 2
SITE 1
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
S
S
AT ANY TIME
SHALL BE ALLOWED
ONLY ONE WORK PAD
WORK PAD
TS
WORK PAD
TS
STEVEN WAYNE COX
ELIZABETH CORNETT
STEPHANIE J. SCRIBNER
MILTON W. SCRIBNER
EIP
EIP
EIP
EIP
EIP
SPIKE
RRNAIL
MAG
3
0.
0
0'
3
0.
0
0'REF. PB 8 PG 8330' ACCESS EASEMENTDAN RIVERDAN RIVER20' BST
NC HWY 704
1 5 ' BSTGEORGE MILL RD S.R. 1507TO DEAD ENDJOEL J. HART
JOANN HART HARRIS
BETTY A. STEVENS
THOMAS W. STEVENS
BASELINE DATA
(TYPICAL)
CONC HW & WW
MTL DECK W/BST OVERLAY
BRIDGE #8
T
SWITCH
SEPTIC PUMP
C
ONC
VAR. SOILGATE
MTL
T
T
SIGNWD
VAR. GRVAR. GR
VAR. GR
VAR. GR
STONE WALLVAR. HTVAR. SOIL V
A
R. S
OILVAR. SOILELK CREEK LN (PRIVATE)48" WD
PROTECTION
CONC SLOPE
PROTECTION
CONC SLOPE
S
VAR. BS
T
VAR
. BST
GATEMTL VAR. SOI
L18" CMP 15" HDPE
36" C
MP
RUINS
CONC BRIDGE
8.5' CONC HW
VAR
. SOIL
VAR. SOILVAR. SOILTUB
HOT
GR3
6"
G
R
3
6
" CONC
CONCCONC 36" CMPDILAPIDATED36" WWT
R E P E AT E R B OXWOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WELL
BK WALL
VAR. HT
GATE
MTL
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
GATE
MTL
GATE
WDBARNWDWOODS WOODS WOODSWOODS
WOODS
PUMP
SEPTIC
BST
SIGNMTLT
1
15" HDPE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1SBKD
1SBKD
RUINS
BARNWD SOLAR PANEL ATTACHED ON TOPHEIGHT=16' +/- ABOVE GROUNDSTATIONRIVER GAUGING50.00'EXISTING R/WEXISTING R/WELIZABETH CORNETT
60.00'60.00'60.00'EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W 10.00'REF. DB 437 PG 1041(5' EACH SI
DE OF CABLE)10' POW
ER EASEMENTSERVI
CE LI
NE30" CMP
42" CHL60
" WW
MTL
POST
WOODS
15" RCP
INV=914.84'
INV=906.94'
SHED
RU
INS
GR
R
/W
MON
POINT DESC. NORTH EAST ELEVATION
1 BL-1 (840008-1) 1009095.2798 1617272.7914 874.63'
2 BL-2 (840008-2) 1008575.4369 1616929.8829 866.77'
5 BL-5 1009822.1220 1617787.1540 931.64'
4 BL-4 1009299.8470 1617462.1520 892.20'
3 BL-3 1008058.9692 1616545.7822 916.67'
------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
CAROLYN
VAZQUEZ
W
O
O
D
SPLATS SHOWING AS 100' R/W
FOUND IN THE FIELD AND RECORDED
SHOWS 100' AS PER MONUMENTATION
EXTENDED SURVEYS BY STANTEC
PER STOKES COUNTY GIS SITE.
PREVIOUS SURVEY SHOWS 60' AS
NOTE: R/W CONFLICT HERE.
GREU TL-3
TYPE IIITYPE III
TYPE III
AT-1
AT-115+00AT-1
GREU TL-3
GREU TL-310+0020+00TYPE III SC (15' R)
HW
FLO
WABLE FILL
FLOW ABLE FILL
REMOVE HW
RETAIN
GRADE TO DRAIN
RETAIN
RETAIN
EXISTING DITCH
TIE TO
FALSE SUMP
TO TOP OF BERM
CLASS II RIP RAP
TO TOP OF BERM
CLASS II RIP RAP
RETAIN 22+01 -L-
END SBG
21+34 -L-
BEGIN SBG
TO ELEVATION 843'
EXCAVATE 1.5:1
EXCAVATION LIMITS
TO ELEVATION 840'
EXCAVATE 1.5:1
EXCAVATION LIMITS
TB 2GI
TB 2GI
36" RCP-IV
36" RCP-IV
JB w/MH
30" RCP-
I
V30" RCP-
I
VJB w/MH ELBOWS15" W/SEE DETAIL 3
EST. 108 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 62 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 3
EST. 790 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 451 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 1
EST. 121 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 66 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
2' BASE DITCH
SPECIAL LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 2
EST. 180 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 98 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
2' BASE DITCH
LATERAL
SEE DETAIL 4
EST. 252 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 139 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
SPECIAL CUT
SEE DETAIL 4
EST. 296 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 169 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
SPECIAL CUT
SEE DETAIL 5
EST. 108 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 57 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
'V' DITCH
SPECIAL CUT
SEE DETAIL 7
17 SY GEOTEXTILE
13 TONS CL II RIPRAP
RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT
SEE DETAIL 7
88 SY GEOTEXTILE
64 TONS CL II RIPRAP
RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT
SEE DETAIL 6
EST. 108 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 62 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
STANDARD
SEE DETAIL 6
EST. 41 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 24 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
3' BASE DITCH
STANDARD
SEE DETAIL 3
EST. 121 SY GEOTEXTILE
EST. 70 TON CL I RIPRAP
w/ CL I RIPRAP
BASE DITCH
LATERAL 3'30" RCP-IV1.5:1D Flatter4:1 or
d
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+25 -Y1- RT
DETAIL 5
Max. d= 1.5 Ft.
Min. D= 1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Slope
Ditch
Front
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
2:12:1D
( Not to Scale)
STANDARD BASE DITCH
B
d
FROM STA. 21+24 TO STA. 21+44 -L- LT
FROM STA. 18+93 TO STA. 19+43 -L- LT
DETAIL 6
B= 3 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 2.0 Ft.
Ground
Natural
Ground
Natural
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Geotextile
( Not to Scale)
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
FROM STA. 20+88 -L- TO STA. 21+24 -L- LT
FROM STA. 19+43 -L- TO STA. 19+50 -L- LT
DETAIL 7
Grade
Ditch
2.0
GEOTEXTILE
10'min.
1.0'min.
L
S
10:1 20
:1
( Not to Scale)
FALSE SUMP
STA. 13+45 -Y1- RT
Traffic Flow
Outside Ditch 1.0' Max0.5' Min.S=Ditch Slope C Proposed Ditch
DETAIL 8
d 2:1B
D
( Not to Scale)
Flatter4:1 or
SPECIAL LATERAL BASE DITCH
FROM STA. 24+00 TO STA. 25+00 -L- LT
FROM STA. 11+75 TO STA. 12+50 -L- LT
Slope
Fill
DETAIL 1
B= 2 Ft.
Max. d= 1.5 Ft.
Min. D= 1.5 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Geotextile
( Not to Scale)
LATERAL BASE DITCH
2:
1 D
B
b
d
2:1 1"/Ft.
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+50 -L- LT
DETAIL 2
b= 5 Ft.
B= 2 Ft.
Max. d= 1.5 Ft.
Min. D= 1.5 Ft.
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Slope
Fill
GEOTEXTILE
( Not to Scale)
LATERAL BASE DITCH
Flatter
2:1 or
D
B
b
d
2:1 1"/Ft.
FROM STA. 12+50 TO STA. 13+00 -L- RT
FROM STA. 21+44 TO STA. 22+00 -L- LT
FROM STA. 13+50 TO STA. 16+50 -L- LT
DETAIL 3
b= 5 Ft.
B= 3 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 2.0 Ft.
*When B is < 6.0'
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Slope
Fill
GEOTEXTILE
dFlatter1.5:1 or
B
D
( Not to Scale)
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
Flatter4:1 or
FROM STA. 23+00 TO STA. 24+00 -L- LT
FROM STA. 16+50 TO STA. 17+59 -L- LT
DETAIL 4
B= 3 Ft.
Max. d= 2.0 Ft.
Min. D= 2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
Ground
Natural
Ditch
Slope
Front
Geotextile
RCP-IV 15"22+01 -L-
END SBG
21+52 -L-
BEGIN SBG
F
F
F
F
F
C
F F
C
F
C
F
F
F
F
F
C
F
F
C C
F
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
CC
C
FF
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
SHEET 4 OF 5
PERMIT DRAWING
ELEV. 913.73
-L- STA. 11+75.00
BEGIN GRADE
-L-
-L- STA 21+31.44
END BRIDGE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN 20" BIRCH TREE
N 1008554 E 1617133
-L- STATION 18+97.68 233.06' RIGHT
BM #1 ELEVATION = 835.42'
-L- STA 18+28.56
BEGIN BRIDGE
PI = 16+31.00
EL = 872.99'
(-)8.9342%(-)0.8799%
VC = 300'
(-)0.8799%
DS = 30 MPH
*DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR K VALUE
K = 37*
1.5" MILLING
80'
2A-1
SEE SHEET
IN MILL
25' TIE 30" RCP-IV
DRAINAGE AREA
DESIGN FREQUENCY
DESIGN DISCHARGE
DESIGN HW ELEVATION
100 YEAR DISCHARGE
100 YEAR HW ELEVATION
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION
PIPE HYDRAULIC DATA
AC
YRS
YRS
CFS
CFS
CFS
FT
FT
FT= 902.5
= 63
= 500+
= 50
= 16
= 898.0
= 17
= 898.0
= 6.0
30" RCP-IV Sta. 13+34 ELEV. 868.2SAG STA. 21+87.6EST. 4640 CY
ELEV. 840.0 AT CL
EXCAVATE TO NG
1.73:1 SKEWED
1.5:1 NORMAL
CL II RIPRAP
MIN.
3.5'
WS ELEV. =848.5
PROP 100 YR
1.73:1 SKEWED
1.5:1 NORMAL
CL II RIPRAP EST. 1850 CY
ELEV. 843.0 AT CL
EXCAVATE TO NG
WS ELEV. =844.8
PROP 25 YR
=832.2
NWS ON 6-15-18
ELEV. 917.63
-L- STA. 30+50.00
END GRADE
-L-
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN 17" POPLAR TREE
N 1009282 E 1617512
-L- STA 27+11.88 79.12' RIGHT
BM2 ELEVATION = 875.92'
PI = 22+97.00
EL = 867.13'
(+)6.7065%
VC = 285'
DS = 30 MPH
PI = 22+97.00
EL = 867.13'
VC = 285'
K = 38
DS = 30 MPH
PI = 22+97.00
EL = 867.13'
K = 38*
K = 38*
*DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR K VALUE
(+)6.7065%
SEE SHEET 2A-1
25' TIE IN MILL
240' 1.5" MILLING
(+)5.85%
EL = 866.7
PI = 23+00 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
EL = 878.4
STA 25+00 -L- LT
2' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
(+)5.85%
(+)0.4%
EL = 899.8
STA 29+00 -L- LT
2' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
EL = 899.6
STA 28+50 -L- LT
2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
EL = 872.6
PI = 24+00 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
EL = 872.6
PI = 24+00 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED5/28/99SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
2/21/201917BP9R72_Hyd_prm_wet_psh_06.dgnjharveyDOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
17BP.9.R.72 6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2310111011
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
23 24 25 26 28 29 302730
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
ELEV. 913.73
-L- STA. 11+75.00
BEGIN GRADE
-L-
-L- STA 21+31.44
END BRIDGE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN 20" BIRCH TREE
N 1008554 E 1617133
-L- STATION 18+97.68 233.06' RIGHT
BM #1 ELEVATION = 835.42'
-L- STA 18+28.56
BEGIN BRIDGE
PI = 16+31.00
EL = 872.99'
(-)8.9342%(-)0.8799%
VC = 300'
(-)0.8799%
DS = 30 MPH
*DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR K VALUE
K = 37*
1.5" MILLING
80'
2A-1
SEE SHEET
IN MILL
25' TIE (-)0.4%(-)13.3
%EL = 886.3
(-)5.22%
EL = 912.3
PI = 11+75 -L- LT
LATERAL 2' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL
END EXISTING DITCH
EL = 902.3
PI = 12+50 -L- LT
BASE DITCH
BEGIN LATERAL 2'
2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL LATERAL
EL = 882.1
PI = 14+50 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
BEGIN LATERAL
3' BASE DITCH
END LATERAL
PI = 13+70 -L- LT
EL = 874.3
PI = 16+00 -L- LT
(
-
)6.29%
EL = 871.2
PI = 16+50 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
3' BASE DITCH
END LATERAL
EL = 864.3
PI = 17+59 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
(+)3.00%
(+)6.35%
EL = 846.1
PI = 21+44 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
END LATERAL
EL = 846.5
PI = 21+50 -L- LT
EL = 848.0
PI = 22+00 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
BEGIN LATERAL
EL = 889.0
PI = 13+50 -L- LT
BEGIN LATERAL 3' BASE DITCH
END LATERAL 2' BASE DITCH
EL = 896.0
PI = 12+50 -L- RT
LATERAL 2' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL
ELEV = 895.8
PI = 13+00 -L- RT
LATERAL 2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL
30" RCP-IV
DRAINAGE AREA
DESIGN FREQUENCY
DESIGN DISCHARGE
DESIGN HW ELEVATION
100 YEAR DISCHARGE
100 YEAR HW ELEVATION
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION
PIPE HYDRAULIC DATA
AC
YRS
YRS
CFS
CFS
CFS
FT
FT
FT= 902.5
= 63
= 500+
= 50
= 16
= 898.0
= 17
= 898.0
= 6.0
30" RCP-IV Sta. 13+34 ELEV. 868.2SAG STA. 21+87.6EST. 4640 CY
ELEV. 840.0 AT CL
EXCAVATE TO NG
1.73:1 SKEWED
1.5:1 NORMAL
CL II RIPRAP
MIN.
3.5'
WS ELEV. =848.5
PROP 100 YR
1.73:1 SKEWED
1.5:1 NORMAL
CL II RIPRAP EST. 1850 CY
ELEV. 843.0 AT CL
EXCAVATE TO NG
WS ELEV. =844.8
PROP 25 YR
=832.2
NWS ON 6-15-18
ELEV. 917.63
-L- STA. 30+50.00
END GRADE
-L-
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN 17" POPLAR TREE
N 1009282 E 1617512
-L- STA 27+11.88 79.12' RIGHT
BM2 ELEVATION = 875.92'
PI = 22+97.00
EL = 867.13'
(+)6.7065%
VC = 285'
DS = 30 MPH
PI = 22+97.00
EL = 867.13'
VC = 285'
K = 38
DS = 30 MPH
PI = 22+97.00
EL = 867.13'
K = 38*
K = 38*
*DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR K VALUE
(+)6.7065%
SEE SHEET 2A-1
25' TIE IN MILL
240' 1.5" MILLING
(+)5.85%
EL = 866.7
PI = 23+00 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
EL = 878.4
STA 25+00 -L- LT
2' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
(+)5.85%
(+)0.4%
EL = 899.8
STA 29+00 -L- LT
2' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
EL = 899.6
STA 28+50 -L- LT
2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
EL = 872.6
PI = 24+00 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
EL = 872.6
PI = 24+00 -L- LT
3' BASE DITCH
BEGIN SPECIAL CUT
2' BASE DITCH
END SPECIAL CUT
TOP=833.2
WORK PAD
TEMP
AT A TIME
SHALL BE ALLOWED
ONLY ONE WORK PAD
Hand Existing Existing Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural Site Station Structure Fill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts StreamNo. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)1 19+46 to 19+60-L-LT RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT < 0.01 21 2 20+75 to 20+96-L-LT RIPRAP AT EMBANKMENT < 0.01 25 3 18+58 to 19+46-L-RT TEMP WORK PAD 0.05 118 19+76 to 20+50-L- TEMP WORK PAD 0.06 108 TOTALS*: < 0.01 0.11 46 226 0*Rounded totals are sum of actual impactsNOTES:Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 5OF 5 WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARYWETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTSSTOKES COUNTY17BP.9.R.7217BP.9.R.72NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSFebruary 15, 2019