20071840 Ver 1_Application_20071031

~~~~
~' ~`~
V.a
.~~~,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
~ October 26, 2007
3 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
,~ Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road O ~ ~ Q
Suite 120 O
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Application for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 60 over the Dan River on NC 8 / 89 in Stokes County, Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-008 (4), State Project No. 8.1641201, WBS Element:
33621.1.1, Division 9, TIP B-4281.
DEPARTIV~NT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ '"' rh'
~~
z
f~
0
~»
CJ

Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
60 over the Dan River on NC 8 / 89. It is proposed that the current bridge be replaced with a
three span, 54-inch continuous steel plate girder bridge with 9-foot, 6-inch centers, 400-feet
in length, there will be no bents in the water. The new bridge will have 12-foot travel lanes
in both directions and will have 4-foot shoulders on each side. During construction traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge. Please find enclosed the pre-construction
notification, permit drawings, and design plan sheets. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was
completed for this project in July 2005 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies
are available upon request.
1~"
4 ~~ ~~.
~~
~'~ET ~tnla~ , ~/~f)~ ~~
~ryDSA~~ ~q 1,~n- ~; ~ .i
~4,1,In,a,~~ ryr
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Roanoke River Basin, subbasin 03-02-01
with a Hydrologic Unit Code of 03010103. The Dan River has a Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) stream index number of 21-(8). A best usage classification of WS-V has been
assigned to the Dan River. This reach of the Dan River has not been assigned the
supplemental classification for Trout Waters (Tr). Buck Island Creek has a stream index of
22-14 and a best usage classification of Class C. There is one UT located on the south side
of bridge. This UT has the same DWQ stream index and classification as the Dan River.
There are no wetlands in the project area.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604

• r
A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) field visit was conducted on May 1, 2007. It was
determ=.~ied in the field by the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) that the Dan
River would require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio, UT 1 was intermittent, but contained stone flies
and other perennial indicators and would require mitigation at 1:1 ratio, Buck Island Creek
would require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio. This field visit was confirmed in a Jurisdictional
Information Sheet dated May 3, 2007, Action Id. SAW200'71592285.
No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I or
WS-II waters occur within one-mile of the project area. The Dan River is not listed on the
2006 List of impaired waters [Section 303(d)] for the Roanoke River Basin nor does it drain
into any 303(d) waters within 1-mile of the project azea.
Permanent Impacts: Construction of the new bridge will require the use of Class II Rip Rap
for bank stabilization along the banks of the Dan River. Construction of the new bridge will
result in a total of 33-feet (0.02 acre) of permanent surface water impacts to the Dan River.
Temporary Impacts: There will be temporary impacts associated with the construction of
Bridge No. 60. There will be 0.02 acres of temporary fill in the Dan River associated with
the bents of two temporary work bridges. One temporary work bridge will be constructed to
remove the existing bridge and one temporary work bridge will be constructed to set the
girders for the new bridge. There will also be 0.02 acre of temporary impacts due to the use
of two temporary negative pressure rings. The negative pressure rings will be used during
the removal of the two existing bridge bents. The total temporary impacts will be 0.04 acre
(70-linear feet).
Utility Impacts: The following utilities have been identified as being in conflict with the
project.
Power line -Duke Energy has a three phase power line which runs pazallel for the length of
the project. The power line is supported by five poles that aze located within the project
limits. The power line will be removed by Duke Power and replaced at a later date. This
action will not impact any jurisdictional azeas.
Telephone -The existing aerial telephone cables which parallel NC 8 on the west side of the
existing roadway will be raised on the existing Duke Energy poles. A buried fiber optic
cable located on the south side of NC 89 will be lowered beneath the existing ditch line
within existing right of way. This work will have no impact on jurisdictional areas.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 60 has a superstructure composed of reinforced concrete
deck on reinforced concrete girders. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete
abutments and interior bents. The existing bridge has an overall length of 315-feet and is
20-feet wide. Two temporary negative pressure rings will be used during to removal of the
two existing bridge bents that are located in the Dan River. North Cazolina Department of
Transportation's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds, Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for Contract Construction, and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed. The bridge will be removed without dropping
any components into waters of the United States. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
2

RESTORATION PLAN
Following construction, all material used in the construction of the new bridge as well as the
detour bridge will be removed. The impacted areas associated with the bridge are expected
to recover naturally, since the natural streambed and plant material will not be effected. Pre-
project elevations will be restored. NCDOT will replant the area along the stream bank of
Buck Island Creek with appropriate vegetation. All disturbed areas will be brought back to
their pre-project contours.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal
of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment
for removal of any earthen material. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes and various other
pieces of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadway will be used on site.
All material placed in the stream will be removed from the stream at that time. The
contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems
suitable in the construction of project. After the erosion control devices are no longer
needed, all temporary materials will become the property of the contractor.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 10, 2007, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species for
Stokes County. Table 1 lists the species, their status and biological conclusion.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Stokes County. NC
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
May Affect -Not
James Pleurobema collina E Yes Likely to Adversely
s in ussel Affect
Schweinitz's Helianthus E Yes No Effect
sunflower
schweinitzii
May Affect -Not
Small-anthered Cardamine E Yes Likely to Adversely
bittercress micranthera Affect
Descriptions and biological conclusions for each of these species were presented in the CE.
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was rendered for Schweinitz's sunflower and small-
anthered bittercress. A biological conclusion of "May Affect" was rendered for James
spinymissel (JSM) since it is known to be present in the project area.
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) has a status of Federally Endangered.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage database of rare species and unique habitats was
3

reviewed on October 22, 2007. There is documentation of rare species found within 2 miles
of the project study area (small-anthered bittercress and the James spinymissel).
A survey was conducted for Schweinitz's sunflower (September 13, 2007). No Schweinitz's
sunflower was found during the September 2007 survey.
A survey was conducted for small-anthered bittercress (May 24, 2006) since the CE
document stated that potentially suitable habitat exists within the project study. Two
locations of small-anthered bittercress were found in Buck Island Creek during the field visit
on May 24, 2006. The locations are approximately 425 feet and 265 feet from the
confluence of Buck Island Creek and the Dan River. Buck Island creek flows into the Dan
River approximately 200 feet downstream from the current bridge.
A formal Section 7 meeting was held at the project site with NCDOT, USFWS and WRC
personnel on Monday October 2, 2006 to discuss the James spinymussel and the small-
anthered bittercress. At that time it was determined that the biological conclusion for small-
anthered bittercress be changed from "No Effect" to "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely
Affect".
JSM individuals were observed in the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement and both
upstream and downstream of the project area in 2001, 2006 and 2007. The NCDOT
Biosurveys Group will conduct apre-construction survey and relocation of mussels in the
project footprint will reduce the possibility of direct mortality of JSM. Measures will be
incorporated by NCDOT to avoid/minimize effects to the Dan River and potential habitat for
the JSM. A complete list of these measures can be found in the Biological Assessment
(BA). Strict implementation of these measures will ensure that the effects will be minimal
and temporary wherever possible.
The unavoidable effects of bridge construction are expected to adversely affect existing JSM
in the Dan River immediately downstream of the project area, but these effects are
anticipated to be temporary and sublethal. Effects caused by bridge construction are not
likely to prevent the re-colonization of JSM into the action area in the future. Therefore, the
biological conclusion for the James spinymussel should be changed from "May Affect" to
"May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect".
A Final BA and Biological Opinion (BO) will be submitted to the USACE when completed.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Compensatory Miti atg ion: The NCDOT is committed to
incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and
NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project
design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid,
minimize, and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a
list of the project's jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or
completed by NCDOT:
4

Avoidance/Minimizati Win:
• Bridge No. 60 will span the Dan River.
• In-stream activity will be limited only to the areas shown on the plan sheets.
• Removal of the existing bents will take place when water flow level is at a minimum
point allowable within the project schedule and will be done in such a manner to
minimize disturbance to the streambed.
• Deck drains will not be allowed to discharge directly into stream.
• A preformed scour hole is to be located on the northwest side of the Dan River.
• The use of temporary work bridges in lieu of causeways to construct proposed bridge.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
• Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be used.
• The existing bridge will serve as an on-site detour during construction of the new bridge.
• The area along the bank of Buck Island Creek will be protected during construction and
no access will be allowed in this area.
• The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations.
• Stilling basins will be used to hold water impacted by bridge construction activities. The
stilling basins will be located upgradient and on the southwest side of the project area.
Compensator~Miti ation: No compensatory mitigation is proposed for the 33-feet of stream
impacts because the impacts are for bank stabilization and there will be no loss of aquatic
use to the Dan River.
MORATORIUM
In an email dated October 20, 2006, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC) requested a moratorium for the Dan River from February 1 to June 30 to protect
the spawning periods for sensitive non-game fish species that are present. Also, in the
Section 7 Consultation field meeting on August 1, 2007, and in a follow up email the
NCWRC recommended an in-water work moratorium to protect smallmouth bass, sunfish,
and other listed species in the project area. However, these species are not afforded federal
or state protection in Waters of the U.S in NC. Additionally, the in-water construction phase
of the proposed project will not significantly affect the above mentioned fish species. In
fact, imposing a moratorium for these species will result an increase of $327,000 in
construction costs and at least a 6 month delay of the project completion, resulting in a
longer sustained effect on the environment. Therefore, the NCDOT does not believe this
moratorium is warranted and does not propose to adhere to it.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of April 15, 2008 with a date of availability of May 27, 2008.
Permits are needed by the review date of February 26, 2008. It is expected that the
contractor will choose to start construction as soon as possible.
5

REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests
that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (Federal Register Vol. 72, No.
47 Pages 11092-11198, March 12, 2007). It is anticipated that the temporary impacts will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 for the temporary work bridges and
negative pressure rings. We are therefore also requesting the issuance of a Nationwide
Permit 33.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate General Certification numbers 3632 and 3334 will apply
to this project. All general conditions of the Water quality Certifications will be met.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200
we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their notification.
Comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be
required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter and
attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC
forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers and the NCDOT within 30 calendar days
of receipt of this application.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Sara Easterly at
[phone] if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincere
~ i
~ ~,/ Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D.
~C"" Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies) Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E, Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit Mr. S. P. Ivey, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Kent Boyer, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington Mr. Wade Kirby, PDEA Engineer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
6

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Appticanie" or ..iviti .)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification is not
required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII, and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4), and the
project. is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern
(see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: QthorQe(a~dot state nc us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local landmarks such as
towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property boundaries and development
plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan must include a scale and
Page 1 of 8

north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, impervious surfaces, or other ,facilities must be
included. If possible, the maps and plans should include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map
and NRCS Soil Survey with the property boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be
included at the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and
distribution purposes, the USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-
inch format; however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are reduced to a
small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that the project has been
placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 60 on NC 8 / 89 over the Dan River
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only)
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
B-4281
County: Stokes Nearest Town: Danbury
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): NA
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Highway 40 West to Exit
210, Highway 68 to Hi hway 65 to Highway 311 to Highway 8 / 89.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36° 25' S9" °N 80° 14' 33" °W
6. Property size (acres): Total protect length is 0.275 miles
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Dan River
8. River Basin: Roanoke
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The River Basin
map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time
of this application: Proiect area is located in a rural community with the surrounding area being
comprised mainly of agricultural land.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Bridge No.
60 will be replaced north of the existing bridge with the existing_brid a acting as an on-site detour
during construction of the new bridge. Heave equipment will be used such as trucks dozers cranes
and other various equipment necessarvfor roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:_ Bridge No. 60 has a sufficiency rating of 42.6 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer more efficient traffic
operations.
IV. .Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this project
(including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include the USACE Action
ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and certifications were issued or
Page 2 of 8

withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits, certifications or other useful information.
Describe previously approved wetland, stream and buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where
applicable). If this is a NCDOT project, list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same
T.I.P. project, along with construction schedules. A Jurisdictional Determination Field Visit was conducted
on May 1, 2007 with the U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers. Only a verbal agreement was liven at that time.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work, and
provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future permit requests anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to wetlands, open
water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be listed separately in the tables
below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate
if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be
labeled and clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams
(intermittent and perennial) should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to
these systems. Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or
stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1: Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: See cover letter
3. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to mechanized clearing,
grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both
structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Type of Wetland Located within Area of
Site Number Type of
(e.g., forested
marsh 100-year Distance to Nearest Impact
(indicate on Impact ,
,
herbaceous, bog
etc.) Floodplain Stream (linear feet) (acres)
ma) , (es/no)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Wetland Impact (acres) NA
4. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: NA
5. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary impacts.
Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam construction, flooding,
Page 3 of 8

relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib walls, gabions, etc.), excavation,
ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear
footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply
length X width and then divide by 43,560.

Stream Impact Average
Impact

Number
Stream
Perennial or Stream
Length Area of
(indicate on Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Width (linear Impact
map) Before feet) (acres)
Im act
Temporary Work
Bridge
Permanent Bank
Stabilization
Temporary
Negative Pressure
Site 3 Dan River Rin Per nnial 130 30 0.02

Temporary Work
Bridge
Site 4 Dan River perennial 130 20 0.01
Total Stream Im act b len hand acrea e 103 0.06
6. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic Ocean and
any. other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to fill, excavation,
dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water
Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
NA NA NA NA 0.00
NA NA NA NA 0.00
NA NA NA NA 0.00
Total Open Water Impact (acres) NA
7. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.06
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.00
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.06
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 103.00
Page 4 of 8

8. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and the size
of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only applies to waters that
have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USAGE.
9. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be included above
in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should be described here and
illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of draw-down
valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond, local
stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and financial
viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and
explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts were minimized once the
desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be followed during
construction to reduce impacts. See cover letter.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC Division of Water
Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to freshwater wetlands or greater
than or equal to 1501inear feet of total impacts to perennial streams.
USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits,
published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when necessary to
ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including size and type of
proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource will be considered in
determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation
that may be appropriate and practicable include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project;
establishing and maintaining wetland and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as
streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or
preserving similar functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order for USAGE
or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application lacking a required mitigation
plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An applicant may also choose to
review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in
North Carolina, available at htttr//h2o.enr.state.nc.usincwetlands/strmgide html.
Page 5 of 8

Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide as much
information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions and/or map, if
offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet) of mitigation proposed
(restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view, preservation mechanism (e.g., deed
restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a description of the current site conditions and proposed
method of construction. Please attach a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No proposed mitigation.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at [phone] to
determine availability, and written approval from the. NCEEP indicating that they are will to accept
payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For additional information regarding the
application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please check the
appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
lX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of public
(federaUstate) land? Yes ®No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements
of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note: If you are not sure
whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA coordinator at [phone] to review
current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a copy
of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to required state
and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide justification for these
impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable
on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a map, whether or not impacts are proposed
to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ Regional Office may be included as appropriate.
Photographs may also be included at the applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (Neuse), 15A
NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman
Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or
other (please identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer multipliers.
Page 6 of 8

Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(s uare feet) Miti ation
1 NA
2 NA
Total NA
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2
extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation of
Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration
Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or
.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss Stormwater
controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If percent
impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed impervious
level. _
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
XIII.
XIV.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater
generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^No
Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development,
which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most
recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Page 7 of 8

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired construction
dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may choose to list constraints
associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on work schedules (e.g., draw-down
schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or
other issues outside of the applicant's control).

ApplicadE/Agenk"s Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

•
c
0
m
E
0
E
a
e
P
S~=
N®~~~ C~~®JL.s~N~
~~
f ancy GtO 1 r . i ~ I~ ~"~
~y~ ~.[~}
~ ~ Gaa~,itra y
s 1+.Qt~aY
_ q~ r
f R±UInt,F .~„ ~, ~a _ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~_~~~pdt_ _ j~1 Y 2i0 ~1
'R,d e ' 41t i0t .~~, ; F,a 01 ~Y ~'~ ~~0't~ltsr~A t 'Pr zc ~ ~._ .T
P ~ .©~f ~`~~ t q ~~:' wF, iK .,.\Se-._y~agfs ~' ~
toast ?,, - ~ r
~`t`i-s' `~~ t ~% ~`: ~ti Ld.vs rtiite `-tc.~s._-.tip ~ \ z ~4! n
~-. Ba~i.frtcnr•t J,~.. -~, ~G r t }_.. ti~ lTi__. 1.' S+~nc Itl 4
` r Prey=.or,s Ile ~,~--70{~ 115
+1 ~ c r
Pla~'?s~' Pilt i a~`~res ~ ~ :311 ~ ~T ((yty~~'
~~ fa2~_ ~ u7 ;? '~.J {{ J 3 its" ,i~,Ok
P+Ivt Mtit. a ~~ iC ~} R.r ;4. 0
~cn St P!, Hofn ~" Car tV C y ~ F'llzs . ra I Stf
'r'r Kr~tlrt"OR S,fea^ ~.v,n- E ~"Ki'[I'~1. \g~ Watt,t~ ine i
axi e: (~G ~ ~ CAVe'_~'5,~7~(
~~i~"rug to Srnrt Y~xr ~.iecev; to $ {~ - .~. - S a :+~. _ .
~ '1 rgtlun~} .
w.`"`ti. a4t QP4(t -a~iaif ~ /• C•ein ~ i ~i~
n "..~ t ire ~it~yw u~ 3l I 1 ~. i r ; e S~-Flhte~eld ~.g,;
II.7 ; 6P ~ F. ~~ es Marlin ~ tt
s* , ~~ ~ 150 ; • '
5p~~: 3,.. aiK wr ~oaK ~C . ~~~ r„
idt`t(JUf ~~ ~
JRaa's ~ ... I- a~.t4":i€.x`u4r'fifF.. a1 ° :. i'~1J.:.+*~!:. ~i ~ .._ ~...
S NCD®T
~(y DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
a ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ STOSES COUNTY
r PROJECT:3362L11 (B-~28v
}~~((~ ~ BRIDGE N0.60 OVER
1~~ DAN RIVER ON
NC 8/89
0
SHEET ~ OF 4 / 18 / 07

O
V
h
0
E
0
v
E
m
a
0
Nao
a
"°:
2 ',W~
~~
~ Q
1490 ! ~
r
~$ 1666 Y ~,
Branch ~
END
'' 89 ~ ~ PROJECT
BEGIN `~''
PROJECT $
a ~ 9
0
1 7 1 67
~ a
*:
1665
~ 1489
,\
~~ ~ ;.
,,
a~
~ ~ 0 ~ __, ,~ U .,
~~ 8
~' * 89/,~
~~~~
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STOgES COUNTY
PROJECT: 33621.1.1 (B-281)
BRIDGE N0.60 OVER
G L I DAN RIVER ON
NC 8 / 89
SHEET 2. OF ~ 2 / 13 / 07

m
3
E
m
E
a
a
sao
^°_
~Pa
SUMMARY ®F AFFEC~EI) 1~R®~ERTY ®WNERS
TRACT N0. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE N0.
O PAUL BENNETT AND WIFE
GLADYS BENNETT 1030 PAUL'S DRIVE
DANBURY, NC 27016 2

NC~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STOgES COUNTY
PROJECT: 33621.1.1 (B-4281)
BRIDGE N0.60 OVER
G ~' DAN RIVER ON
NC 8/89
SHEET 3 OF 9 5 / 23 / 07

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac Han
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 18+80 to 20+36 LT Tem orar Work 0.01 20
Brid e, L= 156'

2 18+95 & 20+20 CL. II Ri Ra 0.02 33

3 19+40 & 19+90 RT Tem ora Ne alive 0.02 30
Pressure Rin

4 18+84 to 19+94 RT Tem ora Work 0.01 20
Brid e, L=110' _

TOTA LS: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 33 70 0
Revised 3/37/05

m
m
m
x
E
a
i
m
~~
`~i i
R ii
W it
~~
r00
~a ~
~\ e'T
n
\\~\
\~.~
_/ ~qE
~- ~_ _ ,~ n-r.rF~v~
O
COY 0. NOORFFLD
ANO WIFE
CLARICE 5. NoAEFIELLD
O
mnas7 IRtT,y~
-e>m.~ ~_

0~~~_
,, ~ O C1
x
r
~`Pt~
3
O~
PAIR BENNETT
Iy AND W¢E
1\ CLADYS BEfYffTT
r ;:,,;;>,:;r~ O~
PAUL BEMETT
AND WGE
CLADYS BENVETT
r
~. ~~ ` .
/~.~~5. _ ---
`~ ~ ~ -----a¢~aT----_-_--_-- -_~
. .n. _
TENPORARY WORK
BRDGE TO CONSTRUCT
THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
E~-E
WORK AREA FOR
BENT CONSTRUCTION
R
ACCESS ROAD
. °°°°,Q~° O°0 ..
~: '°. O
°° 0
0
°o 'F
' ° N~
ccK. mrl °° (V
ORTABLE STILLING °°° 0
QZ
+ ~ + y~
-- W
IW
,~ _ _ W
~ Z N
J
~. .. V W
\~'\ y
re F-
~~\,
voo0s \~
DETAIL C
i BANK STABILIZATION
INO1 to ScaNl
Cra~urMd S' 7~
FFUMc
Type of Llner- 0. IRp-ROp
CL R DP RAP FILTER FABAI
STA 18+80 80 70N5 80 S.Y.
STA IO+40 100 TONS 100 SY.
/ _ `~ ~ N. C. NELSON..R. ET AL
~' / \~ ~\O4 ACCESS ROAD
R \ --
~D~
WORK AREA FDA-
BENT CONSTRUCTION.
~~',,
~~.; aD v
YP5 COY D. N AFIELD
• 'CLAM , . •.
~C' u
PROA:Ci EEFERENCE NO. SHff7 NO.
8-428! 4
MV SHffT N0.
IOADWAY DFSIGN
EVGINffR HYDAAOlICS
nVGINffA

INCOMPLE E PLANS
W NOT 1158 POR /A ACOU555'1'[pN
PRELIMIN
OO NOT USE FV RY PLANS
CONgrgUC510N
I w ' O
1;
a RO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Eagiaeera
m gagwq pE.naSq ~m qunm.n.crna
ltbl lLfliq
I~I ~~~ f~
~,,'
f ~ ~I
3 JESSE 0. SAMS
I AND WIFE
JERELENE C. SANS
TEMPORARY WORK-
ARIDGE FOUNDATION
(TYP.1
'• ..
~,r±5~„f.ur±,.r .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ I
Tom.-.-"':.:
O F.~^ .::..:::.:::.:::..:..::s::..::., :.~:.:.:...;
COY D. NOORFEl- ~ iaE PROTEC110N ~/PSAY ~. ' .. .. .. .. .
AND WIFE Sff OETAL A ~~"~ '~~•r-~"'~~~Y
~~ S' ~~ IB' PVC TO COL T
l1 r~ION
naNr~ _i~~~`'~Fa
~~ N Sbpe
d
G= I Ft.
Type of Unsr= PSRY
Fvou sr~ u+se ro sri a+m yr
.,- LEC
~. DECK DRAINS
J`^' - E
..~;~,,-.;i~`~ m TENPORAAY NEGATIVE
r„{"'' - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~. STILLNG BASIN PRESSURE RING WITH
" CONCRETE BARRIERS
:,' -
;; ~___
ANO SAND BAGS TO
~~ ~" ~' ~~ , ; ; : '~ 1'~-` El(ISTING ACCESS TO RENOYE THE E%ISTING
~~---= '~ ~ ,rw 1'i~,, .,, FIELD TO BE UTR.QED BENT
,_ W
E----E-~~
PR FOAM D c O IA HO F ~ O
DETAIL B I COY AO~N wO~~FLD
~ r
CLARKS S.NORFFFLD
" ~]L~N V~]E~
W~ ~
~~ 1• S Fr.
o- lFr.
n , Fr.
THE
a
0
loo o sosFr.
~„ LEGEND
~~~ DENOTES PERMANENT
5O loo ""~ ®SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
C«a, MA 151r 5bq
SCALE: I°= 100` HORIZ. ~'~q ""' s~ ® DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
_ ___ _ STA 17+]7 Li
O
7F5ll~1D W~ E~ GLI
PEGGY R.PUCKETT
N~~®°1C
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STOKES COUNTY
PROJBCT: bS6RLLI 0l-as8ll
BRIDGE N0.60 OVBR
DAN RIVER ON
C NC 8/A9
SHEET J OF ~ 8/06/07

8/9/2Q07
aul Ics\dgn \PPerm,t~s\84281_hyd_prm_r,et_04.dgn
0. Aaannint..._P
_ ~\ ]m"J' j~~111~ill:lil~~lll~gNi111111 lij'lil~Jl/jljl^111 1 ~n~ / / I / 111
O `\ I111111I`°111II1~111~j11 II I lit I~I1111j111~111 I ~/ // / / ~ ~ rl
O `,~~~\`~ / 1 II1111j11~1111~1111 I I Illll ,IIII~IIIIIIII I ~ I r / / \ Ilrii
\~„1\\\d~ / N~~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ I I'~11I~ ~ II I I I~~III \\~;III Ilj~~lJll,'~II 11 I 1 // // ~`~ 1 \II~I_~
\ } \ d Jm~lll I I/, I qll I rllJl;~ll I ! ~ti6 J / ( / \II
' 6 ll'// 11111 /~ 11 ~ \ 1 1 I
~ I~O\\t~\\ I ~ ~\jlljilll//1111,1//.% I i gg r~lli //' 1 11 / // / I 1\\•
~ t -1.\ \ I 1~ I I I/ /// / /h , I"Illi 1 IIIII, II I , I a/ 1 I II 1 ,
D O W e\\I\1 F i'y,'I IIIIII~:~(/////Ilij11 ~ '1111'! 11/1111'llll 1\ I\ ~ti / ~ I 1 II, 1 I
1 \ h el 1 /, )\ 1111111\q -- III //~///~/111 1 ! 1 1 // / I I \ 1, I
rl-I g 11111 e~/, 1ml IIIII m/1111/ X111; " /1~111~1111 I . I / / / . I \II' 1:; 1
1~ 1 1 ~. r l/mllr ! ll/111 I Illli I,. , I 1 ti I I I
.. o ,/// l ! I I l l l// mll 1 l l 1 III ' 1'111111 I I I I, I I I I I I / ,ti \~ ~ Iru
li ~ ~@'1%: I ~ I I l ~~~j1 I%/~11/111/Illllllll _ (1111 ~IIIII~III I ~ I ~ / % % II II' 1
O >/ I 1 ~ 11; I?III I I \ I1
/; r ~\~ I I I/P111 11 Pll~jlllllll it lll, ti1~~1111111 ~ I 1 / / ro~ % I\:\ ~ Ill ~ ~\
p + ~/// / I1 ~ Ill/'// mI~JJIj;IRI/, 111'•1^l~' ~l; 1111 I 1 / m c( ','ll '~' I 1
O g ~/// ~ ly,llll/0//'•r 111/lIl/!l, ~~ 11'll~llllll l l I l I/ % ~ \~I ,'1 /;,
~-_/'~~'~ 1 1, I l,~Jl '1 1' ~'I 1 II 1/ „~l1 r l l I I >d I I 1 /:/
/ I (I IIIImI// lI r/111~ /1 -~6`9 ~I lI l',l~.l l l l b' ~'lll 1" 1.
\ / / l/// 1 / / //, 11,1 I Ii I r i l / / i' ;^ l1 , / /
_ - /.l / ll / I ll I '1111/// r / ~ I// /ii ~I\\
O -~ l l i/ /l/'l/I 1. / /~///,'/%/fill 1 /i .I1 1 ~ l/ l / i
/ I 1, l_ ;mil l'/ I' 1 111 II I IIIII 11 I l / I 1 `_ ~ \til' X11 (~_ ,', // )
e l1 1 I / / II/1,
.Z7 ~°~ ,~: II 11IIIImI1I //,',~,IIeS 111;~I II I~I llJlll'1~ l ~/' l l / / /~ ~ 1~ ' ,II 1 %; 7 ; /~lll' )
N ,/ `~'. I III'III1il/I/%/'o'l,lilljl~ll 1 u l^ 1111111/ 11. I l I / 1 / \r\ II ~ Ifl I // .•/ ylrh'%.'~///1
• ,k /`'m. 111 1 IIIII II III 1 1 I 1111;111111 / I / / \ ~ J /l1 J~-: /!/%://i,,
O / \/ ;I I I I :I I I l~l l; r III I INI I I I Ill 1' 1 _ 11 II I ll/ 1 ~ l / / ' ' ~ v //eti// //' //
~ I . l' it .I I I Iml I ~ 11 IlIl~11I1 ~ i 111/!/ II III l,~/~j%l/ /,~nd'~^, / ~ / l j /~ ^~/ ~~~ , s~' /'%%//'///
O \' )!/ I I Ilill I 1 I' / asp _~ /01.% " I / ~/j/ 'ri/l
\ II I I I Ill~l II ~~I1~61/1l' 1 rl illll~l/11 i / 1 / ~r, / / ~ \ / I i :/ ' ///4,'/ // /
l i\ lI I II Illllti11111m111 Im/~/// I 11 %l l%'lll /ti'°l / / / / /'/ /vrv '///1a,•%•,///
I `, I ' I Il; I I Im ml ,w I I,~/, / _l;~ , , l I ~ .. / , , ~--\\_~., ~; /
II I m II I I . rll l 1~lll/' / 1 / / ,~ / ~ r. /' \~,,i/i:/ ii I v /v, /
I ~ I III'/I II ,I 11111 /~ / / / l / rr//~/ ,y/ ~ ~ir :-' ~\
I III I I 11111 I l l~ r l l' I I Il~ ' I l l /: /- /'"-~~/ /' i/~;/ / / 1
III , ~I I,III 1 111 11 IIIII I'I( II l 1I/ll 1/ n: /, /// / I ~/~~ / / ~ .-~
m l f . I 1 111 , I I I i -Il l l ~ /ti / I ~ ~/ i%v '~/ ~ / ;'~/ / /, ~ ~
I --~ I 11111 I I ~ I . I // /; / / / ~ / , m~- /,' / / U/
1/~(1I: 1 1111 11111 . IIIII r111' I „ ll;; 1111(/ / /; / I ; ~,i I /.i / / /
11/x// R Il,vlllllllimlll' 1111111,111 / 11„1/i/l~ l/ / ire' 11 `\ \~ ~, /,/ ji//' / ~'~`~'///,~// /' / //'
/ / l y I I,~I /%1/ &(1111'1 1 '1 Ill /J1/l///,ill/ / ~' ~~/ /;/ ~ , VIII' / //!//' ~ ///..1111//,. // /r/%/,c/\
/ // // / 1 ~ 111 I Ill,ll '/ 1/n li 1 lil Y i l1 /: /j / ,pro / ~/ / , / l l'/ i ///' - l •\
/, / ~ ~ 11111,111//'ll//11/111111111 - / /",,l //i / / / i~ /' ~ ~~/ '/l /;'/ ( ' ~~ 1//L/ %. / /// // /% j
/: ~ l I j '1\ lil N~ I I I i Iml I 1 // r I I ll ~ 1 / .~l'll/~i ~ , ,// / 1 7~ /~ d~~/// /!r 1 '
/ I L',I N I, i I /1111111 11'11 ~/ l/ till rl/~ ~~/.' // ///\ _ i 1 % /~// /'~ / rr 1' l y' / / l // ' / . i.
/ / I 1 ~I .i~lll II~II'I 111 1111 Ill ti/ ~'///, / / ~// // /I'~//~/ I ~ '~~/ /~_Jll / ., / / / ~~ //
k I I I I ~ I I I I d 111 h, 1111 l / _ / / / / / 9' ( 'es
~/ /N / 'lY / , 1 / ~''
/ // // / • /' J I 1 I I I I I l l l~l~l l l 1 j I I I Im/ I/ ~11 _ ~~,1 /'~l'1/1~.---''~ / „IB- / iM' I r-~. / %~ ; / / ~' r; ' l ~j I /
/ , /m' rlf ,~Illmllropl 11'111111 I, 111 11111/ ~- // ~ I r/ r.:-~~ /''':// ,/~~/1/i'l l l I ~1..'' I
/'~~= ~ I 1 I \I 'ml I 1j1m1111 ~ I / I1 /' l 1/ \~1 j i /r: -'~~t-'% l °\ ~ j //~ I 1 / I / 1 \
I'- im III 11111 'l 11111 I 1/111/ / //im\._; \ ~ /, I/ /~' ///, 1
1 I ~J l / / / / 1 ( 1 I; \
-' _~/. 1'-11111 JIj111'lJ~;llll 111 ~Ij ' 11/''11111/ /~/ ~ r I '~i/i ) ~ ,/ g~'~ ~//, l \ / .-'-l •,-
I, :III 1111(// 1111/1 111/ 1111 11I11/~ / / ~~'~\~ ~/ / . ~ti / \ r 1 //,/ /,'/ % l: 1 (/~%-T- - e,
------'' I ' `1 1 1 ll i 1 r ~ /'i / .m/ // > ( // / 1 f •/ 1 ~ ` \.\ \ I I S', \ -'~
-----_- /',_'1I IIj1111~~11/ll//1li 111 ~', .11~'/1'11 r~~ /,/i/ / r. / a,j~ ~/i s \ ;'
---- /1 ,1 11 111f~ 11/11 11/1/' 1111 I~yII' - / / 1 / / .r 1 ~', .1 ~ I ' ~" ' `--_ "'' / ~`
------ --eze, , I I ! \I t ~ 11 1 /l Jp l " IllFllll~l / -~i w_ i/i/ ~ ;. ~ ~/ ; ~ ~ \) I I . ~ 1 ' I \ _ _ -`~-"~/~
`__~-~ ~-I / 1\'11' I !/ ;% 1 I, 1 11 I ~ I • ~ /ii,/ / 1 c r r r: .
1 11 I. ~ II1G hll _ . 1~,Id , /~ ~i ///; `//// •' '~ ~ ~ 1 I I~ --,gym /
1 _;~~ -'I 11 1/'/111{ll 111111/1 1/11 I1I II""FY1,11 /' -- //, ti~ /i/i' /j \ I //. 1 I. ~Jj~., .\ // ,N.
\ "-~ ~~ ~ II 111//ill' 111'1 I' 1111 ~~/ / // 9// \ \ \\\11. I I ro // .---'/ ,
%\ , ~ e \ Ih 1 11 n , //
J\ \e \..\ 11 'I1j111//ll I'11'II I' 11 '11 cY,/\~-- / //i; ~ / /•• ~~ 1' I Rl:: \ _/
/ .\ \ `. II I (1 ~ III'l III _ ~~ 1 IIII~' 11 I II ~~\ ~ / / /iii ~ /// a%"f" .' 1 II I I r ;~/ /-- ,-/
\ / Il I I Imllpl I ,111 11' /;'~// 's > / r ~ ~'`~/ j ~ 1~_/ ~' I 1 I I / /. ~ ----
-~\ ~\~ \ \/ 1111/111 l"11'11 ~ 1111111/1 ~,,/// /is~ / %/~ ~ ti`/ %1/' r`te` ~II'I I I ~/! /m-'"/-~
' -, \ \ ~, \ / /1 ~ 1 ! I I 11 III '/// \ ~ / / ~ / / (: ,~ / ( 1/ . I 1 I : I , , / ,
\~` \ \ ~ ~ / /!'(l(1(l1.,,1~1~ II~ II 1111 111111111, ~ /4 ~m w / /iii I /;, ~, .1111 ! l l;: ' I / '~
\~` v 111 \ 1, 111 1 1111111111 /m y \ m = %i// ~i / /// 1, \,' ` .~ ~ : l l l / / l 1~' l / .
~\\ `m \\\ ~` \,\\~\ " ' 'I 1 1111 '±~/ l ~ / / / / / // ' /i' ~ f ~ /
\\ \ \ \ `. ~ 1111111 / I 11111 III ! r~ / ,~// ~ / , A~ X /1 ~: 'i--i / i' f / //,, / / r /
\ eR\\ \ \ ~ li 1111 \`1 1 11111 ,I 11 ,// i ~~~ / , / l>' 1 I 1 y/ l // 1 1 / / / ,
' ~~\\\\\\\ \ \ ~ ~ II 111\Q 1\ 1 '1 II' 111111 \` 11~\ .(y/ ~~--~~ /.,',,a ~ I/ 01 / 1--/ / // I .'/ /
, I 1, \, r d I , ~! /
\ \111 \\ ., I :11111 X111 \, I 1, 1 \\ \ /i I 1 v r I .' / r .
I' 11', 1 1~i , 11 1111'11 C, ~' \ ~~.e~4• /~ /./ ~'' , 1 71 : m'/ / 1 I / / / /. /
\\ ~'\\\ \\\\ \\\ 6/ 111111.1 ll~'\ I / II '11'11 ~ \ ~ ~_`~, ~ l \/) 111 /1 ~ I 1. 1 1/ ~ l l / //'
~\\ \\ \\ ~~\ \ ~ ./ 1/ 11111111\\\ 1 1 . \Il~i~l \ ~ /jj7 - yS g'p `/. .~~ ~ 111 , 1 1 1 / I l ii `P ,~/ / //. / /'
\\ \ \\ . ~~'809 / 11111 /ll ,11 \1111 , 1 ~,\ //•1,~ ~.~__ J.' l// / 1., 1 I'll /,
\\ \\;\\\\`~. ~`eez ,/I/ l1'l/1~~~; Crd ; '1;11 ~ • `.\ / i / / ~. /(/ 1 I I :I I III /6~ti. '/!
1 +, C\ // / 1 }~ /~ I 1 / , b
\1 \~ \\\ ~'---'~mm //l,/// Idll \\~,\~I l;lr // ~^ zm--~ \`~, I 1/// /~ /1 I I „ / /• /
\ • \ \ \ \ ~ / / %/ I 111 1 I I \ . k`I Ili \ l i. ~// / /1 / ; / tiy+~ , I ^ 1 I • I I / / ! /
\\,\.\\\~``\\\\ \-7ae/ .//1rl~l ~~1g1111 `1 II^'111111 \ //// I/ ~~; ~//I/%/ 111 ."v .~ I '1 ii ( le°S e
\`I \' ~\ \ ~ ./, //1111 I 1 III II. \ /i ~ ~ ~ /I/.1/ //i/ 11 1 I l 'r 1 `{ i'1 ~ 111 ~ ~ / ~O
\\\, \\.`\ \`.796/ ,l/l/,~/~/11111 I ~ / rl)llll ~\ i/~ ~rX a//1/l///!///'/// 1/ l tim ~ 7 I
\\\\~ \\ \\\\ // ////,//%/111111 h INII 1 1. //////// // / /~./ ~~ ~%~~ /1.1.1 //
\\\~ ,` w'~ 11,11111111i'l ~ ~ lyl 11 / \ , I/ /%/ I.~/1 / n I
`\\\ \ \ / / ll I j111ff11(1 I 1 e / ~ + ` ~'ti / /~!// j ~ /~ iv;' / / / 'r; I I I
~! t1 g \`~ \\\ `\\\\ \hmm/ i/11>flllj11j1;111111h I 4 ~` ;~ ~/ ~ 1 \\\ ~`,° / j/4r// j/ //'~~,C"~) / %~'~ 1
~~ d~ j~ 39v/ 1\\\,\\ \\`\~ ~=_,eb/ m~Jlll111111111111111111 ~ \ ~ ~// <~ \,11` / l ~~;~ / / ~ // /=m ,..( ///' .,,
3 ~• qq \\~;\ \~ •~//II'111111 11 I' ~ 1~„ ~I`1/ ~//l; I (/ / l / ~ / /~S,(GJI/
4 - -, \ \ \ `, \ \\ ~-,: ' .~jl~/ /~~ 1 '111 I I ' 1 1' ~' 1 ., \ ~.N\\ //III ,~ fll; I 1 / / / / / I /
Id I \\ \\\S~~\/~ 1~~?'^^//~/~~// / l1 ~ ~+/ 1\~l~ ~~ ~ iy li~l//1/1,1 %l r I /l ~/1~
#~ --~, \ \ \~~\\ - ~ /;~'~ ~ y% 1 / // dlI ~ .111I~ I . 11 .j / 1 / < l / ~ / I I I /.
~ ` \ 4 \_~~~ /:a r~ ill 1 , '~' rl l l < ~i l l l l
"~ i! ^\b \`~ m '~/j//./////,~~1 /~ /~ 1 III ~ I lr 11 m 1 / / 1 ,
t '~ ~ rn' \\-mac-- '~ / // ,/i//q%/ • / / / // /1 1~',II i III III 1 ~ I •' ~1 1111; :: l r , / / l ~ / 1 I
~-"-,n ~/ / ,; //G' 1/ // / ~ 1 I 1 I I. 1 1 II 1 r ro 1 l;' l 1 l l 1
~~ ~~,Gd~ /,i/ii,'//' / ~ /;/1 `I\ v IIIII; 1 N ii 11111111 111 /l 1 l I 1
~~~~ /.1111;1%~; / / /~ l I / 1 I ~1111i i i '11111'\ \ 1 1 1 1 l 1 \\\
. ~\ ~` a-~ iii/,v / ~ / ': l.' ~ /: ,. I I 1 11 / 11 ~ 1 I 1 . 1 i \~ \
- \ ~~~-J///~~i'%r : I ~% 1~.,1 ./~ l 11 \1'Ijll II 11 .~IlllJllll~~l•. I ~' \\ ~ ,
-- -\\~~~,~i~iii',/ / .. /` \ \ 1 111 "1 1 1I`PI 1 ,nom ,. /
-` ~,~ ///i: / /, II I ~/ .' \I 1 ~ \ Q 1\ ~IIII ^I'' 11 \ Iil I I 1111 I~`~~• \`~se~,
. - ///''f0/ 1 / .~ I
--~ - ~~,// 111 ./ ~' I 1\1\J \: I 1111 i I I l \ \ 1\
._-„ •-- ~- ~z='•,' ~%!' / I 1111 I , 1 \ n ~ \\\ ,1 1 I I I \I \\ \\\~, \
X444 22 ~ti /Ir 1 \ •'i` / \ ; I 1 ~\\\`. \\ \'- I
-/ /i ;;. ' `> / / i •y Ili \~ I 1 I 1111\~ i 1 \\\\~~~_____'
/ III I i - I~,, \~ \`\i' 1„ \\`-'-"
~~_r~-~~--~- /' // / ~ I h ( / .~ \1 Ij \I~\~ ) ,\I111j1 ~~\ \-~_~~ dill
_,zg~'1 ~~/~ / /N / / f'` ~ Il~el~ ~,',^,I, j/ ~~" /~~`~\11 a~ j111~I ~\ ~, _,` 1111
/ // / / III I ~ nl 1 / ~ ~• \ \ `y -I' '~' v
~' -__- ~ // i // i'". I Ili I III 1 ~ I o \. ice;;; > T ~ o~
_ r ~. '
~ !]ze iz"' i / ''~ I Ij1~ d I .• ~~ r 1 ' m \`~2 \\ o m M ~
--~ m ///~ ,~:: 111143 b .o III `~mo_----__, ~ ° T _z O
-- --7zz---- ~ z ~ rr .•..~ li I oo I °o°„ \ 11 GI 11 \ ~S~c ~ R i3 '^• ,vl
,__,zm-' ~~ .~I. I u ° ° ° o° oO• $p '^ 1111 \\ v \\\vzis \\ E s am
__----' ° m- f
- ----
'' ~ --728'-~--- ~n 1 1 , ' 11 Z ~T \ ~ ~9 N
__-~-_ ~ 1. '1 ~~11 I \ ~,~„ \\ O \ Cep \ N N 5 ~ ~> C7
2 0 t ', 11 11 - J I I / \ `-ice ~ V \ O
N _ _ y
- - mzozm _
O -10 fy11n~ n~ 4 \ Ptv \ I \\\ N y,T
mmmzj /~ ~ 1 e •\\ \
4O1^=<
_ _-_ ~-- I ---- --- ~ _
..
(n N _ __ ___ _ _ _ -- - - -- FI~ _
~m ~°m .-__-- // ,./ ."~I ~ \ \\~m ~n \\\ //r Fez ~~~_ - t~ _
ml i mm fTl / "' mc~v y \ so -~' o \ I
£N YN G7 // 11 -'^io~ DAN RIVER -~ ~ ,Q g I =zC 20 N\ ~1 ~ 7~ ~n 0
-Dim -Div 1~ q < I
x13v ~3 0 1L-\ mid // ° I ~-_~/^\~\_- --~/\ /\ \ ~ 0 ~u ~
cn cn ... _~ -_-- _-- ---- - \ - - - \ 1~-
-- - - - _ c
/ '
_ I ;; ~ p
I .'' \
~ ~~ \./ ~ZC.'~ `--- i/i~// IIIU ~ I I I'm '" -\~ ,-_~~ Quo O n
b'7 C `~' ~~~ ///i/~/ 1,1 II11 ~j111 z`. S s i°~ ~S~ >r'/Is
N
I I I ~ n -IZC Dm~ ~ ~
C ~ •~ ~ fin" ~ ~ / / /i / I 111 1~ o o` o ~ ~ o s ~i1 O
da ~
~
~~ ~
o~
~z
O a
I ~
~ ~
~

z
C
z~~ a~

C
m
'~

V
// /// I/_-~e`t/ II ~~I I ~Il I°oO o 00 0 'Qoo a tzil> ~o~ 8'ro sz Yi m ~
'- Ill^~ \// ~.' Ili I I ml ~°o o ~~ W1z~c S Ir. 5,~~, ~~ ~ N
( \\ 7.. ~„ I,II ~ ~ m oc ~~ ab Z ~~
MATCHLINE_ z m~ ~z ~~ ~
'" o a .
SEE SHEET NO 5 + 00 a ~ ;~,
~r ~y ~~
r x 1~~1 Z y m~ _
~ r~ ~
O

•V
C
m
m
E
a
ti
m
m 100 0
-E ~~
m
xi 5p 100
n~ SCALE:I"= 100' HORIZ.
9
STA24+4o LT 1f111f A TAT Q1A1f:~YT
NC GRID
NAD 83
GLI
INCOMPLE E PLANS
W NOT UNt FOR /A ANWITION
PRELIMIN
OO NOT U36 RY PLANS
CONSIAUlT1ON

a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Coaeultin~ Engineers
ro xmun Dx.llxix'~ xumtNG]IAM
N
D TAIL C
LATERAL '~' DITCH ,
Iaot ro scWl II ~ 1 v\ `, vv A vV A \V Av A ; / ' / ///r,-__-
V 1 VAAA`,v vv~Av\v~;/~~'//,IIIv~-
aM p P/Ft. ~ cx \1 AI \\ \11 ~ \\ \\ \\ \\\ ~` \\\ \\ \\ ~ `\\~ ~ \V A ~VAVAV ~\~` \\~ ~~'9seoi i^I 1
~ Min. D= I ft. / A 1 I V A A v ~` v A\ ~ '~ A V A v v v v, ' \
FRtar Alax. d= I Ft. // 1 1 1 V A A V V A V ~~ V A `. A V A V~~ ~/ /V A \
F~rID b= 5 Ft. ( ( / ___ I I I A V A AV A ~~~ \\ \\ \V .\`,\V A\ V AV A A\ A AV ~ _ ~ ~yK ~ ` yI\ 11 \V 1
TYPe of Liner- Class 'B'Rlp-Rap l ' I1 I\ II II I 15 j \\ \V A\ \v ~•'s V A\ \\A A A\\ VAV `` Av v ~-_ ~~ ~~ `, 1 1 1\I 1 1 I l l l A A
FAtlM STA 23+70 TO STA 23+aD LT /\\\\``\\\I / J35~A 1 \ \\ \\\\ ~`\\ \ 1\\~~~\\\\\\'~~\.•--~~~~~~ `.1111',1\1\\\\`\\\
/ ~IS \ \ \
I\v '`
,¢
lP,
~aDRa~ ~.
//~ ~,
l
1
a,
~~%
C '.
NC GRID
NAD 83
w ~. sN~T ~.
MY SH&T N0.
DWAY DEIGN MYDMUDCS
ENGINE n+Gmffa

[NCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT V96 POR /x ACDUISITIDN
PRELIMIN
x0 NOT U66 RY PLANS
CUNS'I'1{ULTDN
A VA . A V A 1 ~ -_ MFE \ _ 1. A 1 ~ '~~A V A S •~~'"___~~~ ~ ~v ~ ~\ A\\ V A` V A A A `~ A
// I \11''1111 1` C.SA45 \ \ \ 1 \ 11-`~\\\\\\~~~/ `~~~~J~ 1, 1`•\S9\\~` \\\\~~\\\\\
// 1 lll;lll /~~ I A v I I V 1~v _ llma~ ~~.AA~`,vvvv v
I I 111 \11~. I / \ I `~, \ \~\\ ,.._-_ ~ ~\~~,\\\ \\\\\\\\ ~(~/,
a/ss •r~ 1 '. 1 \ I / I \ 1 I I 1 1 1 \ ~ I II I I ~~ \ e ~ `, \ 1 \ \ ~~~ \ \ \ \ `. \ \\ ~ eg //:
F~tisr~ V1 ~vv1 \ / \I / I I I I 11 1 \\ ~ ~ ~Dg;'wv~.\\\\\V01 ~\11\\V v`. A\v\vV AVAv ,/~ 'a,~/i ~/
~/ 1 1 i I I A 1 /~~ 1/ I I I I 1 V'\w- ~\~'s~ JAVA\\'~A AVAVaeA A A\~~~ ~' /.'l~Iti
\ \ \\ N / ~-ss-tea ~. ~ ~~'~P~FoMPUh\ `, \ \ \ ` `.\ \ \ . \ ~~ ,0 ~
vv I ~V A \ / I s Esc ~~o `'~ v ~ ~~~ v~~ ~~~ ~ V `, I l A A \ V A V A `, AV ~ ~J`~~` ,''///h~~~I j
A B'V I~ v V v` ~ A V A ~~ A A V / I ~I~~ ~
` .~__ -
/ 1 -i3c~~ ~ ~~ vv v '~ v ~v ~~, it -- ~ ~ A A ~` I I V A `, A A A A sg A A ~~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ / / // III v V~ ;A\
odds ~5 ~ \ ~~ ~ _ I \ \ \ \ o \ / / l\ ~_--~ \ \,
`~ A 'r \ \ D ~. ~V vv ~~ ,. ~~ 1 i I~ A A ., \I \I A A ~~~ A 1 I ~ ~~~ . ~~ A `-s¢s-- // //. /~111~ I I1w ii '1 A)AA)1A1 AA\\
~\ ~Q \ V A v A~~~ A a+ ! 1 A I I V A `. 1 l l ~~ '' wee- ~ ' '/^ / 1111V-,.l I;I /I ,/ II;111~
1 m) 1 \ \ ~ / !; i- I 1. I
~/ \ ~. ., \ ~.n, `11 ~~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ ' '' / / /; n I 11 I
V A ~ x~ A y V A A ~ P w 1 ~ ~ V A `, A A. ~. ~___ ~// / /m`°I)1 `711 I'I / ! I JI III I
\ `~ A A '~ v Av ~\ vv ,~' ~"` \ vI ~~, A 1 `, A ~~~'~ ,__ _ -- / / ill I; 11 / 1 II III If
i 1v.x `~~ VA v ~v AA A `. v. ~v. ,-- ~~ ~~' S1'llllll) %~'Ijllllllll~ .,I
,~ .gP ~ xJl I I I ~~ V 1 I A v~ II v~ ~_ -_- ~'' %~~~~ATw I I I'1I ~ I l l ~ l I I •, v
~ ~ ~.~. o. \ je---; % / ^ - ~'Et ~ T.\ \ `~~ \ \ ~ \ -T\ ~ =_- .'a~ ~ TOi;,e I ~, I i I I I 1 \ ~.
'; :::.~: \ -7`~ _> ' ~ -~ _ ~ 1 AA v 1 v ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ / /71m11 1~I I j I; I I III 1 \V ` \
1 ' R / ~~` ~~ ~\ \ ~~ ~ ~ \ \ ~. \\ \ \ ~ -ems ~~' s'9 ; G --i% gY%i//~ II ~II III 111 i l 1 1 1 1 1 \ ~` \\\
vc £k ece ~ ~ a~ ,z ~ I 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ '` ~ e2 \ e a ~ - a e, / / \ I J ~ I I I ~ 1 1 \ `~ ~`ez! '~ ^
- ~ c i 2~~.,, ~~° ,-- ,-,~ ty~ xEr• ~~,- 1 \\I\\ l \?~`:/-.~ '~:='.7~6%' Ill;ll!!!l1/Imlll ~ \ \\\ ~ `~~B / ~~`r
I \ %/// / ~_~ ~T__~' ~\ 7 ! ~ v <~ \ : ~ = .~ ~\ ~<, 1 ~~~ ~~ i/::'~', ~ ii//'~~llllll~'Pl~ I 1 e \ \\~_\~~~_;"~•~ \2a,~.
I //ice/// ,eIS - f-~~ .. .. ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ _ - _ ~~;~L~ - .y / . ',e// %' /'ll I \ .
~ /iii//i/ -/ e 1 ~/ ~ -\ \\ \\ ~-- ~~ taa~ ~.~ ~\ \t~ o ~
~/ ,A'E'I y- / _77m-' \~ ~~-;_---, _ ~ \ \„___~ R7 ER. T\\ ' ~^\ ~~ ~~
r \ \ ~\ \ ~I \\ \\
~~ ~'~///i \ ~ z29\ X11 ~ ~. vu,~ ~\~ ~\ •~ \ \\ ~~_~ 1 1
~~tr woods \\ I~j//~~.("~~--' ~n/\~~=/ ~ I \
\ ~ ~//1 I "'1"IEAPDCKETT~e~~'_~~~ ~ // ecc / I i
O~ - --_ 726 '/~~'I~ 1 LPEp81'TF. PUCNf.7L- \`'// /~/C-__' /tir wv~ /
/ I ICI I /
~L.~~ ''~ `, A v ~` `vvv ~~ PRbJ~C~~42$1~ r l i
I ~v '`, vvvvv, e~ ;`~ v~ '~P T STA~2&+v00.00 i i i ;
\\v~`\\V 1 1 v ~. AA V vvv, v A'~ I A / ! /
. A vA\ ~@a A~`.vv A I l
~`\V vv Av'~~ ~ vv~•~vv <_j~ - l 1.
•~v vvVvvvvvp~~ 1v /
Q v~ vvv.vvv v~ z v ~ v
\~ \\\~`,\\~~ ~ \ 1 \
c
m
v
m
E
a
a
Q
~ ~~`~ \s ~ `\a .~ plc/ i~1 .11 ~ ~~ ~~ \ ~
\ ~' vI ~ ~~ ~~~ ~a tip, 1111\'Vlvly v ~.~ \\ I ~ ~ V
~ ~ ~:
~~ ~ ~ ~ 11 vvv v __,^ 1 1 ~,
~,. \ \
/ I ~, 1 I I~, A 1 ~v~~ ~ v ~ A ~ v--- ~/ , /
/ y~~~~ r 1 i I I I V A 1 ~~~ ~~~~w ~~ ~__- ~ / /`-.
~ 1 ~y I.. '~ 1 I 1 1 \ \ ` - ~~' // ~~ _~-706--f ~~-7E
y r ~' _ 1 i I s.t ~ -- - ~ i _
I _ _
~ (. ~ ~ 1 I I I ~ N \ \ \ / ~-~---tee-' -~ _/ - ,,iex" -
\\ ~\\ \ ~1 1 m \\\\ \\ `~. ~~\ ~\ ~.'_n7"/i;///--mss \~~ ~~____ / ; ~.
\ \ 1 ~J`,~ ,r/` tee-~\ \\ xoo~gs \ \ '~ ~ .~ .~ 1 \`--' / ~/ / ; -~~\ \-~64_--~~'i, ' 'ass.
~ \ ~Sp ~S \ °~ _ ~;~"55 ' ~` ~ 1 '~/ rr, ~1h0 /~ /~1~~~ ~_~~i5~'_; ~, ~, /r
FALSE SUMP ~ o ~R.~ ,ts /~ . -tsa--. l/- ~ //~ ~ .' ;; /~%~r/,'/i/ GL~
cNOr rD scD~xl d . B+f --~/ __-' ~//. ~l/ l/>`'/// ;: ~r~~~~~~c///t
trartic Emr z.o{~ ~ / ~~ /r/', '% jU/'///i%i/~ ~~~:~ ~~i:_-~i/tD%/
\p.~ 1ql 'I I` '~ /~i r' Jill'/!/%i~//~ /'i-~ i __:
-- -- - ~~ -~ v I~1'/ /;';. ~ NCB®'~
s = often siovx I ProooseD oircn / ~~ /! / mill I I I I I
sTAS4+~o a _--- ~~~lN~ll~rl,'i~~~11 DIVSTOICBS COUNTYAYS
loo o ]~][,AN VIEW -
PROJECT: E562LLI (R-~28ll
BRIDGE 6D OVER
50 100
DAN RIVER ON
SCALE: I"= 100' HORIZ. NC 8/89
SHEET ~ OF 5/Y3/

m .M.• EL 78 3'
-
- ~ O .r S C nOkCf AEFFIENCE N0. SHEET N0.

N R S !KE IN 1 OAK ,
, 8-428! 6

f
P
,S
E
E
S
.4
5
v-
N~ 0.0ADWAY oESIGN HYDEAUIIa
7 ~ BdGIN~ EHGINEEa

~
1= ~ BR/D6E HYDRAULIC DATA
= 3r3
= Q' DESIGN DISCHARGE = 1000 CFS
W

D = 2 H LEVATNMI = 79D fT
DESIGN HW
BASE LkSCNARGE = 24000 CFS
W99
~ 2 1GN EXC PT R W1R 0 BASE FREQUENCY = f00 YRS GLI
q ~ BASE ffW ELEVATION = T?BB FT P = +40
~,~ + OVERTOPPING D1SCHARGE = 32KX1 CFS -
2~ h A/ERTOPPlNG fREQU£NCY =500 tYRS
VERTOPPING ELEYATHUY = 732
FT V =
- 8'
m~ W ~ + O
4 d DS = NP Rp SE GR E
DATE Of SURVEY = 225-04
~~ W XIS NG WS.ELEVATION
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 704 fT
v
~
4O
( 14 ~ ~'
- f+ 19 r -- - - -- -- - -- -- - -- -~ i
~
~ - '1- - 1- - - - -- -- -~ ~

~ E ORA Y VI RK B IDgE
~
2 ~ ~ 1I0 ONS RI.IC THE I I % / k~0 2
\ ~ I I I I ~ '~ __ __ _
_ _
_ ___
_ __ _ __
_ __ _ __
_

. ~ J
1 - 0 1
ORDI
WAT ARY
R = HIGH
06 ;
; ~
~ ~
; ~
~
XIST
N
.
7 RMA WS L = 04.0 I i +- ~ ~ ~
J
MPO ARY WOR BRI E T
MOV TH EXI INC RIDG
~
W
C SS RIP AP /FIL ER
F RIC TYP.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

OR LAN SEE SH .5

RO SE GR
~
F R P E HE NO 4
i ,p '
+)k 54 ~ ~ ~ W i

~~ ~~ 3 E lSTI G G N $ o ~ m
d + ~ +

4
$ X, I CSP W
~
~
~" a
~
d
°
d

+
~ a 4
O ~~ /STl G G N Z ~
~ A
~
n ~ W W, ~ m W +

a
PIPE HYDRAULIC DATA _
-
~+

a
sr sE GR E
av+52
E
n DRAINAGE AREA =290 AC L = 30 '
DESIGN fRE(KIENCY = 50 YRS
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 6D CFS =
z DESIGN HW ELEV
ATION = 75315 FT =
m l00 YEAR PAP ELEVATION = 753J4fT N~ILy®~ 710

OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY =200+ YRS DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 992 CFS
d OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 75410 FT STOKES COUNTY

EXTEND 18'CSP ~~~~~~ (B'4YBll 700
INV In = 75164 INV au! = 744.3 BRIDGE N0.60 OVER
U
DAN RfVER ON
°o°
NC 8/89
,,,~
26 27 28 29 30 10 11 12 13 14 q
S
HEET I OF S/23/07
INCOMPLE E PLANS
no Nor vae roR nr •rnmsmoN
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
W NOT U88 CONbTNUCTION

s
T
v
N(,
VQ
m
~~
oa
~+
ac
~~~
T
rp~
03~
O~~
Np
~~d
N
~~c
s~~
SPe SheC~ 1-A
{ Sheets
Ir ~ ®~ ~ ~ X11
0
ll
~ ~
~ ll ~ !l
~
ll
'
®1[' 1~' ®ll mn ern wosT wmQ w "mT mm
~
F
O(IY 1/0 e
~
~[
y
ry1
q~~(
7~
~
/
~'m
~ 33621.1.1 BRSTP-008 4 P.E.
i
1490
~ 33621.2,1 BRSTP-008 4 WW
8 1868 -
erg

N
~ ~ PROJECT
0 .c r T ,N
~~0~`~ v ~ v `
BEGIN
PROJECT O~c . ~
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.60 OVER DAN RIVER ON
NC 889
~ - 1487 1887
i665
,ae
~ TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING f~'

V '
~~ ~'
,DOi -- ~ ~,
'
~ STRUCTURE
~
x
W a
- ~

~
VICINITY MAP 8~ S
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL
~
BOUNDARY
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION , ~ END BRIDGE
-Y- STA. 14+00.00 ` ~ -D- STA. 2I +60.00
~
~
l~l ~O , `

~e ` _ _ _ _
/
\ i%; II
~~~ ~`=_-~ ; ° ~'~~ ~ END TIP
~ PROJECT B~28
; ; _ ~
,~
~ `~~~ „- "'" ~ ~ ~ T .2
+00.00
~
1( ~ ~'o
`` s
BEGIN TIP PRO CT B-4281 ~
,
/ , ~.,
;~~^~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

STA. 13+50.00 \
\
~ ~'% ~ l ~ ~~
~'' ,',
~

~ ~
~
,; BEGIN BRIDGE ~' ~~ `,
~
~ ~

~"
y~° , ~
I
U STA.17+60.00 ~
~~~,
,,~
~!,
", ~
%" -- -
~
~°
' ~'
,
~
~,
** DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR VERTICAL '~' ~
AND HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY ROUSER, P.E. CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED PRELIMINARY PLANS
m xm ux row cavmucnm+
.•• ROADWAY DESIGN -ENGINEERING COORDINATION TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III

V
GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH In 0!fke r
,
axo ~ nssocr~~s r.c. HYDRAULICS ENGD1fiER DI['ISION OF ffiGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLDle!
, onmlting Engineers
sw me rwy rc sws
roi i sdm o-
50 25 0 50 100 .
~~'*"~`
ADT 2008 = 3300
~ srumeeo srnca~aa~
PLANS ADT 2028 = 5100 LENGTH ROADWAY TD' PROJECT 8-4181 = 0,199 Ml.
rs
DHV = 10 % RIGHT OF IVAY DATE WHITLEI'
PE
STEPHEN R ~"' ~ ~s
50 25 50 100 0.076 MI.
LENGTH STRUCTURE TD' PROJECT E-4181 : ,
.
n0~
T n"i°'~
R
OADWAY DESIGN
sure nesrcx .
D = 65 % APRIL 20, 2007 ' EIVGI11i8BR T
O
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) T = 3 % • _
TOTAL LENGTH OF TD' PROJECT &4181 0215 MI. ~Ep y ffi~
TRATIO
AY ADS
O " V
60 MPH LETTING DATE: DAVID C. WALLER, PE
l0 5 l0 20 = APRIL 15
2008 °6S°" °~"i°'®'
r ' ,
' TiST 1% DUAL 2% 'g ~~
v PROFILE (VERTICAL) .uau ~ ~~ +~ A+m

Note: Not to Scale
*S.U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering ~~[°~~~ ®~ 1~®Ig~l[°~[ ~A~®I~~~~
~I~VI~I®1v1 ®~ ~[I~~[~A1~~
CONVENTIQNAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
WATER:
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
Water Manhole
State Line Rl11LROADS.' Water Meter o
County line Standard Gauge Water Volvo

Township line RR Si nal Mile st
g Po o
wcrasr
~ EXISTING STRUCTURES.' Water Hydrant ~
City line Switch .
~ MAJOR: Recorded U~G Water Une
Reservation Line - - - - - ~ Abandoned -~ -~ ~-- -~ Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert ~~ Designated UG Water Une (S.U.E.')-- - - - -•- - - -
Properly Une
RR Dismantled
-
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall -
~ cc~c MM ~
Above Ground Water line
~ .ark
Existing Iron Pin 0
RIGHT OF WAY MINOR:

Properly Comer
-" Head and End Wall /'~ N:

~ Baseline Control Point 0
Pipe Culvert
N Satellite Dish
CC
Property Monument ~ Existing Right of Way Marker ~ Footbridge )---~ N Pedestal
Parcel/Sequence Number ® Existing Right of Way Una -
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or 18 ~
^
N Tower
Existing Fence Une -x-x-x- proposed Right of Way Une '~~ p~ Ditch Gutter ----- USG N Cable Hand Hole
Proposed Woven Wiro Fence ~- proposed Right of Way Une with ~ Storm Sewer Manhole ® Recorded U~G N Coble n
Proposed Chain Unk Fence ~ Iran Pin and Cap Marker

Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
~- Proposed Right of Way Une with Storm Sewer 5 Designated UG N Cable (S.U.E.') - - - -^- - - -

Existing Wetland Boundary

- - - -u- - - - Concrete or Granite Marker Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cable
n so-
Exisiing Control of Access - ~ ; - UTILITIES.' Designated l1G Fiber Optic Coble (S.U.E.'}- ----rro---
Proposed Wetland Boundary proposed Control of Access -~- POWER:
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary ~•-
E>osting Easement Une
--E--
Existing Power Pole
~
GAS:
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary °°- pro sed Tem ro Construction Easement -
fro Po ry e
Proposed Power Pole
~
Gas Valve
~
BUILDINGS AND OTfIER CULTURE' Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -roe- Existing Joint Use Pole ~ Gas Meter
Gas Pump Vent or USG Tank Cap 0 proposed permanent Drainage Easement - -ppe- proposed Joint Use pole ~ Recorded USG Gas Line •
Srgn ~ Proposed PermanerrtUfilily Easement -rue- power Manhole 0 Designated USG Gas Une (S.U.E.')----- ----•----
Well
Small Mine °
~
ROADS AND RElrlTED FF9TI/RES.• Power Une Tower ® Above Ground Gas Une "'c c°'
Power Transformer 8
Foundation ~ Frosting Edge of Pavement -----
lLG Power Cable Hand Hole ® SANITARY SEWER:
Area Outline 0 E:asting Curb

Cemetery
0
Proposed Sbpe Stakes Cui ~ H-Frome Pole •-+ Sanitary Sewer Manhole
F Recorded USG Power Une Sanitary Sewer Cleanout +p
Buildin
g Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
Designated lLG Power Une (S.U.E.') ----•---- U'G Sanitary Sewer Una u
Schaal Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
b
G
d

Church
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Romp -
~~ A
ove
roun
Sanitary Sewer uc smi+ary s.rx
TELEPHONE: Recorded SS Forced Main Une ~-
Dam Existing Metal Guardrail
Existing Teephone Pole + Designated SS Forced Main Une (S.U.E.') - ----~,----
Proposed Guardrail T ~ '
HYDROLOGY Proposed Telephone Pole •O-
Existing Cable Guideroil "
Stream or Body of Water Telephone Manhole 8 MISCELLANEOUS:
Proposed Cable Guideroil " "
'
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r_-_-_ J
E
ualit
S
mbol Telephone Booth p Util
ry Pole ~
Jurisdictional Stream ` q
y
y Telephone Pedestal m Util'ry Pole with Base p
~- - Pavement Removal
Buffer Zone 1 a ,- Telephone Cell Tower ,~, Utility located Oblect o
Buffer Zone 2 a ~-- l~ls'GETATION.• l6G Telephone Cable Hand Hole © Utility Traific Signal Box m
Flow Arrow E Single Tree 4 Recorded l1G Telephone Cable ~ Utility Unknown U~ Une ,~-
Disappearing Stream Single Shrub o Designated lYG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.'J- - - - -~- - - - tYG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
SPnn9 c~'~f' Hedge 'w"w"""^""'^`~' Recorded l1G Telephone Conduit R AEG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Swamp Marsh ~ Woods Une ~`"'"ti"t'""'"~ Designated t1G Telephone Conduit(S:U.E."J- ----n---- USG Test Hole (S.U.E.') ~
Proposed lateral, Tail, Head Ditch O~a~ Q fl 4 4 Recorded t1G Fiber Optia Cable * ro- Abandoned According to Utility Records - MTUR
False Sump ~ Vineyard ~~Y~a Desi noted l1G Fiber0 u Cable S.U.E. ,ro---~ End oflnformation

,
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
PROP. APPROX. 11{" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SFS.5A,
C~ AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 138 LBS. PER SD. YD.
PROP. APPROX. 21g" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF8.5A,
CQ AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 138 LBS. PER SD. YD. IN EACH OF TYO
LAYERS.
PROP. VAR, DEPTX ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE CWRSE, TYPE SF8.5A,
C3 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER 80. YD. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED tls" IN DEPTH.
D' PROP. APPROX. 21g" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERYEOIATE COURSE,
TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AYERAGF RATE OF 285 LBS. PER SD. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTEAYEDIATE COURSE,
DZ TYPE I1B.OB, AT Ax AVERAGE RATE OF 111 LBS. PER 80. m. PER 1"
DEPTH, TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LE99 THAN 21¢" IN DEPTH OR
GREATER THAN 1" IN DEPTH.
E1 PROP. APPROX. 1" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B26.08
,
AT AN AYERAOE RATE OF 455 LBS. PER B0. YD.
PROP. YAR. DEPTN ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 826.08,
EZ AT AN AVERAGE RATE Of 111 LBS. PER 60. Y0. PER 1" DEPTN. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 9" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
TNAN 51~" IN DEPTN.
if EXISTINS PAVEYENT.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
w VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEYENT
NOTE: PAVEYENT EDfiE SLOPES ARE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
TRANSITION FROM EXISTING TO TYPICAL NO.1
• ADD 5' 1NiN GUARDRAIL
-L- STA. 13+50.00 TO U+00.00
ORIGINAL
GROUN6
USE TYPICAL SECTION X0.1
-L- STA 14+00.00 TO 16+00.00
~,- STA. Z6+50.00 TO 27+50.00

c
m
a
T
N
ll
m
N
a
m
a' -Y- STA. 14+00,00 TO 14+81.19.00
?•,
G.-L. 6 -Y-
6' 12' B' 12' 12'
~ vAR 18'+0 2a
~ GRADE
~ ~ Fa ro1NT
~~ ~~ a w c;
~0 ~ O.OY X0.02 FTifT 0.02 P
el
''' LounoN a vaDTH of EXpT.
~ ~PAVEMBIT VAAYS --
T El Dl ~ ~sl
GRADE TO THIS UNE
9' 9'
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1
-Y- (NC S)
/a RO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. "`°~" " "°~ ~` N0'
Coneuldne EY~iYeere 8,4281 2
ro nun [r, ^ns 7n AuiraMa~wc ROADWAY OESIGPI PAVEAIBR DESIGN
Ae11 i~„f E!I<i9NY1 YK,pB~
PRELIMIN Y PLANS
00 NQf Ui CON97AUCTION
~ SURVEY
2'
6:1
oR1GINu
GRADE TO 1X15 UNE
OAN'sINAI
Detail Showing Method of Wedging

,
~.
~ N
10'
zir 79
ORIGINAL etas
6'•1
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
-L- STA. 16+00,00 TO 17+46.00 (APPROACH SIAB~
-L-STA. 21+74.00 (APPROACH SUB~TO 26+50.00
TRANSITION PROM TYPICAL N0.1 TO EXISTING
~- STA. 27+50.00 TO 28+00.00
m
v
n
D
Q
4 ~-
~ GRADF TO THIS LINE ~T
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 2
-L- (NC 8 /89)
'ADD 5'WD11 GUAADPAII
d:)
a RO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. "°""'~'° "° "~` "°~
B^4281 2-A
Consulting Engineers RDAOwAr oaIDH PAYEMert oa1cH
nu ~o n~,urt am tunaYxcrxu i-IrAH~ BVG818iL
mn aaw
PRBLIMIN Y PLANS
W NOT USL CONSf0.UCTiON
OWGINAI
oRlwNu
~~
Y!'
4' 12' 12' 4'
l t~
GRADE
POIM
0.02 FLff. 0.02 FLfT~
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 3
STRUCTURE ON NC 8 /89
NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
2'
PAVERIENT SCHEDULE

C1 PROP. APPROX. 111' ASPHALT CONCRETE 9URFACE CWRSE, TYPE SFB.SA,
AT AN AVERAGE MTE OF 18B LBS. PEA 30. YD.

CQ PROP. APPROX. 21+4' ASPMLT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9. SA,
AT AN AVERAGE MTE OF 198 LBS. PEA S0. YD. IN EACH OF T'ND
LAYERB.

(,"3 PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPMLT CONCRETE 9URFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A,
AT AN AVERAGE MTE Of 110 LBS. PER 90. Y0. PER t" DEPTH. TD
BE PLACED IN LAYER9 NOT TO E%CEED t12" IN DEPTH.
D1 PROP. APPROX. 21h" ASPMLT CONCRETE INTERBEDIATE CDURSE,
TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 2B5 LBS. PER 80. YD.
PROP. MAR. DEPTH ASPMLT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COUR9E,
OZ TYPE S19.OB, AT AN AVERAGE MTE OF 114 LB9. PFR SD. YD. PER 1"
DEPTN, TO BE PLACED IN IAYER9 NOT LESS TXAN 21¢" IN DEPTH OR
ORMTER THAN 4" IN DEPTH,
E 1 PROP. APPROX. 4" ASPMLT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE MTE OF 458 LBS. PER S0. 1T1.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
EZ AT AN AVERAGE MTE OF 114 LBS. PER 80. `N. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 51~" IN DEPTH.
U EXISTIN9 PAVEMENT.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPMLT PAVEMENT

1_Rdy_psh_04.dgn
1
B
g
i
Y
r
~ w
y O
3
al ~
%~' ~ I
3// II;
/<. ~/I
/ ~~ ~ I .
/.
. I I
I I ~ ~~~
I I ~
,~I I' ys~
II'.
~I I
I I
~~ ~
1\
•~~
~ ~
I1~
~/f 1 I W '• 1 1
11
`~! ~ O Z I 1 '
n ~ .~ I I
i~ Q
W
~-
t1~
O
O ~
#t m~ ~
~~
~l
r ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ m
H
tfTf
~~3~
S3

aI ~ N N
o
~ ~
~

O ~ O
` O
m ~ ~ --i -~

m

~ ~o
~
<
a
n
T lo
$ o m
T ~
~ old

0
r
C
~ m
e
N
~l u
o°
~,.,
p S~`
YS~~Q
$y~"~ ~
N$ ~
q~

n
as~~~
~$"~
y
o~uw wve~ -~--

~~
~~
~~
•
~~
r
~ a v rn
m a m
m a° ~ Z
~ i i 0
a rn °c
m ~ r
D ~
r
~~~~
$r°~'' O '
~~ ~ o~
~~
1:
17.•

I '
aI ~
I r ~ ~ ~;~
i agaaw~~Q ~~
t• •
+. ~ N$ ~ ~r
m
'" ~ TB
. ~.
_C

SEE ~ SHEET Np15 +
~o
~~
S
~ ~~ 0
~ $A~
~~ ~~ ~
SO
>T
ao
S g
_ ~
85~
y~y9
/VRYIII N~
8SA
N N
< '~ y
f~f
~~'
0~~~
Od
w~
yb
ro ~~
a~ ZK m
~r A~~~~
~ ~
o '
8 ,~ .
~C" ~~
z Zc =
y ~~ ~ ~
~ ~~
Q I 1
I I
~ I 1 i
I ~ ~.
I `~ ~ ~~
~ ~ r ~'~Q ut 1 % /
~1 ~ ~~ ~ , /
~'/
//
/
/• ~ .~~ ,
/ ~' ~
I
/ ~ v ~ -y.
r96
i
,~
m
°d ~
i
t
~d
'o
and ~
O
i9 p~
°d
~2
ao
s ~
00
oa e
:~~~ W ~~
ma

~7 v ,5
~'
`I ~
~ ~ ~ ~~~
`~ ~ ~
~~
~I
II
~, I I s:
J tii
' // ,,. / ' ~ yf' ~. c/
~ r. //,~ ^
N f /
//~~ ~ c, rw 3Y //,/
~' i
/ ~ / / ~ I I~ /% ~'
/ / ~ I II~. ~/ / '~
~ ~~ % % .! I lam: %/
I
t;;
~~ ati~oD~
~~ 8~~~ ~~,/ rrrrr~
/
;#
~~ ~~
'Il
II ,I
II s
II

II
II
II ~
~~ .

m
~~2
II •
I,~

9+ _. ~. ~ to
~O
~ ~9
s°
t
~~~r~~~
rrrrr~
~~~~~~~
~~~
M ~
~~~'`oD3
rrrrrrq
~~~~~
~~
N 1675'15•
54 .22' ~ Q
9 O
~n
o R,
n
m
a
P ~. ~
~~~• o
~~o ~
aw H
p~
~~v~~'FCr• ~ cf°o ~
p~
~~ n

t; ~ S J
O t:,.
2 ~ y c,~ /'~ ~ ~ -'~ ~ W o
`\
~;
~ ~ ~ ~<., ~` ~ i d
~j ~ ~^ ^'~ •~ ~ ~ "'~` ~ J
'~~` ~ 01
y." ~~~
~ ~ ~~ ~~~
~, ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ a ~~ ~~
~~ 1
w ~ °° 3 I \ ~
I \ , _..,
~ •o~~ ~ I ~
~U~ (~ J ~ / l~ tc
CAL 9 Z ~ ~= m"-'. ~ ~ ~~ i .
J~ N+m ~ '~.j:
~s m`W i ~' ~ , .., .
J ~~ ,
J
~ / ' \~~~.
~.~t.. ~ •.. ,~ ~ j :~ ~~ A
/gam ~
~..~ .;~ - ' ~ 'Q ~ ~~ C ~~ w
_ ~ \
_;,„

S3 a ~~,~~
0
~a
~~
~~
Y ~~~~~
~,,,.,~
~ao~~~~
~~
~~.
~+
i ~~~~
o~
~°
a~
<y J
J W
O
Y
W~
A
u6p•90-ysd-fiPii IBZb~\~°-
1

_Rdy_pfl_06.dgn

Stokes County
NC8/89
Bridge No. 60 over Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-008(4)
State Project No. WBS 33621.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4281
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 2005
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
es~eeoeieeca~ar
r SSn
GE6 ~,`~`~ L~ ~ Pia ~
O~ ~ aaacrt ~~
hh4 ~~ p6~"ia+F'~E E ~~'.~ t
l aap O~ .o i~e.I [}~f~,e~ ,. ~
w a L'':r c't~
L. J. ard, P.E. m ~~ul v'
Project Manager o~ ~4oa~gE y ~°.fyle`'Vyyr.. -
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
/~~~ ~~
Karen B. Ta , P.E.
Project Development Engineer

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Stokes County
NC8/89
Bridge No. 60 over Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-008(4)
State Project No: WBS 33621.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4281
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, this project will
require formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (LTSFWS) to address impacts
to the Endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina). Additional special commitments
will follow the consultation. The following are special commitments known and agreed to by
NCDOT at this phase of the project development.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch (PD&EAI:
A formal Consultation with the USFWS in compliance with Section (7a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 will follow this CE document in order to more closely identify the specific
course of action necessary to minimize impacts to the endangered James spinymussel species.
PD&EA and Construction Office, Division 9:
The Dan River in the project area is classified as WS-V waters and is in the Roanoke River
Basin. NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) commented that the Dan River supports
a fishery, which includes smallmouth bass, sunfish, and several federal and state listed species.
NCWRC recommends an in-stream moratorium from May 1 to July 15 to protect the egg and fry
stage of the smalhnouth bass, sunfish, and many of the listed species.
Structure Design Unit, Construction Office, Division 9:
During final design all practical considerations will be given to avoid placing a bent in the water
of the Dan River by spanning the entire river. Should a bent be necessary, construction will be
accomplished so wet concrete does not contact water entering or flowing in the river.
Categorical Exclusion
July 2005
Green Sheet
Sheet 1 of 4

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Stokes County
NC8/89
Bridge No. 60 over Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-008(4)
State Project No. WBS 33621.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4281
Structure Design Unit, Hydraulic Unit:
The deck and roadbed drainage will flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the Dan
River.
Roadway Design Branch, Division 9:
The Stokes County Board of Commissioners has requested a canoe access area be provided with
this project. The County would like NCDOT to retain the existing right of way and make it
available so the canoe access area could be developed by the County when funding is available.
The canoe access area typically includes a 12-foot gravel drive and gravel parking area for 4-5
vehicles. The final design should insure that access to the existing right of way can be obtained
for the future canoe access area. The NCWRC also requested a canoe access area at this
location. During final design NCDOT will coordinate with Stokes County (336-593-2496) and
NCWRC regarding the canoe access area.
Construction Office Division 9, Hydraulics Unit, Structure Design Unit:
In addition to NCDOT Best Management Practices, all attempts will be made to keep existing
bridge debris from entering the Dan River. A containment system will be needed during portions
of the demolition process; however, the containment system will only be used to catch debris that
inadvertently falls into the river. If debris does enter the river, the contractor, will be required to
submit a proposed removal method for review and approval prior to conducting this work. The
method will be coordinated with the resource agencies.
Categorical Exclusion
July 2005
Green Sheet
Sheet 2 of 4

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Stokes County
NC8/89
Bridge No. 60 over Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-008(4)
State Project No. WBS 33621.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4281
Roadway Design Unit, PD&EA, Roadside Environmental Unit, Construction Office
Division 9, Structure Design Unit:
Upon completion of the project the existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and
the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species.
Activities in the floodplain will be limited to those needed to construct the proposed bridge and
remove the existing bridge. Areas used for borrow or construction by-products will not be
located in floodplains. Any material that is deposited in the floodplain as a result from this
project will be removed and the floodplain will be restored after the project is completed.
Every effort will be made to minimize work pads in the floodplain.
During and after bridge demolition neither bridge debris, asphalt or dirt fill will be allowed to
enter Waters of the United States. Silt fences, silt bags or other suitable sedimentation control
measures may be used at the approval of the Division Engineer.
The PD&EA Branch, the USFWS, the USACE, the NCDWQ, and the NCWRC will be invited
to the pre-construction conference to discuss with the contractor the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 and penalties for violation of the Act.
Roadway Design Unit, PD&EA, Roadside Environmental Unit, Construction Office
Division 9, Structure Design Unit:
Stringent erosion control measures included in the Division of Water Quality's High Quality
Waters Erosion Control Guidelines will be implemented during all construction activities.
Categorical Exclusion
July 2005
Green Sheet
Sheet 3 of 4

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Stokes County
NC8/89
Bridge No. 60 over Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-008(4)
State Project No. WBS 33621.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4281
Roadway Design Unit, PD&EA, Roadside Environmental Unit, Construction Office
Division 9, Structure Design Unit (continued):
Riparian vegetation will be maintained wherever possible, especially large trees.
If riparian areas are disturbed, they will be revegetated with native species as soon as possible
after construction.
Prior to construction the contractor will be required to give notification of the construction
initiation date to the USFWS and the NCWRC.
Categorical Exclusion
July 2005
Green Sheet
Sheet 4 of 4

Stokes County
NC8/89
Bridge No. 60 over Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-008(4)
State Project No. WSB 33621.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4281
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 60 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figures lA and 1B. With
the special commitments incorporated into the project to protect the Endangered James
spinymussel, no substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 42.6 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 8 / 89 crosses over the Dan River in Stokes County approximately 300 feet southeast of the
junction of NC 8 and NC 89. NC 8 and NC 89 are primary travel routes across the heart of
Stokes County. NC 8 is a north-south travel route while NC 89 is generally considered aneast-
west route. Land in the proximity of the bridge is hilly and heavily wooded except for the flood
plain surrounding the Dan River. Land use is agricultural and very low-density residential. A
residence and an old abandoned gas station store are located in the vicinity of the project. The
residence is a farmhouse with barns located approximately 200 feet east of NC 8, approximately
300 feet from the junction of NC 8 and NC 89. The storefront is located just off the roadway
(NC 8) slightly south of the farmhouse. Buck Island Creek crosses under NC 8 through a culvert
approximately 100 feet from the junction of NC 8 and NC 89. Buck Island Creek merges into
Dan River approximately 200 feet downstream from the bridge. The land surrounding this reach
of the Dan River is a Significant Natural Heritage Area and is a Land Trust Priority Area of
Piedmont Land Conservancy. NC 8 / 89 is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
1

NC 8 / 89 has a current pavement width of 18 feet with 6-foot grass shoulders in the area of the
bridge. The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge but are relatively flat near the
bridge. From the bridge, the south approach curves to the west and restricts sight distance.
The estimated 2005 traffic volumes on NC 8 / 89 at the Dan River are 3000 vehicles per day
(vpd) and the estimated traffic volumes for the design year 2025 are 4800 vpd. The volumes
include an estimated 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 percent dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The posted speed limit is 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 60, as shown in Figures 2A and 2B, has an overall length of 315 feet and a clear deck
width of 20 feet. The existing two-lane bridge has a reinforced concrete deck on reinforced
concrete bents. The structure was constructed in 1932. The current posted weight limit is 30
tons for single unit vehicles and 33 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. Bridge No. 60 has
abed-to-crown distance of approximately 31 feet.
Three accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from May 1, 1999 to
April 30, 2002. The accident rate for the period is 536.71 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles (MVM) of travel as compared to the statewide average of 182.95 accidents per 100 MVM
for rural NC routes (two lanes undivided) for the three-year period 2000-2002.
Overhead power and fiber-optic/telephone lines parallel the northern side of the bridge but cross
over to the southern side of both the east and west roadway approaches. No utilities are attached
to the bridge.
There are 16 school bus crossings daily over the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 60 with a new bridge approximately 335 feet long with
a clear roadway width of 32 feet. New approaches to the bridge will provide 12-foot travel lanes
in each direction with $-foot shoulders (2-foot paved). The proposed cross sections are shown in
Figure 3. A design speed exception will be required for the horizontal and vertical alignments.
[During final design all practical considerations will be given to avoid placing a bent in the water
of the Dan River by spanning the entire river.]
2

B. Build Alternatives
The studied alternatives were: (1) Replace Bridge No. 60 on the northern side maintaining traffic
on the existing structure as an on-site detour; and (2) Replace Bridge No. 60 on the southern side
maintaining traffic on the existing structure as on-site detour. These alternatives are shown in
Figures 4 and 5.
The alternative to replace the bridge at its existing location by maintaining traffic with anoff--site
detour is not considered acceptable. The off-site detour is approximately 16 miles in length. A
10-mile detour would be possible except that it would cross a 19-ton-posted bridge, which would
be considerably more restrictive to trucks that use Bridge No. 60 on NC 8 / 89. [Bridge No. 60
has a posted weight limit of 30 tons for single unit vehicles and 33 tons for truck-tractor semi-
trailer vehicles.] Utilizing anoff-site detour would create timing problems for school bus pick-
ups and incur an additional cost of approximately $200 per day for the county schools.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered, but this alternative would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic
service provided by NC 8 / 89.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
rehabilitation of Bridge No. 60 is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. The
existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 1, replacing the existing bridge on new alignment on the northern side and generally
parallel to the existing bridge is the preferred alternative. Alternate 1 is preferred because it is
estimated to cost $ 593,750 less than Alternate 2 and has less impacts to relatively undisturbed
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest and Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forests. Since Alternate 1
results in the least amount of disturbed area, the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts
to the Dan River should be minimized. During final design all practical considerations will be
given to avoid placing a bent in the water of the Dan River by spanning the entire river.
The new structure will be approximately 335 feet long with a clear roadway width of 32 feet.
The length of the bridge will be determined during final design. New approaches to the bridge
will provide 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders including 2-foot paved shoulders.
Approximately 1500 feet of new approaches will be required. A design speed exception will be
3

required for the horizontal and vertical alignments. The estimated cost for the recommended
proposed improvement is $2,288,750. The current estimated cost of the project, as shown in the
NCDOT 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program, is $60,000 for right-of-way and
$2,400,000 for construction.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on 2005 prices, are shown in the following
table:
Alternate 1
On-site Detour
New Location
Northern Side (Preferred) Alternate 2
On-site Detour
New Location
Southern Side
Structure Removal $ 65,560 $ 65,560
Structure $ 996,625 $1,175,125
Roadway Approaches $ 487,690 $ 708,655
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 378,125 $ 505,660
Engineering and Contingencies $ 297,000 $ 370,000
SUBTOTAL $2,225,000 $2,825,000
Right-of-Way/Const. Ease./Util. $ 63,750 $ 57,500
TOTAL $2,288,750 $2,882,500
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 percent is included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 percent for engineering and
contingencies.
4

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Danbury, NC 7.5
minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping (Danbury, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1991), N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) proposed Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats, and .
recent aerial photography furnished by NCDOT.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (Department of the Army [DOA] 1987).
Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field
Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (1996). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements
and distributions were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980,
Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (NC
Division of Water Quality [DWQ] 2002, DWQ 2001). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Stokes
County (February 25, 2003 FWS list) is considered in this report. In addition, NHP records
documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing
field investigations. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats proposed by the WRC
(December 11, 1998 listing) were consulted to determine the presence of Proposed Critical
Habitats for aquatic species.
The fieldwork for the natural resource investigations was conducted on April 7, 2004 by
biologists from EcoScience Corporation. The project area was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the project area is approximately 300 feet
5

v ~
wide, centered on NC 8 / 89, and approximately 1800 feet long. The project area encompasses
approximately 12.8 acres. Special concerns evaluated in the field include: 1) potential protected
species habitat, and 2) wetlands and water quality protection of the Dan River.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project area is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont (Level III) ecoregion of North
Carolina. This ecoregion is rolling and hilly and includes rugged topography with monadnocks
and mountains. It has colder temperatures, more snowfall, and a shorter growing season than in
other areas of the encompassing Piedmont (Level IV) ecoregion, as well as moister and cooler
soils.
Elevations within the project area range from a high of approximately 800 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) to a low of approximately 710 feet NGVD within the stream channel.
Land uses within the project vicinity consist of woodlands, agriculture, residential lots, roadside
shoulders, and a maintained yard containing power transformers.
Based on soil mapping for Stokes County (SCS 1991), the project area is underlain by six soil
series including Pacolet-Wilkes complex (Typic Kanhapludults, Typic Hapludalfs), Rion fine
sandy loam (Typic Hapludults), Pacolet sandy clay loam (Typic Kanhapludults), Wateree fine
sandy loam (Typic Dystrochrepts), Riverview fine sandy loam (Fluventic Dystrochrepts), and
Toccoa fine sandy loam (Typic Udifluvents). Within the project area, Toccoa and Riverview
soils occur along the stream and adjacent alluvial forests, Rion, Pacolet, Wateree, and Pacolet-
Wilkes complex soils are found on slopes. None of the series are considered hydric in Stokes
County by the NRCS (1997).
The Pacolet series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils on uplands. These soils
formed in material weathered from felsic metamorphic and igneous rock, such asquartz-mica
gneiss and granite. Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. The depth to the seasonal water table is
greater than 6 feet. The depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches.
The Pacolet-Wilkes complex consists mainly of a very deep, well drained Pacolet soil and a
shallow, well drained Wilkes soil. Slopes range from 15 to 25 percent. The depth to the
seasonal water table is greater than 6 feet. The depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches.
The Rion series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils on uplands. These soils
formed in residuum of felsic metamorphic and igneous rock, in the form of gneiss, schist or
granite. Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. The depth to the seasonal water table is greater than
6 feet. The depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches.
6

The Riverview series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils on floodplains. These
soils formed in recent alluvium. Slopes range from 0 to 4 percent. The depth to the seasonal
water table is 3 to 5 feet. The depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches.
The Toccoa series consists of well drained and moderately well drained, moderately rapidly
permeable soils on floodplains. These soils formed in recent alluvium. Slopes range from 0 to 4
percent. The depth to the seasonal water table is 3 to 5 feet. The depth to bedrock is more than
60 inches.
The Wateree series consists of well drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils on steep side
slopes in the uplands. These soils formed in material weathered from felsic metamorphic and
igneous rock, in the form of gneiss and schist or granite. Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. The
depth to the seasonal water table is greater than 6 feet. The depth to bedrock is more than 60
inches.
C. Water Resources
1. Water Impacted
The project area is located within sub-basin 03-02-01 of the Roanoke River Basin (DWQ 2001).
This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03010103 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. The
structure targeted for replacement spans the Dan River and the adjacent floodplain. The portion
of the Dan River that lies within the project area has been assigned Stream Index Number 21-(8)
by DWQ (2002). Also included within the project area are Buck Island Creek and UT1 to the
Dan River.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The Dan River enters the project area from the southwest as awell-defined, fourth-order,
perennial stream with moderate flow over a cobble, boulder, gravel, and sand substrate (Figure
6). At Bridge No. 60, the Dan River is approximately 130 feet wide. The banks of the Dan
River are approximately 10 feet high and steeply sloping. During field investigations, the water
level was approximately 1-3 feet deep. Water clarity was very good, with visibility to the
substrate, and flow velocity was moderate. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was
observed within the river. The Dan River may provide good aquatic habitat for mussels and
benthic macroinvertebrates due to the observation of little to no siltation within the stream and
the channel substrate composition. Opportunities for habitat within the Dan River include
overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
7

Buck Island Creek enters the project area from the northwest as awell-defined, second-order,
perennial stream with moderate flow over a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate (Figure 6). Buck
Island Creek is approximately 20 feet wide. The banks of Buck Island Creek are approximately
20 feet high and steeply sloping. During field investigations, the water level was approximately
1-2 feet deep, eater clarity was good, with visibility to the substrate, and floes velocity was
moderate. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream. Buck
Island Creek may provide good aquatic habitat for mussels and benthic macroinvertebrates due
to the observation of little to no siltation within the stream and the channel substrate
composition. Opportunities for habitat within Buck Island Creek include overhanging trees,
undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
UT1 to Dan River begins in the south quadrant of the project area as awell-defined, first-order,
intermittent stream with no flow (as observed on April 7, 2004) over a gravel and sand substrate
(Figure 6). UTl to Dan River is approximately 3 feet wide. The banks of UTl to Dan River are
approximately 1 foot high. During field investigations, the soil was saturated to the surface but
there was no observed flow. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the
stream.
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. The
list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is
one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative
criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may
be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of
impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric
deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology
is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b)
guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting
(PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. Streams are
further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list, according to
source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support
aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina has developed a priority
ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those
waterbodies provide to the State. The Dan River, Buck Island Creek, and UT1 to Dan River are
not listed on any section of the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list.
8

Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage
Classification of WS-V has been assigned to the Dan River within the project area. Class WS-V
waters are waters protected for water supply which are generally upstream and draining to class
WS-IV, or waters previously used for drinking water supply puipose~, or waters used by industry
to supply their employees, but not municipalities or counties, with a raw water drinking supply
source. WS-V waters are also suited for all Class C uses, which include aquatic life propagation
and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or
frequent basis. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply II (WS-II) or watershed Critical Area (CA) occur
within 1.0 mile of the project area (DWQ 2002). This reach of the Dan River has not been
assigned the supplemental classification for Trout Waters (Tr). The nearest reach of the Dan
River with the supplemental classification of Tr occurs approximately 6 miles upstream. Buck
Island Creek and UT1 to Dan River have not been assigned an individual water quality
classification and are therefore considered to have the same classification as this reach of the
Dan River.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project area
is summarized in the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2001). The Dan
River is currently designated by DWQ as Supporting its designated uses. No benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur within 1.0 mile of the project area (DWQ 2001).
Sub-basin 03-02-01 of the Roanoke River Basin supports 23 permitted, point source discharges
with a total discharge of 1.3 million gallons per day. Major non-point sources of pollution within
the Roanoke River Basin include runoff from construction activities, agriculture, timber
harvesting, hydrologic modification, failing septic systems, straight pipes, roads, parking lots,
and roof tops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point
source discharges (DWQ 2001).
The NCWRC has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to
enhance planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by WRC as being critical due to the
presence of Endangered or .Threatened aquatic species. The open waters within the project area
are designated by the WRC as Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat.
9

3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will folluw contract specifications pertaining to erosion
control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of
Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in the
Dan River, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from
construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources,
NCDOT Best Management Practices for t1~e Prrotection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project. In addition the DWQ High Quality Waters Erosion
Control Guidelines will be implemented in all construction activities.
NCDOT will coordinate with various resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all
concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved. For the replacement of Bridge No. 60 in
water work is limited to an absolute minimum due to the documented presence of a federally
Endangered species, James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina). Consequently, there may be
special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
Impacts to water resources in the project area may result from activities associated with project
construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation,
and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water resources could result
from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
10

r ~
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, DOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced during
the construction phase of the project.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest, disturbed/maintained land, and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (Figure
6). Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the NHP
(Schafale and Weakley 1990), where applicable. Plant communities are listed in order of their
predominance within the project area.
a) Disturbed/maintained land
Disturbed/maintained land includes roadside shoulders, agricultural fields, and the yard
containing the power transformers. This community predominantly supports anherb/grass
assemblage. Most of this area is maintained by mowing or agricultural activities. Groundcover
includes seeded and native grasses and weedy fortis including fescue (Festuca sp.), dog-fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), wild
onion (Allium canadense), vetch (Vicia sp.), and henbit (Lamium amplexicaule). This
community occupies approximately 4.5 acres of the project area.
b) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
This community is described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) as occurring on mid slopes, low
ridges, upland flats, and other dry-mesic upland areas on acidic soils. Under natural conditions
11

these forests are uneven-aged, with a component of mature trees. Within the project area, this
community was well-developed with a closed canopy consisting of many large, mature trees.
The Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest occurs on moderate to steep slopes outside of the project
area floodplains. This community supports a canopy vegetated by white oak (Quercus alba),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and black cherry (Prunus seirotina). In addition, a
few sparse white pine (Pinus strobus) and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) occur within the
canopy 'layer. A small section of the community within the southeastern most portion of the
project area exhibits an early-successional dominance by Virginia pine. The sapling layer
includes those species within the canopy layer as well as red maple (Ater ~•ubrum), southern red
oak (Quercus falcata), hickory, and northern red oak (Quercus rubra var. borealis). Shrubs and
vines within this community include greenbrier (Smilax sp.), American beech (Fagus
gT•andifolia), red maple, American holly, and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The
herbaceous layer within this community is sparsely vegetated by Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and wild onion. This
community occupies approximately 3.4 acres of the project area.
c) Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This community is described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) as occurring within river and
stream floodplains in which separate fluvial landforms and associated vegetation zones are too
small to distinguish. Flood-carried sediment provides nutrient input to this community and
serves as a natural disturbance factor. Within the project area, the Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest consists of floodplain areas adjacent to the Dan River, the UTl to the Dan River,
and Buck Island Creek. This community was well-developed with a closed canopy consisting of
large, mature trees. This community supports a canopy vegetated by river birch (Betula nigra),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar, ironwood, and black cherry. The sapling and
shrub layers include those species within the canopy layer as well as red maple, blackberry
(Rubus sp.), Chinese privet, and American beech. Vines within this community include Japanese
honeysuckle and greenbrier. This community occupies approximately 3.2 acres of the project
area.
2. Wildlife
a) Disturbed/maintained land
Terrestrial mammal species adapted to maintained/disturbed sections of the project area include
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and red fox
12

(Vulpes vulpes). Birds observed within open and/or disturbed areas include American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Other avian species which might frequent
this community include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus
ryrannus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), house finch
(Ca~podacus mexicanus), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). No terrestrial reptile or
amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Terrestrial reptile and amphibian species
that might find habitat . in disturbed parts of the project area include eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata), and
American toad (Bufo americanus).
b) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit. Some mammal species which may
inhabit upland forests within the project region include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red
bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus jloridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), woodland
vole (Microtus pinetorum), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), long-tailed weasel
(Mustela frenata), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat (Fells rufus). Observed bird
species in these forested areas include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) and red bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus). Upland forest-dwelling birds of the project region include
eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), Carolina
chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula), and pine warbler (Dendroica pinus). Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians
within this forested community might include eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), spring
peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), ground skink (Scincella
lateralis), black racer (Coluber constritor), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
c) Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Tracks of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) were observed
within the project area along Buck Island Creek and UT1 to the Dan River. South of the bridge
on the east side of the Dan River were numerous saplings cut down by beaver (Castor
canadensis). Other mammal species expected to occur within this community include
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), evening bat (Nycticeius
humeralis), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
13

Birds observed within the alluvial forest corridor include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus),
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caer•ulea), and
eastern phoebe (Sayor~zis phoebe). The alluvial forest in the project area may also provide
suitable habitat for American woodcock (Scolopax minor), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), and
yellow-throated warbler (De~7droica dominica). Tei7•estrial reptiles and amphibians, like other
species groups, are expected to exhibit particular species richness in this moist habitat. Species
expected to occur within alluvial forests within the project area are northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), redback salamander
(Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander (Pletlzodora glutinosus), red salamander (Pseudotriton
Tuber), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus),
rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and queen snake (Regina septemvittata).
Many of these wildlife species are very adaptable and can eat a wide variety of plant ar~d animal
material when the preferred food is absent. Many of these species can be found within disturbed
areas, brushy edges of the forest, within heavy underbrush, or amongst shrubby plants.
Migration between communities of the project area may be frequent based on the needs of each
species for food, cover, protection from predators, and nesting.
3. Aquatic Communities
Limited investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic or semi-aquatic species. Species
expected to occur within the project area vicinity include mink (Mustela vison), belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), eastern musk turtle (Sternotlierus odoratus), painted turtle (Ch~ysemys
pitta), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), and eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
No sampling was undertaken in the Dan River to determine fishery potential and no fish species
were observed during the field survey. Fish species that may be present in this reach of the Dan
River and UTl to the Dan River include rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), satinfin shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), mountain redbelly dace
(Plloxinus oreas), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), Roanoke hog sucker (Hypentelium roanokense), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), Roanoke darter (Percina roanoka), fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), and walleye (Stizostedion
vib°eum). The proposed project will not occur within WRC trout waters. The nearest designated
trout waters occur approximately 6 miles upstream.
14

~ ~
Aquatic surveys conducted at Bridge No. 60 have documented the presence of the federally
Endangered James spinymussel. Subsequently, the NHP has designated this reach of the Dan
River as an Aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Area. This designation refers to nationally
significant natural areas, which contain examples of natural communities, rare plant or animal
populations, or geological features that are among the highest quality or best of their kind in the
nation, or clusters of such elements that are among the best in the nation.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Plant communities were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each
within the project area (Figure 6). Plant community impacts are based on cut-and-fill areas for
each alternative. A summary of permanent plant community impacts are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Plant Community Impacts for Each Alternative
Plant Community Alternate 1 * Alternate 2*
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 0.04 1.70
Disturbed/Maintained Land 1.60 1.30
Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.70 0.50
TOTAL 2.34 3.50
*Areas are given in acres.
The majority of impacts associated with both alternatives will occur within disturbed/maintained
land. Alternate 2 will impact approximately three times the area of relatively undisturbed
community. Most of this difference will occur within Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. No
significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities. Losses to plant
communities may be offset by the rehabilitation of the old roadway once construction of the new
road and bridge is complete. Construction noise and associated disturbances are anticipated to
have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of the Dan River, Buck Island Creek, and UT1 to the
Dan River are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). The Dan River exhibits characteristics of
awell-defined, fourth-order, perennial stream with moderate flow over a cobble, gravel, and
15

• ~
sand substrate containing some boulders. The Dan River and Buck Island Creek can both be
classified as riverine, upper perennial with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of
cobble and gravel (R3UB1) (Figure 6). UTl to the Dan River can be classified as riverine,
intermittent with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand (R4UB2) (Figure 6).
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). No vegetated wetlands occur in the project area.
The existing bridge has 125 feet of its superstructure located over the Dan River and two
reinforced concrete bents located within the river. The jurisdictional impacts expected from
project construction are possible placement of bents in the river and removal of the existing
bents. NCDOT will coordinate with various resource agencies during project development to
ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved. The replacement of Bridge
No. 60 will be accomplished according to the regulations defined by NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, which states that "in water" work is restricted to
an absolute minimum due to the presence of Outstanding Resource Waters and/or Threatened
and/or Endangered Species. For Bridge No. 60, in water work is limited to an absolute minimum
due to the presence within the project area within the last 20 years of the James spinymussel, a
federally Endangered species; therefore, all work potentially affecting the resource must be
carefully coordinated with the jurisdictional agency.
2. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional areas, resulting from bridge bent construction or removal within the Dan
River, may be anticipated from the proposed project. As a result, construction activities will
require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the
water quality of public water resources.
For construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of the site for bridge bent construction,
NWPs 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078, January 15, 2002) and 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15, 2002)
and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications (GC 3376 and GC 3366) will be
required. In the event that Nationwide Permits (NWPs) 3 and 33 will not suffice, impacts
attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may qualify under
General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. DWQ has made
available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031 (GC 3404). Notification to the
Wilmington COE District and DWQ is required for use of these permits.
16

~ ~
3. Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity
of waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes. Given the purpose and scope of the proposed
project, complete avoidance of jurisdictional impacts is not possible.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths,
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters. Minimization for the proposed project may include decreasing the amount of fill to be
deposited into the Dan River, decreasing the footprint of any bents to be constructed in the
stream bed, and designing and placing bents to obstruct stream flow as little as possible.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), DWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 1.0 acre of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150.0 linear feet of total perennial stream
impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020 and 2092, since January 15, 2002, the
COE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the
aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the
function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining
17

acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts, which remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United
States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may need to be proposed for this project due to
the potential for project impacts. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts. On-site mitigation opportunities might include replacement of the culvert on NC 8 with
a bridge to completely span the Buck Island Creek. After bridge construction, complete removal
of the existing bents in the Dan River and restoration of the stream bed to preconstruction
contours should be considered. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with construction
activities may be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian species and
removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination regarding
mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such
listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species"
is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Three federally protected species are listed for Stokes County (February 25, 2003 FWS list):
James spinymussel, Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinit~ii), and Small-anthered
bittercress (Cardamine mici•anthera). All three species are federally listed as Endangered.
Pleurobema collina (James spinymussel)
Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: July 22,1988
The James spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel, with an obliquely subtruncated
posterior, that grows to approximately 1.5 inches in length. The external shells of juveniles
18

usually bear one to three short spines on each valve. The adult shells usually lack spines. The
shell is smooth, straw-colored to brownish-black, with widely spaced concentric striations.
Preferred habitat of the spinymussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated,
circumneutral water over asilt-free, noncompacted, gravel/coarse. sand substrate. As of printing
of the FWS species recovery plan (FWS 1990), this spinymussel was only known from 10
streams within the James River basin in Virginia and West Virginia. In October 2000, an
unidentified spinymussel was found in the Dan River in Stokes County, North Carolina during a
survey conducted by personnel of NCDOT, WRC, and the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF). Subsequent surveys found several more individuals of spinymussel (personal
communication, Tim Savidge, April 4, 2001). Spinymussels had not previously been identified
within the Dan River basin. The mussels found in the Dan River have characteristics similar to
the James spinymussel and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna). Specimens of the
recently found spinymussel are currently (as of April 2001) undergoing genetic analysis. The
finding of this unidentified spinymussel has resulted in the FWS listing James spinymussel in
North Carolina counties that include tributaries of the Dan River basin (as of the February 25,
2003 list).
James spinymussel Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT
The NHP documents the occurrence of James spinymussel within the project area. No surveys
for James spinymussel were undertaken during the field visit to the project area, and no bivalve
shells were observed. A Consultation in compliance with Section (7a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 will follow this CE document to minimize impacts to the endangered James
spinymussel.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: May 7,1991
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to
approximately 6 feet in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes
nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above; in shape they
are lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and stiff,
with a few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface is usually
pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from September to frost; the
yellow flower heads are about 0.6 inch in diameter. The current range of this species is within
60 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in
19

soils that are thin or clay in texture. The species needs open areas protected from shade or
excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Disturbances such as fire maintenance
or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (FWS 1994).
Schweinitz's sunflower Biological Conclusion: NO EFFEC'T'
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs within project area disturbed/maintained land.
A survey during the blooming/fruiting season (August-frost) was conducted on August 18, 2004
and no plants were identified. NHP has no record of Schweinitz's sunflower within a 2.0-mile
radius of the project area. Based on the recent survey results and available information from
NHP, the proposed project will have no effect on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Cardamine micranthera (Small-anthered bittercress)
Endangered
Family: Brassicaceae
Date Listed: September 21,1989
Small-anthered bittercress is a low, erect, biennial or perennial herb with simple, slender stems.
The plant has crenate, lobed basal leaves 0.3 to 0.7 inch in length, and unlobed, crenate stem
leaves that are slightly shorter. The small flowers have white petals to 0.1 inch long and bloom
in the late spring. This species is only known from Forsyth and Stokes Counties. Typical habitat
is stream banks and low, moist woods (Murdock and Weakley 1991).
Small-anthered bittercress Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for small-anthered bittercress occurs within the project area along stream banks
and some wet rock crevices found along the south side of NC 89 just north of where NC 89/8
splits to become NC 89 and NC 8. A survey during the blooming/fruiting season (April-May)
was conducted on May 15, 2004 and no plants were identified. NHP has no record of-anthered
bittercress within a 2.0-mile radius of the project area. Based on the recent survey results and
available information from NHP, the proposed project will have no effect on small-anthered
bittercress.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 3, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species
of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the
future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is
20

insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species listed for Stokes County are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2: Federal Species of Concern
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat State Status**
Orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti Yes E
Rustyside sucker Thoburnia hamiltoni Yes E
Diana fritillary Speyeria Jana Yes SR*
Green floater Lasmigonia subviridis Yes E
Butternut Juglans cinerea Yes SR-T
Sweet pinesap Monotropis odorata No SR
*Historic record--the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
**State Status: E = Endangered; T =Threatened; SR =Significantly Rare; SR-T =Significantly
Rare Throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total) (Amoroso 2002; LeGrand and
Hall 2001).
NHP files list documentation for orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti) within 2.0 miles of the
project area. Neither orangefin madtom nor any other FSC species were observed during field
investigations.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects. (APE) was conducted on February 25, 2004. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO). In a memorandum dated March 10, 2004, the State:_ Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) determined that the project would not affect any historic structures.
A copy of this memorandum is included in the Appendix.
21

C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), in a March 10, 2004 memorandum, stated:
"Archaeological site 31 SK48 is located in the northeast quadrant of the road and river
intersection and archaeological site 31 SK50 is located west of the bridge. Neither of these two
prehistoric sites may be affected, depending upon the replacement alternative selected and the
length of any necessary approach work connected with the proposed bridge replacement. Please
forward information regarding the specific location of ground disturbing activities associated
with this project as soon as it is available in order that we may complete our review."
Environmental Services, Inc. conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the APE. No
evidence of previously recorded archaeological site 31 SK221 was encountered during the
survey. Two new isolated archaeological finds (ESI-1 &ESI-2, site numbers to be assigned)
were recorded during this investigation. Each site consisted of a single piece of lithic debitage.
Neither isolated find has the potential to yield significant data pertaining to prehistory. They are
both recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register.
In a memorandum dated January 3, 2005, the HPO concurred that the two referred sites,
subsequently numbered 31 SK221 and 31 SK222, were not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under criterion D, and since no evidence of archaeological site
31 SK48 was encountered during the survey; concurred that the site has either been destroyed or
is located outside the APE for the project. A copy of the HPO memorandums are included in the
Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 60 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment if current NCDOT standards and specifications are implemented. A Section
7 consultation will be required concerning the endangered James spinymussel following
completion of this document.
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
22

The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle
route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
No residential or business relocatees are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
No adverse impacts on families or communities are anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Neither of the alternatives studied impacts any Prime and Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Importance. Alternate 1 (preferred) has a "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating" score of 48 and
will impact 2.34 acres while Alternate 2 has a score of 43 and will impact 3.50 acres. Both
alternatives affect some cultivated fields. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (iJSDA)
memo and Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form are included in the Appendix. The
preferred (Alternate 1) does impact more acres of cultivated farmland, which accounts for its
higher impact rating. Both alternatives would meet the requirements of the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (7 CFR Part 658).
This reach of the Dan River is part of the "Significant Natural Heritage Area Program" (SNHA)
and is a Land Trust priority area of the Piedmont Land Conservancy. The Piedmont Land
Conservancy owns land southeast of the bridge and has a canoe access located 1568 feet
northeast of the bridge (not open to the public). [Neither the land owned by the Piedmont Land
Conservancy nor the canoe access will be affected by the project.] Both Stokes County and the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission requested that the NCDOT incorporate a small parking and
canoe access area into the construction plans for this project. Stokes County requested this site
to be in the southwest quadrant. Since the new bridge will span the river and the existing bridge
abutments will be removed from the Dan River, this project should generally enhance river
activities sponsored by the SNHA Program. There are not any resources protected by Section
4(f) of the 1966 DOT Act in the project study area.
The project is an-air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. If vegetation or wood
debris is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
23

compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990 Clean Air Act .Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act. Replacement of the existing bridge will not increase traffic volumes.
The noise levels will increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
The results from apre-scoping geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation performed by
the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit showed that no hazardous waste sites or apparent
landfills were identified within the project limits. There is one potential underground storage
tank identified near the project limits, an abandoned old gas station. This property is outside the
project limits of this bridge. The geotechnical pre-scoping report is included in the Appendix.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A "start of study" letter was distributed to local officials and agencies requesting information and
concerns relative to the proposed study alternates. Their responses are included in the Appendix.
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement
program was initiated.
IX. AGENCY COORDINATION
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Department of Agriculture
Federal Highway Administration
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Wildlife Resources Commission
*NC Division of Water Quality
*NCDENR, Division of Parks and Recreation
*County Manager, Stokes County
Chairman, Stokes County Commissioners
24

`Superintendent, Stokes County Public Schools
*Stokes County Medical Service Emergency Management
*Sheriff, Stokes County
*Stokes County Fire Marshall
*Stokes County Emergency Communications
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written/oral comments were received. Copies of the
comments received are in the Appendix. Comments requiring a response are addressed below:
1. NCDWQ:
Comment: "Dan River is classified as C Trout and is in the Roanoke River Basin. A
moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is
recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout."
Response: This reach of the Dan River is classified WS-V based on the information from
DWQ's Basinwide Information Management System and does not require a moratorium for
trout; however, a moratorium between May 1 and July 15 will be required for other fish species.
25

REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2000. Cape Fear River Water Quality Management Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm [April 14, 2004]
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004. Basinwide Information Management System (online).
Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reports.html [May 1, 2004]. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina;
County Lists; Guilford Co. (online). Available:
http://southeast.fws.gov/es/county°Io201ists.htm. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, V.B.. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina, (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and
photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
26

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP•
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission,. Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Guilford County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325
PP~
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina,
USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1998. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
27

FIGURES

j e N
d N ~~
1 ~~ ~ I
,.az 1490 I
~~ )
1666
.r
89
8
Opt` ~ 89
487 1667
.~ ~
BRIDGE NO. 60 `~
U ~ 1489
.~°
a
~_ ~~\ ~

5 T
K
1665
~,
..
161
s
89
1
0 0.5 1
I
GRAPFpC SCALE fMIlES)
.~ ...~N
l~ C• ~+
. rin~as csaazn+rs ~srsit~rrr of ~teenrspo~tTSr~ox
P~.;.oE A..1.r..,t .ail Ba.;r...~sW A..is.:. BT.~
BRIDGE N0. 60
NC 8 / 89 OVER DAN RIVER
STOKES COUNTY
B-4281
VICINITY MAP FrcuRE lA

.
~ ,f X14{ ~. ~ p,r ~r C> '\~`
~ +'.
I x ~ t i _ / / ~ ~.,.~~ ~
] 4 \ 1
~ i -. -'`~ M~~/ L ~~~ ~ _ 7TH.
1 ( ~ ~ •n ~.
H
...+'/ ~ .900 ~~~ ~~.h.~""
s
)tr r' ~ L ~` ~ ~I ~
( t r S1 (~~`
S
~~ Bridge No. 60
~~ --
~':
7 :.
sl `~ ~,~~~~~_~~ fir,..+o ~~X' '!, ~ ~ t ~~ t lp ~~~~~ ~ ` "t, +r'~ ~+.
roan t~"rostt~ ~~ r ~.. >~l ~ }~ f'" ,.-~r/e~ t f , ~ '~~~ '1 ~' ~i3*-~ ,~ ~~~.
Gl1- y~"~'~~J7 "~ClY.F"J a / _< N,Y ~ ~ F~~r^ ~V i j~ ~~~~~. •. ~~ ~ \d~ q ~ ..-.
~~Sw ~^~:1~ ~`"1~~-~~."`~ { _ E ~i~~r.~~~r~._~1 ~~ff"''`~~ .'al.~flt~' f~1`~5~~4~ -~, i~t~d's~~ ~ ~-v ~~,~ i~y4. ~.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
"Op'~ Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
aP~~O~ C49°`
N 9
f
T.I.P. B-4281
'~~ ~~PO Bridge No. 60 Over Dan River
~°F~'""~ On NC 8 / 89 - Stokes County, N.C.
~ ., t
~~ r~~~~~~~ f ~~lf
~ 4 •,
~, n f :,
{ . r. ,.~.
e'3
yfal
~~~i fl~
~~ ~ z
.~ ., r
3:.
~`~;y,
Quad.Map: Danbury
~ tt .;elf C"r
!~ # f ~ J
~~ ~. s ~ 1 F ~ :~-.
~~ ~ ~
t ~ i , 0. ~ L
~ ~: I
4
C ~_ ~~~'_" S~
:=,
i ~ ~ i' 't ~
~~ M ryt V /' t ~ t~F- `~ C
r ~~ t ~ @. KF ~'~~i
t 1"~ti
~,,' of t f'~( ~-1~~~`-
I s ~ .- 7 j,"~ .,-
~J ~ ~ ~ fr ~ ti ~ tI ~h~ f~I~~
~1 / ~ ~^ } ~
7
!/ ~ ~ h
S~J ,~ (. ~ "'~ ~
~~ ~ __ ~
r r
=~:
` '
~ v
3,, ~~ M J
7~! ~ ni :~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ `' t~ •'f it ~, n~_~
i
~'~;;~~ l' 1. ~ >
i~ ~ ~ ~ _ µµ~.~,.:
4 ~ ~ l
~ r ~° t *~._"~ P r ~~
~ ~ ~ r7'
-~ ~~~\l ~ `-.,111
i
Z -' ^ ~ S
~~ ~~
l )•-~
Figure 1B

LOOKING WEST ACROSS BRIDGE
,~,,~~~~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~ TRANSPORTATION
1' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
~yRh"^~"'`~' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 60
ON NC 8 / 89 OVER DAN RIVER
STOKES COUNTY
B-4281
FIGURE 2A
LOOKING EAST ACROSS BRIDGE

STRUCTURE PROFILE, LOOKING NORTH & DOWNSTREAM
STRUCTURE PROFILE, LOOKING SOUTH & UPSTREAM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
z ~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
* ~'"~orn~N4°F' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 60
ON NC 8 / 89 OVER DAN RIVER
STOKES COUNTY
B-4281
FIGURE 2B

f ~
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA FIGURE 3
REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 60 ON NC 8 / 89
OVER DAN RIVER
STOKES COUNTY
8-4281
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 3.000
2025 ADT = 4,B00
TTST = I%
DUAL = 2%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 65%
DESIGN SPEED: 60 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE:4°I5'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 4%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 136 Kcrest = 151
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE :2.0 fit FDPS 8.0 ft TOTAL (II.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 12.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 32.0 ft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 395.0 ft or 335.0 ft
VAR. SLOPE
10' 6'
2' MIN. 8'
8' DES.
_ ~ 2'
12' ~_ 12' _ ~ 8' ~ 30'
2'
VAR. SLOPE
~~
.02 It .02
~ I I' WITH GUARDRAIL
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
32'
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
NOTE:
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED. APPROVED BY: DATE:
I
4' 12' ~
12' 4'
GRADE
~ POINT
.02 .02

~1.1
;%t~'
,:
T~: Fr
~ ~~ ~
_ a,,r~sr
~:,
4 ; i .
u vp1R~ .. :.d
`~- 1 f ~~.
a ".•x
~ ~ ~.

x i,•,
a~f,_
~"~` ~ ' T
1 ~ ~ e
~~ ~~' ~ +~
~ ` -8::
~' ~'
;5. '. {
4i~ _
w'1
i ~ i !fC i~9 ,r~'
'' ~, f pypyr •i~394
;,~,
~~
s
y_~ ~
~~ .
... .. ~' ..v, ~
~,

alt 3~.~'t.1.1

~ Ep:;~ft~ ~$
~~
~' e 1`~~~irxE°i
`~~€~'~~ 2~6~a ~a 1~ ~~

{,
3
,~ ~~ ~ "~:
~~_
F

APPENDIX

LTr~ted States I~epal^tr~lerlt of the Inter~or,~~~;.
~~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 9, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
~,~~~ , ~„
3 y
~.
.;+•'4 O U
. '> z e,
;c:_ . ' ~~
_ti `,~ a~~~ ~~oQ~~~~~
Subject: Scoping Comments for Five Bridge Replacement Proposals, Stokes, Davidson, Forsyth,
and Davie Counties, North Carolina
We have reviewed the subject bridge replacement proposals and provide'the following comments
in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e),
and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 IJ.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Given the early stages of development for these projects, our comments aze limited primarily to
the known locations of listed species and federal species of concern. When the categorical
exclusions are prepared and more information is available regazding environmental effects, we
can offer more substantive comments.
Enclosed is a species list for the four counties included in this package. This list provides the
names of species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened ~Idlife and Plants as well
as federal species of concern. Federal species of concern aze not legally protected under the Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response
to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are
found in the vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
Stokes County - B-4281, Bridge No. 60 on NC 8 and 89 over the Dan River (our
Log No. 4-2-04-122) -Our records for Stokes County indicate known locations of
the federally endangered James spin~nussel (Pleurobema collina) in the project
area. It is likely that James spinymussel individuals would be affected by this
project; if that is the case, formal consultation will be required. In addition, there
aze occurrences of the federally endangered small-anthered bittercress
(Cardamine micrantherea) neaz the project area.

Davidson County - B-4100, Bridge No. 142 on SR 1741, and B-4101, Bridge
No.141 over Abbotts Creek (our Log Nos. 4-2-04-123,42-04-124).
li orsyth. County - B-4112, Bridge No. 30 on SR 1631 over Muddy Creek (our
Log No. 4-2-04-125).
Davie County - B-4104, Bridge No. 21 on NC 801 over Carter Creek (our Log
No. 4-2-04-128).
_Our-records for these counties and project areas indica e~ no mown locations of listed species in
the project areas. However, we recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any
suitable habitat in the project areas for these species prior to any further planning or
on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace the existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges,~in all cases. In addition, off-site detours,
which would reduce stream-bank disturbance, are preferable to temporary on-site crossings. We
look forward to reviewing the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Mazella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference the log numbers assigned with our comments for each project as shown above
Sincerely,
-, ~~~
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: .
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls
of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Cazolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621

ENDANGERED, THREA'1CENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, DAYIDSON, DAB,
FORSYTH, AND STOKES COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, and Stokes Counties, of North Carolina's federally listed and
proposed~endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concem (for a complete
list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The
information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of concem, and it should not-be considered a substitute for field surveys. - _ __ .
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated or
. proposed.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent
counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTgTC NAME STATUS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Carolina darter
Bald eagle
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster
Schweinitz's sunflower
Heller's trefoil
DAME COUNTY
Vertebrates
Robust redhorse
Vascular Plants
Creamy tick:-trefoil
Heller's trefoil
Michaux's sumac
FORSYTH COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Etheostoma Collis Collis FSC
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Astergeorgianus C1 -
Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Lotus helleri FSC
Moxosioma robustum FSC
Desmodium ochroleucum . FSC*
Lotus helleri FSC*
Rhus michauxii Endangered
Clemmys muhlenbergii ~ T(S/A)'
Picoides borealis Endangered****
November 12, 2003 Page 1 of 2

C®l~'IlVI®I~11VA14'IE SCIlEl~1'I'IFIC 1~1AI~ S'I'A'lCUS
Invertebrates
Brook floater ~lasmidonta varicose FSC
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
STOKES COUNTY
Vertebrates
Orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti FSC
Rustyside sucker Thoburnia hamiltoni FSC
Invertebrates
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC
James spinymussel Pleurobema collina Endangered
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC*
Vascular Plants -
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C 1 A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing. -
FSC A Federal species of concern-a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )-a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These•species are not biologically endangered or threatened and aze not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record -the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record -the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
* * *Incidental/migrantyecord -the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record -obscure and incidental record.
1In the November 4, 1997, Federal Regrster (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
November 12, 2003 Page 2 of 2

~Jo~o ~Il~~ ~ ~Y~fl~~~~~ ~~~°~fl~~
A~neville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
MEMO FOR: Karen Taylor
DATE: March 23, 2005
FROM: Denise Moldenhauer
SUBJECT: Comments on the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and project commitments for
replacement of Bridge No. 60 on NC 8/89 over the Dan River, Stokes County, TLP
Project No. B-4281
Karen,
We have reviewed the CE and project coinmihnents for B-4281 and provide the following
cormnents:
On page 3 of the document, Project Commitments, we recommend adding a sentence to
the end of the first paragraph stating that this project will require formal consultation with
the USFWS to address impacts to the James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and that
additional commitment measures other than those listed below likely will be required to
ensure that effects to the James spinymussel are minimized to the greatest extent possible.
2. The project commitments were not grouped together logically and therefore the
document was difficult to follow. We believe that the commitments could be grouped in
amore logical manner and recommend the following categories for grouping the
conunitments; "commitments associated with bridge demolition", "commitments
associated with bridge design", and "commmitments associated with bridge construction."
The "commitments associated with bridge demolition" could include how the material
from demolition will be contained and kept out of the river, the "commitments associated
with bridge design" could include how deck drainage will be handled and considerations
given for spanning or minimizing bents within the river, and "commitments associated
with bridge construction" could include erosion control measures and how and where
equipment will be operated to minimize impacts to the river and floodplain.
3. Page 3 of the document states that the NCWRC has requested a canoe access area be
provided for this project. We are in support of an area for canoe access but if this action
is taken it will need to be evaluated within the Biological Assessment for this project to
ensure the action does not adversely affect the James spinymussel.
4. Statements within pages 4 and 5, Project Commitments, conflict with one another. Page
4 states that because some bridge debris will enter the river the contractor will submit a
demolition plan that details the amount of bridge that can be removed with only minimal
portions of material falling into the river and ways the contractor plans on retrieving and
disposing of components of the bridge that do fall into the water. Where as page 5 states
that during and after the bridge demolition that no bridge debris, asphalt, or dirt fill will
be allowed to enter the river. We recommend stating in one place within the document
(again we recommend a section entitled "commitments associated with bridge
demolition") that "All attempts will be made to keep existing bridge debris from entering

the Dan River. A containment system maybe needed during portions of the demolition
process; however, the contaiiunent system will only be used to catch debris that
inadvertently falls into the river. If debris does enter the river, the contractor will be
required to submit a proposed removal method for review and approval prior to
conducting this work."
5. Page 4 states that every effort will be made to minimize deck drainage. This should be
changed to "the deck and roadbed drainage will flow through a vegetated buffer prior to
reaching the Dan River."
6. Page 4 states that activities in the floodplain will be limited to those needed to construct
and remove the bridge. We recommend adding an additional statement that any material
that is deposited in the floodplain as a result from this project will be removed and the
floodplain will be restored after the project is completed.
7. Page 5 states that "All James spinymussel species must be removed prior to construction.
Bridge construction maybe subject to a moratorium." Page 6 states that "Pre-let surveys
will be performed at the bridge of occurrence of James spinymussel." We recommend
removing these sentences because the terms of a moratorium, survey work, and the
relocation of mussels will need to be worked out through the formal consultation process.
Page 5 states that NCDOT PDEA and the USFWS will be invited to the pre-construction
meeting. We recommend also inviting the Corps, NCDWQ, and the NCWRC to this
meeting.
9. Neither the project commitments nor the CE discuss the applicability of spanning the
river. We recommend analyzing this in the CE under the Alternatives section and stating
if this is a consideration in the commitments document.
10. Finally, the Preferred Alternatives section of the CE needs to be expanded. Given that
NCDOT has decided to issue a CE before formal consultation is finalized we need to
make sure that the preferred alternative minimizes impacts to the aquatic envirorunent
and the James spin}mussel. For the BO we will need to evaluate the alternatives of the
project and all measures that have been taken to minimize impacts; therefore, the
alternative that is deemed the preferred alternative should illustrate that it was chosen
because it minimized impacts to the James spinymussel. Currently the preferred
alternative discussion does not discuss how the chosen alternative will minimize impacts
to the James spinymussel. Page 9 of the CE document states that the reasons for
choosing alternative 1 as the preferred alternative were that this alternative was cheaper
and will cause fewer impacts to the dry-mesic oak-hickory forest. Again, the discussion
of the preferred alternative should demonstrate that it minimizes impacts to the James
spinymussel. Some examples of ways an alternative could minimize impacts are by
causing fewer construction impacts and by spanning the river.
Tf you have questions about these comments, please contact Denise Moldenhauer at
828/258-3939, Ext. 226. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-04-122.

~--~:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND C®Ni/ERSI~N IMPACT RATING
PART I (To he completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request / _ 24 ~ Q
Name Of Project ~ /, 2 p / Federal Agency Involved r _ Jew Cam; / t , r
Proposed Land Use ~ r/ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ County And State ST"O~~
C7 S Co . /?~ C.
PeRT It /To be completed tiJ MRCS) ` ' :Date Request;Recenred,ByNRCS- ; : ; - .? o ~=`'ht~ . ' .

_ _ -, -.,
._:
L' Doesthe site contain pnme ,unique,: tate~nnde or local,tm rtantfarmland~,~~~'
,- ;. Po
` z `(lf no the FPPA does not •a t . _°dt not com lete adddronal parts offhrs for ~~.?~~es~~~ o

m-~.~`' ¢;A~: Acres Irrigated. Average Fame: ize'~ !~ .:`

}.
'
~ ~ Maior Gtop(s)""` , • .
~
t
~ Fatmable La ii fri ovtr~Ju tcbo
A
~ ~ ~;~x
'
S
* r punt Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
m
A
,~
~~ r~ ~~`~-
i cres , t"~~.
=~
2 ~i ~~
.
~-
'` %,
.. f c
res: °l°
T
4` ,amehOf land Evalu o System Used,
/~jh'
fi~'F Narte Ot Local S ~' sessm of S yst ~~~~~o
~ Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCSr`- .;
>
/ ~
PART III (To be completed by Federa! Agency) Alternative Site Rati
Sit Sit Sfte C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Z7
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly -.
C. Total Acres In Site 0.0 2, 3 0.0 3„5~D 0.0 0.0
as~},1+, - .l'.~wie-`?-2 surLi~iX.~'~r*..f'ti.k ~•., .-. .:w. - ti
~'„14RT~IV~(To~G,e,pomp/efed by NRCS)_ Land. Evaluation lnforrnattom~.
..
-
"
'
"
' s~5,"~
~;;?~~~
•~ t -
~~~°': Y-M,Ktt 'i
#~ f~. ~ ~. $.

'o ~~f
° ~r~`t~ f''
/"
use L
~i~
lr~4a :-".r
r ~:,~•1
'~if.Ci
.. - i
'
:.
4
-
S ~
~~'TotaJ,/lges"Pnme;~d Untque Farmlands z - -
`~~+ ~ ~" _,~ , w
: E f" x
~~
~
''~:
~Toi"alf
cre `State`tnnde And Localslmportarit Farmland ` r~ ".s
~
;~~ .
'
~ ` ~,
~ ~,
,~,
.
~n~ ~s~~~ra,~.',
-
., x
~-s'U~;;,~e ce'n~age'OfFarmland:ln County Or Local Govtt-Un~tTo:Be~

.1 ,
,,
~,
Converted
. ..-. .ei
_,~ ~
.
'~,~`~~„ {~~'-

v'

r ,

r
~~~,~r z`
~„ ~i4
~pPecepta g~Of,Fartnland'In~GoYt Jun``sdtcfionWith,SameOrtiiigtie~Re la~vel/a e ° `', ~ (~..,,. >~,: .~~~`~,+<
PAR F%y(T~~omp/e~ed~by FRCS) Land Evalua'{ton Cnte~on ~ a~ 1~-~~ ~x 0 - ~ ~.~~ , f 0 0 ' ~ -~1~,t.
~~
R
lative Value
Of Farmland To:Be
Coftyerted
(Scale ofO to
1 00
Pornf$) ~ ~ ~ 0,
~ --'
-
_~ ,
e
;
_
,
~ ;
r
. .,
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Mabmum
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria an: explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use / /$~ !S
f 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use p p p
3. Percent Of Site Being Fanned 2 p
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 2 O O O
5. Distance From Urban Buittup Area p9 O p
6. Distance To Urban Support Services O O O
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average O O ' O
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland S 0 O
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services $ S
10. On-Farm Investments 2 p p 0
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 'ZS" 0 ~
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use D 0 D
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 0 ~ 8 0 Lf 3 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part ~ _ 100 0 0 0 - - -
Total Site Assessment (Fn~m Pact VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
0 f.~, 8
0 ~ 3
p
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 0 0 0

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection W as A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ® No
rteason For Selection:

7
(See Instructions on reverse side) Forth AD-1006. (10-83)
This torte was electronically produced by National Production Services Staft

n „` svv~ o
~~ rb~
~e~
North Carolina I)epartanent of Cultural Resources
State Fiistoaic PreservatAOn Office
vlichael F. Easley, Governor
.isbeth C. Evans, Secretary
lef&ey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
r, ~
C~
FROM: David Brook ~-,,( ~ ~ '
Deputy-State Histo c;Preservation Officer
Divisid~
David L.
SUBJECT: Bridge No. GO on NC 8 and 89 over Dan River, B-4281, Stokes County,
ER04-0479
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 2004, concerning the above project.
Archaeological site 31 SK48 is located in the northeast quadrant of the road and river
intersection and archaeological site 31 SK50 is located west of the bridge. Neither of these two
prehistoric sites may be affected, depending upon the replacement alternative selected and the
length of any necessary approach work connected with the proposed bridge replacement.
Please forward information regarding the specific location of ground disturbing activities
associated with this project as soon as it is available in order that we may complete our review.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
www.hpo.dcrstate.ncus
Location Mailing Address TelephooeJFaY
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
w+*-~T..,~"~.~.,~._____. ci c t\t Rlnnn~ Cf Ael>:n}. ~.tr dF17 Mail Service.Cente~lt;aleiph-NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-4801

~~A>F4 ~~Yl~~NS PAflTI~IP~,T6~N
" . JAN 0 5 2005
~~ ,~.,,, 2 ~,.
a~
I~Torth Carolina I~epartrnent of Cultural Resourc~~s~"' ' -
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandheck, Administraror
Michael I^. Easley, Governor Of£ce of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
~effre}' j. Crow, Deput}' Secretary David Brook, Director
January 3, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways `} . ,~ ~ ~p
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ~ p./ ~;~ C~`'"-"
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Proposed Improvements to Bridge 60 on NC 8/89
over the Dan River, TIP B-4281; Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-008(1); State Project No.
8.1641201, Stokes County, ER 04-0479
Thank you fox your letter of November 29, 2004, transmitting the survey report by Environmental Se>vices,
Inc. for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties axe not eligible fox listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion D:
31 SK221 and 31 SK222
These prehistoric isolated finds do not retain sufficient integrity to yield important information. No evidence
of previously recorded archaeological site 31SK48 was encountered during the survey. The report concludes
that the site has either been destroyed or is located outside the area of potential effect (APE) for the project.
We concur with the author's recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted for
this project as currently proposed. The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations fox Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Scott Seibel
Environmental Services, Inc.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4677 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Ma>7 Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/775-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Iv[ail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

_ ®North Carolina ~Iildlife Resources Commission ~~~~v
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator ~Y~ ~1~,
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC ~l ~~~
DATE: August 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed replacement of Bridge No. 60 on NC 8
and 89 over the Dan River, Stokes County. TIP No. B-4281.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regazding impacts to fish and
wildlife .resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided and visited the site on February 25, 2004. We have the following
preliminary comments. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)} and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 2769-1721
--_ __._Teleahone: [phone] est. 281 •~ax - 919 715_7
Chai-les R Fullwood, Executive Director

B-4281, Bridge Alo. 60, NC 8 & 89 2
Dan River, Stokes Co. August 10, 2004
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constricted, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat
intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the stream
underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C:-Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army-Eorps of
Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting
additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the
project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, Mr. Logan Williams with the
NCDOT -ONE should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species
may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regulazly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on ail bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work azea.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimise sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill {causeways), and should
be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.

B-4281, Bridge IVo. 60, I~IC 8 & S9
Dan River, Stokes Co.
Aur,,°ust 10, 2004
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials.
17. If culvert installation is being considered, conduct subsurface investigations prior to
structure design to determine design options and constraints and to ensure that wildlife
passage issues are addressed.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
_-
-- - .
The culvert must be designed to allow~for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the ---- -
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other
than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain
bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the
upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be
filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious or mosquito breeding conditions.
Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or
notched bales should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This
should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by
maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish
and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide a
continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain
dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts
aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should
be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed

B-4281, Bridge IVo. 60, NC 8 & 89 4
Dan River, Stokes Co. August 10, 2004
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed
was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may
be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4281, Stokes Co., Bridge No. 60 over Dan River on NC 8 and 89. The Dan River is Class
C Tr waters and supports a fishery which includes smalhnouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu},
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (L.
___ gibbosus): Several federal and statelisted~pecies exist in the project area or vicinity
including two mussel species, the James spineymussel-(Pleurobema collina), federal and
state Endangered (E), and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), state Special Concern (SC).
Listed fish species in the Dan River include: orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti), Federal
Species of Concern and state E; cutups minnow (Exoglossum mazillingua), state E; rusryside
sucker (Thoburnia hamiltoni), state E; riverweed darter (Etheostoma podostemone), state SC;
bigeye jumprock (Scartomyzon ariommum), state Threatened; Roanoke hogsucker
(Hypentelium roanokenese), state Significantly Rare (SR); and Blue Ridge sculpin (Cottus
caeruleamentum), state SR. An in-stream work moratorium is recommended from May 1 to
July 15 to protect the egg and fry stage of smallmouth bass, sunfish, and many of the listed
species. A thorough mussel survey should be conducted in the project area and immediately
downstream
A similar project (B-3045) on the Dan River was under construction earlier this year not far
upstream of this project. NCDOT should continue to work with resource agencies, including
NCWRC, regarding protection of listed species in the area A concern of the. B-3045 project
involved acidic soils with a very severe hazard of erosion. If similar soils exist for this
project, steps must be taken to ensure that the pH of stormwater runoff does not negatively
impact surface waters. It is extremely important to implement and maintain strong erosion
and sedimentation control measures and properly manage stormwater in the project azea. At
a minimum, sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standazds for
sensitive watersheds. Stormwater designs should incorporate treatment of the water by
measures such as a preformed scour holes, grassed swales, or grass-lined ditches.
Canoe access was requested more than once for the B-3045 project, but to no avail. Access
to our State's water-related recreational resources is often limited to the public right-of--ways
maintained by NCDOT. We request that NCDOT incorporate a small pazking and canoe
access area into their construction plans for this project, B-4281, to provide the public
permanent and safe access to this valuable resource.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with sparming
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.

t
B-4281, Bridge No. 60, R1C 8 & 89
Ban River, Stokes Co.
August 10, 2004
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project.
cc: Mazella Buncick, USFWS
Brian Vt~renn, NCDWQ
Sarah McRae, NCNHP

~ Y
\O~J rQG
~ ~
r
-I
o ~
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and. Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Tieputy Director
March 24, 04~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director ~ rAPR l 2f:~'
2~
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~Po D!'dfSION ~
,. ~ ~ , ~oJ~c HIGi•NYAYS ~~ ;~
FROM: Robert Ridings, Env. Tech., DWQ 401 Unit ~ ~~/~~~ y~FNr~C ~~ R?~~S 5~
'`' AN
THROUGH: John Hennessy, Supervisor, DWQ 401 Transportation Unit~~~ _
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects:vB-4281,x-4112,yB-4252,
~B-4254;8-4100,`$-4101_,'x-4243,x-4244,`~i-424~~-4104,E-4129 ~'B-4130;~B-4131.
~ K (Urla's KLx~I
In reply to your correspondence dated February 10, 2004 (received February 18, 2004) to Cynthia Van der Wiele,
in which you requested comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following
comments:
I. General Comments Re~ardint' Bridt?e Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace the
bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed using Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream and do .
not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for
human and wildlife passage beneath the~structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
4. Bridge deck drains should not dischazge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is mostly
- made up of lime (calcium cazbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very .,
soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. ]n an unhardened state concrete or cement will change the
pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to
stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If
possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the azea with
chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact,
allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
,~~~
:_~..
tJ01~~F~t
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center. Ralcigh. NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone). 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.rnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748

~.
8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the
bridge.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented prior
to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent sedimentation
of water resources.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation in flowing
water.
__ _ _. -_
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should
be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
II. General Comments if Replacing the Bridee with a Culvert
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for. aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth). If
multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream
bankfull or floodplain bench elevation. (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end to restrict
or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious
or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low
flows to accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-SO linear feet, alternating or notched
baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life
passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide
a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during normal
flows to allow for wildlife passage. .
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid channel
realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided..Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet
end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased.
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage. _
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active. thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally designed,
sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure. If road
closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the
need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should
be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species: Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously
wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation
for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.

III. Proiect-Soecitic Comments
B-4281, Bridge 60, Dan River, Stokes County
Dan River is classified as C Trout and is in the Roanoke River Basin. A moratorium prohibiting in-stream wor]
and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protect the,
egg and fry stages of trout. DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs
(particularly for sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
B-4112, Bride 30, Muddy Creek, Forsyth County
Muddy Creek is classified as C and is in the Yadkin River Basin. DWQ has no special concerns with this projec
Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
B-4252, Brides 67 and 95, Little Beaver and BiQ Beaver Creeks, Rockingham County `
Little Beaver and Big Beaver Creeks are both classified as C and are in the Roanoke River Basin. DWQ has no
special concerns with this project. _ ___._ -- - __ _ --
B-4254, Bridge 89, Little Troublesome Creek, Rockingham County
Little Troublesome Creek is listed as C NSW and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water.
NCDOT shall maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Critical
Area of the Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
8-4100 and 8-4101, .Brides 142 and 141 Abbotts Creek, Davidson County
Abbotts Creek is listed as WS-III water supply stream and is in the Yadkin River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F~ and (G).
B-4243, Bride 7I, Hasketts Creek, Randolph County
Hasketts Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Feaz River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT shall
maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of the
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4244, Bride 140, Gabriels Creek Randolph County
Gabriels Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Feaz River Basin. ~ DWQ has no special concerns for this project.
°B-4246. Bride 228, Richland Creek Randolph County
Richland Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT shall
maximize the use of Best_ Management Practices for-all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of the
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed wafers. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4104, Brume 21, Carter Creek, Davie County
Carter Creek is listed as WS-IV and is in the Yadkin River Basin. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer
requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use of
BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B :0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).

B-4129, Bride 226, Little Alamance Creek Guilford County
Little Alamance Creek is listed as WS-1V NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F~ and (G). Since the project is located within
the Critical Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for this project base
on traffic count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project
shall jmcorporate the requirements for WS-1V Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .02:
(i.e., stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
--- B-4130, Bride 228, Alamance Creek Guilford County
Alamance Creek is listed as WS-IV NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot vegetated
buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize
use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). Since the project is located within the Critica
Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for.this project based on traffic
count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project shall
incorporate the requirements for WS-IV Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0215 (i.e
stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
B-4131, Bride 11, Little Alamance Creek Guilford County
Little Alamance Creek is listed as WS-1V NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). Since the project is located within
the Critical Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for this project base
on traffic count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project
shall incorporate the requirements for WS-lV Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .02i
(i.e., stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. )f you have any questions or require additional. information, please
contact Robert Ridings at [phone] or Cynthia Van der Wiele at [phone].
cc: USACE Raleigh Field Office
File Copy

~~9®
~~
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
tilichael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Philip K. McKnelly, Director
MEMORANDUM
T0: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Bridge Replacement Unit
Department of Transportation
FROM: Brian Strong, Environmental Review Coordinator /~ ~~
p~NR; Division of Parks and Recreation - ~ --
DATE: September 6; 2002
SUBJECT: Review of Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement Projects
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit comments prepared by the Division of
Parks and Recreation (Division) on a number of proposed bridge replacement projects. These
projects were received from Mi. William T. Goodwin (dated Apri124, 2002) and John Williams
(received June 25; 2002).
Prior to discussing individual comments on specific projects I would like to make one
general comment. A number of projects are listed as replacement of bridges with culverts. The
Division would like to express concern with this type of replacement. As you know, culverts are
often beset by a number of persistent problems associated with their installation and
maintenance. Culverts are frequently the focus of restoration projects as either culvert removal
or mitigation efforts designed to remediate their destabilizing influence. Since culverts are often
used in lieu of bridges as a cost savings alternative, the proper desi~ of the culvert is often not.
factored~into the cost of'the project. Impacts of~improper design and installation include the
angle of insertion (too high or too low), sizing of culverts, culvert placement (too low or too -
high), and lack of culvert maintenance resulting in degradation of streams. In addition, culvert
are often insufficiently designed to .handle fish passage due to inadequate depth of water at time
of passage, inappropriate water velocity, inadequate resting places above and below the stream
structure, and~physical obstructions to passage. Culverts have been identified as one of the
greatest sources of stream morphology change in the United States. In general, the Division
recommends that bridges be used in all instances where practical.
Enclosure 1 presents the bridge replacement projects were potential environmental
impacts were identified. The majority of the impacts involve impacts to significant natural
heritage areas, rare plant and animal species. Other impacts include proximity to state trails,
state parks, and natural heritage aquatic habitats. Enclosure 2 presents the accompanying maps
discussed in Enclosure 1. _ ,
Please let me know if there is any further information you need or if you have any
questions regarding the enclosed material, my telephone number is [phone].
161 ~ (ail Sz:vice C~nter, R1lei~h. ~torth Carolina ? ~ 6~~9- l61 ~
==}F~)-7~3-~ I ~ I ~, Fit: 9l~?-~ 1 ~-~0~~ , [ntzrna~~-,,,~~J~rks.r:.t

Bridge Replacement Project Potential Impact i
Stokes County Impacts to SNHA: National significance, rare
Replace Bride No.~60 on NC 8-89 over the :Fnusseis and:fish . -
Dan River

Wake County Impacts to SNHA: Local significance
Replace Bridge No. 102 on SR 1844 over '
Lower Bartons Creek ~ ~ _..
..
B-4303 ~~ 1 ~`
Wake County -- --- Impacts to rare mussel -__
Replace Bridge No. 143 on SR 2217 over
Beaver Dam Creek pp
~
~
~'~l
B-4304 ~ ' 1~
Warren County Impacts to rare sedge
Replace Bridge No. 4 on US 401 over Shocco
Creek ~ ~ ~;.
„
;'
~
`
r
_
i
-
~~,
.-f($Jl?~i1~t
B-43(')7 ~

~S Cp
~
G
-.,_,~
°= ~~%' '`
* STOKES COUNTY
7 7 89
Administration
RichCcd Morris April 15, 2004
Manager
Carlene Sullins
Administration Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe PHD
_ _ P.o. aox 20
Danbury, NC Environmental Mana ement Directot__
g - - __
2~ois NC Department of Transportation --- -
office:
[phone] 1548 Mail Service Center
Fax: Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail].
Re: Bridge No. 60 on NC 8 and 89 over Dan River -- B-4281
nc.us
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
My assistant, Darlene Bullins, had spoken with Ms. Kazen Taylor in your office and was
approved for an extension for the Board's return comments.
This letter references your letter dated February 10`~ guesting scoping comments from the
- Stokes County Board of Commissioners concerning your plans for improvement or
replacement of Bridge No. 60 on NC 8 and 89 over Dan River.
At the April 12, 2004 regular meeting of the Stokes County Board of Commissioners, the
bridge topic was discussed along with comments from several of the county department
heads. The department head's input and recommendations aze enclosed as attachments to
this letter. The consensus of the Board of Commissioners was to endorse and include in this
letter all of the comments from the department heads. The Commissioners also selected one
of the alternatives that you plan to study as their preferred solution, that being "replace on
the southwest side maintaining traffic on the existing structure as an on-site detour".
The Board strongly feels that this bridge must remain open at all times to support the
county's emergency services operations. The Board is also interested in pursuing the
possibility of creating a new river access site in conjunction with the bridge construction.
If I can be of further assistance or provide additional information concerning this project
please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
~~~Q
Richard D. Morris
County Manager

Attachments
cc: Stokes County Board of Commissioners
Sheriff Mike Joyce
EMS Director Monty Stevens
Fire Marshall Bradley Cheek
Emergency Communications Del Hall
Economic Director Ron Morgan
File
Faxed: 919-733-9794 (4-16-04)

. ~ ~`
~~~
o~S~~O2
~ ~~ ~
N ~ ~
\~7s~%
FAX
To
APR 2 ~ 2+~p4
Y~
~~VE~Opl1
~~tC Al~A4~
~'~~/
~J
Gregory Thorpe
919-733-9794
Confidential
FROM
Darlene Builins for Rick Morris
Stokes County
Date: April 16, 2004
fax: [phone]
phone: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
Pages (11) Includes Cover Sheet
Original will be mailed today 4-16-04

Replacement of Bridge No. 60 over the Dan River
Q®~~~1
Subject: Replaceanent of Bridge I~To. 60 over the I9an Raver
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:03:09 -0500
]From: "Mandy Bullies" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Mr. Moore,
Stokes County Schools currently has (7) buses that travel over the Dan River. We also have (1) bus that uses the intersection
of Lynchburg Road and NC 89 as a turnaround.
The total number of trips.per day is 16. Closing HWY 89 at the bridge would result in additional miles being added to our
existing routes. These miles would incur additional costs for bus driver salaries and fuel for the buses. The total cost is
estimated at $200.00 per day.
Also, the time at the bus stop would have to be earlier in order to amve to school on time and in some cases there are
students who would have to get on the bus before 6:04 a.m.
If you need additional information please let me know.
Thank you. .
Mandy Bullies
Stokes County Schools
Transportation

MIKE JOYCE, Sheriff
S E41FF ~E T
~~
,, noa.
STOKES
Area Code: 336 Phone: [phone]
Stokes County Sheriff's Department
P.O. BOX 118 DANBURY, NC 27016
March 30, 2004
Stokes County Board of Commissioners
P. O. Box 20
Danbury, N. C. 27016
RE: BRIDGE NO.60 ON HWY 8/89
Dear Commissioners:
This is to inform you the Stokes County Sheriff's Department has no
particular alternative to the bridge project as long as the bridge remains open
to traffic.
The bridge provides a vital link between Danbury and the Northwest side of
the county. If the bridge were not open there would be a considerable
difference in response time to calls from that side of the county.
Thank you for allowing us this input and we hope it will be helpful in
whatever decision you make.
SincerE
l
ike J
Sheriff
MJ:mb

~~s cOG
Bradley Cheek o . _ ~ ~ Robert Snyder
Fire Marshal '- ~'
bcheek®co.stokes.nc.us `~ '` Deputy Fire Marshal
rsnyderC co.stokes.nc.us
Phone [phone] Stokes County Fire Marshal's Office Faz [phone]
Post Ofrice Box 20 • 1012 Main Street • Government Center • Danbury, NC 27016
Fire Investigations -Inspections -Fire & Rescue Support- Emergency Management -Fire & Life Safety Education _
3-31-04
Stokes County
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 20
Danbury, N.C. 27052
Mrs. Sandy McHugh, Chairman
This Office received a request from Darlene Bullins to evaluate how the Fire Service would be
impacted by abridge replacement project at N.C. 8 & 89 over Dan River. Due to the location of
this bridge it was obvious a replacement will greatly affect emergency response. After reviewing
the fire districts involved in this area of the County it was determined that Danbury Fire District,
Lawsonville Fire District, and Francisco Fire District will receive a major impact from this
project. Building fires and other manpower intensive emergencies require mutual aid responses
between these three departments on a daily basis. The bridge at N.C. 8 & 89 is the only route
available to provide emergency assistance between these departments. The discontinued use of
the bridge even for a short period of time would create an extreme hazard.
After discussing this assignment with the involved fire departments at the March meeting of the
Stokes County Fire & Rescue Association, all departments were in agreement that the lack of a
bridge would cause a server hindrance to emergency response. At the meeting I also advised the
departments of the four options N.C. D.O.T. was considering concerning this project. Members
present at the meeting had no preference about the position of the new bridge, but instead were
focused on stressing the importance of the onsite detour.
After reviewing fire districts, evaluating emergency response needs, and discussing this issue
with all fire departments in Stokes County I would like to recommend the Board strongly
consider replacing the bridge while maintaining traffic on the existing bridge. This scenario will
accomplish the needed bridge replacement while maintaining proper fire department emergency
response times.
Sincerely,
l~ ~ ~~k~
Bradley Cheek
Stokes County Fire Marshal
._ naparwv_~en is.net_ Anderson ~ Associates, Inc. httpJ/www.andassoacom
~~~~•iiwww.webgis.net Anderson & Associates, Inc. http://www.andassoc.com

~~s c OG
1° ~~ y-1
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~t
~r g9 COMMUNICATIONS
P.O. Sox 20 -Danbury, North Carolina 27016 - [phone] Del Hall, Director
TO: Stokes County Board of County Commissioner's
FROM: Del Hall, Emergency Communications Director
DATE: April- 5, 2004 "-----
Re: Bridge No. 60 on NC 8 & NC 89 over Dan River
Dear: Board of County Commissioner's,
In response to your request pertaining to proposed improvements to bridge number 60 at
NC 8 and NC 89 over Dan River, I feel these improvements are crucial to the public
safety agencies and more importantly to the citizens of Stokes County. The existing
improvements that are taking place at this time are dangerous to the Citizens and Public
Service agencies due to causing traffic problems, response times increasing i.e., public
safety agency responding to an emergency call has to wait at the bridge and/or detours
will make there response times longer. If the responding agencies response time is longer
this will be a factor in whether life is saved or a structure is lost.
If nothing is done will the existing structure be strong enough for all passing vehicles to
cross over without causing any damage or life injuries? Preserving life is the most
important part of all the public safety agency(s) functions. We do not want the bridge to
become a factor in whether a citizen lives or dies. Response times would make a
difference on emergency calls i.e., armed robbery in progress, house fire, heart attack,
etc. Every second counts when dealing with life and death emergencies.
The Emergency Communications Department would be affected on any of the
alternatives i.e., Telecommunicator receives. a 911 call from the surrounding area of the
bridge he/she would have to make sure the closet public safety agency(s) are sent to the
location of the emergency which could mean a longer dispatch time for the call. The
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System in place now has the pre-determined agencies
to be sent but if the agency(s) need to cross the bridge there response time would increase
so, the Telecommunicator would need to make a decision if another agency(s) would be
dispatched due to the type of emergency call and response times of the field units.
Thanks for your time and consideration in this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Del Hall, Director `.~ ~~,~~
Stokes County Emergency Communications

•
5~~~~s ~o~nty
Currently, there are four Dan River Public Access Sites in Stokes County. The Hart, Hanging Rock,
Moratock, and He-tntack:Access_ Areas. Float and Canoe distances and times betweerreach is as follows:
River Access Point -River Landing Point Distance Time (Canoe/Float}.
Hart's Access Whitt Access 6.9 miles 3:15 / 6:30
~171'•zJ L.T......:.... D.-...1. A....o..~ S~ 1:')~[~vrT4v
O
Hart's Access Hanging Rock Access 12.4 miles 5:35/11:10
Hanging Rock Access Moratock Access 5.9 miles 2:40 / 5:20
Moratock Access Hemlock Access 8.6 miles 4:00 / 8:00
With the exceptions of the Hanging Rock and Moratock Access Points, all Access Points are leased from
private property owners. Several of the leases are nearing expiration. The Whitt Access site has changed
ownership, and is no longer accessible to the public.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Plan
identifies four bridge replacements in the near vicinity of, or on the Dan River. Those bridge replacement
projects are:
location ID.No. bescription ; . Est: Cost -Work Type.:. Schedule :-
NC 8-89 B-4281 Bridge #60 $2,600,000 ROW 2004
NC 89 B-3045 Bridge #17 $2,305,000 Const. 2003
SR 1668 B-2639 Bridge #133 $2,260,000 Const. 2003
SR 1697 B-4819 Bridge #105 $1,320,000 ROW 2008
• Bridge #60 is located just south of where Highways 8 and 89 split, north of Danbury.
• Bridge #17 is located adjacent the current Whitt Access Point.
• Bridge #133 is the Seven Island Bridge.
• Bridge #105 is located on Pitzer Road, over Snow Hill Creek, where Snow Hill Creek enters the
Dan River.
These bridge replacements may present an opportunity to incorporate new Public Access Sites on the Dan
River. A sketch of a possible incorporation of a new river access site and associated cost estimate is
attached.
The Stokes County Tourism Council will be incorporating into their overall Stokes County Tourism Plan, a
recommendation to provide public river access sites at the Bridge #~7 and Bridge #133 locations.

Conceptual Sketch
Proposed River Access Site
NCDOT Bridge # 60
Stokes County, North Carolina

~S Cp
N~4 ~ ~tg~~,~ ~u~~~
~ EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
* 1)89 A
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
MEMO
TO: Board Of Coun/ty~Commissioners
FROM: Monty Steven; EmergencyServices Director
SUBJECT:. Bridge No. 60 on ~iC. 8 anal 89 over Dan River (B-4281)
DATE: April 2, 2004
In regards to~the proposed improvements to the subject bridge replacement
project; in my opinion, there are only two viable options. Those options are to
replace the bridge either on the northeast or southwest side while maintaining
traffic on the existing structure.
To rehabilitate the existing structure would most likely result in a closure for an
extended period of time and this would create a significant burden on the
Emergency Medical Services. First, for ambulances transporting patients from
the northern and northwestern part of the county to Stokes-Reynolds Memorial
Hospital would require detours either to the Moore's Spring Road area or the
Jewel Road area which will increase transport times for the EMS and increase
mileage charges for the patients. Also for ambulances responding from the
Walnut Cove area to the area north of NC 8 and 89 again would require detours
to the Moore's Spring Road area or Sheppard Mill Road area resulting in
significantly increased response times for these calls.
I trust this information has been helpful. If you should require additional
comments or have questions, please feel free to contact me.
" ^---"-- '~^~ ~-~- TPleohone 593-2811

-~.~--J`
y ~
`~°~.
p ~~
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT' OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael F. Easley Lyndo Tippett
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
_ September 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ATTENTION: Karen Taylor, P.E.
. Project Development Engineer
FROM: Njoroge W. Wainaina, PE
State Geotechnical Engineer
TIP NO. B-4281
WBS 33621.1.1
FEDERAL PROJECT: BRSTP-008 (4)
COUNTY: Stokes
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 60 on over the Dan River on NC 8 and NC 89
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report
The Geotechnical Engineering Unit performed a limited pre-scoping investigation of the above
reference project to provide an early identification of any Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental
issues that might impact the project's planning, design or construction. The following
information summarizes our findings.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT
1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1589
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSlTE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATENC.US
LocanoN:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
ENTRANCE B-2
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRNE
RALEIGH NC

Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
B-4281 Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Comments
09/09/04
Page 2
GEOENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Purpose
This report presents the results of a GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation conducted along the
above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify properties within
the project study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project
costs and future liability if acquired by the Department-~- J'eoEnvironmental impacts may include,
but are not limited to, active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous
waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites.
Technigues/Methodoloaies Used
The Geographical Information System (GIS) was consulted to identify known environmentally
impacting sites in relation to the project corridor. GeoEnvironmental Section personnel
conducted a field reconnaissance survey along the project corridor on April 26, 2004.
Findings
Underground Storage Tank~(UST) Facilities
Based on our study, there is one potential UST site identified within the project limits.
Hazardous Waste Sites
No Hazardous Waste Sites were identified within the project limits.
Land Fills
No apparent landfills were identified within the project limits.
Other GeoEnvironmental Concerns
There were no other GeoEnvironmental concerns identified within the project limits.

Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
' B-4281 Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Comments
09/09/04
Page 3
Anticipated Impacts
We anticipate monetary and scheduling impacts resulting from these sites to below. to moderate.
The GeoEnvironmental Section observed no additional contaminated properties during the field
reconnaissance and regulatory agencies' records search. The GeoEnvironmental Section will
provide soil and groundwater assessments on each of the above properties after identification of `
the selected alternative and before right of way acquisition. Please note that discovery of
additional- -sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernable during the
project reconnaissance may occur. The GeoEnvironmental Section should be notified
immediately after discovery of such sites so their potential impact(s) maybe assessed.
If there aze any questions regarding these or other GeoEnvironmental issues on the project, please
contact Cyrus Parker, L.G. at (919)-250-4088.
GEOTECffiyICAL ISSUES
Techniques and Methodologies
The geotechnical investigation consisted of a reconnaissance and one Standard Penetration Test
boring conducted in May and June of 2004. The boring was performed in the floodplam, north of
the river and west of the existing roadway, adjacent to the first interior bent of the existing
bridge.
Findings
Rock outcrop can be observed in the existing cut slope on NC 89 (left side) just north of the
bridge and the juncture with NC 8. A small tributary stream is present in the southwest quadrant.
A significant tributary stream (Newman Branch?) is present in the northeast quadrant.
The test boring found about 10 feet of very soft alluvial sandy clay with gravel over
weathered/hard rock. It was collared about 10 feet above the river elevation.

Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
~ B-4281 Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Comments
09/09/04
Page 4
Anticipated Iynpacts
Replacement to the southwest may require cut in rock as noted above. The rack appears
weathered and fractured on the surface and there do not appear to be any structures nearby that
could be damaged by blasting vibration.
Replacement to the northeast may impact the larger tributary stream, or the abandoned service
station as noted in the GeoEnvironmental Issues section of this report.
The most likely structure foundation type is drilled shafts due to lack of embedment for piles and
potential scour of footings.
If there are any questions regarding these Geotechnical comments, please contact Clinton B.
Little, L.G. or John L. Pilipchuk, L.G., P.E. at (704)-455-8902
NWW/CP/CBL/JLP/dbm
Attachments: 4 sheets

B-4281 WB5 33621,1.1
APP + NIX A
UST, Landfills & Other Pote>~tially Contaminated Sites
to
#
~I Tyke

pet
ol
u Location

NG UST Facility
ID # Property
Owner UST
Ownef Anticipated
Impacts Anticipate
Severity Comments
r
e
m 8 North of
bridge 60 Unknown Unknown Unknown Buried Tanks and
Contaminated Sbil Low One Story Abandoned gas
Station North bf Bridge 60

'l

B-4281 WBS 33621.1.1
Figare 1
B-4281 GeoEnvironmental Site Map
} `t..~~ 111 l~ r ~ `~ . `4 ~r. V ~+~ _y -` ,.! ~ ~~ :l
r r r, ~i r t
_~_~~~ ~1 ~ /'i r j ~ .i V I Ji~3 -~ 'yl' _ d" V ~~ rri ~ , ~~-
~? .+v~~.~~~,J~r ,~ ~~1 rr .tl~j~i r.r~~c1 if r~ '.~`~ 4~ Zl 1`_.
r r t i W T ~ ~/ .^L ~ .~ 'Y 11 My
>.•~ .~Z 1~ L t i 1 J ~~~ it r r) r 1- r ~~.1 L~_ r'J
" ``~ ~~-~--- ,~:'~` \ t~~rr 1 1 Abandoned Gas Station ~t ~~~ ~ ~f~~~ s
8-4281 =-- <---
1 F 1„t `mss, r f r 1 ~~ ''~ `. '~~'S~~ `'l I
1 r' ;t
i ~ f ~
rr ~
~~ --- ti ~ _ f ' =~-~ < J ~ Vii:
V c ~ "
NG 26
U Y
rD
Z1
65
ti~ ~
~e9
~_~~,
NCDQT Geotechnical Engineering Unit . N
GeoEnvironmental Section
w~e
B-4281 s
Bridge 60 on NC 8 and NC 89 over Dan River
0.5 0.25 0 0.5
Miles
-~ 3r 5.: ~ V: r ~~'
r~+"'~ rw ~~ sr t i
L ~.. ! i
r r~~ c, .~ .~'~ '
"tom '.1 ~~~ i
`v~~~ fi
- ~~~~
m ' '>o
4
Z
raC 770

B-4281 VVBS 33621.1.1
APPENI~I7~ B
Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Property Name Property Owner:
One Story Abandoned Business Unknown
East side of NC 8 just north of NC 89
Intersection
UST Owner; Unknown Facility ID #: Unknown
3 property is on the East side of NC 8 just north of the NC 89 intersection. The one story abandoned
ame building was likely a former gas station. Both a tank fill port and vent pipe were noted in the
~athern corner of the building. This property will likely be outside the project limits of this bridge

B-42S 1 tiUBS 33b21.1. l

iect: B-4281
Date: 4-26-04
~;, .
~;_.
t
.. ¢.: ~ .'.iY~ ,~ 4i,
fridge 60 on IyC 8 & 89 over Dan River in Spokes ~:ounty I.ao~ing Southeast
.: ~,
lr r ~ ~.
'~ w ~~ ~ ~;
~_ ~ ~ ~~_ y~,r~V'[~.~ w .rP'- ~~„ :~ '•'~ r t dr S.r.,y~.~f _ ~ rsy~' .
T sS~ +t •.
n~.r yp„f~
v.
~_ _.qY.""^'
~ _.

-. ~!

~ 1 .rY
l: C !.~: t~~yS eb ~
'~

Ta. t
.r-
F C4: 2 ciT .
,

~andoned gas station on I`dC 8 just north of the Bridge 60