20000434 Ver 1_Complete File_20000329

0 W ATFR
one DEC Y 5 /(1()j
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
ti - VVAILR QUALI l l
WETLANDS ANf.I STORMWATFR BRANCh
Z?( _>0c, q 3
DWQ Project No.: County: S -\
Applicant: N5--?? ;
Project Name: S
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certifica i :
Certificate of Comoletion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, 3'?) i o n e 1Z c , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the appr??lans- l specifications, and other supporting materials.
Diane K Hampton, P.E., Division F,nvironmen&I Engineer For S. P. Ivey, P. F,., Division Engineer
If this project was designed by a c;ert?t?ea rroressional
I, , as a duly registered Professional (i.e.,
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized
to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permitee hereby state
that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction
such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting materials.
Signature Registration No. Date
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
rili:UCP4-
JaA ST o
STATE' OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAH, F. EASLEY
GONAIRNOR
April 13, 2001
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer.
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPEF I
SH RE'I:ARY
Subject: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 133 over Dan River on SR 1668,
Federal Project No. BR7,-1668(1), State Project No. 8.2640501,T.I.P. No. B-2639.
AID Nos. 200020790 and 200020791.
Bridge No. 133 will be replaced at its existing location with a new bridge. On March 10,
2000 we submitted a Nationwide 33 application and a request for a Nationwide 23 verification
for the subject project. The permits were issued on July 13, 2000 (AID Nos. 200020790 and
200020791). We have had to redesign the project at the request of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) The purpose of this letter is to request modifications to the existing permits.
Since the original permits were issued the finding of "no effect" for the federally listed
protected species for Stokes County changed due to the addition of the James spinymussel
(Pleurohema collina) to the list on February 26, 2001. In a letter dated December 6, 2000, the
Service stated that the finding of "No Effect" previously rendered for the project was no longer
valid due to the recent discovery of the endangered James spinymussel in the Dan River drainage
near the proposed project. The Service stated that NCDOT should revise the bridge design and
conduct further surveys to meet its obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-1543) [Act]. We have redesigned the bridge and conducted
field surveys. On March 9, 2001 we requested concurrence from the Service for a "No Effect"
concurrence for the Jatnes spinymussel. A copy of the request is attached to this letter.
The NCDOT has redesigned the bridge so that no permanent components of the structure
will be located within the body of the stream. In addition, the causeway was redesigned. '['he
construction original causeway which will provide access to the site by the construction
equipment resulted in temporary fill in surface waters of 0.113 hectares (0.28 acres). The revised
design will result in temporary impact of 0.068 hectares (0. 0.17 acres), a decrease of 0.11 acres.
The revised design for the construction of the proposed temporary rock causeway is depicted in
the attached drawings (Sheets I to 5).
As mentioned in our March 10, 2000 application, during construction, traffic will be
maintained using an offsite detour on existing secondary roads. No jurisdictional wetlands will
be affected by the construction of the proposed project.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Alice Gordon at 733-
7844 ext. 288.
Sincere ,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Brian Cole, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. David Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer Unit Head
PT4
r?rm
? A
N

y =
? = YJ
?
o?
d
(,' 6

c
H o?

V

V y,ly
y

d mU - -
I -
o

i E
- H ., E
• I a c
o ..

q
.
Q= - y wa N
r
CL3

°O
V ??I R •?
• . U
CO ydix
r-.. VOO " ,Ion

?
o ca. N¢J ,?
} (o o„
,
f y
z
O

v/
?
M 00
V"
z " z r n
® R
x
F
p
U
c z

®
z cO
F M
-4 Q
o r
a
O ? ? ? ? 9
? ? a
U
z
c
C
C
C
C
L
v, ? o
C /
> n:
as N
O
N
N
Cn ?
F?:

I
I ? ?,, I°ooo°o o°o
. ?o 0000 0<

? Q ?
r I

LL,

N
w a x F ... a
x o ?x
?
xw u o z z
F+ O O A Ln
/ 0 0 O U 24
o ?
. Px O
a y y N
Q ?
O
F -FI U Q a w
I ?
I -I CL ?-
?? . I I o
Ln
I ? -
M
Lli
I a J
a
N
> Qa
y•
-? Ln _ ?-
z
o I ?
c I a u
a
I I ? o
--------------------- --
?` ?n
Q ?r- N J
I I LL
? a a
V) O Q
GR?o } I U a- o a ?
-J LLJ
w
0 0 U? CL
o 00 - o o w
to° o oQ o ~O
?-
FI w
o.
I I o
F 41 ?`'F M 0
6
CC,
r- m
CD
Z
N
W X
0 W
Q
C7
W
a
J
W
in
.O
r- QJ
J Ln
I V of
M
0??. N
+„II ON
O M ~
00 ? 11
Q W 11
N _ N J W
r-

? m

Z_
F--
N
X
W
M
r-

z

a o
E.., 0
o
Q M j N
?o
1 F.
p o
a ao W W
z
a
? x F c -4
N
_z
z? o
c
?
x
O
o
Z
z
n- - a°
`n I-, o °

VD A

- ----- ? z
p ?.
O
?\
I I rV) ?

'?
II U
_ _ a w

II

II
? ? \
I I ? \
II

II
II o
? I
W I M `? I
I I o W
II
I I o
0 I
I W I I
z

I I
I I
? ?, I
II
I I
I i a
;
I I I
I I

C:?
I I I
5 ?I
--- .
-
I C / -z
I I
- - ?
- - -o
N

I I
/ N O
Q?
_ - U M
>- N

Q W
Q N
Q
CL U

/ O =

?
N
0 ON.
NO
co
so
O p
II II
LU W
J J
a a
U U
N N
N ~
O W
S ?
J
_J
LL
r
<
a W
L)
? a
o LL
d?
w
0 CL?
WW
f-
o
z y
LtJ _J
o _

r-
Q
N ?
?x
dx
F O
O Z
E. O
A Q
U
%0
r
W
0 0
OC
to
m
L
W
V) Z
O
0
LO d
r
Ln
l0
U J
Q
H
N

M
r-
x
0
W
m
000
O LLJ
1n O O V)
N D
?j z O U
Q
W
V)
DQ
Qcr
U ?
n LL LL
Q<o?-
LL-
IL a_ m0
_O
LL n
>Qw
J Q J
U CL U
Q
LJC) :1E
(./)Z -O
:D Q ?!-
? CNI °i ?
III
00

a?
rn =
?
U L
c
W U
LO

O M
LL
t
?U O
Z
O

c _
L ? Q
O =
N L
wU
V
Q m
Z O
=

a
n ?
C N
W
U m
LE
aN N O p C?
p ,A
ll.. Z
E c 0 Y
OOO °v Lo
3 ~ a>N w
x
w
(,?
U to
U
Q `
O w
lL c
- n.
m Z
O
cn Lv a-
N
U)
C
? U

C N
_ ,= 9
L N w U
U? ?
U
i
a

m
C:
CD '0,
v ? ? v
} ? f0
c
a s c

(n N N U
' M
03
W c

W
3 _ N
- ?
LL??
ESL)

?_
N
C =
?
I

LL
c.
N
? y
U N
2U

co
00 co
o
t ?

E
2 O
F- O
F-
6)
LL CO LO
N

Q

O J
<
Z O
H

y
????N
1 !J STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. DAVID MCCOY
27611-5201
GOVERNOR TARY
March 10, 2000
US Army Corps of Engineers p?pU??pN
Raleigh Field Office Utv SEpj
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 'ASR
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer. 000434
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 133 over Dan River on SR 1668,
Federal Project No. BRZ-1668(1), State Project No. 8.2640501,T.I.P. No. B-2639.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 133 will be replaced at its existing location with a new bridge approximately
100 meters (330 feet) in length and 7.2 meters (24 feet) in width. During construction traffic
will be maintained using an offsite detour on existing secondary roads. No jurisdictional
wetlands will be affected by the construction of the proposed project.
The construction of the bridge will require the use of a causeway to provide access to the
site by the construction equipment which will result in temporary till in surface waters of 0.113
hectares (0.28 acres). Construction of the proposed temporary rock causeway is depicted in the
attached drawings (Sheets 1 to 4). We have also enclosed a project site map and preconstruction
notification form.
Temporary Causeway Information: Temporary rock causeways will be required for both
the removal of the existing structure and the construction of the proposed structure. No filter
fabric is planned for underlayment of the installation of the causeways. The causeways will
facilitate the construction of drilled shafts and the placement of steel girders. The causeways will
consist of plain Class II rip rap topped with a layer of smaller washed stone. The causeways
encroach on the river from either bank but do not cross the entire river.
1. Restoration Plan: The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the
causeways will be removed after their purpose has been served. The contractor will
use excavation equipment to remove the rip-rap used in the causeways. The
temporary fill area will be restored to their original contours. According to the
Resident Engineer, Ms. Vickie Davis, short access roads will be required from the top
of the banks at the ends of the existing structure approaches. After construction of the
proposed structure, the area under the access roads will be restored to the original
contours and will be revegetated with appropriate species. Elevations and contours in
the vicinity of the proposed causeways are available from field survey notes.
2. Schedule: The proj . schedule calls for a September 19, 2000 letting date, with an
availability date of October 30, 2000. It is expected that the contractor will begin
construction of the causeway about that time. The causeways will remain in place for
approximately one and a half years, during construction of the proposed structure.
3. Disposal: The material used a "temporary fill in surface waters" (TS) in the
construction of the causeways will be removed after its purpose has been served. The
contractor may choose to use the rip rap as slope protection. If he does, then there
would be no disposal. If he does not, then disposal would be off-site The contractor
will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all
materials off-site.
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeways will be authorized under Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore,
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the causeway. All
other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permits 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61, Number 241.
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge was built in 1905 and is a truss bridge with a
timber deck on timber cap and pile abutments and piers. In compliance with the NCDOT Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, the removal of this bridge will not
result in placing fill in Waters of the United States. There is no potential for components of the
deck to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during construction.
We anticipate 401 General Certifications will apply to this project. We are providing one
copy of the CE document and the Nationwide 33 permit application information to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as a
courtesy for their review

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Alice Gordon at 733-
1162.
Sincerely,
i C , 4y,-
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer Unit Head
3
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):33 & 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO.THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
CITY: Raleigh
SUBDIVISION NAME:
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manaaer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Stokes NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Danbury

1
I
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 133 over Dan River on SR 1668
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Dan River
RIVER BASIN: Roanoke
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
/lD. 1.13 THE VRUJECT LUCATED WiTH1N A NURTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING:
FT
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER:
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE:
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Causeway See attached cover letter and drawings
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : See Attached cover letter and plans
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge replacement
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
FT AFTER: FT
3
r 14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
i, ;'? 4 a. Z- G-/'
OWNER'S/AGEN 'S SIGNATURE
d a'' ? , tie , J
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
f

?Iu
J

i
F 77
V o
d
N ' -
I )
I
I
I

- i o

00

R
0
z
z
V
)
Y z a
z
z
E • , F. Q ?„ ? ? Q Q.

' E o W I
C2
_ t_ i -
?
!cIE v ") o G' o I

it
L;
C
J

_ I
F
w a
Q t' X
r •/ //v
-7 e

I
I
i
I )
? ? Ic
e I
y/
N _
N
tl\?a) .....
r!
1

w

{ 1
t? 1
000O Op
00 0
?
°
o°°
o

b Q rj0

°-
\
o
o
\ o

`
1
F
, 7I
? I
r
ti r' I -I
i

ILL III
a
W cr-

Z? Ln
z
a
I
Q !C
,J
1
'C.
CL
Q
1( I
?z
a

a
3 ?" ca =' ?

?.o V) 00 Q
z ;? U

c ?-
i U
jz

w

C?
z
a Ln

° -
r

I I ?
(_
J I '-
l
r
:I - - ?U r
I
CY
U a-
J ,
m
w

U
? N J
Q v? t
O _,,,,. U
-`y - /rr wr 000 O O O O O>
\ r(w O? CE O O ?-? Q O1 F
r I
I ? l
11
1F i`r ?
F CO
0
O
?i
Q
w
Q
LL-
O
h-
3
0
F-
0

a_
a
U
co
co

z

x v I
w x
o w
x
?.1.. ---l
0
w
I-
Q
J

0
0

(D
J N

M
I? ?1
C)
N
N
+ O II Q ?
M
O
II
3
_
Q W li
F- ? Y J
V1-0 -j LL)

co
,It z

r--

x
w
i
I
CM
?I r
i 0
it MI
Z
L r IX.) 00

Z c" - >

= c
z z

O
°° O c
rl - - -
?
? V) f7
I I Si
? O z ? v r

II I
1 21
Ln U-)
I I o 1\ 1
I o ?o ?
I I w l ?; J
O I o w
I I o f J V? I I
I I o I .J 3 I
I I ?yl N o I I
I I i t o l5a ??
I -II
II I?
I I __ 151
I I --
II
? a
1 ?
01
clq
?I
rn
m
N
S
U
Q
v
O
MI
Z
V)
C p
W W
C Q
N ti-
LLJ
S
O O
U U
O O
O O
u )
? a
0I
?I
J
J
LL U LIJ
I
> Q
cr Li
Q?
Lt
o U-)
c-,
',l' U I
a
J
I- T
LD w I
?CC

u L
0c
c U
w

c
C
t
? U
C
LL
?-
U WU
CL ? c8
- o
o
d 0) y o
w E c m
~
?
i
W
U

v a
a N
O
l
L
Q' C
U
0. t0
?
N LL v
in
in
v
c jp U
?
Z
LL

N -
W
N N

Z W U
cu A

Cl
rn v
c v c
} o m m

Q U
a =-0
0
c
;!? v
d
N Q X f0
z w
z
J

W _ a
LL C N
IC
v
U
E v
O1 ?

N
C c Ol
- m
LL
19
?
O1
7 (U
U N
7 U)

J

O U7
~ N
O C
E
o

LL
N
co
+
t
Q in

J
T
z I
0
z
O
r
Q
' n ?
I
Z Z
Q
r o
W
C C
r 1
z
M c0
c+ ? C
? w
z o ?,
U% °O M C
c F =?
U ?
tV
^W^
rn'
CT)
N'
2
?j
?I
O
Q?
i
Ll ?
W
Z
Stokes County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road
over Dan River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.264001
TIP No. B-2639
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ()004 3 4
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Dater William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
f/?/9? ?
- '
Dafte icholas L. Gra , P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Stokes Countv
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
over Dan River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.264001
TIP No. B-2639
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
April, 1999
3.119
Date
3-11-?19
Date S. Eric Midkiff, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. ., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
•,•,,1101110 It I ?,,?
CA R O(1'''•.
X,
E,S ION ,•
s SE Al.
19791 •
.",% FRrC MA `••••
Stokes CountN
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
over Dan River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.2640501
TIP No. B-2639
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on Jul} 31, 1995.
The initial report recommended replacement of existing Bridge No. 133 with a new
structure over Dan River on new alignment, approximately 330 meters (1100 feet) west
of the existing structure. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
II. DISCUSSION
Following the original planning report, it was determined that the amount of
traffic service provided by the existing one-lane truss bridge did not warrant the
substantial expenditure of funds necessary to implement the selected bridge replacement
recommendation. The estimated cost of Alternate 2, as recommended in the original
categorical exclusion, was $ 1,546,000. The current (1998) updated cost for Alternate 2
is $ 1,934,000.
As a result of the high cost and the relatively low volume of traffic service
provided along the subject route (anticipated 220 vehicles per day in the year 2020), a
review of the proposal, for the purpose of determining methods of cost reduction/savings,
was conducted by NCDOT staff. After further review, the conclusion to reassess the
proposed location of the new structure was agreed upon. Following the completion of
additional location surveys and preliminary designs, including the development of their
associated costs, it was determined that additional alternates would be considered in
conjunction with the original proposal.
In re-evaluation, however, the NCDOT determined it more feasible and cost
effective to remove the existing structure, which is currently in a state of irreparable
deterioration, and close the road on both structure approaches. No Citizen's
Informational Workshop was held in conjunction with this project. However, as a result
of the decision to remove the existing structure without replacement, a public hearing was
conducted on November 17, 1998 to solicit citizens' and local officials' comments for
this proposal. All citizens and local officials in attendance requested either retention of
the existing structure or construction of a new bridge to meet the traffic service needs of
the area. In addition, some citizens and officials requested that the NCDOT investigate
the feasibility of constructing a new bridge on new alignment while utilizing the existing
structure for permanent pedestrian and bicyclist traffic only. Continents received at the
public hearing and during the official comment period following the hearing reflected a
concern that adequate emergency response would not be provided if the existing structure
was permanently removed. In addition, citizens and officials expressed concern that the
proposed permanent detour is not in adequate condition to accommodate the long-term
increased motor vehicle traffic that would be generated by removing the existing structure
without replacement.
As a result, the NCDOT reconsidered removal of the existing structure following
the receipt of comments from the public hearing. The NCDOT agreed that reasonable
access to, as well as across, the Dan River should be provided in conjunction with this
undertaking. It was also determined that due to a steep grade and the extensive earthwork
necessary, which would result in increased costs, implementing the original proposal
(Alternate 2) described in the categorical exclusion would not be prudent (see Figure 2).
Additionally, due to the poor condition of the existing bridge, the NCDOT has
determined that it would not be feasible or prudent to retain or maintain the existing
bridge for pedestrian and/or bicyclist traffic.
Therefore, Bridge No. 133 will be replaced at existing location with a new bridge
approximately 100 meters (330 feet) in length. The new structure width of 7.2 meters
(24 feet) will accommodate a 6-meter (20-foot) roadway with 0.6 meter (two feet) of
lateral clearance on both sides. Approximately 96 meters (330 feet) of improvements on
the northern approach and 42 meters (140 feet) of improvements on the southern
approach would be necessary to accommodate construction of the new structure.
The design speed for the project will be 20 km/h (15 mph); therefore, a design exception
will be necessary. In accordance with this recommendation, Bridge No. 133 was
recorded in August 1998, as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement included in the
categorical exclusion. It has not yet been determined whether the bridge will be
dismantled and stored at NCDOT expense or demolished. In conjunction with this
action, little or no environmental consequences are anticipated by removing this bridge,
replacing it at its existing location, and implementing temporary road closure; therefore,
anticipated impacts will likely be moderately less than those described in the Categorical
Exclusion. It is anticipated that the proposed undertaking will cost $ 1,150,000 to
construct; because the structure will be replaced at existing location, no right-of-way
costs are anticipated.
Traffic will be maintained during construction by the utilization of an offsite
detour (see Figure 1). This detour route is approximately 10.6 km (6.6 miles) long, results
in approximately 7.8 km (4.9 miles) of additional travel, and traverses rolling terrain.
More than half of the route is paved and in satisfactory condition; however, a portion of
the route is a gravel road which is currently in poor condition. Because use of this road
network is temporary, it is anticipated that the designated detour will be able to
accommodate the low volume of additional vehicles anticipated by the change in the local
traffic pattern for the duration of construction. The detour would direct traffic around the
2
project by utilizing SR 1668 (Seven Island Road). NC 8/NC 89. NC 8. and SR 1665
(Gentry Road), as shown in Figure I of this reevaluation.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
As was stated earlier, implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to
result in some environmental impacts; however, these impacts will be of lesser magnitude
than those which would result from implementing Alternate 2.
Alternate 6 (recommended) is anticipated to impact slightly more than 0.1 hectare
(0.3 acre) of Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest and slightly less than 0.1 hectare
(0.2 acre) of Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. A total biotic community impact of
approximately 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) is anticipated to result from the implementation of
Alternate 6 (recommended). These impacts contrast favorably with Alternate 2, which
would impact five biotic communities and result in a total biotic impact of 0.5 hectare
(1.2 acres).
The study area does not support suitable habitat for Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower), nor does it support suitable habitat for Cardimine micranthera
(small-anthered bittercress) because of previous disturbance and because of the thick, low
growing vegetation covering the banks of the river. Therefore, no impact to either
species is anticipated with the construction of the project.
No wetland communities were identified within this project's right of way;
construction of the proposed project will not impact jurisdictional wetland communities
or jurisdictional surface waters.
IV. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Construction of the proposed project will not impact any
jurisdictional wetland communities. Best Management practices will be strictly enforced
to minimize impacts due to construction activities.
The NCDOT will acquire a Nationwide Section 404 Permit and Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
prior to the issuance of United States Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 23.
Work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water in the
river. This will lessen the likelihood of altering the stream water chemistry. There is
evidence of high water causing overflow on the narrow floodplain at this site. The design
of the new bridge will be such that it does not restrict the water's ability to overflow and
return to the river.
3
V. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, the Federal Highway Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation conclude that no serious adverse effects on
the natural or human environment will result from the implementation of the project.
4
?,C-2 ?11
?? ^a M CAIOiIN?
?S/-nOl ?A
1111,f1' I\f, -
ju C)tnOU) UI-i
\n G-o •?tt Mt-Oo-N.,
T K \, STOKES COUNTY ; ey co???l?P,n: IIl
6 b?
1655 /U 1654 - f
1d9J ?> 1662 \ q J ?? ••J 1674
cn 1.9
1663, 4 4 • h ." 1652 c
• .9 _
`t?'' 1655 1746J:
` 1665 16561
CO .7 t
167'
1666 665 1670
a ? 1672 1674
I
a
1671 16 73
?'LC? .? ••J ? .J
? ; ?,• / ?.? ? 1 652
.6- 1665
rBRIDGE NO. 133
1667 I, _70 ?\ 1700
ry
0 6 8 1668 1.4 artman
1489 ?• 89 1 01 v ? i
1 1697, 1699
0 1.652 i
FpS 1.4 ' ?'QtjCf1 1702 v
•. F D
?`` b ::• A "? ?
A 1697
X500 2035
DANBURY L I
.?`-- POP. 1748 .5 2
1 :yl?s C`J 140
- J ;
I
L

1.7
Dodge
`1696

1.0
1695
?'? , t \ L 1698 ti n1744
?1' ` I 1"rte-? i . I
J ?
4 ? 1705 Q ? fGF
?. L018 1704 1703 p 755
2017 6 yA ?O -
2016 S 'd
1753
a \.? 018 .b
i 8
'\l 706 169 f
1987 2
/ry 1.2 5r' 1 J .
•2018 19.92 f
b
' • 9 1707
3 Ilti qh 1990 Meadow 1.0 1.
- ? F 'Q
2019 1,991 q 1985 E: 1708 _
8
Shool. 1992 ??c/? -. a
59-? STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 1 .°
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 133 ON SR 1668
OVER DAN RIVER
B-2639
O MIL! 1
FIG. 1
Stokes County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
over Dan River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.2640501
TIP No. B-2639
REEVALUATION
OF
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
oo04 3 4
Date ?r William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date 4 icholas . Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Stokes County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
over Dan River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.2640501
TIP No. B-2639
REEVALUATION
OF
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
October, 1998
10.5. 8
Date M' I L. P 1
Pr ect Planning Engineer
/0- 9- 19F .--?-i_
Date S. Eric Midkiff, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
2
/? r _a?
98 ?
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. ., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
??N•,,
?.•??? CAR(
-` 's?gESSIpN? 9 '
SEAL •
19791
s•?NCI N .••
??''•., FR1C •M\V
Stokes County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
over Dan River
Federal Aid Project No.-BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.2640501
TIP No. B-2639
This report is a reevaluation of the Categorical Exclusion which was approved on
July 31, 1995.
Based on field data provided during the preparation of the initial environmental
report, it was determined that the most appropriate location for a new structure over Dan
River was on new alignment, approximately 330 meters (1100 feet) west of the existing
structure, as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2 of this reevaluation. The estimated cost of
Alternate 2, as contained in the original planning document, is $ 1,546,000. The current
updated cost for Alternate 2, as shown in the Categorical Exclusion is $ 1,934,000.
As a result of the high cost and the relatively low volume of traffic service
provided (anticipated 220 vehicles per day in the year 2020) along the route, a review of
the proposal, for the purpose of determining methods of cost reduction/savings, was
conducted by NCDOT staff. After further review, the conclusion to reassess the location
of the new structure was agreed upon. Following the completion of additional location
surveys and preliminary designs, including the development of their associated costs, it
was determined that two additional alternates would be considered in conjunction with
the original proposal: Alternate 6 and Alternate 7.
Alternate 6 involves the replacement of Bridge No. 133 at its existing location
(see Figure 2). The new bridge would measure approximately 100 meters (330 feet) in
length and the new structure width of 7.2 meters (24 feet) would accommodate a 6-meter
(20-foot) roadway with 0.6 meter (two feet) of lateral clearance on both sides.
Approximately 45 meters (150 feet) of improvements on the northern approach and 35
meters (120 feet) of improvements on the southern approach would be necessary to
accommodate construction of the new structure. The implementation of Alternate 6
would require traffic to be temporarily detoured along existing roads in order to construct
the new bridge in place of the existing structure. This detour route is approximately
10.6 km (6.6 miles) long and traverses rolling terrain; the route is also in satisfactory
condition and will be able to accommodate the low volume of additional vehicles
anticipated by the change in the local traffic pattern. The detour would direct traffic
around the project by utilizing SR 1668 (Seven Island Road), NC 8/NC 89, NC 8, and SR
1665 (Seven Island Road), as shown in Figure 1 of this reevaluation.
Alternate 7 (recommended) involves the removal of Bridge No. 133 without
replacement (see Figure 2). This action would necessitate a permanent, 10.6 km (6.6-
mile) traffic detour around the site, utilizing SR 1668, NC 8/NC 89, SR 1667, and
SR 1665, as shown in Figure 1 of this reevaluation. Use of this permanent detour will
result in approximately 7.8 km (4.9 miles) of additional travel for motorists accessing this
route. Several service roads in the vicinity of Bridge No. 133 provide access to banks
along Dan River for recreational activities; these access roads would remain open -
following the removal of the existing structure.
The estimated costs of Alternate 2 (which have been updated since the approval of
the initial Categorical Exclusion [July 1995]), Alternate 6, and Alternate 7
(recommended), are as follows:
M ALTERNATE 2
(UPDA TED) ALTERNATE 6 ALTERNATE 7
(RECOMMENDED)
New Structure $ 878,000 $ 649,000 $ 0
Roadway Approaches $ 710,000 $ 336,000 $ 0
Other Costs Associated
With Removal/Road
Closure

$ 0

$

0

$

59,000
Structure Removal $ 52,000 $ 52,000 $ 56,000
Engineering and
Contingencies
$ 260,000
$
160,000
$
35,000
Right of Way &
Utilities
$ 34,000
$
0
$
0
TOTAL $ 1,934,000 $ 1,197,000 $ 150,000
The estimated cost of this project, as listed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $ 2,215,000. The total cost for Alternate 7 (recommended) is $ 150,000,
which is $ 1,784,000 less than the current cost for Alternate 2, and $ 1,047,000 less than
Alternate 6.
In addition, a benefit/cost analysis, which compared the road user cost and the
cost of constructing and maintaining a new structure (Alternate 6) with the road user cost
associated with structure removal/road closure (Alternate 7), was conducted for this
proposal. The benefit/cost ratio was derived assuming a bridge life of 40 years.
Summaries of abbreviations and terms, as well as calculations, are shown below.
Road User Costs for Alternate 6 (RUC6) - The cost associated with
traveling along SR 1668 (Seven Island Road) from NC 8/NC 89 to SR 1665
(Seven Island Road), a distance of approximately 1.7 miles, assuming
structure removal/replacement at its existing location. This cost is
approximately $ 690,000.
2
Road User Costs for Alternate 7 (RUC,)- The cost associated with
traveling along NC 8/NC 89, NC 8, and SR 1665 (the permanent detour
route), a distance of approximately 6.6 miles, assuming permanent removal of
Bridge No., 133 over Dan Rivera This cost is approximately $ 2,343,229.
Total Cost for Alternate 6 (TC6) - The total cost (construction and right of
way) to replace Bridge No. 133 at existing location. This cost is
approximately $ 1,197,000.
Therefore, the benefit/cost ratio is equal to the equation (RUC, - RUC6)/TC6, with a
resulting value of 1.4. Although this number indicates a slight road user savings by
constructing a new bridge, it is not prudent to replace Bridge No. 133 due to the low
investment return on this project, as compared to other projects listed in the
Transportation Improvement Program.
Therefore, it is recommended that Bridge No. 133 be removed without
replacement, as shown by Alternate 7 (recommended) in Figure 2 of this reevaluation. In
accordance with this recommendation, Bridge No. 133 will be recorded, as outlined in the
Memorandum of Agreement (see attached Categorical Exclusion Report). The Division
Engineer concurs with the recommendation to remove Bridge No. 133 without
replacement. In conjunction with this action, little or no environmental consequences are
anticipated by removing this bridge and implementing road closure; therefore, anticipated
impacts will likely be moderately less than those described in the attached Categorical
Exclusion.
No Citizen's Informational Workshop was held in conjunction with this project.
However, as a result of the decision to remove the existing structure without replacement,
a public hearing will be conducted to solicit citizens' and local officials' comments for
this proposal. The FHWA and the NCDOT will schedule the public hearing for this
project following the approval of this report.
On the basis of the above discussion, the Federal Highway Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation conclude that no serious adverse effects on
the natural or human environment will result from the implementation of the project.
Send, A,
r, nu co \'1 ?e-IDnnUe
eNM1e1 Mopr ?ull-lle
e
{ SI., +
4 1 ?'. , OenDw. 1
"191 M
re0 Me-4-1 1 It
\\ ?S T ?•K o ' 311
. ii rpr Cor i f-jint
STOKES COUNTY
•6 1674
••J 1655 1654
1493, 1+ 1662 1663 4 1664 ,4 1.9
• .9 \ 165.2. o
1655
p 1665 ' • i1 16561
7
I /° 167:
.7
?••• / 1670 .5
1666 f .? : •; 665 1674
1672
nij ; •• ?: ? '? `+ 1673 \
? 1671 3
7 4? 1652 cp
a "1'^ 1667 1665 e , BRIDGE NO. 133-70 N. _ 1700 n
o -b' artmon 1 -_` T
8 1668 !,q _ 1
1489 .+, 89 1701 '? 0 1697 1699
1'0 r r•.- . ` "•ei 1652
/
,tPIS '1.4 VfUnC/j 1702 9
Fqp 1697
"\ DLO ?O 2035
DANBURY 1748,5
1 ^ POP,
140 .?•,!? 11 } L{ 1698 h
f ? a
1705
?4 7018 p 1706. 1703 7ss
e
20 17 6
2016
!* 018
--^ .8 .6
/
1706
1 1695f
p / 1987
.i
ro/ ?.,
1.2 f
2018 .?v9z .5b 1707

ms's 1990 (-Meadow 1.0 \ I
3
% •?
F
17.08
''9
4 1985 r
91
2019 `
8
1992•`. ?; ?• _, _,.
Shoole
F4:iF?? STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
1.r
6
ON
1.7
Dodge
e-0.
1696

1697 1.0
9
Z 1695
sy? •o
1744
p 1753
.9

TORTS( CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGnWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 133 ON
SR 1668 (SEVEN ISLAND ROAD)
OVER DAN RIVER
TIP NO. B-2639
0 MILE 1.0
FIGMONO EAS.i.f 1
I
•

Stokes County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
Over Dan River
Federal Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.2640501
TIP No. B-2639
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
AND APPROVAL
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT TO TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
q-3141 v I zjc?
Date r H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
713NI - e
a Nic o L. Graf, P.E.
_Division Administrator, FHWA

p®4 3 4
..r
1
Stokes County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
Over Dan River
Federal Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.2640501
TIP No. B-2639
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
?.?0' k ?CARO(j'•?
?••--a* SSOzZ-f
` SEAL
18496
1
?G! st I NE,.??.?'C6
V ..
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

e A. Hunkin , P. E.
P ject Planning Unit Head
Stokes County
Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road)
Over Dan River
Federal Project No. BRZ-1668(1)
State Project No. 8.2640501
TIP No. B-2639
Bridge No. 133 crosses the Dan River in Stokes County. The location
of the bridge is shown in Figure 1. It is included in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project.
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1996 and
construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1997. The project has
been classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion." No substantial
environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 133 will be replaced on new location, approximately 1100
feet west (downstream) of the existing bridge, as shown by Alternate 2 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure is a 380-foot long and
24-foot wide bridge. The new bridge will be replaced no lower than the
elevation of the existing bridge; based on further hydrologic design and
vertical alignment requirements, the new structure may be replaced at a
higher elevation than the existing bridge. The new bridge will
accommodate a 20-foot travelway with two feet of lateral clearance on each
side.
Approximately 850 feet of new roadway and approaches will be needed
to accommodate the replacement of the bridge on new location.
Improvements to SR 1665 (Seven Island Road) will be necessary for a
distance of about 1100 feet west of SR 1668 (Seven Island Road). The new
alignment will significantly reduce the sharp curvature of the existing
roadway on the southern approach. The new roadway will consist of a
20-foot wide travelway plus 2-foot graded shoulders. The design speed of
the new structure will be approximately 30 miles per hour (MPH).
Traffic will be maintained during construction on the existing
bridge.
The estimated cost of the project is $ 1,546,000, which includes
$ 34,000 for right of way and $ 1,512,000 for construction. The estimated
cost shown in the 1996-2002 TIP is $ 838,000. The TIP cost includes
$ 23,000 for right of way and $ 725,000 for construction.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. Construction of the proposed project will
not impact any jurisdictional wetland communities. Best Management
practices will be strictly enforced to minimize impacts due to
construction activities.
2
The NCDOT will acquire a Nationwide Section 404 Permit and Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification prior to the issuance of United States Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit No. 23.
Care will be taken to prevent wet concrete from coming in contact
with the water in the river as much as possible. There is evidence of high
water causing overflow on the narrow floodplain at this site. The design
of the new bridge will be such that is does not restrict the water's
ability to overflow and return to the river.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1668 (Seven Island Road) is classified as a rural major collector
route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The project is located in a predominantly rural part of Stokes
County. Development in the project area is sparse and consists of only
one house, which is located approximately 1100 feet southwest of the
existing bridge. Topography in the area is rolling, and the terrain drops
severely to the river.
Utilities in the project area consist of underground cables located
along the west side of SR 1668. Because this cable will likely be
abandoned since the existing structure will be removed, utility conflicts
are anticipated to be low.
In the vicinity of Bridge No. 133, SR 1668 has an 11-foot wide
travelway plus 3-foot grassed shoulders. Vertical alignment is
undesirable due to drastic grade changes on the southern approach. The
horizontal alignment consists of a 90-degree curve and a 180-degree curve
on the southern bridge approach.
The current traffic volume of 115 vehicles per day (VPD) on SR 1668
is expected to increase to 120 VPD in 1996 (the proposed construction
year) and 200 VPD in 2016. Truck percentages are 1% truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired (DT) vehicles.
SR 1668 forms a T-intersection with SR 1665 immediately north of
Bridge No. 133. East of this intersection, SR 1665 has a 21-foot paved
travelway with 2-foot grassed shoulders. Approximately 200 feet west of
the SR 1665/SR 1668 intersection, SR 1665 is a soil road with a
shoulder-to-shoulder width of 20 feet.
The current traffic volume of 80 VPD on SR 1665 in the vicinity of
the bridge is expected to increase to 165 VPD in 2016. Truck percentages
are 1% TTST and 2% DT vehicles.
The speed limit is 30 MPH on SR 1668 along the southern approach to
Bridge No. 133 and statutory 55 MPH along SR 1665 (Seven Island Road)
north of Bridge No. 133.
The existing bridge was built in 1905 and is a truss bridge with a
timber deck on timber cap and pile abutments and piers. The total length
of the bridge is 345 feet, with a clear roadway width of 10.9 feet.
Bridge No. 133 carries one lane of traffic and has posted load limits of
8 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 13 tons for TTST's. The grade of
bridge No. 133 is located approximately 35 feet above the bottom of the
river bed.
Bridge No. 133 has a sufficiency rating of 21.4 out of a possible
100.0, with an estimated remaining life of three years.
Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no
accidents occurred at the bridge between April 1, 1992 and March 31, 1995.
No school buses utilize Bridge No. 133. This is attributed to the
bridge being located between school districts.
IV. ALTERNATES
Two methods for replacing Bridge No. 133 were studied. Each
recommends replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge 380 feet long.
The new structure width of 24 feet will accommodate a 20-foot roadway with
two feet of lateral clearance on each side.
The two alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - This alternate involves the replacement of Bridge
No. 133 at its existing location. Improvements to the existing
roadway would be necessary for a minimum distance of about 100 feet
on each side of the bridge. The approach roadway would consist of a
20-foot pavement plus 2-foot graded shoulders. This alternate would
not improve the poor horizontal and vertical alignment on the
southern approach to the bridge. The design speed for this alternate
would be substantially less than 20 MPH. Alternate 1 would require
traffic to be detoured along existing roads to construct the new
bridge in place of the existing bridge. This detour would direct
traffic around the project by utilizing SR 1668, NC 8-NC 89, SR 1667,
and SR 1665, as shown in Figure 1.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - This alternate involves the replacement
of Bridge No. 133 on new location, approximately 1100 feet west
(downstream) of its existing location. Approximately 100 feet of new
roadway construction on the northern approach and 650 of new roadway
construction on the southern approach will be necessary to
accommodate construction of the structure on new location. All
roadway improvements, except from a point 100 feet south of the new
structure until its tie-in to SR 1668, will consist of a 20-foot
pavement plus 2-foot graded shoulders. The portion of roadway 100
feet south of the new structure to the new roadway's tie-in to SR
1668 will remain unpaved and consist of a shoulder-to-shoulder width
of 20 feet. Improvements to SR 1665 (Seven Island Road) will also be
necessary for a distance of about 1100 feet on SR 1668. Traffic
would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. This
alternate significantly improves the horizontal and vertical
alignment. The design speed will be approximately 30 MPH.
Four additional alternates to replace Bridge No. 133 were considered
but eliminated from further consideration and evaluation. They were: (1)
replacement of Bridge No. 133 at its existing location, using an on-site
detour east of the existing bridge to maintain traffic on-site during
construction; (2) replacement of Bridge No. 133 about 500 feet west of its
existing location; (3) replacement of Bridge No. 133 approximately 150
feet west of and parallel to the existing bridge; and (4) replacement of
the bridge immediately west of the existing structure.
The replacement of Bridge No. 133 at its existing location using an
on-site detour immediately east of the existing bridge to maintain traffic
during construction is not practical since the minimal amount of traffic
using the bridge can be detoured off-site during construction.
Furthermore, the detour structure would be costly due to its required
length and height above the river.
The replacement of Bridge No. 133 about 500 feet west of its existing
location was dropped from further evaluation since the mountainous terrain
in that corridor is not conducive to such an alignment.
The replacement of Bridge No. 133 approximately 150 feet west of the
existing bridge, which would provide a free-flow movement between SR 1665
and SR 1668, was dropped from further evaluation. This alignment would
provide an undesirable skewed crossing of the Dan River, necessitate a
longer structure than the recommended alternative, and cost as much as
Alternate 2. This alternate would not allow traffic to be maintained
on-site during construction.
Replacement of the bridge immediately west of and parallel to the
existing structure is not feasible due to the location of Seven Island
Creek, which enters into the Dan River from the north approximately 50
feet west of Bridge No. 133.
Consideration was also given to the "do-nothing" and rehabilitation
options. The "do-nothing" alternate would eventually necessitate closure
of SR 1668 in the vicinity of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the
traffic service provided by Bridge No. 133. Rehabilitation of the old
bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. COST ESTIMATES
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows:
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
STRUCTURE
ROADWAY APPROACHES
TEMPORARY DETOUR
STRUCTURE REMOVAL
ENGINEERING &
CONTINGENCIES
RIGHT OF WAY
DOTAL
$ 551,000 $ 551,000
54,000 728,000
0 0
45,000 45,000
100,000 188,000
4,000 34,000
$ 754,000 $ 1,546,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 133 will be replaced on new location, approximately 1100
feet west of the existing location as shown by Recommended Alternate 2 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure is a 380-foot long and
24-foot wide bridge. The new bridge will accommodate a 20-foot travelway
with two feet of lateral clearance on each side.
The new bridge will be replaced no lower than the elevation of the
existing bridge; based on further hydrologic design and vertical alignment
requirements, the new structure may be replaced at a higher elevation than
the existing bridge. The structure dimensions may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
The recommended improvements will include approximately 750 feet of
new roadway approaches on the southern approach to the new structure and
100 feet on the northern approach. Improvements to SR 1665 (Seven Island
Road) will be necessary for a distance of about 1100 feet (from the
northern bridge approach to the SR 1668/SR 1665 intersection) due to the
fact that traffic from SR 1668 will be directly routed to SR 1665. Since
more traffic will be utilizing SR 1665 in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement, the recommended improvements are desireable.
Furthermore, the paving of SR 1665 will provide continuity along this
route (SR 1665). Approximately $ 45,000 is included in the estimated cost
of Alternate 2 for roadway improvements to SR 1665. A 20-foot pavement
plus two-foot graded shoulders will be provided for all roadway
improvements, except from 100 feet south of the new structure southward to
its tie-in to SR 1668; this portion of roadway will remain unpaved and
will have a shoulder-to-shoulder width of 20 feet.
Traffic is to be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The recommended alternate, Alternate 2, will improve the horizontal
and vertical alignment on SR 1668 along the southern approach to the new
bridge. While the design speed will be approximately 30 MPH, it provides
a substantial improvement over the existing roadway alignment south of
Bridge No. 133. This alignment revision will also prove beneficial in the
event that SR 1668 is paved. A section of roadway approximately 650 feet
in length south of the replacement structure will be left unpaved; a
100-foot section on the immediate southern approach will be paved. The
Division is considering paving this segment in the next few years.
The division engineer concurs with the recommendation of Alternate 2
and maintains that it is necessary to correct the horizontal and vertical
alignment on the southern approach.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and non-significant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial negative effect on
the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current
NCDOT standards or specifications.
6
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from
construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No adverse effect on public
facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
in the vicinity of the project.
A. Architectural Historic and Archaeological Resources
Photographs, maps, and general information about the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) were provided by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and reviewed with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). One structure over 50 years old has been identified by
NCDOT staff within the project APE. It has been determined through
coordination with the SHPO that Bridge No. 133 is eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places, and the proposed project,
which calls for the removal of the existing bridge, will have an adverse
effect on this historic resource (see Attachment 2).
Bridge No. 133 is a one-lane, pin connected steel truss bridge with
timber approach spans (see Figure 3). The bridge is 345 feet long and 11
feet wide. Bridge No. 133 was constructed in 1905 and has no name plate
or manufacturer's stamp. The bridge is historically significant because
it is a fine example of a Pratt through truss bridge. Pratt through
trusses that were considered eligible in an earlier study (completed in
1979) scored between 10 and 18 points (out of a possible 43 points).
Bridge No. 133 scored 13 points.
This project has been coordinated with the North Carolina Department
of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Correspondence from the SHPO is included as Attachment 2.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has been
notified of the adverse effect on Bridge No. 133 and was invited to
participate in the development of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The
MOA has been reviewed and accepted by the ACHP (see Attachment 3).
Since there are no other properties either listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic place within the APE of this
undertaking, no further compliance with either Section 106 or the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is necessary.
An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement
project by an NCDOT staff archaeologist to locate and assess any
significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or destroyed.
The results of the survey indicated that the project is unlikely to
encounter any archaeological sites that are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
The SHPO concurs that no further archaeological investigation should
be conducted in connection with this project since the project will not
involve significant archaeological resources. Correspondence from the
SHPO regarding the archaeological aspects of the project is included as
Attachment 5.
B. Section 4(f) Properties
Bridge No. 133 is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, and the proposed project, which calls for the removal of
the existing bridge, will have an adverse effect on this historic resource
(see Attachment 2). Since this project necessitates the use of a historic
bridge and meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register (July 5,
1983), a programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation satisfies the requirements
of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic bridge,
have been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing; (2) build a new structure at a
different location without affecting the historic integrity of the
structure, as determined by procedures implementing the National Historic
Preservation Act; and (3) rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined by
procedures implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. These
alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
The "do-nothing" alternate would eventually necessitate closure of
SR 1668 in the vicinity of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the
traffic service provided by Bridge No. 133.
Building a new bridge at a different location without affecting the
historic integrity of the structure is not possible; no organization or
agency would assume responsibility for maintenance and liability of the
existing structure. Additionally, projects using funds from the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program require the removal of deficient
structures if no other entity will assume maintenance and liability of the
old structure.
Rehabilitation of the existing
historical integrity is not possible.
deficient, and it is not feasible to
current bridge safety standards.
bridge without affecting the
The existing bridge is structurally
rehabilitate the bridge to meet
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic bridge has
been performed as an integral part of this project. Measures to minimize
harm include, that prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 133, the NCDOT
shall record Bridge No. 133 in accordance with the attached Historic
Structure Recordation Plan (see Attachment 3 - Memorandum of Agreement).
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), whose correspondence is included as
Attachment 2. The SHPO has concurred that this project, as proposed, will
have an adverse effect with regard to the historic bridge. The Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has agreed that the bridge
replacement project will have an adverse effect on the existing bridge and
8
has accepted the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (see Attachment 3).
Approval of the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation by the FHWA Division
Administrator is included as Attachment 4 of this document.
C. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime or important farmland soils. These soils
are designated by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) based on a
number of factors, including crop yield, the average expenditure of
energy, and other resources.
In compliance with the FPPA, the SCS was requested to determine
whether the alternates being considered for the proposed bridge
replacement project will impact prime or important farmland soils. The
SCS responded each alternate will impact farmland soils, though the
acreage impacted varies. Alternate 1 would impact approximately 0.11
acre; Alternate 2 would impact 1.06 acres of prime farmland soils.
The SCS indicates that the relative value of the farmland soils
impacted by Alternate 1 is 50.0 on a scale of zero to 100 points. The
relative value of soils impacted by Alternate 2 is 47.1.
Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating Form (see Attachment 6) indicates a total site assessment
score of 35.0 points out of a possible score of 160.0 for both alternates.
The total point score for Alternate 1 is 85.0; for Alternate 2 it is 82.1.
The point scores for both alternates fall below the threshold of 160.0
total points at which consideration of other alternates is required.
Therefore, no further coordination with the SCS is required.
D. Biological Assessment
The proposed project lies approximately 1.4 miles north of the town
of Danbury in Stokes County on SR 1668. This location is a rural setting
with limited previous disturbances from logging, road construction, and
recreation activities (camping, off-road vehicles, fishing, etc.).
Farming is the primary land use in the county. Hanging Rock State Park is
nearby.
Stokes County is in the north-central part of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province and is characterized by broad gently sloping
uplands, moderately to steeply sloping areas with narrow convex ridges,
and steep valley slopes associated with narrow bottomland floodplains.
The project area is in the Felsic Crystalline Soil System mapping unit.
Parent material is mostly granite, granite gneiss, mica gneiss, and mica
schist. Areas of slightly more mafic rock or a complex of felsic rock cut
by dikes of gabbro and diorite are common. The topography at the project
site is relatively level to slightly sloping floodplains along steep
stream banks. Elevations in Stokes County range from 640 feet to 2579
feet above mean sea level (MSL); the elevation at the project site ranges
from approximately 700 feet to 860 feet above MSL.
9
The three soil series located at this site are Toccoa series,
Pacolet-Wilkes Complex, and Ryan-Pacolet-Wateree Complex. Toccoa soils
consist of deep, well-and moderately well-drained soils that formed in
loamy fluvial sediments on floodplains. Slopes range from zero to four
percent. Pacolet-Wilkes complex consists of 40 percent Pacolet soils and
30 percent Wilkes soil. Pacolet soil is a deep, well-drained soil, while
Wilkes is a shallow, well-drained soil. This complex is found on ridges
and side slopes in northern Stokes County. Slopes range from 15 to 25
percent and are eroded. Ryan-Paco let-Wateree Complex consists of 40
percent Ryan soil, 25 percent Pacolet soil, and 25 percent Wateree soil.
Both Ryan and Pacolet soils are very deep and well-drained. The Wateree
soil is moderately deep and well-drained. Slopes range from 25 to 60
percent on the side slopes where these soils are found.
The Dan River is in the Roanoke River Basin. This river originates
in Virginia and flows through Stokes and Rockingham Counties in North
Carolina before returning to Virginia, where it joins the Roanoke River.
The Dan River enters Stokes County from Virginia approximately 40 miles
northwest of Bridge No. 133 and flows in a southeasterly direction. Seven
Island Creek flows into the Dan River approximately 50 feet west of Bridge
No. 133 on the north side of the river (see Figure 2).
At the proposed project site, the Dan River is approximately 116 feet
wide, with depths ranging from 0.5 foot to 1.5 feet. The substrate is
composed of boulders, rubble, sand, and silt. Turbidity varies and summer
temperatures are warm. There is evidence of high water flows on trees
along the banks. Erosion from forestry and other agricultural activities
are the major negative existing impacts on the stream near the
construction site (see Figure 2 for previously cleared area). Seven
Island Creek is a small unclassified stream. It is approximately two feet
wide and 0.3 foot deep with a sandy substrate. This stream may be too
small to be of any fishing significance.
The Dan River, from Big Creek (located approximately 7.5 miles west
of Bridge No. 133) to a point 1.7 miles upstream of Snow Creek (located
approximately six miles east of Bridge No. 133), carries a Best Usage
Classification of WS-V as assigned by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1994. Class WS-V
designates water protected as water supplies which are generally upstream
and draining to Class WS-IV waters; no categorical restrictions on
watershed development or treated wastewater discharges are required;
however, the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) or its designee
may apply appropriate management requirements as deemed necessary for the
protection of downstream receiving waters (15A NCAC 28.0203). WS-IV
waters are also suitable for all Class C uses. The designation C denotes
that appropriate uses are aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. No waters classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I or
WS-II occur within one mile of the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses water
quality by sampling for selected bottom-dwelling macro invertebrate
organisms. The species richness, overall biomass, and presence of certain
species are a reflection of water quality. The BMAN reports samplings
10
between 1984 and 1990 at points 15 miles above and below this project
site. The Bioclassification ratings ranged from good to excellent. The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists only one
permitted discharge for this section of the Dan River. Stokes Reynolds
Hospital has a permit to discharge treated wastewater approximately 0.5
mile upstream of the proposed construction site.
Potential impacts to water resources in the project area may result
from substrate disturbances, sedimentation and increased turbidity, as
well as non-point discharge of toxic substances from construction
machinery. These impacts may result in a decrease of dissolved oxygen in
the stream. Water temperature may increase due to removal of streamside
canopy species. Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best
Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of this project. Care must be
taken to prevent wet concrete from coming in contact with the water in the
river. There is evidence of high water causing overflow on the narrow
floodplain at this site. The design of a new bridge will be such that is
does not restrict the water's ability to overflow and return to the river.
Recommended Alternate 2 involves a greater area of soil disturbance
than Alternate 1, thereby increasing the risk of erosion and
sedimentation. Poorly managed application of sedimentation control
policies could result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
Man-dominated, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest,
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont
subtype), and Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest are the terrestrial communities
found in the areas to be impacted by one or all of the alternates proposed
for this site. Dominant faunal components associated with terrestrial
areas will be discussed in each community description; however, many
species are adapted to a variety of habitats and move in and out of the
various communities described.
The highly altered Man-dominated Community includes maintained right
of ways, a clear-cut area, and areas disturbed by recreational use, such
as fishing and camping. Many of the plant species in these areas are
adapted to disturbed habitats. Since these areas are scattered among the
several mature communities present and are located at various elevations,
species composition varies. Roadbanks contain sprouts of yellow popular
Liriodendron tuli fera), locust (Robinia psedoacacia), alder (Alnus
serru ata , an hazelnut (Corylus americana). Vines include poison ivy
(ToxTdendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
Virgin s ower (C e-T matis virginianra), and Virginia creeper (Part enocissus
uin uefolia). Herbaceous species include Joe-Pye-weed Eu atorium
macu atum , Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), ragweed Am rosia
art s folia), golden ragwort (Sen ce io smaTTii), and Christmas fern
Po ystic um acrosticoides).
In the clear cut area on a ridge, there are thick stands of
blackberry (Rubus sp.), dwarf sumac (Rhus copallina), smooth sumac (Rhus
lg abra), blacc locust saplings, whorled loose strife (Lysimachia
quadrifolia), Virginia creeper, and various early successional tall weeds.
11
In the disturbed floodplain areas, clearings contain various grasses
and sedges, while less used openings have developed thick tangles of river
cane (Arundinaria gigantea), blackberry, and vines, including poison ivy,
Virginia creeper, grape (Vitis spp.), and greenbrier (Smilax ssp.).
Herbaceous species include jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and wood nettle
(Laporta canadensis).
Residential animals would be few in these disturbed areas. However,
many opportunistic species from surrounding communities may utilize the
areas for feeding zones. Seeds, fruits, and insects, as well as living or
dead animal matter, attract a variety of foraging animals, including brown
thrashers (Toxostoma rufum), Carolina chickadees (Parus carolinensis),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhychos), Virginia opossum Di ep us
Vir iniana), white-footed mouse (Perom scus leuco us), eastern cottontail
S vi aquuss flor?idarnus), woodchuck (Marmot monax , and white-tailed deer
(0 ocd oileus Virgin us). Reptiles which may feed or travel in these
areas include American toads (Bufo americanus), eastern box turtle
(Terre ene carolina), black racers (Coluber constrictor), eastern hognose
snakes Heterrodon platyrhinos), and ive- ine skinks Eumeces fasciatus).
Lying in a narrow band adjacent to the river channel, the
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is dominated by river birch (Betula
nigra) and sycamore (Platyrhinos occidentalis), but also includes yMow
poplar, hickory (Carya cordiformis), acc walnut (Ju lans nigra),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra , an American ash (Fraxinus americana).
Understory tree species include ironwood (Carpinuus ciniana), paw-paw
Asima triloba), red maple (Acer rubrum), and box elder Acer ne undo).
S ru s inu& spice bush (D naera FEenzoin), dogwood (Corvus ammonium and
yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simpT-ic ssima . Vines inc-T_uTe moonseed
(Menis erum cans ense , poison ivy, and greenbrier. A rich herb layer
includes horse a m Collinsonia canadensis), wood nettle, spotted
jewelweed, honewort (Cr totaenia cana ensis , yellow corydalis (Cor dalisdal
flava), Canadian violet (Viola cana ensis wild rye grass (E??!ml us
v nnicus), Canadian ginger Asarum ca?ense), geum (Geum canadense),
Jac -in-t e-pulpit (Arisaema tripyTlum bedstraw (Galium circT aezans),
spreading bladder fern Cystopteris protrusa), and sens'iti`ve ern Onoclea
sensibilis).
Faunal species likely to occur in this area include raccoon (Procyon
lotor), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoar enteus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides
vi osusbelted kingfisher (Me acer a alc on), tufted titmouse Parus
bicolor), damselflies (A rion macu atum Wort ern water snake (NeroTia
s peon), queen snake Regina se temvittata), spring peepers Hy a
crucifer), and bullfrogs (Rana Cates cana .
Occupying a narrow band between the Alluvial forest and uplands, the
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest Community is less disturbed by
flooding. It has many of the same plants found in the alluvial forest,
but the canopy species show a decrease in river birch, sycamore, and box
elder, while yellow poplar, hickory (Car,ra spp.), American ash, and
hackberry (Celtis laevvi ataa) increase in importance. Understory trees are
similar, witF_fFowering dogwood (Cornus florida) replacing swamp dogwood.
Herbaceous species increase in number wit o large flowered trillium
(Trillium grandiflora), bloodrot (Sanguinaria canadensis), Canadian
12
violet, grapefern (Botrychium virginianum), broad beech fern (Thelypteris
hexagonoptera), and Canadian ginger. Where more light penetrates,
wingstem (Verbesina sp.) and vines of groundnut (Apios americana) occur.
On the north side of the river, this community also contains dense
thickets of river cane and mixed vines. The proposed location of
Alternate 2 includes a population of southern adder's tongue fern
(0 hio lossum vulgatum var.
pycnostic um .
Faunal species are similar to the alluvial forest species. Human
recreational activity along this narrow floodplain would tend to limit
resident species.
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) Community occurs
on the steep north-facing slope that arises from the narrow floodplain on
the south side of the river. The closed canopy consists of slippery elm
(Ulmus rubra), red oak ( uercus rubra), beech (Fagus randifolia),
basswoo Tilia floridana), yellow poplar, and white oak uercus alba).
Small pockets o E? astern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and scatter
magnolias (Magnolia fraseri , M. acuminata also occur. A sparse
understory includes re map e, hop horn eam (Ostrya vir iniannaa), flowering
dogwood, witchhazel (Hamamelis vir iniana), and cherry birch (Betula
lenta). An open shrub layer includes maple leaf viburnum (Viburnum
acerifolium), false indigo (Amour hhaa sp.), hydrangea (H dran ea
ar orescens), sweet shrub (Cal canthus floridus var. llaaevigattus , uffalo
nut P rularia up bera), and small patches of rosebay (Rhododendron
maximum . A sparse but diverse herb layer includes wood aster Aster
divaricatus), arrow leaf wild ginger (Hexast lis arifolia), black co-Fiosh
imicifu a racemosa), Solomon's seal Po onatum uf? escens), goat's
bear Aruncu o cus), round-lobed hepatica (Hepatica americana), false
Solomon'-s-s-eaT Smi acina racemosa), lion's paw Prenant es ser entaria),
skullcap (Scutel arl i axati is , silphium (S?i1 hium connatum , crested
iris (Iris cristata foam flower (Tiarella cordifolia var. collina),
halberd-Te_aveev otet (Viola hastata), a galax Ga ax urceolata .
Faunal species in this area may include many of the foraging species
previously listed in the area, in addition to red bellied woodpeckers
(Melaner es carolinus), silver haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans),
which feeds over water near woodlands and roosts in tree crevices,
short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda kirtlandi), eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatus), gray squirre Sciurus ca of ensis carolinensis), and
strip skun Mephitis mephitis a ongata).
The Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest is found on the ridge-top south of
the river and has largely been clear-cut and disturbed by the logging
road. Remaining remnants include the following canopy species: white oak,
northern red oak, post oak ( uercus stellata), hickory (C rya spp.), and
Virginia pine (Pinus vir iniana Sumcanopy species present include
sassafras (SassJ_ra_s a i um , sourwood (Ox dendron arboreum), red maple,
and flowering ogwooa. Shrubs include laurel Ka mia atifolia),
witchhazel, redbud (Cercis canadensis), and New Jersey tea Ceanot us
americanus). A sparse orb layer includes bluets (Houston ia Urea),
asters Aster spp.), rattlesnake weed (Hieracium venosum , W'11 U yam
13
(Dioscorea batatas var. villosa), false Solomon's seal, heartleaf
(Hexastylis sp.), hay scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula), and
whorled loosestrife.
The limited size of the remaining parts of this community would not
support faunal species that are found exclusively in this community.
However, many of the foraging species occupying nearby areas may visit
this area to feed.
The aquatic community in the study area includes Dan River and a
small tributary, Seven Island Creek. Dan River receives sediments from
limited agricultural activities upstream, but the study area is largely
protected by natural vegetation.
The river supports a diverse population of aquatic invertabrates,
crustaceans, and aquatic insects, which are an important basis for
numerous food chains.
Amphibian and reptile species likely to be found in this aquatic
environment include the snapping turtle (Chel dra ser entina) and northern
water snakes. Northern dusky salamanders Desmognat us uscus) may be
found in Seven Island Creek.
The Dan River contains a diverse fish population. The North Carolina
Wildlife Fisheries reports that the major sport fish in this area of the
Dan River are smallmouth bass (Micro terus dolomieu) and redbreast sunfish
(Le o?mis auritus). Other fish species likely o toccur include channel
catfish (Ictalurus nebulosus), bull chub (Nocomis rane 1), white shiner
(Notro is aTFeoTus ), ac jumprock (Moxostoma cervinum , Piedmont darter
(Percina crassa white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), stoneroller
(Cam ostoma anomalum), big-eye jumproc Moxostoma ariommum), and
riverwee darter Et eostoma podostemone).
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
being addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts.
However, impacts to terrestrial communities can result in the aquatic
community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs. Efforts will be made to ensure that no
sediment leaves the construction site and water flow is not altered.
Although some disturbance has previously occurred in the project
area, the natural communities are largely intact. There will be some loss
of existing habitats and displacement, as well as mortality, of animal
species currently in residence, regardless of which alternate is selected.
More mobile species will be displaced during construction, but may return
later. Forested habitat, however, already reduced by agricultural
clearing, will be further reduced. Anticipated areas to be impacted due
to the construction of the recommended alternate, Alternate 2, in each of
the terrestrial communities present is listed in Table 1.
14
TABLE 1 ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
BIOTIC COMMUNITY APPROXIMATE IMPACT
Man-Dominated 1.52 acres
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest 0.37 acre
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest 0.06 acre
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.37 acre
Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest 0.00 acre
TOTAL 2.32 acres
Anticipated impacts to the stream community can be attributed to
construction-related habitat disturbance and sedimentation. These impacts
may be long-lived and irreversible.
Food-producing photosynthetic species are severely affected by
siltation. High levels of suspended particles in the water absorb
available light, reducing the ability to produce the food which serves as
the basis for the entire food chain.
Aquatic invertebrates are very important in the food chains that
support many aquatic and terrestrial species in the area. Benthic,
non-motile organisms, such as filter feeders, may be covered and smothered
by sedimentation resulting from construction-related erosion and substrate
disturbance. Recovery may be slow, altering community populations.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation,
but local fish populations can also be harmed by construction-related
sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can
lead to the smothering of fish eggs, clogging of gills, reduced
oxygen-carrying capacity of the water, and changes in water temperature.
Spawning habitats could be altered, leading to reduced reproductive
success and reduced populations.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of surface waters
will be strictly followed to insure the biological integrity of this
stream. Other concerns relate to the possibility of increased
concentrations of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream from
construction and/or paving machinery. Poorly managed application of
sedimentation control policies may result in serious damage to the aquatic
community.
E. Wetlands and Permits
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of Waters
of the United States, as defined in 33 CFR.328.3 and in accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S. C. 1344) and
are regulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE).
15
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria
specified in the 1987 USCOE Wetlands Delineation Manual. For an area to
be considered a wetland, the following three specifications must be met:
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence of
hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology, or hydrological
indicators, including saturated soils, stained oxidized rhizospheres,
matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases, and
surface roots.
No wetland communities were identified within this project right of
way. Construction of the proposed project will not impact any
jurisdictional wetland communities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. Stokes County is one of 25
counties designated as having trout waters; projects in these counties
must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) prior to issuance of the USCOE permit. Also, Section
401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny
water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States
prior to issuance of COE permits.
A letter of comment has been obtained from the NCWRC concerning this
bridge replacement project (see
Attachment 1). The NCWRC states that trout do not occur at this project
site and they are unaware of any other special concerns at this site.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a nationwide
permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not required
by the USCOE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements
rests with USCOE.
F. Federally Protected Species
Both federal and state protected species are listed for Stokes
County. Federally listed species with a status of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened are protected under federal
law. State listed mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and bird species with a
status of Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern are protected
under state laws.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), is a document that defines the means by which
endangered species may be protected. Whenever any species is listed as
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered, steps
are taken to protect them. The following species in Table 2 are federally
listed for Stokes County by the USFWS as of March 28, 1995:
16
TABLE 2
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Cardimine micranthera
Helianthus schweinitzii
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR STOKES COUNTY
COMMON NAME HABITAT STATUS
small-anthered
bittercress Yes Endangered
Schweinitz's
sunflower No Endangered
The study area does not support suitable habitat for Schweinitz's
sunflower, nor does it support suitable habitat for the small-anthered
bittercress because of previous disturbance, and because of the thick, low
growing vegetation covering the banks of the river. Therefore, no impact
to either species is anticipated with the construction of the project.
State protected plant species are protected under the provisions of
the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (General Statute of North
Carolina Chapter 106, Article 198;202.12-202.22., North Carolina
Department of Agriculture, 1990). Animal species are afforded protection
under General Statutes which address Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Species of Special Concern. Habitat exists for two species in the project
area: rustyside sucker (Moxostoma hamiltoni) and orangefin madtom
(Noturus ilberti). The orangefin ma totem is a federal candidate species
and endangered species in North Carolina. Neither of these species
were observed in the project area, and no impacts to these species are
expected.
There are three federal candidate (C2) species and one federal
candidate (3C) species listed for Stokes County. Candidate 2 (C2) species
are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. The
North Carolina status is listed in Table 3 below. Plants or animals with
state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the N.
C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture, respectively. Species with state
designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), and Watch List (W)
are not protected under state laws, but there is evidence of declining
populations.
These species are mentioned here for informational purposes in the
event that they become protected in the future. Specific surveys for
these species were not conducted during site visits, nor were any of them
observed during field reconnaissance.
17
TABLE 3 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
FOR STOKES COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT NC
Noturus ilberti Orangefin madtom Yes E
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary
butterfly Yes SR
Mono?tro sis odorata Sweet pinesap No C2
Ju ans cinerea Butternut Yes C2
NC Status: E and C denote Endangered and Candidate, respectively.
SR denotes Significantly Rare, which are not offered State
Protection.
Additional species which may be of concern include the cutlips minnow
(Exo lossum maxillin ua), which is listed as Endangered by the State of
North Carolina, but is not afforded federal protected status. This minnow
is common in riffles and pools of the Dan River, just below the Virginia
line, approximately eight to 10 miles upstream from this project site.
The National Heritage Program (NHP) records list two state Special Concern
species from this location: big-eye jumprock (Moxostoma ariommum) and
riverweed darter (Etheostoma odostemone). These species were not
surveyed for, nor were try observe during the field investigation.
G. Air Oualitv and Traffic Noise
This project is located in Stokes County, which has been determined
to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40
CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in
an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of 23 CFR Part 772. If vegetation is disposed of by burning,
all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
H. Floodplain Data
Stokes County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown
in Figure 4. Flat Shoal Creek is not included in a detailed flood study
at this location. The upstream and downstream floodplains are rural,
18
wooded, and mountainous. There is a home approximately 300 feet northwest
of Flat Shoal Creek which is above the 100-year flood level and,
therefore, will not be adversely affected by the proposed bridge
replacement.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, the NCDOT and the FHWA conclude
that no serious adverse environmental effects will result from the
implementation of the project.
.? r N CAROLINA
I s.nm w.
s, •ncco
L 1-011
= I
? esl M1tl ' ?? Moore Pillion rill
SDI.nIs +
'rlol Mounl.m
G.D •••--Ml.dos.s y
S T .J K 89 6in'
E A Wain ul pin dlr
GDr
h n GDr
STOL \,,. • erm,nlo
S COUNTY
1 e ;t! .b
•6 ? ? -7 1674
1493 a 1662 •? 1655-/ 1654
1663 . J G '? j 4• h (/? 1 .9
1664/. • •a 1632 0
'
1655 1746
•
e, 1665 l 1.6561 ----
.7
167:
m \ /
.7 8/
1666 •? • 665", %/ / 1670 .5 O b
• a ? 1074
• ; • 1672
?/ : • ;' (`r 1673
.3
a \
1652 0-1
1667 1665 , BRIDGE 0. 133 70 N. 1700 ? n
o -9 / artmon 1
8 1668 1.4 r,
1701" LA 1 1699 '
1 489 ? 89 1697
1.0 `*t ry 1652 / - --
F p.S r' 1.4 ?ro 0
?`i..hCh 1702
1697
2035 • 4A • .
10
?i N
i
.99
0'167
1.7 --
1696

S(p r:: v G 1697 1.0
DANBURY
1748 .5 1 2 1695
POP.
140
1698 h 1744
a F
\q 2018 1705 O 1704 1703 p 755 ?',
.o ?•
2017 6 90 CF)
5
2016 \ r? 1753
a \? 018 j .8 .b
1695
1706. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
1 Sri p? 1987 2 TRANSPORTATION
11?\ ?0/ \. DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
c 1.2 5 ?- PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
2018 19.92
fl -170-7 STOKES COUNTY
3 ".4 h 1990 ? M dow 1.0 i BRIDGE NO. 133 ON SR 1668
-- F 1708 OVER DAN RIVER
T'991 q 1985
2019 \ .4 8 - B-2639
•?
? - STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE ? 4' ° 8 o MIL! FIG.]
B-2639
STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 133
FACING NORTH ON
SR 1668
FACING SOUTH ON
SR 1668
SIDE VIEW OF
BRIDGE NO. 133
FIGURE 3

1513 ?1
\\ W
\? m
1` Q
O
O co
11
II
11
s?\
F ?.
2
GDD4-PO
iC-6-6 ?y 1
a ?

BRIDGE NO. 133
a
1665 \

Z?
100-YEAR FLOODP IN
STOKES COUNTY P-?PC
11?\\
?? II
II II
?01
C
??
s-/
,I RD,% 11 \
o°
o // 1
ii
\`\ II
I II `
/?? II f\
.'•,ry 11
ZONE A
QII ? ./
• / NII
I
RIVEI?
I6 I I ?
1101 p
1 It
FARM
Q ))
- 1652 ZONE X
scow
._? Town of Danbury 9RgN?N ;;':`
AREA NOT INCLUDED
FIGURE 4
f? -'c )S' I/ li IotiOi
I
Y /I 11)
A ?1
GENTRY
It 1651
11 i
u/ II ? r ?
\ l?
11 \ II \'??
c .N
le
59
Q7
1665 F11cr
ii \``II ?// llr
11
ZONE X
e
¢II
-?
a 11
LL?
1655• QIi
Of North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael L. Paylor, Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 2, 1994 /r
SUBJECT: Comments regarding trout considerations for replacement
of 4 bridges (TIP Nos. B-2632, B-2633, B-2638, B-2639),
Stokes County.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
comments regarding trout considerations for four proposed bridge
replacements. They are as follows: Bridge 150 over Flat Shoal
Creek on NC 8-89 (B-2632), Bridge 055 over Mill Creek on NC 8-89
(B-2633), Bridge 034 over North Double Creek on SR 1504 (B-2638),
and Bridge 0133 over Dan River on SR 1668 (B-2639).
None of these projects impact waters supporting trout;
therefore, we have no concerns with these projects regarding
trout. Our comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
reflect this in the permitting stage of each project. Please
note my comments in my previous letter to you dated 17 October
1994 regarding the possibility of listed species in the vicinity
of B-2639. The Natural Heritage Program should be contacted to
determine whether this project has the potential to impact listed
species.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these
projects. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
ATTACHMENTI
TIP # 17- VPV I Federal Aid #
T-
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

ST?KEg
County

Brief Project Description
CZaPUwe 0*400M ae. IV* sn! sR 1"0 OVER. VAW V-IVM
On auAay ?°?RS , representatives of the
VII.
I.
reviewed the subject project and agreed
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway. Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properdes and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed: .,r
Represen e, CDOT Dake
(over) ATTACHMENT 2
FHw or the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
TIP # 0 - II&3'I Federal Aid # SRS - Ifc46 (I ) County Srv --,
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
and describe effect.
ai'('0%m Co. woof, nk. 1" 2 1% PIMIT TWW"" TwI-f a wc,R--F- FFF"r . bP acs Flo. iVa,
14" W- WLAMO .

Initialed: NCDOT FHwA IZW-5 SHPO

f\\L?
w
fi°"`' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a` FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
z
REGION FOUR

V
P 310 New Bern Avenue, Su@e 410
'
I Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
June 1, 1995
In Reply ReW
HO-NC
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:
EC
O
JUN 0 51995
OlV/SIC.
,*I-- WYSF c
Subject: Federal Aid No. BRZ-1668(1), TIP No. B-2639, Section 106,
Memorandum of Agreement, Replacement of Bridge No. 133 on
SR 1668 Over Dan River, Stokes County, North Carolina
Enclosed for your file is a fully executed copy of Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) accepted by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. This acceptance completes the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Council's regulations. Stipulations of the MOA should be carried
out at the appropriate time of project development and
implementation.
A copy of the MOA is also being provided to the State Historic
Preservation Officer. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact Mr. Dan Hinton of this office at 856-4350.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: David Brook, NCSHPO (w/attachment)
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BF+." __ 7,iE ADVISORY COUNCI;. ON HISTOR:': =P'"S_RV --`I
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.6?A'
FOR THE
:,.LAC?PIENT OF BRIDGE .VC. 12 3
ON SR 1668 OVER DAN RIVER
STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined
that the replacement of Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 over Dan River, Stokes
County, North Carolina, identified as TIP No. B-2639 in North Carolina's
Transportation Improvement Program, will have an effect upon Bridge No.
133, a property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to CFR Part 800, regulations
implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
participated in the consultation and has been invited to concur in this
Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the
following undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the
following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the
undertaking on historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
The Federal Highway Administration will ensure that the following
measures are carried out:
1. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 133, NCDOT shall record
Bridge No. 133 in accordance with the attached Historic
Structure Recordation Plan (Appendix A).
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina SHPO, its subsequent
acceptance by the Council, and implementation of its terms, evidence that
FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the replacement
of Stokes County Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 over Dan River and its effect
on historic properties, and that FHWA has taken into account the effects
of the undertaking on historic properties.
H WAY -ADMINISTRATION
FEDER
FOR NICHOLAS L WT DATE
OMMON ADMINISTPATOR
NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
N R H" A OLINA D AR MENT OF RAN PORTATION
Concurring Party
f'-
,D ATE
3
DATE
ACCEPTED or DATE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
APPENDIX A
Historic Structure Recordation Plan
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 13-1
Stokes County. North Carolina
1. Historical Background: A brief historical and physical narrative. description of Bridge
No. 133.
II. Photographic Requirements:
Photographic views of Bridge No. 133 including:
Overall views (elevations and oblique views)
Distant views of the bridge in its setting
Details of construction or design
M. Format:
Representative color transparencies
35mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
4" x 5" black and white prints (all views)
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of Archives and
History standards.
IV. Copies and Curation:
One (1) set of all negatives, prints, and color transparencies will be deposited with
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Preservation
Office to be made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic
collection.
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRZ-1668(1
State Project 8.2640501
T. I. P. No. B-2639
Description: REPLACE BRIDGE NO 133 OVER DAN RIVER IN
STOKES COUNTY SECTION 4(F) RESOURCE IS
BRIDGE NO 133. A PRATT THROUGH TRUSS BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTED IN 1905.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or x
rehabilitated with Federal funds?
2. Does the project require the use of a
historic bridge structure which is on or
eligible for listing on the National X
Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic X
Landmark?
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through ?
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the x
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards?
Yes No
X ?
F-1 x
x F-1
ATTACHMENT 4
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different ?
location without affectinx the historic X
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/or (iv The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting the historic integrity of the X
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1.
2.
The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm.
Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
O For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
O For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3.
Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
Yes No
X F-I
- Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 133, the NCDOT
shall record Bridge No. 133 in accordance with the
Structure Recordation Plan (see Attachment 3).
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer _X
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation -X-
C. Local/State/Federal Agencies
d. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on July 5, 1983.
11 required alternatives have been evaluated and the
' indings made are clearly applicable to this project'=
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of
the historic bridge.' The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
'7-319s'
Date
Date
;moo ?
'Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Division Administrator, FHWA
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
f
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning X ?
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
bO. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
C. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
O For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
?;& f
- Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 133, the NCDOT
shall record Bridge No. 133 in accordance with the
Structure Recordation Plan (see Attachment 3).
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
`P„ . ,1 ?,
STATt
5
Resources DIVISION OF ?Q
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
_-.-September 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of 7ans"ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State iPreservation Officer
SUBJECT: . Bridge replacement projects B-2632, B-2638, and B-
2639, Stokes County, Federal Aid BRSTP-89(3),
BRSTP-1504(3), and BRZ-1668(1), ER 95-7343
4?GEI?z.
r
i S€P, 2 0:1941
HIGHWAYS P`O
_IVORON ef,
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 18, 1994, concerning the above project. The
additional information in the form of the addendums is sufficient to evaluate the
proposed bridge replacement projects.
During the course of the survey no archaeological resources were located within
the project area. Ms. Anna Gray, North Carolina Department of Transportation
staff archaeologist, has recommended that no further archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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 9191733-4763.
DB:slw
bc: N. Graf
T. Padgett
A. Gray
ATTACHMENT S
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2S07
loonN - AdC7
U.S. Oeparsment of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
I Oat. Ot I..ana Evaluation 1•leatNtt
PART I fTo he tomanteQ by Federal Agarre/1
I Feo.ral Agency Involveo qzz;
Mame of Oman ;b ? .7.b
I Caunty Ana state cJ''cb?C25 G? '
- (may Q GO a ??
Prooosea Lana Use
-=?C \ a -t, Oar
p 7,41 Ree.+va¢ a?.SC?,
W D W
PART It Ira tre completed by SCSI
rant farmland?
wide or loaf impo IrnOa.ld
Yes Yo z
? Asa• ?t++t 5.t?
Does the site contain prime. unique. state
of this forrtr). Q
or
flf no. the FPPA door not apply - do not ?nrpJetr sddltlonJ pua F,nt„ana As coma In A
. In?^
31 % 4$,b
41
,
Meta. cloowC
Ace: 4 q 14 9 % 51.3 ?o Aces:
w? R.tur,toD itv, s
o?
t LAWN ki A..t t,,.nt
I'll
w
at 1.u
at/atton sr,tem wee A/c, NE I
srat.T 4 4 ??
f o
,
t
SAM%4C s ?? Altwnetlw a.te an Sate O
I Site B .K 5.te C
PART 111 (To be COMPJertd by Federal Agency) Sim A
I
A. Total Aces To 8e Convertad OireebY I
8. Total Aces To Be convened In kacdv O \ .
C. Total Aces In Site I „ ' I
PART IV fro be completed by =1 Land Evaluation lnfonnaticn b le
Toni Aces Prime And Unique Farmland
A I C p
.
Ia. Total Acres Statewide And Loal Imoortant Farmland
e
Or Loaf Govt UnftTa Ba tw
e
C. Pereena a Of Farmiand In Cmmtv
Value
Or F.rrnl.nd In Govt Juriadicdon with SO" Or High 4
0. Pe,e.nage
PART V In be completed by SCSI Land Eval"111 n Cawt 100 Points)
ted (Ste of0to I
O `?O' 4 I
Relative Value Of Farmland To 8e Conver
I I
PART VI fro be completed by Federal Agency) I maximum
Peims
?ne?d Jn 7 CfR S6d??fbl
l
' I
,
+
77?tta. erieeri. n. ?nv
S.s Aaf.err,.nt t:rit.ri. l I S
1. Area In Nonurbon Use \ O \
2. Ptrimetor In Nonurban Use C I O

Farmed C
3. Pernnt Of Site Bein
51
(

( p I O
4. Protacdan Provided 13, State And Loetl Government I _ ( -
5. Distance From Urban Suiltuc Area _ I - -
8. Oisance To Urban Support Service
I \
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Comaared To Avers
S I CI'S
8. Creation Of Nonfermable Famdand
9. Availability Of Faun Suooort Slimicas D O I O
10. On-Form InvestIMents
ion On Farm Sucoort Serviess
I. Effects Of Convers
Compatibility With Existing Aariculturai Use
12 I '
S
S ??
.
t60
TOTAL SITE ASSEMM ENT POINTS •
'
35
I
.
PART V11 (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Psrt VI 100 ? o I
-16
oaf n Assessment ram are Vl above ors /ooJ 160
jlj 35
7 .1
sire assasv"fn[)
ZBO
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 Imes)
g 5 I 1 O . y e
w.. a Loot sit. a.•.tn«+t t+tN
?
I
o
Ya Q
Data Of Selection
S/ts Selaxtad:
Reagan Fw Salomon:
* DENOTES ALTERNATE (SITE) WHICH HAS
BEEN ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER
ATTACHMENT 6
STUDY -
.F ?
a.\. ?t? 4{,1. ??

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
December 6, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
00• oq3y

Per / I ct,
1VW 23 c. 33 t a,4-. X- f y • & • oo
Subject: New Information Regarding Federally Protected Species and the Proposed
Replacement of Bridge 133 on SR 1668 (Seven Island Road) over the Dan River,
Stokes County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1668(1), State Project
No. 8.2640501, TIP No. B-2639
On November 7, 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists met with personnel from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and Federal Highway Administration in the field to review the subject project and
discuss the potential impacts on recently discovered mussels in the project area. The following
comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
In 1995 the environmental effects of this bridge replacement project were documented in a
categorical exclusion. In 1998 the project was revised to replace the bridge at the existing
location rather than a new location. In the original decision and the 1998 revision, the NCDOT
concluded that there would be no effect on listed species. At that time the James River spiny
mussel (Plettrobenta collina) was not known to occur in the Dan River. However, recent surveys
in several locations on the Dan River have documented the presence of this species. In view of
this, we believe the previous finding of "no effect" on listed species is invalid. Obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action. Therefore, the NCDOT is revising the bridge design and conducting further
surveys to meet its obligations under Section 7.
9
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-01-153.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
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
Mr. Felix Davila, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410,
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mr. Chris McGrath, Mountain Project Leader, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
315 Morgan Branch Road, Leicester, NC 28748
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
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E., Project Development Unit Head, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
MAR.31'2000 15:46
ell
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN
TO. -US Fish & Wildlife Service
Asheville, NC FAX [phone]
-State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC FAx [phone]
1. ACTION 16: 200020790 and 200020791
#1279 P.001/044
2. APPLICANT: I7®OT/TIP 8-2639/SR 1668 bridgo r0Pl./St0ka3 Country
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: April 3, 2000
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal): April 7, 2000
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline): April 17, 2000
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN : Eric 111amayor
FAX: (919) 8'76-5823
We are also forwarding the attached PCN to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, for review and comment concerning any likely affect to any
threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat within that
agency's jurisdiction.
?3 (gyp.
(1
r n" -
MAR.31'2000 15:46
CO?91_
STATE OF NOR'Tl4 CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA170N
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C.
27611-5201
GOVERNOR
March 10, 2000
US Array Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North. Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer.
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir-

Subject: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 133 over Dan River on SR 1.668,
Federal Project No. BRZ-1668(1), State Project No. 8.26405U1,T.I.P. No. 3-2639.
Please find enclosed three copies of the projcct planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 133 will be replaced at its existing location with a new bridge approximately
100 meters (330 feet) in length and 7.2 meters (24 feet) in width. During construction traffic
will be maintained using an offshe detour on existing secondary roads. No jurisdictional
wetlands will be affected by the construction of the proposed project.
The construction of the bridge will require the use of a causeway to provide access to the
site by the construction equipment wluch will result. in temporary fill. in surface waters of 0.113
hectares (0.28 acres). Construction of the proposed temporary rock causeway is depicted in the
attached drawings (Sheets 1 to 4). We have also enclosed a project site map and preconstruction
notification, form.
Tcmporary Caus :way Information: Temporary rock causeways will be required for both
the removal of the existing structure and the construction of the proposed structure. No filter
fabric is planned for underl.ayment of the installation of the causeways. The causeways will
facilitate the construction of drilled shafts and the placement of steel girders. The causeways will
#1279 P.002/044
TECEIVED 1. 6 &GO
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY

MAR.31'2000 15:46
#1279 P.003/044
consist of plain Class II rip rap topped with a layer of smaller washed stone. The causeways
encroach on the river from either bank but do not cross the entire river.
1. Restoration Plan: The materials used as temporary rill in the construction of the
causeways will be removed after their purpose has been served. The contractor will
use excavation equipment to remove the rip-rap used in the causeways. The
temporary fill area will be restored to their original contours. According to the
Resident Engineer, Ms. Vickie Davis, short access roads will be required from the top
of the banks at the ends of the existing structure approaches. After construction of the
proposed structure, the area under the access roads will be restored to the original
contours and will be revegetated with appropriate species. Elevations an d contours in
the vicinity of the proposed causeways are available from field survey notes.
2. Schedule: The project schedule calls for a September 19, 2000 letting date, with an
availability date of. October 30, 2000. It is expected that the contractor will begin
construction of the causeway about that time. The causeways will remain in place for
approximately one and a half years, during construction of the proposed structure.
3. Disp Sal: The material used a "temporary fill in surface waters" (TS) in the
construction of the causeways will be removed after its purpose has been served. The
contractor may choose to use the rip rap as slope protection. If he does, then there
would be no disposal. If he does not, then disposal would be off-site The contractor
will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all
materials off-site.
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeways will be authorized under. Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatcring). We are, therefore,
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the causeway. All
other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Pcrmits 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part V11, Volume 61, Number 241.
Bridge Demolition: The existing; bridge was built in 1905 and is a truss bridge with a
timber deck on timber cap and pile abutments and piers. In compliance with the NCDOT Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, the removal of this bridge will not
result in placing fill in Waters of the United States. There is no potential. for components of the
deck to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during construction.
We anticipate 401 General Certifications will apply to this project. We arc providing one
copy of the CE document and the Nationwide 33 permit application information to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as a
courtesy for their review

FAA.31'2000 15:47
1162.
#1279 P.004/044
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Alice Gordon at 733-
Sincerely,
i C' 47?
-' William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of. Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E.. Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, A.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division. 9 Engineer
Mr. Eric Mi.dkiff, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer Unit Head
..r...nor...........w.?.?.r.?0i?ir.?.?,.?..n .. ?.i,n....?..,??.v..w?r+. .. .....
MAR.31'2000 15:47
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
#1279 P.005/044
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):33 & 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIOW-TIDE PERMIT$ THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1, OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept of Transportation; Planning & Environmental
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF OIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ASOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICA5LE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore P.E., Branch Mana cr
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Stokes NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Danbury
1
MAR.31'2000 15:47
#1279 P.006/044
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 133 over Dan River on SR 1668
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STRZAM/RIVER: Dan River
RIVER BASIN: Roanokc
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY
SUPPLYY(WSI OR TWS5II)? YES[I NO OUTSTANDING tx1 RESOURCE
EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL.
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ 1 NON
7C. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
Sa. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ) NO [x1
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ 1 NO [x) IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK: _
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ,ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0
2
BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D• NUMBER OF
INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
16 .

MAR.31'2000 15:47 #1279 P.007/044
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Cauaeway See attached cover letter and drawin
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : Sce Attached cover letter and Tans
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge replacement
3
?.....?.i.J? ... r _..,. .?........ _. .wi.?, . I:
P. 01 ?c
TRANSACTION REPORT
MAR-31-2000 FRI 03:43 PM
RECEIVE ?c
DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
MAR-31 03 : 40 PM G3 2'13" 8 RECEIVE COM, E-10
MAR.31'2000 16:21
#1279 P.007/044
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO 13E IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STR=%1 CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNLL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Causeway See attached cover letter and drawin
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See Attached cover letter and Tans
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge re Placement
3

MAR.31'2000 16:21
#1279 P.008/044
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
-1- "Irk
nn nn
?nL n??y.? ?j„?TT T,R tty nr TL"F???? Ttl?r n??nll C`r ?l nnl,'?^.'P"T
PVT
---------- -.. r.•...? ?r•?.ATT }{n^T (.TTt TdT!I n7- lLT is I•"•}'?Z"? TLTr; pRe Elos -9
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES (x) NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [XI NO H
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES (x] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4

MAR.31'2000 16:22
#1279 P.009/044
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR I INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
L. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. 14AY NOT 33E IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERUIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIROIZIENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE THEN= COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL =IAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
?-- , a 4 4f. D, (3
OWNER'S/AGEN 'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
DATE
l.. ,_ ...,_..... tJ
MAR.3112000 16:22
1
I
1
I
i
r
i
#1279 P.010/044
oR
? v ? fn N ?
Ys
LO w
CIL
N
-r A R. W
? o^ 'V - 1
ro O ?..
TI C,
e. co, 4!I=
o ,.
Z
0
N
p
Z

MAA.31'2000 16:23 #1279 P.011/044
o
cr-
,r- F
v
z Z.
I Q
MD
© O O W i
?•``) 0000 0 0°o a o o c C c?.:t ti 0 v> N
' 71
? I V ?
i ? rr
.l _ ti Q
\4 I cr
%0
Q
I \ N
a ,
a ?
W CC
o = I
? I I I
o
s J
w
L.L
d r Q
Q r C? ?-
I
7' I- r n-
r'?'" w p cn
Ln CL
W
NPR o ?- o N ? t?, vn
° o o_?c moo'' c? O
o WoUJ
F I?' Q`? IFS' 9?- a
t ?
MAR.31'2000 16:23
#1279 P.012/044
z
o_
`? ?+ M ao
114,
P
C.7

L?
z

W x
O w
L
W
H
a
J

0
0
0-
Lo
O r`?
C - N
+ ..N
Lnp r-
.
Q w ,i
Ln 47JW

M
m
z
N
X
W

\ a r C9 "
J
Z ?'
""?' O
o 4x7 ?
? J
x o

it

I r ----- ,?
o
II J
Z
II
II `
I
I I I \
11
o I ? ?
I I ti l o or
II a ? I o w ,
II o ; I w r
1
N CO ? i
I I I o x.5;1 - 7
i I f \y
II ? i
II I
11 I ---_ 1.5 •I II
II - - /
m
cri
m
ui
N
Y
U
Kt

v
oI f
MI
w
x
00
W uj
J J
a a
v ?
N ~
ccl
a a
d u
U U
N
o °
° o
J
L.L
r a
L.L
a
a a
wW
? r
Q
V1 "
wl
J
c i 47
r G
1 1a
/ CL
O O
/ O O 04
C 171 0
•p -
MAA.3112000 16:23
#1279 P.013/044

n
W V
g?
? U
rn
? u7v?

c

}

Lu
w
= `o 0
Y iv
w LL
l ?
c
vz'0
LL
W
W p?

z

Q ? 'L

(n

M } A
C

Fa
L. d ?
a
9
to ?
N cr
J

SS C V7
ti N
?
r
? c
N
LL

*
W
?
? N
N

n z J
of

2
O a'
m

r+ a? N

Q L' r` .r cr
z z a V? 2
p ?

F
p
?
? 7 7
p ?
vl
Z m ?? A w

h O
F

N
"r

U
?
0. n F
W

z