20030720 Ver 1_Complete File_20030613

1512x51 y ;\
i

\
1458 1497
7?T
L ?( 14 1498 '' ;495
45s 457 '?%
asd- Iw5,mvi ll e
89 ' 499 ?? 1494
\\
? ' ,
',1503 502

O \
,1471
1472
BRIDGE 17
Y I

-
.J
477 p? 1477
496 490 G'•-
~
1665
504 1 \ -- I, -

S 478 -]492 666
10 1483 1486 PovER
151 /
504
7

166,
- 1483 1485 148
T 1484
_ 1001
1480 489

?_ _ - 66 J i 2013
2011 f? f
! 1189 f p01 `r-=2 2054 c !

j
28
175
Moore .
I 201. Y
89
i 89 i 1248 tf ,

D°nb ,
O 7

a
t s o Kin
Pilot mt.
89 , o , 2 3 4 WLES
i
66 8
SCALE
Wi ston alem
i 52 65 °
10o^ \2.vzr
LEGEND
oG?? ak e Q
- Studied Detour
1A--k\e (\JW' Route
5
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 17 ON NC 89
OVER DAN RIVER
?B-3045
FIGURE 1
M.ST/1iFq,
r? awa.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
August 30, 2004
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
SEP 0 12004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Permit Modification for extension of expiration date for the replacement of
Bridge No. 17 over the Dan River on NC 89, Stokes County. Federal Project
No. BRSTP-89(5), State Project No. 8.1640901, T.I.P. No. B-3045: Division 9.
Action ID 199820822 & 200320949.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is currently constructing a
new bridge over the Dan River on NC 89 in Stokes County. The project involves replacing the
current bridge on new alignment just south of the existing. During construction, traffic is being
maintained on the existing structure. The new bridge will be a 4-span design. The 4-span pre-
stressed concrete girder structure requires one bent in the river channel and part of another bent
in the water near the bank. Temporary work bridges are needed to complete construction and
demolition of the 4-span design.
On June 20, 2003 you issued a Section 404 permit, Action ID 199820822 & 200320949.
This permit is set to expire on June 20, 2005. NCDOT hereby requests a time extension for the
authorized activity to December 31, 2005. Because the moratoriums we can not start bridge
demo until August 2005. This extra time will enable NCDOT to finish the construction of the
new bridge and the demolition of the existing bridge within the conditions of the Section 404
permit.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Rachelle Beauregard
ar(919) 715-1383.
Sincerely,
Greg J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. S. P. Ivey, P.E., Division 9 Engineer\
Mr. Wright Archer III, P.E., Division 9 Resident Engineer
Ms. Diane Hampton, P.E., DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Thersea Ellerby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
072
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the replacement of Bridge No. 17
over the Dan River, Stokes County. Federal Project No. BRSTP-89(5),
State Project No. 8.1640901, T.I.P. No. B-3045: Division 9.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace Bridge No. 17 over the Dan River (DWQ Index # 22-1) a Division of
Water Quality Class "C Tr" Waters of the State.
e'`
?y r?
??
??aw+?
May 30, 2003
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The project involves replacing the current bridge on new alignment just south of
the existing bridge (Alternative C in the Categorical Exclusion [CE]8/11/99). During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structure. Since the CE was
approved NCDOT has refined the design and proposes to build a 4-span design of the
new bridge. The 4-span pre-stressed concrete girder structure requires one bent in the
river channel and part of another bent in the water near the bank. Temporary work
bridges will be needed to complete construction and demolition of the 4-span design.
Please find the enclosed project site map, permit drawings, PCN form, cultural resources
concurrence letter, Categorical Exclusion document (CE) and half size roadway plans.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
t
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Bridge No. 17 over the Dan River will be a 4-span bridge. Changes have been
made to the design of the bridge since the CE document. The new bridge will be 370 ft
(CE states 425 ft). The bridge width will remain the same at 28 ft. Approach work on
the west side of the bridge will now be 590 ft (CE states 520 ft). Approach work on the
east side of the bridge will now be 850 ft (CE states 700 ft). The construction of the
bridge will require the use of work bridges in Phases to provide access to the site by the
construction equipment for construction of the new bridge and demolition of the existing
bridge. The resulting temporary surface water fill will be 0.028 acre (ac) [0.008 hectare
(ha)]. The impacts associated with the new piers will be 0.002 ac (0.008 ha).
Construction of the proposed work bridges and new bridge are depicted in the attached
drawings (Sheets 3 to 6).
Only one phase of work bridges will be in the water at one time. Phase I will be
constructed to drill the shafts for the new bridge. These will be removed and Phase II
will be put in to erect the concrete girders. After that is done the work bridges will be
moved to Phase III and IV for the demolition.
Additionally, an unnamed tributary to the Dan River will be impacted by the
construction of the new bridge. This stream is being relocated using natural stream
design. The project will impact 330 ft of stream and NCDOT is relocating 315 ft of
stream (see attached sheets 3, 7, 8). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative
visited this stream on October 24, 2000 and determined that this stream did not display
important aquatic function and no mitigation will be required for the impacts to this
stream. Therefore, we believe this project stills qualifies for a Nationwide Permit even
though the impacts are greater than 300 ft. NCDOT will be relocating this stream using
natural stream design
No jurisdictional wetlands occur on the project site.
Demolition: Bridge No. 17 is 379 ft (115.5 m) long with 8 spans of reinforced
concrete deck girders with 3 bents in the river channel. Bridge No. 17 will be removed
without dropping any components into Waters of the United States. Attached to this
permit application are a set of guidelines NCDOT has agreed to for the construction of
the work bridges and the removal of the existing structure due to the presence of
endangered species. All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in
addition to High Quality Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters. This project is classified as Case 1 in which "In water" work is restricted to an
absolute minimum, due to the presence of Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or
Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E Species). An in-water work moratorium
will be required during the spawning period of smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish and
for the James spineymussel from May 1 to July 31. All work potentially affecting the
resource will be carefully coordinated with the agency having jurisdiction.
RESTORATION PLAN
TEMPORARY IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed work bridges are
depicted in the attached drawings (Sheets 3-6). The work bridges will facilitate the
construction of the new bridge and demolition of the existing bridge. The work bridges
will have piles in the water, but will allow the passage of water and aquatic life. Only
one work bridge will be in the stream at one time. An in-water work moratorium is in
effect from May 1 to June 30.
Restoration Plan: The temporary fill will consist of Class II riprap. No
permanent fill will result from the subject activity. Following construction of the
work bridge the construction of the interior bents and erection of the steel girders
will be completed for the new bridge. After those items are completed all
material used in the construction of the work bridge will be removed. Reference
elevations are available for the area of proposed construction of the work bridges.
In addition, profiles and cross sections of the streambed have been measured with
the data including measurements of the stream thalweg. We will restore the
stream to its pre-project contours.
The temporary impact area associated with the work bridges is expected to
recover naturally, since the natural streambed and plant material will not be
removed. The NCDOT does not propose any additional planting in this area., The
fill will be placed and removed with earth moving equipment.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a July 2003 let date. It is
expected that the contractor will chose to start construction of one of the work
bridges that will facilitate in the construction of the new bridge. When the new
bridge is constructed, that work bridge will be removed and the other work bridge
construction to facilitate the demolition of the existing bridge. Bridge demolition
will only occur during August and September.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a
reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all materials off-site at an
upland location. The contractor will use excavating equipment to remove the
riprap used for the work bridges. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes and various
other pieces of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadways and
bridges will be used on site. All material placed in the river will be removed from
the river at that time. The contractor will have the option of reusing any of the
riprap that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of the work bridge.
After the work bridges are no longer needed, all temporary causeway material will
become the property of the contractor.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The CE contains a letter from the State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO)
(dated November 20, 1998) that the proposed bridge replacement will not affect a known
archaeological site, but recommends that an archaeology survey be conducted in the area
of potential effect to determine if any unrecorded prehistoric archaeological resources
exist. Surveys were conducted in February, March and April of 1999 and one
archaeological site was found on the floodplain of a small unnamed creek on the
southeast side of the bridge. In a memorandum from SHPO (dated June 11, 1999), they
concurred that no additional work is necessary unless that unnamed stream is impacted by
proposed project. In the final design of the proposed bridge this stream will be.impacted
and relocated. Additional work was completed at the archeological site and a report
submitted to SHPO December 3, 2002. In a letter from SHPO dated April 28, 2003, the
report met the SHPO's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. The letter
states certain provisions be made so that the archeological site is not damaged
inadvertently during construction. In compliance with these provisions NCDOT will
provide protective fencing of the area prior to the beginning of construction. In addition,
the NCDOT will have a staff archeologist to monitor installation of the fencing and
instruct the contractor about the importance of avoiding the remaining site area. This
letter is attached to this application.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
January 31, 2003, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three
federally protected species for Stokes County. Table 1 lists the species, their status and
biological conclusion.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Stokes Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological
Status Conclusion
James spineymussel Pleurobema collina E Likely to
Adversely Affect
small-anthered Cardamine micranthera E Not Likely to
bittercress Adversely Affect
Scheweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii E Not Likely to
sunflower Adversel Affect
"r;" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
Biological conclusions of "No Effect' 'were given for small-anthered bittercress
and Schweinitz's sunflower in the CE document (dated August 1999). Habitat for both
species is located in the project area. A survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted
again in August 2001. No specimens were found. A survey for small-anthered bitercress
was conducted in May 1996. No specimens were found. Because habitat for each of
these species exists and no specimens were found, a Biological Conclusion of "Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" is given.
The James spineymussel was discovered in the Dan River by NCDOT biologists
in October 2000. Further investigations along the Dan River concluded that individual
specimens are located within the vicinity of the proposed bridge. NCDOT has written a
Biological Assessment for the James spineymussel and has received a Biological Opinion
issued by the USFWS. This Biological Opinion anticipates that incidental take of James
spinymussel may occur as a result of construction of these projects. During construction,
individuals may be crushed, harmed by siltation or other water quality degradation, or
dislocated because of physical changes in habitat.
Within the "footprint" of the proposed projects, a total of 1,585 square feet (84.5
square feet permanent and 1,500 square feet temporary) of streambed will be impacted by
construction equipment or structures placed in the river (temporary work bridges, bents,
etc.). Downstream impacts (sedimentation), if any, are expected to occur within 30
meters of the construction sites. Because there are no reliable data on the number of
James spinymussels buried in the substrate compared to those on the surface (and even
those on the surface are difficult to detect), it is not possible to base the amount of
incidental take on numbers of individual mussels. Rather, the amount of incidental take
will be exceeded if the project "footprint" exceeds 1,600 square feet or downstream
impacts are occurring more than 30 meters downstream from the "footprint." If
incidental take is exceeded, all work should stop, and the Service should be contacted
immediately.
After reviewing the current status of the James spinymussel; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of bridge construction and demolition; measures
identified in the NCDOT's biological assessment to help minimize the potential impacts
of the proposed projects and assist in the protection, management, and recovery of the
species; previously issued Service nonjeopardy biological opinions that allow various
levels of incidental take; any potential interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with the proposed action; and any potential cumulative effects, it is the Service's
biological opinion that implementing these projects is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the James spinymussel. Critical habitat does not occur in the
action area; therefore, none will be adversely affected or destroyed by implementing this
project. A complete copy of the Biological Opinion will be sent to the U.S Army Corps
of Engineers from the USFWS.
The following conservation measures mentioned in the Biological Opinion will be
implemented by NCDOT:
Conservation measures associated with bridge design
1. Deck drains will be placed at the ends of the replacement bridges so no drainage will
occur over the Dan River channel. Currently, drainage from the decks of both of the
existing structures flows directly into the river. The amount of discharge from the
roadway entering the river will be reduced with the new structures. This commitment has
been incorporated in the Structure Design Plans for each project.
2. Project B-2639 has been designed to completely span the river and project B-3045
will reduce the number of bents in the main channel from two to one. The bent that is
placed in the channel will be oriented in the direction of flow to help reduce the buildup
of debris during high water.
Conservation measures associated with bridge construction
1. The NCDOT will remove James spinymussels from the impact site and relocate them
to suitable locations upstream of the impacted areas according to the procedures in the
approved relocation plan.
2. Erosion control measures for environmentally sensitive areas will be implemented and
include:
• Identify areas adjacent to the Dan River as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas"
on the Erosion Control plans for this project;
• Provide a 50-Foot Buffer Zone (both sides of stream) allowing clearing but
not grubbing until immediately before grading operations;
• Limit grubbing operations to within 10 days of grading;
• Require "Seeding and Mulching" to be performed immediately following
grade establishment;
• Require "Staged Seeding" - 20 foot fill sections or 2 acres, whichever is less;
• Clean erosion and sediment control measures when %2 full;
• Increase sediment storage capacity by 50% above standard BMP guidelines;
• Establish a moratorium on clearing and grubbing - no work between
November 15 and April 1.
3. Work bridges rather than stone causeways will be constructed according to plans. The
work bridges will provide necessary in-stream work areas without significantly impeding
flow.
4. Rock work pads will be used throughout the project areas on uplands and flood plains
to accommodate heavy equipment.
5. In addition to relocating all mussels found in the footprint of the impact area, NCDOT
will conduct final surveys in the project footprint just prior to construction and move any
additional mussels found to appropriate upstream habitat.
Conservation measures associated with bridge demolition
The Contractor will be required to submit for approval a proposed demolition plan. This
plan will be sealed by a Professional Engineer who is registered in NC demolition
techniques that do not allow debris to enter the river. The plan shall incorporate the
following:
• Prior to bridge demolition, remove all asphalt-wearing surface from the concrete
deck. This will be accomplished in a manner that does not allow asphalt to enter the
river. Examples of approved techniques include milling or "scrapping" with a
backhoe bucket. Depending on the technique used, containment headers may be
required. Typically, this consists of vertical boards attached to the bottom of concrete
barrier rail to prevent material from spilling into the river during removal.
Remove all concrete deck, rail, diaphragms, and girders by saw cutting or non-
shattering methods. Due to the severely deteriorated condition of the bridge decks, a
containment system must be installed prior to deck removal. This system may be
supported from the existing girders or substructure or could be independent of the
existing bridge such as floating devices that catch any debris that may fall during deck
removal. The containment system will only be used to catch debris that inadvertently
falls due to the condition of the deck. Cranes on the work bridge will remove sections
of deck, rail, diaphragms, and girders that can be removed in large pieces. Due to the
deteriorated condition of the existing bridges, it is not safe to accomplish this from the
bridge deck (top down removal).
The proposed work bridge fingers will be used as access for bent removal.
Equipment will need to be staged adjacent to the bent to facilitate sawing the bent into
manageable sections above water elevation. Cranes on the main work bridge will lift
sections out. When the bents have been removed to water elevation, the remaining
mass of concrete will be removed to stream bed elevation by underwater sawing or
use of hoe ram to break the bent at the stream bed interface and lifted out as a unit.
During this process, turbidity curtains will be used and disturbance of the steam
bottom limited to an area 3 feet around the perimeter of the bent. The existing footing
below streambed will be left in place to avoid additional streambed disturbance.
• Use of explosives will not be allowed.
s Saw slurry must be contained by approved vacuum methods.
All attempts will be made to keep existing bridge debris from entering the Dan River.
If debris does enter the river, the contractor will be required to submit a proposed
removal method for review and approval prior to conducting this work. The use of a
clam bucket or raking of the streambed will not be allowed. Debris will be lifted out
with a crane where possible and may require manual installation of lifting devices to
avoid further streambed disturbance.
The USFWS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
necessary and appropriate to minimize take of the James River spinymussel. These non-
discretionary measures include, but are not limited to, the terms and conditions outlined
in this Opinion.
1. Construction and demolition activities shall be implemented consistent with measures
developed to protect the James River spinymussel including those designed to maintain,
improve or enhance its habitat.
2. NCDOT will remove James spinymussel from the impact site and relocate them to
suitable locations upstream of the impacted areas according to the procedures in the
approved relocation plan.
3. The NCDOT shall monitor the river channel and banks at sites upstream, at the
construction sites, and downstream to determine changes in habitat resulting from
activities at these sites.
4. NCDOT will protect riparian buffers along the Dan River or major tributaries through
acquisition or perpetual conservation easements.
NCDOT will comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the
reasonable and prudent measures described previously and outline required
reporting/monitoring requirements in order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section
9 of the Act. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary and apply to the Dan
River.
1. A USFWS Biologist will be present at the pre-construction meeting to cover permit
conditions and discuss any questions the contractor has regarding implementation of
these projects.
2. NCDOT will ensure a qualified aquatic biologist will be present at critical times to
monitor certain phases of construction including but not limited to, initial clearing for
construction, at the time temporary work bridges are installed, when drilled shaft work
begins, when demolition begins, when temporary work bridges are removed.
3. No instream construction, i.e. installing work bridges, removing work bridges, etc.
will be allowed from May 15`'' to July 31" without prior approval of the USFWS.
4. All appropriate NCDOT BMP's for bridge maintenance, construction, and demolition
will be followed for this project.
5. Construction will be accomplished so wet concrete does not contact water entering or
flowing in the river.
6. Upon completion of the projects, the existing approach fill will be removed to natural
grade and the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
7. Activities in the flood plain will be limited to those absolutely needed to construct the
proposed bridge and remove the existing bridge. Areas used for borrow or construction
by-products will not be located in wetlands or the 100 year floodplain.
8. All construction equipment should be refueled outside the 100 year floodplain or at
least 200 feet from all waterbodies (whichever is greater) and be protected with secondary
containment. Storage of hazardous materials, fuel, lubricating oils, or other chemicals
also will be stored will be stored outside the 100 year floodplain or at least 200 feet from
all waterbodies (whichever is greater), preferably at an upland site.
9. Riparian vegetation will be to the maximum extent possible, especially large trees.
10. If riparian areas are disturbed, they will be revegetated with native species as soon as
possible.
11. Bridge demolition will occur during low flow.
12. USFWS Biologist will review and approve the plans for the restoration of the
unnamed tributary at B-3045.
13. NCDOT will implement the "Relocation Plan For the James River spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina) Bridge Replacement Projects on the Dan River (B-2639 and B-
3045)". The plan details appropriate collection methods, tagging and recapture, handling
and transportation of individuals, and monitoring protocols.
14. NCDOT has initiated a watershed search for potential riparian properties within the
Dan River Subbasin above Danbury. The goal is to secure 200-foot buffers through
conservation easements with landowners. The search area includes the mainstem of the
Dan River and its tributaries from the NCNA line in Stokes County, downstream to
Danbury. The reach between the two bridge projects will be the primary focus of the
search.
15. A plan for monitoring physical characteristics of the river will be reviewed and
agreed to by the USFWS and NCDOT prior to the beginning of construction with enough
lead time to record a baseline for the target parameters. The intent of the monitoring is to
characterize any changes to mussel habitat from construction. Additionally, a decision to
move the relocated mussels back to their original location will be based, in part, on the
suitability of the habitat post construction. This monitoring will provide critical
information for making that decision.
In our efforts to comply with condition Number 14 above, NCDOT has done the
following. In March 2002 at a meeting with USFWS and NCWRC it was agreed the
NCDOT would provide $100,000 worth of buffer per bridge replacement project along
the Dan River as compensatory mitigation for the incidental take of the federally
endangered James spinymussel. We have a signed option and completed survey for the
Ferrell Property (200 foot wide buffer along 1600' of the Dan River, -9.5 acres). This
site will be replanted with bottomland hardwoods some time after the conservation
easement has been signed and paid for.
We are in negotiation with 3 additional landholders on Beaverdam Creek: 2
individuals and a homeowners association. We intend to place under conservation
easement 6150 linear feet of stream (both banks) with 200' wide buffers on the upper
4750 feet and 50 foot wide buffers on the lower 1400 feet. This will result in
approximately 40 acres under conservation easement (possibly more). With the
acquisiton of the above buffers NCDOT will have purchased at least $123,750 worth of
conservation easements. This will satisfy mitigation needs for B-3045.
SUMMARY
It is anticipated that the construction of the work bridges 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). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We
anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3361 and 3366 will apply to this project.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their records.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Rachelle
Beauregard at 715-1383.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. S.P. Ivey P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Theresa Ellerby, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Diane Hampton, Division 9 Environmental Officer
? ? J 150 Q,?
1503
/JI ? I
)C,-eek
EGIN'
OJ '•
14 7 )
1501
ND CD
FROJ?C
;S 1 4 484 2
N w 1492
1.5
1
1510) 1
d2, 8
-, 8 i
VICINITY MAP
r0
A.- srA 11 +50.W NOW4 SINE PRONCT 1U
t1o9o1
VICINITY MAP]
y
.110
,n-
SR 1504
LYNCHBURG RD.
STOKES COUNTY.
Replace Bridge #17 Dan River
and Approaches on NC 89
LEGEND
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARI
WETLAND
C
i
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
TOP OF BANK
_ WE EDGE OF WATER
C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
?-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P-I- - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 0 - - - WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
4-6
4-6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2-4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
`J `-`-`-- WOODS LINE
}aa DRAINAGE INLET
(?E? ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
-ZONE 1 - BUFFER ZONE I
BOUNDARY
- ZONE 2 - BUFFER ZONE 2
BOUNDARY
INE
6
6
15
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STOKES COUNTY
PROJECT:8.1640901 (B-3045)
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
ON NC 89 OVER DAN RIVER
SH EI HIT °2 OF
1 ''
I ? ° D H-I
9.a o 0o C /l ,R_`
O Oo ° ^ w
18' MT
f
0-4
• °po°o° y ? ??y ? ? ?i
ooc?O o '?A /W?? CSC
000 p Q v/ ?/ F?j W Z
'D°°O W ? ? ? z O A A
O O 0 O ~ ?/
o0°O? W O 3 W
I ° F ® v as cTa
??11 '0pO ?j I` ap
V O
7 I °° 0 w ® Zi W U
O ICJ J
~ ?^' 'DO Op a wt C? ®
ri)
44 00 ° d N'o cs. E- 04 ?° D Y1VW /w/?? , $qqd mowN/
I I X00 Va1W/1 F+i W-.4 1? W z
o' I ? °o ? v z w
o w
Qa v W I oo d ' z r?^i
YW < 00 0 V Q V /
UW. W
CJ °O ?
/ m; / p00
/ 7000 .
i O O
oo°o°? a
/ /SOIL : / I Do°
?Op 0 \
°O
°-
\\1
I o°o .-a
oooo? ?°s w G
j0
\ / c to '0O
O ? W? G
/ \ / O IW X000 / to aap
I / ? I I ?00 J ? O? N10
/ j o°Q
rl
Oki,
O
WayWS o I °o° a3 / LUP1
f$C g VW
y F?
JI? <
b' l a
/ y m% '
LU 4FR NJ
/
02 (, ??
<QLLJ a N3
CL
/ / IC H O
Wm I?
Ld
c 23 M
>- W ?--) F--1 LL
F c W ?. oa w
/ m nmn ama CL LL-? J?
° a W a co
L1J w I--I 3
°° ¢ ~ 3 F- (n ~ LL
Q
a. LLJ
0 77 co u
W
/ a W
/ g a. Lit Q ?o .9 LL
C:!3 uz ?-I- W co
?01 Ec o ° p0 Q
yam, Qa ,?oN ¦
F= LLI V ?QW 00 ?0
e0 O ?
U L
/ m
O m N
a: a,
f-?
z
of ® W

1
0O
H A
a
0: M z z
0 ? z
w \ 0
0
LL
LL
J
b
I
o \ .
-
- w
F

F

®

OV

e. O
- l`•l1 m I U of ® z
u
Q E- F C 0 z
? A C cn a 9 ?I
z

CL
w

O
I m N

®
I
O lo?
{?
? I I Q
(n N O
I
= N

I
® ? I

UJ Z
z l I M<

I
UZ
~O d

®
L ?
i
I QZD
?o
°
I I Qz
N
0 ON
00
Ab
?)
® a v 0-0
:2

W O
J
W O
Q

- W :
cr_W

Z ?
0
L
a

E? >
® 3 ;>zz

E
Z
o vw
x
E- w
° o
U j >
0, 0

?;
--
-I

w
o H o
o
w t?7 z
°
? > Qf) ao ?)
b co Y 00
H
0L U W
Z z
N r LL-
of
X
W
Q W
O

C-
C:) p
c W
m

b
L
LLJ

a
A ? w
b U A

0
O

-?T w O
y
® Li
® Q O
n?
LL N
C
? i
rn

7? I 0 d
10
0 Z

z I 0
0 w
Z O

_ a
(
Y! W
m F-
zC) O F-
F- 0
?
1
® 0?
co V f-Z
O:
0 UZ
Q=)
a

Y i 0 - O

0 F-W
Nm ?N
?0
Q Q
U Q Z
00
O
Ln LL

w >
w
wa
F- J
w - O Q?
O
V? a) w
L
? w
Q F-
Z

o

b o z
t m a c
w
®
o
A V) E' O V -4 W ?
k? o
a o G?
O
z `? oo r?' C
w
i ++
N a W a
?. o
j H H in U
? A cn u
? z
1 i
U o w

? P 0
1 ,
Z o z ?

1
1
M
+
w 1 N
w
U
{ Ix
W
0
w 1 a

? I
V)
o
a z
?
i
1 I

Q I
? o

++

"a J

L)i
1 I N
1
' o~ I W
m
` z
U
m
I
u H
N
I
1 1 y
I Q
00 0 w
BC I N o x
1 ? I z

W + 0
8 C)
N
W I f-
C,
o in N

be x
mu
w
I W
°' 1 I ! o I
L

' I
I I ___--,

I
r
M 0
pi 1
I
I o
+
O
O
„ o
+ I
I I
j - - - - -
- - o
N
_
? ? I I
C?
a
I I Q

h + I I +

I I
I
I I
?
p I - - - - - -
?
0 I
I I
, ? o
o
0
z I -I +
00
N I
X
w
I
/
I I
o
iI
Fes-"""? 0
+

'
0
orn 0
O
00 ti O p O
ti
z
O
a
z F c Qc
Z Q .?
F ® O ?o W
.,
U U O ?I
o d ti U a ? L?.
z m a m 0
a 0. WA H a z (?)
z v yap U O W
} } GLl
O
ao O?j?o!
z
cli
+ M +
ml C J J O v N
00 (L O N cn ^
} Q O N
'F L° N N M L
m
o o o + + o+ O
to
N
O U L3 rC/ d
r +-0
z CL
L3 N M vld
`0 N N O \ N N
O 4-+- a `h• m O
0 NN o L
L
d 00 LL
L L
LL LL
z
Z
U
b
U
z
z
cr
Y
V
J J J `I--sOJ
Lnw
Q ti _ + V ("yam,
0 it
O O o?
r?i } }
O d // NN
O N o 4 \
N °\ Q
L Nj Y (nN<n
0 (D
a+ m ?? N } °E L O+ m
c q-0 o 000,7
Z LL 4-
0 \• O N m+L. U m to 0 U') Q Q
a> m M L Lo
O a m N
° MM
V) p NNN
O E o mm ?t
0 00 ° 3 0 O ?5 } +
o
o a pL N zo cn(n (n
'o ° LLm p
m° 000
o ? m° o° o OV LL w LL
4
z
0 W
° ?° ?g p O ? ? oa ? Z
do a- Y + z Ca
.a
14 o+-
L 'v 0.
° a x
a) v' + w w ao lz O
? L 0`- ® ® U W co
W N o o?.o 0. to W IZ
A Qp X0 O Z F
c o p W ?q W
> ° 4- U Z x
` + LN ' Z ® cn
m ( ? v _v O L
m v+ ° Ln + c
° S oc(0 a)
3 DaC ±a)
0 a)
75
V o °? 00c? aL ??
U1 E X O
+;6 O L O
o LLa)a p i
r/ V) 0 L ?O ' J J J
0to+a 'Za U-) 0 000
a? •? 'p p Y cn oo ? Ul) ao N
E 0, ?O iivvvu
N °° o$ O p 'x c N N N N N
O
0 0o ac LlOL0 Q)L QQ Q Q Q
0-T F- F- F- F- F-
o h O L Q a> + 0.- + (n In (n N N
° o z 0 0 3 z 3
77t °D
?j °°0?
r 0 Oe Q 0?°0
0 ° ?°o °,0 0 0 ? a o
4 O ?
? ? G ? ?O a ??°Q° ?I
o a c° 4 I? nQ C
0 o Q o o p $
0
c
a?i o 2 00, ??
? ? dN 4
0
m ??' m o I s
W Q)
v
\ .- do -n) n
c o°o o B° ° y`
U)
Q
Appendix B Morphological Measurement Table
Variables Existing Proposed USGS Station Reference Reach
Channel Reach
1. Stream type
G5 E4 N/A E4
2. Drainage area
200 Ac 200 Ac 197 Ac
3. Bankfull width
9' 6.6' 6.0'
4. Bankfull mean depth
0.7' 1.0' 1.0'
5. Width/depth ratio
11.3 6.6 6
6. Bankfull cross-sectional area
6.3 ft2 6.9 fe 6.2 fe
7. Bankfull mean velocity
6.0 ft/s 5.5 ft/s 6.1 ft/s
8. Bankfull discharge, cfs
38 cfs 38 cfs 38 cfs
9. Bankfull max depth
0.8' 1.3' 1.4'
10. Width of floodprone area
10' 15.2' 13'
11. Entrenchment ratio
1.1 2.3 2.2
12. Meander length
90' 90' 90'
13. Ratio of meander length to bankfull
width 10.0 13.6 15.0
14. Radius of curvature
20' 30' 30'
15. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
width 2.2 4.6 5.0
16. Belt width
35' 35' 30'
17. Meander width ratio
3.9 5.3 5.0
18. Sinuosity (stream length/valley length)
1.12 1.16 1.10
19. Valley slope
2.00% 2.00% 2.90%
20. Average slope
1.50% 1.75% 1.50%
21. Pool slope
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
22. Ratio of pool slope to average slope
0.00 0.00 0.00
23. Maximum pool depth
1.8' 1.8' 2.1'
24. Ratio of pool depth to average
bankfull depth 2.6 1.8 1.5
25. Pool width
9.0' 6.6' 7.0'
26. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width
1.00 1.00 1.17
27. Pool to pool spacing
60' 60' 50'
28. Ratio of pool to pool spacing to
bankfull width 6.7 9.1 8.3
d-l eef 7d4? //

O
co t2
¢ C
3
co
zc V) to

a ¢ O
M

y 0
C? 0
V
wU E

-It
u
O
O H r
Q a?c o o wo
o
0
w
Ir W A a w
c U
O Q
O ca
_ °.. O
U
LL
z

(1)
C W co O
co N

O N

p
Z O O G

Q N U7
C
L N C f00 O

N
H
U
a
Cl) c v,
°
U

F
Q
d 0 0 cC
0 o
x
w c

a ZQ = a
5 LL C
O
Z W C
E N c O
g ? >
cc

vJ O
U
cam

LL ? o
N
N
N
N
f
n
a)
i
C 0..

i,- y
O C
O N
' O IT
In
N
. O N
p 6S
O 6
m (A
0-.
O-
in
7 C O
a) (D y O
:3
N
O 0
LL a: 0
O
n.
vein, °' cd o ?M
E
? v a
_
Eto
m in M ao.o^

?r r n
?
? rn
co a
c
O ? J O J O J Q, '? J °o
A
O
w E J
O O
O co
L
+ O O
N
+ O m CF)
'p cf
O
O
LL CD
n O+
N
CV Ch
L +
N 0
ca co
m -
CV p O cIf
O
H OO
# a L LL

CD Z
N
M J

PROPERTY' OWNERS
SITE NAME ADDRESS
I LEST ER P. MARTIN 456 OCEAN DRIVE
UNIT 816
MIAMI BEACH, FL.
I OAKLEY A. MABE 3915 HWY. NC 89 WEST
W]ES'Il°FIELID,N.C: 25053
I CA1[$OLYN W. MICKEY 3150 HWY. NC89 WEST
I9ANBUAY,N.C. 27016
I HOOVER WHIT 1065 OLD IF1TLP RD.
DANI URY,N.C.27®16
0
m N
d ? }
r ..i J
N J Q
Z
o Q
0) cl
w iV O
E N Z
? Q
L
J Z
W
jE LO
c N LU
Q N ?
to
0 N
OD CC
-F v
ca
O
ca
a
a)
m
CO) N
Q) N
O O
U U
> >
m ca
C'3 C'3
co CD
O O
T O
0
U') LO
O T T
cn O O
3 o O
0
LL
Q I M ?
3 T T
0
LL
a)
O U
N O
O
Q m
CL
c
0
7
N
c
•c
c
CO
c
O
U
N
N
N
rn
c
E
0
v
N
C
E
a)
a?
N
N
O
O
Z
0
O
s
0
O
O
0
a
O
C7
c
ca
v
c
fa
3
m
is
a)
0
N
i
O
U
:)
ca
c?
O
U
LO U?
o
N 2-11
N 'v
o
N d
>
d ?
s ?
? ea
_N
V
V
U a
r
11
O
In
ca

N m
_
E to
°
O?? sF °? O
O O T N
N
U) 0)
L6 O LO N
V
0°00 T?con
O
O
ca
0) =
U ?

N N U

T N
0)
=
w
U N a)
T
N
N
w -0
c° ?a cm
N N
U ca
E
L N a 3 N
L Q fn
(D
c
cn > (D Z
0 0 U)
cn a)
Orn
E-
N
•? O
a) co
CO m

t °
c a)
ca w D
ca c E R) c
CL _O O> c
O (n
' Q U U

32 N c +•N
ac) Y j N
o N 0
7
a c`a
a c
A E E ?
T 8

s o co __
^
,,
d
v
c
i
m
w
d
o?
a W
co co
0
cfl ao
C50
L 11
N N
O O O
a r, O

?
i a a
N
?p w N
co
i O
in 2 v, aL
v,
`?6 x E
v

N
O N O to O N w cq °
!A O CO CC T h r CO
. O

i
O O
O r ?° N O
w N (fl r? O T
d O O

cli
r N 0
f0 O O O O
00 L
O CO tC [? r (O r r f0
O

O rD T V* O co
O N CG r o O Z-1
` °
a o
?
L

' 3y p

LL O O O
am aof
O rn- 'in N
a
O :s t co
0. -¢
LL O O H;
d 0
m _
(n C O (n VO N m> U N O
U N c N C N Q
> y N CC$
O r`C V
L
rA O
> co
> O>
m
?3: x R
ya
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit F-] Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
R Section 10 Permit F1 Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: F-I
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT/Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 17 over the Dan River
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3045
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Stokes Nearest Town: Danbury
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): See map in permit drawings
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 34.409°N, 80.206°W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): The Dan River
8. River Basin: Roanoke
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.iic.us/admiii/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:_ It is mostly open area with wooded areas near the River
with a couple of residences near the project site
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 17 will be replaced on new location just south of the existing bridge
Traffice will be maintained on the current bridge during construction Two temporary
work bridges will be used to provide access to construction equipment for construction
of the new bridge and demolition of the existing bridge Heavy duty excavation
equipment will be used such as trucks, dozers, cranes and other various equipment
necessary for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
Page 7 of 13
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of.the proposed impacts: The only jurisdictional impacts
will occur by temporary stream impacts due to 2 work bridges
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland

Impact
Site Number
(indicate on
map)

Type of
Impact*

Area of
Impact
(acres)
Located within
100-year
Floodplain**

(yes/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream

(linear feet)

ype of Wetland***
0

* L' h
ist eac impact separately and jdentify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online.at http://\?\w,??.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: none
Total area of wetland impact proposed: none
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
Type of
Area
of Average Width Perennial or
Intermittent?
(indicate on Impact* Impact
r Stream Name** of Stream (please
map) (a
es) Before Impact specify)

Site 1 temporary
work bridges 0.01 ac
Dan River n/a perennial
Site 2 stream
relocation 330 ft UT to Dan River n/a perennial

Page 8 of 113
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditch ing/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.Qov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water
Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact Area of

Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary,
sound, bay, ocean, etc.)
No impacts

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): R uplands F-1 stream F_j wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Page 9 of 13
NCDOT minimized impacts by nutting in workbridges instead of causeways The
stream relocation will be done using natural stream design The entire workbridge
footprint shall be returned to the original contours and elevations after the purpose of the
workbridges have been served
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No off-site stream mitigation is required for this project
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
Page 10 of 13
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No F
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 11 of 0
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
feet
square )
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
----- - ---- .,... }..,.N....u,'u,a, -m ,ca, va„n v, channel; cone /_ exienas an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes F? No
Page 12 of 13
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes [:] No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
iv- Iwv?iu.crzi/????
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 0
?o
xa
ms
8m
m K

Cl) VA
A
s
m "
a V
u w
O
N +
0
y N
u ;A
N m
y
00 W
? .a
N ?
it
a
m
Ll
tA CO
VACP acme /
a M z // p0
yz O +- /
Nim
a -D a N / /OO% P
O N 1 N /
r'-A a r o 0
tS m \ 00
m ,
io11
ti

!y _
?
,
o aTyv? ?
O 1
90 ;;
+
m o
0 00
=0
vs
N /
OZ I-
a
1-4
'DO
"
° V /

H m
H
/
°
O
aT?'?G. .?? • m 7

I:2Ln
?-O
" O C / v
'OWN ? ?
C?
"C /
Ot
HA ?
iA
m
s
??
11

mVl.
zs? /

(?
Ap
z0 yL

Or O{A?
r' yD9 /
m I+ W
N
N
Op /
ZO / IN

10H
W. v
O Will
=
rr -
•
r c
-4 o

m 0
'

J c /
m ,
N

r
m /
z
o ?i
"

r
i
r z m
Z z
? N
A
r p
?
D
A
H
" m

VT/
V
D
z
'O
V
O
r
N
O
a D
.p
m p
z
p 1
O
m r
1
o
ZD ?

-?
•0,

A

r / u+
IAN

H _
v 00
/ zo /
?
m
D
s

It IA
it

w orL
r I
/• /r
m 20.
?

a
o N
Q
z ?
N
Q

u +

:" /
? SIN DF
H"•
v rs?

CID

0

o IA

n

, r•
m
o
I
r
D +

?-

n
-h
{rr
p A
> m0
60
Z

m r
01
?
h m
z f
"
O-
oU
O

€

ccl Vf

m D

0
m
" ?

-n
G7 m
v -
- H
rn
0
N
m°o
zr*1- Z n
N Z
N -1

(A CD ITI
M m
Z
: Q 2
7C O
M M-+H D S -
i ?-• m
r=''
° r q ILD
u
c
)
ovm C
p
z +
N

t

7
Dzo
z ?
D z U
Q
W

° Z ;u
4="z
c-)

~
A
Irn
W

Q

?
(A<
;o OD >
H ° ( p
C
o
Z C)
rn r

, Z

-a

"
1A /
m
v
?Zco
00

4z +
N
-? A
DO
N
Z
Nix. ?
f 'a t0"
"
0 NS r'L VI
inD ' O
N
n on V
Ix m

n r
tVAr
0 D
CD

H
0 N
m ;
N y
0
D
A
fi -M 'It 'It N
-«
N

m
o

"o
0 0 00
O O O O
M
pCDM

N ?
N N N C
in

N
H y
0 3.
0 r)
m "
s 1A
m
s v
• w
W N
O O
a .1
co
' o
W
0
fi
N
u
O
A
0
0
"
r
x
m
T
s
A
O
r
r
m
A
m
s
z
Cl
r
m
VA
-F-
A VA -1
Mar
v• r
m .-
tiT
v+s
av 1 'Aim o'm
ca 1 r. ?nlOi ?oa
r'' 1 m N+" rr
H K JC y 00 cc co
m H / µ ON Z N m
m 11 -/ N z
1 r ^I r°
1 in m
in
F-
r-
m m
-4
fn -a a+
a '°
m 1+
Z
I m
X
co :0
m 1
zi 1 M.
r m in
r N
.D
U u D
y x Z
I+ 'tip D
i xq D
r 1 ?H
.? 1
,n
W
I+ t T
I H
X
1 om
z i
--I
r+ , X
v
m
a
O
1\1'+
1 ro
1 -1 LA y
1 w P, r D
µ Z
Ns
1 • m Q1
1 z
1 (A
M
m

1
i
-

tp '
H m 1
z
--I
r
N 1 H

z r, 1 yrm O
1 ors
f 1. 1 b >
0 ?
M (A
O
-. 1 c D
x Z
1 m
D
?^ 1 m C3
1
w 1 III
iv
1 1 rT-1

1 m
°
(p ? 1
m
z
--q

(1J ? M
1 m
I v

m

Ci 1 a V1
µ 1
I+ -.1
O

V " F Z
r
I
H
~ a
SA
H r
e
A

m n"
Z OM
0
co
m
z

V
# 1

® in

r" mNm
"m
r
1

;U-4,
nsr

.
r v r
mVAC
X"z 01 1
OODDNZ
N W- m?-?f
+

DCr
t+ I O_'1
- D
m
>A
D a
.;.
1 "Z
ZO
'I t
/A
"CIA A+ Paz "O !7
t0"
z m m r r rr p

O
m m
co Co
r
a
-4
0
J
co 0 •
.
N
1+

0
v W
H O
r v,
rD a
n
j
omp m
b N + 0
-
o w D

O D

CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
RECEIVED
MAY 2 2003
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Division of Historical Resources
David J.'Olson, Director
April 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ??t1C;"_Y
SUBJECT: Archaeological Data Recovery, Site 31SK212,
State No. 8.1640901, Federal No. BRSTP-89(5), TIP B-3045,
NCDOT Division Nine, Stokes County, ER 98-9262
Thank you for your letter of December 3, 2002, transmitting the archaeological excavation report by
Dr. Stuart J. Fiedel of The Louis Berger Group, Inc. for the above-mentioned project We apologize
for the delay in our response.
Overall, the report is excellent and will be a valuable contribution to the study of the Dan River
phase of the Late Woodland period. The results of the excavations and the radiocarbon dates
obtained provide the impetus for a re-examination of Dan River settlement patterns and typologies.
Since the major portion of the site is located outside of the revised area of potential effect (APE) for
the bridge replacement project, specific provisions should be made to ensure that the site is not
damaged inadvertently during the construction project. Protective fencing of the area should be
done prior to the beginning of construction. It may be advisable for an NCDOT staff archaeologist
to monitor installation of the fencing and instruct the contractor about the importance of avoiding
the remaining site area.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. Specific concerns
and /or corrections, which need to be addressed in the preparation of a final report, are attached for
the author's use.
www.hvo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 5 15 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 [phone] -715-4801
!A. 47
%U?S a ?Ql?i
April 28, 2003
Page 2
Tl e comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment,. please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking
number.
cc: /Gerold_Glover, NCDOT .
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Specific Comments, Data Recovery Excavations
31SK212, Stokes County, ER98-9262
1. An updated archaeological site. form for 31SK212 should be submitted to our office as soon
as possible.
2. Figure 6: Two test units are labeled 8; the unit forth of 14 should be labeled 15.
3. Why doesn't Table 5 include "Carolina slate" as a category of lithic material since it is
discussed in the text?
r
c -

NC 89
Stokes County
Bridge No. 17 over the Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-89(5)
State Project No. 8.1640901
T.I.P. No. B-3045
030720,
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
0/ 1 r?
DA William D. Gilmore, P.E., Ma ager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
'
a hl
DATE
Nicholat L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
a
NC 89
Stokes County
Bridge No. 17 over the Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-89(5)
State Project No. 8.1640901
T.I.P. No. B-3045
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 1999
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
Ames Wang, Ph.D., P.E.
rincipal - in - Charge
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G =tt es, P.E., Unit Head
ConEngineering Unit
Stacy B. Harris, P.E.
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
SEAL.
7521

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 89
Stokes County
Bridge No. 17 Over:the Dan River
Federal-Ald Project No. BRSTP-89(5)
State Project No. 8.1640901
T.I.P. No. B-3045
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Bridge Demolition will be addressed at the time of the permit application.
Division
No construction activities that increase sedimentation will occur from May 1 to June 30. If
concrete will be used during construction, work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact stream water.
Geotechnical Unit
A Preliminary Site Assessment shall be conducted on the parcel containing the Underground
Storage Tanks prior to right-of-way acquisition if' applicable.
Roadway Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
The NCDOT will forward final plans to the State Historic Preservation Officer prior to right of way
acquisition. ,
Categorical Exclusion
August 10, 1999
1
NC 89
Stokes County
Bridge No. 17 Over the Dan River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-89(5)
State Project No. 8.1640901
T.I.P. No. B-3045
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 17 is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 43.9 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
The replacement of an inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 89 is classified as a rural major collector. Land use in the project area is
predominantly residential, agricultural and woodlands. Private residences are located in
the northeast and southwest quadrants of the study area. Agricultural fields are adjacent
to the bridge on all sides except the southeast quadrant. The southeastem area
adjacent to the bridge is undeveloped.
Bridge No. 17 was constructed in 1946 (Figure 3). The existing bridge has an overall
length of 379 feet and a deck width of 28 feet. The clear roadway width is 26 feet. The
superstructure consists of eight spans of reinforced concrete deck girders spaced at
approximately 47.3 feet with an asphalt-wearing surface. The substructure consists of
reinforced concrete spill through abutments. The interior bents are reinforced concrete
post and web. The posted weight limit is 27 tons for single vehicles and 30 tons for truck-
tractors; semi-trailers.
The existing bridge and east approach is on a horizontal tangent. The west approach is
on a 12 degree curve. NC 89 has 20 foot paved travel way with 8 foot shoulders. The
structure provides approximately 25 feet of clearance to the streambed. The existing
design speed is rated for approximately 40 miles per hour (mph). The posted speed limit
is 55 (mph).
The projected traffic volumes are 900 vehicles per day (vpd) for the construction year
2001 and 1400 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include one percent truck-
tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and five percent dual-tired vehicles (DT).
There are two underground storage tanks located on the east approach approximately
27 feet north from the existing edge of pavement. There is a private river access area in
the northeast quadrant of NC 89 and the Dan River. Stokes County Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) classifies NC 89 an emergency medical route. Power lines cross the
2
stream parallel to the roadway on the north side of the structure. A telephone pedestal
is located in the northwest quadrant of the bridge. There are no utilities attached to the
bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from
September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1996.
Eight Stokes County school busses cross Bridge No. 17 twice daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Proiect Description
The proposed structure will provide a 22 foot travelway with 3 foot shoulders across the
structure for a clear roadway width of 28 feet (Figure 4). The proposed approach
roadway will consist of a 22 foot travelway with 6 foot shoulders.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 425 feet placed at a 45 degree skew. The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure. The replacement
structure will maintain a minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. The
length and opening size of the proposed bridge may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined from a more detailed analysis
during the final design phase of the project.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Two (2) "reasonable and feasible" alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge
are described below.
Alternate A involves replacing the bridge on existing alignment with an on-site detour
immediately south of the existing bridge (Figure 2). The approach roadway will extend
approximately 420 feet east and 510 feet west of the bridge. The design speed will be 40
mph. Traffic will be maintained on the temporary on-site detour during construction. A
design exception for a design speed of 40 mph will be required.
Alternate C.(Preferred) involves replacing the bridge on new alignment just south of the
existing bridge (Figure 2). The approach alignment extends approximately 700 feet east
and 520 feet west of the existing bridge. The design speed will be 40 mph. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structure. The west approach is
anticipated to be on an 11.25 degree curve and the east approach on a 5 degree curve.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternate B involves replacing the bridge on the existing alignment while maintaining
traffic on an offsite detour route during construction. A design exception for a design
speed of 40 mph will be required
This alternate was eliminated because NC 89 is an EMS route and the off-site detour will
affect the response time. Also, the detour route is seven (7) miles along narrow winding
roadways with three posted bridges. The minimum bridge posting, 19 and 22 tons, is on
SR 1001 prior to its intersection with SR 1484. The County Manager requested that an
off-site detour not be considered because the route is highly traveled and the citizens
using this route will be seriously inconvenienced.
Alternate D involves replacing the bridge on a 4.25-degree curve south of the existing
bridge with a design speed of 60 mph. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. No design exception will be required for vertical or horizontal.
approaches to the bridge. However, the bridge will require a super-elevation of 0.06 and
extensive approach work will be required on NC 89 and SR 1504 west of the bridge. In
addition, an alignment further downstream will result in increased farmland and natural
habitat impacts. This alternate was eliminated due to increased impacts and excessive
cost.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 89.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternate
Alternate C, replacing the existing bridge on new alignment south of the existing bridge,
is the preferred alternate. Alternate C was selected because it is more economical than
Alternate A, minimizes project duration and provides the least inconvenience to the
travelling public.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternate C as the preferred alternate
IV. Estimated Cost
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternate A Alternate C
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 74,300 $ 74,300
Structure (proposed) 709,800 709,800
Detour Structure and Approaches 260,900 -----
Roadway Approaches 275,100 407,200
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 395,900 357,700
Engineering and Contingencies 284,000 251,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities: 248,300 134,150

TOTAL - -------------
$2,248,300
$1,934,150
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,934,150 including $134,150 for right-of-
way and $1,800,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the
2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program, is $982,000 including $53,000 for right-of-
way and $929,000 for construction.
4
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area is located in a rural setting approximately 2.25 miles north of
Moores Springs, North Carolina.
A. METHODOLOGY
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Hanging Rock, NC 7.5 minute
series topographic map (1977); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Stokes County,
NC (1995); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory map
(Hanging Rock, NC, 1995); USFWS list of protected and candidate species (May 13, 1999);
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer database of rare species and
unique habitats (Jan. 1998); and NCDOT aerial photography of the study area. Research using
these resources was undertaken prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on May 5, 1998.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques including active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife such as
sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows.
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using the full 100.0 foot
wide right-of-way limits, the width of the replacement structure, and the length of the project
approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without specific replacement
structure design information the worst case was.assumed for the impact calculations.
B. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
Stokes County lies primarily in the Piedmont physiographic region, which includes all parts of
North Carolina west. of the Fall Line and east of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. The Sauratown
Mountain Range extends through the central portion of the county. The topography of the
project vicinity can be characterized as rolling to mountainous, with elevations ranging from
approximately 760 to 980 feet above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project area
ranges from about 760 to 800 feet above msl, with the lowest lying areas occurring in the flood
plain adjacent to the bridge. Current land use in the project vicinity is rural residential,
agricultural, or undeveloped.
The General Soil Map for Stokes County (USDA-SCS, 1995) indicates that the Pacolet-Rion soil
association is found in the northern portion of the project area and the Rion-Pacolet-Wateree
soil association is located in the southern portion of the project area. Both associations are
described as having a loamy surface layer and a clayey to loamy subsoil. Formation occurred
in material weathered from felsic metamorphic and igneous rock and these associations are
typically found in gently sloping to steep areas. Field conditions generally conform to the soil
survey mapping in the project area.
The Rion-Pacolet Wateree map unit covers the majority of the project area. It occurs
throughout the area of the bridge and approaches. These three soils generally occur in the
same mapped area, with Rion making up the largest percentage. Rion and Pacolet soils are
very deep, well drained, and moderately permeable, with a low shrink-swell potential. There is a
very severe hazard of erosion in unprotected places. Permeability is moderately rapid in the
Wateree soil and the shrink-swell potential is low. Surface runoff is rapid and severe erosion
5
will occur in unprotected places in this soil as well. Included in this mapping unit are small areas
of Masada, Poindexter, Wilkes, Chewacla, Riverview, and Toccoa soils. Only the Chewacla is
listed as hydric (USDA-SCS, 1991). Site productivity as measured by Site Index (Sl50) ranges
from 70 to 80 for loblolly pine and from 80 to 90 for yellow poplar (USDA-SCS, 1995).
Soil cores taken in the flood plain adjacent to the bridge conformed to the soil survey description
of Riverview and Toccoa soils, 0 to 4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded. Permeability is
moderate in the Riverview soil, surface runoff is slow, and shrink-swell potential is low.
Permeability is moderately rapid in the Toccoa soils, surface runoff is slow, and the seasonal
high water table is 2.5 to 5.0 feet below the surface.
A small area of Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded, occurs on the south
side of the western approach to the bridge, west of the flood plain. The survey describes this
soil as very deep and well drained, with moderate permeability (USDA-SCS, 1995). Typically,
erosion has removed about 25 to 75 percent of the original surface layer of this soil type.
A very small area near the northeast comer of the bridge is mapped as Riverview and Toccoa
soils, 0 to 4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded. These soils are described above as an
inclusion of the Rion-Pacolet Wateree mapping unit.
C. WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The proposed project falls within the Roanoke River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
ROA1 (03-02-01) and a federal hydrologic unit designation of Roanoke-03010103.
Water Resources Characteristics
The Dan River is a major riverine drainage within the Roanoke River Basin. The Dan River
flows south, southeast through the proposed project area with a width of about 100 to 150 feet
at Bridge No. 17. The depth of the river was approximately 2 to 4 feet on the day of the
investigation. The Dan River has a Class C, Tr rating from the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). A Class C designation indicates the river's
suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. The supplemental classification, Tr, following the Class C designation indicates the
river is suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. The
Classification Date and Index for this portion of the river is 9/1/57, 22-(1).
In the southeast quadrant of the project study area, a perennial stream is located just outside of
the project right-of-way. The stream is indicated on the USGS quadrangle map, paralleling NC
89 and flowing southeast until it discharges into the Dan River. The stream turns to the
southeast as it nears the Dan River moving it further from the project study area. Depending on
the alternative chosen the stream may not become an issue, but strict adherence to NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented as applicable.
A search within the project vicinity, 0.5 miles was conducted for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitted dischargers. One permitted discharger, Russell Dunbar
SFR, permit number NCG550588 is located 0.4 miles south of the project study area.
6
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project study area, storm water runoff from NC 89 may cause
water quality degradation. In the northeastern, northwestern and southwestern quadrants of the
project study area, agricultural fields lie adjacent to the Dan River and Bridge No. 17 and have
the potential to contribute to water quality degradation through sedimentation by surface runoff.
A single residence lies within the northwest quadrant of the project study area and could
contribute to water quality degradation through surface runoff. No commercial areas occur
within the project study area that could generate surface runoff.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses benthos data
as a tool to monitor water quality, as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes
in water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this method out
approximately six years ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment sampling protocol.
Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling
stations has been increased within each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical
and physical data. The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), as
another method to determine general water quality in the basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a
modification of the Index of Biotic Integrity initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et. al.
(1986). The IBI method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by
examining the structure and health of its fish community. The Index incorporates information
about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish
condition. The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal
communities (water quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow regime, and biotic interactions).
The Department of Water Quality does not have a sampling station on NC 89 at Bridge No. 17
but does have two sampling stations in the area. The first sampling station is located north of
the project study area where NC 704 crosses the Dan River. This station was last sampled in
August of 1994, with a DWQ sampling identification number of 6686 which includes a fish
community (IBI) sample. The NCIBI rating for this portion of the Dan River was rated to be
Good. The second sampling station is located at SR 1695 south of the project study area on
the Dan River. This station was last sampled in August of 1994, with a DWQ sampling
identification number of 6688 which includes a fish community (IBI) sample. The NCIBI rating
of the Dan River at this location was also determined to be Good.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.0 mile of project study area.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short term impacts will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals in the project area. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities
is based on the system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current
information is available. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was determined through field
observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation. The
predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are Man-Dominated and
Piedmont Alluvial Forest.
a. Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes road shoulders and
embankments, agricultural fields, and a steep rock outcrop. Road shoulders range in width from
approximately 3 to 10 feet and consist of exposed soil, plantain (Plantago sp.), white clover
(Trifolium repens), and planted grasses. Embankments are located on all sides of the bridge
and approach, descending approximately 10 to 30 feet. Vegetation on the embankments
includes wild rose (Rosa sp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). A small ditch along the road shoulder in the northeast section of the
project area drains under the road to the southeast side via a culvert. The agricultural fields,
which lie in the flood plain adjacent to the bridge on all sides but the southeast, were not planted
on the day of the site inspection.
b. Piedmont Alluvial Forest
This community occurs in the southeast quadrant of the project area, and probably occurred on
both sides of the river before the area was cleared for agriculture. A thin buffer strip of
vegetation that will not be classified into a separate community lines the river on all sides, and
may be indicative of a very small levy that once adjoined this community. Box elder (Acer
negundo) dominates this area, with river birch (Betula nigra) and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) scattered throughout. Dominant vegetation in the Piedmont Alluvial Forest
community includes box elder, yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore, black walnut
(Juglans nigra), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), grape (Vitis sp.), and poison ivy.
Wildlife
Wildlife identified in this Man-Dominated community during the field inspection included cedar
waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), starling (Stumus vulgaris),
and Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis). Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
and Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) could find nesting habitat in this community and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) could forage in the agricultural fields near the bridge.
Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) may be found burrowing in this community and the brown
snake (Storeria dekayi) could live here, searching for earthworms and slugs.
The vertical stratification exhibited in the Piedmont. Alluvial Forest community could provide
potential habitat for a variety of wildlife that requires different niches. Although only a cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis) was seen here on the day of the inspection, species such as the downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), and red-eyed
vireo (Vireo olivaceus) might utilize the Piedmont Alluvial Forest habitat for nesting and insect
foraging. The Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) may be found searching the litter layer for
seeds, nuts, and various insects, white-tailed deer could browse here on leaves and twigs, and
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirosbis) could find suitable nesting habitat under rotting logs.
American toad (Bufo amwicanus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifet), green frog (Rana clamitans),
queen snake (Regina septemvittata), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina) are among the various reptiles and amphibians that could also utilize
this community to forage or reside.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the Dan River. Within the project
study area of Bridge No. 17, the Dan River channel flows south to southeast and is
approximately 100 to 150 feet wide. The Dan River and NC 89 cross at this location diagonally
to each other. On the day of the field investigation the river had a deep, tannin tea color,
moderate sediment load, and moderate flow. The depth of the river along the river banks
ranged from 2 to 4 feet. The riverbank substrate consisted of fine silts and sands.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the following
freshwater fish species are found within the Dan River. redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
chain pickerel (Esox niger), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus),
and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). NCWRC stated that two North Carolina State
species of concern are found here, the riverweed darter (Etheostoma podostemone) and the
bigeye jumprock (Moxostoma ariommum). NCWRC noted that in this area loss of habitat due to
sedimentation is a major concern for these two species. NCWRC also stated these are not trout
waters nor is there any critical habitat for trout in the area. NCWRC recommended no instream
work from May 1 to July 31, as these are critical spawning periods for most sunfish and bass
(Centrarchidae spp.)
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts (Table 1). However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to note that 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 that NCDOT
BMPs are implemented.
9
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 17 Man- Piedmont Combined
Replacement Dominated Alluvial Aquatic Total
Impacts Community Forest Community (acre)
acre acre acre
Alternate A 0.75 0.0 0.20 0.95
Temporary
Detour 0.67 0.06 0.20 0.93
Alternate C 1.25 0.27 0.20 1.72
a. Terrestrial Communities
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Man-Dominated communities serve as nesting,
foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. The loss of these habitats will result in the displacement
and mortality of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities may occur to terrestrial
animals from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Dan River channel. The replacement
of Bridge No. 17 over the Dan River will result in up to 60 feet linear or 0.20 acres of impacts to
the crossing whether the crossing is replaced in its current location or at the alternative site just
south of the existing bridge. This represents worst case conditions; actual disturbance will likely
be less.
In addition, impacts to the adjacent Man-Dominated and forested communities can have a direct
impact on aquatic communities. Construction of the bridge and approach work as well as the
removal of trees will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperature and a
decrease in dissolved oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can also increase the
possibility of toxins, such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways and
impacting aquatic organisms. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable, and the use of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the state
approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
"Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
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). "Waters of the United States" are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
10
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 USACOE Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetland areas were found within the
project study area, therefore, consultation with the USACOE for wetlands will not be necessary.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Up to 60 feet or
0.20 acres of jurisdictional surface waters impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 17.
2. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USACOE 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of,the United States". Since no substantial impacts are expected from this project, a
Categorical Exclusion level study is applicable. Categorical Exclusions are subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole
or in part, by another federal agency. It states that the activity is "categorically excluded" from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the environment. A Section 404 permit is
not anticipated to be required for this project; however, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the USACOE. Since Stokes County is a North Carolina trout county,
permit decisions will also be conditioned upon approval from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. A nationwide permit will likely be required.
Since a Section 404 permit is not anticipated, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification,
administered through the NCDENR, should not be required. This certificate is issued for any
activity, which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Bridge demolition will be addressed at the time of the permit application.
3. Mitigation
Since no wetland impacts are anticipated, mitigation should not be required by the USACOE.
Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of less than 150 feet are generally not required by the
USACOE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE.
F. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline due either to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for Stokes
County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction,
are discussed in the following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
11
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for
Stokes County as of the May 13, 1999 listing.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common. Name
Cardamine micranthera E
small-anthered bittercress
Helianthus schweinitzii E
Schweinitz's Sunflower
NOTE:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range)
Species: Cardamine micranthera (small-anthered bittercress)
Family: Brassicaceae
Date Listed: 9/21/89
The small-anthered bittercress is an erect, slender perennial herb with fibrous roots and most
often a single stem. Height ranges from 8 to 16 inches. Basal leaves are 0.4 to 2.0 inches long
and 0.2 to 0.8 inches wide, crenate, and have one pair (occasionally two) of small lateral lobes
or leaflets. Stem leaves are alternate, mostly unlobed, 0.4 to 0.6 inches long, crenate, and
cuneate. Flowers are subtended by leafy bracts, have four white petals, six stamens, and small
round anthers. Anthers are about 0.02 inches long, and the petals are 0.05 to 0.08 inches wide.
Flowering and fruiting occur in April and May.
The habitat of the small-anthered bittercress consists of seepages, wet rock crevices,
streambanks, sandbars, and wet woods along small streams. The area is usually partially to
fully shaded and occupied by trees and shrubs typical of moist soils of the upper Piedmont.
This plant is extremely rare, with only nine small populations currently known to exist.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The small-anthered bittercress is native to the Dan River drainage of the North Carolina
and Virginia Piedmont. Habitat does exist for this species along the Dan River at the
project site. Field reconnaissance was conducted on May 5, 1998, so that a survey could
be initiated during the flowering time for this species. Small-anthered bittercress was
not located in the project area and the NCNHP database reports no recorded occurrences
of this species in the vicinity of the project.
12
Species: Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's Sunflower)
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 5/7/91
Schweinitz's Sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 3.3 to 6.6 feet tall with
a tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above the mid-stem,
pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing to
alternate above. They are lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough, thick texture. The yellow
flowers have small heads and bloom from September until frost. The nutlets are 0.13 to 0.14
inches long and are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's Sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region of the Carolinas. It occurs in open
habitats such as edges of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures. Soils
are usually moist to somewhat dry clays, clay loams, or sandy clay foams with a high gravel
content.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Open habitat preferred by this species exists along the road shoulders in the western
end of the project area. It appears that it is regularly maintained by mowing and will not
provide an opportunity for the plant to establish itself and grow. The Recovery Plan for
Schweinitz's Sunflower (USFWS, 1994) states that this species prefers poor soils,
especially those derived from mafic rocks. The local soil survey notes that the soils in
the area of question are very strongly too slightly acid and formed from felsic rock. It is
believed that the combination of regular roadside maintenance and acidic soils
constitute unfavorable conditions for Schweintiz's Sunflower at this location. No
Helianthus spp. was observed in this area and the NCNHP database notes no recorded
occurrences of Schweinitz's Sunflower within the project vicinity.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa, which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species
or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by
the NCNHP database of rare plant and animal species and are afforded state protection under
the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979. Table 3 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Stokes County and their state
classifications.
13
TABLE 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES
OF CONCERN IN STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name - North Carolina Habitat
Common Name Status Present
Juglans cinerea N L Yes
butternut
Monotropsis odorata C Yes
sweet inesa
Noturus gilberti E Yes
oran efin madtom
Speyeria diana SR No
Diana fritilla
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
C Denotes Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation
action is recommended).
NL Not listed in NCNHP current database (Jan. 1998).
A search of the NCNHP database revealed one FSC, orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti), to be
located within the project vicinity downstream of the bridge in the Dan River. This species
resides beneath rocks or within crevices in the higher-energy portions of swift, silt-free riffles.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential habitat is present for the federally protected species small-anthered bittercress. A
search was conducted during the flowering period for this species and it was not located.
Habitat is present for three FSC's in the project area. Orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti) has
been located downstream of the project area by the NCNHP and care should be taken to limit
aquatic impacts during construction. The NCNHP reports no recorded occurrences of the other
two FSC's in the vicinity of the project.
14
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted on January 21, 1998. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later an NCDOT staff architectural historian
reviewed these photos. None of the properties were considered to be eligible, and in a
concurrence form dated May 28, 1998 and a memorandum dated June 18, 1998, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural resources
either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of
the concurrence form and the memorandum are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The Deputy SHPO, in a memorandum dated November 20, 1998, stated that "the bridge
replacement will not affect archaeological site 31SK168. However, the area of the flood plain
included in the new right-of-way to be acquired may contain as yet unrecorded prehistoric
archeological resources" and therefore recommended that "an archeological survey be
conducted of the area of potential effect for this bridge replacement project to determine if any
such sites will be affected." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
An archaeological survey of the proposed undertaking was conducted by Wake Forest
University (Terrell, Robinson, and Woodall 1999) during February, March, and April 1999. The
survey was undertaken to assess any archaeological resources previously unrecorded in the
proposed project area. The presence of several previously recorded archaeological sites on file
at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology in the project vicinity suggested that others, as
yet unrecorded, might be present in the proposed project area. One archaeological site
(31 SK212) was discovered during the survey. The site is assessed as eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places based upon the recovery of the aboriginal ceramics, debitage, a
fragment of a biface, and charcoal which have the potential to provide information about Late
Woodland occupation in the Dan River region. Two excavation units (a 1x1 meter unit and a
1x2 meter unit) were excavated to examine the integrity of the site. These revealed ceramics
classified as Dan River. A feature was also discovered. The archaeological site is located on a
flood plain of a small unnamed creek on the southeast side of the bridge. If this creek is
impacted by filling or rerouting, it may impact the archaeological site. If this cannot be avoided,
additional work may be required at the site. If this creek is not impacted by the proposed project
then, no additional work will be necessary at the site. The NCDOT will forward final plans to the
SHPO for review prior to right of way acquisition. If the stream is not impacted by the proposed
undertaking the Deputy SHPO in a memorandum dated June 11, 1999, concurred that no
additional archaeological work is necessary for the project as currently proposed. However, if
the creek is rechanneled or impacted by the proposed project additional work will be required on
15
site 31SK212 and the NCDOT will coordinate with the FHWA and the SHPO to develop a Scope
of Work.
VII ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. It is anticipated that one relocatee is expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to NRCS, the proposed project will impact 1.2 acres of soils defined as prime and
statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 141,831 acres of
prime or important soils found in Stokes County. The impact rating determined through
completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating indicates that the site's
assessment and relative value score is 156 out of a possible 260. A score higher than 160
would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
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.
16
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of. the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
hazardous waste sites in the project area. There are two underground storage tanks located at
the northeast quadrant of the bridge approximately 27 feet from the existing edge of pavement.
A Preliminary Site Assessment of the parcel containing the UST's will be conducted prior to right
of way acquisition, if applicable.
Stokes County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This site on
the Dan River is included in an approximate F.E.M.A. study. Attached is a copy of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Figure 5, on which are shown the approximate limits of the 100-year flood
plain in the vicinity of the project.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
17
N
O
S
r nc e Ei ly Ridge
F° ncr cc
6 O:t ?
VNwSiTiC#
s essstOnvl!!? rA r
t
68
bv.
n F'?ROt ::a1Q1:ni??n ' , °. _? tdgdise
40
Gap 5. a1ZF KAet(S?WS ?` !
41
S T 0
?, •???;?7alt!;' -f 1'?
rs!nut ????.?il;'.i:::
Cove
4 x,i•: ic.'`j .r?'?.'?c ,,. F:Ptl13l91 ?L v, F7Ci_ ?
Q L
1459 1456
1458 !457
IN 1
150
4
© 1471
chw
1472 1503
,?j Bn?.?ly
1477147:0 1
1476 1484
1478
1451
1512
1497
1514 1498 1495
w
sonvllle
/
1496
1499 1494
1 'Wit
i
1501 1513

1493 N
%
©1 496 1490
1665
1492 1666
1516 1486 ® n
1504 10
1485 14b* 1
1483 1001 •
0000 1480 1001 1489 •
1481 2013 0
11 2011 2012 2054
d' 2015
117b 4261
2011 2050are.
1248
115 t 015 Q 1: t t' Km
1 0 7 2 3 4 MILES
SCALE
NORTH CAROLINA
S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PRO,jECT DEVELOPMENT AND
EArMONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
STOKES COMY
BRIDGE 1110.17 ON NC 89
OVER DAN RIVER
TIP NO. B-3045
FIGURE 1
LEGEND
Studied petour
CU TO
STOKES COUNTY
BILGE NO. 17
B-3045
Looking East
Looking West

71_x",'
Wis.. ..._ ..??.?_._.
Looking Southwest at North
(Upstream) Side of Bridge
Figure 3

6A* u Jt u jc 6 fc*
* ADD 3 A WAME GUARDRAIL 1S WARRANTED
TYPICAL ROADWAY APPROACH SECTION
PROPOSED
28 R
3h uR H ft. 3R
TYPICAL SECTION ON STRUCTURE
TRAFFIC DATA PROPOSED
ADT 1999 800
ADT 2001 900
ADT 2025 1400
DUAL 5%
TTST 1%
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR
NORIN
CAROLINA
U
DEPARTMENTNT ' OF TRlXSPORTATIOX
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENV]ROXMENTAL ANALYSIS ERANCN
STORES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 17 ON NC 89
OVER DAN RIVER
TIP B-304S
FIGURE 4
STOKES COUNTY
B-3045
*.? 100 YR. FLOOD ZONE
C
BRIDGE #17
'r
ZONE X
r
F
N E A
y
APPROXIMATE FEMA FLOOD STUDY
SCALE I" = 1000 FT
500 0 500 1000 2000 FEET
I FIGURE 5

I ? •%?IO Yvr r1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
July K, 1999
Action ID. 199820969; TIP Project
Action ID. 199820822; TIP Project
Action ID. 199820823; TIP Project
Number B-2965..
Number B-3045.
Number B-3230.
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
007 C -e E I V
!JUL 231999
DIVIS110N OF
WGHYrAYS
:?iyG?`?EL4p?`?SQ
\i i. i,1+1 R1-??
Reference your June 16, 1999 letter, on the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposals for three bridge
replacement projects (TIP B-2965, Edgecombe County; TIP B-3045,
Stokes County; TIP B-3230, Rockingham County) in North Carolina.
Your letter requested our input on potential impacts of the
demolition and removal (BDR) of the existing structures. Based
on my July 19, 1999 telephone conversation with Ms. Stacy Harris,
P.E., of you staff, these projects are all in Group II of the
latest BDR policy: The Natural Resource Technical reports have
been done, but NCDOT has not yet applied for permits. Bridge
Demolition will be quantified and disclosed at the time of
application. Ms. Harris also indicated that the mussel survey
for TIP B-2965 has been completed, and the survey indicates that
the project is not likely to adversely affect the Federally
endangered tar spiny mussel, but that the Federal species of
concern yellow lamp mussel is present at the site. NCDOT will be
committing to an in-stream work moratorium of November 15 to
April 1 to protect the mussels on TIP B-2965, in addition to the
NCWRC-recommended February 15 to June 15 moratorium to protect
anadromous fish, which means that the project is a Case 2 BDR
project. TIP's B-3045 and B-3230 are Case 3 projects.
Based on the information available at this time, we have no
specific concerns regarding bridge demolition for any of these
projects, provided that no in-stream work or discharges into the
river occur from November 15 to June 15 for TIP B-2965, and
provided that work on all three projects is done in accordance
with the latest NCDOT Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in
Waters of the United States (BDR Policy), including the Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
We appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your staff
in reviewing the construction impacts for these projects. If you
have any questions regarding our comments or correspondence
associated with this project, please do not hesitate to call me
at telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
S. Kenneth Jolly
Manager; Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Mr. Tom McCartney
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
2
i
.l C J..
140, 1
orttlh Carolina Wildlife Resources Colr ission'n
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Stream Mitigation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 24, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Demolition and Removal: B-3045, Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 oer
the Dan River, Stokes County.
This is in response to your request for our comments on the demolition and removal of
Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 over the Dan River and concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field
biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977(33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.)
and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Based on the information provided, this project will not impact trout waters and should
have minimal impacts on aquatic habitat. Therefore.. we do not object to the project as proposed
provided that instream work is prohibited during the smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)
and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) spawning period from May 1 through June 30. This
project should adhere to North Carolina Department of Transportation's "Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal" guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-2982.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission L
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
Proiect Development & Environmental, NCDOT
FROM: Kin B. Hodges. Jr., District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Inland Fisheries Division
DATE: June 4, 1999
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement No. 17 on NC 89 over the Dan River, Stokes County, TIP No. B-
3045.
This correspondence responds to a request by Tommy Register at Wang Engineering for
clarification of our position on a moratorium involving construction activities that increase sedimentation
for the above referenced project.
Although Stokes County is designated a trout county by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Dan River at this location does not support trout. However, redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu) are found at this location. We would be concerned about any construction
activities that increase sedimentation (in stream support structures, bank clearing) during the spawning
season of these fishes. Consequently, we would like to officially request that no construction activities that
increase sedimentation occur from May 1 through June 30. Also, if concrete will be used during
constriction, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water. This will
lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill. We would also like
NCDO f to consider the teasibility of providing parking and a canoe boat launch site, either adjacent to the
new bridge or at the old bridge location once it is removed. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
336/374-6446.
O Nw ATZ 4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 11, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E:, Manager
Project Developme'n d Environmental Analy is Branch
FROM: David Brook ?j' r
Deputy State istoric Preservation Of icer
SUBJECT: Archaeological Report for NC 89 Replacement, Bridge
No. 17 over the Dan River, Stokes County, Federal
Aid Project BRSTP-89(5), State Project 8.1640901,
TIP B-3045, ER 98-9262 and ER 99-8971
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your memorandum of May 13, 1999, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by William Terrell, Kenneth Robinson and J. Ned Woodall of Wake Forest
University concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
we concur that the following property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31SK212
The intact features and midden contained within this Late Woodland period
prehistoric site will yield important information in the study of the Late Woodland Dan
River area occupations.
If the small creek which forms the northern boundary of the site is relocated,
channelized, filled or otherwise disturbed by the proposed bridge replacement, or if the
ground disturbance extends south of the creek, 31 SK212 will be adversely affected
and data recovery excavations may be necessary. At the very least, active protective
measures must be taken prior to and during construction of the replacement to
ensure that the site is not inadvertently affected. Please forward the final plans for the
bridge replacement to us as soon as they are available.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB: slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 133
cc: Nicholas Graf, FHWA
Lee Novick, NCDOT
Ken Robinson, Wake Forest University
_ STAJF ry1t7
J q?
AV H.+•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 20, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State Cd%?? iJ
Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Bridge Group XVII, Bridge 17 on NC 89 over Dan
River, B-3045, Stokes County, State Project No.
8.1640901, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-89(5), ER 98-
9262
Thank you for your memorandum of November 4, 1998, concerning the above
project and the accompanying plans for the bridge replacement.
As currently proposed, the bridge replacement will not affect archaeological site
31 SK168. However, the area of floodplain included within the new right-of-way to
be acquired for the project may contain as yet unrecorded prehistoric archaeological
resources. We recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted of the area
of potential effect for this bridge replacement project to determine if any such sites
will be affected.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Lee Novick, NC DOT
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 e?9
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
ATM nONOF September 29, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

REC`i
}a ?
z 19
cI' 4
9
o2I9,
•? r
Al F
This is in response to a letter from your office dated June 5, 1998, subject:
"Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge
replacement projects are located in various Eastern and Piedmont North Carolina
counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. Alex Morrison, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure

September 29, 1998
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Eastern and Piedmont North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
All of the bridges. are within counties and communities which participate in the
National Flood ..Insurance Program. From the various. Floyo.d :nsL!r&nce Rate Maps.
(FIRMs), it appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved.
(Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and, if
controlled by riverine flooding, normally have floodways defined. Of these bridge
crossings, only the Tar River in Edgecombe County has a floodway defined.) Based on
a review of the FIRM's and pertinent United States Geological Survey topo maps, none
of the bridges over railroads appear to be in identified flood hazard areas. A summary
of flood plain information pertaining to the other bridges is contained in the following
table. The FIRMs are from the county or countywide flood insurance study unless
otherwise noted.
Bridge
No. Route
No.
County Study
Strea Date Of
m Type Firm
49
" SR 1101 Carteret White Oak River Approx 8/85
SR 1442 Onslow " . 7/87
4 SR 1222 Currituck Tull Creek Detail 11/84
24
u US 64 Bus
u Edgecombe
" Tar River Detail 2/88

17

NC 89

Stokes u

Dan River
"
Approx
4/80
9/88
64 US 220 Bus Rockingham Mayo River Approx. 5/91

Map is Town of Tarboro FIRM.
"k Map is Town of Princev ille FIRM.
September 29, 1998
Page 2 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
V
,Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Eastern and Piedmont North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
For the Tar River crossing, we refer you to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's "Procedures for'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in
Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished previously to your office.
In addition, we suggest coordination with the respective counties or communities for
compliance with their flood plain ordinances and any changes, if required, to their flood
insurance maps and reports.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh. Washington and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatory Division (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
Based upon a review of Projects B-3013 and B-3231 (bridge replacements over
railroads), it appears that the proposed work is not likely to impact any jurisdictional
waters subject to Department of the Army (DA) permit authority. In addition, from a
review of submitted information and all available maps for the bridge-over-railroad
Project B-3214, it was determined that no jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by
this proposed project. Accordingly, no DA authorization will be required in this case.
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, DA permit authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill
material in waters of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements, including disposal of construction
debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the projects, extent of fill
work within waters of the United States, including wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts,
etc.), construction methods, and other factors. Also, please be reminded that Stokes
County is one of the twenty-five mountain counties of North Carolina that contain trout
waters. Review and comments are required from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission prior to any action being taken on DA permit authorization for
identified trout water counties.
September 29, 1998
Page 3 of 4
Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Eastern and Piedmont North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, in order for the
proposal to be considered for authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project
planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed
activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the
aquatic environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts
often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than
minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to
be addressed in the project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-the-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting
is necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be
used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be pianted with endemic vegetation, including trees,
if appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life, including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation.
September 29, 1998
Page 4 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Eastern and Piedmont North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity
to review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
• Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Edgecombe and Northampton
Counties (Regulatory Division Action ID Nos. 199820969 & 199820970)
• John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Person, Stokes, and
Rockingham Counties (Action ID's 1998-20821, 20822, 20823, and 20824)
• Todd Tugwell at [phone], Extension 26, for Wake County (ID 199820971)
Washington Field Office -
• Mike Bell at [phone], Extension 26, for Currituck County (TIP B-2950)
Wilmington Field Office -
• Dave Timpy at [phone] for Richmond and Carteret/Onslow Counties
(Action ID Nos. 199801809 and 199801810)
3. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS: POC - Howard Varnam
Navigation Section at [phone]
Bridge No. 24 on US 64 Business over the Tar River at Tarboro appears to cross
a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigation project. This project provides for a channel
20 inches deep and 60 feet wide to Tarboro. There should be no problem from the
provision of the proposed improvements if navigational clearances and channel
setbacks for the existing project are maintained.
If you have questions or need further information related to the Federal project,
please contact Mr. Varnam.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-11889 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C ator `i
Habitat Conservation Progr?
DATE: July 27, 1998
SUBJECT: NCDOT Group XVII Bridge Replacements
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
.require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 July 27, 1998
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 July 27, 1998
-floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-2938 - The bridge should be replaced with a spanning structure, in place
with an off-site detour. This area of the White Oak River is a primary nursery
area and is closed to shellfishing. There is a fringe of salt marsh adjacent to the
bridge on the North/West side which should be avoided. The White Oak River
supports anadromous runs of striped bass, river herring, and American shad.
No in-water work should occur from February 15 to September 30. This
moratorium is longer than the standard anadromous fish moratorium due to the
primary nursery area designation.
2. B-2950 - This bridge should be replaced with a spanning structure, in place
with an off-site detour. Tulls Creek is designated as a primary nursery area.
This creek is known to support anadromous runs of striped bass as well as
quality runs of largemouth bass, sunfish and other gamefish. Our agency
collects brood fish for largemouth bass restocking efforts from this section of
Tulls Creek. Turbidity resulting from in-water work could damage critical
freshwater spawning habitat not only in Tulls Creek but also in Tulls Bay. No
in-water work should occur from February 15 to September 30. This
moratorium is longer than the standard anadromous fish moratorium due to the
primary nursery area designation. There are also several Bald eagle nests along
Tulls Creek. If any trees are to be removed eagle nest surveys should be
performed.
3. B-2965 - This bridge should be replaced in place with an off-site detour if
possible. The Tar river supports important runs of anadromous striped bass,
hickory shad, American shad and river herring. The standard anadromous fish
moratorium, February 15 to June 15, will be required. Also the federally listed,
endangered, Tar spmeymussel occurs in the Tar River in the vicinity of the
bridge. A survey for this species should be performed 100 meters above the
bridge to 400 meters downstream of the bridge. Based on the results of this
survey additional conservation measures may be required. (Contact NCDOT
Biologist, Tim Savidge.)
4. B-3013 - No specific concerns.
5. B-3045 - No specific concerns.
6. B-3214 - No specific concerns.
7. B-3230 - Nice riffles which provide excellent fish habitat are located 20-30
meters upstream of Bridge No. 64. This area should be avoided during the
bridge replacement.
8. B-3231 - No specific concerns.
9. B-3256 - No specific concerns.
Bridge Replacement Memo 4 July 27, 1998
10. B-3380 -No specific concerns.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director - V ED
MEMORANDUM ree
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT i b t??8 Z
?.i..... tiV51 ~t
!~ROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedrort Region. Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July
14, 1998
SUBJECT: Review of scoping information for Bridge Replacement No. 17 on NC 89 over the Dan
River, Stokes County, TIP No. B-3045.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the scoping
sheets for the above referenced project.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
scoping sheets for the subject project and have not identified any special concerns regarding this project.
Our preference would be alternative 2, replacing the bridge with a new bridge on existing alignment
while maintaining traffic with an off-site detour road (road closure) during construction. This will lessen
potential impacts to the Dan River during construction. We would also like for NCDOT to consider the
feasibility of providing parking and a canoe boat launch site, either adjacent to the new bridge or at the
old bridge location once it is removed.
Although Stokes County is designated a trout county by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Dan River at this location does not support trout. However, smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish are
found at this location. We would be concerned about any construction activities that increase
sedimentation (;^- stream suppeft $t'4i uct- :,es, ba:!: C?c? .: "T) d '.t..irit_t, ... t- ho uth IV-aS$ and a a
? .. .a:i $ni? rLUb rvCiJ 1.
sunfish spawning season from May 1 through June 30. Also, if concrete will be used during
construction, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water. This will
lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
A formal response outlining any concerns we may have with the project will be submitted once
project plans are finalized and the document submitted through the State Clearinghouse for agency
review. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-2982.
• U.S. Department
of Transportation •.••??,•
United States '"?
Coast Guard
Mr. Richard Davis. P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Davis:
Commander
United States Coast Guard
Atlantic Area
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: Aowb
Phone: [phone]
16590
July 7, 1998
r'

This is in response to your letter dated June 5, 1998 requesting the Coast Guard to review the
proposed projects to replace ten bridges of which five are over waterways. The following are the
five bridge numbers and their locations: #49 White Oak River; #4 Tull Creek; #24 Tar River;
#17 Dan River; and #64 Mavo River. ?1Gg3? gZ?gp gZ??
?):"'DL ]'$ 1?31t3 0
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard bridge
permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are not used, susceptible to use in
their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to transport
interstate commerce. Ms. Pam Williams confirmed such conditions in a telephone conversation
on June 30, 1998. Due to this, the bridge projects on the Dan and Mayo Rivers are exempt, and
will not require Coast Guard Bridge Permits.
Tull Creek, and the White Oak and Tar Rivers are subject to tidal influence and thus considered
legally navigable for Bridge Administration Purposes. However, these waterways also meet the
criteria for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 115.70. Advance approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not
actually navigated by other than small boats. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his
advance approval to the construction of bridges across such waterways; therefore, an individual
permit will not be required for these three projects.
The fact that Coast Guard permits are not required does not relieve you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State. or local agency who may have
jurisdiction over any aspect of the project.
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON.
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION

NCDENR June 29, 1998

JAMES B. HUNTJR.:
GOVERNOR

MEMORANDUM
•wk 3
.:"A
'WAYNBMGDEVITT' ??
%SECR?TARY _ _
TO: Stacy Baldwin , Planning and Environmental Branch
DOT
,
-DIt:PHILfP1C.'MCKNELLi' FROM: Ste hen Hall
P ??

SUBJECT: Group XVII Bridge Replacements

The Division has reviewed the proposed projects for
possible im
acts to stat
k
p
e par
s,
significant natural areas, and populations of rare s
pecies. We have concerns abo
t
u
acts to rare
impacts species in three of the projects:

- :;, • Bridge No. 24 on US 64B Over Tar River - Several rare aquatic species have
been recorded from the Tar River at this bridge crossing, including triangle

,T 1 floater (Alasmidonta undulata), state listed as Threatened; yellow lancemussel
(Elliptio lanceolata), state listed as Threatened; yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis
cariosa), state listed as Threatened; eastern lampmussel (Lampstlis radiata)
,
state listed as Special Concern; Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), state
listed as Special Concern; and Carolina madtom (Noturus furiousus)

X ,
considered significantly rare in North Carolina. Additionally
populations of
= "" ,
the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) have
been recorded upstream from this bridge and may still be present in the
vicinity.

,.::. Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 Over Dan River - The following rare
aquatic species
have been recorded in the Dan River at this bridge crossing: orangefin madtom
(Noturus gilbern), state listed as endangered; riverweed
darter (Etheostoma
podestomene), state listed as Special Concern; bigeye jumprock (Scartom
zon
y
arriomum), state listed as Special Concern; and Roanoke hog sucker
(Hypentelium roanokensis), considered significantly rare in North Carolina
.

Bridge No. 64 on US 220B Over Mayo River - The following rare aquatic
species have been recorded in the Mayo River in the vicinity of this bridge
crossing: bigeye jumprock (Scartomyzon arriomum), state listed as Special

?? '- -
_...,,....? ... ,,._. ...,..:._ P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX 919-71 S-30BB
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Stacy Baldwin
Page 2
June 29, 1998
Concern, and Roanoke hog sucker (Hypentelium roanokensis), considered significantly
rare in North Carolina.
Impacts to these species can be reduced by following all best management practices for the control
of erosion and sedimentation and by allowing all concrete to become fully cured before coming
into contact with the water. Given the significance of the aquatic fauna in the Tar and Dan River
sites, we further recommend that consultation be made with the NC Nongame and Endangered
Wildlife Program to determine whether other design features should be employed to further reduce
the impacts to the aquatic species in these rivers.

COUNTY MANAGER
POST OFFICE BOX 20 • DANBURY, NORTH CAROLINA 27016 • (910) 593-281 1
June 25, 1998
Mr. Richard B. Davis
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Boa 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Davis:
We are in receipt of your letter dated June 5, 1998 concerning the replacement of Bridge No. 17 on NC 89
over the Dan River in Stokes County.
On behalf of Stokes County, we would request that option number three be selected This option would
replace the "bridge on new alignment in the immediate vicinity of the existing bridge, maintaining traffic
on the existing bridge during construction." This bridge is highly traveled and our citizens would be
seriously inconvenienced if any other option were chosen.
We sincerely hope that NCDOT will give maximum consideration to this request.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
W. Craig Greer
County Manager
cc. Board of Commissioners
Representative Rex Baker
E. Norris Tolson, Secretary of Transportation
Doug Waters, Regional Supervisor
101 SLATE
9
r}
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 18, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
?wr\
FROM: David Brook 1 !j
Deputy State l(st`arfc 4re)tion Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XVII, Bridge 17 on NC 89
over Dan River, B-3045, Stokes County,
ER 98-9262
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your memorandum of June 5, 1998, concerning the above project
On May 28, 1998, members of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation to review photographs of properties within
the project's area of potential effect. Based upon our review of the photographs,
we are aware of no historic structures in the area of potential effect, and
recommend that no additional historic architectural survey be conducted for this
project.
Prehistoric archaeological site 31 SK168 is located to the south of the existing
bridge, and site 31 SK169 is located north of the existing bridge. Neither of these
sites has been evaluated as to their eligibility for the National Register of Historic
Places, and depending upon the plans for replacement of the existing bridge, one or
both may be affected by the proposed replacement. We recommend that an
archaeological survey of the area of potential effect be undertaken as soon as
possible to determine if either 31 SK 168 or 31 SK 169 will be affected and, if so,
sufficient testing be conducted to determine the site's significance.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
_0?21
lr it C' S J 01 i.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 17, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-520
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
r- y , V ? GJ
r
Y T
.^ 9 X99 a
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1998, requesting information from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
following proposed bridge replacement projects:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
B-2938, Carteret/Onslow Counties, Replace Bridge No. 49 on SR 1101/SR 1442 over the
White Oak River;
B-2950, Currituck County, Replace Bridge No. 4 on SR 1222 over Tull Creek;
B-2965, Edgecombe County, Replace Bridge No. 24 on US 64 Business over the Tar River;
B-3013, Person County, Replace Bridge No. 48 on US 501 over the Norfolk Southern
Railway;
B-3045, Stokes County, Replace Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 over the Dan River;
B-3214, Northampton County, Replace Bridge No. 64 on US 301 over the CSX Railway;
B-3230, Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 64 on US 220 Business over the Mayo
River,
B-3231, Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 243 on SR 1378 over the North/Western
Railway;

9. B-3256, Wake County, Replace Bridge No. 337 on SR 1 10S over the Norfolk Southern
Railway, and,
10. B-3380, Richmond County, Replace Bridge No. 43 on Rice Street over the CSX Railway in
Hamlet.
This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping continents to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for these projects. The following is applicable to all the
projects listed above except Item #5, B-3045. Stokes County is in an area of the state under the
jurisdiction of the Services' Asheville Office. They should be contacted for resource information
pertinent to this project.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with detailed site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act :amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the appropriate 7.5 Minute Quadrangles for
each site should be consulted to determine if wetlands may be impacted by the respective projects.
However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should
not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an
acceptable wetland classification methodology.

We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits that may be required for these
projects at the public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for
modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency
coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise
and minimize delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for each
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for each proposed project, including a discussion of
the projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing bridges, new bridges on existing alignments, new
bridges on new alignments, and a "no action" alternative,
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact areas that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands. Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value,
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,

If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in the respective Counties. Habitat requirements for any federally-listed
species that occur in the project impact areas should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. Listed species have been known to occur in the vicinity of two of
the bridge replacement sites.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is known from the vicinity of project
B-2938, Carteret/Onslow Counties. In addition to the recommendations listed below, if the
proposed project will be removing pines 9" DBH or greater, or 30 years of age in pine or
pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active RCW cavity trees in appropriate
habitat within a 0.5 mile radius of project boundaries. If the RCW is observed within the project
area or active cavity trees are found, the project has the potential to affect the RCW, and you
should contact this office for further information.
The Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) has been recorded upstream of project B-2965,
Edgecombe County. A mussel survey should be conducted at the proposed bridge replacement
site, covering 100 meters upstream, and 400 meters downstream of the crossing. In addition, the
applicant must implement the following measures to insure protection for all aquatic resources
occurring downstream:
Installation of instream silt curtain weighted at the bottom, and stringent bank erosion
control. If tree removal is required, stumps and roots should remain intact for bank
stabilization;
2. Instream construction activities should be initiated only during low flow conditions that
permit the effective deployment of the silt curtain; and,
3. Before stream crossings are to begin, the contractor should notify the Service within one
week of the construction initiation date. The Service would like the opportunity to inspect
the installation of the silt curtain and check any possible changes in stream flow conditions
when scheduling allows.
4
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected
species:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current'status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur,
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality; injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long--term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,

6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
.Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid any
adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
John M. efner
Field Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Mike Bell, Washington, NC
COE, Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh, NC
COE, Scott McLendon, Wilmington, NC
NCDWQ, John Dorney, Raleigh, NC
FHWA, Nicholas Graf, Raleigh, NC
EPA, Ted Bisterfield, Atlanta, GA
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:06/16/98:919/856-4520 extension 32A10-brdge.rpl
6
Federal.4id # BRSTP-89(5) TIP 9 B-3015 Cofvrtt.: Stokes
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 over Dan River (Bridge Group 17)
On May -2 8, 1998, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
? Other
reviewed the subject project at
R ? Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the
properties identified as Properties 1, 2, & 4 and Bridge #17 are considered not eligible
for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
S• 25.18
CDOT
FHW,? , jor the Divisidtf Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
Date
Representative,
Historic Preservation Officer
,16 /1 P,

If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
t
RELOCATION REPORT
FT E.I.S. F-1 CORRIDOR 7 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
.ROJECT: j COUNTY Stokes I Alternate of Alternate
D. NO.: B-3045 F.A. PROJECT N/A
ESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I Replace Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 over Dan River

...... ..............:.:.. . . . . . . .
: .
..... . . . . . .

.
:. . . . . .. :< ....., .

..:::.::...
.......... ......... ....
.. JN.C.QME;.... .. ...
.. .... . . . .... ._....... ..... ....
....
...
ype of
iisplacee
;
Owner Tenant Total
Minority
0-15M ( 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M
50 UP
esidential ! 1 1 2 0 01 21 01 0 0
usiness 1' 0 i 0 0 0 VALTJE::OFDWl ll.TptG > DSSDWELLIKGAVAILABLE.;::: :::::;:
arm i 01 0 0 -0 Owners Tena nts For Sale For Rent
on-Profit 0 01 0 0 0-20M Q$ 0-150 Q 0-20M Q S 0-150 1 Q

ANSWER.ALL;QtlESTTONS 20f40M 150-250
1 01

i 1 20.40M 150-250

0

5
=s No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M ! 1 ' 250.400 I Q 40-70M ! 5 250400 Q
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M ; Q ] 400-600 Q 70-100M Q 400-600 Q
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 1 Q y 600 up 1 Q 100 up I 01' 600 UP ! Q
displacement? TOTAL
.... ............. .
5 5
3. . Will business services still be available after ftETNARf4s:(Respdnd b .Number.)..;...:.
project?
X 4. 'Afill any business be displaced?. If so, A dwelling that is in this report is partially within
a
- indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. the existing R!W and another dwelling appears to be in the
proposed R/W but is not shown on the plans.
; X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 3. No businesses are being affected.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
i X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 12. This project is in a very rural area of Stokes County and
X 9. Are there large, disabled. elderly, etc. there should be adequate housing available but additional
families? time may be required to locate it.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. !s public housing available?
< ! 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list

15. source;.
Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 6

Date

')rm 15.4 Revised 02195 d Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
s
j RELOCATION REPORT
21 E.I.S. [-]CORRIDOR [:]DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE

PROJECT: I + COUNTY
Stokes -7
Alternate of 4 Alternate
1.0. NO.: 6-3045 i F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1 Replace Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 over Dan River

ESTIIUfAZED D15PLAtCEES . ;::>::::•;:::::::`::.:<..::::: .
...............
.... .
.. .. INCOME LEA -EL ::.•::; ;:
....

<>;:
Type of ! !
Dispiacee Owner Tenant I Total Minority 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential i 1 i 0. 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
cusiness 0 ' 0 0 0 :: ::: YALU OF:DUVELLINC<:.::..:... :..::> •:.: RS.S:QIIVE?
Farm i 0 j 01 0 .0 Owners I Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit I 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 SO-1501 0 0-20M 0 SO-150 0
ANSitYER ALL.GitiEST1ONS 20-40m 0 150-250 0 20.40M 0 150.250 0
Yes No Explain ail "YES" answers. 40-70M I 1 250-400 I 0 40-70M 5. 250-00 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70.100M ; 0 i 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 j 600 up 0 100 UP 0 600 uP 0
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 3
X o. Will business services soil be available after REiVlARKS' Respond by. NuRabeL :::: ; :: ... .
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, A dwelling that is in this report is partially within
........ indicate size, type, estimated number of the existing RM and another dwelling appears to be in the
employees, minorities, etc. proposed R/W but is not shown on the plans.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 3. No businesses are being affected.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X. 9. Are there large, disabled, elderh/, etc.
families?
! X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
.............
housing available during r. eIecaton period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 1 rr.. st"itabl.. business s„es available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCA11ON? NIA :... ' .
Ile) 17
Reloc• tion Agent Date:... _,....° Approved b Date
c=orm 15.4 Revised 02/a5 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
? 4
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCS-CPA-106
SOIL CONVERSION SERVICE
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
Part I (7b be Completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
10/7/98 4. Sheet 1 of _I_
1. Names of Project
B-3045 5. Federal Agency involved
NCDOT, FHWA
2. Type of Project
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 6. County and State
STOKES, NC
PART II (To be completed by SCS) 1. Date R Rom d by SCS.
?? q %AWL.&r 2. Person Completing Form
w r r_. wo a s
3. Does the corridor contain prime unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes
(If no the FPPA does not apply -Do not complete additional parts of this form No 4. Acres Irrigated
M D*A Average Farm Size .
"t -1
5. Major Crop(s)
C.cc?n 6. Farmablq d rip Government Jurisdiction: 7. Amount `f F and As Defined in FPPA
8. Name of Land Evaluation System Used
SA-b es %.I 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System
JV a &J E Io. D e La4a Evaluation Rdumed by SCS
1Z zi 4 $ ura,)
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor for Segment
Corridor A C i3dGLE Corridor GerridwB
A. Total Acres to be Converted Directly 0.0 0.0 1.2 -14-
B. Total Acres to be Converted Indirectly or to Receive Services
C. Total Acres in Corridor 0.0 0.0 1.2 '
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland O b la -
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland Q Gv 1&1!:L-
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted O.b p O.-ee--
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value •'1
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of
Farmland to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0-100 Points)
Q
^
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
Assessment Criteria ese criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 11-7
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 1 C)
3. Percent of Corridor Being Farmed 20 5-
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10
6. Creation of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 5
7. Availability of Farm Support Services 5
8. On-Farm Investments 20 U
9. Effects of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25
10. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 7
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Corridor Assessment (Form Part VI above or a local site
assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines 260 ?O
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to
be Converted by Project: 3. Date of Selection: 4.Was a Local Site Assessment Used?

Yes No
5. Reason for Selection:
Signature of Person Completing this Part:
Date
NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternative Corridor
m
4
po 3-NIAR-2003 p8:23
R:\
hF-,j\6304
A 5. tsh ROOGS03A 9/09/99
I?S,n.n T
[PRQMCT,a* 8.1640902 B-3045
0 0 0

l1
O ?jj O O

O
N
o p H
o
o y
a

r ?
S o
' v g
m
Z < -
w
?
Uli
u n u n n n x
v c C C N A
D o o a
y
0
Q m m
1 Z Z
r- x x
m
Z CA w
C) 0
C ``Q
G
CA
D m
m T
? D D rbb
O ? o
m 2
-11 m m A
[? [i y
m ?
o
10
N ?I
10
II
fI II
w
W C IJ
V
3, c w
D
i y? ob
col
N N hm
W oM 08
b
r m x+
?D bZ
p p a
M o y
m
m
m
?a
!e
y
fn
p/??pswti x
Y
yaya?? b ??
I? 1na? 1.w,,
?a ?y
ox
Z
n
_; I
r
? O
M
I
r
Y
N
0
0
0
W
m
Z
D
70
O'
m
W
N,
OD
?O
N
v
I
T\
N
D
0
0
O
W
m
0
Z
m
-v
O
m
n
W
c•
O
110
N
/

IZ yl
D
V
A +

CD o
/ 0
0

Oy
cps
y1
/ -a z
N
0 0

-- o m
o10
'
i
------------

I 1 ?
n ,
co I i
f
I I?
i
/ I
r
N
D
N
?O
0?
7-1
N
VI
m
? v
-O T
a D
O
N
Ifs
o
v
I
r
N-1
N
No
o.
tJ1
N
m
v
m
-lo
O
m
co
0
?o
N
Ul
? rn
a O rn
s• ? ? 0
o?
cb k
Z
o ?
O
?b
co) 00
? O
00
V
? b
b
y
C
n
W
a ?

10 ,0
N ?
W
O

a
w l„ a
v

O T
?
Z
r

o ? Ki?= g~6" d
;R goo gj ti
123s-^-g?TO
0
"
NN y ; ?Q s ? ? ; i• _ V? I
s s° N: y Q rM ???Clllp /.
ZOM
o Rm c o D o a.mD ?? j' ,
rL? ? Nsr N ?+ o•ar 117?j
?? A Z
t O?'
K ? ?O
!
1
3 ?
0
CP
7/2/99
?f
?j
z
as /.
a
F1
O `
a°
$m
W K
? ? OAR
/ c? n n
O $ z o ??
/' L m
O 7n -1
0
/ V
1
m
1
` ajdd
..-
I $ yQy N?Q?
`x `t y l >m ?? 1
rCf M ,
' ? ?6 o m+lmn
2 o N?Nr
(p p ? y ?m?N
?S NAz
? y Z t'1 'D
I I .
y
1 ?
3 u K
K
V?GIDIV (n0
i?rnmrn?
cncrn Qm
C-) O ?o y
amgrn
rno?o
0
m Da n
y Cn -0
cn a
N N

I I ? ?

A
0
I m
H
o
r
/
A 1Af}m}}.???1((???1 *
g ?? ? Pm
.
i 5 /

/

n
l! J? U
`17' (A 71
I N R
m a
i
CN
gg
m I
am
m
m
s
? W

K A
/ \
?a

N
m?
? sp?
MIA W
u2
N V
m Cp N
" ? po o.,s5
as Vs z g=
GA% I I ?? I r
/mm++mANn/ ?pp? 11*??
m•n mlt!!//??r NNpNrm ? `t?6
NrN fnr ?1Nmti D1pmo1D ? Ob
Nm' NON ON ANN ym ??? ? r
N,[mW?Kp ?Kp2?rn ? ; M 1
YK?O_pm A A x 4° ?_
I N
m A
m;
g? oe
s
K .p Pm
M -x1
b NO
y s
r
1? 1
I' of
r ?
I? cn2
1? I
r
I

K
O N
gz y (?
0
0
r r-n ?

OD
a
n
r
N I
r a 15
/ P
o,

z??-irOp?
?
II 11 ? ? 11
u u ?,1ao

N r
v

O Z
Z

m $
rI
AON / rnz
m
2?i?

An rnrnm
O 2 / / 2

1 ?'/ yNa rri
rn
n
20 p y

/
2
rn

X ?
n
I

ti y

a

w_ _w

c n

D

rr,

: y

Z

Q
00
ill

U
UI
ti

a

? rn
yv" a "? M.Z9.lLiZS
A a y p ,!•Zf
1 19 .9ZN r4 •o
£9 I /'/ 7F /
1 ? / / .j,96 LyOE '4
- / ? L/
1 /
I / ? ?Na 5
00
MW / N N
a 44 ??
?? + ?? mT
( y • ,?C,I

x
W
? I
1 4 ?
Ns? i
? i? stn * ?r'
MATCH LINE -L- STA 24+00 SEE SHEET 5 = ?5-* g F _E ?a
z
o
03-MAR-2003 08.23
•\p,oj\b3045s? sh 7/2/99
LShoplro AT R506603A
N
O
Z
an
MATCH LINE -L- STA 24+00 SEE SHEET 4
g? i Ir
mN o i ?
m
mmc?em I -L- POT 2•.+83.32 e
^^sm? BL-3 PINC 1+73.05 (6.81'LT.)
oroHOS I ?1
pour=m a^ I 1 s
? vas
K No m??= Om P_
n ?'p C
S -. I I O< I? 1 mo VI
I o I IT m /
w
o C? g
O H
?1 yK r
mmTmC'INN '?
A
?? ?;I.?-+smm I I I ?? x(A??IrOD??n
ow?wrNilpus+ I. m'OlmN ??T ?? Y M 4 ?[
00. U IQ+m
+ m.ny ?A>o I ?y?smm e?.fr. 11 ? ??a 10
Q IV Kp?OTry ?lil l((?66
ZIZ f'l wTNNmDIi l/1 W
+IKW ?? Ga?? (,1 QL
K `? ytvs vmiF'A '?.I-' C4
.na=NOm? K?Z9 / W ? 8§ V
o??--?o I } s4O ? ? 1V
Kn=??m I `3? ? i
n >?z ` Nq 179.58 r
v o 1 . 670.Oy.E I
n ?: I I r0C?
waRl N ~ ? ;y zln \ `
{Nj. - m? OU +O-I ' o AAA ?1 1 p
? O1 O D O'1 .. {mD .Nim=..Naam? m
rL 00 wi N OIx W_-?P
DD ND?pD ?? 1~
m g I $?
D ?? oo m? K=vPmM
K poQ• n Ts9 W ??t a 30
A
I
f -?k3 a r ? Z g m ? I ? I ?,'O dr I
25
X I €
a
a• \ I l i X71 '? N ODD
rl)
` I \ \\ C 7, 1 G I -
I \
I?A
\ \ ?, Cc o €?
?° \ v r c
Q) (A 0 N) WIN
q ;4
o =
?rnm
z :10 rri rn i \ o
c:
:z (nArnQ? w
c°g0) Dn
mrno?o rn? \\ \
m ?_ID
rn ?? ?Ln
s? o
C
0
QTI
Hof .w.6? Z?
C=t= SON N=' ZK
nor ?'0 ?i S
C z ?"c
t ?, o ?\?1'? ? ? X77
?wanuaaa?„`
9/09/99
,PROJECT: 8.1640902 B-3045 1
? o o

o ?
T p m O
m
= 'O
n
0

? ZO N Cy

? O Q
z O O

rA
_

Ny

CA
II II II II II II
a
9
mm
C A O N A

z
a°aeae°o°
?,
a
*X
•
Q
.i m
z m
z

m
z y

i
C O
v
m
D
I
v
D
b
O 7'0 ,

m O
m
a m
n
-? A

y

o
O
N m
cq
1?
Oo ?

"0
?p
x
11???
"V
II ?
II II
W

?, C

14
O IN
V

W
pN 3
N
1
C ? v
_o
8
b
?D z
? R
? T v
m
m
*c
y ti
x x
I
ii
? ? rn
x
OZ
m
cp
+
tr w `? ? O rn ? °
a a
M M
G? G1 y p ? ? ? ro
m
C ? s
50.
m `y2 s• Q
m 0
/i
w
N co
L
I 0,
ao a' ?
/
.,0 0
N / D 0 N
A 14 b
4- 2!
n ?rn
N ? b
tJl \\ I / ?6 0 ? tv O ?I
v b
22 CA m
m Y z ®
9- n
Q C
V +
CO // V
- - - - - - - - + - - - - y, - - - - - - - - - - ?? ?
- v --
--- e a
I /
I ? b
V
? b b
rJ
A
r r
N?I D ? ' .
D
1 N N
\ .p 10
ON 0?
Cr1 ? •??
\ \ m m cti
A.
v v
'o :n H
O D>
?
rn
10
m
co
L, n
?
I a' O PI
OD A z
"o O
`"
0 N

ao a
y
a a
? ?
e
A

N s
a

W ?
o ?

w ?

m
r

U -i
7/2/99
n ^I
I;?i?p•gOO°??'?5o?i? ti
&vN

°a `S G i
30.
s Ali
i
Z ' 'i z?ITt
0 0 P ym? •OOD
r. „',^, a v Nor v ¢ o
A A a=W n v oo>
mn
ro Y ? ? ?
Iv1?Tv a z
j
aD / .
a°
O •-1
O
A
i Z
V
1
I
T
I
I
? Is
I
I >
m
aam
i
"o110 /.,
t/?GIOON?O
??yo mrn?
kA
rtl
• ? O ? y
r 0
I
m
Z

f5
?z
mn
-1;
s
-c d P m
N? NO
2
? D
Q
I
•
m ??ojj p N
'1( 'm
l
rJ
_i

2 Q
V * l
e
Qm1
p n

?n?110 1
1
?? 1
o
m+lm.
O p yr
y
• m. S
N
np -
, 1zm m
Nr
A

n ?n
C N
?
A
PD -
~A
m?
ry ?
K
r"r"r"n10 11*
NNr Nrmm
vln-+?>o ? "w 1
('1 AZA = "M I
-? n nQl
MATCH
?p
i
/ rf
1
/y
1

0
E y
/
/

01'

/
V

/ 1 y `l

1
?
o
m
P ??` N2
H +
t _ ? 1 ?tp
's
1 0 /

O
/, ? Aa
I
N
w
A
r
,a

p
po
y?l i ? 1
I

O
=
y
n1 to
A
a +
I
WWI
fl T V
i
'O N W
O4? 11
w?
N I
1s
v/ 01
2(x-11-op?
`? uu?ilnv„j
? n u v,?,ao
a?8 aarL
`c? ? Ag I
A
r ?n1m
SAO ? ? O
/
z
cno oNa
(A rri
wK
8 r^ 1 ?' / / /1*11 R1 n
20 o y
yZ m2
N '
or rnm
I t>
Z&ro,
COS
z
w
'`>'1 w M.Z .LZbLS
3 y ? ? v _ LL'y42
? y 'ES ..I / / 7FF v /
4f / /
P. i 0 g??Z
?1} ? / / \ yy1oyef "?
N /
m m /
'vo / ? i I 1 P ..
'??? / / + rt?nMT7 /Sll ?y Q
/ NN OP
f I1 0o11 ?s :
1? ?1
1 I ti/ r,2 mT ..
1 I A N
s
-L- STA 24+00 SEE SHEET
r?N y

? °
-?
o :FOI- Z<
:.ry `C d_.i
W
Ca11
9 ? g \V•
r ? 111
eg
IN e YW\

r
y
C\?

9. ? a

7/2/99
3A
??Nms
o?v?m
r
A ??D
K H
S O
?, N m
N
°o
o m
4 N
;. O N N

N
ti y ?
? 4 sn
m

D s
? N
U µN?
m aT
o ° o G> °o

r An
U3:0 ?N
Wa

H y
z?rnrnrn?
z
v,?rnQrn
1 n 2 D
n1 O cn p
? I
N
rn
n•
Z ?
M C
y
Q
Q)
N?
D z
MATCH LINE -L- STA 24+00 SE
ND=?
K Tmrfn
I
m v?o
s
z
(6.81' LT.1 25 ?,
I ?
I
.n
W `Oy ?4
U
?yyN
by U 2N?u yr'rz,?
dal R' a ti
?? u a NN
?? aintvcn`?'wS
r-O
H
u u a n
'.`PO y`0 ? ? `I Q f
I 30
I
a
O
O
7Z?G

II
rI
r
'A
Z
~
D O
QQ,, z
ME
N
1
? orDD
o -
O N?
f1 .

O N €L e
1 '
N
r•
1
o °o T
0
N
V

William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Winston-Salem
f \30-1 2.,C) Regional Office
?
DWQ Project No.: W N a County: V ,ES
Applicant: N G is go=
Project Name: - - % 1* '? 04 9, V" A st a cwt A? ?i?ra QZ V rc
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: NA%
Certificate of Completion
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 4.01 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent'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: r,. Date: Io // A
Diane K Hampton, P.E., Division Environmental Engineer For S. P. Ivey, P. E., Division Engineer
if this project was designed by a Certmea Processional
1; , 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), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
r
OCT
NCDENI