20041719 Ver 1_Complete File_20041025

101
W ?v
COST TF,?. r???J?`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPEN/5'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 25, 2005
Contract No.: C201183
WBS Element: 33234.3.1(B-3694)
F. A. Project: BRZ-1138(14)
County : Rockingham
Description: Bridge over Belew's Lake Spillway & Approaches on SR 1138(Lindsey Bridge Rd)
Subject : Permit Conference
Dane Construction, Inc.
P. O. Box 5510
Mooresville, NC 28117
Gentlemen:
This letter is to advise that in accordance with the permits and the special provisions a Permit
Conference for the above referenced project has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, 2005, at
10:00 AM on the above referenced Project Site.
Sincerely,
; 4 /' , / k1le- "I
B. L. Norris, Jr., PE
Resident Engineer
Cc: J. M. Mills, PE
L. L. Puckett, PE
V. G. Davis, PE
J. A. Parker
D. L. Hundley
H. L. McDowell
Mathew Gant, P. E. (DENR)
John Thomas(ACOE)
Beth Barnes(DWQ)
Sue Homewood (DWQ)
Barry Harrington
File
P. O. Box 1318, Reidsville, NC 27323-1318 Telephone No. [phone] Pax No. [phone]
;?? ' :d
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC*
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC
Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus FSC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana FSC
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa FSC
Michaux's sumac , Rhus michauxii Endangered
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
ROWAN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 39 of 49

oLll-7/7
IECJCK?iy)?Vvqw)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
May 13, 2003
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
TLANDS1401 ,Rood
MAY 2003
Dear Ms. Van der Wiele:
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusion for Rockingham County, Bridge No. 55 on
SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road) over Belews Lake Spillway, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1138(9), State Project No. 8.2510801, T.I.P. No. B-3694
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved Categorical Exclusion for the
subject proposed highway improvement. This report records the determination that
implementing the proposed action will not have a significant effect upon the quality of the human
environment.
J
GJT/plr
Management Director, PDEA
Attachment
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
r
r
APPROVED:
aup
MAY 2 0 2003
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801
T.I.P. No. B-3694

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DA E
DATE
dZ4??
Gregory J. Thldrpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Donald J. Voelker
Acting Division Administrator, FHWA
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801
T.I.P. No. B-3694
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
TGS Engineers
e se.¢ss:??,.
7. K eth Burleson, Pt 1032 j Date
J q
Project Manager
en rVY..1 I.r fi\ .O .?
?dda Cj??/q ?eoo
°?'DOA8a74.o5i
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
U(ln t ? ar,
Elmo E. Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COM MMENTS
'Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801
T.I.P. No. B-3694
If the implementation of this project involves a disturbance to the waters of Belews Lake Spillway,
a Nationwide Section 404 permit and a Section 401 Water Quality permit will be required. If so, any
foreseen secondary impacts to water resources from soil disturbance on any downstream systems can
be minimized by the-use of best `management practices. No long term impacts are expected as a
result of the proposed project.
It is concluded that no. serious adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
Division 7:
A. No in-water work will be performed from April 1 to May 31. High Quality Sedimentation
and Erosion Control Measures will be used.
B: A FERC permit is not required. NCDOT will coordinate with Duke Power Company to
avoid impacts to their operations at the Belews Lake facility.
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
April 2003
i
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801
T.I.P. No. B-3694
INTRODUCTION: Rockingham County Bridge No. 55 is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
in 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".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 13.4
out of a possible 100 for anew structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the western part of Rockingham County just 0.2 miles (322 meters)
east of the Stokes County line (see Figure 1). SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road) is classified
as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. SR 1138
becomes SR 1903 when it enters Stokes County. The primary land use along SR 1138 is
agricultural mixed with light residential development (see Figure 2). SR 1138 is
undeveloped in the vicinity of Bridge No. 55 and there are currently no major generators of
traffic located within the project area. The property adjacent to SR 1138 is owned by Duke
Power as part of the Belews Lake reservoir. According to Duke Power officials, Belews
Lake is not an FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) lake (see Appendix). There
are currently no plans for proposed development of the area on file with the Rockingham
County Planning Department. This area is zoned RA (Residential Agricultural).
Rockingham County Bridge No. 55 is a five-span two-lane structure that consists of precast
prestressed concrete channels. The end bents and interior bents consist of precast prestressed
concrete caps and timber piles. Bent No.1 consists of a steel cap and pile crutch. The
existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1961 and is in poor condition. The overall
length of the structure is 151 feet (46 meters). The clear roadway width is 24.1 feet (7.3
meters). There are no sidewalks on the bridge. The posted weight limit on this bridge is 21
tons for single vehicles and 24 tons for TTST's.
This section of SR 1138 is not a part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP
as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1138 has a 19-foot (5.8-meter) pavement width with 6-foot
(1.8-meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The existing bridge is on a tangent with
a curve to the east. The roadway is approximately 31 feet (9.4 meters) above the stream bed.
The current traffic volume of 1400 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2500
by the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). This route does not contain a posted speed limit. The
statutory speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. Utility impacts are anticipated to be
low.
Five accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 55 during the period from
December 1, 1999 through November 30, 2002. These accidents involved vehicles running
off the road to the right along the curve preceding the bridge.
Two school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed replacement structure will be approximately 167 feet (51 meters) long
with a 40-foot (12-meter) clear width. The replacement structure will require a spill-
through end bent on each end and the low steel will be no lower than the existing
crossing. This structure will provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot
(2.4-meter) shoulders on each side (see Figure 5).
The proposed bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The length
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The roadway grade of the new structure will need to be raised approximately one-
foot at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width to
provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders on each side.
Typical sections of the existing and proposed approaches are shown in Figure 4.
B. . Build Alternatives
The following two alternatives were considered for replacing Bridge No. 55.
2
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing alignment and
provides a temporary on-site detour to maintain traffic during the construction period.
The new approaches would be approximately 700 feet (213 meters) long. The design
speed of this alignment is 45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour. This alternative is not
recommended because the estimated cost is higher and the design speed is lower
than the preferred alternative.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure on a new alignment
approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) upstream (south) of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The approach length is approximately 1440 feet (439 meters) total with
approximately 970 feet (296 meters) east of the crossing and 470 feet (143 meters)
west of the crossing. The two-lane shoulder section will have a design speed of 50
miles (80 kilometers) per hour. The existing structure and approaches will serve to
maintain traffic during the construction period.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Alternative 3 involves replacement of the structure on a new alignment downstream
(north) of the existing structure. This alternative was eliminated from further study
when it was determined that over 1800 feet of approach length would be needed to
provide a less than desirable 45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour design speed . This
alternative would also involve extensive encroachment on the existing floodplain
north of the existing crossing.
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1 replacing the structure along the existing
alignment but using an off-site detour along existing routes to maintain traffic during
the construction period. The best available off-site detour route follows SR 1138
northeastward to SR 1194 which connects to US 311, then follows US 311
southwestward to SR 1908 in Stokes County. The route continues south on SR 1908
to SR 1903 which becomes SR 1138 at the Rockingham County line just west of the
subject crossing. The total length of this detour route is over 12 miles and is
considered inadequate for the fire and rescue services in the area as well as the 1400
vehicles currently using the crossing daily. This alternative was eliminated due to the
lack of an adequate detour route for emergency services.
The "Do-Nothing" or "No-Build" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. Closure of SR 1138 is not desirable due to the lack of an acceptable
offsite detour for emergency services.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
3
D. Preferred Alternative
Rockingham County Bridge No. 55 is recommended to be replaced approximately
50 feet (15.2 meters) upstream of the existing location as shown by Alternative 2 in
Figure 2. This alternative is preferred because it is the least costly and allows on-site
traffic maintenance.
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTION
Since a posted speed limit is not provided along SR 1138, the statutory speed limit is 55
miles (88 kilometers) per hour. The preferred Alternative 2 will provide a better alignment
than the existing route and the best alignment considered for this replacement. However, this
alignment provides a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour which is less than
the standard 60 miles (96 kilometers) per hour normally used for such a route. Therefore,
a design exception is anticipated to be required for this alternative.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Structure $434,200 434,200
Roadway Approaches 455,669 425,238
Detour Structure and Approaches 140,280 N/A
Structure Removal 37,750 36,360
Misc. & Mob. 480,101 403,212
Eng. & Contingencies 252,000 200,990
:......... .
q? Y r::•..'
k
•%: .'Y
?? ?{? ?'}'?} ?t `? ,j? ::1? ?•:tik{?{:?'v'
;.?;i.}W,.•v
?`
'
`
/
:i
{'{?.?trQ:}{i4y:.• '. } S?
'
?
?
??

''{rk'.
{;:
::;ti:, •.}
`
:
?
.
•
./.
t
.::.:•?.}: r:2
},:.::.{?.2.;},.;
:.,::: r:.}
.•g'•4;:+
... rSY.:..; {:..v{.,a,.• t. ?:.•:.:::.:i•..::::::. •::.{•Y:::... ., ,{.}} ..
•; .?. •:•:.•.: '.}:K•
:a q..\ ...\........v}:::•}:?:?}•}:{•}::::vi :i.'ti•.; }
}
}}
?:ti:}: v:::
•:: •
:::v::
vi
} ,
,•, .'+ J}.nn
+`: .
i?.
•'•?'+.{.+•:.nv.:r^.+' •. v :' .. :;:5
:• ..:}.: {{i•:•i?:{.}•.:
';
i;;w
r.
. r
:
•
F
r:
< ,
,
.d
•,
••
}.
u, •••rk;;.'?Y. , .
v1.:rv.
%+•
:
4
J
IN
.
.
.
..
.
.
,
.,.,.;.;
n::w :::::::::.......................................:....n:r.Av, ,
,
n
:: „v:
....
+: M•:..:•:Y?:
h
.:v: Y.•}:.v.::i:0.:i4:::.•:{.. .
...v.
.
.......
:iv:•••••••••••i•:::v:+:w:: /.•r':.......•:
Right-of-Way Costs $68,500 $60,500
}}•
•}
:x
?
•
+
\
:
':
$
Yf'
+?
•.: ::: }y !1gy??? :i{.•::. ..,},
.
;'
:
•
:
$:
:'•'
•
r
'
.? :?{?:•?.}r x
$'
•
••
?
•.
:.}
,
;.
;
v
;
?i;
.:•:•
;{+fi:
}
ii•:
;•i14•
:.. f. .. ...•
,i i1\tir ,•;1.;: r,
^'"'''}'
••..:
h •$:titi?? {
.v. Y•: x
:{5•:'•::?:
::
rl
:
'i6}}Y'?f:•
{
:
{ .
.
;
?
;
.
}6
.
v,
'. h..
.•
.:,.:
.:•}:.iiR•.
:'•::4}
:
{Y
++?:'• :
}:
• ; ;
.
.
.'Y•'\.
:???
•
:
:
'
•
'?
/•
r
......
..
..
.
.
.
.
....
•Y
.}:{:v......:.....k...:.....::.::.....•......:v..Sn•;,
,r,•.•.•:::::.v::....{i•}Yv:: }r: :::v..v.:.... ,
;.
}......... .
;
T .
}
;
;
:?:•.••: }.•: .•; ..•
.,
:
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $725,000, including $55,000 for right-of-way, $550,000 for
construction and $120,000 prior years expense.
4
V1. NATURAL RESOURCES
A review of the project has been undertaken to evaluate natural resource features likely to
be affected by the project. Materials and research data in support of this investigation have
been derived from anumber of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic mapping (Belews Lake, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1994), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping.
A. Methodology
A natural resources field investigation was conducted on April 11, 2001. During the
site visit, a study corridor was walked and visually investigated for significant
features. For purposes of the field investigation and to assure proper area coverage
of both alternatives, the study corridor was assumed to be approximately 850 feet
(259 meters) in length (approximately 425 feet [129.5 meters] from the bridge to
each end), with a width extending approximately 200 feet (61 meters) south of the
SR 1138 centerline and 100 feet (30.5 meters) north of the SR 1138 centerline. Plant
community impact calculations provided in this report are based on individual
corridors centered on each of the two alternatives (Figure 2). Actual impacts will be
limited to within construction boundaries and are expected to be less than those
shown here for alternative corridors. Special concerns evaluated in the field include
1) potential habitat for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection
in Belews Lake Spillway.
The study corridor is located approximately 1.25 miles (2.0 kilometers) east of the
town of Pine Hall, NC and 5.5 miles (8.8 kilometers) southwest of Madison, NC
(Figure 1). The bridge is located along SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road) at Belews
Lake Spillway in Rockingham County. The study corridor includes the channel and
floodplain adjacent to Belews Lake Spillway. Belews Lake Spillway flows from the
Belews Lake Dam, continues north, joins an unnamed tributary, and flows under
Bridge No. 55. The stream continues north and joins the Dan River approximately
0.4 mile (0.6 kilometer) to the north.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al.
(1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature. Jurisdictional
areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as
expected population distributions, were determined through field observations,
5
evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et al. 1985,
Potter et al. 1980, Martof et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer
and Braswell 1995). Fish and wildlife nomenclature follow current standards. Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available
sources (DWQ 1996a, 1996b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listing of federal-protected species with
ranges that extend into Rockingham and Stokes Counties was obtained prior to
initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence
of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field
investigation.
B. Physiography and Soils
Land use within the study corridor includes Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, Dry-
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and roadside/disturbed land.
The study corridor is located in the Biotite Gneiss and Schist geologic formation
within the Inner Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. This system
is characterized by broad, gently sloping uplands, moderately to steeply sloping areas
with narrow convex ridges, and steep valley slopes. Soil systems in the Piedmont are
determined by the major bedrock type and form in saprolite weathered from bedrock
of various composition (Daniels et al. 1999). The study corridor is located within the
floodplain and adjacent side slopes of Belews Lake Spillway. Within the study
corridor, the floodplain ranges in width from very narrow upstream of the bridge to
broadly expansive downstream of the bridge. Elevations rise from approximately
560 feet (171 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at stream side to
640 feet (195 meters) NGVD at the southwest extreme of the study corridor (USGS
Belews Lake, NC quadrangle).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA 1992) indicates the following
soils are within the study corridor: Chewacla loam (fine-loamy, mixed, thermic
Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), adjacent to and including the riverbed; Rion sandy
loam (15-30 percent slope) (fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Typic Hapludults) on the
slopes descending from the dam south ofthe project; and Wickham sandy loam (fine-
loamy, mixed, thermic Typic Hapludults) to the west of the river channel.
The Chewacla series consists of deep, somewhat poorly drained, moderately
permeable soils that formed in alluvium. These soils are on narrow floodplains along
smaller streams and in slightly depressed areas on floodplains along major streams.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The Rion series consists of deep, well drained,
moderately permeable soils that formed in material weathered from acid, crystalline
6
rocks. These soils are in hilly areas on relatively narrow, gently sloping ridge tops
and moderately steep side slopes. Slopes range from 2 to 30 percent. The Wickham
series consists of deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in old
alluvium. These soils are on narrow, slightly elevated stream terraces. Slopes range
from 1 to 4 percent.
Of the predominant soil map units in the study corridor, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service lists only the Chewacla series as having hydric inclusions
(USDA 1997). The Chewacla series has hydric soil inclusions of Wedhadkee soils
in depressions. These hydric soil inclusions are saturated or flooded for very long
to substantial periods during the growing season, and support woody vegetation
under natural conditions.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-02-01 (upper reach of the
North Carolina portion of the Dan River and tributaries) of the Roanoke
River Basin (DWQ 1996b). This area is part of USGS accounting unit
03010103 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The section of Belews
Lake Spillway crossed by the project bridge has been assigned Stream Index
Number 22-27-(7) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1996a).
2. Stream Characteristics
Belews Lake Spillway (Belews Creek) discharges from the Belews Lake
Reservoir approximately 1800 feet (549 meters) upstream of Bridge No. 55.
Within the study corridor, the channel of Belews Lake Spillway is highly
scoured and composed of an unconsolidated, boulder and gravel substrate.
The stream is moderately broad and deep, highly entrenched, exhibiting poor
sinuosity, and a poor riffle-and-pool sequence. Width of the stream is
approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) at the point of the bridge crossing.
Bridge height above the stream bed is approximately 31 feet (9.4 meters).
During the field visit, water depths along the study corridor varied from 1 to
3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meter), permitting sparsely distributed vegetation to cling
to debris pile within the stream channel. Persistent emergent aquatic
vegetation was not observed, however high amounts of filamentous algae was
present in some of the slower-flowing reaches of the stream. The stream
banks are composed of a silty loam textured soil. Evidence of burrowing
mammals was observed along the streambanks 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3.0 meters)
above the water surface.
7
Classifications are assigned to waters of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of
streams in the basin. A best usage classification of WS-IV has been assigned
to Belews Lake Spillway. The designation WS-IV denotes waters protected
as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted; local
programs to control non-point source and storm water discharge of pollution
are required; suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation.
Secondary recreation refers to wading, boating, and other uses not involving
human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis (DWQ
1996a). No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters
occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. No watershed
Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a
whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins
within the state. Water quality for the proposed study corridor is
summarized in the Roanoke River basin management plan. Water quality
samples in the upper reaches of the North Carolina portion of the Dan River
sub-basin in 1995 indicated Good water quality based on macroinvertebrate
samples, and Good or Good/Excellent ecological health based on fish
samples. Fish tissue samples taken in Belews Lake near the mouth of Belews
Lake Spillway have resulted in a continuance of a fish consumption advisory
for Belews Lake due to elevated selenium levels from Duke Power's ash
basin discharge.
The Roanoke River watershed has been monitored and sampled at 101
locations and has a use support rating of Fully Supporting in 56 percent of its
reaches. An additional 27 percent is rated as Support Threatened, 9 percent
as Partially Supporting, and 8 percent of its stream miles were not evaluated.
Belews Lake Spillway (Belews Creek) is rated as Partially Supporting. The
Roanoke River sub-basin 03-02-01, containing the upper reaches of the North
Carolina portion of the Dan River, supports a major point-source discharge
from the Duke Power Company non-municipal effluent, with 5.0 million
gallons per day (MGD) (19.0 million liters per day [MLD]) permitted flow.
The discharge is into the Belews Lake reservoir and upstream of Belews Lake
Spillway. There are 28 minor dischargers, eight upstream of the study
corridor, with a total permitted flow of 1.15 MGD (4.37 MLD). Non-point
source pollution is also a major consideration in the Roanoke River drainage,
8
with sedimentation and erosion the most widespread problem throughout
Rockingham County (DWQ 1996b).
3. Anticipated Impacts
Both project alternatives include complete bridging of Belews Lake Spillway
to maintain the current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing
alignment, with a temporary on-site detour provided to maintain traffic
during the construction period. The detour structure would be located
approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) to the south (upstream) of the existing
structure. Alternative 2 involves replacement of the existing structure on a
new alignment approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) upstream (south). The
existing structure and approaches will serve to maintain traffic during the
construction period. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent
erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices. The
contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for
Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt
basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals
(herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts
on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into streams by catch
basins and roadside vegetation.
Each of the two alternatives will allow for continuation of pre-proj ect stream
flows in Belews Lake Spillway, thereby protecting the integrity of this
waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from construction are expected to be
negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
During removal of the existing bridge, the bridge rails will be removed
without dropping them into waters of the United States. There is potential for
components of the deck and interior bents to be dropped into waters of the
United States, resulting in a temporary fill of approximately 100.84 cubic
yards (77.1 cubic meters). NCDOT's BMPs for Bridge Demolition and
Removal must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
9'
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor:
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and
roadside/disturbed land. These plant communities are described below.
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest - Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
occurs on the floodplain east and west of Belews Lake Spillway. The levee
forest is bordered by an agricultural field northwest of SR 1138, Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory Forest to the southwest and southeast, and by a shrub
assemblage to the northeast. A power line easement, characterized by a
disturbed and maintained herbaceous community, bisects the southeast
section of the levee forest. This community is described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) as occurring in large floodplains of Piedmont rivers and
streams. The Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest is a mature, structurally
complex community, with well-developed canopy, sub-canopy, shrub, and
groundcover strata. Predominant canopy species include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua), and boxelder (Acer negundo). The
mid-story and shrub layer are well-developed and include redbud (Cercis
canadensis), American holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
multiflora rose (Rosa multijora), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
flowering dogwood (Cornus jlorida), and pawpaw (Asimina triloba). Vines
and herbaceous species are sparse to common in more open patches and
include muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata), Solomon's seal
(Polygonatum bijlorum), and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest - Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest occurs
mainly in the southwest quadrant of the study corridor and is bordered by
roadside/disturbed land to the north along SR 1138 and by
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest to the east along Belews Lake Spillway.
This community is described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) as occurring
on dry upland slopes and ridges of the Piedmont. The Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest is a mature forest, with a closed canopy, well-developed sub-
canopy, and sparse shrub and groundcover strata. The canopy contains white
oak (Quercus alba), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), northern red oak (Quercus rubrum), and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia). The sub-canopy and shrub layer is composed of red maple
(Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood, and saplings of dominant canopy
10
species. The herbaceous layer includes Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) and running cedar (Lycopodium clavatum).
2.
Roadside/Disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed land occurs along the right-
of-way of SR 1138, and along a power line easement bisecting the southeast
quadrant of each study corridor. The roadside margin is approximately 10
feet (3.0 meters) wide, and the power line right-of-way is approximately 50
feet (15.2 meters) wide. This community is periodically mowed and
primarily supports herbaceous species. Common species on roadsides are
fescue (Festuca sp.), chickweed (Stellaria sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.),
mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), Carolina cranesbill (Ranunculus
carolina), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), and violets (Viola spp.).
Within the power line right-of-way, volunteer species include blackberry
(Rubus argutus), tulip poplar, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), honeysuckle, and
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Plant Community Impacts
Plant community impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within alternative corridors (Figure 2). Alternate 1
involves replacement of the structure along the existing location with a
temporary on-site detour. Alternate 2 involves replacement of the structure
on a new alignment with the existing structure and approaches serving to
maintain traffic during the construction period. A summary of plant
community impacts for each alternative is presented in the following table.
Plant Community Areas. Plant community areas are given in acres, with
hectares in parentheses.
Alternative 1
Plant
Community
Existing Temp. On-
Location Site Detour
Piedmont/Mtn
Levee Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory
Forest
Alternative 2
New
Total Alignment
0.25 (0.10) 0.31 (0.13) 0.56 (0.23) 0.52 (0.21)
0.0 (0.0) 0.09 (0.04) 0.09 (0.04) 0.12 (0.05)
Roadside/ 0.09 (0.04) 0.23 (0.09) 0.32 (0.13) 0.96 (0.39)
Disturbed Land
TOTAL: 0.34 (0.14) 0.63 (0.26) 0.97 (0.40) 1.60 (0.65)
1I
From an ecological perspective, permanent impacts of upgrading existing
road facilities are typically minimal relative to upgrades on new alignment.
However, both alternatives considered here include either construction on a
new alignment or construction of a temporary detour on a new alignment, so
impacts are considered more than minimal for both alternatives. Alternative
2 includes approximately one-third more total impacts than Alternative 1
because of a new roadway alignment; however, most of the impact is on land
that is already highly disturbed (roadside/maintained land). Both alternatives
contain similar amounts of natural plant communities (Piedmont/Mountain
Levee Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest). No new fragmentation
of plant communities will be created for either alternative, as the project will
result only in relocation of community boundaries.
Roadside-forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species into
local natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species
utilizing roadsides is kudzu (Pueria montana). The establishment of a hardy
groundcover on road shoulders as soon as practicable will limit the
availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
3. Wildlife
No live terrestrial mammal species were identified in the study corridor
during the field visit. However, a dead Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana) was found. Tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), as well as signs of a mole (most likely eastern mole
[Scalopus aquaticus]) were noted within the study corridor. Some
characteristic mammals which are expected to frequent small streams and
riparian forests in this portion of the Piedmont include red bat (Lasiurus
borealis), beaver (Castor canadensis), woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), and gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus).
Bird species identified during the field visit are mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), eastern phoebe (Sayornisphoebe), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
alcyon), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina
chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), and
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). The stream habitat might be
expected to also support wood duck (Aix sponsa), Acadian flycatcher
(Empidonax virescens), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), barred owl
(Strix varia), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), northern parula (Parula americana), white-eyed vireo
12
(Vireo griseus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study
corridor. Species that might be expected are five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and eastern
ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
No aquatic amphibian or reptile species were observed during the field visit.
Belews Lake Spillway provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic
reptiles including snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle
(Chrysemys picta), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Typical amphibian species for this region
include northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), three-lined
salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and
eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). No mollusks or arthropods were
observed, with the exception of shells of the invasive Asian clam (Corbicula
fluminea).
No sampling was undertaken in Belews Lake Spillway to determine fishery
potential. Small minnows and crappie (Pomoxis sp.) were seen during visual
investigations, but no larger fish were noted. Species which may be present
in Belews Lake Spillway include, chain pickerel (Esox niger), gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), yellow
perch (Perca flavescens), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki),
pumkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritusorone),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabellare).
4. Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. No substantial habitat
fragmentation is expected since most permanent improvements will be
restricted to or adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to
be minimal for both alternatives. After removal of temporary bridge
13'
structures and associated fill, the area will be replanted.
For both alternatives, potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitats will
be minimized by bridging the stream to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended
sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream
habitats from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by
the implementation of stringent erosion control measures. The N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission recommends a moratorium on in-water work from
April 1 to May 31 to avoid adverse effects on breeding of the local sunfish
population.
E. Jurisdictional Issues
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Belews Lake Spillway are subject
to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping
indicates that Belews Lake Spillway exhibits characteristics of a riverine
system with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded (R2UBH;
Cowardin et al. 1979). Field investigation indicates that Belews Lake
Spillway can be characterized as a perennial stream system with an
unconsolidated bottom of boulders, cobble, and gravel.
There is potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into
"waters of the United States" during demolition. The resulting temporary fill
is approximately 100.84 cubic yards (77.1 cubic meters). In consideration of
surface water impacts, this project can be classified as Case 2, where no in-
stream work may occur during the moratorium period of April 1 to May 31,
due to the healthy sunfish population as recommended by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission. In addition, restrictions outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters must be followed.
NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource agencies during project
planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
2. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Vegetated wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR section
328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three primary criteria:
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the
surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). No
14
vegetated wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration occur within the
study corridor. Jurisdictional impacts are avoided by both considered
alternatives.
3. Permits Required
A Federal permit under Section 404 of the Clean Air Act is required for
discharges of dredged or fill material in "Waters of the United States". This
project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. It is anticipated that this
project will fall under Nationwide Permit (NWT) #23 (61 FR 65874,65916;
December 13, 1996) for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has
made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23.
However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use of this
permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will
not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031
issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington
COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
According to Duke power officials, Belews Lake is not an FERC (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission) lake and a FERC permit will not be
required (Appendix).
4. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited
nature of project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in
an effort to minimize impacts. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet
(45.8 meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15 NCAC2H.0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests
with the COE.
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for such listing, are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
15
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally protected
species for Rockingham and Stokes County (February 25, 2003 FWS list) are
listed in the table below.
Federally Protected Species: Species name and status for federally
protected species in Rockingham (R) and Stokes (S) County (February 25,
2003 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status fount
James spinymussel Pleurobema collina Endangered R/S
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered R
Schweinitz's
sunflower Helianthus
schweinitzii
Endangered
S
Small anthered
bittercress Cardamine
micranthera
Endangered
S
James Spinymussel - The James spinymussel is a small, sub-rhomboidal
mussel, with an obliquely sub-truncated posterior, that grows to
approximately 1.5 inches (40 millimeters) in length. The external shell of the
juveniles usually bears one to three short spines on each valve. The adult
shells usually lack spines. The shell is smooth, straw-colored to brownish-
black, with widely spaced concentric striations. Preferred habitat of the spiny
mussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated, circum-neutral
water over a silt-free, non-compacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate.
According to the FWS species recovery plan (FWS 1990), this spinymussel
was only known from 10 streams within the James River basin in Virginia
and West Virginia.
Extensive surveys for mussel fauna have been conducted by NCDOT staff in
the Dan River in Stokes and Rockingham Counties. Personnel from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and NC State University School of Veterinary Medicine assisted at various
times during these survey efforts. The apparent range (@ 30 river-miles) of
the spinymussel in the Dan River extends from North Carolina / Virginia
border near the first bridge crossing in North Carolina (Flippin Road, SR
1416) in Northwest Stokes County down to the town of Danbury in central
Stokes County. The spinymussel has not been found in the Dan River in
Rockingham County. The species has been found in the Mayo River in
northwest Rockingham County, near the NC / VA border. More surveys are
16
needed to determine the range of this species in the Mayo River.
In October 2000, an unidentified spinymussel was found in the Dan River in
Stokes County, North Carolina during a survey conducted by personnel of
NCDOT, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and the N.C. Division
of Marine Fisheries. Subsequent surveys in the Dan River found several
more individuals of spinymussel (personal communication, Tim Savidge,
April 4, 2001). Spinymussels had not previously been identified within the
Dan River basin. The mussels found in the Dan River have characteristics
similar to the James spinymussel and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansanna). Specimens of the recently found spinymussel are currently
(as of April 2001) undergoing genetic analysis. The finding of this
unidentified spinymussel has resulted in the FWS listing James spinymussel
in North Carolina counties that include tributaries of the Dan River basin.
The subject project is located on the spillway of Belews Lake, which is
formed by Belews Creek. Belews Creek then flows into the Dan River less
than 1 mile downstream of the project crossing. The confluence of Belews
Creek and the Dan River is approximately 16 river-miles downstream of
Danbury (furthermost downstream extent of the spinymussel in the Dan
River. Belews Lake Spillway is a highly disturbed, well entrenched, perennial
stream, characterized by moderate flow. The stream bed is primarily
composed of bedrock and cobble with scattered gravel and sand.
NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge and Mike Wood visited the
project site on August 17, 2001. Surveys for mussels were conducted from
approximately 400 feet downstream to 100 feet upstream (base of the
spillway) of the project crossing. Survey methodology included wading using
visual (batiscope and tactile) methods. Water was not being released at the
time of the survey, and water depth ranged from 6 inches to 2 feet. There is
evidence of extreme high flows(water release) and streambank scour in the
creek. No mussels were found in 1 man-hour of survey. The aquatic snail
(Helisoma anceps) and the introduced Asian clam (Corbiculafluminea) were
present in the stream but nowhere abundant. No spinymussel species were
found during this survey.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that James River
spinymussel has not been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor. Given the survey results, it is apparent that
the spinymussel does not occur in the project area. The spinymussel has not
been found in the stretch of the Dan River downstream of the project area. It
can be concluded that project construction will not impact this species. NO
EFFECT.
17'
Smooth coneflower - This species is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial
that grows up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) tall. Basal and stem leaves are large,
glabrous, lanceolate to narrowly ovate blades reaching 3 inches (7.6
centimeters) in length. This coneflower blooms from late May to July,
producing solitary, heads of small purplish disk flowers with long drooping
pink to purplish ray flowers (Kral 1983). This species occurs on calcareous,
basic, or circumneutral soils on roadsides, clear-cuts, power line right-of-
ways where there is abundant light and little herbaceous competition (Gaddy
1991). Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat
for the coneflower. Within the study corridor, suitable habitat occurs for
smooth coneflower along road shoulders and within the power line right-of-
way. NHP records have no documentation of this species within 5.0 miles
(8.0 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Within the study corridor, suitable habitat
occurs for coneflower along road shoulders and within the power line
easement, both of which are kept free of an established canopy. A systematic
field survey was conducted within the power line easement and along the
road shoulders during the blooming season (late May to July) on July 17,
2001. No individuals of any Echinacea species were documented within the
study corridor. Based on the results of field surveys and available
information, the proposed project will not affect the smooth coneflower. NO
EFFECT.
Schweinitz's Sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched,
rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately 6.0 feet (1.8 meters)
in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes nearly
smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above.
Leaf shape is lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The
leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a few small serrations. The upper leaf
surface is rough and the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft white
hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from September to frost; the yellow
flower heads are about 0.6 inch (1.5 centimeters) in diameter. The current
range of this species is within 60 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina,
occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or
clayey in texture. The species needs open areas protected from shade or
excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Disturbances such
as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (FWS
1994). Within the study corridor, suitable habitat occurs for Schweinitz's
sunflower along road shoulders and within the power line easement. NHP
records have no documentation of this sunflower within 5.0 miles (8.0
kilometers) of the study corridor
18
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains suitable
habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower. No existing populations are known
within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of Bridge No. 52. A survey for this
sunflower was conducted during the blooming season (September to frost)
on September 19, 2001. This survey consisted of systematically walking all
areas of suitable habitat and identifying all Helianthus species. Sunflowers
identified included H. microcephalus. No individuals of Schweinitz's
sunflower were identified within the study corridor. Based on available
information and results of an on-site survey, the proposed project will not
affect Schweinitz's sunflower. NO EFFECT.
Small anthered bittercress - Small-anthered bittercress is a low, erect,
biennial or perennial herb with simple, slender stems. The plant has crenate,
lobed basal leaves 0.3 to 0.7 inches (0.8 to 1.8 centimeters) in length, and
unlobed, crenate stem leaves that are slightly shorter. The small flowers have
white petals to 0.1 inch (3 millimeters) long and bloom in the late spring.
This species is only known from Forsyth and Stokes Counties, and has not
been observed in Forsyth County within the past 20 years. This species has
never been found in Rockingham County and is included in this discussion
due to the proximity of the study corridor to the Stokes County line. Typical
habitat is seepages, wet rock crevices, stream banks, sandbars, and wet woods
along small streams in the Dan River drainage. The study corridor contains
a high, relatively dry levee forest which provides poor habitat for the small
anthered bittercress, but the stream banks and sandbars within Belews Lake
spillway provide suitable habitat for this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that this species has
not been documented within one-mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
The Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest provides poor habitat for the small
anthered bittercress but the stream banks do provide suitable habitat for this
species. A systematic survey of the moist portions of the Piedmont/Mountain
Levee Forest, stream banks, and sandbars within the study corridor were
conducted during this field investigation. No specimens of small-anthered
bittercress were observed during the survey. Based on available information
and best professional judgement, the proposed project will not affect small
anthered bittercress. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The February 25, 2003 FWS list also includes
a category of species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in
Rockingham and Stokes Counties. A species with this designation is one that
may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing). A list of FSC species occurring in
19
Rockingham (R) and Stokes (S) Counties is given in the following table.
Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
(Species name, habitat potential within the study corridor, and state status for species federally designated as FSC
within Rockingham (R) and Stokes (S) Counties)
Potential State County
Common Name Scientific Name Haabilaf tai s**
Green floater Lasmigona
subviridis Yes E R/S
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri Yes C R
Orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti Yes E S
Rustyside sucker thoburnia
hamiltoni Yes E S
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana Yes SR S
Butternut Juglans cinerea No W5 S

Sweet pinesap Monotropsis
odorata
No
C
S
**E= Endangered; T= threatened; SC =Special concern; SR= Significantly Rare; C= Candidate;
P = Species has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern;
W5 = NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline (Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and Hall 1999).
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the
species listed. NHP records document the occurrence of the Green floater
(Lasmigona subviridis) approximately 0.4 mile (0.6 kilometer) north of the
study corridor within the main stem of the Dan River. This mussel has a state
status of Endangered and a federal status of FSC. The green floater occurs
in small to medium-sized streams, prefers quiet pools, and is intolerant of
strong currents. The study corridor does provide suitable habitat for this
species. Other than the Green floater noted above, NHP files do not
document any occurrences of FSC species within one-mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the study corridor.
2. State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, Candidate, Significantly Rare, or
Proposed (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G. 5.113-331 et seq.) and
the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.106-202 et seq. ). NHP
records document the occurrence of riverweed darter (Etheostoma
podostemone) approximately 1.6 miles (2.5 kilometers) southwest of the
20
study corridor within the Dan River. This fish has a state status of Special
Concern.
NHP records document a Significant Natural Heritage Area, the Dan River
Aquatic Habitat (Rockingham Section), approximately 0.4-miles
(0.6-kilometers) north of the study corridor, within the main stem of the Dan
River. This area has been designated a natural area significance of "A",
which indicates an area that contains examples of natural communities, rare
plant or animal populations, or geologic features that are among the highest
quality or best of their kind in the nation, or clusters of such elements that are
among the best in the nation.
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and
to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on February 29,
2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by
NCDOT architectural historians and the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO).
None of the properties were considered eligible, and in a concurrence form dated
June 1, 2000, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are
no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is
included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
This is a federally funded project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, which requires consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) on possible effects of the project on historic properties.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined as a 150-foot (45.7-meter) wide area,
21
inclusive of the 100-foot (30.5-meter) wide right-of-way for a project corridor,
measuring about 850-feet (259.1-meters) long. The SHPO (ER 01-8190) made a
request for an archaeological survey of the project's APE in order to identify the
presence and significance of archaeological remains, in regards to Site 31Rk42**,
which is located near the project.
A visual inspection was conducted within the area of the known archaeological site
on September 19, 2001. Subsurface testing occurred only in areas of high potential
for locating intact archaeological deposits within the APE. Located on the east side
of Belews Creek and outside the APE, Site 31Rk42** could not be relocated. Two
shovel test pits (STP's) were positioned at 20-meter intervals on the terrace along the
east bank of the creek in order to locate possible remnants of Site 31 Rk42* *, which
was supposed to be located upstream from this terrace. Remnants of a previous
bridge (i.e. poured concrete abutments) were identified in the area, but were not
considered historically significant.
Based on the survey, no archaeological deposits eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places were identified within the boundaries of the proposed
APE. No further archaeological work is recommended prior to construction. In a
letter dated December 20, 2001, the SHPO concurred with this recommendation. A
copy of the SHPO's letter is included in the Appendix.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal " Categorical Exclusion " due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
According to Duke Power officials, Belews Lake is not a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) lake and a FERC permit will not be needed for the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will
be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
22
In compliance with executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The
investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or
low income populations.
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.
The project does not involve any known Section 4(f) properties. 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.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime, unique or important farmland soils for all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). The proposed project has been
coordinated with the US Department of Agriculture and no prime, unique or important
farmland will be converted as a result of this bridge replacement project. This project is in
conformance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).
The replacement of Rockingham County Bridge No. 55 is an air quality "neutral" project,
so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO
analysis is not required. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is
located in an attainment area. If vegetation 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. The replacement of the existing bridge
will not increase or decrease traffic volumes; therefore, the project's impact on noise and air
quality will not be significant. The noise levels will increase during the construction period,
but will only be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air
quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and
no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground storage tanks
or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
This area is not in a FEMA Flood Study, but is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone A.
No base flood elevations have been determined. This section of stream is relatively short,
begins at Belews Lake approximately 1800 feet (550 meters) upstream and converges with
the Dan River approximately 2000 feet (610 meters) downstream. The Dan River floodplain
23
encroaches up the stream to the subject crossing. The approximate 100-year floodplain in
the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not
substantial. The final design of the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation of the
stream will not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of this project.
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: This area supports good numbers of sunfish and may support a tailrace
fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be performed from
April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of
WS-IV.
Response: Comment noted and project commitment included on Green Sheet.
24

\ 1726 ~ U c ?k?r 1
Sharps /' • 143
1728

`
\
w'
C11 ti?°? 101,
1142
• 4
?

- \ ? '1 qa
1139 ?
1141
1725 772 a
' - 1189 1140 /

1723 \ 311
1128 .+
1722 1138
1135 Ellisboro
~ 1134
' •'? 1136
&"
1908
1911 / 1137
1129
`• •rr
1912
Pine Hall
Bridge No. 55
1133
J
LPF GoY 1903 Bel 1110
1915
?t?e?1ti e<
9afiR?v
Lake
o ,

1176 ?'++ 1(
++ 1132
?
? I
Cer is 1908 ??,
? •
1120
1909
.
" Norfolk /?/ , •
1108
N
1600
Meters
1 -J

4 0 Miles 1?0
Priee

EJ 5',-1!

.-Y- d APPROXIMA
TE SCALE

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
ROCIONGHAM COUNTY
Bridge No. 55
on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Bellews Lake Spillway
TIP No. B-3694
April 2003 Figure 1
KUUKIINGnAM UOUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 55 ON SR 1138 OVER
BELEWS LAKE SPILLWAY
B-3694
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING NORTH
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
FIGURE 3
s
I C p ?
g € pp
:02 0
I +?o y •°p
pa a 8 E Q m
O
W f Z Zgg J
d I a -0 ?Z
Zm ° m
o I I-
PA
? A
xL^'3 U?
c? c3 O A4
O
ca
w
o? ~ " a
o
°?S N t? o I F
o
m ? U
O
U
O
g$
py h ? N
w ? HN
? ?A1 O 0 a
o? ? ? o w ? ?z
ao
U ? e
x
0
s
o
o?
P
6 AL
i # C
op O P 0 p
o Z
E m d
'g F
U ?
o
A
cp
0
CIO
Q
O
U
A M
!I I!
'E,
O ?
pp
?
d' a U
00
O
ZONE X
ZONE X
:.....
ZONE .X:
Bridge No, 55

s?
EX
ZONE X
ZONE A

FEMA - Floodplain Map of Project Area

0 2000
I FEET I
APPROXIMATE SCALE
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Bridge No. 55
on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
TIP No. B-3694
Figure 6
1?
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 22, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your November 15, 2000, request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of a proposed bridge replacement in Rockingham
County, North Carolina. 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 comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following bridge
structure:
1. B-3694 Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 over Belews Lake Spillway
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 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 techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Belews Lake 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows wetland
resources in the specific work area. 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. Therefore, in addition to the above
guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the following in .
sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling,
dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory. 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).
2. 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 enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Rockingham County. The Service recommends that habitat
requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the respective project sites.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, biological surveys for the listed species
should be performed. Environmental documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and
NCDOT's recommendations based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and
comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further biological
research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa. Although FSC's
receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their
potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found. 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,
at", Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/22/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\Ibrdgroc.ham
Rockingham County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Co... Page 1 of 2
Updated: 02/25/2003
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Common Name
Invertebrates
Green floater
James spinymussel
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil
Smooth coneflower
KEY:
Status Definition
Scientific Name Status
Lasmigona subviridis FSC
Pleurobema collina Endangered
Lotus helleri FSC
Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range."
Threatened - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Proposed - A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or
threatened.
C1 - A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there
is sufficient information to support listing.
FSC - A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be
listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/rockingham.html 4/28/03
Rockingham County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Co... Page 2 of 2
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American
alligator )--a species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection. These species are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not.subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP - A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or
nonessential). Experimental, nonessential endangered species
(e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public land, for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on
private land.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or
incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50
years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
* * *Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal
range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
For additional information regarding this Web page, contact Mark Cantrell, in
Asheville, NC, at [e-mail]
Visit the North Carolina ES Homepage
Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page
Keywords={same keywords listed above - used for search tools}
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/rockingham.html 4/28/03
F North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Conforti
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co Ziator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 2, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-3677, B-35093 B-
3694, and B-3700.
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 project, Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
Bridge Memo
2 January 2, 2001
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.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, 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
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
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 could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
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 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-3404 - Anson County - Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421- Cabamzs County - Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway. No
comment.
3. B-3822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity.
4. B-3828 - Cleveland County - Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 _ Davie County - Bridge No. 37 over I-40. No comment.
6. B-3835 - Davie-Forsyth counties -Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands
Bridge Memo
4 January 2, 2001
entirely. The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
7. B-3454 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
8. B-3839 - Forsyth County - Bridge No.139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3840 - Gaston County - Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3851- Guilford County -Bridge No. 21 over US 29/70. No comment.
13. B-3677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April 1 to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 -Rockingham County - Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 - Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
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.
Bridge Memo
5 January 2, 2001
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.
Ken Burleson,
From: "John W Harmon Sr" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:42 PM
Subject: Project B-3494 Rockingham County
Ken, Belews Lake is not a FERC lake. There will be no FERC permit
required.

n?
a?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From. David Brook
Deputy State HistoriLPreservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
t?P

Re: Request for Comments for Group = Bridge Replacement, Projects, Replace
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 over Belews Lake Spillway, B-3694, Rockingham
County; ER 01-8190
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
Historic period archaeological site 31RK42** is located approximately 50 yards south of
the existing bridge. We recommend that an archaeological survey be undertaken of the
area of potential effect (APE) for this project. If site 31RK42** is to be affected by the
bridge replacement, sufficient historical research and testing should be undertaken to
determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
cc: Thomas Padgett, NCDOT
Fecierul.4id =BRZ-113 8(9) TIP =6-369-4 Counrr: Rockingham
CUNCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIE'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE' IATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 5f on SR 1 138 over Belews Lake Soillwav
On June 1. 2000. representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
l ?1t/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
Q? photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
Lam" there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each propem, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Resister and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Moo"A Ct C1
Representative. N OT Date
FHWA. for the Division Administrator. or other Federal Agency Date
Re sentative. SHP Date
State Historic Preservation Officer / Date

If -.1 sury;\ report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached lis; %N ill he included.
,,. SIATEo-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARI'1VIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
04,719 October 19, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road/ Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Q?U12oe[9
p
OCT z s zoos
WATER QUALITY
WaDSN S
TORMWATFR BRANCH
Subject: Nationwide 33 Permit Application for the replacement of Bridge No. 55
over Belews Lake Spillway on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road), Rockingham
County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9), State Project No. 8.2510801,
Division 7, TIP No. B-3694, WBS #33234.1.1.
Please find enclosed copies of the project planning report, permit drawings, and '/2 size
plans for the above referenced project. The document states that Bridge No. 55 was
constructed in 1961 over Belews Lake Spillway and will be replaced on a new location.
The new structure will placed approximately 50 feet upstream (south) of the existing
structure.. The approach length is approximately 1440 feet total with approximately 970
feet east of the crossing and 470 feet west of the crossing. The new structure will be
approximately 167 ft long as shown in the permit drawings. During construction, traffic
will be maintained on the existing structure.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This project is located in the Roanoke River Basin within
USGS hydrologic unit 03010103 (sub-basin 03-02-01). The proposed bridge replacement
is located over Belews Lake Spillway (DWQ Index no. 22-27-(7.5), which has been
assigned a Division of Water Quality best usage classification of "WS-IV".
PERMANENT IMPACTS: No streams or wetlands will be permanently impacted as a
result of this project.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TEMPORARY IMPACTS: Temporary surface water impacts of 0.02 acre are
anticipated due to the construction of two temporary work pads. No temporary wetland
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION: Bridge No. 55 is a five-span two-lane structure.that consists
of pre-cast pre-stressed concrete channels. The end bents and interior bents consist of pre-
cast pre-stressed concrete caps and timber piles. Bent #1 consists of a steel cap and pile
crutch. The overall length of the structure is 151 feet. The clear roadway width is 24'-1".
During removal of the existing bridge, the bridge rails will be removed without dropping
them into waters of the United States. It is anticipated that the bridge railings and
substructure will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the United
States. All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge
Demolition and Removal.
This project falls under Case 2 of the Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal. Case 2 "allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas". The
moratorium period is in regards to the healthy sunfish population in Belews Lake and
extends from April 1 to May 31.
UTILITIES: No impacts to utilities are. anticipated as a result of demolition or
construction.
MITIGATION
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation
of wetland and surface water impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A (Preservation of the Nations
Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and values provided by wetlands.
These directives require that new construction in wetlands be avoided as much as
possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to
wetlands.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts,
and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional
impacts.
• No in-water work will be performed from April 1 to May 31.
• High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures will be used.
• No bents will be placed in the stream.
• Preformed scour holes will be constructed to diffuse stormwater runoff.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The Department has avoided and minimized
impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as described above.
There are no permanent impacts from this project to streams or wetlands that require
mitigation.
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 February 25, 2003
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four federally protected species for
Rockingham and Stokes County (Table 1).
Field surveys were conducted for each species by NCDOT staff. On August 17, 2001 a
field survey was conducted for James spinymussel 400 feet downstream to 100 feet
upstream from the project site with no specimens observed. On July 17, 2001 (the
blooming season lasts from late May to July) a systematic field survey was conducted for
smooth coneflower within the power line easement and along the road shoulders
(considered suitable habitat). No individuals of any Echinacea species were documented
within the study corridor. A field survey was conducted for Schweinitz's sunflower on
September 19, 2001. The study corridor contains suitable habitat for Schweinitz's
sunflower, but no individuals were observed. A systematic field survey (date unknown)
was also conducted along the moist portions of the Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest,
stream banks, and sandbars within the study corridor for Small-anthered bittercress. No
specimens were observed during the survey.
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been rendered for James spinymussel, smooth
coneflower, small-anthered bittercress, and Schweinitz's sunflower.
Table 1- Federally Protected Species of Rockingham and Stokes County
Federal County Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Conclusion
James spinymussel Pleurobema collina E R/S No Effect
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E R No Effect
Small-anthered Cardamine micranthera E S No Effect
bittercress
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E S No Effect
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary work pads 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. We anticipate a 401 General Water Quality Certification
number 3366 will apply to this project and will adhere to the general conditions of WQC
3366. 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 contact Jon Scott at
[phone].
Sincerely,
,-. '.?r?eThorpe, Ph.D. .
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E.
Mr. Jerry Parker, DEO
w/o attachment
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. Elmo Vance, PDEA Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
4 7
NORTH CAROLINA

N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
VICINITY
MAP
PROJECT: 8.2510801 - B-3694
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 55
OVER BELEWS LAKE SPILLWAY
ON SR 1134 (LINDSEY BRIDGE RD.)
SHEET I OF 7 APRIL 2004
1 2 3 4 5 10 MILES

r;_ _
????. ?_? :'? g •x,39 • ' .i 4\. ;
...i
71
er.??s •' .: C?
C?\
138
NO.

p 1 :,
7' .7
0 2,000 4.000 6,000
SITE MAP

N. C. DEFT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 82510801 - B-3694
BRIDGE X55 OVER
BELEWS LADE SPILLWAY
O'l SR 11-' (LI DSEY BRIDGE RD.)
SHEET 2 OF 7 APRIL 2004;
UN, sff YSS T S TIME Y ssss
YYffss&sssssssssOGNssssssssssssssss
FW?IGryF E Y f s
C
too
1. 1 y It
O

W
'I v
o
'1
•
r ? p 2
T coo
sma i ? ? $?N

o
v °
' -oD
=
yy
y
<T . o
; Nmr
npa)
O

yY
?Sn

y a
I:o no
u
00
+? w a
^ 4 ?

G
N ?

'L-
m: Y
mi 1. ? R w
i N 4 Z
S
Mill
r
a
m m ?
m
a
om?
Ko an
ro ?mr
Q ?
-1 t 2
oma
4
ZR1 n1 DT?nI
CEO Rt?O
.0
?Q)
m?? ?rn
v `0
I:N ? o rno
NmlNN Qu .
yZZ4Z C
ntmo
m IU In
m
UN? N ?
o-m -
m
c'
\B9
9 ?)
a
.S
ry ••I
--640
• m

?j
ULEWS CHEEK _m

r - ..
A G -
p M I ?? 20+00
?? ?, I S??N?NO1dIM
a? ? ? 5 .13?N5 33.
p0+02'olS 1-
^y ? v
FI a
S.
3 -
fro ? o m ?
Tm 4?
1..
0 P.
8W
Ai G? 3
O
GA
fi
(rs
O
9-•

8/17/99
i
?P
I££II£SYS Tit.
i
O?
m
m
i
h
rn
i
sssssssssssss
. aaA•o
Ov ?
? O
N
ti
s
o
m ?g

o

T s ?
?
_mo
:mm
ex

.. epr
i a'•CD
ma
oS ?
A n0 p
0 0
w w

m
a

?
r)
mo

m ° n
;mom
O

?+

N

C

J' $upin
m
o
=?

s
y
mo
N..
p O g
44? _
I
1 /
I /
o
O rim. O .• ????
k
/0i
w
i
pig /
z I t
o
1I y??j 1 ? J
/ I
goo
X i
I
Q F
X H 114
y s
nl /st`0b
c
o m
=nN ,
mps o
N
m
?nCmo
'O yNll•?
mN?-A
U-p N
o -m
m
i
J
' n
Ni r ({ CREEk ?i i s
SELENS CREEK ?-•••J
Nmr m ?€? - ?o r?
mo C Do ?o
CIO KO m eCD -f
a I:
7
+W
sNr ?° X33. 3 s ?N? 143J
2 015
°go m?o
?2m ?2m .
:?DC)? (n Ln
?tz?O r?I0
Re DD
m
? m
a?a
A
Io ? R SS??
$3Ni

3Im,
-? eq' gR
? r
o
t8 a' n
? m
iq
0
a
.Q

-
• t
Iw
v

m N
n
0
c O

n a o m r L
r
`
Ss n
5 s
?n
wry9y P?
T C
9 m i
TA? rrr pp>

m
K y
a ? N

t?ilO???IrpQ?
II M b O M? p M Vl
O E?iI O ic-?I 0) I
?lJ1??Z'F
?V I
M
LI IF
N? GR D
.
•
?QH
}Y

b z ?
a ?

z ??
y ? ?

IMA

0
?
r?
?a

® ® d
a

a ?
PA4 ?-
V_
3

rml t=4

3

D o;
i
_ m
Z;
o

n N `.
?
o
pp j '?O T
up S Vl ? v T 3 N
Q ? ?p .0
y 0 0 0 3. ° 0 0
Q. 0 o O T 77 ccl 3
m C D ?. O Q O m
j' O
CL (C C N N <Q W W
r
vJ _
O

X
° C c 3 ?C
°o. c n 0- m
v •, h

H

i I
a;; T ;?Y
? l
I l
ICI ? ?
? I
?I y
I I I ?
i
-o -? c o o m a, 3 a, ro 3.
3 3 0 °+ = (0 0 (0
S
a r) v 0 Q o 04, •Yt? S?
C -+ rt
Q
G Q' n'" O' n Q
3 7 le C ^
lD Q. a O fOD r1i+];
M 0
(A LA
3 3 0 o m s 9 A s 0
W 0 V
w Q ' (D
r r 0 00 '00
7O• ' O O
CA (A
fD
<D D d 0
II ? 1
°m m m i ^ 0>01 II, D
I I ? i i "''"fffl
m v g7 A . -p --0 -w --0 --0 A m

°
,
d O
=r C:
' : f
7C 7r _
N T N N
3 O T A
`'O 7
O O A
m
'

O
MMMiii
c

• '0 i
•
H

? I I
L
I. ? ® I
I ?n I
h
I

I
V1 C -i m -1 -40 N m -I Om t- A -1 -0 N N S A -I '9 'O o
to- (D cr a 6 Q o 0 Q Q o_ OT co 0 0 0 o c? . Q -,c g! T
r3 =F 'WO N N ID W C -Si lD C_ '00 t0 !D W a 0' Np '? 0 '0 Nr
H' () Q -7 S
5-0 ° N 0 1A '? 3 cWD < T co m o c (1 ° 0 > > 3' S. 1. 0 0
N a n 7 7 W 0 7 N O 0 -0 O O N 7 O -N - 0 A -0 0 -« " a 'O O O
A (A Z' W D -I ° p OD W OS O C S (7 0- m O 7 y N p p 9
C r- a 0 O p O S 0 lD 0° Q ID °' W Q CD 0. 0 O O_
C 0 m W 0
3 (QD C S y p !D O S D fD C p A o p O_ -y O
° O O° O Q
q3 O_ S 0- i O' lD N W
I 7 Q
N Ip k OW H O N lD Q_ O_ S
O_
L
a: CIO)
m
n

g

n

S v
3

Q

to

O

N m
tr

M.

O m
`D

A

N

a S
Q
Q_

m 3:

0
Q

I Y
if
? I ? II z
®t]D QO?mO®Oo®I EO OO+p®CS _ 0- 0 it f
T:? o 3?Wo c T:F Tw TTm Ao A0
-0 9: cc 30 p° Sm n m m m m m° c m
Q.C3A rZ,4
C o m e r 0 o ° o o-0 m s°D 3 r- co o
lC (a D ` y? 7 0' C 0 3 N 7 0 5i
0 0 7 UGC CL 901 W ?D
0- :z: 0 cr
o CL c« a o
:2 (L
3+ 3 p °c Q. 0 o
W o M. ° W o (D co?
C 0 H o C to
Q j N• Q. Z
o Q
N = y
m m f o o w I Qi iz To,---G I I I ( I
m wm r? ? ? w ?nX W I ( I
C I I I I I I
IIII II. !I ??

I R
v y ;u c: v g v v ?; v v N v
N n m
fn n n n n O N n a n 7 N n
I° ra o m o = N
to o m
N O a o o _ o to
o

-
a a
'c
o
o
°
a
3
0
°
a
a
°
a
o v Q . Q . Q ? Q /o

m
CL
rt m
M CL
°-
u
CL CLI
o
C °- C
CL CL
o.
(D
CL C-
°
0
CD
CL -
°
0
CL
m CL
3:
0 :R L -4
0 -0 :? CL CA CL
n 0
31
cr
0

!D

/D

-

fD

O

'?

H

O

O

0

?+

pa

O p L.
0
r
r
r
7 G 0 N O N
1
"
(D
S
CD
Q
,

o
.0
'
0 (D
o
co
W
m
? W
W
V ? ° A m "a s c?
c g
m o
m o
o
0 A A a. V o A N
A cr °o- m ° o p a in ? C m cn
-
° co m W A °-r o C !77 n c
a in
0
y C ? 0
O. C

C <D

?
O C 177
m
in

C to

rn

I I ? I I I
I
O
O I
<
<
?
I
' i ,
?
i
?
I
I ? ?
N ?
N
(
?
I
F e 0 I I I I I I
b L?

n
O
Z
m
Z
O
Z
D
r
CA
3Z
DD
0
r
CA

5/28/99
N
C
Fn
11
N
C
W
N
C
T
A.
m
r
z
0
m
m
m
<?
00

sssss??ssss
y
r'n
rrl
? Sul O
r~v
CD ?Z: "I o rn O
NO
rno rn" g 2 m
c?$ 2?0 22 W
?(n .l x? OO Oy y
--o rd
Oa? ?oowoc?L4
m?rt,a o C7
?`N''?Opm-?2o
?o Az o ern
ao(4OdA-0? m-+Q?y?
O ? rn rn
p` N $ A O
Qn,
N

O
??

?r4
O y
O
y
b y
to
00

GO M W
b h
5??t o
x

o
h 0 ?.
o ?
b b
?
X 0 0
M
C) co
O
C4 t

O 4

O

? n
y

I O
?.
:am.n? ?r.om w+mv ?
`n-ni'
•
? :yo-zi
m
mi m4i ?

:
g •
$
•
oa? :
?
a
? 9?????:
m

mSNO nn
(
nn
pp
: p S•Nw : 4
01
w? W N.. ? ll

d p,,
m ?
?

•
•• • p
Q$
; D
an
mVm?(11 ZZZ
m b ? ? Ww •

dm$2:
mmam??
?
tyyy1?? yyYY
W
U
N
•?
NO
i
?
?
/yy
/y? y
N i ? V m:

Ta.Omm'
~ '
pp
~
(51
hf lR
11JJ S S ? 11II??
NW mNiq : y
N a
m Z r z
anon
ono
>o
N(-nmw
N
0z_--
:S1
WV mm
y y
n_l
O O
A z
O
Z m
D?
y
N A
m
0
y
c ("
?n
Z m
A Z a
>- c
? N C
O z n
Z 3. z (
? n
O
m Z r0
m a O r
o N N
.o z u+ i
O y ;
D A y
m z P
n z 14
o -
>o
yo
S -
m m
r ° .
O a
n i
n = ,
O
Z 'D 1
A
p m
c i
mm
c
Z
y
m
m (?
M z
n -i
~ O
GZ-Ir
?o
A n
O y
L n
y A
ny
O=
?y N
O ?
O ?
n m
y n
D -i
D n
?z
m
0
z
0
m
r
m
n
y
A
0
D
K
mzrz
on
?o
mm>o
Dar-{
-iON
R'0>
ram-um
Nair
r O O Z
mM
?0
n?
0z
z
/ o
Zco
nr
y N
N
l --
-917?
A?
0
'y
bd
W
k

i
z
0
y r

s34tss'fIiVVI U GN3S$A$ t$$$ $$$$$ 5/14/99
-I C C x
N s
Om Z? s O w t7 =c,c?DV Dv ODV
A
-a- 0 Z / z D D
i
Q) < a 9 ?DaO 9X ODOO GD'7X -I DG10 ?X
0 N L o
m m m
o D
rn ° y y ii
m 10V O M -i M w O V)
v„
O w m
MO c rAD ND r D D D
j? 9
Xr 2-? N m wm-a r
M m zma m Z. a a Z. a a
n w
v ad a y a N?-1 -I m •O -1 9 -1
r rn -+ W D w s
Z r <w <w p-1 pa pa
^ -1
N rn OF
m 0 z =mc o c v o
` o o w w s v c c x, o zo
D OD = w
to O aa_m m °s"(aii DH
n M w x WO-1 -4 G, G)_M op
Zrn n ..
N v m
F m aS M ax
MATCHLINE 1 & 2 i-1N
TYP. SECT. NO.1 z mm mi -1
O
V'
X M
Q X
C cn
z•
v
L
?N
a Z
M O
N MATCHLINE 2
00
CIO
c TYP. SECT. NO.1
00
0 -0
00 CA 00
O ??„ W r? 0 r r rn -+ MATCHLINE 1_
H ZZp A & C 0 40
r n m o s : Q m o o m v SEE INSETS
13 ;a 0 ina _u
0 CA
CM) zn -n
Ul 14
+ m?
v zZ'00
CEO to OO rn D D = I N
°o G ov Gy TO - r rn CA Q° I 0 0
O 7a N
0 O g Z O z o Q GRADE
M ° I Z POINT rlA
-? Xr o Z v; No l
NZ l? N O rn D I N 3 N I 56
+OC 0+ Q M I ° ?
rte' ? C I ? r ? NY v
M O MATCHLINE 2
3 I Z SEE INSETS
z Z c m >> A, & B
????N 0 *w0 ? 00
A 0 Z c
yi•yF-yi•. X M + +
oQOOz 0 I O
OD 01 ;5,0 Q. Z 7" O
OUiOOD ( N V 00
Z1Z?O
vOv00 = O ?N L
0o N ? o ?I
r-? I r- rn 01 I v m
2 -q ?! N I I? ! x r
CA +n y. rn O O. I 0u
? ? "'? r W ?• I ?jr?m
v 0% N 93 n m I wtZiCmp
-4 z
0+ + OD
•I? O •a l OD
I °°uam
_ o ou
r+ 11I + v \ n I v °-m 0
1 _11- M I O X
c m• _ o -- MATCHLINE 1 I C N
m
_ _ TYP. SECT. NO. 1 Z
00' 01 0 a
+ W + M I ° o
ov°v
+ mbrn
z o
o
C
z>i =c x
3C ? N
0

N m
N m v
N v
-? n
N n
-•
m
x ? co o uivD?
z Dv
a V
-I?f?D ?D•o vDv
1 D 1 ?

r
i
a
x
O
°
a
0
D
0 O
D D O 0
?D 0
-
? c DV Dv z = Dv

?
m mG•
va <• mz•
AO z- mm.

v z.
i ; m -
i z
G . ? D< AD DG
z DD
O D a m n v •+<
D <'o HGD <•o

m
x

v
1
m

m

m .

m zm9
Mr-

ma
0
x
zzm
9a
m
za?°
MW
v
H m y ; a x<Dm D• m<mm
• m• x<mm m•

? s

= r
o
w -? v
am-? •a
mW vm a
-?aa-i
ap m y
aa1
aw

v

1 c w w x

z-°D

°nD xw ax

zma a_

'ms
g
w a
zma
D_
ma

p
D m < O w
• w O co, w O
' D
G a

p O
-I+
x WV

Ax

mx

Tx 0

•nx
c
•nx

C

g r
+ D
+
m
m
a ..?
1 m r
r r
-? m
r
w•- -? Ar
W-a m
r
w-•-? r
m -i
-i m w m wA m CON
m
m
a w0
1• o w0
o O
-iro O
ro O
-iro O
ro
z
in
m x z
DSO z
SO xmz
Dw0 mz
w0 xmz
Dw0 mz
0
w ?
cl)
O
? T
_w w
m ?
m v ?9m
9 m
(7
p
' p 9
' M. ' m
z s w z
p
-i
z w z wc w e
Om
• m Om •
m
s m
a• ?
D
T
D

i
• v

<
<A

•< v
i
c

i
<
c r
-? ?
o v m
o
m
•0
' v m m
x
.+ a s a -? o o -
i
o .. o
a }m m ma a
me c

mi Di- -9i'm
mx m mvi
Dm'o <
M MO-4
Dm< 0-?
?<

•
a• N
T1
m
m
T-?fm
m
°O
D O ±
f0 t0 -1 T °
T

m- •
00 o Dx-?Om
• rm
D•
? m m z
D 9?
? m m
w

Sg55?SE?
N _
O '
O -
Z3
0
0
0
0
0
m
C_
gam

r
1
T n 33
4 1
m 1
1

6
pa
m
z
10+00 Z
G1
r
r
m
z
m
r
O
-v
m
m
r
15+00
1 X11
`AZ
cy \ \
I
o?

?o
m
$
o

6r :b
A p

C
m

H RETA/N/NG WALL
z
o g
z
£?
2

?m o
x

elp
C) 10 T U `
s
0
zr
goo

'

te
= .0
A
Z
0 b
=?N
-? .
a o--i
Wz

Z m
z

o o
z'C
LA
ocmo
C)
m ti 40
tt?? C,
mrNA
MM-4_
o-m W o
m
1
kPR-20Q4 15:33
\Specia 0etai1s\er-cward\stds\02'Stds to Special Details\english\42210\0422d10.dgn
vc.,rard AT OS212260
Q 2
MM Qow
Outlet Pad Q
0 Z Q
0 0 U -Std. Pad Std. Dwg. 816.03
o-"-i Iur Std. DWg. 815.03 U. JON
Mz X-4 I" -4 > .. OO5)xz
O x -4 cc
x -n> n M Wingwall H V? o x
Zx ¢ H
CO 1- w J
z O r
c7 -j D o Asphalt Paving LAsphalt Paving Z O N
wo
Z Bridge Rail Bridge G
t Rail t Drain \-
11
M A
M `„\ ` End Bent
, ` t„• N
z % J
V: LL
C \? Bridge Deck ;;
m Approach Slab \''' Limits of x =
0 Reinforced Fill U V
11I r \:, Q
> '1 --Bridge -` \V,
o `
L :? t Skew \:.
N M Angle ? Q Q
D Limits of Approach Slab
m r Reinforced Fill Bridge Deck- \?': tJ--
%
A 1A U3
V % 11 A',
H Drain;,\ t \:'. = m
O G) End Bent
- N
-n ` "IA ` Bridge Bridge Rail ? V
O \
= x L W
m /
ZASphalt Paving 7 Asphalt Paving 7 LL.
h•? ' f 7 Z'
o % „
r „ N
r t ---------- W
N Wingwall
Plan View
SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEET 1 OF 4
422D10 422D10
v
N-a
-" l

Asphal
Ov y Approach
c--1 F-B
Bridge Rail
"00
C Slab ABC Base F.. Q
Q
O T
_q co
r YIN. ' -- Roadway
-- -+ ._• r- --- •- -- - • V
0
I
T1
Hz-q > - -- -- -- •- - - -- - -
XXXX - -- - --
XXXXxXXXI -- -- -- - -- - - U. J a
O Z
x
=T ?m Yazd- Pagoo
'

zx?oO -t
p0H
I
.1 o
of
lamm 3
OC C
z-y
w
n z
1>
• r F
or = - End Bent Girder F
ty?:i °f OF- O
fc WO"Q
0
OC
D
ch C
Slope
_ Protection
Slope
Protection Dia._ 4%
z
d M

Z
C LrB
Perforated Pi
e
eo O
G
One Layer Each p
(See Inset 'A') Se
omembrane
(See Inset 'A')
Select material of Woven Fabric
(See Insets A' and 'B') .
M
M N
x -q SECTION A-A W
m
-q
N
0 N
L'o
i
x m
(7 f? 4'_0" Bridge Rail
(Typ• Approach Slab

ABC Base D? _ ?
O V D]
o m 1L
Q
M fY
D W x
Z
m utlet Pad it Slc
g• fi 12" (Max . F•2
Win
wall SIO -? 0"
v N Wingwall
815.013 g
e
,
„ d C7
Q
-a v D
G) r~ 1
-S
(Typ•) W
0
H
?M N
M v 4" Dia O
L
E
h S
l "' Di a
0
.
Corrugated ne
ayer
ac
e
ect Material End Bent
of Woven Fabric 4
a. Corrugated
Perforated Pipe (See Inset Impermeable t
-
w N o

H "?
Solid Pipe
(See Insets A' and 'B')
SECTION B-B asomembrene
(See Inset 'A')
O =
z
v z
M O 0
Bridge Rail = 00
0) 0
M O Approach Slab ABC Sass ? CO)
Lij
co
z U
1
?x?=x
.
W
?cc
glo Fjjj SIO

Cf)
r Fib pe Z W

a
' N
1
N
One Layer Each Select Material
of Woven Fabric Limits of Select
Material
W
Qr
(See Insets 'A' and
SECTION C-C
EET 2 OF 4
422D10 SHEET 2 of 4
422D10
050
9

CO)
o

X-n-
M y
"

em
m a
o
Z
or
< m
vo
?m
" .Q 3M

P N r Nv?
NfN67
m p
..? O Z
is
o
g R1 m
m

y mn
T
?HfMf!
r
mmm ?
=
z
N Nv
A
N ° om-4
V ?~
z
A N m a)Z

Z?
O
4?R--20.14 15:39
\..p6-A, 0etai1s\ericw*rd\stds\02'Stds to Special Details\english\42210\042'2di0.dgn
--.'1 ?T nCil77F.A
C)m o z
0 -0 C +? Approach B Asphalt Bridge Rail Asphalt co
-1 4,.0" ABC Base Slab overlay overlay Q
'~ Z YIN. - _ ,
?HO0 ' FRoadway-\
C_U
- '
HZ-4 > 0023=Z
_ rn Select Material °^ A End Bent Cored Slab ,la{tac Q U U
z I-0 Or -n Ief en 4%-- Protection Slope of p F ~ u2
O Protection 4" Dia: LL J
C7 O One Layer Each = O I-4 a
-4 Z of Woven Fabric B Corrugated Impermeable O N
° D }' (See Insets and Perforated Pipe Beomembrane Z
1 }
?4 (See Inset A') (see Inset 'A') HH
O j C t
z O
SECTION A-A y
M J
= M
"f1 N-
O 4'-0'
Z (Typ Bridge Rail Approach Slab With ¢ _
M Wingwall Asphalt Overlay ABC Base Wingwall LL a
~
O Oy?utdle Pad Drain Y H C5
O :Q D 815.03 - R Zj Sjo e C3
M 1 8'
O D Sloe One Layer Each Select Material End Bent 4" Dia. (Typ') O Q DO
D w Fill 4" Dia. of Woven Fabric Corrugated Impermeable J {N
M r Corrugated (See Insets 'A' and 'B') Perforated Pipe Bermbrane H
Solid Pipe SECTION B-B (see Inset A') (See Inset `a') a O
?wF0°I?
r?"p> pip
LO)?? =mUJ
Z
4") Bridge Rail Approach Slab H V
a -n With Asphalt Overlay ABC Base J W
z v
' FBI sjOpa W {L
'?i pill glove
17111-1-
M
r One Layer Each Select Material LLiYiits of Select =
r of Woven Fabric {(?
(/? - (See Insets A' and 'B')
SECTION C-C
SHEET 9 OF4 SHEET S OF 4
422D10 422D10
0
vm
h Z

?Oy O 9
r- O --(O
Hz?=y
?rn
Z2
ZN'a -n
G7 p O0 H

co H
N O
z

4'-0"
End Bent
Weep Hole
select Material - - - _ _

- Woven --------^-----
Fabric
'Impermeable
Type 2 Impermeable
Engineering Fabri Beomembrene
4% Slope-?
Impermeable 478 Stone
Oeomembrane
"
4
Dia. Corrugated
Perforated Pipe; Sloped
to Drain
M Cored Slab Bridg g
N Showing First Lift and Drains
Z .
4'-0"
O
M rn
z Cc
Select Material - End Bent
Weep Hole
_
`--
M --------
0 8„l'
Fa ---------------
(n
Z
O M = °
-
bric
m m

r
rnn Type 2 Impe
rmeable
0 ..? Engineering Fabric . eeomembrane
Ay D
O m r
4A1 Slope- -,
Impermeable 078 Stone

S D O
- D Beonembrane
4" Dia.Corrugated
P
f
t
d
i
y
?o 0 N er
ora
e
P
pe; Sloped
to Drain
(a Birder Bri ft
D Showing First Lift and Drains
Cl)
o
Inset

M
r
r
y
End Bent
End Bent
Require 2 Fabric Layers.
Length of Bridge End Bent Inside Wingwalls
If Bridge Skew is Less Than or Equal to 90":
(Roadway Width + T-0")
Sin (Bridge Skew Angle Dis. Between Wingwalls
)
If Bridge Skew is Greater Than g0":
(Roadway Width + 7'-0") = Dis. Between Wingwalls
Cos (Bridge Skew Angle - 9o")
Height of Number of
Backwall Fabric Layers
41-6" - 51-9" 3
5'-10" - 7'-2" 4
T-3" - 8'-8" 5
B'-9" - 10'-1" 6
10'-2" - 11'-8" 7
Note: Cored Slab Structures
z
o?
as
HCCWU
O OLY 10 = Z
uj LA-
I-Vp OO
N
F-
tnF-LL_OJ
OaCOCC
Z ? CC
IL
W
C3
co
J
J
M
LL
o v
LL
z??
QQC.?
J LU Z
aoa
W M
1--
an. LU
=mz
? H
J ?
z?
w pC
O
Z
M
W
W
422D10
mom N
oo`-t
O " M
M oy
om m mZ
or
a?j
00
?
m
ca

m° 0 z

' m iM
o

91 "o w

cc>N
ccr
mmm C
..? io
Z
NOH
?
W N ?a
? AM

W ^' m roz

9
SI'
Typical Fabric Lift and 111ran
Showing Second and Above Lifts
Inset `B'
-MAY-200 130
\ pedal ete s\er i c ward \stds\02' Stds to Special Details\engl2sh\86202\0862d02.dgn
ic.+ard AT DS212260
v
vm
N ?
H' Z
NOG.
$ "n (A
G)
x? m
=000
zT
z ":R
as
? N
zz
BUTTON HEAD
BOLT (10" LONG)
THRU RAIL AND
POST WITH NUT
AND $TO. WASHER
C m
rv

rv
a N
*
r W
v
J

r
Z o

z `so
8'-S"
I "W" BEAM RAIL
END SECTION ASSEMBLY - PLAN
PAY LIMITS
BUTTON HEAD BOLT (10"
LONG) THRU RAIL AND
POST WITH NUT AND
ANCHOR PLATE "W" BEAM STD. WASHER
i
CABLE ASSEMBLY
GROUND
jg10d
0 0
LEVEL a
1
BREAKAWAY TERMINAL
I'
0
POST SLEEVE STEEL TUBE
" S I e
' i
. , EXTENDS 2
ABOVE

GRD. LEVEL
SOIL PLATE

1
%'W7 t" BOLTS
1
WITH 2 WASHERS
STEEL TUBE
OTY
. 2
END S ECTION ASSEMB LY - ELEVATION

C.A.T.-1 S YSTEM
z
O o
g Q
`~ V
N
ooy=z
ILu LL
NI=--LLOJW
z0?y+LL
?H
Wc
0
ac z
o ?
U. M
zg
z
N
0 N
Q N .
J
O
S
J
O
W
-v
vm

O
r1 m
0
m z 3
STEEL TUBE
z O m ,
" o
m
-
=Co
o
-
y
n
z"-
n ?
o 0
-1?
.
I
N M we BEAM RAIL
O
Z
END SECTION ASSEMBLY - PLAN
h"x10" BOLT
THRU RAIL AND PAY LIMITS
POSTS WITH NUT BUTTON HEAD BOLT (10"
'
AND STD. WASHER LONG) THRU RAIL:AND
POST WITH NUT AND
° "W" BEAM STD. WASHER
12{" RAIL _

C Z
?,
1 -Q -- o-

r -mi 4 / SHORT WOOD BREAKAWAY POST
2
x11
M'1 N DIA BREAKAWAY (SEE SHEET 4 OF 7)
.
LINE POST 2 ft" §
d GROUND DIA. -
r,. LEVEL
V '

` 1
Z = m ,11/'' 1'
'

o '
1 i1 ?'
STEEL TUBE -
I

END SECTION ASSEMBLY - ELEVATION
HEET 2 OF 7 L _1
862DO2 A.T.-1 SYSTEM
0
of IBC/ `
J'
,
d
BREAKAWAY
LINE POST
gco
aaQa
M ? ? v
OOyxZ
FW
Q ? N
N
z°co
~ N
CL o
NJ
OC Z
j F
O W J
H
N C
J a¢
(0
Z
W
2120
MG7H
o
h
m
m

2
o
10 0
mro
m
.
4
m
g
?
my

m

B

N ?r
to
o?l
m .A NO
ID
,

J
-Y1A1-200 13:3
\ ped etas s\ar:awa?d\stds\02'Stds to Spao,al Details\en913sh\66202\0862d02.dgn
'
,ewa AT D6212260
vm
v .o
mN° M
=1?lj m
xTno
z,.., 8 r -n
N o
z
O m
cI
r
?_
N
Q
r
M
I!1 r
¦= r
N C
00
z
862D02
e
v e
8 TE '8'
VG' STEEL POST WITH
ROUTED OFFSET BLOCK
PLAN ISOMETRIC VIEWS
ROUTED
l 8d IL OFFSET BLOCK
B"
e I""`I e
fl 11
STEEL N
e POB DRAIL
I
all WOOD POST WITH '1W BEAN
WOOD OFFSET BLOCK GUARDRAIL
I
1 ?
1 ?
I
1 ?
I
1
I
I
1 ?
'W8' STEEL POST WITH 8" WOOD POST WITH
ROUTED OFFSET BLOCK WOOD OFFSET BLOCK
SIDE
I ,
z
0
WOOD }
GUARDRAIL POST ?[ Q
WOOD OFFSET N U
BLOCK LL J a r Z
o Cox
OW
U.
'W' BEAM 00
GUARDRAIL z ;
CL I-I
LU°
°
I ,
GUARDRAIL POST
1 ,
„
I ,

1 ,
I ,

NOTES:
A - Oro" DIA. BUTTON HEAD SPLICE BOLT 114" LONG WITH BID. WASHER UNDER NUT (0 REQ. PER SPLICE JOINT). -
e - 4b" DIA. BUTTON HEAD BOLT 71¢"/e" LONG WITH NUT FOR BOLTING 8"/8" ROUTED OFFSET BLOCK TO STEEL POSTS OR
4B" DIA. BUTTON HEAD BOLT 18" LONG.WITH STD. WASHER UNDER NUT FOR BOLTING TO WOOD POSTS (1 REQ. PER LOCATION)
C - FIELD PUNCHING OF HOLES INTO GUARDRAIL SHALL BE AS DIRECTED.BY THE ENGINEER.
TYPICAL GUARDRAIL AND GUARDRAIL POST ALTERNATIVES
?z
0
OF
Zg
w J
° co
Q
J
°
x
w
J
W
to
fl
N,Z 21-011 ? ~Q
M
Imi z x D CENTERED 8 I 8 I S " o p d. = Z
s ?..4 U
ONO" BIDE
U r- L
a I u.
=0000 I , I Q
CD O M -l B• BR BR BR DIA. ; ¦? F " DIA. y O O ? W
y? ^ f ( Vi ` 1 . '? i 9"? 8• i I iLb^ aQ
f I D o I I ° DIA. 1)6" UJ
---- SOIL PLATE PLAN
¦ 14" THICK PLATE I
WOOD OFFSET BLOCK
(FOR W000 POSTS) 'Q -
l,-Gll x 11-811 ' Q 1 ¦
BOIL PLATE I > iii n
z A,, 1A?
M R I Q
G) 21I4 11 IA. U.
of* 11
PIJA
BLOT ¦
HOLE8 I E ^
`r 44" DIA. s „+
ELM
M F-
y N "+
2% 1? co)
1*r 0 J Z
H
\ I Lak .
"
CA I ' s TS S Bx 11 ?? e 1 R i r
r B!Ix0.1876,1. !I O N
TANDARD SHORT WOOD f ( £ ( H
Q LINE POST BREAKAWAY POST
Z w z
Ilea" DIA. $ZDE FROM
FRONT
BEARING PLATE ROUTED WOOD
4" THICK PLATE OFFSET BLOCK "W6" STEEL POST
SHEET 4 OF 7
882D02 SYSTEM PARTS aHEET 4 OF 7
862DO2
VRB
m
?9Z m
in r
me
m
? -n
.N{ O
N M
. r
$ m
SEE NOTE 'B'
e 8 ?
e a
DOUBLE FACE GUARDRAIL
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
'I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R I
I
,I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
DOUBLE FACE GUARDRAIL
\Specrel3DAN. is\er 6169660ic"ard\stds\02'Stds to Special Details\englrsh\86202\0862dO2.dgn
?cNard AT
v
-on w c,
rfTliz-I 4 -q
D
Pr -on m
.. Z ap
XCAC)o
? N
Z
I .
O m
z
r0
O t-+
m
rM
D
Nr
? v
r N
r
?o
~ O
O ?
Z
h" THICK END PLATE
24- WITH DIP. HOLE
I ? I CENTERED RED IN PLATE.
END PLATE TO BE WELDED
I , 70 ANCHOR PLATE.
2" I
BREAKAWAY TERMINAL o 0 0 0
POST SLEEVE "'I I
O O O O
HE N T
NUT (8 REQUIRED PER ASSEMBLY)
MTHICK HEX HEADBOLT WITH WA8HER UNDER
ANCHOR PLATE ASSEMBLY
HER " DI A. THREADED ROD
DETAIL OF STANDARD WASHER 'f 514" 2%11
STANDARD WASHER: TYPICAL USE UNDER NUT WITH WOOD'POST
„ e
l40,__;_ _VAR TO DIA. (5x18) SALT. CABLE
TO BE SWAGED CONNECTED
SWAGED CABLE
ilea 116" O -w
if
DETAIL OF STANDARD HEX BOLT AND NUT
'4(e" VAR. ?1fe" I 11411 y ty?rr 0 0 0 0 'rR 34 8°
© nR
19ge" ,? - _ o 0 0
" THICK OALV." DIA. HOLES
" DIA. x 8TEEL PLATE
DEEP RECESS ANCHOR PLATE
DETAIL OF BUTTON HEAD BOLT AND NUT
CABLE ASSEMBLY
SYSTEM PARTS
Z
O N
H 5.
QQa
LL o o m
zz
Vw lw
H .= Lu
0 4d
z
W C
O
mz
O
o ?
zg
z
~ J
?a
o F-
J Z
c
S
J
Z
W
v
vm
M
"' O
?o
om?!j
z
00 -1
=-ngszm
ZN'OCrm
A G)
• ?yD
y ~~
z
v
c z
G)
r
v?
0
N m
r?
r
v' ~
yo
rO
o
o
7d
Z
91/d
n ilfe" -? ? 1?err
r ?S? ?'; I ?%"xlh" SPLICE. BOLT SLOTS
RAD. °
a
co 56°\ \ `55'
c ? `r
N ?(9" RAO.
= 55, 44"x211" POST BOLT SLOT
?? ?• \ 55°
26< / II ?f %"xh" SPLICE BOLT SLOTS
NEUTRAL AXIS
SECTION X-X
S"
21_3hr, NEUTRAL AXIS
B?rr it 9?n -
- - ? - - -
1'LAP
r
-S"
fL POST BOLT SL 2'
OT _
g'r 414"414 it
4" All 2"
" X
rr 41 r;
414 " X 21t" POST BOLT

SYSTEM PARTS - GENERAL USE
IX
m ?
to o
Vxi 4" POST BOLT SLOT
:h "x21-$"
TERMINAL END SECTION
c?
r
W--1" DIA. HOLES FOR
Yg" DIA. BOLTS
TYPICAL END SHOE
$w.
Q
o
o o 3m m
F-
W?-LLoJ
O
Z
a
W s
C
O
?a
O O
O Q
z ...i
J
H
O
H N
Q
J
O?
x
Z
w
0
mM" N
I,nm
m
i mra
fl1
s o
MAT
B M
I8 m

\Spec1a13Details\ericwerd\stds\02'Stds to Special Details\english\86202\0862d02.dgn
lcward AT DS188660
G? ?Y
DIA. HOLE
- O ?oM?
OO?ySZ.
=g ym LUC¢SILL:
Como
Z?0r- -n Lu
J
1S$
F) Azz 11n PpOi ZOH?
U) Z W p
O
80 ? ?
m Z,
e O H
cH - N
_ z
H
H G
r 2W a% 0 y
N?i J Z
Z r
N 4~
W
>a? ?
r 911 o H
M c =
Z = BLOTTED HOLES W
G1
J
HO N ----- ° X1- "
o w 4%" DIA. HOLE Co
Z 1L
O
ELEVATION
HEEr 7 OF .1 BUFFERED END SECTION SHEET 7 OF 7
862D02 862DO2
oo g m .
m? A
N ?
? b 0
N
gF?
-i
N
oN
m
i$ m

\Special40e a11?\er,oward\stds\02'Stds to Special Details\engl2sh\86203\0862dO3.dgn
w"ard AT [5212260 -
0
01m
1-41-0
~-?v,
Hz-R=D
G) m
=C70
="_Op_ t
,1)
?Dy
? H
N O
Z .

n
x
0
n
m m
Z
? C H
C)
A7 -4 CO)
x
> C
v m m
a
zzr-
? O
? O
"M N
z C 0
Z m
H
X N x
r7
C
m
-1
PLAN VIEW

ROUTED OFFSET BLOCK Z
H C/3

Ll
?Q

--- CD
N O 1I1
00nxZ
WB X 8.5 =

?
=
W C LL
aVOCOC7

" m N
8 I.3*t _ (f) ? LLO"
O

Jt" SUPPORT R a TOP OF CULVERT Z -j¢
I. Q
W

p::ga::.•.n' u $t" OR 1" DIA.'•. o .

ELEVATION VIEW W.
W

eV 1?-2" 2
cc
BASE It
@ SUPPORT
ao T= L ° F O
cc
LL
o
t Z
7"
77' Z 40 M O
I%" " SLOTS
(FOR ADJUSTMENTS)
PLAN VIEW
3 C N
= 0

v

NOTES FOR:
Q
GUARDRAIL POST ANCHORED TO STRUCTURE:
" Q
-USE FULL LENGTH 14
BUTT WELDS AT ALL LOCATIONS OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE BASE PLATE, SUPPORT PLATES-AND STEEL POST OR STEEL TUBE. USE POST AND POST BASE P
ATES CONFORMING T W C
L
O THE REQUIREMENTS OF A.S.T.M. A-36 AND GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION TO CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. A-123.
-USE WOOD POSTS WHICH FIT SNUGLY IN
THE STEEL TIME WITH A MAXIMUM OF L
" CLEARANCE BETWEEN TUBE WALL AND POST W
O Ix
.
$
. Q
NEW STRUCTURES:
-ATTACH POST TO INSERT ASSEMBLY UNITS (USING ANCHOR BOLTS SUPPLIED WITH INSERTS) WHICH HAVE BEEN CAST INTO THE STRUCTURE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CO
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
z C
-USE CONCRETE ANCHORS CONSISTING OF A STUD BOLT WITH NUT AND WASHER. USE STUDS THREADED ON ONE END AND HAVING AN EXPANDED WEDGE ASSEMBLY POSITIONED
"
" LL
AROUND A TAPERED AREA AT THE OTHER END. USE ANCHORS WHICH PROVIDE A MINIMUM SAFE HOLDING POWER OF 2875 LBS. FOR A %
OR 1
DIAMETER BOLT. CALCULATE
HOLDING POWER BASED ON 1
THE ACT
C LU
N
4
UAL HOLDING POWER OF THE AN
HOR IN 3500 PSI CONCRETE AS DETERMINED BY AN APPROVED COMMERCIAL TESTING LABORATORY. ?
-USE ANCHORS GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.S.T.M. A-153. SIZE HOLES FOR THE CONCRETE ANCHORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANCHOR 9
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. DRILL HOLES WITH A CARBIDE OR DIAMOND TIPPED NA$ONRY BIT POWERED BY A ROTARY OR ROTARY IMPACT DRILL. O
NO OTHER IMPACT TOOLS WILL BE PERMITTED. DRILL HOLES VERTICALLY. FURNISH DOCUMENTATION OF HOLE SIZE RECOMMENDED FOR THE SPECIFIED ANCHOR TO THE ENGINEER x
BEFORE DRILLING-HOLES. THOROUGHLY CLEAN HOLES FOR ANCHORS OF ALL CONCRETE CHIPS, DUST, GREASE, OIL, ETC. BEFORE ANCHORS ARE INSTALLED. REPAIR ALL
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THIS WORK TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.
a
ANCHORAGE FOR GUARDRAIL POST ON BOX CULVERT
862DO3
N Ow
--I

N ' ZO
N T 9

PAY LIMITS STD. 61-3" SPACING
TH9RIE BEAM GUARDRAIL 'NESTED' WTR SECTION
H
Q Q
r
0
0-4
M

(ONE RAIL INSIDE ANOTHER) -
-
cc
LL J IL 1-4 z
00
=
00 n?
?? _______ 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8
gy O
LL- E
=
tAwC

Z
? ---------
m ?VO
C
7
R H
p01rt - - _ - - - - _ - 1' ? - - - - - - - - V)11--LL9J
0 cog

N O
Z FINISH
, GHADE ML D
FILL FACE G
APPROACH SLAB 8" x 4" LIP APPROACH SLAB
CURB E VARIES)
(SEE STRUCTURE PLANS) .
ELEVATION
NOTE:
":POST NOT REWIRED FOR SKEW ANGLES GREATER THAN 160° OR LESS THAW 30- UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.'
O "THE DISTANCE FROM END OF BRIDGE RAIL TO CENTER LINE OF THE FIRST POST SHOULD BE 11%' IF CONCRETE BACKWALL IS NOT PRESENT:
-SHOULDER OEM SUTTER MUS
B HI
R"N
x N=
N T
E INSTALLED WITHIN THE PAY LIMITS IF THE ANCHOR UNIT I8 NOT ADJACENT TO AN APPROACH SLAB.
-MEASURE GUARDRAIL HEIGHT FROM THE TOP OF ADJACENT SURFACE (SHWLDER
BERN
OR GUTTER) H p
,
,
.
-USE NO STEEL POSTS WITHIN THE GUARDRAIL ANCHOR UNIT LIMITS. C M"R
U7 -LAP JOINTS IN TIRE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW: O W OC
C T -SEE SHEET 4 FOR POST SECTIO+S t THRIU 9. V- ~ d m
xr Cn O ?Z
3 z C x
Z ? C3 VAR. NAx
.
1'-8 ') 1-1 0
'cc
?

0 m
x D
VERTICAL PLANE AT THE ATTAOBENi VAR SPAC 8 9 SPACES @ 9'-1Y$" STD. 8'-3" SPACING
PO Ni FOR END SHOE ANCHOUIGE,
'
" )
C H

U O N *
-H(
SEE STRUCTURE PLANS @ 1
------------ ----'-'BIKMII.OER BIIEAK POINT_-`------------------
BRIDGE END POST '-
--
"
" J Z C
)"'
U"t
C C
17
' 1 ;
8
x 4
LIP CUB GUARDRAIL POST
Q O
Z
f" +; (SEE STR E PLANS H m F,
-
= ------?__ r - - - -Tr ---- ----
--'--"_--"--- G C ?W
z -1 C I BRIO RAIL 10 GA ; i1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 y J=
C?
-G Z
p END SHOE?? THRIE BEAM INSTALL 'Wf BEAM Ol1ARDRAIL
GuARORnIL P s N = F
m Q
v N N WTR SECTION
EU(
J INT d i W ?.
H "a
m H '
-
BRIDGE DECK ' - , APROlU01
SLAB
(LENGTH VARIES) O

LL

PLAN VIEW
MEET 2 OF 4 GUARDRAIL ANCHOR UNIT, TYPE III
FOR ATTACHMENT TO RAIL ON BRIDGE SHEET 2 OF 4
862D03
862DO3
naca
m°
o" y
X"n" m -?
m m
°G m F"a
mZ
.. m
?
N
m p
p
ffMf
T
N
m i
ii
t
O Z

o m om
s

"n "a144

m
62
D
M-M N

mmm ?1-C
Z
p ° R
°m-`4
. aw
N
O O • f?/

,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
t
I
I
I
1
I

O
1Lb" x 1%" SL0T9
2 c " '- °
" SUPPORT
' PLATE
"BASE T " "x .1 75"
PLATE STEEL TUBE
1 A N M ?p z
a R-2004 15:48?55
b earl eto6 ,,\Y 60ard\3tds\02'Stds to Special Detetls\englt5h\86203\0862dO3.dgn
tc AT v
om
N
", NE
O
?"llm
rmiz -I=D
sTnm
=woo
?,mmM"M1
? H
O
Z
O
m
4 C:
>w-1 Z
3aC r
Z?0 CO)
-? c =
C3
o=m v
H
r
r- z= v
? Z "
D
'?O C G)
Z
m m
D
?O
iHy
H
Cl)
E
BRIDGE RAIL TRANSITION - PAY LIMITS
BRIDGE RAIL, SEE STRUCTURE PLANS THRIE BEAM OUARORAIL 'NESTED' WTR SECTION
,_ xe. (ONE RAIL INSIDE ANOTHER)
----- --------- -----u------_i------------ ---- 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 S
-----'---------------- IL------
---
---------------------- }?- - i .
BRIDGE DECK ........ - . ' ' ' T . a . . - .?
P U
CONCRET BACKMALL FILL FACE (LENGTH VARIES) B" x 4" LIP CURB
(SEE S
MINIMUM LENGTHAPPROACH SLAB
€LEVATION
NOTE:
**POST NOT REQUIRED FOR SKEW MOLES GREATER THAN 150' OR LESS THAN 30' UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
-MEASURE GUARDRAIL HEIGHT FROM THE TOP OF ADJACENT SURFACE (SHOULDER, BERN, OR GUTTER).
-USE NO STEEL POSTS WITHIN THE GUARDRAIL ANCHOR UNIT LIMITS.
-LAP JOINT'S IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC. FLOW.
-SEE SHEET 4 FOR POST SECTIONS 1 THRU 9.
f ----- i 1
---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---- - ---- - ---- - --_t ___rfca....:e:.. ---
---------------------- ------
' 11
" E!
x
BRI09? u ,
N ;
u ?
Nu
_ !! _ .
EXP. JOINT
i

SHOUJ.DEH BilEM POINT
--- -- -- - ------- --------
----------------
rEE;RUCTURE LI CU
PNS)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 2 3 4 6 "G7 S I9
APPROACH SLAB
1
PLAN VIE>r
GUARDRAIL ANCHOR UNIT, TYPE III
FOR ATTACHMENT TO RAIL ON APPROACH SLAB
z
00
N }
Qa
CD
00 a. = Z
H o o co
H
i5 = F
v 1- u_ q Wj
O
Z >
a N
W o
O
m
g
Co
H
OHa
U. Z wILDOc
Z?Q
=z°
O V OJ
N
J
In c1c
CO ? M W ?
Lry ' S
wNQ0
?a
LL
v
vm
w?
?N• o
.-BEAM
H -I D =tz
_=OT Dm / ao
N
Z?=y?o'TI Bn -
gDo"
mm .: ..
O ?. I r r I AMIn CH SLAB
Z I
hh\
I} ?
'a
I
C
> Co
--1 Z SECTION OF THRIE BEAN
C 0 POSTS 1 THRU 6
r =
s
omm ?
D
?Zr-
C = ch
-HI 9 g
H „
Co CY
?z? _
m M C
m ?
N N m
N
H -
THRIE-BEAM
SECTION
It
8n r all
m APPROACH SLAB
II _ II _ II _
IJ
SECTION OF THRIE SECTION OF WTR SECTION OF 'W'
BEAN POST 7 BEAM POST 8 BEAM POST 9
END SHOE
NOTE: THE MID POST AND OFFSET BLOCK OF
THE WTR SECTION WILL REQUIRE
SPECIAL BOLT HOLE DRILLING IN
THE THRIE BEAM OFFSET BLOCK
AND LINE POST.
' 12n
WTR SECTION
ELEVATION VIEW
61P at',
DIA.
THRIE BEAM
OFFSET BLOCK
6e Bn
r?I n
-----
w
? \1
z
00
H }
Q
Hood
ooa)=z
Z
Pa 0C=.y
)- H
?Q1iHJ
O
°z
WW0
c
H
U. F? a
z 0
)-
v O
J Z
a _
O Q U
oHH
J
C z w o
N Q
C7
mo -1
0-0
m
7l R7 N ~
ooh m
m
`!?< -o
m.
m
o
ao
IF
mmm
s N
V q
AN m
C
Z
N
IM U

l

C?

? Q

0
w ?

? Z
o
m ? Q
00 t?i? ?
fill
y 0 ?i ? g O? ? m y'? T m
>a dbWW?7?? 7°i5 t?
2A A ? y. 2 2
b °
°° °° I
.?? .br7or7y p ? m
?Nf pQtl?y1 HHHHH A o?
O
pQ N{? y r9
a V O
c
mo
a?
MW
tom
cy
P?
i
p y
,? H d
s
m m C7 Fri
['3?
m
m? O
m
? ? O O
Qo
m M
4
1Q
1 Imz91M in
- o r ra
?i
A A ?
? ? n
0? 9?b
J
10
Glm?
V 00 b .7p ?. ?G ?t
b °x N.. ? r? In
Rf + y?
O A ? Z [L'r+J ?
H
H
m
•i
O m
`? c
m v m
`?
• m
O . m
O z to p o a
O ? c
?

?

O

S
C)

'? Z

?
m
Z ? o
Z m?

n m

m

?

tll U?
O -1 v m 4 c
T R' Z
Z O°
Hi ?
m ? o
? ? N
p N q) Q m m r

2 Z $ ? C
A W W A N r M C O

a
w
OD w
O N
D V --
'? +

p?
O
O tl?

OD V t?
W to
A ? .O
m
i l
' 0 6
pp
.?,

N
N
Q-p
pp. ?
V
?.
N
w?
W m

b4 p

2 O
3
mm
i q y 21 21 21 LOCATION (LT, RT, OR CL)'
0 m v m m -1 -1 1 - A w w N N FROM
STRUCTURE NO

TO .
TOP ELEVATION
INVERT ELEVATION
ffi?' $e 53 N INVERT ELEVATION
SLOPE CRITICAL
K
$
o g
0 ?3
0 9
5pp
? b p ?
y
Ol
G W
O I?
C t y
6
? 0

.01
.664 y
AN
?
.084 ?

.0T9 ? ? g

.078

.106
t
m
i
.109
y
1S' SIDE DRAIN PIPE 0
18" SIDE DRAINPIPE
24" SIDE DRAIN PIPE
R.C.P. o
M
a
C.S.P. oo °
PER EACH (0' THRU 5.0, OUANITIES
FORDRAH4AGE r
•v, H
F?
y

9.0 THRU 10.0
s

+ STRUCTURES

4TOTAL LF
FOR PAY ta!

W
10A' AND ABOVE a .
QUANTITY SHALL BE COL
W+(1.3xCOLE)

O
C.B. STD. 840.01 OR BID. 640.02 r y y

° MDJ. TYPE "B" STD. 840.18 OR 64027 ?
M.DJ.FRAMEWITHTWOORATESSTD.84022 O yyy
?
•
M.DJ. FWIME wm rw0 (NS.) FLAT ORATm sm.84029 ?
-" M.DJ. FRAME WITH TWO (N.S.) BAG ORATES STD. 840.24 I? O
TRAFFIC BEAM J.B. STD. 840.34 .
M
V/

?D

1 .9

N
g N
CORR. STEEL ELBOWS NO. S, SIZE
CONC. COLLARS Cl- "e" C.Y. STD. 840.72

11,111 millN
'O
BS S S3ffi ?ffi?S?DGNS$$S$ $SS
6/14/99

?
C1?
m ;a

g
'DID
10z£ H
??rC
m
?ocmo
?pN
i Z
mrNam
m
i
? I

zz ?
?
i
0
rn
r
O

rn

Z
O
c

rn

O
? O

v ?

rn ?

rn
Z m

G? Z

n
rn
O

Z
m ?
REVISIONS
BSSES?SS$S?bsaSR
Tr D
Nm?
oV +
?y
<
CL
L
rn ROA
a
H
x
1
1
?tl o
AN
0
0
o =
_mo
m
:=1?11
? .oD
° v °pr
m
3
o
a.n
x? a
oo ?
? n u . r

D
n

m
I
??v
+
?
S- n
EIH
' .,,r-
0
a mm"
o
c-'i
?
+

•y
-1 _
my
N r
+
0 o
o
a
Alai
L
z
1"12
f
.? i
1
1
i
1
i
i

? 1
i i
a
0 ?
1

I
o"
I ?.
H
N
O I
SID
m? 'Tit
o
is
m OF ,
y
H
p

mbG ?i
i
~ y m
Kp
o
m
m
rni?
I ? p?
x
oz
z K Lo

a
O n
?r 4 t?tfi I

0

j /
,? ,!? r
,? may.
g
y?
va
°ms

N Of+ E
r
a
`
z?m0 ?'?N
wo

j ??m
m o, ?
+

p m
D
N ? NN
m?
+
o -` 000
L
M
rI
P
O Da O
N 1'
O G O ?
T -
-
+
4 M -
orr'n ?m rn
Nc? Cc
? ?
m
?n m

n ?
I'll
py ?O
rTl
O-b
?
rri
?0 CO j

$O ?O
:z g ?

cgs
cj :r G)
6
z? ? rn
cn
?o I
1
o tI
''
G
* I?
i
0 2

41 m °S
I
r
?•.... \ C Obi v
A

f?FY/3 CgFeK JOt P

moo ?. R?
9-
i
A? O
m £
A
v
o I? i0.00
0
Z ?
I >
wl I m ???
?'IW
_I•LU101.. -In
A
?qp ?° I OI
`2 ?'gl I I
z? 35 3N?NOldW
a? ?T 9 ?3NS 3
004-OZ PIS
II
BEIEWS CREEK
201.00
= 8 ?
-ZC °n
ono m -i
C
m
?o.Tmmrrnc ?
Ho $o rt ?
BI
t?ir ? ?l = N
` 0
m
1-6 g 8.N
g8°

0
? a ?
S
? A
m
r-
F r-
3 § _ ?*1
N
?
. O
A
S
u Z .ZCI Q
m
r
l t
F"I°p ?s D
s
mmm
gg
lo N
r
m
.-
n
Om
R r r
rrr Sr

v i
sy< d++Qi°+° oA
M
CJ ONO T
000) ?
9
r
A'
O -
-1 ? •
-1 1
g
$ <O y
N ..
0
-C
x
mm
o p
m
mmm
TAm
m`?coO
mom
NSA
TD
C-
Rnllnu`un?
O
0- r
y y
.-- HNco e3
GR?O
X0
IO D
A
w=
?N
m?
mw
o-

0
T
i< 00
0
N
g

z ? N
m
z o
o

0
xaaassaaaaaaaa

o nQji
OZ
x
Q
CS
rn
O?
Frizt
I O
M fn
CZ Q
C

?a go
o
rnzo 0
cn N c
zo 6

op
I

2a+00
REVISIONS
Il 11 p 11 11 11 11 U
9 ?
xo?
i
?i>
c
wOEM
ON Z
H-m
ma
m
u
-1-p
m 14
o
-
m
i

S? g
iK o

z z
a z O

z
z = Ul U1

0

A?Es:?E
O

N
r
W
r
A
r
a
V
-il
w
N
O
N
r

rn? i
t em

y Z C 2 ti
10
O mv?
co,
L ,
rn
gym ?I
? ,
R'? o
Im °
mm
2
i

?rn

rn
A
I
0
rDI
2
rn
rn
2
G1
x0U {
(>c
wocmz
0
z
I.4,4AM
wNA W
M
o-m
m
I
0
ro ?? P
S1 z< I C,
zr,
Z
a y m
p
?ro ?o
z a =
zz
0

N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N -? -? - + ? ? ? ?
V
+ V
+ O)
+ W
+ N r
+ r
+ A
+ A
+
+ W I
+ J !
+ J
+ ?
+ y
+
? O f
+ 0 t
+ 0
+ GO
+ (? W
+ W.
+ Q
+ N
+ A
+ A
+ W
+ W
+ N
+

1 ..
m
i tl1
0 O
0 f,1f
0 O

0 OI

0 O X

0 71

o

S 0

0 O <

0 71

0 O

o CA

Q O

o W

0 O

0 W

0 O

0 w

o O?

r ¢ l T

o O

0 U1

0 O

0 fT

0 O

0 f71

0 Q C

0 "

o

r

3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' c o g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'
! S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 00 00 0 QO S QO Qo Qo Q0

°_ 0
?n c
Z
! f0 N A A N A W J A rn O m /N0 v cn m $ J
V V W V N f0 N O O M O O N V V W A W O N O? O O Q If
C r
I m fO
m y

co
G
N
A
W
6D
W
+
A
J
.
J ta
N
O CA
N
O
V
N
IM
V
V
07
it
O
O
?
O
I ?

z
°
m

10
7

I

I
i
a?
a

y

Co
Q

I Z

CO
I

i
I
!
I
I
I
i

I
I
!
I

i
I P

?
i o
I
i
k
i ?
j
i 3 0
I
I?
i .i
r
' fM. .
III{I?
xl
Y .N
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801
T.I.P. No. B-3694
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
DA Th PhD Env
y 2s/73
DATE
Gregory J. rpe, uonmental management vzector
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
n
Donald J. Voelker
Acting Division Administrator, FHWA
Y ~
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801 -
T.I.P. No. B-36.94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
TGS Engineers
'??1999?8tL'Sq"9rpi:.
as 3•,?JAj??°' ^? ?'
?7. K eth Burleson, Ft 1 032 b . w
• ° ? Date
s
Project Manager
L q ? ; v
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Elmo E. Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COM[M TMENTS
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801
T.I.P. No. B-3604
If the implementation of this project involves a disturbance to the waters of Belews Lake Spillway,
a Nationwide Section 404 permit and a Section 401 Water Quality permit will be required. If so, any
foreseen secondary impacts to water resources from soil disturbance on any downstream systems can
be minimized by.the-use of best management practices. No long term impacts are expected as a
result of the proposed project.
It is concluded that no serious adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
Division 7:
A. No in-water work will be performed from April 1 to May 31. High Quality Sedimentation.
and Erosion Control Measures will be used.
B. A FERC permit is. not required. NCDOT will coordinate with Duke Power Company to .:
avoid impacts to their operations at the Belews Lake facility.
Categorical Exclusion - Green Sheet
April 2003
i
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1138 (9)
State Project No. 8.2510801
T.I.P. No. B-3694
INTRODUCTION: Rockingham County Bridge No. 55 is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
in 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".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 13.4
out of a possible 100 for anew structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the western part of Rockingham County just 0.2 miles (322 meters)
east of the Stokes County line (see Figure 1). SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road) is classified
as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. SR 1138
becomes SR 1903 when it enters Stokes County. The primary land use along SR 1138 is
agricultural mixed with light residential development (see Figure 2). SR 1138 is
undeveloped in the vicinity of Bridge No. 55 and there are currently no major generators of
traffic located within the project area. The property adjacent to SR 1138 is owned by Duke
Power as part of the Belews Lake reservoir. According to Duke Power officials, Belews
Lake is not an FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) lake (see Appendix). There
are currently no plans for proposed development of the area on. file with the Rockingham
County Planning Department. This area is zoned RA (Residential Agricultural).
Rockingham County Bridge No.. 55 is a five-span two-.lane structure that consists of precast
prestressed concrete channels. The end bents and interior bents consist of precast prestressed
concrete caps and timber piles. Bent No.1 consists of a steel cap and pile crutch. The
existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1961 and is in poor condition. The overall
length of the structure is 151 feet (46 meters). The clear roadway width is 24.1 feet (7.3
meters). There are no sidewalks on the bridge. The posted weight limit on this bridge is 21
tons for single vehicles and 24 tons for TTST's.
This section of SR 1138 is not a part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP
as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing alignment and
provides a temporary on-site detour to maintain traffic during the construction period.
The new approaches would be approximately 700-feet (213 meters) long. The design
speed of this alignment is 45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour. This alternative is not
recommended because the estimated cost is higher and the design speed is lower
than the preferred alternative.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure on a new alignment
approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) upstream (south) of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The approach length is approximately 1440-feet (439 meters) total with
approximately 970 feet (296 meters) east of the crossing and 470 feet (143 meters)
west of the crossing. The two-lane shoulder section will have a design speed of 50
miles (80 kilometers) per hour. The existing structure and approaches will serve to
maintain traffic during the construction period.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Alternative 3 involves replacement of the structure on a new alignment downstream
(north) of the existing structure. This alternative was eliminated from further study
when it was determined that over 1800 feet of approach length would be needed to
provide a less than desirable 45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour design speed. This
alternative would also involve extensive encroachment on the existing floodplain
north of the existing crossing.
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1 replacing the structure along the existing
alignment but using an off-site detour along existing routes to maintain traffic during
the construction period. The best available off-site detour route follows' SR 1138
northeastward to SR 1194 which connects to US 31.1 then follows US 311
southwestward to SR 1908 in Stokes County. The route continues south on SR 1908
to SR 1903 which becomes SRI 13 8 at the Rockingham County line just west of the
subject crossing. The total length of this detour route : is over 12 miles and is
considered inadequate for the fire and rescue services in the area as well as the 1400
vehicles currently using the crossing daily. This alternative was eliminated due to the
lack, of an adequate detour route for emergency services.
The "Do-Nothing" or "No-Build" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. Closure of SR 1138 is not desirable due to the lack of an acceptable
offsite detour for emergency services.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge Is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A review of the project has-been undertaken to evaluate natural resource features likely to
be affected by the project. Materials and research data in support of this investigation have
been derived froma number of sources including applicable U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic mapping (Belews Lake, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1994), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping.
A. Methodology
A natural resources.field investigation was conducted on April 11, 2001. During the
site visit, a study corridor was walked and visually investigated for significant
features. For purposes of the field investigation and to assure proper area coverage
of both alternatives, the study corridor was assumed to be approximately 850 feet
(259 meters) in length (approximately 425 feet [129.5 meters] from the bridge to
each end), with a width extending approximately 200 feet (61 meters) south of the
SR 1138 centerline and 100 f e e t (30.5 meters) north ofthe S R I 138 centerline. Plant
community impact calculations provided in this report are based on individual
corridors centered on each of the two alternatives (Figure 2). Actual impacts will be
limited to within construction boundaries and are expected to be less than those
shown here for alternative corridors. Special concerns evaluated in the field include
1) potential habitat for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection
in Belews Lake Spillway.
The study corridor is located approximately 1.25 miles (2.0 kilometers) east of the
town of Pine Hall, NC and 5.5 miles (8:8 kilometers) southwest of Madison, NC
(Figure 1). The bridge is located along SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road) at Belews
Lake Spillway in Rockingham County. The study corridor includes the channel and
floodplain adjacent to Belews Lake Spillway. Belews Lake Spillway flows from the
Belews Lake Dam, continues north, joins an unnamed tributary, and flows under
Bridge No. 55. The stream continues north and joins the Dan River approximately
0.4 mile (0.6 kilometer) to the north.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al.
(1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature. Jurisdictional
areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as
expected population distributions, were determined through field observations,
5
rocks. These soils are in hilly areas on relatively narrow, gently sloping ridge tops
and moderately steep side slopes. Slopes range from 2 to 30 percent. The Wickham
series consists of deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in old
alluvium. These soils are on narrow, slightly elevated stream terraces. Slopes range
from 1 to 4 percent.
Of the predominant soil map units in the study corridor, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service lists only the Chewacla series as having hydric inclusions
(USDA 1997); The Chewacla series has hydric soil inclusions of Wedhadkee soils
in depressions. These hydric soil inclusions are saturated or flooded for very long
to substantial periods during the growing season, and support woody vegetation
under natural conditions.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted . .
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-02-01 (upper reach of the
North Carolina portion of the Dan River and tributaries) of the Roanoke
River Basin (DWQ 1996b). This area is part of USGS accounting unit
03010103 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The section of Belews
Lake Spillway crossed bythe project bridge has been assigned Stream Index
Number 22-27-(7) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1996a).
2. Stream Characteristics
Belews Lake Spillway (Belews Creek) discharges from the Belews Lake
Reservoir approximately 1800 feet (549 meters) upstream of Bridge No. 55.
Within the study corridor, the channel of Belews Lake Spillway is highly
scoured and composed of an unconsolidated, boulder and gravel substrate.
The stream is moderately broad and deep, highly entrenched, exhibiting poor
sinuosity, and a poor riffle-and-pool sequence. Width of the stream is
approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) at the point of the bridge crossing.
Bridge height above the stream bed is approximately 31 feet (9.4 meters).
During the field visit, water depths along the study corridor varied from 1 to
3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meter), permitting sparsely distributed vegetation to cling
to debris pile within the stream channel. Persistent emergent aquatic
vegetation was not observed, however high amounts of filamentous algae was
present in some of the slower-flowing reaches of the stream. The stream
banks are composed of a silty loam textured soil. Evidence of burrowing
mammals was observed along the streambanks 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3.0 meters)
above the water surface.
7
with sedimentation and erosion the most widespread problem throughout
Rockingham County (DWQ 1996b).
3. Anticipated Impacts
Bothproject alternatives include complete bridging ofBelews Lake Spillway
to maintain the current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing
alignment, with a temporary on-site detour provided to maintain traffic
during the construction period. The detour structure would be located
approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) to the south (upstream) of the existing
structure. Alternative 2 involves replacement of the existing structure on a
new alignment approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) upstream (south). The
existing structure and approaches will serve to maintain traffic during the
construction period. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent
erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices. The
contractor will. follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for
Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt
.basins; and other containment measures to control runoff, elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals
(herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts
on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into streams by catch
basins and roadside vegetation.
Each of the two alternatives will allow for continuation of pre-project stream
flows in Belews Lake Spillway, thereby protecting the integrity of this
waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from construction are expected to be
negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water.resources, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced.during the entire life of the project.
During removal of the existing bridge, the bridge rails will be removed
without dropping them into waters of the United States. There is potential for
components of the deck and interior bents to be dropped into waters of the
United States, resulting in a temporary fill of approximately 100.84 cubic
yards (77.1 cubic meters). NCDOT's BMPs for Bridge Demolition and
Removal must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
9
species. The herbaceous layer includes Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) and running cedar (Lycopodium clavatum).
2.
Roadside/Disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed land occurs along the right-
of-way of SR 1138, and along a power line easement bisecting the southeast
quadrant of each study corridor. The roadside margin is approximately 10
feet (3.0 meters) wide, and the power line right-of-way is approximately 50
feet (15.2 meters) wide. This community is periodically mowed and
primarily supports herbaceous species. Common species on roadsides are
fescue (Festuca sp.), chickweed (Stellaria sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.),
mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), Carolina cranesbill (Ranunculus
carolina), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), and violets (Viola spp.).
Within the power line right-of-way, volunteer species include blackberry
(Rubus argutus), tulip poplar, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), honeysuckle, and
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Plant Community Impacts
Plant community impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within alternative corridors (Figure 2). Alternate 1
involves replacement of the structure along the existing location with a
temporary on-site detour. Alternate 2 involves replacement of the structure
on a new alignment with the existing structure and approaches serving to
maintain traffic during the construction period. A summary of plant
community impacts for each alternative is presented in the following table.
Plant Community Areas. Plant community areas are given in acres, with
hectares in
Alternative 1
Plant
Community
Existing Temp:On-
Location Site Detour
Piedmont/Mtn
Levee Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory
Forest
Alternative 2
New
Total Alignment
0.25 (0.10) 0.31 (0.13) 0:56 (0.23) 0.52 (0.21)
0.0(0.0) 0.09 (0.04) 0.09 (0.04) 0.12 (0.05)
Roadside/ - 0.09 (0.04) 0.23 (0.09) 0.32 (0.13) 0.96 (0.39)
Disturbed Land
TOTAL: 0.34 (0.14) 0.63 (0.26) 0.97 (0.40) 1.60 (0.65)
11
(Vireo griseus), yellow-romped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study
corridor. Species that might be expected are five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), slimy
salamander. (Plethodon glutinosus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and eastern
ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
No aquatic amphibian or reptile species were observed during the field visit.
Belews Lake Spillway provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic
reptiles including snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle
(Chrysemys picta), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Typical amphibian species for this region
include northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), three-lined
salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), pickerel frog .(Rana palustris), and
eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). No mollusks or arthropods were
observed, with the exception of shells of the invasive Asian clam (Corbicula
fluminea).
No sampling was undertaken in Belews Lake Spillway to determine fishery
potential. Small minnows and crappie (Pomoxis sp.) were seen during visual
investigations, but no larger fish were noted. Species which may be present
in Belews Lake Spillway include, chain pickerel (Esox niger), gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), yellow
perch (Perca flavescens), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki),
pumkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritusorone),
bluegill .. (Lepomis macrochirus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabellare).
4. Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. No substantial habitat
fragmentation is expected since most permanent improvements will be
restricted to or adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to
be minimal for both alternatives. After removal of temporary bridge
13
vegetated wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration occur within the
study corridor. Jurisdictional impacts are avoided by both considered
alternatives.
3. Permits Required
A Federal permit under Section 404 of the Clean Air Act is required for
discharges of dredged or fill material in "Waters of the United States". This
project is being processed as, Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. It is anticipated that this
project will fall under Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874,65916;
December 13, 1996) for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has
made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23.
However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use of this
permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will
not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031
issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington
COE office is required. if this general. permit is utilized.
According to Duke power officials, Belews Lake is not an FERC (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission) lake and' a FERC permit will not be
required (Appendix).
4. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited
nature of project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in
an effort to minimize impacts. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet
(45.8 meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15 NCAC2H.0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests
with the COE.
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for such listing; are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
15

needed to determine the range of this species in the Mayo River.
In October 2000, an unidentified spinymussel was found in the Dan River in
Stokes County, North Carolina during a survey conducted by personnel of
NCDOT, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and the N.C. Division
of Marine Fisheries. Subsequent surveys in the Dan River found several
more individuals of spinymussel (personal communication, Tim Savidge,
April 4, 2001). S.pinymussels had not previously been identified within the
Dan River basin. The mussels found in the Dan River have characteristics
similar to the James spinymussel and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansanna). Specimens of the recently found spinymussel are currently
(as of April 2001) undergoing genetic analysis. The finding of this
unidentified spinymussel has resulted in the FWS listing James spinymussel
in North Carolina counties that include tributaries of the Dan River basin.
The. subject project is located on the spillway of Belews Lake, which is
formed by Belews Creek. Belews Creek then flows into the Dan River less
than 1 mile downstream of the project crossing. The confluence of Belews
Creek and the Dan River is approximately 16 river-miles downstream of
Danbury (furthermost downstream extent of the spinymussel in the Dan
River. Belews Lake Spillway is ahighly disturbed, well entrenched, perennial
stream, characterized by moderate flow. The stream bed is primarily
composed of bedrock and cobble with scattered gravel and sand.
NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge and Mike Wood visited the
project site on August 17, 2001. Surveys for mussels were conducted from
approximately 400 feet downstream to 100 feet upstream (base of the
spillway) of the prof ect crossing. Survey methodology included wading using
visual (batiscope and tactile) methods. Water was not being released at the
time of the survey, and water depth ranged from 6 inches to 2 feet. There is
evidence of extreme high flows(water release) and streambank scour in the
creek. No mussels were found in 1 man-hour of survey. The aquatic snail
(Helisoma anceps) and the introduced Asian clam (Corbiculafluminea) were
present in the stream but nowhere abundant. No spinymussel species were
found during this survey.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that James River
spinymussel has not been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor. Given the survey results, it is apparent that
the spinymussel does not occur. in the project area. The spinymussel has not
been found in the stretch of the Dan River downstream of the project area. It
can be concluded that project construction will not impact this species. NO
EFFECT.
17'
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains suitable
habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower. No existing populations are known
within 5.0 miles (8:0 kilometers) of Bridge No. 52. A survey for this
sunflower was conducted during the. blooming season (September to frost)
on September 19, 2001. This survey consisted of systematically walking all
areas of suitable habitat and identifying all Helianthus species. Sunflowers
identified included H. microcephalus. No individuals of Schweinitz's
sunflower were identified within the study corridor. Based on available
information and results of an on-site survey, the proposed project will not
affect Schweinitz's sunflower. NO EFFECT.
Small anthered bittercress Small-anthered bittercress is a low, erect,
biennial or perennial herb with simple, slender stems. The plant has crenate;
lobed basal leaves 0.3 to 0:7 inches (0.8 to 1.8 centimeters) in length, and
unlobed, crenate stem leaves that are slightly shorter. The small flowers have
white petals to 0.1 inch (3 millimeters) long and bloom in the late spring.
This species is only known from Forsyth and Stokes Counties, and has not
been observed in Forsyth County within the past 20 years. This species has
never been found in Rockingham County and is included in this discussion
due to the proximity of the study corridor to the Stokes County line. Typical
habitat is seepages, wet rock crevices, stream banks, sandbars, and wet woods
along small streams in the Dan River drainage. The study corridor contains
a high, relatively dry levee forest which provides poor habitat for the small
anthered bittercress, but the stream banks and sandbars within Belews Lake
spillway provide suitable habitat for this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NBF records indicate that this species has
not been documented within one-mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
The Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest provides poor habitat for the small
anthered bittercress but the stream banks do provide suitable habitat for this
species. A systematic survey of the moist portions of the Piedmont/Mountain
Levee :Forest, stream banks, and sandbars within the study corridor were
conducted during. this field investigation. No specimens of small-anthered
bittercress were observed during the survey. Based on available information
and best professional judgement, the proposed project will not affect small
anthered bittercress. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The February 25, 2003 FWS list also includes
a category of species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in
Rockingham and Stokes Counties. A species with this designation is one that
may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing). A list of FSC species occurring in
19

study corridor within the Dan River. This fish has a state status of Special
Concern.
NHP records document a Significant Natural Heritage Area, the Dan River
Aquatic Habitat (Rockingham Section), approximately 0.4-miles
(0.6-kilometers) north of the study corridor, within the main stem of the Dan
Rivera This area has been designated a natural area significance of "A",
which indicates an area that contains examples of natural. communities, rare
plant or animal populations, or geologic features that are among the highest
quality or best of their kind in the nation, or clusters of such elements that are
among the best in the nation.
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and
to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on February 29,
2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by
NCDOT architectural historians and the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO).
None` of the properties were considered eligible, and in a concurrence form dated
June 1, 2000, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there. are
no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is
included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
This is a federally funded project subject to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, which requires consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) on possible effects of the project on historic properties.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined as a 150-foot (45.7-meter) wide area,
21
In compliance with executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority. Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The
investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or
low income populations.
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.
The project does not involve any known Section 4(f) properties. 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.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prune, unique or important farmland soils for all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The proposed project has been
coordinated with the US Department of Agriculture and no prime, unique or important
farmland will be converted as a result.of this bridge replacement project. This project is in
conformance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).
The replacement of Rockingham County Bridge No. 55 is an air quality "neutral" project,
so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO
analysis is not required. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is
located in an attainment area. If vegetation 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. The replacement of the existing bridge
will not increase or decrease traffic volumes; therefore, the project's impact on noise and air
quality will not be significant. The noise levels will increase during the construction period,
but will only be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air
quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and
no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground storage tanks
or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
This area is not in a FEMA Flood Study, but is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone A.
No base flood elevations have been determined. This section of stream is relatively short,
begins at Belews Lake approximately 1800 feet (550 meters) upstream and converges with
the Dan River approximately 2000 feet (610 meters) downstream. The Dan River floodplain
23

\ 1726
•

' U Sharps r ' 143
;
` 1728 ,
\
' '•? . awo `°?
a 1142
? '? qtr 1139
1141
1725 772 0.
\ ' ' \ 1189 1140 r

1723 \ 311
1128
: ;
?
1722 1138
1135
Ellisboro
•-? 1136 1134
1908
\
•
,
1911 . 1137
1129

1912
da,,?
Pine Ball
Bridge No. 55
1133
.00
t
°Pr 1903
?OY
Bel
1110 , .0-
1915
Orit?elri t
9gLVe
Lake
.
1176
f f ? 1132
C is 1908 ti ?} •/

1 09 1120

.
' Nor folk ?? , •
11os
N
1600
I Meters
I Miles 1.0
PrK
?e
bdQ E

'. '

yfield•
APPROXIMATE SCALE
9 $ 2
do S evill I3 d7 Y 14 to 3 H
ID
s
ue
K I
.
nlc s

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Bridge No. 55
on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Bellews Lake Spillway
TIP No. B-3694
April 2003 Figure i
I
KvcmfNum,klvl COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 55 ON SR 1138 OVER
BELEWS LAKE SPILLWAY
B-3694
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING NORTH
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
FIGURE 3

e
e
a
o
OF e? _? .ate
? a0 ? ° Z ? P ? ggZ? am
IL d• ?c
a ? z a
°p?? ° a •a ? e o ? Z
o.
ec "; C's O z m m f=
U OO
?o 0.
?? 2
Cl; N O
O C:,
h W
x? vo
?W
O
U
O
?o
tl ?i
h o°?i N
E-i
c ti
CO
O
w
A
e
s
LL
L
O C
in
4q m
C " a z
U O ^ H 10
S p o rt
i ?E ? z Zug
B d E o Vf y 0
W ;z
c ?
?'O L O
D z m O m d
F-
Y
0 ?
? O
O
h
t?
A
04
0
chi
0
w ?N
nu
0
N 0
H
w

AMEX
ZGNE •X
Hi
DNE X
T
i
ZONE X
ZONE A -;

s*
Bridge No. 55
FEMA - Floodplain Map of Project Area
0 2000
1 FEET I
APPROXIMATE SCALE
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
ROCS INGHAM COUNTY
. Bridge No. 55
on SR 1138 (Lindsey Bridge Road)
over Belews Lake Spillway
TIP No. B-3694
Figure 6
ZONE X
S i
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 22, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your November 15, 2000, request for information from the U.S. Fish andVildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of a proposed bridge replacement in Rockingham
County, North Carolina. 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 comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following bridge
structure:
1. B-3694 Bridge No. 55 on SR I138.over Belews Lake Spillway
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 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 techniques.. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Belews Lake 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows wetland
resources in the specific work area. 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. Therefore, in addition to the above.
guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the following in .
sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling,
dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory. 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).
2. If unavoidablewetland 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 enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Rockingham County. The Service recommends that habitat
requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the respective project sites.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, biological surveys for the listed species
should be performed. Environmental documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and
NCDOT's recommendations based on those results, should be provided to this, office for review and
comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further biological
research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa. Although FSC's
receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their
potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found. 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,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
,._ Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/22/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\lbrdgroe.ham
e -1
. Rockingham County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Co... Page 1 of 2
Updated: 02/25/2003
US, Fish & Wildlife Service
- ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Invertebrates
Green floater
James spinymussel
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil
Smooth coneflower
KEY:
Status Definition
Lasmigona subviridis
Pleurobema collina
Lotus helleri
Echinacea laevigata
FSC
Endangered
FSC
Endangered
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Threatened - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Proposed - A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or
threatened.
C1- A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there
is sufficient information to support .listing.
FSC - A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be
listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/entylist/rockingham.html 4/28/03
I-
Rockingham County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Co... Page 2 of 2
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American
alligator )--a species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare. species and is listed for its
protection. These species 'are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP - A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or
nonessential). Experimental, nonessential endangered species
(e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public.land, for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on
private land.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or
incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50,
years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal
range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
For additional information regarding this Web page, contact Mark Cantrell, in
Asheville, NC, at [e-mail]
Visit the North Carolina ES Homepage
Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page
Keywords {same keywords listed above - used for search tools}
httn_//nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntvlist/rockingham.html 4/2R/01
x?
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276041188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Conforti
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co ator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE:. January 2, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarras, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-3677, B-350 B-
3694, and B-3700.
. 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 project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
f
Bridge Memo 2 January 2, 2001
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.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in.or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed. without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, 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
Bridge Memo 3 January 2, 2001
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 could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
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, m;nm:ze the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. 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-3404 -Anson County -Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are.not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421- Cabarrus County - Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway. No
comment.
3. B-3 822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are-not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity.
4. B-3828 -Cleveland County -Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 _ Davie County - Bridge No. 37 over I-40. No comment.
6. B-3835 - Davie-Forsyth counties -Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands
f
Bridge Memo 4 January 2, 2001
entirely. The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level*
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
7. B-3454 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
8. B=3 839 - Forsyth County - Bridge No.139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity,
9. B-3 840 - Gaston County - Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3 652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery: Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3 8 51- Guilford County - Bridge No. 21 over US 29/70. No comment.
13. B 3 677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over. Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3 506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations- of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April 1 to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 -Rockingham County - Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
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.
Bridge Memo 5 January 2, 2001
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.

Ken Burleson
From: "7ohn.W Harmon Sr" <[e-mail]>
To: <Id=[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:42 PM
Subject: Project B-3494 Rockingham County
Ken, Belews Lake is not a FERC lake. There will be no rEERC permit
required.

L&Idz/'?-
a?srn,?4
a«M
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
January 8, 2001

MEMORANDUM
s . J4fif
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook j
Deputy State HistatiG'reservation Officer i',w 4
Re: Request for Comments for Group X? Bridge Replacement, Projects, Replace
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1138 over Belews Lake Spillway, B-3694; Rockingham
County; ER 01-8190
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, concerning the above project
Historic period archaeological site 31RK42** is located approximately 50 yards south of
the existing bridge. We recommend that an archaeological survey be undertaken of the
area of potential effect (APE) for this project If site 31RK42** is to be affected by the
bridge replacement, sufficient historical research and testing should be undertaken to
determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at
919/733-4763-
cc: Thomas- Padgett, NCDOT
f'e erul.•Iid =BRZ-1133(9)
TIP =B-369-1 Cuunn•: Ruckim_ham

CONCURRENCE FORNI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOP, TFI%'?:;TIO\.=?L
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Brid=e No. ;f, on SR 1 133 over Belews Lake Soillxk•av
On June 1. 2000. representatives. of the ?:
Q/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
ederal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
? a scoping meeting
?? photograph review session/consultation
? other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect:
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there. are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property. properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
?C, ? _G 0
Representative, N OT Date
FHWA. for the Division Administrator. or other Federal Agency Date
I jiztoz
Re sentative. SHP Date
A.-
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If'a survey report is prepared. a final copy ofthis tbnn and the attached list %%ill he in.:iuded.