20071822 Ver 1_Application_20071030

~m~
~~P
M .n
~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
r '~.
U ~ `-~ ~~
U/'~ ~~
T~~
b~T~A '~~~tlF; ,~~j
NQS~N~ ~;tii~;h.~;
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
S
GOVERNOR ECRETARY
,~ J October 19, 2007
2 ~
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
1)
~ 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
~ ~ 'J
O
~~~+++
~
ATTENTION: Mr. Andrew Williams
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 7
~" Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the proposed
~ replacement of Bridge No. 39 over Hogans Creek on SR 1503 (Walter's Mill
~ Rd.), Caswell County, Division 7. Federal Aid Project No: BRZ-1503 (9),
State Project No: 8.2481701, WBS No: 33421.3.1, TII' No: B-4057.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 39 over
Hogans Creek on SR 1503 (Walter's Mill Rd.) in Caswell County. The project proposes to demolish the
existing bridge and construct a three span, pre-stressed concrete girder bridge on the existing horizontal
alignment. This new structure will span Hogans Creek. The new bridge will be 210 feet long, with span
lengths, from west to east, of 50 feet, 90 feet, and 70 feet. The bridge will have a clear roadway width of
28 feet, with two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot shoulders. The new bridge approaches will have two 11-foot
lanes with 5-foot grass shoulders. The shoulders along the approaches will be widened to 8 feet where
guardrail is present. During construction, traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour located
approximately 40 feet south of the existing bridge. The temporary bridge associated with the detour will
be 195 feet long.
Please see the enclosed copies of the permit drawings, design plans, and Rapanos form for Hogans Creek.
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) for this project was completed in January 2005 and distributed shortly
thereafter. A Re-Evaluation of the CE was completed and distributed in May 2007. This re-evaluation
changed the preferred alternative to the one described above so that the project would avoid impacts to a
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Easement north of the existing bridge. Additional
copies are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description
The project is located in the Roanoke River Basin (sub-basin 03-02-03) in Caswell County. This area is
part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03010104. Hogans Creek comprises the single water resource within
the project area. There are no wetlands within the project study area.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] RALEIGH NC 27604
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

Hogans Creek is a perennial stream that flows roughly south to north through the project study area. The
portion of Hogans Creek that flows through the study area is assigned Stream Index Number 22-50
(09/01/57) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and has a best usage classification of C. It
is approximately 45 feet wide and has vegetated stream banks that exhibit signs of erosion both upstream
and downstream of the bridge. The stream channel is slightly incised, with awell-formed floodplain
located approximately 9 feet above the streambed. During field investigations associated with the
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR; April 2002), water depth ranged between 1 and 4 feet and
the substrate was primarily composed of silt and coarse sand, with occasional gravel.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS I: undeveloped watersheds or WS II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.0 mile of the project study area. Additionally, no portion of Hogans Creek, its tributaries, or other
surface waters within 1.0 mile of the project are listed on the NCDWQ 2006 Final 303(d) List of
Impaired Waters.
Permanent Impacts
There will be no wetland impacts associated with this project.
The new structure will span Hogans Creek. Therefore, no permanent stream impacts are anticipated.
Temporarv Impacts
A temporary causeway will be placed into Hogans Creek to allow for removal of an existing in-water
bent (Interior Bent No. 2). The causeway will be composed of Class II riprap. The Class II riprap will be
placed on the stream bed and will result in 0.02 acres (391inear feet) of temporary impacts to the stream.
Additionally, a total of 50 square feet (less than 0.01 acres) of temporary fill will occur in Hogans Creek
due to piles associated with the detour bridge.
Bridge Demolition
The superstructure of Bridge No. 39 is composed of an asphalt-wearing surface on a timber deck,
supported by steel I-beams. This superstructure is supported by a timber substructure with steel crutch
bents and timber bulkheads.
NCDOT shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. The entire bridge will be removed without dropping any components into Hogans Creek.
Additionally, the piles associated with Interior Bent No. 2 will be cut off level with the surface of the
streambed.
Utilitypacts
No impacts to jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of utility work associated with this project.
However, as an avoidance and minimization effort, a directional bore will be installed by MebTel
Communications under Hogans Creek. This bore will be used for the installation of new underground
telephone cables. The existing aerial telephone lines will be abandoned or removed.
B-4057 Permit Application
2

RESTORATION PLAN
No permanent fill will result from the subject activity. Piles associated with the temporary detour bridge
will be removed from the creek. The stone materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the
causeway will also be removed from the streambed. The temporary fill areas will be restored back to
their pre-project elevations. NCDOT will also restore the streambed to its pre-project contours.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The piles associated with the temporary detour bridge will be removed from the creek once the new
structure is built. The causeway will be removed from the stream after the existing in-water bent is
removed. All stone material placed in the stream for construction of the temporary causeway will be
removed by the contractor using excavation equipment. The contractor will be required to submit a
reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The
contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the
construction of prof ect.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part
of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• The preferred alternative for this project was changed to avoid impacts to a USDA Conservation
Easement north of the bridge that contains wetlands.
• No bents associated with the new structure are to be placed in Hogans Creek.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of NCDOT's BMPs for Protection of
Surface Waters.
• NCDOT's BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during this project.
Compensatory Miti ag tion
No permanent impacts will result from the construction of the new structure. Therefore, no mitigation is
proposed for this project.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of its most recent update on May 10, 2007, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website lists one federally protected species for Caswell County, the
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina).
B-4057 Pernut Application
3

Table 1. Federally protected species in Caswell County
Scientific Name Common Nanc Federal Status Biological ~
~: lIabifat ;
Conclusion ` ~ 'Present-~
May Affect, Not
Pleurobema collina James spinymussel E Likely to Yes
Adversely Affect
Visual surveys for the James spinymussel were performed in Hogans Creek by the Catena Group, Inc. on
September 26, 2003. The surveys were performed from approximately 1300 feet downstream of the
project crossing to a point approximately 300 feet upstream. Although Hogans Creek could potentially
provide habitat for this species, individuals were not found during the surveys. Additionally, no other
mussel species were observed and only the introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) was common in
the creek. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (GIS shapefiles
most recently updated on September 28, 2007) revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0
mile of the project. Due to the presence of potential habitat, a Biological Conclusion of May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect was assigned to this species. Concurrence from the USFWS for this
conclusion was initially received on March 17, 2004. However, due to the above-mentioned change in
the preferred alternative, concurrence from the USFWS had to be re-requested. A letter from the
USFWS dated April 30, 2007 states that the Service's initial concurrence is still valid for this project
even though the alternative has changed. The concurrence letters can be found as attachments to the Re-
Evaluation of the CE. No additional surveys are required for this species.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a review date of Apri129, 2008, a letting of June 17, 2008, and a date of availability
of July 29, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in July or August
2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that
activities described in the CE document be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 FR 11092 - 11198;
March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate that Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3632
will apply to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of this WQC. Therefore,
written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section
.0500 (a) and 15A NCAC 2B, Section .0200, we are providing two copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), NCDWQ, as notification.
B-4057 Permit Application
4

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information
please call Mr. Jim Mason at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. horpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Terry Harris, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
B-4057 Permit Application
5

° - - --
~ i r .. ~i. I ..
/ =a a ~ ~~ ~ ~~~\ I ~ 11
\\ \ /..
// ~~
U •" SIT ~.~
~~~ 11 `~ ~ /
`~pg _ mar/ n° 5pp u ~
Pc~ //° 11
11
l/ \ //
I II ~ / Opp ~ ~ p
~ II \/ _ W ~:\ Np
~~ \\
U • o= u0p a aF~
5~ 11 ~, O
! ~ -
_ 48 ~j ~ \~
USGS RINGGOLD, NC QUAD MAP
®`L~ ~ Jl ~®1 ~1
~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CASWELL COUNTY
WBS N0.:33d21.1.1 (B-405
BRIDGE N0.39
OVER HOGANS CREEg
SHEET I OF b 08 / 08 /
NORTH CAROLINA

Parcel
No. Property Owner
Name Property Owner
Address
~ Scott R. Smith, et al
2 John B. Taylor 1880 Maryland Ave., Charlotte, NC 28209
3 John E. & Lenor W. Filler 2961 Walters Mill Road, Providence, NC 28305
4 Glenn F. Womble, Jr. 364 Westlake Trail, Mebane, NC
rj Glenn F. Womble, Jr. 364 Westlake Trail, Mebane, NC
List of Property Owners

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 -L- STA 23+50 ROCK CAUSEWAY 0.02 39

TOTALS: 0.02 39
50 ftz of temporary fill in surface water due to detour bridge piles.

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: B-4057; Replacement of Bridge No. 39 over Hogans Creek on SR 1503
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Hogans Creek.
"t'.
State: NC County/parish borough: Caswell City: near Providence
Center coordinates of site (lablong in degree decimal format): Lat. ° Pick List, Long. ° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 6475.02E 4044576N
Name of nearest waterbody: Hogans Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Hogans Creek, which flows into Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03010104
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
[~ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
® TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
^ Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: 160 width (ft) and/or : 45 ft wide acres.
Wetlands: 0 acres.
c. Limits(boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHVV111.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Hogans Creek.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: Creek is approximately 45 feet wide and 1 to 4 feet deep at the project site , it flows
through 2 counties, and is approximately 26 river miles long. It is a large creek that could easily be used for fishing, canoeing,
and general recreation. Its confluence with the Dan River is approximately 1 1/4 river miles east of the project site, which
makes it likely that recreational users of the river would use Hogans Creek as well.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Yick Lint
Drainage azea: Pick Lisk
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through Fick Kist tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.

Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that applyZ
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Piclc List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving. ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationshipwith Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick. List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity.(Relationshipl to 'TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that aze present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLl~:
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
® TNWs: 160 linear feet , 45 ft wide width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters s
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
gSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
[^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
[~ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLl~:
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solel on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^` Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
[~ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
^ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
^ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
^ FEMA/FIRM maps:
1-00-year Floodplain Elevation is:
^ Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
^ Other information (please specify):
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: No wetlands are located within the project study area.

P
P
m
m
m
c
a
a
N
t
r~
0
U
O1
ti
~~
N
V
Fi
U
O
U
See Sla°et t-A For Index of Stets
See Sheet f-8 For Convenfionol symbols
See sr>°er rt ror purvey t,onrrar sneer
VIRGINU+ ~ , r
1583- 8W~ ~ .. .
I Iso2 503 - ~ '~
1830 -
1S 3 521
RODE 57 ~
380 I ` a ~ o ~ 1S '-
~ I B 1500 ° 7 1505 ~ _
83
153f - 150 15 4
~~ - J ~~ 1 1611
15
2 OB
~ Pro ~ ~ 1s1a
~~ J 1300 _ ~`"~
. 1 ~ 1614
1305 -
VICINITY MAP
rtm rtn eaen' wuun
~~A~7ClE ®~Fpp I~T~~$~j~C1~f~y1~f[ (~~C^ptryA~rtm~/p$®~~~CyLy~~T~ ,C. 8-4057
- ~ll~~~~®~ ®ll' 1Lll~`IU llH VV ~ ll ~ rtn Ana ~..:m.i
_ 33421.1,1 BRZ-150;
33421.2.1 BRZ-150:
33421.3.1 BRL150;
CASWELL C~U11~TY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.39 OVER IiOGAN'S GREEK Permit Drawing
ON SR 1503 (WALTER'S MILL ROAD) Sheet ~ of ~,
WETLA11tD/SURFACE WATER PERMIT DRAWIII~GS
STA. 20+00.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8,4057
i ~ to N~
~~ ~8
`~ 6
.~
!' DE51GN IXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR SAG VERTICAL CURVES, SHOULDER WIDTH, AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCES,
2+75.OD
U
II
II
II
I I
R 1503 (W~
512Z; -
BEGIN CON1
-lr STA,19+
HOGAN`5 CREEK
I
~~ i
END BRIDGE ~ I STA. 28+00,00 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-4057
-lt STA 24+85,00
i~
~i
x~
/~
/i/
i~
,~~~l~
~C~,,
~ ~~~\1
O N
F
~O
Y

~~;=: _
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT US8 POR CONSTR9C1'ION

GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 50 1 o
DESIGN DATA
ADT zoos = 920
PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY T1P PROJECT B-4057 O,p2 Mi, P~epore0 in the Office cd:

DIVISION OF HIGB'WAYS
1000 BireA Rider 0~., Ralri/1 NC, 57610 19YDRAIlL1CS BNGDVEER D1V1510N OF J~G1iR'AYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ADT 2025 = 1200 ~ srermenn SPBCfflC93R7N0
PLANS DHV = 10 0~ LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4057 = D,040 Mi,
luGEJT' OF WAY Jk4TE
AMES A
SPEER
PE
'~~ rs
rs
50 25 50 1 0 D = 60 % TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT B-4D57 0,152 Mi, r .
,
J ROADWAY D1351GN sua nasrcx ~~
+
T = 3 % SEPTEMBER 29.2005 ~0'~ ~~` ENGJN1iHR DSPARTMSNT OF TRANSPORTATl'ON
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) y = 50 MPH
LEt~lNG ~~'
~~ ~'D J78DBRAL HIGHR'AY ADMINISTRAT70
10 5 10 2 DETOUR = 40 MPH JUNE 17
2005
" TiST 1% DUAL 2% . rs
PROFILE (VERTICAL) ~ ~ ~~

WRIE o.CR.LUu
OB 286 PG 101

P! Sfa /6+89:48
p = r8'3a 50.4'(LrJ
0 = 5 43 465'
C = 32313'
r = 1fi299'
R = I.OOpAO' P1 Sfo 29+3Q50
p ° 40' 5r 28T (RT)
D °8'40' 522'
C °47065'
r ° 245.83'
R = fi60.(10'
SE =SEE PLANS P! Sfa !1+02,82
p = T 25' 3r,8'rRT)
D =9'57' 52l
C • T452
T ° 37.3r
R = 575A0'
SE =SEE PGwS
0
SCOTT R, $YITN et e
DB /TI Po 909
.0
'PO~F
\ Ee
I

~E-
Pl Sfa ro+7o.37 PI Sfo 12+ro14 P~ Sfo /5+9892 P/ SYa r8+15.33
p = l6' 30' 4C3'(RT)p =16'30' 41.3' (LTl p = 13'07'!65' (LT)D = 36' 45'roA' (R)
D ° Ir4s' 48,8' D - lr48' 48.8' D = lr48' 4bb' D = U48' 48.8'
L ° r397T' C - 13977' L = lnaT' L = 3N~r
T = 7037' T - 70.37 T = 5578' T = !6112
R • 485A0' R =485.00' R =485.00' R =485,00'
SE =SEE PLANS SE =SEE PCANS SE =SEE SLAMS SE ° SEE PLANS
-YDET-
I '
I
PI Sfo II+0262
I p = T 25' 3l,8' lRT
I I D =9'57`52!
T
~
~
I l
I =37
R = 57500'
II
II I I
ji IW
II
l
-L- Pr Sia r8+4962 li IN
lull
Ill ~tl
I l ~~
II II
,1 ~ycawc
S57q~lz~ ~=6046'S2'E ITSSI'
PROPERTY LINE FOLLOxS
CL Cf OLp POAO BED
eEC1N CONSrRUCrroN
-DEr- Pc sfa ro+aoa
-L- POT Sfa 19+95.32
SODS
woods
TOE FIgTECFION
cuss a urRu
sEE DETUL o,A
T EST. Id TONf
Esr.:e~ sr FAeuc
-DEr- PT Sfo. r2+7953
O
JOIN & TAYLOR
we BT•E Po Iw5
SKETCH SHOWING PAVEMENT IN RELATIONSHIP TO STRUCTURE ANTS)
TUU'. -DET- + i + TEMF~
TYFE &T TYFE 0-71
~ ~/
TYFl~6-iT TYFE~b~7T
- PRC Sfo.ll+397
TAI -A
N
I wof ro scaa
,~<4ndR
~ A
m ~p ~
sko. d
FINer
a= Lo tr. FuOrb
Type of Llner= Cloae B RID'Rap
P~eLt ~Pt_ sre teiRa Te an t~azs Mr
r ~ .
aas
d~n
~8
3
w000S
ESP
~tlL 1
EEL D
-DET-
Tf
1
z u II
m w ~I
' \
'P
~ ~
x woods
aAU a uFRAr_
~r, s roes
lST. n SY FAEIDC
® DENOTES TENPORARr
FILL IN SURFACE
MATER
w00DS
DETAIL C
SPECIAL A A 'V' DITCH
rNOt to Scald
Fll
tu~d ~~o~te< Sbpe
Erou,a ~o
a D
Ertn. D= 2.0 Ft.
Fpabric Ibx. d= L0 Ft.
TyDa of Llner= GLASS B RID-Rop
FROM -0EF- STA 16+3~ TO STA 16+59 RT
FROM -YpEF STA 1D+9Z TO STA 11+Ze RT
~~1Q ddb
a. "^ ap04R te0a
boo 1 (€bb
~ :DOB ADT
~6i3-AD-t
O
JONN EFUE~ N.
D8 39R PO 176
FROdtT IDFEItBKE NO. aHEEr NO.
8-4057 5
NN 6MEFi N0.
ROADWAY DE61GN NYDEAULICa
ENONEER 9iGINE6l
PREL[MIN RY PLANS
DD NO'f V98 PO CON9TRaCf10N
-DET-
Permit Drawing
Sheet ~ ~
wppos

,~ ,,
~ ~' ~'
~ ~ / ~ (~ (~
~ /
i {~
DEr- Por sfo. N+4798=
€3 - POC Sto. r5+83A2
-DET- PRC Sta.
€~ ~ .. r
~~
;,~; f ' , > /OLEO F. rgEiLE„
~ DE ae Fc fi09
/ \91nytik
i / ~o'o
i
;`~~. woods

odds
3c
N
:~
~; a
J
" ~~-YDEr- PT Sta 11
~aFE~uL uaRU v DrrcN
1 Earn roNa
EET.61 M FAaRIC
ND k! DETAL L
l n woods
1 .
1 1
1 1 '•
1 ~ 1 '.
I~ml
1~=1 .
3 1~~1
1111 .
11
1 1 i
11 ~1
11 1411
I-rDET- PC Sfo, ro+65

Pr S-a 19+65.32=
' 8BO.9p•
561'7 .
~ O
OLEFN F. MOUBI.E. Jt
Oe IF8 PC 609
DE I1fiPo11 i
NOTE: SEE SHEET 6 FOR -DET- PROFILE
SEE SHEET 6 FOR -YDET- PROFILE

Pr Sro r6+89,48
p = IS3d50.4'fLTI
0 = 543'46.5'
L = 32313'
T = x62.99'
R = r,0(JaAO' Pr Sto 29+30,50
p ` 4d 5P28T(RT1
0 ` 8'4d 522
L `470.65'
T ` 245,83'
R =660.00'
SE =SEE PUWS P/ S-o u+0282
p = T25'3r,8'fRT1
0 = 9'ST' S2l
L ` 74,52'
T = 37.3P
R = 575Ad
SE =SEE PLANS
1
SCOTT R, SY1N et d
OB 4TI PO 909
O
JOIN B. TAYLOR
e8 6T•E PG N5
:~
FROM -0ET- STA'
FROM -Yl)Ef- STA
d
~-I~ DER IDOS
El
1~~
TROSCI' AEFEEBICE N0, ENflT N0.
8-4057 5
Ew fnffr No,
ROIDWAY DENGN HYDIIAUIICE
ENGNEEE ENGINEER
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
UO NOf U98 C9NSTRUCf10N
-D ET-
,hermit DTa~9
Sheet ~. °~ ..._.
6!E DEVJ, C ~ __
MOODS ~' _
1~ v
_
~ _
_ -
_ '
_
_
~'~.
~'"~,~ 9
_- '-
~ ..
:;
~~ ~
.: _
- ,~-
=:.
_.
...
.
:
~,'-
' ;_
_.
~~
x: -
.: :, :
-~ --_
.~

_~~ -
_ ~.
t "° `'_";
_. ,..
} ,_,, NOTE: SEE SHEET b FOR -0Ei- PROFILE
-~_ ~-* -=4~° ~--~- ° °~ 5EE SHEET b FOR YDET- PROFILE

permit Drawi~
Sheet „~..~
ROCK CAUSEWAY DETAIL
,,
DO NOT DISTURB'
•
USDA CONSERVAT N
~~P EASEMENT s
wood
RETAIN EXIST.
TS
~ ~
-
--
-____---r---~- - -- ----r-- -
-

y IDGE#39
L
_ ~
~
_~
T ~~
~~ ~~ ~~.~
~

\\~_ F ---~ ~
~ ~ ~
F
BDI ~ ~
-- ~ -SET-

15
COT R
SMI
B
t al `1 _
&
.
EL
OW
471 PG
9 CIEA
UT
- p ~0
R ~

`~ ,
~ ~
CK CAUSEWAY - - -
~
CLASS II RIPRAP ~ _
CLASS B RIPRAP
EST.1 TONS
EST.5 SY FABRIC

-DET- PC Sta. 15+43J4 CLASS B RIPRAP '~ •,
EST.3 TONS ~ 1
EST, 11 SY FABRIC
odds
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER

Perms D inQ
sheet d~
EXISTING BRIDGE (TO BE REMOVED)
390
385
360
375
370
-i---------------------------------------~------------~ - - - - -
\ ~ ~ ~
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ /
i ~ i /
~ i ' ~ ' /
~ , i i i
- \ i ~ , ~ /
i ~ ' ~ I
\ i i i , ~
\ i ~ i
1 , i i i /
~ i ~ ' i ~
i ~ ' ~
---r-__ ~ ~ i /
i 1 ~ ' ' /
1 i ~/ i
~ , i~
TOP OF CAUSEWAY ~ ~ J
CLASS II RIPRAP l~
EL - 373.20' 1.5:1 ~ ~- - - - - NWS - 371.20'
I,
+50
25+00
ROCK CAUSEWAY CROSS SECTION
23+00
+50
24+00
+50

\,
P'
m
0
h
U
W
O
ti
0
U
Fi
U
O
U
~1~et 1-C For Survey Control Suet
_waGINU
1393 I BW~d ~ .. .. r ,
1550 1507 sD3 - ~
153 T~
OJE ~7 ~
380 ~ t v ~-
15D 528 ° 15D
1505 1
83 {0
v 8
15 h -160 15 4
~ -
c,~ _' / ''~ , ' 1611
150 '
7 I Pro ' D D!\ 1610
1~ U
J 1300 D ~~'
- -~ 1 .6u
laud
VICINITY MAP
~ . 1 j1I'L~I'.~:II(~.:./sy~Il(~(\~111~ :. ,~ e u:_~~0.j7 .:: I~!I~~'r.~'Ir~{~'~~~~ILr''114' S~l~~:/y.~~51/~.~(T.ys(\i'1.~Y 11l
JLY JL V ll1.1~®~ ®ll LLIlJL'L/.^d 9V ~ ll V
cASW~L~ cove
LOCATION. BRIDGE 1110.39 OVER HOGAN'S CREEK
ON SR IS03 (WALTER'S MILL ROAD)
TYPE OF WORIC~ GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, GUARDRAIL,
AND STRUCTURE
STA. 20+00.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4057 BEGIN BRIDGE
~ ETA, 22+75.00 HOGAN'S CREEK
N
II
~ TO II
~ ~ NC I I
.~
86 II I
~\
~ ~~ L R 1503 (WALTER' ll
_p~ ~ ~r
~\'t~c
t ~a~1
~ x,11
~,
o ~ ~,
J
•• DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR SAG YERTICAL CURVES, SHOULDER WIDTH, AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCES.
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Preporw in rte 0!flce d: Iif~RAI1LlCS ~' .STAYS OF NORZOLINA
~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
50 25 0 so 1 o ADT Zoos = 420 LENGTH ROADWAY PP PROJECT B-4057 = 0
112 Mi lOdO Rireb Ride Df., Ro(eitk xC, 77610 I
ADT 2025 = 1200 ,
. ,~ ~,~ ~
PLANS
DHV = 10 % LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4057 = 0,040 Mi.
50 25 50 1 0 D = 60 % TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT B
d057
152 Mi IuGET OF WAY DATB
' JAMES A
SPEER
PE 'U°W~°' rs re
" .
•
= 0, . .
.
~0~ ROADWAY DESIGN srA7s Dssxm aarcnuxea
T = 3 % SEPTEMBER 24.2005
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) ~ DSPARTMSRT OP T12ANSPORTATION
V = $0 MPH FBDSRAL HIGHWAY ADMINIS2RATI0
10 5 0 10 2 'DETOUR = 40 MPH ~TT1NG DA1T: DANNY GARDNER

' TTST 1% DUAL 2% JUNE 17.2008 ~0~r

PROFILE (VERTICAL) rs ~
~~ nn~srox ~~ ~~
4
END BRIDGE
i~~'
i
i
i
i

N.C. B-4 057 1 ~,
RIIE R04N0 ..11bLN0. pMp,pN
33421,1,1 BRZ-1503 5 PE
33421,2.1 BRZ-1503 5 RAV 6 UTILRIES '~,
33421.3.1 BRL1503 5 CONST,

STA. 28+00.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-405
_~~o
y0`~
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o Nor vsa aoa coNSravrnoN

N
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
ROADS fy RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement __________________________ --_
Curb --------------------------------------- ---
Prop.Slope Stakes Cut ______________________ ___~ ___
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill
---------------------- r
-------
Prop. Woven ire Fence ____________________ ~~
Prop. Chain Link Fence ___________________. ~ ~_
Prop. Barbed ire Fence ___________________. ~_
Prop. Wheelchair Ramp ____________________.
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp ------- ~
Exist. Guardrail ____________________________ ~~~_
Prop. Guardrail ----------------------------- - -
Equality Symbol ---------------------------- ~
Pavement Removal __________________________
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point ______________________
Existing Right of Way Marker ________________ Q
Exist. Right of Way Une w/Marker ____________ -~-
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
~ Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) _____________ ~_
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
(Concrete or Granite) RAW Marker __________. _~
Exist. Control of Access Line _________________. ~A}-

Prop. Control ofAccess Line _________________. ~_
Exist. Easement Line _________________________ _ _ __E_ _ _
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line _____ E
Prop. Temp. Drainage Easement line ________ -roE-
Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement Line ________. -aBE-
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water __________________ _ ... _
RiverBosin Buffer ___________________________ ~
Flow Arrow---------------------------------
Disappearing Stream________________________ ~.,,_
Spring -------------------------------------- p,-~..~
Swamp Marsh ------------------------------ ~c
Shoreline------------------------------------ - - - - - -
Falls, Rapids --------------------------------- ~ ----
Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches _____________ ~
~ r~r
STRUCTURES
MAJOR
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert ______________ ~ coNC_)
Bridge Ong Wall, Heod Wall
and End Wall __________________________ )coNC ww(
~~°A~IE ®~ N®I~TH[ ~AI~®ILIN.~
I~I~I~I®N ®~ ~[I~~[W~~Y~
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
MINOR
Head & End Wall ________________________ coN~\
Pipe Culvert ~- - - -
Footbridge ---------------------------------- ~ - - - - - <
Drainage Boxes-----------------------------. ~ cB
Paved Ditch Gutter ________________________ _ _ _ _ .
UTILITIES
.Exist. Pole ---------------------------------- •
Exist; Power Pole ____________________________. +
Prop. Power Pole ---------------------------- b
Exist. Telephone_PnJe------------------------- +
Prop. Telephone Pole________________________ .o-
Exist. Joint Use Pole_________________________. ~.
Prop. Joint Use_Pole__________________________ .~
Telephone Pedestal _________________________ p
U+G Telephone Cable Hand Hald__________ Hw
Cable N Pedestal __________________________
USG N Cable Hand Hold__________________ wH
USG Power Cable Hand Hold_______________ wN
Hydront------------------------------------- ~
Satellite Dish________________________________ ~
Exist. Water Valve____________________________
Sewer Clean Out ___________________________. Q
Power Manhole _____________________________.
Telephone Booth____________________________ p
Cellular Telephone Tower___________________ ,~,
Water Manhole------------------------------
Light Pole ----------------------------------- 0
H-Frame Pole------------------------------- .--.
Power Line Tower___________________________.
Pole with Base------------------------------ o
Gas Yalve ---------------------------------- ~
Gas Meter ---------------------------------- ~
Telephone Manhole_________________________ ~
Power Transformer__________________________.
Sanitary Sewer Manhole_____________________
Storm Sewer Manhole ______________________ 0
Tank; Water, Gas, Oil _______________________
WoterTank.~th Legs----------------------- O
Traffic Signal Junction Box___________________ ~
Fiber Optic Splice Box_______________________ p
Television or Radio Tower ___________________
Utility Power Line Connects to Traffic
Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement __________ ~~~
Retarded Water line __________`___________. -,-w-
Designated Water Line (S.U.E *) ____________ - _„~ ~,_ _
Sanitary Sewer -----------------------------. -55-ss-
Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main _____. -ASS-FSS-
Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.E.~ _ FSS-FSS -
Recorded Gas Line _______________________. ~-~-
Designated Gas Line (S.U.E."') _____ _ _~_ ~__
Storm Sewer------------------------------- -5-5-
Recorded Power Line ______________________. -.P~-
Designafed Power Line (S.U.E.") ___________. _ ~_ ~_ _
Recorded Telephone Cable ________________. -r-,-
Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E.') ______. __r_ _,_ _
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit ______. -rc-rc-
Designated USG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.'~ _ _r~__r~_ _
Unknown Utility (S.U.E.•) _________________ -rim~urL-
Recorded Television Cable ---------------- -~,-rv-
Designated Television Cable (S.U.E.') ______ __n__,~__
Recorded Fiber Optics Cable ______________ -FO-FO-
Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E."') ____ __FO--FO-
Exist.Water Meter ------------------------- p
LYG Test Hole (S.U.E.•) _____________________ ~
Abandoned According to U~ Record_______ arru~
End of Information -------------------------- EAl
BOUNDARIES F~' PROPERTIES
State Line --------------------------------- ------
County Line---------------------------------
-----
Township Une ------------------------------ -------
City Line------------------------------------ -----
Reservation Line_____________________________ _ -
Property Une--------------------------------
Property Une Symbol ________________________
Exist. Iron Pin -------------------------------
Property Comer ----------------------------- -
Property Monument__________________________
Property Number ____________________________
Parcel Number------------------------------.
Fence Line ---------------------------------
Existing Wetland Boundaries________________.

High Quality Wetland Boundary_____________
Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries _______
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries____________
Proposed Wetland 8oundaries_______________
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries _____-
Existing Endangered Pont Boundaries _______
~+
123
6
-x-x-x-
wW & ISBw
- -wLB- -
-HO wL8-
',~..~~ :yl.w. ~~. ~•.:.NU.
8-9057 t-B
BUILDINGS f~' OTHER CULTURE
Buildings -----------------------------------
Foundations --------------------------------- ~ 1 ~
Area Outline ------------------------------ ~ ~, /
Gate --------------------------------------- ,~`
Gas Pump Vent or USG Tank Cop _ _ _ _ _ o
Church ------------------------------------~
School -------------------------------------
Park -------------------------------------- ~ - -
- ...{
Cemetery----------------------------------- [-t J
Dam ----------------------------------------
Sign----------------------------------------, o

Well ----------------------------------------
Small Mine --------------------------------- x
Swimming Pool -----------------------------
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface ----------------------------- _---
Hard Surface ------------------------------
Change in Road Surface ___________________ ___________
Curb --------------------------------------'
Right of Way Symbol ----------------------- Riw
Guard Post --------------------------------~ ocF
Paved Walk ------------------------------ - - - - - -
Brid9e ------------------------------------- ~
Box Culvert or Tunnel ~- - -- - - --
Ferry ___
Culvert _.
Footbridge
----- Trail, Footpath ----------------------------- ~ ~ ~ - -
~'
0
B~
-Aq wLB-
Light House __
VEGETATION
Single Tree --------------------------------- €~
Single Shrub ------------------------------- o
Hed9e -------------------------------------. „r~,w.-,
Woods Line---------------------------------- -Y~,~,-..~,-„ti
Orchard ----------------------------------- f~Q44J€~Q
Vineyard -----------------D--------p----------
RAILnOADJ ~NEra~
-LO wLB- Standard Gauge_________________________
---
-wLB- cu rxwsm+rvar
RR Signal Milepost _______________________ a
- - EAB - - War is
:wltCh ------------------------------------- ~
- -EPB - - anro;

re~Jsed O7J02/DJ

m
EXISTING GROUND
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
G1 PROP. APPROX. ila" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE sFS.SA,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LBS. PER SD. YD.
C2 PROP. APPROX. 2" ABPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE 8FS.5A,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER 90. YD. IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS.
C3 PROP. APPROX. 2Yg" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SFS.SA,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LBS. PER S0. YD. IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS.

C4 PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE SFS.5A,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER S0. YD. PER 1h DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 11~" IN DEPTH.
E1 PROP. APPROX. 5" ASPHALT CONCRETE BABE COURSE, TYPE 826.08,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 570 LBS, PER 90. YD.

E2 PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B26.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER 90. YD. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LEBS THAN 9" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 6 " IN DEPTH.
PROP. ®" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE.
P_ PRINE COAT AT THE RATE OF .35 GAL. PER 90. YD.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
U EXISTING PAVEMENT.
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVENENT (SEE STANDARD WEDGING DETAIL).
NOTE: PAVENENT EDGE SLOPES ARE 1:7 UNLESS 8HOWH OTHERWISE.
~ -L-
s-psi `
MY iFIEEi N0. _ _
ROADWAY GBIGN PAYWFNT DaIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEEh
~, SURVEY
DETAIL SHOWING METHOD OF WEDGING
i
8, .w5, 42' 5'
8' Wi>;R 8' WifR
*CROWN
GRADE
POINT
C3 W C1 C1 W C3
x.08 " •02 ,02 , .08
a;~ -------------- ----------~--
T El ~.5" U ~.s" El T
GRADE TO THIS LINE Z~, GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO.1
**NOTE: USE 5' SHOULDER WIDTH WITH GUARDRAIL PLACED AT 3' FROM EDGE OF TRAVELWAY
FROM -L- STA. 22+25.00 LT. TO BEGIN BRIDGE STATION
'~~ r
o ~~
EXISTING GROUND
NOTE: TRANSITION FROM EXISTING TO TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
-L- STA. 20+00.00 TO STA. 20+50.00
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
*-L- 5TA.20+5D.00 TO STA. 21+00.00
-L- STA. 21+00.00 TO STA. 22+75.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
-L-STA. 16+%5.G0 TO STA. 2i+50.00
NOTE: TRANSITION FROM TYPICAL SECTION N0.1 TO EXISTING I'
-L- STA. 27+50.00 TO STA. 28+00.00 I ~I

AIWRJT AEFi91ENCE NNl. ~ 6NEET INIT.
B-4057 '~ 2-A ~
Rw EHEtT No.
ROA9WAY DESIGN PAVBMENi OEEIGN
ENgNEEA BIgNER
EXISTING GROUND
EXISTING GROUND
.~ _~\ ~~
8'
a:~
a'
a.~
~ 5' ~
8' WiGR
22'
POINT
s .08
GRADE TO THIS LINE
~ 5' ~
8' WiLR
7.5"
TYPICAL SECTION NO" 2
~-Y-
20'
5'
8` WiGR
I .08
GRADE TO THIS UNE
~ 5' ~
B' NGGR
PAYEYENT BCNEDULE
Ct 1k" TYPE BFa,BA
CZ 2" TYPE BFa.BA
~, ~3 ESh" TYPE BFa,SA
C4 MAR. OEPTN TYPE BFa.BA
E1 B" TYPE BEB.aB
EQ VM. DEPTX TYPE aPd, CB
PROP, a" AOaREaATE BABE COOABE,
P PRIME COAT
T EAATN MATERIAL.

?~ (I EXIBTINO PAVEMENT,
~ ro
3~
W
MEDacxa
EXISTING GROUND
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
-L- STA. 24+85.00 (END BRIDGE) TO STA. 26+75.00 III
POINT
t .08 I
T
GRADE TO THIS LINE
~'~
7.5" .~. E105T1NG GROUND
E~ El
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO" 3
Y STA. 10+60.00 TO 5TA.11+13.38

P
T
n
0
IXISTING GROUND
~~7
_ 3' _ I _ 4'
~ -DET- & -YDET-
2a
P
I`.D8
T
GRADE TO THIS LINE
;BADE
POINT
~~ ~8~
TYPICAL SECTION NO.4
4' _
E6' WiGR
:8-4057 2-B.
RM' SFiEEI N0.
ROADWAY OENGN PAVEN[NT DE31GN
ENGMEEA ~ BiGINEB!
PAYFNENT BCXEWLE
C1 111;^ TYPE BFO~dA
'e~~1 ~ CZ 4" TYPE SF0.6A
iLI 1 r 1 ~3 ESQ° TYPE OFO~SA
C4 VAR. DEPTN TYPE BFO~dA
_~8 E1 d" TYPE B4d.OB
EQ 4M. DEPTN TYPE B26.OB
/~
Vlw ~'
-K ~ PROP. 0" AOOREAATE BABE ODURBE~
T O 3,~ P PRIYE COAT
EXISTING GROUND T EARTH YATEAIAL.
GRADE TO THIS LINE {J EXIETINB PAYEYENT~
W xEOerno

NOTE: TRANSITION FROM EXISTI NG TO TYPICAL SECTION NO.4
-DET- STA 10+00.00 TO STA. 11+41.38
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.4
-DET- STA. 11+41.38 TO STA. 13+14.50 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
-DET- STA. 15+09.50 (END BRIDGE) TO STA. 16+89.56
-YDET- STA. 10 + 60.00 TO STA. 10+ 81.73
NOTE: TRANSITION FROM TYPICAL SECTION NO.4 TO EXISTING
-DET- STA. 16+89.58 TO STA. 19+65.32
~,
~~
~~

m'
MARIE D. DB.LIAIS
OB 288 FL +d
0.45.
t0 1
- - -Y-
PI SIO 76+89.48 Pr Sro 29+30,50 P! SID !1+0282
p = 18'30' 50.4' fLT) p = 40' Sr 287 tRTI p = 7' 25` 318' lRT1
0 = 543' 46.fi D =8'40` 522 D =9'57' 52l
L = 323!3' L =470.65' L = 7452'
T = r629q T - 245.83' T = 37.3r
R = 1,007A0' R =660.0.7 R =575.00'
SE =SEE PLANS SE =SEE PLANS
SCOTT R, $IRTN et d
OB 4TI PO 909
'a`'3.
'`°B~
~e
I
I
I
T urawn = au MPH
-DEr- ;~
P/ Sro ro+10.37
' PI 57a 12+10/4 PLSta (5+9892
'
'
' PI Sto r8+15.33
'
'
p~ 16
30'4L3'(RT 41i
)p = l6
30
45
rOA'fRrl
(LTJp = l3'OT`16S(LTIp = 36 ~'
n 49.8•
D ~ ~ D ° Ir 48' 99.8'
~ ~ D = rr 48` 48.8'
= l3
L r39
L = rNAT L = 3Nlr
r - Tosr r - To.Tr r = 5578' r = 16u2' I
R =485.00' R =485.07 R =485.00' R =485.00'
SE =SEE PLANS SE = SEf PLANS SE =SEE CLANS SE -SEE PLANS
-L- STA. 20+00.00 BEGIN STATE PROJECT 8-4057 -YET-
-L- PT Sla 18+49,62
II I~
II I I
II
it I~
I
I
I
1 ~
I ~
I I z
J
.l J5'cawc
MOODS
S57Tpp.E -~y ~~sb475.52E 179.SY
PgOPERTI LINE FOLLOWS
0. OF OLD ROAD BED
BEOrN A7NSTRUCT/ON
-L- POT SIa 19+9532
-L- STA. 16+25.09, N.48' LT.
BW
BW
O
,IDIB+ a un.oR
w8 8T-E PO IIb
SKETCH SHOWING PAVEMENT IN REL4TIONSHIP TO STRUCTURE INTSI
'I TENV -0ET- + -0ET- Si a+ + hµP,
j ttPE & TYPE &n
TEAV. TENS.
TTPE 8-71 TYPE B-n
TAI D-A
IN
Ilbt to Setls~
e<4u0R
FR
FO ~p SIdDw
Slaps d
FlNer
d= LO ff. Fmrlp
Type of Liner Cb6s B RID-RaD
~ACMI -0ET-STA 10+89 TO 5U.1]+4S aT
p =7'25'3.
D = 9' S7' S'
L = 14.52'
T = 37.3r
R = 5T5AO'
TOE P801ECDDN I
CUSS B AIPAAP 1
SEE DETAIL D-A
r EST. 84 TONf
EST.4b4 SY FAlII1C
-DEr- PT Ste. r2+1
rRn I
I ~~~
~m
I~
-BL 5 4STA,18+31,4
=-B 1• STA.5+00.0
=-L} STA. 25+23.65.
I ®n
baDO' LT.
wOWSI ® PL
~ ~
~t9oD B°°sRtaw
13aa
C0. t~ 2008 ADT
3b~6i~Dr
• :
8-4057 5
RtV WBR N0.
ROADWAY DEIGN
ENCMEEA MYDEAWCB
LNCINfER

/~ PRELIMIN
DO NO'i 098 RY PLANS
CON9TRUCRON

-DET-
I
I'I
ml
i
O
N
" N i ~ w.
~ F
B
I LER
B
1 DB 79~ PC +T6
-L- STA. 25+00.00 END STATE PROJECT B-4057
1 ~.
WOODS ~ .
I

x ~ ~~.
~, ~
b
~ ~
i
w
`
~
~
N °~ DEr- POT Slo. rr+47.98= •
{~
' R ~ - IBC Sla r5+83A2 ~
~ ~~ ~3
:
I, ' lr. ~
-pE'r- PRC Sta ~ ..
+ 4Ql ~ ~,
S ~ ~ ..
a~
L1 ~ . + ~
`
H m ~
~ 55
s
~ ~ CLENN F. eTA~LE, JR E
DB 118 PO 809 ! ~ 1 ~
l
~
1
~
yy
„ ~ ~
TsD9• i /
`
,~ k
£N ' (INSTRUCTION
~
yA • 00.00' LL '
~ ~ ~ / ,
/ $086.66 -4 +00.00 -4 -~
~ ~ Pr $ID. r9+65.32=
. I I x ~
WOWS '~
Iwo ./~.~/ x0.00' LT. w S®~arEi05T.
4~' - 2
0
' ~ Sta 29+568
EL 0 DTT R. Sw ~' t d °+r~`~
De 4n Fc
20 7'
s 4
1 41.60•
® PL
o. 15+4314 ~ 9 io~rtt~~-
E5T.11 SY FASRIC
w0005
DETAIL C
SPECIAL LA AL 'V' DITCH
Not to Sctle)
F11
NOfurtl ~ ~ t~ Sbpe
Ground D
d Alin. D= 2.0 Ft.
Fmric AIOx. d= LO Ft. III
Type of Llner= CLASS B RID-Rap II
FROM -0ET- STA 16+34 TO STA 16+59 RT
FROM -roEr-Sra 1D+vz ro Sra n+ss ar

aw
~~ "° ~ ; ®°°'T• ""' ~~ YDET- Pr Slo, r1+40A ~~
~
'u. +~ •.

ooos

1 sPfcEUUTEEUYDrrcN -BL• STA. 23+28.99 PING
EET.21 TONS
EBt
dt sf FASRIt
-

~
LIABODEND .
OpS 84057-I
~ ~T~ c _-L- STA
15
70
40' LT.
30+20
®F705T. . © .
.
.
,
WOWS
fs
m 1 -7DET- PC SID. (0+655( 4
~ 1 ~ O

`
1 E..Bt
- 0 - 10+60.00 CLENN F
08 178 Po 609
DB n6 FG S4

~~.t~
,
,_~\ j
-rDEr- POT sro,ro+ooa~
D u2L
~~1
~
1~
a
FANrS ,~
All R 1
1
//~( °F1

1
~
!/
1
Cd$
t
~ 1 1
P
G p1 n
1
\
~ 1
1 m1
1 ~,
y
1~A1
NOTE: SEE SHEET 6 FOR -DEf- PROFILE
° t SEE SHEEt 6 FOR -YDET- PROFILE

c f A ~~
P^ 1~
,;
~/cr'1 ar,., ~~t1~
~N~
Caswell County ' "' ~~
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503 ' ~~ ~~~`'~ ~~
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1 -
T.I.P. No. B-4057
u7~~~2
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Approved:
l ~ 5 ~ ~ i ~~~(~
DATE ~ ~ ~ Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
D~'1~ ~~- John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

t ~ ~i
Caswell County
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4057
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepazed in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
January 2005
r
Dennis Pipkin, PE
Project Planning Engineer
William T. G odwin Jr., PE, U 'Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
Caswell County
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4057
1. Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Resident Engineer:
Reve eg tation: The existing bridge and approaches will be removed after the new
bridge is completed, and the azea will be revegetated with appropriate plant species.
2. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 39 is composed of an asphalt surface, timber and steel I-beam deck,
and timber substructure and bulkheads. Brid~P demolition will occur by removing the
asphalt surface prior to removal of the bridge structure. The remainder of the timber and
steel components will be removed without dropping them into Hogans Creek.
Consequently, there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. Because
of the stream's silt and sand substrate, the use of turbidity curtains will be considered
during bridge demolition. During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Categorical Exc/usion Document G~eensheet Page 1 of 7 January 2005

Caswell County
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4057
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 39 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible for the Federal-
Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 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
Bridge No. 39 includes a 5-span superstructure composed of a timber floor and timber deck
placed on steel I-beams. The substructure is entirely of timber components.
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 18.3 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWAr guidelines. Inspection records
show a structural evaluation of 2 out of 9 (structurally deficient). The bridge is also functionally
obsolete due to a deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9, in addition to the structural evaluation of
2 out of 9. The bridge is therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program.
Other considerations such as weaz and tear resulting from increasing traffic, aging (50 yeaz old)
bridge components, and increasing maintenance costs all justify the replacement of this bridge.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the north central section of Caswell County (see Figure 1). The area
contains a mix of agricultural and rural residential land.
SR 1503 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1503 has a 21-foot pavement width with 6-foot grass shoulders.
The roadway grade is relatively flat to gently rolling through the project area. The roadway is
situated approximately 27 feet above the streambed.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1954. The overall length of the structure is
201 feet. The cleaz roadway width is 19 feet. The bridge is posted with weight restrictions of
12 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.

Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
_~
There is one existing underground telephone service along the south side of SR 1503aerial
across Hogans Creek).
The current traffic volume of 800 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 1200 VPD by
the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
2-percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is a 55 mph speed limit in the project area.
There was one accident reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 39 during a check of a recent three-
yearperiod. This crash resulted in a citation for excessive speed for wet conditions. The accident
resulted in property damage and one injury.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a 210-foot long bridge on an alignment shifted
approximately 40 feet north of the existing alignment. Traffic will be maintained on the existing --
bridge during construction.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing facility at
this location. The Lodge will be of Buff cient width to provide for two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot
offsets. Approach roadwork for the shifted alignment will begin approximately 975 feet to the
east of the existing bridge and approximately 515 feet west of the existing bridge.
The existing roadway approaches will be widened to a 22-foot pavement width to provide two
11-foot lanes. Five-foot (8-foot where guardrail is required) grass shoulders will be provided on
each side. This roadway will be designed as a rural minor collector with a 60 mile per hour
design speed.
Design exceptions may be required for vertical and horizontal curves, and vertical and horizontal
stopping sight distance.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Three alternates were studied (See Figure 2):
Alternate 1: Replace bridge approximately on existing alignment, and detour traffic offsite onto
other local roads.
Alternate 2: Replace bridge approximately on existing alignment, and maintain traffic by an on-
site temporary detour structure placed to the north.
Alternate 3: Replace bridge on new alignment to the north ,and maintain traffic on the existing
bridge during construction.

C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1503. In addition, timber bridge components
typically do not last beyond 30 to 40 years of age due to the natural deterioration rates of wood.
Past a certain degree of deterioration, structures with timber piles become impractical to maintain
and are programmed for replacement, as is the case for this bridge.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 3 is the preferred alternate. Bridge No. 39 will be replaced on a shifted alignment as
shown in Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
There were two primary factors considered in reaching a decision on the preferred alternate:
(a) There is no acceptable offsite detour. The Caswell County Emergency Management Director
stated that unacceptable delays in emergency and fire services would result if an offsite
detour is used. In addition, the Division 7 Engineer does not concur with an offsite detour for
this project. Thus, Alternate 1 could not be considered further.
(b) Of the two remaining reasonable and feasible alternates, Alternate 3 is the most economical,
and still provides maintenance of traffic onsite, as well as providing a new facility that meets
the purpose and need for the project. _
NCDOT Division 7 concurs with this proposed recommendation.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the build alternative is as follows:
Item Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Structure $ 470,000 $ 616,000 $ 470,000
Roadwa A roaches 91,000 586,000 448,000
Structure Removal 38,000 38,000 38,000
En . & Contin encies 108,000 248,000 215,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 118,000 362,000 278,000
Total Construction Cost $ 825,000 $ 1,850,000 $ 1,449,000
Right-of--way Costs 35,000 64,000 71,000
Total Project Cost $ 860,000 $ 1,914,000 $1,520,000

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Physical Resources
Soils
There aze two major soil phases located within the project area:
Dan River loam: Dan River loam is awell-drained, moderately permeable soil on flood plains.
The seasonal high water table occurs at depths of 2.5 to 3.5 ft and runoff is slow. The flooding
frequency for Dan River loam is occasional.
Danripple sand loam: Dan River sandy loam is awell-drained, moderately permeable soil on
stream terraces. The seasonal high water table occurs at depths of 3.3 to 5.0 ft and runoff is
negligible to medium. The flooding frequency for Danripple sandy loam ranges from rare to very
rare.
3.4.1 TerrestrialImpacts
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project azea often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat
' for wildlife. The proposed roject construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species,
thereby diminishing fauna numbers.
The calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the project azea. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. The following table summarizes potential
quantitative losses to the Biotic Community.
4

Im acts acres

Community Alternative
1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Permanent
Impacts Permanent
Impacts Temporary
Impacts Permanent
Impacts
Dry Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04
Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial
Forest 0.05 0.05 0.24 0.24
Maintained/Disturb 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1
ed Community
Pasture Community 0.06 0.06 0.24 0.24
Old Field
Community 0 0 0 0
Total Impacts 1.1 1.1 0.65 ~ 0.65
Water Resources
Hogans Creek is a perennial stream that comprises the single water resource within the project
area. The. stream is located within the Roanoke River Drainage Basin and is designated as
Subbasin 03-02-03 according to the NCDWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, and USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03010104 according to the federal system for cataloging drainage basins.
Best Usage Classification
Hogans Creek is designated as DWQ Stream Index # 22-50 and is assigned a primary water
resource classification of "C". Class "C" refers to waters that are protected for uses such as
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture
and other uses suitable for Class "C". Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other
uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types
of discharges in Class "C" waters.
There are no surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) located within 1.0 mi. of the
project area.
5

Aquatic Resources
The aquatic community consists of Hogans Creek below the mean high water line. The
vegetation associated with the aquatic community includes those species located along the stream
banks of Hogans Creek. Canopy species observed along the banks of Hogans Creek include river
birch, hackberry, box elder, and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). The observed shrub/sapling
species include Chinese privet and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Herbaceous and woody
vine species include river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium) and Japanese honeysuckle.
There are no NCWRC moratoriums that apply to Hogans Creek. Additionally, there are
no NCWRC "proposed critical habitats for aquatic species" located within the project
area.
Aquatic Impacts
Wetlands: No wetlands are located within the proposed project area.
Conservation Easement: A floodplain wetland is located outside the northwest quadrant of the
project area approximately 180 ft (55 m) north of SR 1503 (Walters Mill Road).. The wetland is
located outside the project azea. The wetland and its adjoining floodplain have both been placed
under a United States Department of ~,g~iculture Wetland Reserve Program (USDA WRP)
conservation easement. A legal description of the property is attached to this document.
Stream Impacts:
Table 1. Estimated Stream Im acts
Stream Name Alternative 1
Im acts Alternative 2
Im acts Alternative 3
Im acts
ft ac ft ac ft ac
Ho ans Creek 60 0.06 110 0.11 110 0.11
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 39 is a 201 ft long by 19 ft wide structure composed of an asphalt surface, timber and
steel I-beam deck, and timber substructure and bulkheads. Bridge demolition will occur by
removing the asphalt surface prior to removal of the bridge structure. The remainder of the
timber and steel components will be removed without dropping them into Hogans Creek.
Consequently, there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. Because of the
stream's silt and sand substrate, it is recommended that turbidity curtains be used during bridge
demolition.

Federally Threatened and/or Endangered Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of N°~t:~rbcr~6, 2664,
the USFWS listing (updated _ . , 2) lists one federally protected species for Caswell
County: the James spinymussei.
Name: James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)
Family: Unionidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 22 July 1988
Biological Conclusion:
Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
This species was initially "Unresolved"; however, on September 26, 2003, a survey was
conducted for NCDOT by the Catena Group consulting firm. The fording from this survey was
"Not Likely To Adversely Affect." On March 1, 2004, NCDOT requested review and
concurrence with this finding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In a letter dated
Mazch 17, 2004, the USFWS concurred with the conclusion.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 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 afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has reviewed this project and determined
that no structures of historic significance will be affected by the project (see attached letter dated
January 3, 2000). The bridge being replaced is not considered eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places.
C. Archaeology
The North Cazolina Department of Cultural Resources requested an archaeological investigation.
The NCDOT submitted an azcheological report on February 25, 2002. This report concluded that
Site " 31 CS70* *" is outside the area of potential effect (APE). The report also concluded that Site
7

" 31 CS71" is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Department of Cultural
Resources agreed with the NCDOT report (see attached Cultural Resources letters dated
January 3, 2000, and April 1, 2002). Thus it is concluded that no azchaeological resources of
historic significance will be affected by the project.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is 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 Cazolina 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.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees aze expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious oppominities in the azea.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
Although farmlands will be affected by the project, there will be no effect on soils classified as
prime, unique, or having state or local importance.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports aze required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
8

Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Caswell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area of
about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or extent
of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.

N FI ._ __ €I
- "I
`/ ' R G I N I A
~ ~ Bridge No. 39
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '
~'
1^6)
~ , j 1701 , \ 1527
~)
\ ,1 .
1703 _~ o ' \ , iy77
~ >so a ,626. .
~ / +~ /635 ~ ' 1526 i - _. ~
' -.. : •.
.J ~~ \ .. t 'y' z~. ,xis ~I ~.o _1 } ~ ~_', ~..
.' ~ \
~ I / '• ~. ,706 , % .../ ; - / .. _. ._ ._ _.! ~..._ _ .. . -. _3' ~ - _
• i 1330 • - ': I I r ~ 1 1 (' ~ ^ j ~ / ~ ~ 1531 .`
•'v ~ -
\ -~..,,
/ ~ } 1 . s 1 I 1 -,./ ~/Z t1 ~uz e'er- :f• ~ ;~~' j .
,~ / ` B'. ~..J V I / I ~ 1711 1i,'• :•t:•~ IS73 :> ~ ~ 15x .
a
`//~ ! \ - / 1700 Providenc »13 . 1 •! ~~ / n , r_t
I ~) 1+30 1 1611 } .,`. ~ r~ F: !~ L.+.
- • • ~ / . 1726 1 1717 hww \ 16~ s ~1 J 1368 '
_ .J• J.. 11'Q~ 131 '~C 1321 } ~ 170D P 1717 -. 1 0 .\ ' ~.
\ 371 1 ' . 1 1}. ~ ~_ 1565 1~3 /
/• •• ~ 1s71- .
J 1373 13Cn F ,325 9«f. G1~ .T.t~ . 52 ~ 1521 / .1372 0 `! r570 v ' S ''tt
.3 13D6 ~ / ~ ~ e ~
'I 1x1 -° ,32~ 1 } rsle a - 1.0 ~ / .
d~_
• I C...qw.. + 6.•1.. 6 t t ~
33t •} ~ :•' ~~ im . / 6 1719 /. . I 1721. 1797 ~~
O L' \ \.
1 1377 ../ 1~1 / .9 } 1672 ^ 1596
y / 1308 / t 773 ~ ~ ~ "
fo.~8 \ V 1606 157 } / • ~
1308 • 3 1300 I ~ • / ~ ~. ~ • .
i~ 20 ~ ^ 1.9 / / 136 ..~ '.` ~' ~ ,~ ~.~ r
~ 1 .. •./ /-~ •~97
~ ' • z.
- 1310 -
1376 ~ ~ I I
1310 1312 YANCEYVILll_! r 1`-Ot ~
~ .s 1309 '.'`._< ( _ '•? o I - I ror. Lyn ' C~/ \
~ ~ • ^ v _ 7321 ' I 1 >e _ _ _ , l V 4 J' \ . S?
3 ~ 3 I \/ / ~ /~"°
Wes. 1311 1716 .3 ^+ ~ , +
1311 1313)• .~ 1.0 .1167 - ~ 176 /• t IEW
_ 'J~C~'
~Giw i t3r5 ~• •. 'Y~ 1' ~ I ,
- ~ I 1712 ,D ~
.7 N1
Cs.-.0 112 /4 `1~ ?
/' /~ \ / \ 1357 I ' _~ 1•. \ p \1fC1, rt'. 17B I
/• -\ _ 1162 1 I.- _ ~~~• •~ ..-... "1
.t`
~ Np1~
/.~ NORTH CAROLWA DEPARTJv1TTTS' OF
TRANSPORTATION I
e DIVISION OFHIGHWAYS
~ ~~ PROJECT DEVEt.OPMENT R

orTwn ENVIRONIvi1TTIAL ANALYSLCBRANCH
. CA,SWELL COUNT]'
REPLACEBRIDGE39 ON SR1~U3
OVER$OGAN'S CREEK
8-407. •
• Fi~u~e One'

Looking east
across Bridge
No. 39
Looking Rest
across Bridge
No. 39
„o,,,, North Carolina Department of Transportation
,~~`~. Division of Highways
' Project Development 8 Environmental Analysis
'~~ Branch
.'°is,,,a~'
Caswell County
Replace Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogan's Creek
B-0057
Fi~U-e Three

e wa STATZ
~~ s
~ ~~
.~.~ {
., ~-.~
.~,~
~.
~~1/~ ~''~.) .
.- '_.
-_
li '.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 3, 2000
MEMORANDliM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and En~-ironment~. Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ~ ~ . ~ ~~1.(7~„~ c°~~l~~l~l~
Depute' State Histo "Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503 over Hogan's Creek,
TIP No. B-4057, Caswell County, ER 01-7941
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On November 28, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regaazding this project.
In terms of historic azchitectural resources we are aware of no historic structures located within the area
of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, there is a high probabilify of the presence of remains of a historic mill within the
project area. We, therefore, recommend that an azchaeological survey be conducted in connection with
this project.
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 any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763.
cc: T. Padgett

C ;',~ T~~4'~
,.» nNCv
4f, t~~
~~
'~
'~`,::~'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
-State Historic Preservation Office
David L. s. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley. Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans. Secrctar}~
Jeffrey J. Cmw, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
April 1, 2002
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson. Director
Q~G ~' ~Fd
I~IEMORANDt'l~i i
TO: ~k'illiam D: Gilmore, Manager bPR 5 2079
Project Dev=elopment and Environmental rlnal~>sis Branch ~•O ~'
i~G 0.''V16R]N G!a 4!'r-`~~
Division of Highways '~~ ~`„ k+~i~r~YS .t ;,~
Department of Transportation y~yF~~' ~ p ~~ ~r
EV ~ P~ 5
~c~. j ~ t~ ' TA! KlJA` ~'
FROM: Darid Brook ~~;~~Q''~C,'\`~
~J
SL'B1ECT: archaeological Sur~-ei' Report for Replacement, Bridge #39 on SR 1303 over Hogan's Creek,
B-40~ 7, Caswell Count<', ER U] -7941
Thank you for tour letter February 2~, 2002, of transmitting the archaeological survey report by Mohler and
Overton for the above project.
~'1e have reviewed the report and agree ~t~ith the stated conclusions. 31CS71 is not considered eligible for
inclusion in the I~Tational Register of Historic Places, given the amount of disturbance to the site. 31 CS70** is
outside the current area of potential effect and has not been evaluated. Should plans change and 31 CS70** be
affected, evaluation will be necessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10G of the National Historic Presen~ation Act and the
Advisor= Council on Historic Preser~-ation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you fox vour cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fas
- - lv~ .,," !~:~.. 5- ° Cen:_.. F.~ ~uoc '6':' !~I4`• -__ ~~63 .~~'-8653
- ~4
.~< <.. S~, i; Fhnr,l S! kai_~eh . N; <bi , h:uii ~cnic~ ..eaie., Fem. _ _ --- - -- _

,.
Y ,
Q~<~E"' °` T~F, United States Department of the Interior _ r-
1~,
° s FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
_ ~ Raleigh Field Office
• Posy Ofucc Box 3372b G ~,E j ~,,r
°' Raleigh. North Garoiiaa 27b363726 ~ ~ `~
,RCw > >9
March 17, 2004
{.=t D .1 d %f~R..
e~ ~ pr~c:r.
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD. '~'~ •:~ •~rr~+•twA~; ~ ~~
North CarolinaDepartment ofTransp ` '~~ ~'E~•~. F:~~~' ~'~
Project Development and Environmental Analysis fyt~, .~^::~~.~s~
1548 Mail Service Center
Ralei~, No ; Carolina2769S-154
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 1,2.004 which provided the U_S. Fish and
Vvildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North CarolinaDepartment of
Transportation (NCDOT} .that the replacement of Bridge No. 39 on SR 1603 over $oLan's Creek
in Caswell County ('IZP No. 8-4057) may affect, but is not Likely ro .adversely affect the federally
endanffered James spu~ussel (Pleurobema collina). These .comments areprovidedin
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered .Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 ZJ S.C.
1531-1543).
According to theinfoffiation you submitted; amussel surveywas conductedat~he~rojectszte
on September 26, 2003. The .survey e~'tended 100 meters upstream and ~OOzneters downstream
of.SR 1503. No mussels of any species were observed. Based on*heinformationprovidedand
other information available, the Service conctus with your conclusion that theproposed bridge
Tevlacementmay:afiect, but is not Likely to adversely affect the James spinymussel. We believe.
that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that
obiiaations under section 7 constiltation must be reconsidered if: (1)new infomlationz-eveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect Listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this reviea~; (2 j this action is subsequentty~oained inama~er that
was not considered in this review; or (3) a new .species is Listed ornriiical habitat.detemiined What
may be affected by this identified action. ~,
The ~ervice:appreciates~he -opportlmityto review thisproject. If.you have any~.estions
-regarding ourTesponse,-pleaseuontact Mr. GaryJordanat (919) $~-6=4520 (Bxt.32).
.Sincerely,
~,~,~ ~.~
~'~
GarlandB. Pardue, PhD.
F,colo~ cal der-vices~npervisor
:cc: :John Thomas, ~USACE, Raleigh, .NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
_ __.. _. _ S~ .

. t_
_ _
' JAN-16-2002 WED 05:39 P1t USDA CASWELL FAX N0. 336 694 1141 P. 02
Conservation Easement
LEGAL DESCRYhT10N
~Wctlands Area on Richard Johnston Tract
Walters Mill Road - SR #1503
I3cing located in Caswell County, North Carolina, Dan River Township, and being more
particular described as follows: beginning at a point in the northern right-of--way line of Walter
Mill Road (SR #1503) said point also being in the centerline of Hogans Creek; thence with said
right-of-way line, N59"22'-23" W 129.96' to a point, tbencc leaving said Wafters Mill Road,
N33° 11'-47" E 502.67' to an iron pin, thence N12° 34'-32" W ] 40.96' to an iron pin, N3° 47'-51"
E 422.69' io an iron pin, N7° 36'-52" E 667.83' to an iron pin, N87° O1'-11" E 444.21' to an iron
pin, N65° 35'-57" E 149.! Z' t^ an iron pin, N76° 00'-21" E 138.96' to as iron pin, S82° 40'-24" E
90.56' to an iron pin, S77° SO'-43" E 113.50' to an iron pin, S00° 35'-25" E 19450' to an iron pia,
S27° 14'-39" W 25b.96' to an iron pin, S26° OS'-57" W 181.38' to an iron pin, S12° 31'-11 " W
153.46' to an iron pin, S20° 49'-03" E 208.07' to an iron pin, S30° 30'-00" W - 78.49' to a point,
S66` 00'-24" E 141.04' to a point in the centerline of Hogans Creek; thence with said centerline,
S31 ` S'-09" W 48.94', S54° 5 +'-49" W 313.47, S77° 2l'-32" W 430.56', S64° 42'-50" W 255..51',
S27° 58'-23" W 35l .81' w the point of beginning, containing 26.536 acres and being as shown on
plat of survey showing wetlands arcs on Richard Johnston Tract -Walters Mill Road - SR #1503
for United States Department of Agriculture, by Dewberry & Davis, dated August 8, 1996.

Caswell County
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1
T.LP. No. B-4057
REEVALUATION OF THE
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Approved:
~ - ~ ~J
G
DATE regory J. Thorpe, PhD,
Environmental Mana ement Director, PDEA
DATE John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Caswell County
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4057
REEVALUATION OF THE
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis,Branch By:
~~
5 ~1a7 ~'Fvv v'
DATE Terry A. arris
Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Project Development Unit ``~`~~~~CAR ~''~''
r ~Q OF O~fy°9
~" r
DATE Bryan D. Kluchar, PE ~ 2 6 8 7 7
Project Engineer ~6~ ~FN~~~ ~~•' Q~
Bridge Project Development Unit '%,y~q~'••» `~G?,`~

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Caswell County
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4057
1. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch (Permits), Roadside Environmental Unit, Resident
Engineer:
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 39 is composed of a timber deck with asphalt wearing surface on steel
I-beams superstructure, and timber substructure with steel crutch bents and timber
bulkheads. Bridge demolition will occur by removing the asphalt surface prior to
removal of the bridge structure. The remainder of the timber and steel components will
be removed without dropping them into Hogans Creek. Consequently, there will be no
temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. Because of the stream's silt and sand
substrate, the use of turbidity curtains will be considered during bridge demolition.
During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be followed.
2. Roadway Design Unit
The U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation easement will not be impacted
by temporary easements or acquisition of additional Right of Way.
Greensheet Page 1 of 1
Categorical Exclusion Document
May 2007

F

Caswell County
Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogans Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(5)
State Project No. 8.2481701
W.B.S. No. 33421.1.1
T.LP. No. B-4057
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 39 is included in the 2007-2013 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible for the Federal-
Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Reevaluation of
the Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
A Federal Categorical Exclusion was prepared for the project on February 3, 2005. Within the
Categorical Exclusion, Alternate 3 was identified as the Preferred Alternative. However,
Alternate 3 was selected without knowledge of an impact to a US Department of Agriculture
Conservation Easement. The easement states that no "draining, dredging, channeling, filling,
leveling, pumping, diking, impounding, or related activities, as well as altering or tampering with
water control structures or devices" will occur within the easement area. The conservation
easement is located to the north of the existing bridge.
A new design (Alternate 4) avoids the US Department of Agriculture Conservation Easement.
Alternate 4 replaces the existing bridge in place and maintains traffic with an onsite detour
located to the south of the existing structure.
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 39 has a sufficiency rating of 20.4 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete due to a structural appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) standards and eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement Program. The bridge
is also structurally deficient based on a superstructure condition of 4 out of 9 and a substructure
condition of 3 out of 9. The bridge is also functionally obsolete due to a deck geometry appraisal
of2outof9.
Bridge No. 39 includes a 5-span superstructure composed of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
bridge contains afifty-three year old timber substructure with a typical life expectancy between
40 to 50 years due to the natural deterioration rate of wood. Rehabilitation of a timber structure is
generally practical only when a few members are damaged or prematurely deteriorated.
However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber structures become impractical to maintain
and upon eligibility are programmed for replacement. Bridge No. 39 is approaching the end of
its useful life.

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the north central section of Caswell County (see Figure 1). The area
contains a mix of agricultural and rural residential land.
SR 1503 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1503 has a 21-foot pavement width with 6-foot grass shoulders.
The roadway grade is relatively flat to gently rolling through the project area. The roadway is
situated approximately 27 feet above the streambed.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1954. The overall length of the structure is
201 feet. The clear roadway width is 19 feet. The bridge is posted with weight restrictions of
12 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
There is existing underground telephone service along the south side of SR 1503 (aerial across
Hogans Creek). Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
The current traffic volume of 890 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 1280 VPD by
the year 2030. The projected volume includes 1-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
2-percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is a 45 mph speed limit in the project area.
There was one accident reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 39 during a recent three-year
period. This crash resulted in a citation for excessive speed for wet conditions. The accident
resulted in property damage and one injury.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 210-foot long. The bridge
length is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The
bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two 11-foot lanes with 3-foot offsets on each
side. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately 1-foot higher than the
existing grade.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 22-foot pavement width to provide two 11-foot lanes.
Five-foot (8-foot where guardrail is required) grass shoulders will be provided on each side. This
roadway will be designed as a rural minor collector.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Two alternates were studied (See Figure 2). Alternate 3 impacts the US Department of
Agriculture Conservation Easement, while Alternate 4 avoids the Conservation Easement.
2

Alternate 3
The replacement structure consists of a 210-foot long bridge on an alignment. shifted
approximately 40 feet north of the existing alignment. Traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing facility at this location. The bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for
two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets. Approach roadwork for the shifted alignment will begin
approximately 975 feet to the east of the existing bridge and approximately 515 feet west of the
existing bridge.
The existing roadway approaches will be widened to a 22-foot pavement width to provide two
11-foot lanes. Five-foot (8-foot where guardrail is required) grass shoulders will be provided on
each side. This roadway will be designed as a rural minor collector with a 60 mile per hour
design speed. Design exceptions may be required for vertical and horizontal curves, and vertical
and horizontal stopping sight distance.
Alternate 3 impacts a Conservation Easement owned by the US Department of Agriculture. This
easement impact was not identified in the Categorical Exclusion prepared for the project on
February 3, 2005. The easement states that no "draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling,
pumping, diking, impounding, or related activities, as well as altering or tampering with water
control structures or devices" will occur within the easement area.
Alternate 4 (Preferred)
Alternate 4 replaces the existing bridge at the existing location with a new structure
approximately 210 feet long. Traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour located
approximately 40 feet to the south of the existing bridge. Alternate 4 does not impact the US
Department of Agriculture Conservation Easement. The existing roadway approaches will be
widened to a 22-foot pavement width to provide two 11-foot lanes. Five-foot (8-foot where
guardrail is required) grass shoulders will be provided on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately one-foot higher than the existing
bridge. The bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets
on each side. Approach roadwork for Alternate 4 will begin approximately 471 feet to the east of
the existing bridge and approximately 280 feet west of the existing bridge. This roadway will be
designed as a rural minor collector with a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Design exceptions will be required for sag vertical curves and sag vertical stopping sight
distance. A short 50-foot portion of the shoulder width is reduced on the northwest side of the
bridge approach slab to avoid impacts to the US Department of Agriculture Conservation
Easement.
The onsite detour located south of the existing structure consists of 10-foot lanes and 4-foot
shoulders (6-foot with temporary guardrail). The detour structure will be approximately 195 feet
long and will be constructed at approximately the same elevation as the existing structure. The
detour bridge will provide a clear roadway width of 24 feet with two 10-foot lanes and 2-foot
offsets on each side. The onsite detour design speed is 40 miles per hour.

C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1503. In addition, timber bridge components
typically do not last beyond 30 to 40 years of age due to the natural deterioration rates of wood.
Past a certain degree of deterioration, structures with timber piles become impractical to maintain
and are programmed for replacement, as is the case for this bridge.
Alternate 1: Replace bridge approximately on existing alignment, and detour traffic offsite onto
other local roads.
Alternate 2: Replace bridge approximately on existing alignment, and maintain traffic by an
onsite temporary detour structure placed to the north.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 4 is the preferred alternate. Bridge No. 39 will be replaced in-place with an onsite
detour to the south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2. The onsite detour will maintain
traffic during construction.
There were two primary factors considered in reaching a decision on the preferred alternate:
(a) There is no acceptable offsite detour. The Caswell County Emergency Management Director
stated that unacceptable delays in emergency and fire services would result if an offsite
detour is used. In addition, the Division 7 Engineer does not concur with an offsite detour for
this project. Therefore, Alternate 1 could not be considered further.
(b) Alternates 2 and 3 impact the US Department of Agriculture Conservation Easement. The
easement specifically states that no "draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling,
pumping, diking, impounding, or related activities, as well as altering or tampering with
water control structures or devices" will occur within the easement area.
NCDOT Division 7 concurs with the proposed recommendation.
4

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs based on 2006 prices are as follows:
Item Alternate 3 Alternate 4
referred
Structure $ 689,000 $ 689,000
Detour Structure N/A 348,000
Roadwa A roaches 581,000 470,000
Structure Removal 46,000 46,000
En . & Contin encies 272,000 279,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 212,000 219,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,800,000 $2,051,000
Ri ht-of-wa Costs 71,000 20,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $ 1,871,000 $.2,071,000
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Physical Resources
Water Resources
Hogans Creek is a perennial stream that comprises the single water resource within the project
area. The stream is located within the Roanoke River Drainage Basin and is designated as
Subbasin 03-02-03 according to the NCDWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, and USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03010104 according to the federal system for cataloging drainage basins.
Hogans Creek is designated as DWQ Stream Index # 22-50 and is assigned a primary water
resource classification of "C". Class "C" refers to waters that are protected for uses. such as
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture
and other uses suitable for Class "C". Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other
uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types
of discharges in Class "C" waters.
There are no surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) located within 1.0 mi. of the
project area. Based on DWQ's 2004 Fina1303(d) list, no surface waters within 1.0 mile of
the project are listed as 303(d).
Biotic Resources
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat
for wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species,
thereby diminishing fauna numbers. Biotic communities located within the project area include

Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest, Maintained/Disturbed Community, Pasture Community, and Old Field
Community.
Aquatic Resources
The aquatic community consists of Hogans Creek below the mean high water line. The
vegetation associated with the aquatic community includes those species located along the stream
banks of Hogans Creek. Canopy species observed along the banks of Hogans Creek include river
birch (Betula nigra), hackberry (Celtis spp.), box elder (Ater negundo), and persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana). The observed shrub/sapling species include Chinese privet (Liqustrum
sinense) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Herbaceous and woody vine species include
river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
There are no NCWRC moratoriums that apply to Hogans Creek. Additionally, there are
no NCWRC "proposed critical habitats for aquatic species" located within the project
area.
Jurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Hogans Creek is considered a jurisdictional Surface Water under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. No wetlands are located within the proposed project area. Stream impacts associated with
the alternates are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated Stream Impacts
Stream Name Alternate 3 Alternate 4
feet acres feet Acres
Ho ans Creek 110 0.11 70 0.02
Conservation Easement
A U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation easement including a floodplain wetland is
located at the northwest quadrant of the existing bridge on SR 1503. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture conservation easement will not be impacted by temporary easements or acquisition
of additional Right of Way associated with Alternate 4.
Permits
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 from the. USACE is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. A NWP No. 33 may be required
if temporary construction including cofferdams, access and dewatering are required for this
project. A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
6

Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide 23 and/or NWP 33.
The USACE will determine final permit requirements.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 39 is a 201 ft long by 20 ft wide structure composed of a timber deck with asphalt
wearing surface on steel I-beams superstructure, and timber substructure with steel crutch bents
and timber bulkheads. Bridge demolition will occur by removing the asphalt surface prior to
removal of the bridge structure. The remainder of the timber and steel components will be
removed without dropping them into Hogans Creek. Consequently, there will be no temporary
fill resulting from bridge demolition. Because of the stream's silt and sand substrate, turbidity
curtains will be considered during bridge demolition.
Federally Threatened and/or Endangered Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2007, the
USFWS listing lists one federally protected species for Caswell County: the James spinymussel.
Name: James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)
Family: Unionidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 22 July 1988
Biological Conclusion:
Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
A survey was conducted for NCDOT by the Catena Group consulting firm on September 26,
2003. The finding from this survey was "Not Likely To Adversely Affect." On March 1, 2004,
NCDOT requested review and concurrence with this finding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). In a letter dated March 17, 2004, the USFWS concurred with the conclusion.
After this concurrence, Alternate 4 was selected as the preferred alternative. In a letter dated
Apri130, 2007, the USFWS concurred with this conclusion also. Re-surveys for this species are
not required for this project (per NCDOT Biologists).
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 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 afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.

Historic Architecture
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has reviewed this project and
determined that no structures of historic significance will be affected by the project (see
attached letter dated January 3, 2000). The bridge being replaced is not considered eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places.
Archaeology
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources requested an archaeological
investigation. The NCDOT submitted an archeological report on February 25, 2002. This
report concluded that Site " 31 CS70* *" is outside the area of potential effect (APE). The
report also concluded that Site " 31CS71" is not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. The Department of Cultural Resources agreed with the NCDOT report (see attached
Cultural Resources letters dated January 3, 2000, and April 1, 2002).
Another NCDOT azchaeological investigation associated with Alternate 4 was completed in
2007. The Department of Cultural Resources concurred that no significant cultural resources
were discovered and that no further cultural resource investigations are necessary (see
attached letter dated March 8, 2007). Thus it is concluded that no azchaeological resources
of historic significance will be affected by the project.
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees aze expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the azea.
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.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
All construction will take place along existing alignment. There aze no soils classified as prime,
unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project
will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effect on any minority or low-income population.
Noise & Air Quality
This project is an air quality neutral project in accordance with 40 CFR 93.126. It is not required
to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and project level CO or PM2.5
analyses aze not required. This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic

volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing facility, or any other factor that would cause an
increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build alternative. Therefore, FHWA has
determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria
pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns. Consequently, this effort is
exempt from analysis for MSATs. Any burning of vegetation shall be performed in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for air quality compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Noise levels may increase during project construction; however, these impacts are not expected
to be substantial considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is 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 proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Caswell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area
of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or
extent of upstream flood potential.
VIII. COORDINATION AND AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
N.C Wildlife Resource Commission, N.C. Division of Parks & Recreation, North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office, Caswell County Planning Department.
The agencies listed had no special concerns for this project.

IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected directly by this
project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments have been received to date.
There is not substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds concerning
the project.
X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
10

FIGURES

`~
~ ~
r
i 1' L..~ -~ is
;,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT' OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROTECT DEVELOPMENT g
ENVIItONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
CASWELL COUNT]'
REPLACEBRIDGE39 ON SR f~63
OVERHOGAN'S CREEI:
F-4Q$7
1"ig1Lr° ~JII`.

Looking east
across Bridge
No. 39
Looking west
across Bridge
No. 39
~a~°"=~~.. North Carolina Department of Transportation
~+ Division of Highways
~' ~'` Project Development & Environmental Analysis
~~ Branch
~~~
Caswell County
Replace Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503
Over Hogan's Creek
B-4057
Figure Three

APPENDIX A

` d ,ic S1A7r u
~Yy n,a„
ti ••w,
~ ,....i...m• ~
~~~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
Jan„ary 3, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental "Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ~ ~~l v`
Deputy State Histo ~ Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503 over Hogan's Creek,
TIP No. B-4057, CasweIl County, ER 01-7941
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On November 28, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff met with North Cazolina Department of
Transportation (1~TCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds ~conceming the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project azea photographs and a.eSlal photographs at the meeting:
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
.preliminary comments regarding this protect
In teens of historic architectural resources we .ate aware of no historic structures located within the area
of potential effect We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There aze no known archaeological sites within the proposed project azea Based on our present
knowledge of the azea, there is a high .probability of the presence of remains of a historic mill within the
project area. We, therefore, recommend that an atcha.eological survey be conducted in oc erection with
this project
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Prese~rvatlon 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 any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Envi=onmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763.
cc: T. Padgett
iG~ tea:. ~occ. ~ffec ~ I:aie~~*~ . l~oru:..aroim:. "T76U_ -2F>i;-

,.; ~~ .
~~° ~°'°~
~ . - "~~
. ~,.~m•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary '
Office of Archives and History
April 1, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olsan, Director
~Vi~~~~ ~
TO: William D. Gilmore, 1~Ianager ~ _ ~~PR 5 2ap9
_ Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch x~~ ~ a
Division of Highways %p ~, j~ ~ ~ `
Department of Transportation - ~'t',c~F~r~VftQ~ ~},~ ~,~~
FROM: David Brook 1~~S.YC~~ l7 '
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey Report for Replacement, Bridge #39 on SR 1503 over Hogan's Creek,
B-4057, Caswell County, ER 01-7941
Thank you for your letter 1~ebruary 25, 2002, of transmitting the archaeological survey'report by Mohler and
Overton for the above project
x~
We have reviewed the report and agree with the stated conclusions. 31 CS71 is not considered eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, given the amount of disturbance to the site. 31 CS70** is
outside the current area of potential effect and has not been evaluated. Should plans change and 31 CS70** be
affected, evaluation will be necessary.
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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite. the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Locaiion Maifin~~ Address
Adminisrratinn iO7 i\. Blnunf SL. Itale(ch. N(' 4617 Mail Service Center. ltaleieh 2769U-461
I<rslar~tin„ iIS t:. HlOllill SI. i:[,leltl.. N' 4(il i tviail Srrvla• C.ente;. Kaietcll'76uu~(;1'.
nurvrv d'. Ptannir._~ iii h•.. [iiounl St. Ic~icl~~r~. N" 4iil S Niai! i~rvlc;• C.cn(c:. k.(ict«II ~ ~~uu~iil
Telephone/Fac
I~> I (I1 ? ;?_(;;:;'~ .,~ 1 •-47;11 i

,,,c SfA7' 4, ,,~.,
~d
- ~~t !,.
~Mh t 1 -ram-.
",~'~ M1~rt.i~ ,~ ,~, a=a f
..M~. ~ f
~~ `.UC1V~D l
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Percy B. Sandbeck, Adminiseator
Ivfichael F. Easley, Govemos OfSce of Archives and History
Lisberh C- Evaas, Seerctuy Division of Histoueal Resources
Jeffrey J: crow, Deputy 5eezetary David Brook, Duector
March 8, 2007
TO: Matt Wilkerson -
Archaeology Supervisor - ~ ~ - -
NCDOT -Office of Human Environment
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ~~ '~"~~ L-
1`
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No.39 an SR 14-03 over Hogan's Creek, Caswell .County, ER 01-7941
Thank you for your letter of February 23, 2007, transmitting the archaeological survey report for the above
project
The report author noted that no significant cultural resources were discovered within the Area of Potential
Effect (APE) during the archaeological reconnaissance and that no further cultural resources investigations are
necessary and/or warranted. We concur with this recommendation.
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 considerations. If you Piave any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763 egt. 246.
In all future con-imunication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
l.ocauon Mailinc Address Teienhone/Fa_~
IDMINISTRtITIOTV 507 N. Blount Street, lialcieh NC 4GI7 Mail Servse l,cntcr. 1Llicieh NC 27(90-4G17 (9 7 9113 3-1i")G3/733-865
IESTOIL4TION 515 N. Blount Street. 1L11ci{rh NC 4GT7 Mvl Service i;enrer. 1L•dciFh NC 2769n~1(,17 (919173'S-G547/71 ti~BUI
~UR~21' 8c PLANNING 515 N. Biount orrcct. 1L•tlu~it, NC 4G 17 Mail Semce Lenrer. 1L1ici)ch NC 27G9~)-4(,17 (919113.1-ti545!71 ~-48U1

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Posc Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-372fi
March 17, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North. Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
~~~ ~ ~ ~~
~~
~- ~
a_ n^ to f.y
~ ,zs c+4 ~ HtGyVyA!`"~` .c` r.
This letter is in response to your letter of March 1, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503 over Hogan's Creek
in Caswell County (TIP No. B-4057) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally
endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina).. These. comments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a mussel survey was conducted at the-project site
on September 26, 2003. The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream
of SR 1503. No mussels of any species were observed. Based on the information provided and
other information available, the Service concurs with your .conclusion that the proposed bridge
replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the James spinymussel. We believe
that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that
obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that
was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that
maybe affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
~~~~ ~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

. ~ "~
C'_C o L.UJ.~c~ ~
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Apri130, 2007
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
.~
I~~~EIVEt~
MAY 2 2007
Dt~,SION (~ MIGWI~AYS
PDEA-OFFlCE bF NATItRAI ENVIRONMENT
This letter is in response to communications with your staff regarding a change in the design of
the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 39 on SR 1503 over Hogan's Creek in Caswell County
(TIP No. B-4057). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
On March 17, 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurred with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)=determination that the project may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema
collina). The concurrence was based, in part, on a'September 26, 2003 mussel survey. In that
survey, no mussels of any species were observed. Subsequently, NCDOT slightly changed the
location of the new bridge. Previously, the bridge was to be replaced approximately 40 feet
north of the existing bridge and traffic maintained on the existing bridge. The new preferred
alferriative would replace the bridge on the existing location, with traffic maintained by a
temporary on-site detour approximately 40 feet south of the existing bridge.
The Service considers our previous concurrence to still be valid with the new preferred
alternative. ~'Ve believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA nave been satisfied.
We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may~affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that maybe affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
'Sincerely,
P ete Benj amin
Field Supervisor