19950254 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

L)1'f71I*
. 5?2 5?
G i
b.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 3, 1995
District Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
1 ?SSUEC)
Subject: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 34 on SR 1504 over North
Double Creek, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-1504(3), State Project No.
8.2640401 and TIP Project No. B-2638.
Please find enclosed a copy of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion' in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we anticipate that this activity will be authorized
under Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330 Appendix A(b)(23). In addition,
geotechnical subsurface investigations will be conducted in June 1995. The
proposed work includes four borings within wetlands or waters of the United
States. The borings will be approximately 20 feet deep and 4 to 6 inches in
diameter. It is anticipated this activity qualifies for Federal
authorization pursuant to the provisions set forth in Nationwide Permit 5 (33
CFR 330 Appendix A(b)(6). All conditions of these Nationwide Permits will be
followed during the construction of the project. V,
As required for trout counties, by copy of this letter, it is requested
that the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission provide comments on the
proposed activity. NCDOT also requests written concurrence from the Division
of Environmental Management. NCDOT will request that the NCWRC and DEM
forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.

March 3, 1995
Page 2
Your expedient processing of this request would be greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please do not hesitate to
call Scott P. Gottfried at 919-733-3141.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/sc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Mr. Jimmy Lee, PE, Bridge Maintenance Unit
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics
Mr. John Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, PE, Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Ellen Lorscheider, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Kelly Barger, Program Development
r

Stokes County
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1504
Over North Double Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1504(3)
State Project No. 8.2640401
TIP No. B-2638
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT TO TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-12
Date H. Franklin Vic P.E., Manager
°` Planning and Environmental Branch
/Z 3c ¢
Date Nicho L. ra , .
f°r?Division Administrator, FHWA
Stokes County
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1504
Over North Double Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1504(3)
State Project No. 8.2640401
TIP No. B-2638
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
DECEMBER, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:

Pro ct Planning Engineer SEE %
SEAL
' 18496
J4 1"71 LvLd--'?
,, .?? . LNG ? NE-??• ?`? -
Ju a A. u ins, P. %?y?'•••..
P ject Planning Engineer Unit Head \? £ ?• HUNS '
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Stokes County
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1504
Over North Double Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1504(3)
State Project No. 8.2640401
TIP No. B-2638
Bridge No. 34 crosses North Double Creek in Stokes County. The
location of the bridge is shown in Figure 1. This project is included in
the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as -a bridge
replacement project. The project has been classified as a Federal
"categorical exclusion." No substantial environmental impacts are
expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 34 will be replaced on new location, approximately 60
feet east (downstream) of the existing bridge, as shown by Alternate 3 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure is a 120-foot long and 28
foot wide bridge with approximately the same grade as the existing bridge.
The new bridge will accommodate a 22-foot travelway with three feet of
lateral clearance on each side.
Approximately 1,000 feet of new roadway and approaches will be needed
to accommodate the replacement of the bridge on new location. The new
alignment will slightly reduce the sharp curvature of the existing roadway
on the southern approach. The approach roadway will consist of a 22-foot
pavement plus 6-foot shoulders.
Traffic will be maintained during construction on the existing
bridge.
The estimated cost of the project is $ 445,000, including $ 20,000
for right-of-way and $ 425,000 for construction. The estimated cost shown
in the 1995-2001 TIP is $494,000.
The design speed of the completed project will be approximately 30
miles per hour (MPH). A design exception will be required since the
design speed is less than the statutory speed limit of 55 MPH.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. Construction of the proposed project will
impact approximately 0.31 acre of jurisdictional wetland communities.
Best Management Practices will be utilized to minimize impacts due to
construction activities.
The NCDOT will acquire a Nationwide Section 404 Permit and Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification prior to the issuance of United States Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit No. 23.
2
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1504 is classified as a rural major collector route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System.
The project is located in a predominantly rural part of Stokes
County; development in the immediate project area consists of one house,
which is located northeast of the project.
Utilities in the area of the project consist of underground power and
telephone cables. Although preliminary investigation shows that the
utilities will be disturbed by the proposed bridge replacement project,
utility conflicts are anticipated to be low.
In the vicinity of Bridge No. 34, SR 1504 has an 18-foot wide
travelway plus 3-foot grassed shoulders. Vertical alignment is good.
There is a sharp curve on the southern approach to the bridge.
The current traffic volume of 660 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected
to increase to 1200 VPD by the year 2016. Truck percentages are 1%
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired (DT) vehicles.
The speed limit in the area is statutory 55 MPH.
The existing bridge was built in 1963 and has a timber deck on
I-beams. The total length of the bridge is 91 feet, with a clear roadway
width of 24.5 feet. Bridge No. 34'carries two lanes of traffic and has
posted load limits of 16 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 19 tons for
TTST's.
Bridge No. 34 has a sufficiency rating of the 26.2 out of a possible
100.0. The estimated remaining life is two years.
Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no
accidents occurred at the bridge between May, 1990 and April, 1993.
Four school buses travel across the bridge daily (two buses crossing
twice each).
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three methods for replacing Bridge No. 34 were studied. Each
alternate involves replacing the existing bridge with a 120-foot long
bridge. The new structure width of 28 feet will accommodate a 22-foot
travelway with three feet of lateral clearance on each side. The approach
roadway will consist of a 22-foot pavement plus 6-foot grassed shoulders.
Due to the sharp curve south of the bridge, the design speed for all of
the alternatives studied is 30 MPH.
The three alternates studied were as follows:
Alternate 1 - This alternate involves the replacement of Bridge No.
34 at its existing location. Traffic would be detoured along existing
secondary roads during construction (as shown in Figure 1).
Alternate 2 - This alternate involves the replacement of the existing
bridge at its existing location. Traffic would be maintained during
construction using a temporary on-site detour structure located
approximately 30 feet east of the existing alignment. The detour
structure would be a 120-foot long bridge with a width of approximately 24
feet.
Alternate 3 (Recommended) - This alternate involves the replacement
of the existing ri ge on new location, approximately 60 feet east of the
existing structure. Approximately 1000 feet of new pavement and approach
roadway will be necessary to accommodate construction of the bridge on new
location. This alternate will slightly improve the horizontal alignment
and allow traffic to be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
Consideration was given to the "do-nothing" and rehabilitation
options. The "do-nothing" alternate would eventually necessitate closure
of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
NC 8-NC 89. Rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its
age and deteriorated condition.
V. COST ESTIMATES
Estimated cost of the alternatives studied are as follows:
ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
STRUCTURE $ 237,000 $ 237,000
ROADWAY APPROACHES 95,000 82,000
TEMPORARY DETOUR 0 225,000
STRUCTURE REMOVAL 15,000 15,000
ENGINEERING &
CONTINGENCIES 53,000 82,000
RIGHT OF WAY $ 16,000 $ 20,000
TOTAL $ 416,000 $ 6619000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATE 3
$ 237,000
117,000
0
15,000
56,000
$ 20,000
$ 445,000
Bridge No. 34 will be replaced on new location, approximately 60 feet
east of its existing location, as shown by Alternate 3 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure is a 120-foot long and 28 feet wide
bridge. The new bridge width will accommodate a 22-foot travelway plus
three feet of lateral clearance on each side.
The elevation of the new structure is expected to be approximately
the same as the elevation of the existing bridge. The structure
dimensions may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak
flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The recommended improvements will include about 1,000 feet of
improved roadway approaches. A 22-foot pavement plus 6-foot graded
shoulders on each side will be provided on the approaches.
Traffic is to be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
Consideration was given to detouring traffic using existing roads
during construction. A road user analysis (based on 730 vehicles per day,
which is the projected construction year traffic, and an average of 2.9
miles of indirectional travel) indicates the cost of additional travel
would be approximately $ 135,000 during the seven month construction
period. The estimated additional cost of maintaining traffic on-site is
$ 29,000 (including the cost of construction and right of way), resulting
in a benefit-cost ratio of 4.7. This ratio indicates that maintaining
traffic on-site is economically justified.
The recommended alternate, Alternate 3, will slightly improve the
horizontal alignment. The division engineer concurs with the
recommendation of Alternate 3 and maintains that road closure, which would
be necessary with Alternate 1, is not desirable; the available detour
route is not suitable for handling SR 1504 traffic because of its
undesirable horizontal and vertical alignment.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and non-significant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT
standards or 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
construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No adverse effect on public
facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
in the vicinity of the project.
A. Architectural Historic and Archaeological Resources
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
5
federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be
given the opportunity to comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect
(APE) were provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). There are
no historic structures within the APE, and the SHPO recommended that no
historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
Correspondence from the SHPO is included as Attachment 1. An
archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement project to
locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that could be
damaged or destroyed. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were
discovered. The results of the archaeological survey indicate the project
is unlikely to encounter any archaeological sites that are eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurs
that no further archaeological investigation should be conducted in
connection with this project since the project will not involve
significant archaeological resources. Correspondence from the SHPO
regarding the archaeological aspects of the project is included as
Attachment 2.
B. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime or important farmland soils. These soils
are designated by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) based on a
number of factors, including crop yield and the average expenditure of
energy and other resources.
In compliance with the FPPA, the SCS was requested to determine
whether the alternates being considered for the proposed bridge
replacement project will impact prime or important farmland soils. The
SCS responded Alternate 3 would impact 0.20 acre of prime farmland soils.
The SCS indicates that the relative value of the farmland soils impacted
by Alternate 3 is 11.2 on a scale of zero to 100 points.
Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating Form indicates a total site assessment score of 80.0 out of
a possible score of 160.0 for Alternate 3. The total point score is 91.2,
which falls below the threshold of 160.0 total points at which
consideration of other alternates is required. Therefore, no further
coordination with the SCS is required.
C. Biological Assessment
Bridge No. 34 is located approximately 4.7 miles northeast of Danbury
in Stokes County (see Figure 1). This location is a rural, hilly setting
with agricultural fields and forested tracts dominating the landscape.
Farming and agricultural industry are primary land uses of the county.
Hanging Rock State Park is located approximately four miles southeast of
this site.
6
Stokes County is in the north-central part of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province and is characterized by broad gently sloping
uplands, moderately to steeply sloping areas with narrow convex ridges,
and steep valley slopes associated with narrow bottomland floodplains.
The project area is in the Felsic Crystalline Soil System mapping unit.
Parent material is mostly granite, granite gneiss, mica gneiss, and mica
schist. Areas of slightly more mafic rock or a complex of felsic rock cut
by dikes of gabbro and diorite are common. The topography at the project
site is relatively level to slightly sloping floodplains along steep
stream banks. Elevation in Stokes County ranges from 640 feet to 2579
feet above mean sea level (MSL); the elevation at the project site is
approximately 800 feet above MSL.
The three soil series located at this site are the Masada series,
Toccoa series, and Chewacla series. Masada soils are deep, well-drained
soils that formed in old alluvium on high stream terraces with slopes
ranging from two to 25 percent. Toccoa series consist of deep, well and
moderately-well drained soils with moderately rapid permeability that
formed in alluvium. These soils are on floodplains and have slopes
ranging from zero to four percent. The Chewacla Series soils consist of
very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils on nearly level floodplains.
They formed in loamy sediments washed largely from soils formed in
residium from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and
igneous rock. These soils have a slope range of zero to two percent. The
Chewacla series is a hydric soil.
North Double Creek is a tributary to the Dan River at river mile 76
in the Roanoke River Basin. This creek empties into the Dan River
approximately 2.5 miles east of Bridge No. 34. Two very small unnamed
streams flowing into North Double Creek are also in the area to be
impacted by the proposed construction of Alternate 3.
At the proposed project site, North Double Creek is approximately 10
feet wide with depths ranging from 0.5 foot to two feet. The substrate is
composed of sand, cobble, and gravel with an overlay of silt.
North Double Creek, from its source to the Dan River, carries a best
usage classification of Class C, as assigned by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993.
Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The
section of the Dan River receiving water from North Double Creek is
classified WS-V. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resources Water (ORW), WS-1, or WS-II occur within one mile of
the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), assesses water
quality by sampling from selected Benthic Macroinvertebrate organisms.
The species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality.
The BMAN lab reported no sampling data from North Double Creek. The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists no permitted
dischargers for this creek.
7
Potential impacts to water resources in the project area may result
from substrate disturbances, sedimentation and increased turbidity, as
well as non-point discharge of toxic substances from construction
machinery. These impacts may result in a decrease of dissolved oxygen in
the stream. Water temperature may increase due to removal of streamside
canopy species. Changes in the water level, due to interruption of
surface water flow, are also likely.
The recommended alternate, Alternate 3, will impact a new area of
North Double Creek and require permanent fill. Construction of Alternate
3 will also increase the risk of sedimentation and damage to
bottom-dwelling organisms, which are important to food chains, in the two
small unnamed streams that flow into North Double Creek.
Man-dominated, Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, and Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest are the three terrestrial communities found in
the project area. Dominant faunal components associated with these
terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description below;
however, many species are adapted to a variety of habitats and move in and
out of these disturbed areas.
The highly disturbed Man-dominated community includes existing road
shoulders and agricultural fields. Many of the plant species are adapted
to disturbed and maintained habitats. The low-growing roadside vegetation
is dominated by fescue (Festuca ssp.). Other scattered herbaceous species
here include plantains P anta o rrugelii?• P. lanceolata), dandelion
(Taraxicum sp.), sourgrass (Rumex aceto la), elephant foot (Ele hanto us
caro inianus), Venus looking-gds Specu aria erfoliata), asters Aster
ssp.), blue-eyed grass (Sis rinchium an ustifo ium), wild onion (A1 ium
canadense), and ragweed Am rasia artemisii o is j Vines include--t-Fe-
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) an Virgin's bower (Clematis
VViir inian_a). Woody species include tag alner (Alnus serrulata), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), flowering dogwood (Cornus?lorida), hickory (Carya
g a ra , anTTT_a_cc walnut (Juglans nigra) ss ap-Fings.
Except for roadsides and creekside fringes, cultivated and fallow
fields border most of this project's boundaries. Red tailed hawks (Buteo
'amaJ censis) forage over these open habitats for mice, rabbits, reptiles or
amphibians.
Resident species in this disturbed habitat are limited; however, many
opportunistic species, which may reside in nearby communities, utilize
these areas for feeding zones. Seeds, berries, fruits, insects, and
living or dead animal matter attract a wide variety of foraging animals,
including barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), indigo bunting (Passerine
cyanea), common crow (Corvus brach r-E cTos), Carolina chickadees Parus
carolinensis), mockingb FT (Mimus of ottos), eastern cottontails
(Sylvi agus floridanus mallurus), woodchucks (Marmots monax), white-footed
mouse (Perom scs leuco us l-euco uuss), Virginia opossum (Diddel his
vier ini?ana an raccoon Proc on lotor). Nocturnal animalsDi, which feed
or travel along the roadsi e, often become roadkills which attract
scavenging animals such as turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), common crows,
8
and Virginia opossums. Reptiles and amphibians may sun themselves on the
roadside or crawl onto the warm road surface at night. These may include
American toads (Bufo americanus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
black racer snare (Col umber constrictor), eastern hognose snakes
(Heterodon platyrhinos)), and five lined skinks (Eumeces fasciatus).
The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest exists only in fringe
remnants at the project site, with the exception of the area northwest of
Bridge No. 34. This relatively flat, moist floodplain forest has a closed
canopy consisting of mixed bottomland and mesophytic hardwoods. These
include yellow poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black walnut, river birch Betu a n' ra), and as Fraxinus
Americana). Subcanopy species include iop hornbeam (Carpinus
caroliniana), hickory, flowering dogwood, sourwood (Ox dendrum arboreum),
re map a (Acer rubrum), and paw paw (Asimina tri o a). A sparse
herbaceous layer i ncTuaes ebony spl eenwort Ash en?i um ?latyneuron),
Indian plantain (Cacalia atri licifolia), Christmas fern Po ysl ticum
acrosticoides), bedstraw (Ga ium a arine), white avens (Geum canadense),
mayapple Podo h llum eltatum barren strawberry (Wa rdstein-Tia
fra arioides , Canadian vio et (Viola canadense), and green dragon
Arisaema racontium). Yellow root Xant or iza simplicissima) is found
imme lately adjacent to the creek.
Faunal diversity is expected to be very low in this community near
the roadway and human activity. However, this forested area does provide
a variety of nesting and denning sites. The most abundant bird species
include the red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), and red-bellied wooecpeckers Me anerpes carolinus).
Other vertebrate species likely to occur in this community include
the Virginia opossum, short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda kirtlandi),
eastern pipstrelle bat (Pi strellus subf avus , gray ox Urocyon
cinereoar enteus), spring peeper Hy ar crucifer), ringneck snake
Dia op is punctatus), and eastern garter snake T amnophis sirtalis).
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Community has been altered
by removal of most tree species during maintenance of a power line, which
crosses the area. The canopy/subcanopy species present include red maple,
black willow (Salix ni ra), river birch, tag alder, ironwood, and silky
dogwood (Cornus ammomun , primarily as low growing stump sprouts or
saplings. Shrubs present include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry and rasberry Ru us sp.). Vines
and herbaceous species frm a dense tangle over the ent ri area. Species
of vines include climbing false buckwheat (Pol onum scandens), Japanese
honey suckle, grape (Vitis sp.), poison ivy Toxico end drop radicans),
Virgin's bower (Clematis virginiana), trumpet vine (Calm si?s radicans),
and greenbriar (Smi T ssp.). Herbaceous species include haw-grass Aira
else a?ns), microstegium (Microste ium vimenium), sensitive fern (OnacTea
sensibilis), blunt spike rush E eoc arcs obtusa), Virginia bug eweed-
L co us virginicus), lady's thumb Po ygonum ersp icaria), water smartweed
(Pol onum unctatum), pink weed (Po onum enns lvay nicum), arrow-leaved
tearthumb (Po onum sa ittatum), a se nettle Boehemeria c lindrica),
rattlebox (Lu wi a a terns o is , white vervain (Vervena urtica o is ,
9
oxalis (Oxalis stricta), bedstraw (Galuim triflorium), cut-leaf grapefern
(Bottr chi?um dissectum), boneset (Eupatori?um erfoliatum), spotted
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), whit' a turtlehea C e one lg abra),
wingstem (Ver eb sina alternifolia), ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis),
green cone__TTower (Rud eckia aciniata), Joe-Pye-weed (Eupatorium
maculatum), goldenrods (S- oTidago spp.), asters, and wild lettuce (Lactuca
lord dana).
Faunal species likely to reside in this wet area may include marbled
salamanders (Amb stoma opacum), northern dusky salamanders (Desmo nathus
fuscus), seal salamanders (Desmo nathus fuscus), two-lined salamanders
EEuur cea bislineata), red salamanders (Pseudotriton ruber), spring peepers
(Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triserista), pickerel frog
(Rana as ustris), and wood frogs (Rana sylva?tica . Eastern ribbon snakes
(T amnop ih's sauritis) or eastern garter snakes (Th?amnohi_s sertalis) may
come into the area to feed on amphibians. Other vertebrates utilizing
this area for feeding or nesting may include the common snipe (Gallina o
gallinago), raccoons, and star-nosed moles (Condylura cristata parva .
The aquatic community in the study area includes North Double Creek
and two small unnamed tributaries draining the wetland area which join to
form a tributary to North Double Creek. North Double Creek receives
sediments from agricultural practices. Few areas of natural vegetation
remain to act as buffer zones for storm runoff.
The banks of North Double Creek, which are steep and heavily eroded,
exhibit vegetation previously mentioned in the biotic community
descriptions. The creek may support aquatic invertebrates, crustaceans,
and aquatic insects, which are an important base of many food chains.
Amphibian and reptile species likely to be found in this aquatic
environment include pickerel frogs (Rana alustris), green frogs (Rana
clamitans), snapping turtle (Chelydra ser entina , queen snakes (Reg
se temvittata), and northern water snakes Nerodia sipedon). Species
likely to inhabit the scrub/shrub area relate to t e unnamed streams have
been previously described.
Some fish species likely to be found in this section of North Double
Creek include riverweed darters (Etheostoma podostemone), crescent shiners
(Notro irs cerasnus), and stonerol ers Cam ostoma anomalum). No recorded
fish studies have been made in this creek.
Biotic community impacts, resulting from project construction, are
being addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts.
However, impacts to terrestrial communities can result in the aquatic
community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs. Efforts will be made to ensure that no
sediment leaves the construction site and water flow is not altered.
A majority of the natural communities in the project area have been
fragmented and reduced as a result of previous development. The
man-dominated component of the project area will receive the greatest
10
impact from construction and result in the loss and displacement of plant
and animal life, regardless of which alternative is chosen. Anticipated
areas to be impacted due to the construction of the recommended alternate,
Alternate 3, in each of the terrestrial communities are listed in Table 1
below.
TABLE 1
BIOTIC COMMUNITY
TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS
Man-Dominated
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
TOTAL
APPROXIMATE IMPACT
0.72 acre
0.05 acre
0.36 acre
1.13 acres
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result in the loss of
existing habitats and displacement, as well as mortality, of animal
species currently in residence. Ground dwelling animals (small mammals,
snakes, etc.) are more likely to be destroyed. More mobile species will
be displaced during construction, but may return later. Forested habitat,
however, already reduced by agricultural clearing, will be further
reduced.
Anticipated impacts to the stream community can be attributed to
construction-related habitat disturbance and sedimentation. These impacts
may be long-lived and irreversible.
Food-producing photosynthetic species are severely affected by
siltation. High levels of suspended particles in the water absorb
available light, reducing the ability to produce the food which serves as
the basis for the entire food chain.
Aquatic invertebrates are very important in the food chains that
support many aquatic and terrestrial species in the area. Benthic,
non-motile organisms, such as filter feeders, may be covered and smothered
by sedimentation resulting from construction-related erosion and substrate
disturbance. Recovery may be slow, altering community populations.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation,
but local fish populations can also be harmed by construction-related
sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can
lead to the smothering of fish eggs, clogging of gills, reduced
oxygen-carrying capacity of the water, and changes in water temperature.
Spawning habitats could be altered, leading to reduced reproductive
success and reduced populations.
11
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of surface waters
must be strictly followed to insure the biological integrity of this
stream. Other concerns relate to the possibility of increased
concentrations of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream from
construction and/or paving machinery. Poorly managed application of
sedimentation control policies will result in serious damage to the
aquatic community.
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of Waters
of the United States, as defined in 33 CFR.328.3 and in accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S. C. 1344) and
are regulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria
specified in the 1987 USCOE Wetlands Delineation Manual. For an area to
be considered a wetland, the following three specifications must be met:
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence of
hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology, or hydrological
indicators, including saturated soils, stained oxidized rhizospheres,
matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases, and
surface roots.
This project will impact surface waters of North Double Creek and two
small unnamed streams which flow under SR 1504 to empty into North Double
Creek. Jurisdictional wetland impacts are anticipated in the area drained
by the two small unnamed streams. These streams pass under SR 1504
approximately 450 feet southeast of Bridge No. 34 (see Figure 2). Wetland
impacts were identified using the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. The
subject wetland is classified as a Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved
Deciduous Wetland. Approximately 0.31 acre will be impacted by
recommended alternate, Alternate 3, based on an 80-foot right-of-way
width.
Three criteria are used to identify jurisdictional wetlands:
vegetation, soils and hydrology. An area where more than 50 percent of
the composition of the dominant species from strata are obligate wetland,
facultative wetland, and/or facultative species is considered to support
wetland vegetation. The dominant vegetation in the wetland area is more
than 50% species classified as Facultative or wetter. The
canopy/subcanopy species present include red maple (Acer serrulate), black
willow, river birch, tag alder (Alnus serrulate), on nwoo Carpinus
caroliniana), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum . These species exist
primarily as low-growing stump sprouts or saplings due to maintenance
cutting in a power line right-of-way that passes through the wetland.
Soil deposits in the subject wetland are fluvial in nature and
deposited by high water. These recently formed soils are classified as
Entisols and are considered wetland soils.
The hydrology of this area has been altered somewhat by the fill used
to raise the elevation of SR 1504. Prior to past road construction, the
water drainage was probably spread over a wider area, which allowed the
area to drain more effectively. However, it appears that this area was
originally a wetland, and the fill used in earlier highway construction
has caused the area to become more wet.
12
Evidence of water-borne sediments and water stained leaves are field
hydrological indicators of a jurisdictional wetland. The subject area
supports the three wetland criteria and should be classified as a
jurisdictional wetland. Construction is likely to be authorized by
provisions of General Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. Stokes
County is one of 25 counties designated as having trout waters; projects
in these counties must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to issuance of the USCOE
permit. Also, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the
state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the
waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits.
A letter of comment has been obtained from the NCWRC concerning this
bridge replacement project (see Attachment 1). The NCWRC states that
trout do not occur at this project site and they are unaware of any other
special concerns at this site.
Since this project will be authorized under a nationwide permit,
mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the
USCOE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with
USCOE.
Both federal and state protected species are listed for Stokes
County. Federally-listed species with a status of Endangered, Threatened,
or Proposed Threatened are protected under federal law. State listed
mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and bird species with a status of
Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern are protected under state laws.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), is a document that defines the means by which
endangered species may be protected. Whenever any species is listed as
Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered,
steps are taken to protect them. The following plants are
federally-listed for Stokes County by the USFWS as of November 17, 1994:
small-anthered bittercress (Cardimine micranthera) and Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii . The stu y area does not support
suitable ha Igor the sma -anthered bittercress or Schweinitz's
sunflower. Therefore, no impacts to these species are anticipated with
the construction of the project.
State protected plant species are protected under the provisions of
the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (General Statute of North
Carolina Chapter 106, Article 19B;202.12-202.22., North Carolina
Department of Agriculture, 1990). Animal species are afforded protection
under General Statutes which address Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Species of Special Concern. Habitat exists for two species in the project
area: rustyside sucker (Moxostoma hamiltoni) and orangefin madtom
(Noturus ilberti), which is a ?edera can i ate species and an endangered
specpec es in North Carolina. Neither of these species were observed in the
project area, and no impacts to these species are expected.
13
There are three federal candidate (C2) species and one federal
candidate (3C) species listed for Stokes County. Candidate 2 (C2) species
are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. The
North Carolina status is listed in Table 2 below. Plants or animals with
state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the
N. C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture, respectively. Species with state
designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR)', and Watch List (W)
are not protected under state laws, but there is evidence of declining
populations.
These species are mentioned here for information purposes in the
event that they become protected in the future. Specific surveys for
these species were not conducted during site visits, nor were any of them
observed during field reconnaissance.
TABLE 2 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR STOKES COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT NC

Noturus ilberti Orangefin madtom Yes E
Speyeria Tana Diana fritillary
butterfly Yes SR
Sweet inp esap Monotropsis odorata No C2
Jens cinerea Butternut Yes C2
Status: E an C denote Endangered an Candidate, respectively-
SR denotes Significantly Rare, which are not offered State Protection.
The NCNHP records report three rare fish species from the vicinity of
Bridge No. 34: orangefin madtom (Noturus ilberti), riverweed darter
(Etheostoma odostemone), and bigeye mu proc Moxostoma ariommum). The
orang?in ma tom is a federal candidate species and an en angere species
in North Carolina, which is protected under North Carolina law. These
species were not surveyed for, nor were they observed during the field
investigation.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is located in the Winston Salem Air Quality Region. The
ambient air quality for Stokes County has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project
is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
14
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
E. Floodplain Data
Stokes County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown
in Figure 4. North Double Creek is not included in a detailed flood study
at this location. The upstream and downstream floodplains are rural,
wooded, and mountainous. There is a home approximately 300 feet northwest
of North Double Creek which is above the 100-year flood level; therefore,
the house will not be adversely affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, the NCDOT and the FHWA conclude
that no adverse environmental effects will result from the implementation
of the project.
MLP/plr

N. CAROLINA

fr nci co A p Sandy R
1
89
6 8 lawsonrdle
esthel
66 Moore Prestonrille
s $?in(s +
5
t - anbury
dlarc
?loI Mountu r „a v?fr gam N
Meadows t 5

D l0
STOKES COUNTYS ? K 31l
9 Wslnut Pie all

l a ov Hvl
e
ermanto L,
6• s 5 .Stoke-

14Z7.'
?' -
1471 1458-?
Big guy
1467 tp 1499
• :
89 M
6
M
if, ' 1502
`
' 1
8 1500
y? -
!e 1503 ' 9 ?
•
^ 1501
?-
b 1* 1471 .
1
l 1472
1473
cr
: ?4eek d
•
'yam
.8 s
1474 :.:
rX
1212 b b ?: 8
1475 1477 1477.
h
1496 1490
3.2 1491
i-; 4 ?? • FAS Fq
A BRIDGE NO. 34 P'r-
``? '
• S
1190 14/0

a Q ?Oq 1484_ 1492
Double 147

Q
F

A
!s Fqs
?? . 1
qs
1 1486_
483
1510
FAS
•
`
1516b 3
1504 9
e 1191 N,A p 1487
Moores .6't
.t A 147 1483 ? Springs
268 .1484 1485
6 r
? v
1001 1
S
,? FP Fqs _
.3 ,
'?qs
5 .8
1480
.;t
_
BPS
;.'
3'
-
5
1481 ?. 201 :;
1187 66
l1
Q 5 1482 1001 m
2012
1189 4
2015
1186

15 ` 2021
`? •6
11
75 F
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
7 .
,qS
b
1 TRANSPORTATION

A 201
Nb ? b ?
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1 188 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
1248
q L STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 34
ON SR
I
Gap 1504 OVER NORTH DOUBLE CREEK
t+ B - 2638
2.6 i
L
v
^
0
26
2
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 0 mile 1 FIG. 1
B-2638
STOKES COUNTY
LOOKING NORTH ON
SR 1504 TOWARD
BRIDGE NO. 34
LOOKING SOUTH ON
SR 1504 TOWARD
BRIDGE NO. 34
SIDE VIEW OF
BRIDGE NO. 34
FIGURE 3
k
?X

't
11

ZONE X
STOKES COUNTY
n
rr
iL
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Paylor
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
11 . 4 .
DATE: October 17, 1994
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for proposed bridge replacements in
Stokes County, TIP #B-2639, B-2632, B-2633, B-2638.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments regarding four proposed bridge replacements in
Stokes County. I provided the following scoping comments to Ms.
Ruby Pharr, Environmental Consultant, in a letter dated 25 July
1994:
1) Bridge #133, SR 1668, Dan River (TIP #B-2639) - Trout do not
occur at the project site. You may want to contact the
Natural Heritage Program (919/733-7701) to determine if any
of the following state listed species known from the Dan
River drainage have been collected near any of the project
sites in Stokes County: cutlips minnow Exoglassum
maxillingua (state endangered), orangefin madtom Noturus
gilberti (state endangered), rustyside sucker Moxostoma
hamiltoni (state endangered), bigeye jumprock Moxostoma
ariommum (state special concern), and riverweed darter
Etheostoma podostemone (state special concern).
2) Bridge #50 NC 8-89 Flat Shoal Creek (TIP #B-2632) - Trout
do not occur at the project site, and we are unaware of any
other special concerns.
3) Bridge #55, NC 8-89, Mill Creek (TIP #B-2633) - Trout do not
occur at the project site, and we are unaware of any other
special concerns.
4) Bridge #34 SR 1504, North Double Creek (TIP #B-2638) -
Trout do not occur at the project site, and we are unaware
of any other special concerns.
ATTACHMENT
Stokes County Page 2 October 17, 1994
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist

J T
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 7, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N. C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 34 on SR 1504 over
North Double Creek, Stokes County, B-2638,
8.264040 1, BRSTP-1504(3), ER 93-8463
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
N
#4Y 4
vA J U?•
On April 27, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We 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 and for
our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural 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.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our concerns.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
?h
ATTACHMENT 21
C
ID,
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q C
Nicholas L. Graf
May 7, 1993, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Da Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: . J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
- ,?sr?rzv 4 Y??
35,x- ?
SEP- 2 a 1994'
2
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources'- ' DIVISIC"I OF
P? ^HIGHWAYS
., ? ??V1ROht?'i??
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
September 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T ansportation
FROM: David Brook / `)_-c.
Deputy State 41ilepl rese rvation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge replacement projects B-2632, B-2638, and B-
2631, Stokes County, Federal Aid BRSTP-89(3),
BRS P-1504(3), and BRZ-16680), ER 95-7343
Thank you for your letter of August 18, 1994, concerning the above project. The
additional information in the form of the addendums is sufficient to evaluate the
proposed bridge replacement projects.
During the course of the survey no archaeological resources were located within
the project area. Ms. Anna Gray, North Carolina Department of Transportation
staff archaeologist, has recommended that no further archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
,resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
bc: N. Graf
T. Padgett
A. Gray
ATTACHMENT 3
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A „s SUT[
?r
IAM[S B. I IUNI. IIt.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA L
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
March 9, 1993
SAM HUNT
S[CRLTARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor r
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for replacement of Bridge
No. 34, SR 1504, Stokes County, TIP No. B-2638
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 27, 1993 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Michael L. Paylor, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MLP/plr
Attachment Nc-- k6
c /G !I Oad
(t , C- 22 _/

MAR 1 2199:3
G

STOKES COUNTY
? I
(- 11-w - M. CAROLINA
Sandy R

STATt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)AMPS R.1IuNi Ia. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALI:IGI I, N.C. 27611 5201
May 13, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
SAM HUNT
SR'NIARY
FROM: Michael L. Paylor
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1504, Bridge No. 34 over North Double Creek, Stokes
County, B-2638
A scoping meeting was held on April 27, 1993 to initiate the subject
project. The following individuals were in attendance:
Sue Flowers
Jerry Page
Betty Yancey
Jerry Snead
Wanjulia Ezekiel
Robin Stancil
Danny Rogers
Ray Moore
Steve Arrington
Joe Foutz
Michael L. Paylor
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right-of-Way
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
SHPO
Program Development
Structure Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Based on available information, it appears that the subject bridge
should be replaced on new location east of existing structure. Traffic will
be maintained using the existing structure during construction.
A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended construction is
$425,000.
A list of alternatives to be studied is as follows:
1. Replacement at existing location using road closure and off-site
detour.
2. Replacement at existing location while maintaining traffic on-site
with a temporary detour.
3. Replacement on new location east of existing structure.
Design services will develop preliminary designs and cost estimates for
all alternatives.
C
I 1
f
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SKEET
DATE MARCH 12,1993
REVISION DATE APRIL 21L 1993
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING _
PLANNING _ X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2638
STATE PROJECT 8.25-40401_-
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-15043)__
DIVISION NIN
COUNTY STOK
ROUTE SR 1504
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1504, BRIll_U_I:_._ NO.___34_L__REPLACE
BRIDGE OVER NORTH DOUBLE CREEK.
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR X
3. RELOCATION
------------- --
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO N
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($} - - - (q}
r ?
}
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 600 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 1200 VPD
TTST 1 % D T 2 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH _ 91 FEET; WIDTH 24.5 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 120 FEET; WIDTH 22 FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR S TRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 425,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 23,000
FORCE, ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL, COST ....................................... $ 448,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 250,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 23,000
SUB TOTAL ............................................ $ 273,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP 'T'OTAL COST ........................................ $ 273,000
a
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL. L. PAYLOR
DATE: MARCH 4, 1993