19940956 Ver 1_Complete File_19941004

jxi"
¢ ,,w N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP onrFo Q
ATO.-?
1 REF. NO. R RO M, BLDG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TOME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
Ai
qyq 5&

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 4, 1994
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridges 31 and 47
on US 311 over Dan River Overflow and Dan River;
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-311(1) & BRZ-311(2);
State Project No. 8.1640401 & 8.1640501; TIP Nos.
B-2634 & B-2635.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project
planning report for the subject project. The subject project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by.the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project. If a Nationwide
No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts associated with
bridging and approach improvements should be allowable under
General Bridge Permit 031, issued by the Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745
(Categorical Exclusion) will apple to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
RECEIVER
ACT 1 i 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] M
A
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to
authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps
of Engineers.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
J nn
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/rml
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Thomas, COE-Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NC DEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NC DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coord.
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NC WRC
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer- Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Uni:
Mr. John L. Smith, JT., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. B. Waters, Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Richard`W. Fedora, Sr., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
. 'R
A?

US 311
Stokes County
Bridge Nos. 31 and 47
Over Dan River Overflow and Dan River
Federal Project BRSTP-311(1) & BRSTP-311(2)
State Project 8.1640401 & 8.164501
TIP# B-2634 and B-2635
1.

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
I 'y - Av".
Date icholas Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
US 311
Stokes County
Bridge Nos. 31 and 47
Over Dan River Overflow and Dan River
Federal Project BRSTP-311(1) & BRSTP-311(2)
State Project 8.1640401 & 8.164501
TIP# B-2634 and B-2635

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
W, %I I
AM"
Richard W. Fedora Sr.
Project Planning Engineer
"y h -- - 'I-" ///-
Wayne El l i ott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
`??????irrrrrrti
CAP, 0
`? EESSj`" 2'
C??QoO G,??a9%
SEAL
6916
OpE'j?l?;EEQ,.
a?drr?t2nnnataT?'9,L

US 311
Stokes County
Bridge Nos. 31 and 47
Over Dan River Overflow and Dan River
Federal Project BRSTP-311(1) & BRSTP-311(2)
State Project 8.1640401 & 8.164501
TIP# B-2634 and B-2635
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridge No. 31 and Bridge No. 47 in Stokes County. Bridge No. 31
crosses over the Dan River overflow and Bridge No. 47 over the Dan River
in Stokes County (Figure 1). These bridges are included in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as bridge replacement projects.
The projects have been classified as Federal Categorical Exclusions.
NCDOT expects no substantial environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 31 and Bridge No. 47 in the existing
locations as shown in Alternate 2, Figure 2. A temporary on-site detour
will be constructed around each bridge to maintain traffic during
construction. NCDOT recommends replacing Bridge No. 31 with a bridge
approximately 63.7 meters (209 feet) long with a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide
travelway plus a 1.0-meter (3-foot) offset on each side. The temporary
detour structure will be a 1500-millimeter (60-inch) pipe to the south of
the existing alignment. NCDOT recommends replacing Bridge No. 47 with a
bridge approximately 96.0 meters (315 feet) long with a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) wide travelway plus a 1.0-meter (3-foot) offset on each side.
The temporary detour structure will be a bridge approximately 73.2 meters
(240 feet) long, located to the north of the existing alignment. The
replacement bridges will provide a design speed of approximately 100 km/h
(60 mph). The temporary detours will provide a design speed of
approximately 80 km/h (50 mph) during construction. The new roadway
approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus 2.4-meter
(8-foot) shoulders at approximately the same grade as the existing
roadway.
The estimated cost is $2,584,000. The estimated cost shown in the
1995-2001 TIP is $2,763,000.
2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. Standard sedimentation control measures
and best management practices will be implemented throughout construction.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to
issue of the Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit #23.
2
Foundation investigations will be conducted on this project. The
investigations will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site
testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing.
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 311 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
Near the two bridges, US 311 is 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide with
2.1-meter (7-foot) grass shoulders. Vertical and horizontal alignment in
the area are good. The deck of Bridge No. 31 is 5.8 meters (19 feet)
above ground level - Bridge No. 31 is an overflow structure with no water
below it except under flood conditions. The deck of Bridge No. 47 is
approximately 10.1 meters (33 feet) above the river surface. Water depth
is approximately 1.5 meters (five feet) in the project area.
Bridge No. 31 was built in 1925 and has a reinforced concrete (RC)
slab on RC deck girders, spill through end bents, and post and web
internal bents (Figure 3A). It is 63.7 meters (209 feet) long with a
6.1-meter (20-foot) roadway width. It carries two lanes of traffic and is
posted 23.6 metric tons (26 tons) for single vehicles. Bridge No. 47 was
built in 1925 and has a reinforced concrete (RC) slab on RC deck girders,
spill through end bents, and post and web internal bents (Figure 3B). It
is 96.0 meters (315 feet) long with a 6.1-meter (20-foot) roadway width.
It carries two lanes of traffic and has no posted load limits.
According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency
rating of Bridge No. 31 is 6.7 of a possible 100.0 with an estimated
remaining life of 10 years. The sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 47 is
6.0 of a possible 100.0 with an estimated remaining life of 14 years.
The current traffic volume is 2,800 VPD, projected to 3,000 VPD for
1995 (the proposed construction year) and 5,000 VPD for 2015. Truck
percentages are 2% TTST (truck-tractor semi-trailer) and 5% dual-tired
vehicles. Speed limit in the area is 90 km/h (55 mph).
. Traffic Engineering records indicate one accident occurred in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 31 between 1 May 1989 and 30 April 1992.
The Transportation Director for Stokes County Schools indicated there
are 16 school bus crossings daily (eight buses crossing in the morning and
afternoon).
4. ALTERNATIVES
There are two build alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 31 and
Bridge No. 47 (Figure 2):
Alternate 1 would replace both bridges on new location, south of the
existing alignment. The new bridges would have a 7.2-meter (24-foot)
travelway plus a 1.0-meter (3-foot) offset on each side. Bridge No. 31
3
would be approximately 63.7 meters (209 feet) long. Bridge No. 47 would
be approximately 96.0 meters (315 feet) long. Traffic would be maintained
on the existing bridges during construction. The design speed for this
alternate would be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2 (Recommended) will replace each bridge at the existing
location. A temporary detour will be constructed to the south of Bridge
No. 31. The detour structure will be a 1500-millimeter (60-inch) pipe. A
second temporary detour will be constructed to the north of Bridge No. 47.
The detour structure will be a bridge approximately 73.2 meters (240 feet)
long. The replacement bridges will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway
plus a 1.0-meter (3-foot) offset on each side. Bridge No. 31 will be
approximately 63.7 meters (209 feet) long. Bridge No. 47 will be
approximately 96.0 meters (315 feet) long. The design speed for this
alternate will be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph). The temporary detours
will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph) during
construction.
Closing the road to traffic during construction is not feasible
because of the long detour route and high traffic volume. Detouring along
existing area roads would require approximately 25.6 additional kilometers
(16 miles) of travel and road user costs of approximately $7,900,000
(based on an estimated 18-month construction period).
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The bridges would
continue deteriorating until unusable. This would require the closing of
the road, or continued intensive maintenance.
5. COST ESTIMATES
Table 1 shows the estimated costs and component costs of the
alternates.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
RECOMMENDED
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
*BRIDGES $ 906,000 $ 906,000
*BRIDGE REMOVAL 75,000 75,000
*TEMPORARY
DETOUR ------- 1,186,000
*ROADWAY &
APPROACHES 1,182,000 55,000
ENGINEERING &
CONTINGENCIES 324,000 333,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,487,000 $2,555,000
RIGHT OF WAY $ 34,000 $ 29,000
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $2,521;000 $2,584,000
* Includes Miscellaneous and Mobilization
4
6. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 31 and Bridge No. 47 in the existing
locations as shown in Alternate 2, Figure 2. A temporary on-site detour
will be constructed around each bridge to maintain traffic during
construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 31 with a bridge approximately 63.7
meters (209 feet) long. This bridge will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide
travelway plus a 1.0-meter (3-foot) offset on each side. The temporary
detour structure will be a 1500-millimeter (60-inch) pipe to the south of
the existing alignment.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 47 with a bridge approximately 96.0
meters (315 feet) long. This bridge will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide
travelway plus a 1.0-meter (3-foot) offset on each side. The temporary
detour structure will be a bridge approximately 73.2 meters (240 feet)
long, located to the north of the existing alignment.
The replacement bridges will provide a design speed of approximately
100 km/h (60 mph). The temporary detours will provide a design speed of
approximately 80 km/h (50 mph) during construction. The new roadway
approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus 2.4-meter
(8-foot) shoulders at approximately the same grade as the existing
roadway.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it will potentially have less
impact on the archaeological and natural resources in the area than
Alternate 1.
The division engineer prefers Alternate 1 based on the following
reasons: traffic will not have to traverse on-site detours during
construction, the detours will require maintenance and are not considered
as hazard-free as the existing roadway, and the project can be completed
quicker. However, this alternate would impact an archaeological district
that is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Therefore, NCDOT does not recommend Alternate 1.
The preliminary hydraulics report indicated evidence of bridge scour
at both bridges. The hydraulics unit recommends a detailed scour analysis
be performed during final hydraulic design. Appropriate scour protection
measures will be specified in the construction plans. Figure 4 shows the
100-year flood boundaries.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The
investigations will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site
testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may
require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Overview

An NCDOT biologist conducted general field surveys along the project
alignment on 5 October 1992. The project will impact five terrestrial and
two aquatic biotic community types. The terrestrial communities are
5
Roadside Community, Agricultural Field, Old Field, Mixed Upland Forest,
and Floodplain Hardwood Forest. The aquatic communities are the Dan River
and River overflow area. Prime wildlife habitat is not abundant because
little area remains forested. A variety of organisms occupy small
forested stands associated with the Dan River. Many of these also use
roadside and field communities as foraging areas. The NCDOT biologist
observed nineteen animals during area surveys. Suitable habitat for the
federally protected Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along the roadside.
Suitable habitat for the federally protected small-anthered bittercress
occurs along the banks of the Dan River. The biologist conducted a survey
for Schweinitz's sunflower on 5 October 1992 and a survey for
small-anthered bittercress on 10 May 1993.
Alternate 1 would impact approximately 0.30 hectares (0.9 acres) of
wetlands. Alternate 2 will impact approximately 0.28 hectares (0.7 acres)
of wetlands. Conditions for a Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 apply.
Compensatory mitigation is not likely to be required.
B. Biotic Communities
The vegetation of the Roadside (RC), Agricultural Field (AF), and Old
Field (OF) communities is dominated by fescue, broomstraw, dog fennel,
goldenrod, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and rabbit tobacco. The
agricultural fields also contain cultivated soy bean, corn, and other
grains.
Red maple, tulip poplar, persimmon and wild cherry are common in both
forested communities. American sycamore, hackberry, white oak, American
elm, and short-leaf and scrub pines are found exclusively in the Mixed
Upland (MU) community. Willow oak, swamp red oak, and black willow are
found only in the Floodplain Hardwood Forest (FF).
Faunal numbers are expected to be low, although representative
members from all vertebrate classes can be found in the project area
(NRTR). Impacts to the faunal component of the terrestrial communities
will be related to clearing and filling activities, resulting in
displacement and reduced numbers. Table 2 lists estimates of impacts to
the community types.
Table 2. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community
Alt RC AF OF MU FF
1 .40ha (l.Oac) .44ha (l.lac) .24ha (0.6ac) .48ha (1.2ac) .53ha(1.3ac)
2 .44ha (l.lac) .32ha (0.8ac) .44ha (l.lac) .53ha (1.3ac) .28ha(0.7ac)
J
The Dan River and overflow areas of the river will be impacted by
project construction. Many fish species that are adapted to moderately to
swiftly flowing streams with rocky substrate are expected to occur in the
stream channel and the pools of the overflow. Aquatic turtles and various
terrestrial birds and mammals such as green herons, raccoon, mink, and
muskrat are also expected to occur near the water bodies.
Project construction impacts to water resources are directly related
to sedimentation. This causes mortalities to photosynthetic organisms due
to light reduction. Sedimentation causes mortalities to benthic organisms
due to burial and clogging of feeding apparatii. Increased siltation also
affects the gills of fish, larval insects, and amphibians. Construction
related siltation may also cause changes in the physical attributes of the
water bodies. These changes may include reduction of dissolved oxygen,
diminished water clarity, changes in water temperature, and changes in
water level.
C. Surface Waters and Wetlands
Average daily flow of the river near the project crossing is 48.1
cubic meters per second (1700 cubic feet per second). Channel width at
the crossing is approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet). The substrate is
characterized as bedrock with a sandy-gravel top layer, or areas of
exposed rock.
The waters of the Dan River at the project crossing carry a best
usage classification of WS-IV, as assigned by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1992.
The WS-IV classification designates waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point
source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules
.0104 and .0211 of sub-chapter 2B (Surface Water Standards, Monitoring) of
the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC). Best Usage of WS-IV
waters are as source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes and any other use specified for Class C waters. Class
C designates waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Alternate 1 would impact the surface waters of the Dan River and
approximately 0.30 hectares (0.9 acres) of palustrine forested wetlands.
Alternate 2 will impact the surface waters of the Dan River and 0.28
hectares (0.7 acres) of palustrine forested wetlands.
The NCDOT biologist identified wetland communities using the criteria
specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of Engineers 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,
matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and
surface roots.
D. Jurisdictional Issues
Stokes County is one of 25 counties designated as having trout
waters; therefore, General permits will not be issued without the consent
of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The NCWRC has no
7
concerns regarding trout habitat within the project area. The NCWRC
recommends that all erosion control structures be maintained throughout
the project to avoid disturbed surface materials moving off the site. The
Dan River is not designated as a trout stream in the project area;
therefore, conditions for a Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 will
apply upon consent from the NCWRC. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole,
or in part, by another Federal agency or department, and that agency or
department has determined that the activity is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation, because it will neither individually or
cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to
issue of the Nationwide permit #23. Final permit decisions lie with the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army.
E. Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to have
a detrimental impact to the survival and well being of any species
classified as federally protected, is subject to review by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered species receive additional
protection under separate state statutes. In North Carolina, protection
of plant species falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to
106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to
113-337 of 1987.
As of 20 December 1993, the USFWS lists the Schweinitz's sunflower
and small-anthered bittercress for Stokes County. Suitable habitat for
both species occurs in the project area.
An NCDOT biologist conducted plant by plant surveys for Schweinitz's
sunflower along the Roadside Community on 5 October 1992. The survey
found no individual plants. Construction of this project will not impact
this species.
An NCDOT biologist conducted plant by plant surveys for
small-anthered bittercress along the banks of the Dan River on 10 May
1993. The survey found no individual plants. Construction of this project
will not impact this species.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare 'plants and animals yielded
no records of state protected species in the project area.
8
F. Air and Noise
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality
Control 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 located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures. NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate that it will create any
adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of the Clean Air Act amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports.
The projects will not significantly increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, each will have no significant impact on noise levels.
Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
G. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies, or
their representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils, as designated
by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS determined Alternate
2 will impact zero hectares of prime farmland and important farmland soil;
therefore, impacts will not be significant. No other farmland
consideration is required.
H. Historic and Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is aware of no National
Register listed or eligible properties located in the area of potential
effect. Bridge No. 31 is the only structure over 50 years of age. The
SHPO feels it is not eligible for the National Register. The SHPO
recommends no historic architectural survey for this project.
The projects lie adjacent to the proposed Sauratown Archaeological
District, which includes nearby sites of Upper Sauratown (31SK1, 31SK2a).
An NCDOT archaeologist conducted an intensive archaeological survey along
the length of the project area on 14 July 1993. The survey intended to
locate and assess any significant resources in the project area. Sites
within the proposed archaeological district contain significant
information about the prehistoric occupation concentrated along the Dan
River between AD 1000-1710. The information value of these sites meets
eligibility requirements under Criterion D for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
The project area required further testing to determine the extent and
significance of materials affected by construction. NCDOT archaeologists
9
completed Phase II testing on 26 and 27 May 1994. After completing this
testing, NCDOT and FHWA concluded that no significant archaeological sites
will be affected by the projects and no further work is required. The
SHPO concurs with this finding (see 16 August 1994 letter in Appendix).
I. Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the
projects will cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the
projects may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion.
WF/plr
FIGURES

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 311
BRIDGE NOS. 31 AND 47 OVER
DAN RIVER OVERFLOW AND DAN RIVER
STOKES COUNTY
T. I. P. NOS. B - 2634 AND B - 2635
0 kilometers 3
1 1 r=1G 1
BRIDGE NO. 31
STOKES COUNTY
B-2634

M1a
A

R4+ei; F +Y
LOOKING NORTHEAST
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3A
BRIDGE NO. 47
STOKES COUNTY
B-2635
LOOKING NORTHEAST
LOOKING SOUTHWEST

4
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3B
ZONE. `q?
"` ' r s { X H PIN
U n;2
5 •ZC
ti.
\` t?` 3 •? c:tk t t" '? s? .? a r, °? ?? •••:•?.'?•:•?::•:• .. M3 Fl I NCNUM \
O RD
® .
?`c i ; y rll
?" ? - - r I I
ri r //t
t PROJECT AREA
S4
L
-. r
y 311 G
fF
at' - 1 :, rt' 1911
vNe.
<t r
? c 171 l - ?":T?h?+•iF? ?-xr ?: ??;: ? -- _.
t_"--
?; `• ZONE X. yOO YEAR FLOODPLAIN
y ?. 311
`..:ZONE..'
_ q :•?t` ............:....•. 1911
7= 1
ZONE
X
z
1
?•,
i5.:.. ii.f \ ..
(A
v^rw•;?#.,.: \ 1.19
s! tir l 5 . - 11'..' Q
J.
Y -? Q
O
?::;::?•...v! .• i?. \ ti}B:}}}?>:Y'•:•.•. •: ''.•.•.v.•.•.v.•.•:.{'.v:{:
• _ Y?- W 1. 4 } I 1 I O \\ - O ':•:' ...............::.•:.':.':.:'.': .'.':::''
tl Il .` ,off o _
: FF
0
N
:h
tt
m
•' J
.191
•I 6
0
I 'f
;I• 9
1 II O
lt;
1 I1
9
'I
91
8
11
j
r
I _ •
I
I
t
I
II.
ONE? ..
/.
R
9
:F
/ O
.ft •
t N!
a. No
•v,;a
r• t. _
,
O
N
L
rv: - -
:, S '.
C
R•
.1 •a
-a -
f' -
,y
A.
'On
V?
1
l r`?-.•...
ZZJ
4-•
X -•? -
•s
FIGURE 4
? .`.• >::av?? '"?'t?'"1 it l!p ' . y`.k% \
t . 1919 // q r a• ?? Y
ec'-M
c'.tJVY? . `t %2 'ter (ll)T?? . a . - ?! > _
F:11 ENDIX
r ?Qt vv -A.
Q•? C E
`,7y RR.Sv - O
M C? A
n
_ AUG 18 1994
2 DIVISICN OF North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources HIGHWAYS
Jm= B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archiv
Betty Ray McCain, Sectary William S. Price. Jr., Director
August 16, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 47 on US 311 over Dan River, B-
2635, Federal-aid Project BRSTP-311(2), State
8.11640501, Stokes County, GS 93-0003, ER 95-
7166
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 25, 1994, concerning the above project.
The archaeological testing report by Deborah Joy, North Carolina Department of
Transportation archaeologist, indicates there are no archaeological remains within
the area of potential effect, which was defined as the project's right-of-way. We
concur with this determination since the boundaries of the Sauratown
Archaeological District or other sties that might be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places do not extend into the right-of-way.
Given the absence of National Register-eligible or listed properties within the area
of potential effect, there is no need for a finding of effect. However, we are
assuming the present plans will be followed and that no land disturbing activity
will occur on the south side of US 311. Should construction plans change, further
consultation with us will be necessary to address the possibility of archaeological
properties adjacent to the right-of-way and their significance.
In general, the archaeological report meets our office's guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jooes Stroet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
August 16, 1994, 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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
D. Joy

SEA7Z
4Tyd r. a...,
N? .
ti
J?
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 17, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 31 on US 311 over Dan River Overflow,
B-2634, Stokes County, ER 94-7741
Dear Mr. Graf:
Fo
a f 9.199
rps and f? `.100
Thank you for your letter of October 25, 1993, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Deborah Joy, North Carolina Department of Transportation staff archaeologist,
concerning the above project.
We agree that additional testing is needed to determine the effects of the bridge
replacement project on the proposed Upper Sauratown Archaeological District. We also feel
it is premature to determine that the portion of the archaeological district within the area of
potential effect does not warrant preservation in place. This determination should be made
after the results of the more intensive testing have been reviewed.
We believe the recommendation for additional testing needs to be more specifically defined.
In particular, the nature, extent, and character of the tests should be clearly identified after
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Research Laboratories of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Minimally, tests should include
deep tests in pylon and cut areas, mechanical stripping of plow zone, and feature
excavation. We look forward to development of plan for this work.
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.
Sincerely,
Da?iBrook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: "H. F. Vick
D. Joy
Dr. Stephen Davis, UNC-CH
109 East Jones Street • Ralei¢h. North Carolina 27601-2907
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Yow, Acting Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments on N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Bridge Replacement; Bridge No. 31 on US 311
over Dan River Overflow, Stokes County, North Carolina,
TIP No. B-2634.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the proposed project and possible impacts
on existing wildlife and fishery resources in the area. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves replacement of an obsolete
highway bridge over waters in Stokes County, one of 25 western
counties covered by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Discretionary
Authority over projects affecting potential trout waters. The
NCWRC has no concerns regarding trout habitat within the project
area and anticipates favorable review of the upcoming Categorical
Exclusion document. Adherence to NCDOT Best Management Practices
during construction should prevent degradation of nearby aquatic
systems, and the NCWRC recommends that all erosion control
structures be maintained throughout the project to avoid movement
of disturbed surface materials off the site. Such precautions
should effectively prevent significant impacts to local fish and
wildlife resources.
Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to provide input to
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Stephanie Goudreau, Mtn. Region Coordinator, Habitat Cons.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Yow, Acting Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments on N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Bridge Replacement; Bridge No. 47 on US 311
over Dan River, Stokes County, North Carolina, TIP No.
B-2635.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the proposed project and possible impacts
on existing wildlife and fishery resources in the area. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves replacement of an obsolete
highway bridge over waters in Stokes County, one of 25 western
counties covered by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Discretionary
Authority over projects affecting potential trout waters. The
NCWRC has no concerns regarding trout habitat within the project
area and anticipates favorable review of the upcoming Categorical
Exclusion document. Adherence to NCDOT Best Management Practices
` during construction should prevent degradation of nearby aquatic
systems, and the NCWRC recommends that all erosion control
structures be maintained throughout the project to avoid movement
` of disturbed surface materials off the site. Such precautions
should effectively prevent significant impacts to local fish and
wildlife resources.
Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to provide input to
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Stephanie Goudreau, Mtn. Region Coordinator, Habitat Cons.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 27, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 31 on US 311 over Dan River
Overflow, Stokes County, B-2634, GS 93-0004
Dear Mr. Graf:
/GeIV4?0
AllG 311992.
U
? QlVisION O?
??H;GHWAY
v? . ESE
P
On August 19, 1992, 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 National Register-
listed or eligible properties located in the area of potential effect. We feel that the
one structure over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect--Bridge No. 31--
is not eligible for National Register-listing since many other representatives of its
type exist throughout the state. We -recommend that no historic architectural
-survey be conducted for this project.
The bridge replacement lies within the proposed SauratoWn Archaeological District
which includes the nearby sites of Upper-Sauratown (31 SK1,t 31 SK1 a). These
archaeological sites have been a research focus'of th'e'University of North Carolina
Research Laboratories of Anthropology since:-1 972. All construction, excavation,
and staging activities associated with the planned bridge replacement should be
carefully reviewed and coordinated with us. Test excavations should be
conducted in areas of proposed new construction, detours, and staging. Deeply
stratified--deposits are known -at this vicinity'and should be-a part of overall
considerations: Additionally, efforts should be made to consult with the Research
Laboratories concerning their knowledge of the area.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

Nicholas L. Graf
August 27, 1992, Page 2
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.
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,
David Brook
-?r Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
Trawick Ward, UNC-RLA

A

V•
s?SLATE?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 27, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 47 on US 311 over Dan River,
Stokes County, B-2635, GS 93-0003
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director

AM
On August 19, 1992, 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 National Register-
listed or eligible properties located in the area of potential effect. We feel that the
one structure over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect--Bridge No. 31--
is not eligible for National Register-listing since many other representatives of its
type exist throughout the state. We-recommend-that no historic architectural
survey be conducted-for,this project:
The bridge replacement lies within the proposed Sauratown Archaeological District
which includes the nearby sites of Upper Sauratown (31 SK1, 31 SK1 a). These
archaeological sites have been a research focus of the University of North Carolina
Research Laboratories of Anthropology since 1972. All construction, excavation,
and staging activities associated with the planned bridge replacement should be
carefully reviewed and coordinated with us. Test excavations should be
conducted in areas of proposed new construction, detours, and staging. -Deeply
stratified deposits are known at this vicinity and should be a part of overall
considerations. Additionally, efforts should be made to consult with the Research
Laboratories concerning their knowledge of the area.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
August 27, 1992, Page 2
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.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
Sincerely,
r??
David Brook
UU Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: "L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
Trawick Ward, UNC-RLA
i
h

I «v
ni nl ?
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
'THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
July 10, 1992
Mr. Eric Galamb
Division of Environmental Management
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Al )G 1 11992 ¢ s_
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 31 on
US 311 over Dan River Overflow, Stokes County, B-2634
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 August 19, 1992 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 Wayne Fedora, Bridge Replacement Project Planning Engineer, at
733-7842.
WF/plr
Attachment
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
r;i3.
i ?j
? A
3RIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
GATE 07/14/92
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
PURPOSE:
DESCRIPTION:
B-2634
NINE
STOKES
us 311
REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
US 311, BRIDGE #31 STOKES COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER DAN RIVER OVERFLOW
}
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
:2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS. OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES. BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: A) 3 (%)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VF'D
TTST % DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 209 FEET; WIDTH 20 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET;
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET;
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET:
OR
F'IF'E - SIZE INCHES
WIDTH FEET
WIDTH FEET
WIDTH FEET
CONSTRUCTION COST {INCLUDING ENGINEERING, AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ..................................... .$
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 1.100.000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 34,000
SLAB TOTAL ........................................... $ l j134,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................$ 1.1341000
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 31
STOKES COUNTY
B-2634
0 mile 2 FIG. 1

? Qwr. v?
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
July 10, 1992
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Eric Galamb
Division of Environmental Management
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 47 on
US 311 over Dan River, Stokes County, B-2635
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 August 19, 1992 at 10:00 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 Wayne Fedora, Bridge Replacement Project Planning Engineer, at
733-7842.
WF/plr
Attachment
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 07/14/92
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAC=;E
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT: E-2635
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION: NINE
COUNTY: STOKES
ROUTE: US 311
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: US 311, BRIDGE #47, STOKES COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER DAN RIVET;
I
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES. BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 (%)

r
BRIDGE
PROJECT S COPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST % DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECT ION:
EXISTING, STRUCTURE: LENGTH 315 FEET; WIDTH 20 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH 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) .....................
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 1.600.000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 291000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 116291000
PRIOR YEAR;. COST ...................................... $
TIP TOTAL C T - .......

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 47
STOKES COUNTY
B-2635
0 mile 2 FIG. 1
7
LcisC/0-4E E
r4-? - o T co^-.l-- -- --

--

Oo,
-?_?cD
-L - - -

T I
i
j ?

----
----- -------------
I
i
'I
t

i{
t
I
-- ------ ---- !
------------------------------------

I '

,1
it
'I
I
,i
?i
i
I I '
i.
o L-LrrL-
i
h t-_t__-t Ps P? ,4A ILL
S l 1