19950884 Ver 1_Complete File_19950822

August 17, 1995
Page 2
? 3 p
0a. w LCD.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATIO _..,..
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
August 17, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
)2 r
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 55 over Mill Creek on
NC 8-NC 89, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-89(4), State Project
8.1640701, T.I.P. No. B-2633.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 55 will be replaced on a new location,
east of the existing bridge. The recommended replacement structure is a
double barrel, 10 ft. x 10 ft. reinforced concrete box culvert. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge.
Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on any
jurisdictional wetland communities.
The 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 proposed to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The
'provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
We also 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.
9
August 17, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincerely,
H. klin Vi k, P. E., Manager
Planni-ng-an nvironmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator

NC 8-NC 89
Bridge No. 55 over Mill Creek
Stokes County
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-89(4)
State Project No. 8.1640701
TIP No. B-2633

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT TO TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
r
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
? 3! 5
to F°R is o as ra P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 8-NC 89
Bridge No. 55 over Mill Creek
Stokes County
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-89(4)
State Project No. 8.1640701
TIP No. B-2633
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Jul' A. Hu ins P. E.
Pr ' ct Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
?N•,,
?.???N CA Rot
•.
Z':•FESSIpN••'?
SE AL
18496
NC 8-NC 89
Bridge No. 55 over Mill Creek
Stokes County
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-89(4)
State Project No. 8.1640701
TIP No. B-2633
Bridge No. 55 crosses Mill Creek in Stokes County. The location of
the bridge is shown in Figure 1. It 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.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 55 will be replaced on new location, east of the existing
bridge as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement
structure is a double barrel, 10' x 10', reinforced concrete box culvert.
Construction of new roadway will be necessary for a distance of
approximately 500 feet on the southern approach and 600 feet on the
northern approach. The roadway will consist of a 24-foot travelway with
8-foot grassed shoulders. The structure will be of sufficient length to
accommodate this typical section. The roadway grade of the new structure
will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this location.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The current estimated cost of this project is $ 537,000, including
$ 37,000 for right of way and $ 500,000 for construction. The estimated
cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $ 649,000.
The design speed of the completed project will be approximately
30 miles per hour (MPH). A design speed exception will be necessary since
the design speed is less than the posted speed limit of 35 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
have no impacts on any jurisdictional wetland communities; no wetland
communities were identified within the project right-of-way. Best
Management Practices will be utilized to minimize impacts due to
construction activities.
It is necessary that an archaeological survey be conducted for this
project; the survey will be completed by an NCDOT staff archaeologist
prior to construction. NCDOT will coordinate with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the results of the archaeological
survey and the need for further archaeological investigation.
2
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.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 8-NC 89 is classified as a rural minor arterial route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System.
The project is located in a predominantly rural part of Stokes
County. The project extends into the Danbury Historic District (located
at the northern end of the project). Scattered residential development in
the immediate project area includes the Joyce-Glenn House and the R. R.
King Surveyors Office (see Figure 2), both of which contribute to the
significance of the Danbury Historic District, and three non-historic
commercial establishments. This development is located immediately north
of Bridge No. 55.
Utilities in the area of the project consist of the following:
aerial telephone lines and a fiber optic line on the east side of
NC 8-NC 89, and underground telephone lines. A Duke Power substation is
located southeast of Bridge No. 55. Utility conflicts for this project
are anticipated to be low in severity.
In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 8-NC 89 has a 20-foot pavement plus
2-foot grassed shoulders (see Figure 3). Vertical alignment is good;
however, there is a sharp horizontal curve immediately north of the bridge
at the intersection of NC 8-NC 89 and SR 1652.
The current traffic volume of 3400 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected
to increase to 5900 VPD by the year 2016. The projected volume includes 1%
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired (DT) vehicles.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1925 and
consists of a reinforced concrete deck on reinforced concrete deck
girders. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete full height
abutments and reinforced concrete post and web piers.
The overall length of the existing bridge is 112 feet. The clear
roadway width is 20.0 feet. There are no posted weight limits.
Bridge No. 55 has a sufficiency rating of 2.0 compared to a rating of
100 for a new structure. Bridge No. 55 has an estimated remaining life of
less than two years.

The speed limit in the project vicinity is 35 MPH.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 55 during the
period from May, 1990 to April, 1993. The accident involved two tandem
dump trucks, one of which collided with the bridge rail. Based on the
details of the accident, it can be concluded that the narrow bridge width
contributed to the accident.
Eight school buses travel across the bridge twice daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A
Two alternates for replacing Bridge No. 55 were studied. Due to the
severe curve immediately north of the existing bridge, the design speed
for each alternate is approximately 30 MPH. The alternates are as
follows:
Alternate 1 - This alternate involves the replacement of Bridge No. 55 at
its existing location with a bridge. The new bridge would be
approximately 120 feet long and 40 feet wide. This structure width
will accommodate a 24-foot travelway with 8 feet of lateral clearance
on each side. Traffic would be maintained during construction by a
temporary on-site detour located approximately 60 feet east of the
existing bridge. The detour structure would consist of a bridge 112
feet long and 24 feet wide.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - This alternate involves the replacement of
the existing bridge on new location approximately 70 feet east of the
existing bridge. The existing bridge would be replaced with a
double-barrel, 10' x 10', reinforced concrete box culvert. The
replacement structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate a
24-foot travelway plus 8-foot grassed shoulders. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Consideration was also given to the "do-nothing" and rehabilitation
alternates. 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
The estimated costs of the alternatives are as follows:
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
STRUCTURE $ 230,000 $ 88,000.
ROADWAY APPROACHES 390,000 336,000
TEMPORARY DETOUR 211,000 0
STRUCTURE REMOVAL 11,000 11,000
ENGINEERING & 126,000 65,000
CONTINGENCIES
RIGHT OF WAY, UTILITIES 29,000 37,000
TOTAL $ 997,000 $ 537,000
4
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 55 should be replaced on new location with a
double-barrel, 10' x 10', reinforced concrete box culvert, as shown by
Alternate 2 in Figure 2. Traffic is to be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction.
Approximately 500 feet of new roadway on the southern approach and
600 feet of new roadway on the northern approach will be necessary to
accommodate construction of the structure on new location. The structure
will be of sufficient length to accommodate a 24-foot travelway plus
8-foot grassed shoulders on each side.
In addition, guardrail will be placed over the culvert and extended
northward on the east side of NC 8-NC 89. The guardrail will also be
placed along SR 1652 for a distance of approximately 600 feet to Bridge
No. 82 and along the north side of SR 1652, beginning approximately 300
feet east of NC 8-NC 89 and continuing east for approximately 300 feet.
According to preliminary hydraulics investigations, the proposed
double barrel culvert will be adequate to accommodate the flow from Mill
Creek. The size may be increased or decreased to accommodate peak
discharges determined by detailed hydrologic analysis during final design.
Recommended Alternate 2 will provide a replacement structure at the
lowest cost without causing substantial environmental impacts.
Recommended Alternate 2 costs $ 460,000 less than Alternate 1.
Recommended Alternate 2 will slightly infringe on the Danbury Historic
District (located approximately 300 feet north of the existing structure),
which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; however, the
project will have no effect on the historic district. Only pavement
wedging and resurfacing improvements to provide the appropriate
superelevation of the curve, which is located immediately north of the
existing structure, will occur. The Division Engineer concurs with the
recommendation of Alternate 2.
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 an 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.
5
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
Photographs, maps, and general information about the area of
potential effect were provided by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). The Danbury Historic District, is located within the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) and is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. The boundary for the Danbury Historic District follows the
western side of the bridge and existing edge of pavement and crosses
NC 8-NC 89 at SR 1652 (see Figure 2). Bridge No. 55 is over 50 years old.
However, the bridge is not considered to be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places due to its deteriorated condition. Replacement
of Bridge No. 55 on new location will require the wedging of pavement and
superelevation improvements within the Danbury Historic District, at the
NC 8-NC 89/SR 1652 intersection. The addition of guardrail along NC 8-
NC 89 and SR 1652 will not infringe on the Danbury Historic District, as
the guardrail will not be placed within the district. No additional right
of way will be acquired from within the Danbury Historic District.
The SHPO concurs that the project will have no effect on the historic
district. Correspondence from the SHPO is included as Attachment 2.
Coordination with the SHPO indicates there is a probability for the
presence of archaeological resources (see Attachment 3). Since the bridge
replacement project will involve an alignment on new location, an
archaeological survey is recommended for this area. An NCDOT staff
archaeologist will perform an archaeological survey to locate and assess
any significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or destroyed
as a result of this project; this survey will be completed prior to
construction. NCDOT will coordinate with the SHPO regarding the results
of the survey and the need for further archaeological investigation.
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. Theses 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
b energy and other resources.
In compliance with the FPPA, the SCS was requested to determine
whether the two alternates being considered for the proposed bridge
replacement project will impact prime or important farmland soils. The
SCS responded that Alternate 1 would impact 0.17 acre of prime farmland.
Alternate 2 would impact 0.31 acre of prime farmland soils. The SCS
indicates that the relative value of the farmland soils impacted by
Alternate 1 is 85.0 on a scale of zero to 100 points. The relative value
of soils impacted by Alternate 2 is 96.0.
6
Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating Form (see Attachment 4) indicates a site assessment score of
52.0 out of a possible score of 160 for both Alternate 1 and Alternate 2.
The total point score for Alternate 1 is 131.0 and the total for Alternate
2 is 148.0. The point scores for both Alternates fall below the threshold
of 160 total points, at which consideration of other alternates is
required. Therefore, no further coordination with the SCS is required.
C. Biological Assessment
Bridge No. 55 is located south of the town of Danbury in Stokes
County. This location is rural and hilly 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 nearby. No natural wetland communities exist in the project area.
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.
The two soil series located at this site are the Masada series and
Toccoa 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 that formed in loamy fluvial sediments on floodplains. Slopes range
from zero to four percent. No hydric soils are mapped within the project
boundaries.
Mill Creek is a tributary to the Dan River at river mile 64 in the
Roanoke River Basin. This creek empties into the Dan River approximately
500 feet northeast of Bridge No. 55.
At the proposed project site, Mill Creek is approximately 12.5 feet
wide, with depths ranging from 0.5 foot to two feet. The substrate is
composed of sand/silt with only scattered cobble and gravel. At the time
of the field visit by a staff biologist, some sedimentation was evident,
and there was evidence of much higher flow at times. Erosion and run-off
from nearby paved areas was also evident during the field visit.
Mill 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 Mill 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.
7
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 Mill Creek.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists no
permitted dischargers for this creek.
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.
Man-dominated and remnant Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest are the
two 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, a portion of a plant nursery, and power line corridors. Many
of the plant species are adapted to disturbed and maintained habitats.
The low-growing roadside vegetation includes Fescue grasses (Festuca
ssp.), plantains (Plantago ru elii• P. lanceolata), mountain dan a ion
(Kr??i i dandelion), sourgrass Rumex acetose a horse nettle (Solanum
caroli ?* nense wi d onion (Allium cana ense , and pepper grass (Lep`7 m
virginicum . Other herbaceous species occurring in the community away
rof m the roadside include jewelweed (Impatiens ca ensis),
gill-over-the-ground (Glechoma hederacea), wingstem Ver esina
alternifolia), dog bane Apocynum cannabinum), pokeweed P yto occa
americana , and sedges (Cyperus ssp. . A few horticultural varieties are
also present.
This largely open community supports a rich variety of vines,
including the trumpet creeper (Cam sis radicans), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), grape Vitis sp. , Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera aJ ponica moonseed (Menispermum canadense) leatherflower
(C1emaT viorna), ?Virginis bower C e?T-matis Vi g iana), and kudzu
(Pueraria to ata .
The shrubs scattered throughout the area also reflect the level of
disturbance in this community. These include: multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), staghorn sumac (Rhus t hina), smooth sumac (Rhus lg abra),
privet--(' um sinense), and wil ow Salix sericea).
Although plant succession is suppressed by human activity, numerous
opportunistic animal species residing in nearby wooded areas utilize these
areas as foraging zones. Various species of reptiles, mammals, and birds
venture into the roadside environment and especially into the thickets of
the powerline corridors. Insects, buds, seeds, berries, and roots are
abundant in these areas.
8
Birds seen during the field survey include: red bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), common crow (Corvus brachyrhychos), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), common yellowthroat warbler (Dendroica
dominica), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), mourning dove
Zenai a asiatica), rock dove (Co u livia), mockingbird (Mimus
pol g tos , an American goldfinch (Cardue Tis tristis). The common
grackle (uiscalus quisc?ula) feeds on crayfish and minnows, as well as
seeds and insects. Turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) take advantage of
animals killed by motor vehicles. Tiger swallowtail and great spangled
fritillary butterflies were feeding in the powerline corridors.
Snakes, such as the black racer (Columber constrictor) and eastern
garter snake (Thamno his sirtalis), may utiTize the area to forage for
insects and small mammals.
Virginia opossum (Didel his v_irginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), and raccoon Proc on lotor) frequently forage nocturnes in
these habitats or travel a ong roadways between habitats. As a result,
these animals are often roadkill victims, attracting scavengers such as
turkey vultures and common crows.
Resident species in this disturbed habitat are limited, but mourning
doves, eastern cottontails (S lvila us floridanus mallurus), woodchucks
(Marmota monax), and white-foote mice (Perom scu_s eu?i co us leuco uss) may
nest or den in the more dense portions oetha power ine corriod r.
Only a few canopy species remain in the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest at the project site. These include yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tu?li if?era), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), slippery elm U mus ru ra),
ach kberry (Celtis laevigata and as (Fraxinus Americana).
Faunal diversity is expected to be very low in this small roadside
remnant of forest. While some species of birds may nest here, most animal
activity would be the result of feeding activities.
The thick vegetation along this stream should provide a good supply
of terrestrial dedritus to provide food chain energy. The dedritus is
decomposed by bacteria or consumed by macroinvertebrates, such as aquatic
insects.
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream ecosystems, as
primary and secondary consumers, and as prey species for organisms higher
in the food chain. Aquatic invertebrates, including crayfish (Cambaridae)
and insects, were found in Mill Creek. Vertebrate species may include
northern hog sucker (H entelium nigricans) and the Roanoke hog sucker
(Hypentelium roanokense , which may come up the creek from the Dan River
to spawn in the spring. Other species that may occur in this stream
include bigeye jumprock (Moxostoma ariommum), black jumprock (Moxostoma
cervinum), margined madtom (Noturus insi n?is), and stoneroller (Campostoma
anoma um). Sediments may lime' t reproductive success by smothering eggs
and invertebrate food species.
Other vertebrate species likely to be found associated with the
aquatic community are the green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus),
green snake (Regina septemvittata), and northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon).
The natural communities that once occurred in the project area have
been highly fragmented and reduced as a result of previous development.
The Man-dominated community component of the project area will receive the
greatest impact from habitat reduction, resulting in the loss and
displacement of plant and animal life, regardless of which alternative is
chosen. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities for Recommended
Alternate 2 are listed below. Estimated impacts were derived using the
entire proposed right-of-way width of approximately 80 feet. Project
construction may not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual
impacts may be less than these estimates.
TABLE 1 TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS
BIOTIC COMMUNITY APPROXIMATE IMPACT
Man-Dominated 1.64 acre
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest Community 0.40 acre
TOTAL
2.04 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.
10
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 may be altered leading to reduced reproductive success
and reduced populations.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of surface waters
will be strictly followed to insure the biological integrity of this
stream. Other concerns would 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 may 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.
No wetland communities were identified within the project limits.
Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on any
jurisdictional wetland communities.
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 prior to issuance of COE permits for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
the waters of the United States.
A letter of comment has been obtained from the NCWRC concerning the
bridge replacement project. The NCWRC states that trout do not occur at
this project site and they are unaware of any other special concerns at
this site (see Attachment 1).
Since this project will likely 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.
11
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 below for Stokes County by the USFWS as of November 17, 1994:
TABLE 2 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR STOKES COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT STATUS
Cardimine micrathera
Helianthus schweinitzii
small-anthered
bittercress Yes Endangered
Schweinitz's
sunflower No Endangered
The study area only supports suitable habitat for the small-anthered
bittercress. Surveys conducted along the banks and sandbars of Mill Creek
as well as the neighboring wooded area, revealed no specimens of this
species. Therefore, no impact to this species is 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). The oranges n-ma tom is a federal candidate species
and an en angered species in North Carolina. Neither of these species
were observed in the project area, and no impacts to these species are
expected.
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
12
(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 3 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR STOKES COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT NC
lberti
Noturus Orangefin madtom Yes E
i
peyeria Tana Diana fritillary
butterfly Yes SR
Sweet inesa Monotropsis odorata No C2
Jens cinerea Butternut Yes C2
NC Status: E and C denote Endangered and 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. 55: riverweed darter (Etheostoma odostemone), bigeye jumprock
(Moxostoma ariommum), and orangefin madtom Noturus ilg berti). These
spec- ieT s were not surveyed for, nor were they o steed 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.
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.
13
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. Mill Creek is not included in a detailed flood study at this
location. The upstream and downstream floodplains are rural, wooded, and
mountainous.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, the NCDOT and the FHWA conclude
that no serious environmental effects will result from the implementation
of the project.
MP/plr

- a - CAROLINA
v S•ndY R!
f, na ro
66 Lrrw sonr,llr
Ilk.
? esll, el F ? f Z 4
Moore Preslonnllr
SonnIs +
68 /• 7??_' D•nbm! ,card
dol Mounlun / M
G•0 •i Mr•dows 17 S
STOKES COUNTY . . i11o °:.: 8 cWslurenult Pne alz-,", Hr to • !, !
• A•
••
••
'1 e It1. •
CL 1674
1493 < 1 662 q 165#1 / 1 654 h 1 "
-- 1663
1664 1.9 J .9
1652 0
?? 1 746 .? 167'
a 1665 1056 1655 _%
(1675
7 J - 1.7
O b .8?
1666 1665 1670;• : 5 1, 1
b .7 1674
/ • 1672 0
??Gc^,f, 67i v 3 .1673 Dodgetow
.h
1652
6 k 1665 0 '66V
1667 •t 1.670 N. 1700
-(9 • :? J artman I 1_696
8 1668 1.4 : :
r
1489 ?, 89 ; :701 0 1697 1699 ( (\ I
10 °Aei ' • ; 1652
.C9 'a (b
?•?:, n?? lj 1170? i
A 4/v 1697
0 2035
0
BRIDGE NO. 55 f ,q 1697 1.0
x' ; J ANBURY 1
y ` 1748 .5 .2 1695
POP, .?
'' G{' 140 ?0 bi? n
G{ 1744
v %'11\ , `` 1698 h
f ? 1705
Nq 2018 p 1704 1703 / b 55 .? ?•
20.17 6 yA
S
2016 --- 1753
a _ 018. .8 .6
1706 1.695 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
-Z 1987 ? TRANSPORTATION
d?
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1.2 S PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
VkAjo? BRANCH
2018 19.92 b
15' .9 1707 NC 8 - NC 89
BRIDGE NO. 55
qh 1990 Meadow 0 1708 1 OVER MILL CREEK
3 F STOKES COUNTY
2019 -991 9 8 1985 E? _ 8 - 2833
Shoals 1992 1\ati If ?z
o b
N' 'i2036 `b h r !p 0 mile 1 FIG. 1
a , r? 8
B-2633
STOKES COUNTY

LOOKING NOR 4
TH ON
NC 8-NC 89 T OWARD
BRIDGE NO . 65
LOOKING SOUTH ON
NC 8-NC 89 TOWARD
BRIDGE NO. 56
I ?I

t. ,$ SIDE VIEW OF
BRIDGE NO. 55
FIGURE 3
i
O
LISLS? ..\

u
0
ZI
Q
to
s Nt?
J
4

1
1
Yl?l
ZONE X

n NU??
1665 j1 ? ,i=? 11
1
it sal
` I I
\\\ II O
I N
?, II
0
ZONE A

L AU-]
Town of Danbury
AREA NOT INCLUDED
BRIDGE NO. 55

scoTr
? vl1
// Q II • /
/ NII
uol ,1
FARM
1652 ,i/
ZONE X
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN a
?\o
/i
ZONE A Tole
.\
it
J
1
1
l?
STOKES COUNTY

I\.
u
II
I?
II
II
11
11
11
.f • I
O P
n
It
?/ // _JI 1106
n
^199?O ZONE A 1989
COUNTY
1106

1
FIGURE 4
® 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 n
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.
ATTACHMENTI
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
z-

.•• srnr, „?
J
i
s .t
?w
E
j'Yl iChac4 Qo?Q.?O
1 DEC 0 S 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
1 17
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 30, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 55 over Mill Creek on NC 8/89,
Danbury, Stokes County, TIP B-2633, Federal Aid
BRSTP-89(4), State 8.1640701, ER 95-7052
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division ' chiWTA%JiJ si??Y
William '?prijjj(3tj pf?qor
?N??RONMC????
Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1994, which we delayed responding to
until we received additional information from the project engineer at the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
On November 19, 1994, Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley of our staff met with Michael
Paylor and other representatives of NCDOT to review the project on aerial
photographs and in greater detail. Based on that review we understand that the
only real change within the Danbury National Register Historic District will be
increasing the radius on the south side of the NC 8/89 and SR 1652 intersection
and the installation of continuous guard rail along the south side of SR 1652 to the
new bridge.
Given the minor extent of these changes, we believe the project as outlined at the
meeting will have no effect on the National Register historic district. Should the
plans change we will need to review them again.
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.
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Sincerely,
cc: '-H-.-F. Vick
B. Church A
T 2
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
+ SCAT[ o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 28, 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. 55 on NC 8/89 over
Mill Creek, Stokes County, B-2633, ER 93-8464
Dear Mr. Graf:
D' chives and History
` & ?. Jr. , Director
APR 3 0 1993
yG? F 11 G-{ ?j d l A Nr' ?.
On April 20, 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, it appears the project will affect the
Danbury National Register Historic District since roadway alignment and additional
right-of-way within the district will be necessary. We look forward to consulting
with NCDOT regarding possible measures to minimize the effect upon the district.
Also, please note that in conjunction with a previous environmental review project
we determined that the Joyce Tenant House--the only other property over fifty
years of age in the area of potential effect--is not eligible for National Register
listing.
Inasmuch as the replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is
unlikely that significant archaeological resources would be affected. Should the
alignment or detour construction take place to the east, then an archaeological
survey would be needed.
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.
ATTACHMENT 3
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 -
Nicholas L. Graf
April 28, 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.
Sipcerely,
v /
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: %-,C. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett

LOI::.:cv - na...+
U.S. Oepartment of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
I Date at Land Evaluation rlmourst ?O ?a
PART I (ro he comotered by Federal Agent/) I
J F?Mi A9«,dy Involved
Name at ?roieet ? ? -ate 33 ????
CAUntY And State S G?_QS C o . N C-
Prooosed Land Use C-e
Cate A uest ved d SC$.,, _
Avere9e Ftarm S;49
PART I I (ro be completed by SCS1 ?,LJ
Does the site contain prime, unique. statewide ar local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated
(/f no, the FPPA does nor aap/y - do not complete additional Ports of this forml. ?4+ a A?bjjE F?? 31 rio.oA4 e r b ~ FFIRA
Malmo aols/ ermeoa Land In Govt. 4ynsdieuon Acres: \ 4` 8 a
51.3
G o?,1n Acres: `1 g
Ev
Nanw Ot Lod Site AssessrnMt SYStent Cate Land .lwd4 WF•
Nerve at L.20142 Evaluation 5v-stem used f7 `7? C{ ' CL
s L,? Alternative j?Ce arena
AIE 5 eke
Site .? C1 Sice C I Sice 0
PART Ile (To be completed by Federal Agency) Skit
A. Total Acres To Be Converted (Directly
_ B Total Acres To Be Converted IndlrectlV y? p
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To 60 comp/etrd by SCSI Land Evaluation Infortrradon I D . l'1 I (?r11 I
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
S. Total Acres Statewide And Local Imoormnt Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Caunty Or Local Govt. Unit T o S o l onverted I ©r O O j O' ,
p, Paroentage Of Fenr?land in Govt. %uisdic--ion Mtn Same Or Higher Reiaave Value I I I
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (S=le of 0 to 100 Points) 4b 5 911n
PART V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum I I I ,
` I
Sts Assassment Criaris !Theta eritwre are exVtainsd in 7 CFR 65"(b) Points
\ S I 3 \ 3
1. Area In Nonurban Use I 4 I I
2. Penmeter In Nonurban Use o I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided BY State And Local Government ( I _ I _
5. Oistance From Urban Builtuo Area I _ I _ I
8. Oisranca To Urban Suoocrt Services I \? I \O I I
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Avera I O o I
S. Creation Of Nonfartmab?e Farmland I 5 I I I
9. Availability Of Farm Suo rt Services o aO
10. On-Farm lnvesmttrnts a5 I I d I
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooart Services O I I
12 Comoatibility With Existino Aaricultllral Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 I S a
PART V11 (To be completed by Federal Agency! I Itt
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 8 S I Z\\P I
Tow Site Assessment ( rom Part W above or a local 160 S a. 5 a
site assessment) 260 \ --b, I $
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) I W= A Loos! "' As?a+eeM Usedt
Yes Cl No Q
=== Date Of Selection
Sits Selee
Raieeon For $eteaaon:
=ATTACHMENT 4
w,?4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMLS B. HUN L. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GowizNoii P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 9, 1993
SAM HUNK
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental BAThOO
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for replacement of Bridge
No. 55, NC 8-89, Stokes County, TIP No. B-2633
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 20, 1993 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 Michael L. Paylor, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MLP/pl r C I?`sJ c
Attachment
4rh g, 16A0701

0")P-A3
1 ST
kit (6 5
Zvi `? *)
TLKj
pr?;,l?u??-e

??Cy

STOKES COUNTY

J?AROILINT
" Sandy R.
Fi nci co
lawsonv?llr
eslliel 6 ? ei;
66 Moore I''rslonvdle 04,
tl SVnnl-1-•?; +
(268 ?_,?.?-' Danbury
hllard
'dnl Mount din _ ? M
Gap '„ ', ? .; Mradciws tt
? ??10
? S T O : k•
? • 89
- r alto m 8 Walnut S ?uie Jl all
Z 1s in¢ •? n Cove_ ,.
lU '
65 It,kP.
?I
\TNI ?? 6
_ 1 . ? 1674 ?i.
1493 Q % 0 1659_ /• 1654 1662 ' 1663/- q . 11? ( rf) 1.9 ?l 1664 9
` 1652
?a• ?l f 167
1665 1C56? 1655 1746 -
?. ?• :• 7O 7 ' 81675 ).7
7 1670;• 5 1
1666 / 1665 i b-, 1674
167 00
671 v 3 1673 Dodgeto
---
?, ?' / ?• I? 1652
2
b` 1665 0 66 d n0
1667 : • 1670 1 700 n
artman 1626
9
8 1668 1•4 :
1 - q?
489 •- --- ? 89 .1701
1.697 1699 ( 1
1.0 _ r. '•? 1652 ! 1
y
(b
F .y.,?•fl 1702
?pA? qp y ?lAV 1697 S? ?
2035
5 BRIDGE NO. 55 q -.-??? 1.0
ANBURY
POP. 1.748 1695
140
1698 1 1 744
\9 2018 1705 1 704 1703 ( ?. 1755 I??'
?O
2017 6 J
5 <
2016 .0 ' 1753
A \ \ 018 .8 .b
( U, s 1695

1987 1706 _

?
1.2
(71)
2018 19.92 b
3•
j
.9 1707
l
4? 19 90 Meadow 10 1
g
f f
;
--- FA .?

.
1708

2019
1992\,,,
J1991
9 8 _
1985 F'
"
Shoals
/203 --- L

- h 7
•O
a / ti 8

I'
STAIr
rr0 Pum
STATE OE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMIS K I IUNI. IR. DIVISION OF FIIGI IWAYS
G)VI'RNO R
CO. [30X 25201, RALFIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201
May 14, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
SAM HUNT
SI CRI. rARY
FROM: Michael L. Paylor
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: NC 8-89, Bridge No. 55 over Mill Creek, Stokes County,
B-2633
A scoping meeting was held on April 20, 1993 to initiate the subject
project. The following individuals were in attendance:
Sue Flowers
Richard Shillinglaw
Jenifer Phillips
Betty Yancey
Abdul Rahmani
Sid Autry
Eric Galamb
Mike Patton
Robin Stancil
David Foster
Danny Rogers
Ray Moore
Sarah Gardner
Joe Foutz
Michael L. Paylor
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Traffic Control
Right-of-Way
Hydraulics
Location and Surveys
DEM
Div. (9) Construction Engineer
SHPO
DEHNR
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 alignment. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
A preliminary cost estimate for the above recommended construction is
$500,000.
A list of alternatives to be studied is as follows:
1. Replacement on new location west of the existing bridge.
2. Replacement at existing location with bridge, while maintaining
traffic on-site with a temporary detour.
Design Services will develop preliminary designs and cost estimates for
all alternatives. Based on impacts associated with Alternate 1, it may be
necessary to study replacements on new location east of the existing
alignment. This determination will be made later in the planning stage.

01 1
J
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE MARCH J2, 1993
REVISION DATE APRIL 21, 1993
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
------------ --
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2633
STATE PROJECT 8.1640
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-89(4
DIVISION NINE
COUNTY STOKES
ROUTE NC 8-89
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 8_89, BRIDGE NO. 55;___REPLACE
BRIDGE OVER MILL CREEK.
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURI.,,
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR X
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL, FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALI'T'Y,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
I I' YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT:
. 1

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3400 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 5900 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 2
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH __112__ FEET; WIDTH __20 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE
OR
CULVERT
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE
OR
PIPE
LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
Two barrel 10 K x 10 ft.
LENGTH FEET; W I DTH FEET
SIZE INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 89,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 589,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 1,0009000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 89,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 1,089,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 1,089.000

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: BRIDGE #55 IS LOCATED NEAR JUST SOUTH OF
THE DANBURY HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE KING HOUSE, WHICH IS ON THE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IS. LOCATED SEVERAL HUNDRED
FEET NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT BRIDGE.
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL, L. PAYLOR
DATE: APRIL 2I, 1993