The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19951071 Ver 1_Complete File_19951004 v ! ?YI STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 October 2, 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office Post Office Box 1890 ?--'. Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ?? 0 41995 Regulatory Branch Dear Sir: 5io?l GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. SECRETARY 4 SCIENCES E?If?CNMk7 Z,A_ SUBJECT: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 50 over Flat Shoal Creek on NC 8-NC 89, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-89(3), State Aid Project No. 8.1640601, T.I.P. No. B-2632. Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project. Bridge No. 50 will be replaced at its existing location with a double-barrel 10 foot x 10 foot reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site detour located west of the existing bridge. Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on 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 propose 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 the 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, Department 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. Jr ''4- October 2, 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. Fran lin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch cc: w/attachment Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management 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. D. B. Waters, P. E., Division-- Engineer Mr. Michael Paylor, P. E., P&E Project Planning Engineer Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator Stokes County Bridge No. 50 on NC 8-NC 89 Over Flat Shoal Creek Federal Project No. BRSTP-89(3) State Project No. 8.1640601 TIP No. B-2632 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 Environ nta ranch Yote is o as . Gr P. E. Divisi Administrator, FHWA Stokes County Bridge No. 50 on NC 8-NC 89 Over Flat Shoal Creek Federal Project No. BRSTP-89(3) State Project No. 8.1640601 TIP No. B-2632 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION MARCH, 1995 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: (1&? A Jam? - iffJ1je A. un ins, P. E. P ject Planning Unit Head Lu in V. Prevatt, P. E. Assistant Branch Manager "01'sICS ?.,y,, 00, ;' ?a:pEESS Ip?, q - SE Al c ' M 18496 _ ???urrrr.• 3 .)7l q5- Stokes County Bridge No. 50 on NC 8-NC 89 Over Flat Shoal Creek Federal Project No. BRSTP-89(3) State Project No. 8.1640601 TIP No. B-2632 Bridge No. 50 crosses Flat Shoal 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. 50 will be replaced on existing location as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure is a double barrel, 10' X 10' reinforced concrete box culvert. Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 200 feet on each side of the culvert. The replacement structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot usable (two-foot paved, six-foot turf) shoulders. The replacement structure will be constructed at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site detour consisting of three 72-inch pipes, located approximately 80 feet west of Bridge No. 50 (see Alternate 2 in Figure 2). The detour will have a roadway grade that is approximately two feet lower than the existing grade. The current estimated cost of this project is $ 392,000, including $ 17,000 for right of way and $ 375,000 for construction. The estimated cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $479,000. 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 of construction activities. Since this project is located in a designated "trout" county, a letter of comment has been obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), who concurs with this project as proposed. This letter is included as Attachment 1. Per request of the NCWRC, the replacement culvert will be placed at the same slope as the stream bottom, if possible, and will be buried one foot into the stream bottom, unless bedrock is encountered. 2 It is anticipated that this project will be authorized under Nationwide Permit No. 23, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and a Section 401 General Water Quality Certification, issued by the Division of Environmental Management. Best Management Practices (BMPs), for protection of surface waters, will be strictly followed to insure the biological integrity of this stream. 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. Development in the immediate project area consists of two homes; one home is the James Rierson, Sr. property, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. All development is located northwest of Bridge No. 50. Utilities in the area consist of the following: aerial power lines, a sanitary sewer (which drains into Flat Shoal Creek) on the east side of NC 8-NC 89, underground telephone lines on both sides of NC 8-NC 89, and aerial telephone lines over Flat Shoal Creek. Utility conflicts are expected to be low. 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 south of the bridge. The current traffic volume of 3200 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 5500 VPD by the year 2016. The projected volume includes I?.- 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 64 feet. The clear roadway width is 20.1 feet. There are no posted weight limits. Bridge No. 50 has a sufficiency rating of 16.4, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. Bridge No. 50 has an estimated remaining life of less than two years. The speed limit is statutory 55 miles per hour (MPH). Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 50 during the period from May, 1990 to April, 1993. According to the details of the accidents, the bridge width was not a contributing factor in the accidents. 3 Eight school buses travel across the bridge daily. IV. ALTERNATIVES Two alternates for replacing Bridge No. 50 were studied. In each case, the recommended structure is a 10' X 10' reinforced concrete box culvert, which will be of sufficient length to accommodate a 24-foot travelway plus 8-foot usable (two-foot paved, six-foot turf) shoulders. Due to the severe curve immediately south of the existing structure, the design speed is approximately 30 MPH. The alternates are as follows: Alternate 1 - This alternate involves replacement of Bridge No. 50 on new location approximately 35 feet west of the existing bridge. Approximately 1600 feet of new roadway would have to be constructed to accommodate the culvert at this location. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Alternate 2 (Recommended) - This alternate involves replacement of Bridge No. 50 at its existing location. Traffic will be maintained during construction utilizing an on-site detour located approximately 80 feet west of the existing bridge. The detour structure will consist of three 72-inch pipes and have a roadway grade two feet lower than the existing grade. Consideration was given to the "do-nothing" and rehabilitation options. The "do-nothing" alternate would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by NC 8-NC 89. Rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. V. COST ESTIMATES The estimated costs of the alternatives are as follows: RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 STRUCTURE $ 70,000 $ 67,000 ROADWAY APPROACHES, 314,000 162,600 TEMPORARY DETOUR 0 90,000 STRUCTURE REMOVAL 6,000 6,000 ENGINEERING & 60,000 50,000 CONTINGENCIES RIGHT OF WAY, UTILITIES 21,000 17,000 TOTAL $ 4719000 $ 3929000 4 VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 50 will be replaced at its existing 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 during construction using an on-site detour west of the existing bridge. Improvements to the existing roadway will be necessary for a distance of about 200 feet on each side of the culvert. The proposed structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate a 24-foot travelway plus 8-foot usable (two-foot paved, six-foot turf) shoulders. Due to the severe curve immediately south of the existing structure, the design speed will be approximately 30 MPH. The replacement structure will be constructed at approximately the same grade as the existing bridge. According to preliminary hydraulics investigation, the recommended culvert will be of adequate size to accommodate the flow from Flat Shoal Creek. The size may be increased or decreased to accommodate peak discharges as determined by detailed hydrologic analysis during final design. Traffic will be maintained during, construction utilizing an on-site detour located approximately 80 feet west of the existing bridge. The detour structure will consist of three 72-inch pipes and have a roadway grade two feet lower than the existing grade. The recommended alternate, Alternate 2, will provide a replacement structure at the lowest cost without causing substantial environmental impacts. Alternate 2 avoids the James Rierson Sr. Property (located approximately 350 feet northwest of the existing structure), which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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 insignificant environmental consequences. The bridge replacement will not the quality of the human or natural NCDOT standards or specifications. have a substantial negative effect on environment. with.. the use of,current 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 publ.icly 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 Bridge No. 50 is over 50 years old. However, the bridge is not considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places since it is a deteriorated example of a concrete bridge type which is prevalent throughout the state. Photographs, maps, and information about the Area of Potential Effect (APE) were provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). One historic property, the James Rierson, Sr. House, is located within the APE and is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The boundary for this property extends eastward until it contacts the existing right of way (see Figure 2). The SHPO concurs that the project will have no effect on the property. Correspondence from the SHPO is included as Attachment 2. An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement project by an NCDOT staff archaeologist to locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or destroyed. The results of the survey indicate that the project is unlikely to encounter any archaeological sites that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurs that no further archaeological investigation should be conducted in connection with this project since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources. Correspondence from the SHPO regarding the archaeological aspects of the project is included as Attachment 3. B. Farmland The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) requires all federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime or important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) based on a number of factors, including crop yield and the average expenditure of energy and other resources. In compliance with the FPPA, the SCS was requested to determine whether the 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 0.70 acre of prime farmland soils and Alternate 2 would impact approximately 0.09 acre of prime farmland soils. The SCS indicates that the relative value of the farmland soils impacted by Alternate 1 is 63.6 on a scale of zero to 100 points. The relative value of soils impacted by Alternate 2 is 60.0. 6 Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (see Attachment 4) indicates a site assessment score of 63.6 out of a possible score of 160.0 for Alternate 1. Alternate 2 has a site assessment score of 60.0. The total point score for Alternate 1 is 130.6 and the total point score for Recommended Alternate 2 is 126.0 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. 50 is located approximately two miles southeast of the town of Danbury in Stokes County. This area 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 soils 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. Flat Shoal Creek is a tributary to the Dan River at river mile 66 in the Roanoke River Basin. This creek originates approximately 2.5 miles south of the project crossing. The stream flows in a north-easterly to northerly direction until reaching the Dan River one mile downstream of the bridge crossing. At the proposed project site, Flat Shoal Creek is approximately 10 feet wide, with depths ranging from 0.5 foot to two feet. The substrate is composed of sand and gravel. A flat rock shoal lies approximately 60 feet downstream of the existing bridge. 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 agricultural activities were also apparent during the field visit. 7 Flat Shoal 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 Flat Shoal Creek is classified WS-V. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resources Water (ORW), WS-l, or WS-II occur within one mile of the project area. The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), assesses water quality by sampling from selected Benthic Macro invertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. The BMAN lab reported no sampling data from Flat Shoal Creek. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists one permitted discharge near the downstream side of the existing bridge on Flat Shoal Creek. The permit was issued to the N. C. Department of Corrections. Potential impacts to water resources in the project area will result from substrate disturbances, sedimentation and increased turbidity, as well as non-point discharge of toxic substances from construction machinery. These impacts may result in a decrease of dissolved oxygen in the stream. Water temperature may increase due to removal of streamside canopy species. Changes in the water level, due to interruption of surface water flow, are also likely. The on-site detour (Alternate 2) will impact a new area of the stream channel, as well as require temporary fill. Man-dominated, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, and Sand and Mud Bar are the three terrestrial communities found in the project area. The highly disturbed Man-dominated community includes existing road shoulders and cultivated fields. Fescue grass (Festuca ssp.) is the dominant species in the mowed roadside areas. The low growing herbaceous plants include plantain (Plants o sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), low hop clover (Trifolium cam estre blue-eyed grass (Sis rinc ium sp.) lyre-lea sage (Salvia grata , ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum eucanthemum), and wild onion A ium canaense). Areas with less frequent maintenance schedules exhibit other species common in open disturbed areas; these include common milkweed (Ascle ias s riaca), Joe Pye Weed (Eu atorium fistulosum), bearsfoot Po ymn? uve a ia), wingstem (Verbesi?na` alterni o is , pokeweed (Ph tolacca americans), smooth surnac (Rhus T? ab a), elderberry (Sambucus cans ensis , Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera a?oni?ca), trumpet creeper (Cam psis radicans), poison ivy (Toxicod- enroron radicans), blackberry (Rubus sp. , and stump sprouts of bottom an hardwoods. Except for roadside and creekside fringes, actively cultivated fields are the dominant community type on the northwest side of Flat Shoal Creek. Red-tailed hawks (Buteo 'amacensis) would frequent these open fields for mice, rabbits, reptiles, or amphibians. 8 Resident animal species would be few in these disturbed areas. However, many opportunistic species which may reside nearby utilize these areas for feeding zones. Seeds, berries, fruits, and insects, as well as other living or dead animal matter, attract a variety of foraging animals, including barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), which nest under Bridge No. 50 and forage for insects over tFe_opeields, Carolina chicka-dees (Parus carolinensis), American crow (Corvus brach rh nchos), northern mocking ird Mimus oiyqlottos), northern caraina Car ina is cardinalis), Virginia opossum ?Di a us virginian), woodchuck Marmota monax monax), white-foote(Perom scus leucopus leucopus eastern cottontail (S lvilagu_s floridanus , an raccoon (Proc on lotor). Nocturnal animals which feed or travel along roadsides often become roadkill victims. These roadkills attract scavenging animals such as turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), common crows, and Virginia opossums. Reptiles and amph-i`bi'ans, including toads, box turtles, snakes, and lizards may sun themselves on the roadsides or crawl onto the warm road surface at night. These may include the American toad (Bufo americanus), eastern box turtle (TTeerr?a erne carolina), black racer snake (Co u er constrictor), eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos), and five-lined skinks (Eumeces fasciatus). The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is the dominant community type to the southeast of Flat Shoal Greek. A relatively flat floodplain lies along both sides of NC 8-NC 89. The closed canopy is dominated by black walnut (Juglans ni99?r.a..), river birch, American ash (Fraxinus americana), sycamore (Plat anus occidentalis), and yellow pow ar Lirio endron tuli ifera). Understory trees include hop hornbeam (Car inus caro iniana), box elder, sourwood (Oxydendrum arborum), red maple Acer ru rum , and river birch sapling. Dominant s rubs include spi cebush Li n' n era benzoi n) , privet (LLii gust?rum s i nense) , swamp dogwood (Cornus amomum), swamp rose (Rosa pa ustl ris), and b7 ackcap raspberry (Ru ups occ- ice talis). Numerous vines are present: moonseed (M-e s ermum canadense),.Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus uin uefolia), fox grape Vitis a rusca), Japanese honeysuckle, Virgins bower (Clematis virginiana), greenbr-iars (Smilax gla?uca and S. Rotundifolia), an poison ivy. A diverse, well-deve oped herb layer inclu es: honewort (Cr totaenia canadensis), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema tri h llum), green dragon Arisaema dracontinum), white avens (Geum canadense , wood reed (Cinna arundinacea , anise root (Osmorhiza lon ist lis), may-apple (-P -o -ohs- um ep tatum), bedstraw (Ga ium tinctorium Christmas fern (Poo stichum acrosticoides), ebony spT_eenwort ern Aspleni?um lat neuron , violets Viola ssp.) jumpseed, jewelweed, and horsebalm Co insonia canadensis). This alluvial forest grades into a mesic mixed Hardwood Forest Community (Piedmont subtype) which is dominated by red oak (uercus rubra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and yellow poplar. Faunal diversity is expected to be relatively low in this roadside community. However, this heavily forested area does provide a variety of nesting sites and wildlife forage. The most abundant bird species include red-eyed vireos (Vireo of ivaceous), Carolina wrens (Thr othorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadees and wood thrushes (H ocich aocich a muste ina , and cardinals. The red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carofi s) would also be expected here. 9 Other vertebrate species likely to occur in this community include the Virginia opossum, raccoon, short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda kirt? landi), eastern pipstrelle (Pi strellus subflavus , gray ox Uroc on cinereoar enteus cinereoar enteus spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), ringnec snake Dia o is punctatus), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirta is . Streamside sand and mud bars resulting from land clearing and erosion are small on this stream, but may be important for aquatic life by filtering out sediment and improving water quality. The distinguishing features of these communities are a combination of location, substrate, and lack of tree canopy. Sand and mud bar communities grade into stream floodplain communities. At Flat Shoal Creek, these areas are sparsely vegetated by jewelweed (impatiens capensirs), green cone flower (Rudbeckia laciniata), jumpseed (Polygonum vir inianum), sedges (Cyperus sp. anT Ca rex sp.), rushes (Scir us sp.) with a few small sprouts of willow (Salix sericea), river birch Betula ni ra), and box elder (Acer negundo).. Raccoon tracks and a crayfish carapace (Family cambaridae) indicate the use of these bars by animals foraging on aquatic life. Dragonflies (Cordulegaster sp.) and damselflies (Calo ter x maculata) were perching on vegetation. Green frogs (Rana clamitans and pickerel frogs (Rana alustris) also may use the_ars t?orage for insects. Queen snakes (Regina se temvittata) may also frequent this area to find their favorite food, crayfish. The only aquatic community at this site is found in Flat Shoal Creek. A very small unnamed stream parallels NC 8-NC 89 on the northeast and empties into Flat Shoal Creek approximately 150 feet downstream from Bridge No. 50. Aquatic invertebrates are a very important component of stream ecosystems and this stream has a substantial population of these animals. Larvae of various stoneflies (Order Plecoptera), mayflies (Order Ep hemeroptera), dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata) were found on the underside of stones. Adult dragonflies and damselflies were also seen. Segmented worms (Oligocheates) and crayfish were also found under stones and other debris on the stream bed. Green frogs, and water striders (Order Hemiptera) were present. Some fish species likely to be found in this stream include Piedmont darter (Percina crassa roanoka), and stoneroller (Campostoma anomalus). Several uni Ce-nt minnows were observed in this stream near tie bridge. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of the three plant community types described. The estimated acreage loss to these communities is listed below in Table 1. Estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right of way. Project construction may not require the entire right of way and therefore actual impacts may be less than these estimates. 10 TABLE 1 ANTICIPATED TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS BIOTIC COMMUNITY Man-Dominated Sand and Mud Bar Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Community TOTAL APPROXIMATE IMPACT 0.94 acres 0.00 acre 0.89 acre 1.83 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. However, forested habitat, 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 chain that supports many aquatic and terrestrial species in the area. Benthic, non-motile organisms, such as filter feeders, may be covered and smothered by sedimentation resulting from construction-related erosion and substrate disturbance. Recovery may be slow, altering community populations. Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation, but local fish populations can also be harmed by construction-related sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, clogging of gills, reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of the water, and changes in water temperature. Spawning habitats will be altered leading to reduced reproductive success and reduced populations. D. Wetlands and Permits 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 United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 11 Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the 1987 COE 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 and oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases, and surface roots. (#o 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 COE 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 "Waters of the United States." A letter of comment has been obtained from the NCWRC concerning this 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. E. Endangered Species Both federal and state protected species are listed for Stokes County. Federally listed species with a status of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, 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, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered, steps are taken to protect them. The following plants in Table 2 are federally listed for Stokes County by the USFWS as of November 17, 1994: 12 TABLE 2 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR STOKES COUNTY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT STATUS Cardimine micranthera small-anthered bittercress Yes Endangered Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower No Endangered The study area supports suitable habitat for small-anthered bittercress only. Surveys conducted along the banks and sandbars of Flat Shoal Creek revealed no specimens of this species. The wooded area was also searched. 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 198;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 gilbe?rti). The orangefin madtom is a federal candidate species and an endangered 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 3 below. Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the N. C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, respectively. Species with state designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), and Watch List (W) are not protected under state laws, but there is evidence of declining populations. These species are mentioned here for informational 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. 13 TABLE 3 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR STOKES COUNTY SCIENTIFIC NAME Noturus 9ilberti Speyeria diana Sweet inesa Jug Tans cinerea COMMON NAME Orangefin madtom Diana fritillary butterfly Monotropsis odorata Butternut HABITAT NC Yes E Yes SR No C2 Yes C2 Status: E an C denote Endangered and Candidate, respectively. SR denotes Significantly Rare, which are not offered State Protection. The North Carolina National Heritage Program (NCNHP) records report two rare fish species from the vicinity of Bridge No. 50: Roanoke hog sucker (Hypentelium roanokense) and bigeye jumprock (Moxostoma ariommum). These species were not surveyed for, nor were they observed -durinFe field investigation. F. 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. 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. G. 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. Flat Shoal Creek is not included in a detailed flood study at this location. The upstream and downstream floodplains are rural, wooded, and mountainous. There is a home approximately 300 feet northwest of Flat Shoal Creek which is above the 100-year flood level and, therefore, will not be adversely affected by the proposed bridge replacement. 14 VIII. CONCLUSION On the basis of the above discussion, the that no serious adverse environmental effects implementation of the project. NCDOT and the FHWA conclude will result from the MLP/plr STOKES COUNTY ????'=, N. CAROLIM 1 ' s Ir nci co Sandy Rr I sy r lawsonvtue eslbel 6 66 Mofe s Prestonv.lle SIx'Mj- + s ,_ r ?anbu!.1 S dlmd 'dot mountain 3- 3 M Gap 5,1 vk--- ? , Meadows t= S ? ? S T O K ',-i 8 ?? all Ia Walnut Pine 'all t 1, n .• cove , Hot 57 s O erm ?. S Slope n U \ ??C/ / P1 1 1674' •.2 1655 [9 3 '? lQi 1662„ ?jl 663, .4- ?' cn 1.9 1664 -1652 l 155 1746 --1 1665 1656 - 7 1675 8?-- .7 ( 1670 .5 O b 1666 65 b ? • 1674 rtiNri. Alm- a _ 1673 F 1671NQ' .3 l '?' ? ( ,?l`\' ?? .• : 1652 6 ;}l? 1665 c1669 '( 1667 1670. 1700 O g 1666 ), •• artman 1489 • 1 - 'f' 89 4 1701 "' : • 1699 1 1697 1•0 FPS ?. ?, ..1.4:x.. ?? i 9 ?•`.Q?c71 ?? ;• 1702 ' Fq 1697 2035 F J DANBURY POP, .? 1748 5 ,4 's 140 ;(?1 BRIDGE NO. 50 1698 cr Nq 2018 ? J ; 1705 `p 1704 1703 2017..6 yA• 2016 • D v5 018 8 6 r 1706 1695 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF r'n1, ; pp\ 1987 .2 TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 1 2 PLAN N 19,92 Meadow 3 11 ?,4h 1990 -- I \ j 2019 T991 9 1 -99\. `p/ti ' - -- • 4 8 Shoals - P / 1707 t .0 1 1708 1985 b co 1.7 I Dodgeto b,13 I / 1696 J 9 1697 1.0 2 1695 1744 ?fG 0 755 r? 1753 NI G AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH NC8-NC89 BRIDGE NO. 50 OVER FLAT SHOAL CREEK STOKES COUNTY B - 2632 0 mile 1 FIG. 1 r ?Q 7 1 yy 401 ?,,,??P ..t. ??°u 'I-'? ,` ?"R, "y6?"- jMtj6? !:?' iii ??. ? ?,. * _, B-2632 STOKES COUNTY LOOKING NORTH ON NC 8-NC 89 TOWARD BRIDGE NO. 50 LOOKING SOUTH ON NC 8-NC 89 TOWARD BRIDGE NO. 50 SIDE VIEW OF BRIDGE NO. 50 ZONE X ca scow r' e&gNcy ?. Town of Danbury AREA NOT INCLUDED O /? ?- pPN 77- Gym •., ?? ??? ZONE A zme :.•.• ?::;`\ ?? '_ONE X II lI _ _ II /4'- I? `\? ? PAN 11 `_<?? ' ? ••'''' - ii /i' II zj:.:?. •. ,.D rl==.??/ 11 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN BRIDGE NO. 50 Ge u q.• II ??IY.1.,,. '?O It 1106 44,r F :i.I: •. 11 Qo. 19 169 ZONE A Gig] 990 = ti0 k 2 / Q \\ um ,O ... 1 ? I Mimi ?l MEADOW ail `.. II ?\0 11 ii " it a { FIGURE 4 ' ` \ ? ?l, // 196 ill ® 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 DATE: October 17, 1994 SUBJECT: Scoping comments for proposed bridge replacements in Stokes County, TIP #B-2639, B-2632, B-2633, B-2638. This correspondence responds to a request by you for our scoping comments regarding four proposed bridge replacements in Stokes County. I provided the following scoping comments to Ms. Ruby Pharr, Environmental Consultant, in a letter dated 25 July 1994: 1) Bridge #133, SR 1668, Dan River (TIP #B-2639) - Trout do not occur at the project site. You may want to contact the Natural Heritage Program (919/733-7701) to determine if any of the following state listed species known from the Dan River drainage have been collected near any of the project sites in Stokes County: cutlips minnow Exoglassum maxillingua (state endangered), orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti (state endangered), rustyside sucker Moxostoma hamiltoni (state endangered), bigeye jumprock Moxostoma ariommum (state special concern), and riverweed darter Etheostoma podostemone (state special concern). 2) Bridge #50, NC 8-89, Flat Shoal Creek (TIP #B-2632) - Trout do not occur at the project site, and we are unaware of any other special concerns. 3) Bridge #55, NC 8-89, Mill Creek (TIP #B-2633) - Trout do not occur at the project site, and we are unaware of any other special concerns. 4) Bridge #34, SR 1504, North Double Creek (TIP #B-2638) - Trout do not occur at the project site, and we are unaware of any other special concerns. ATTACHMENT I 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 TIP # Federal Aid # 15Rl,TP - sa ?3) CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS Srowas County Brief Project Description PIJ??E lyRIt7GE rJo• SD orJ & 9,-In vVM Fur S 40AL C 94- . TtMFPKAF_ ( DErVLAP_ oN WEAK- 41DC ? aBE ATrAcMME?I On Fu guAr-I 1111 , representatives of the ? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) V/_ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Other reviewed the subject project and agreed there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. ? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse. there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse. Signed: 9-L FHwAe'?&r the , or other Federal Agency ate 2 (over) ATTACHMENT 2 TIP # V - 26322 Federal Aid # 1?,MWP - ?'! 3) County STe vZS Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE). -.3A.Mrx, ?4F.g-.V4I4Z. N'ou4E - PS Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE) and describe effect. ..f Initialed: NCDOT FHwA n-C? SHPO? ?V ?? C North Carolina Department of Cultural James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary September 15, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of r ortation FROM: David Brook Deputy State Preservation Officer SUBJECT: Bridge replacement projects B-2632, B-2638, and B- 2631, Stokes County, Federal Aid BRSTP-89(3), BRS P-1504(3), and BRZ-1668(1), ER 95-7343 Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr., Director Thank you for your letter of August 18, 1994, concerning the above project. The additional information in the form of the addendums is sufficient to evaluate the proposed bridge replacement projects. During the course of the survey no archaeological resources were located within the project area. Ms. Anna Gray, North Carolina Department of Transportation staff archaeologist, has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. DB:slw bc: N. Graf T. Padgett A. Gray i 1 ?-? SEP 2 U 19% 1 Resources'' ? DIVISICN OF 2Q Z; HIGHWAYS P ATTACHMENT 3 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOawo W Land Evuuanon dedueet PART 1 (To he carnoiered by Federal agen470 I F" Mt Agcy I,, Ivw --C w Name Of hole= a? 3 a County Ara Sate S'CO?.C.6 ? • ? C' Prooosro and Use ?C? O??a pl C sQG0L5 I Oata Aepues 1""0 SW PART II (To be compered by SCSI Aavs Itngatsd Arere4l Faun S•s• Y?e{s No Does Erie site contain prime. unique, statewide or local important farmland? Ja+ Q b (!f no. the FPPA does not apply - do nor camp/ete a' die u? r ?dn Amount Of Fsrttea? Defined 1e^4Q L 11 M.I?r C,ldt7lt) Acres: 4 % Acres: k 41 C 14 Eva! Natna of Lod .n Asse nmvt Svstem I Oate Lind E,rswtraon Returned BV SCS 11 111.1 I'll Name Or and vatw ta n SvsteT Used . 1D ?fz ?D 1 ? \ ` 6A U-'?' /V /? Alternative Site s ma Site O J?CO PART It1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site a Site 8 Site C I •?5 0.\5 I A. Total Acres To i Converted Direcdy S. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirecdv \S C. Total Acres In Site I PART IV (To be completed by SCSJ Land Evaluation Information I O .? (0 • O I O • A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland O I a T.,rsl Ar"s Statewide And Local Important Farmland ^ ^ ` I p •C? I e• n n 1 C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit to t1a t,Grtverccu 0. penevntage Of Farmland In Govt. As zdiCdon MCI Same Or Nigher Rotative Value PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion Relative V alu a Of Farmland TO Be Converted (S=18 0f Oro 100 Poias) ` Maximu PART V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency! m I poina \ Site Assessment ct9taria fnece erimrie arv errp/wined in 7 C--FR 658.5(b) 1 Area In Non urban Use I \O 0-i-aref. In Nonurban Use , loo I - la ? I 63• 3. Percent Of Site Beira Farmed 4. protection Provided By State And Local Government I a O I _ I _ I- I - I S. Distance From Urban Buittuo Area 8. Distance To Urban Sucoort Sovicas I I I 7. Size Of Present 11a Unit t:omoand To Average ( I O 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland I 5 9. Availability Of Farm Suo rt SeT'ri? o a o °? O c o 0 IQ-On-Farm Investments 11. Eftees Of Conversion On Farm SuCCOrt Services C O ltal Use 12 Comoatibili Witfi Existin A 'clln 16D X00 ?b X07 TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I PART V1t (To be completed by Federal Agency! b0 100 •bo Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) b b7 oral Site Assessment ( tom Parr V1 abov+ors 1=1 160 \00 site JAsessmenr! 2SO ?o ( era 3 O b TOTAL POINTS (Toe, of above 211nesl vv.. A Loo! Site Aaeesmettt Wed? Q • Data Of Selection Yes Q Site Salec=d: Reason For Selection. c'??'tQ,C c?o'c?ws a. t ?V CJ?V G C ???QG?rr?.2 r? . \r. , o G ??, ? o .c1 .??Q,,w ? o Lo•''C? o n ATTACHMENT 4 ST It, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TtANSPORTATION IAMCS B. HuNr. Ii?- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOvERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 March 9, 1993 SAM HUNT SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Bran SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for-RRepl-acement of Bridge No. 50, NC 8-89, Stokes County, TIP No. B-2632 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 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date. Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Michael L. Paylor, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. MLP/plr (? L+ C I, r (". i C k Attachment 1. ?Pd [? ?S}+T F 8V.0 1C U'I Q? 1!'J?„Vl "SIP <<,,,,, - ?a Vf ?f ?G> r = tl,,,,; ? - a - - - N. C?ROtINA1 fl nc, ca 8 Sandy RI 1 law sonrllle eslhN 6 89 Aft ' Moose f reslonnlle B Sp',rifs- - + /I ',lMounlam * Oanbu,ry Illaid Gap Meadows )t y 89 S T 0 K blai 89 ?j alto 10 , Walnut Plne' all STOKES COUNTY ` ?? I n •• Cove ^I 576 s ? elm?1•o tl • • I 5 • 1 674 1 493 1 662 q I'1663, J 1 655 1.65 : 4 h 9 J 1664 / . 5 1. s l / n 1652 0 167 l 1 I $ ? 1746 v 166.5 I 1 ?. I 5 1656 1 . ?7 ct) -- 1 / 7 1675 7 1 7 • O b 8/ . . , ) / L 5 1670 • • . 1666 1665 ? • : b 1 674 . _ 71j? 3 1671 3 Dodgetc .0 1652 • .6'\}\ - • 1667 1 665 0 1669 ' -\- 1670 . 1700 /• artman _ 12 1 696 4? 9 + 8 1668 89 t 7 1 701 1699 0 ? - 1697 -- . - 1.4 ]j52: ! (b • ) ?Lti e :•1P ;', 1702 U?,v :• 1697 1' 167 1 ?L DAN • \ J 9 1697 1.0 BURY ; / POP. 1748 140 ?? ?• .5 1 695 .2 a ;- ?','`? ???1 ?,1 •? BRIDGE NO. 50 • 169a h 1744 ? : • 'a r' fi . -,D ? 1705 : . cr t ? _ „ 1\ 2018 • - O 1704 1 1703 - - b L755 4) f 2017 6 ` ?? 2016 • r - - a 1753 ?' ?•? ,1018 .8 .6 _ AI?? ' J 1706 1695 2035 1987 7 1 .2 2018 5- 19.92 b -L f 9 1707 11 .4h 1990 Meadow ? 0 3 \ . - FA5 - - - 1 1708 201.9- X1991 9 8 1 2 N 1985 F- _ Shoals %' 99 . `\k _ '12036 ?'ti h 70 a 70 8 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF _ TRANSPORTATION c_ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH NC8-89 STOKES COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 50 B - 2632 i? FIG. 1 N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE DA- 1/9 T REF. NO. OR ROOM, LDG,,N I F / REF. NO. q R OM, SLOG. ; DO ACTION ? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION ? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? 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: y BRIDGE PROJECT SLOPING SHEET ?s c1?C?r; ITY DATE MARCH 4, 1993 REVISION DATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAMMING PLANNING X DESIGN OR1 61%3 TIP PROJI?CT B-2(;32 S'L'ATE PROJECT F . A . PROJECT DIVISION NINE COUN'T'Y S'T'OKES ROUTE' PURPOSI,; OF P1:OJEC;T: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCR I P'T' ION OF PROJEC" I' : N( S-S9 2 BRIDGE NO. 50; REPLACE BRIDGE OVER FIAT SHOAL. CREEK. J - ---- - METHOD OF RF,PLAC:I;vIEN 1. E'N T ST I NG LOCATION 2. EXISTING LOCATION 3. RELOCATION 4. O'CFTT;R - WILL 'I'FTI,;I:E LlE SPECIAL FUN DEVELOPERS, OR OTHE'R'S'.' - ROAI) CLOSURE - ONSITE DETOUR----Y-- DING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY YES NO X IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) (%) BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SH EET TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPI); DESIGN YEAR -- VPD -- TT S T A) TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTI ON: EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH fig} F] ET ; W I DTH 20 FEET PROPOSED STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH l- 1;1','1' ; W I DTH FEET 0 R, CULVER'T' - 1, ENGTII t I,E'I'; WIDTH FEET DETOUR S TRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH I'1?I?'I': WIDTH FEET OR PIP]; - S I ZE I N('IIFS CONSTRUCTION COS'T' ( I NCLUD 1 NG 1?;NG [ N t? I RING AND CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDIN(l RI?LOC'?A']'ION, UT'ILIT'IES, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $ TOTAL COS"I........................................ $ - TIP CONSTRUCTION COS'l ................................. $ 300,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY" ' ................................ $ 18,000 SUB TOTAI ............................................. $ 318.000 PRIOR YEARS C'OS'1...................................... $ TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 318,000 BRIDGE PROJECT SLOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. PAYLOR DATE: MARCH 4, 1993 t BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET PEAR 1 61993 `.F WETLANDS GROUP WATER QUALITY SECTION a DATE MARCH 4. 1993 REVISION DATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAMMING PLANN I NG X DESIGN TI[' PROJECT fl-20 33 STATE PROJECT, BRIDGE; OVER MIT,[, CRF;F:E;. PURPOSE OF PROJF,C'I': Rt:f'1,ACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIP'T'ION OF l'ROJE( "]NC 8-59. BRIDGE NO. 55 : REPLACE F.A. PROJECT DIVISION NINE; COUNTY S'I'OKL?S ROUTE N(_' 5-59 METHOD OF RFPl,A('1?MEN'I 1 . E'X I ST I NG 1,O( A t' I ON - ROAD CLOSURE . EX I S'1 I NG LOC'A'I I ON - ONS ['I'I; DETOUR X 3. RELOCA'I' I ON 4. OTHF,R WILL THERE BE, SPI?(_'IAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS. OR O"l I[ERS'.' YF1S NO X 11" YES. BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUN'T' : ($) (%) BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET TRAFF I C : C(.;RREN'I' VPD ; DESIGN YEAR _ VPD TTST % DT o TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTTON: EX 1 ST I NG S'T'RUC'T'URE; : LENGTH 112 FEET; WIDTH 20 FEET PROPOSF,D STRUCTURE:: BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH _ FEET O P. CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET DETOUR STRUCTURE;: BRIDGE - LENGTH _ FEET: WIDTH FEET OR PIPI', - SIZE, INCHES CONS'I'RTJ( I'ION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ FORC'I-; AC'C'OUNT ITEMS .................................. $ TOTAL C'OS'T . . .. . .................................. .$ --- - TIP CONSTRUCTION COS' ...... ......................... $ 1.000,000 'r1P RICiIIT or WAY (,OS'T................................. $ 89.000 S U I 3 T'OTAI............................................ $ 1,089.000 PRiOI: YEARS ('OM ...................................... $ 'I'II' TOTAL UOS'1......................................... $ 1 . 089 , 000 - I BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: BRIDGE #55 IS_ LOCATED NEAR T_HE_ DANBURY HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE KING_ HOUSE_,_ NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IS LOCATED FEET NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT BRIDGE. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. PAYLOR LJUS'I' sOUI'H OF) _- WHICH IS ON '['HE SEVERAL HUNDRED DATE: MARCH 4, 1993 t BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEE'T' MAR 1 6.1 r REVISION DA'L'E PIMJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAMMING PLANNING `C --- -- ---- --- - ---- - I)P;S 1 G N TIP PROJECT B-263S STATE PROJECT F.A. PROJECT DIVISION NINE COUNTY STOKES ROUTE SR 1504 PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLAC'F, 013S01_,I;"Cl, BR1DG'E' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1504, 13f.1[)G}' NO. 34: REPLACE' BRIDGE OVER NORTH DOUBLE CREEK. METHOD OF REPLACEMEN'T': I . EX I ST I NG LOCAT I ON - ROAD C1,0SUR I-: 2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITI", I ,lTOUI: X 3. RELOCATION - 4. OTHER WILL, TH13RE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PAINT f (' I PA'T' 1 ON 13Y MUN f. (' I PA1, 1 TY . DEVELOPERS, OR OTHI;ItS? Y E s NO N I F YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ( $) . ('.:> ) DATE MARCH 5? 1993 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SH EET TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YE AR VPL) TTST % D T TYPICAL ROADWAY SECT ION: EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 9 1 FEET; WIDTH FEET PROPOSED STRUCTURE;: BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET CULVERT - I,I_',NGTH FEET: WIDTH FEET DETOUR S TRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH -- FEET: - WIDTH FEET -- O R PIPE - SIZE INCHES CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ FORCH ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $ ... FOTAL COST ....................................... $ TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $ X50.000 ?3.000 ??3.000 TIP TOTAL. COST ........................................ $ 2 3,000- 1 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. PAYLOR. DATE: MARCH 4, 1993 It BRIDGE WATER WETI".?lDS(;?,(?', QI!l11 IT1' ';! PROJECT SLOPING SHEET DATE MARCH 5, 1993 REVISION DATE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PROGRAMMING _ PLANNING X DESIGN TIP PROJECT B-2639 STATE PROJECT F.A. PROJECT DIVISION NINL COUNTY STOKES ROUTE SR 1668 PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR .1.668, BRIDGE; NO. 133. REPLACE BRIDGE OVER DAN RIVER. METHOD OF REPLA(.;>;MEl1'L 1 . EXISTING LOC':1"' 1 ON - ROAD CLOSURE l:';AI S`l'INCLU(;A'1`ION - ONSITH DETOUR X 3. REI,0CAT 1 ON 4. OTHER WILL, 'T'HERE BE SPEC'IAI, FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY. DF;VELOPI;RS . OR OTIIEYES NO X 11' YF,S. 13Y WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: (S) _---- ._ -- -' (%) _ BRIDGE PROJECT SLOPING SHEET TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD TTST % DT `7, TYPICAL ROADWAY SECT ION: EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 3+ 5 FEET; WIDTH 11 F EET PROPOSED STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LF;NGTH FEET: WIDTH FEE'T' 0 R, CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FE BT DETOUR S TRUCTURE: BRIDGE; - LENGTH FEET: WIDTH F I' FT 0 1\1 PIPE - SIZE INCHES CONS'T'RUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ RIGHT OF WAY COS'T' (INCLUDING RELOCATION. UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ FORCE; ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $ T'OT'AL COST ....................................... $ TIC' CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 725.000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 27.000 SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ -52,000 PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $ I'II' TOTAL. COS'T' ... .. ........ ........................ . .. $ 752. 000 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL, L. PAYLOR DATE: MARCH 5, 1993 N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE 151dzu TO: - REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. FROM: _LnILfma f Ay?o2 REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. Peg ACTI ON ? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION ? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST ? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL ? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS W FOR YOUR INFORMATION ? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS ? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE ? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT COMMENTS: iw It JAMU B. 11UNI, JR. GOVI'RN)R May 14, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: STATE OF NORT} I CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OI FIIGI (WAYS P.O. ROX 25201, RAI EIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201 Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor Michael L. Paylor Project Planning Engineer M AY 1 7 1993 SAM 11UNI SfCRIIARY NC 8-89, Bridge No. 50 over Flat Shoal Creek, Stokes County, B-2632 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 west of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. A preliminary cost estimate for the above recommended construction is $400,000. 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 a culvert while maintaining traffic on-site with a temporary detour. Design Services will develop preliminary designs and cost estimates for both alternatives. If there are any questions or comments, contact me at (919) 733-7842. !> r r ' BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET DATE MARCH 12, 1993 REVISION DATE APRIL 20, 1993 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE, PROGRAMMING PLANNING X DESIGN TIP PROJECT B-2632 STATE PROJECT 8.1640601 F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-89(3) DI: VISION COUNTY STOKES ROUTE NC 8-89 PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 8-89, BRIDGE NO. .- 5.0-_;_ IZEPL AC-E BRIDGE OVER FLAT SHOAL CREEK. METHOD OF REPLACEMENT: T. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE 2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR 3. RELOCATION 4. OTHER ---- ---- ---- i WILL 'T'HERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MI)'N t (' I PAL I TY , DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X IF YES, I3Y WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ( $ ) I ( % r ' BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SH EET TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3200 VPD; DESIGN YEAR ---5-500-.-- VPD TTST 1 % DT 2 % TYPICAL ROADWAY SEC TION: EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 6 4 FEET; WID'T'H 20 FEET PROPOSED STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET OR CULVERT - Two barrel 10 ft. x 10 ft. DETOUR S TRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET, WIDTH FEET PIPE - SIZE 3 @ 72 INCHES CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 400,000 R[GH'T OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTII,1'I'IF,S, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 15,000 FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $ TOTAL COST .......................................$ 418,000 TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 300,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 18,000 SUB TOTAL ............................................ $ 318,000 PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $ 0 TIP 'T'O'TAL, COST ........................................ $-----318 , 000 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL. L. PAYLOR DATE: MARCH 4. 1993