19960547 Ver 1_Complete File_19960604

?\ r
d SPA7gp
0 ?..aoy
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
June 4, 1996
US Army Corps cf Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6512 Falls of the "Meuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
060547
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
401,1,9 °
ED
Subject: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 53 over Eurins, Creek on
US 311, Federal Project No. BRSTP-311(6), State Project No.
8.1640801, T.I.P. No. B-3046.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 53 wial be replaced at its existing location with a triple-barrel 3.0 x
2.1 meter (10 x 7 feet) reinforced concrete box cu'.vert. Traffic will he maintained on a
tempc:ary 366-meter (1200-foot) alignment 12 meters (40 feet) north of the existing
bridge. Construction of the proposed project will impact approximately 0.3 hectares (0.8
acres) of 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 unde .. ionwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provi f Se 'on 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed a constructi of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical clusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE ocument he North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Reso 'r epartment of
Environmental Management, for their review.
M10
J
2
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
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Since ly,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
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
W. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. I W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. John L. Williams, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Stokes County
Bridge No. 53 on US 311
Over Eurins Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-311(6)
State Project 8.1640801
TIP # B-3046
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3-19-96 0?r G%, ?
Date.j;rH. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
3f 1??Ca
A0.11 r-
6ate Nich s Graf, P. E.
fi:,kDivision Administrator, FHWA
Stokes County
Bridge No. 53 on US 311
Over Eurins Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-311(6)
State Project 8.1640801
TIP # B-3046
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
March, 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
V
John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
it/
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
?-?,•? ` V. i?' 3-1-7-1K
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SEAL i
s 6916
Ilk
Stokes County
Bridge No. 53 on US 311
Over Eurins Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-311(6)
State Project 8.1640801
TIP # B-3046
Bridge No. 53 is located in Stokes County on US 311 crossing over Eurins Creek.
It is programmed in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement
Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion." No substantial
environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing replacement of
Bridge No. 53 (eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) at its existing location
with a triple barrel reinforced concrete box culvert as recommended in Alternate No. 3 of
this document. Bridge No. 53 will be recorded as described in the Summary of Project
Commitments (Section H) of this document prior to removal.
The approaches will be improved 50 meters (165 feet) to either side of the bridge.
The proposed roadway over the culvert and on the approaches will include two 3.6-meter
(12-foot) lanes, and 3.3-meter (11-foot) shoulders to accomodate guardrail (0.6 meters
(2 feet) paved and 2.7 meters (9 feet) grassed). The grassed shoulders will taper to 2.4
meters (8 feet) where guardrail is not required. The approximate horizontal design speed
for this alternate is 80 km/h (50 mph).
Traffic will be maintained on a temporary 366-meter (1200-foot) alignment
12 meters (40 feet) north of the existing bridge. The design speed for the temporary
alignment will be approximately 65 km/h (40 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $858,000 including $825,000 for construction
and $33,000 for right of way. The estimated cost shown in the 1996-2002 TIP is
$245,000.
11 SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
implemented and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
NCDOT will record Bridge No. 53 prior to removing the bridge. Recording
means producing a report that includes photos, blueprints, and a written history of the
bridge. (see concurrence form, MOA, and letter from Advisory Council in attachments)
Upon completion of the new bridge and approaches, NCDOT will remove asphalt,
base, and fill from the temporary alignment and revegetate with indiginous tree species.
The NCWRC has indicated that while Stokes County is recognized as a trout
county, Eurins Creek does not support trout. Even so, the waters do feed into trout
streams and the following committments will be implemented:
• NCDOT will conduct foundation investigations on this project. The investigation will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples
for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
• The box culvert will be constructed so that all water flows through only one cell
during normal flow to maintain fish passage.
• The bottom of the culvert will be buried unless bedrock is encountered.
• Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water
thus lessening the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
• No further coordination is required with NCWRC.
M. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There may be a design exception required due to design speed.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 311 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It serves 3300 vehicles per day. Presently the speed limit is posted
at 55 mph. The road serves an area north of the Town of Pine Hall and includes rural
residential development intermixed with farmland and pastures.
The existing bridge was completed in 1925 and is 15.5 meters (51 feet) long.
There are approximately 3.4 meters (11 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck
and streambed. The bridge has 6.1 meters (20 feet) of bridge roadway width and includes
two lanes.
The sufficiency rating of the bridge is 31.4 out of a possible 100. Presently the
bridge has no posted weight limit.
The horizontal alignment is curved on the west approach and tangent on the east
approach. The bridge is in a vertical sag. The pavement width to the east and west of the
bridge is 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide. Shoulder widths on the approaches are approximately
1.2 meters (4 feet).
Traffic volume is presently 3300 vehicles per day (vpd) and projected at 5700 vpd
for the year 2020. Truck percentages are 3 % truck-tractor semi-trailer and 5 % dual-
tired vehicles. The speed limit on this segment of US 311 is posted at 55 mph.
2
Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that one accident was
reported within the last three years resulting in a fatality. The accident occured when a
vehicle entered the curve on the west end of the bridge and for an unknown reason
crossed the centerline and collided with a tractor-trailer. While there is only one recorded
accident in the past three years a number of near accidents due to the narrow bridge width
have been observed in field visits.
There are eight school buses crossing over the studied bridge twice a day. Dennis
Slate, Transportation Director for Stokes County, has stated that "closing the road would
be a disaster" for the school buses normally using the bridge, causing extreme
inconvenience and delay.
There are several utilities in the area. Duke Power has an aerial single phase
service along the south side of US 311. Sprint/Centel has multiple service cables along
US 311 north and south of the existing roadway. In addition to service cables there is a
fiber optics cable along the north side of US 311 and a switching station south of US 311
east of the existing bridge. North Carolina Natural Gas has a 10-centimeter (4-inch)
diameter, high pressure pipeline 10.7 meters (35 feet) south of US 311 with a rectifier
near Eurins Creek. There are also 10 associated graphite anodes which are parallel to US
311 and 6.7 meters (22 feet) south of the existing pavement.
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Alternate 1 would replace Bridge No. 53 on new location with a box culvert on a
488-meter (1600-foot) alignment approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to the north of and
parallel to the existing bridge (see Figure 2). Traffic would be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction. There would be approximately 305 meters (1000 feet) of
channel change required with this alternate. Based on initial design, it appears that the
horizontal design speed would be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2 would replace Bridge No. 53 on its existing location with an extra
length box culvert. The project would be built in phases. Traffic would be maintained on
the extended portion of the culvert as described in Section VII (Traffic Maintenance)
below. This alternate would require 300 meters (1000 feet) of channel changes to
accomodate for the extra length box culvert. The approximate horizontal design speed for
this alternate is 80 km/h (50 mph).
Alternate 3 (recommended) will replace Bridge No. 53 on its existing location with
a reinforced concrete box culvert at the existing location. Traffic will be maintained on a
temporary 366-meter (1200-foot) alignment 12 meters (40 feet) north of the existing
bridge. The approximate horizontal design speed for this alternate is 80 km/h (50 mph).
Alternate 4 would replace Bridge No. 53 on its existing location with a reinforced
concrete box culvert. Traffic would be detoured on secondary roads during construction.
The approaches would be improved 15 meters (50 feet) to either side of the bridge. The
approximate horizontal design speed for this alternate is 80 km/h (50 mph).
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
TABLE 1
(Recommended)
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 ALTERNATE 3 ALTERNATE 4
Mobilization & Miscellaneous $ 135,000 $ 237,000 $ 165,000 $ 53,000
Extra Length Box Culvert
(Phase Construction) N/A 345,000 N/A N/A
Reinforced Concrete 137,000 N/A 137,000 137,000
Box Culvert
Bridge Removal 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Roadway & Approaches 296,000 *436,000 *401,000 33,000
Engineering & Contingencies 75,000 175,000 115,000 45,000

Total Construction $ 650,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 825,000 $ 275,000
Right of Way $ 45,000 $ 32,000 $ 33,000 $ 32,000

Total Cost $ 695,000 $ 1,232,000 $ 858,000 $ 307,000
* Note that roadway approaches have high costs relative to Alternate 1 due to removal of
temporary fill for the temporary alignment. Alternate 2 is higher than Alternate 3 due to
one thousand feet of channel changes.
VII. TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE
Traffic will be maintained as recommended in Alternate 3 on a temporary 366-
meter (1200-foot) alignment 12 meters (40 feet) north of the existing bridge. The division
engineer concurs with maintenance of traffic onsite.
Alternate 1 would maintain traffic along the existing alignment during
construction.
Alternate 2 describes maintaining traffic as follows. The first phase would involve
building a portion of the culvert and approaches on the north end of the bridge. Phase 2
would shift traffic from the existing bridge to the culvert. The existing bridge would then
be removed. Phase 3 would extend the culvert into the space previously occupied by the
bridge. Finally, traffic would be directed back to the original alignment.
Alternate 4 would detour traffic along the route shown in Figure 1. This would
carry US 311 traffic through the streets of the Town of Pine Hall. The division office
points out that a significant amount of the US 311 traffic is heavy vehicles from a nearby
quarry. This route can not reasonably be modified to carry these heavy vehicles and this
volume of traffic in a safe and efficient way. In addition there would be extreme
inconvenience to school buses using the route. If a precast culvert were used instead of
cast in place, there would be approximately $25,000 to $40,000 additional cost. Any
duration of road closure is unacceptable. For these reasons traffic must be maintained on-
site during construction.
4
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge
No. 53 with a triple barrel reinforced concrete box culvert, each measuring 3.0 x 2.1
meters (10 x 7 feet), as described in Alternate 3 of this document.
The approaches would be improved 50 meters (165 feet) to either side of the
bridge. The proposed roadway over the culvert and on the approaches will include two
3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes, 0.6-meter (2-foot) paved shouders, and 3.3-meter (11-foot)
grassed shoulders to accomodate guardrail. The grassed shoulders will taper to 2.4
meters (8 feet) where guardrail is not required. The approximate horizontal design speed
for this alternate is 80 km/h (50 mph).
Traffic will be maintained on a temporary 366-meter (1200-foot) alignment 12
meters (40 feet) north of the existing bridge. A temporary pipe with a diameter of 1650
millimeters (66 inches) will be placed at each place where the temporary alignment crosses
the three creeks shown in Figure 2. The design speed for the temporary alignment will be
approximately 65 km/h (40 mph).
Currently, US 311 has a sub-standard width bridge and a design speed of 80 km/h
(50 mph). An improved alignment as in Alternate 1 would provide a higher design speed
and slightly better curvature through the project area. However, this would result in over
305 meters (1000 feet) of channel changes along with several acres of wetlands impacts.
These impacts are significant and unacceptable. Alternate 3 provides an 80 km/h (50
mph) design speed; 15 km/h (10 mph) less than Alternate 1. While this alternate will not
improve the design speed for the current alignment, safety will be improved by the
replacement of a narrow bridge with a modern bridge. The division engineer concurs with
this course of action.
As indicated earlier, Alternate 1 does provide for a slightly better design speed at a
lower cost than Alternate 3 but at the cost of 305 meters (1000 feet) of channel change
which is unacceptable. Alternate 2 is not cost competitive and like Alternate 1, involves
305 meters (1000 feet) of channel changes. Alternate 4 is the least expensive of all
alternates; however, it proposes to detour traffic along an unacceptable route as described
in Section VII (Traffic Detour). Alternate 3 is recommended since it posesses either
economic or environmental advantages over the other three alternates.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of
the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation.
No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Utility impacts are expected to be moderate.
B. AIR AND NOISE
The project area is within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Stokes County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air quality Standards. This project is in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures.
NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate that it will create any adverse effect on the air
quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, neither will
have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that all
four alternates impact such soils. The SCS soil evaluation system gave Alternate 1 a score
of 113 and Alternates 2, 3, and 4 a score of 88. None of these scores exceed the
Department of Agriculture threshold of 160 which is the level at which other alternatives
or mitigating measures should be considered.
6
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the Department of Cultural Resources, in concurrence with NCDOT and
FHWA, have determined that Bridge No. 53, a reinforced concrete through-girder bridge,
is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C for design. The
bridge will be recorded as described in Section II (Summary of Project Commitments) of
this document as well as in the memorandum or agreement (See attachements). This
concludes compliance with Section 106 and Section 4(f) requirements.
There are several additional structures in the area over 50 years old; however,
none are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological investigation and found no archaeolgical
resources within the project area. Furthermore, no archaeological resources have been
recorded in the project vicinity. Accordingly, no further archaeological surveys are
recommended. The Department of Cultural Resources concurs with this recommendation.
E. NATURAL SYSTEM
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Geology
The project area lies within a Triassic Basin in the Dan River Group (N. C.
Ecological Survey 1985). The underlying rocks are conglomerate, sandstone, and
mudstone in the Stoneville Formation.
Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Stokes County is located in the Inner Piedmont
physiographic region in northwestern North Carolina. The landscape is gently rolling, and
most slopes fall gradually toward drainageways. Ridge lines are fairly broad and nearly
level in the project vicinity, but the terrain is much steeper elsewhere in the project region.
Floodplains are narrow except for the nearby floodplains of the Dan River which are broad
and well-developed. The elevation range in the project area is from about 186-195 meters
(610-640 feet).
The soils of the project area are mostly Chewacla loam and Masada sandy clay
loam. The Masada series is a nearly level to strongly sloping soil that formed in old
alluvium on high stream terraces. Other soils of minor extent in the project vicinity are the
upland Mayodan sandy clay loam and the Dogue fine sandy loam that formed in old
alluvium.
There are no hydric soils mapped in Stokes County. However, the Chewacla
series is a map unit that has inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots in depressions.

Water Resources
The project region is in the Roanoke River Basin. Specifically in a sub-basin
(03-02-01) of the Dan River, a major tributary of the Roanoke River. Eurins Creek enters
the Dan River about 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) downstream of the project area which is
along US 311. Eurins Creek is a small tributary [about 9.6 kilometers (6.0 miles) long] of
the Dan River flowing from the northwest. The point of impact for the project is
approximately at the headwaters boundary. The project area is aligned essentially
perpendicular to Eurins Creek, except that a section of Eurins Creek parallels the
proposed alignment for a short distance. There are several ditches that enter Eurins Creek
both to the east and west of the bridge within and near the prospective R/Ws. Eurins
Creek or the tributary ditches will receive all of the runoff from the roadway and
construction activity.
Stream Characteristics
In the project vicinity, Eurins Creek is a small, entrenched, low gradient upper
Piedmont stream. Fish (1968) classifies the stream as being "too small to be of fishing
significance." At the bridge, Eurins Creek is about 3.04.6 meters (10.0-15.0 feet) across,
and banks are about 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) high. Water depth at the time of the site visit
was 2.5-15 centimeters (1.0-6.0 inches) in depth, and turbidity was moderate. The stream
was heavily silted and unattractive. There were large muddy areas, but the substrate was
mostly sand and silt with some small gravels included. Only a few small rocks were
present. Some sand flats occur east of the bridge. The area in and around the bridge is
open and maintained in a regularly disturbed condition. Old pilings were present in the
stream and on the banks.
On the west side of the bridge, three channels are evident, all joining to form a
primary channel under the bridge. One is basically a small wet ditch. The second wide
channel appears to be the old original Eurins Creek streambed, now void of active flow,
that enters perpendicular to the bridge. The third channel has the appearance of a large
dug ditch that carries most of the flow from the west side. Inspection of the topographic
map would indicate that this latter channel was originally a small lateral tributary that
entered Eurins Creek at the bridge. It appears that Eurins Creek has been diverted into
this former tributary somewhere upstream, and most of the present flow is now through
that former tributary.
The channel that now carries the flow on the west side is approximately 0.9-1.2
meters (3.04.0 feet) in width. The banks are 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) in height. Large
sections have been rip-rapped, and small amounts of natural rock are present. There was a
strong flow in this narrow channel.
On the east side of the bridge, two ditches enter Eurins Creek near the R/W on the
north side. Some deeper holes of water occur where these ditches drop into the creek.
Wetlands are not associated directly with the stream channel near the bridge.
However, wetlands are present in the project area and in the vicinity.
Best Usage Classification
Eurins Creek is classified as a Class "WS-IV" stream (NCDEHNR 1993). Class
"WS-IV" waters are "waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately
to highly developed watersheds; local programs to control nonpoint sources and
stormwater discharges of pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses"
(NCDEHNR 1994). Class "C" streams are "freshwater protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife"
(NCDEHNR 1994). Class "C" is the lowest freshwater classification; all freshwaters
receive this classification at a minimum.
Water Quality
There is only one discharger in the sub-basin with a permitted design flow greater
than or equal to 0.5 million gallons per day; Duke Power Company on Belews Lake has a
design flow of 5.0 million gallons per day (NCDEHNR 1988).
Relatively little water quality work has been done in the Dan River basin.
Chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical and biological (AMS
or ambient monitoring system) and/or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] are
available from only a few stations in or near the project region (NCDEHNR 1995). No
stations have been located on Eurins Creek. In general, there have been lower water
quality ratings in the Dan River basin, except for a couple of sites in the upper forested
watersheds (NCDEHNR 1988).
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Available data indicate that streams in the project vicinity have generally low water
quality. The designated uses are in a low classification ("WS-IV"). Construction impacts
could further degrade these waters, with sediment loads and other pollutants affecting
water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and
inputs deriving from construction, Best Management Practices should be employed
consistently.
Table 2 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts, the impacts varying
according to the alternate. There will be major stream crossings involving Eurins Creek,
the number of crossings depending on the alternate selected. There are potential impacts
on small tributary ditches and the old creek channel. Eurins Creeks parallels the alignment
for a short distance, thus potentially receiving even more discharge. Significant pollution
discharges are possible with construction of the bridge and any on-site detours.
9
Table 2 Surface water resources potential impacts and encroachments
Eurins Creek crossings
<0.1 ha(<0.1 acre)
Old channel crossing
Large ditch crossings
Alternates
Stream section parallel to R/W meters
(feet)
1 2 3 4
1 2 2 1
1 1 1 -
3 1 2 -
46 30 30 -
(150) (100) (100) -
There will be some impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Much of the project area
lies in a large floodplain, and some areas meet the definition of jurisdictional waters
(wetlands). There could be potential indirect impacts to downstream offsite wetlands. A
well-developed floodplain wetland is located about 183 meters (600 feet) downstream of
the existing bridge.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of Eurins Creek or the
small tributary ditches, certainly not much more than they already have been modified
through past construction of the US 311 bridge. Eurins Creek can be crossed effectively
with appropriately designed and placed culverts or with a bridge. Erosion control
measures will be necessary to protect the streams, and all instream activities should be
scheduled during low flow periods. Few, if any, small culverts will be necessary to carry
the ditches.
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that
protects streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in
species composition will modify affected stream reaches.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW (Outstanding
Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-1 (water supplies in natural
watersheds), or WS-H (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped watersheds). The
project does not lie within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of such resources.
10
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the Inner Piedmont
Ecoregion. No unusual or especially significant elements were located during the field
investigation, as noted below.
Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project R/W. There is no mature natural upland forest in the
project area, but successional forests in the project vicinity indicate that the upland forest
would all be classified mostly as Dry Oak--Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
The natural bottomland vegetation is Piedmont Alluvial Forest, according to Schafale and
Weakley, and some maturing examples of this community type are present in the project
area. However, most of the land surface in the project area is no longer covered in mature
natural vegetation. The general vicinity presents a rather dry aspect, and there are many
small old fields, some in early herbaceous stages of succession and others in scrublands
and pinelands with Virginia pine and shortleaf pine as the most important species.
Roadside ditches parallel the road for most of the project area. These ditches, and a few
lateral ditches that carry water under (through culverts) or away from the road, influence
the overall diversity of the area by permitting species of typically wet environments to
exist in otherwise upland landforms.
For purposes of discussion and quantification, several communities and land types
are recognized in the R/W. These are divided into two groups: Natural Communities and
Developed Land Types. These communities and land types are described below, and
acreage estimates for each classification are given in Table 3. Total area involved is
0.3-1:5 hectares (0.8-3.7 acres), depending on the alternate selected. Most of the land
potentially affected by direct impacts is Alluvial Forest, Old Field-Herb Community, and
Maintained Roadside.
Natural Communities
Alluvial Forest. This forest occurs in a broad band along Eurins Creek on both
sides of the bridge. Several ditches are included. The hydrology is not uniform; some
areas are quite wet. The interior of the forest is fairly open, except that the herbaceous
layer is rather lush.
This is an older second-growth forest, with larger trees in the 25-51 centimeters
(10-20 inches) dbh range. The dominant overstory species in the community are
sycamore, red maple, and boxelder. Woody vegetation in the understory includes
transgressives of some of the canopy trees as well as other common vegetation.
11
Alluvial Thicket. Extensive thickets occur in the project area, forming a
continuum from upland to lowland topography. The thickets occupy the areas under a
small power line, over a gas line, along ditches, and near the creek. These areas are
cleared of woody vegetation on a periodic basis.
The alluvial and wetter portions of these thickets consist of taller and more lush
vegetation. There were some small areas of standing water at the time of the site visit,
mostly associated with ditches that traverse this community. Common woody and
herbaceous species are present such as black willow and ironweed.
Upland Thicket. Most of this scrub community is dominated by species such as
blackberry, smooth sumac, and woody sprouts such as tulip tree and sycamore. One small
area is more of a scrub/tree thicket. This latter type includes trees, poison ivy, blackberry,
goldenrod, fescue, and ebony spleenwort.
Upland Maintained Herbaceous Community. This is an extensive community
type in the project area, occurring under powerlines and over gas lines. Periodic
bush-hogging or mowing keeps the community in an early successional herbaceous
condition. The most abundant taxa are panic grass, foxtail grass, purpletop grass, gamma
grass, broomsedge, and fescue. Spanish needles is prominent in low areas and along
ditches. Trumpet-creeper is common; poison ivy, grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and
blackberry are present. Various tree seedlings and sprouts are common such as sweetgum
and willow oak.
Remnant Hardwoods: A very small area consists of remnant hardwoods near a
residence where the understory has been cleared. Red maple, tulip tree, sweetgum, and
persimmon comprise the canopy. A dense vine layer consists of trumpet creeper, common
greenbrier, and poison ivy.
Old Field-Pine. This small area is dominated by young Virginia pine. Some small
hardwoods, such as tulip trees and red maples are common in one section. An open area
of maintained gas line that runs through the middle of this community is not in the R/W
but contributes to the species diversity of the area. Panic grass is the dominant grass.
Old Field-Herb. There are two variations of early successional communities
dominated by herbaceous species. The first type is dominated by old field aster (Aster
sp.), Spanish needles, goldenrods, and horseweed. Other taxa present such as plume grass
and partridge pea. The second variation of this community has more woody species
present, particularly in the lower areas that carry ditches. Examples of herbs present in
this variation are Spanish needles and golden asters.
Stream. The stream is mostly devoid of aquatic vegetation. Seedbox was noted
in the water in one spot under the bridge. Elsewhere, on a sand flat, clearweed, jumpseed,
and Japanese grass were noted.
12
Developed Land Types
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a low state of
development by regular mowing and bush-hogging. It includes a shoulder averaging
approximately 1.5 meters (5.0 feet) in width and extensive areas of road banks formed by
previous cut/fill activity. Considerable erosion has occurred on many of the road banks,
exposing bare soil and saprolite in many places. The typical shoulder section is vegetated,
but there are gravel and bare areas. Most of the project area has ditches parallel to the
roadway just off the shoulder. These ditches typically have an assortment of wetter
species, including Spanish needles, meadow-beauty, and marsh seedbox.
Lawn and Landscaped Areas. Lawns adjacent to the few residences in the
project area typically consisted of Bermuda grass, dallis grass, panic grass, and fescue.
Specimen trees in the yard landscapes included red maple and willow oak.
Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating the
expected fauna of a given area. Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area,
given the evidence available and the human population density and development, are given
below.
There is moderate diversity of habitat types in the project area. The more
important habitat types are alluvial forest, thickets, and a variety of early successional and
ecotonal areas. There are no stands of the natural upland forest in the project area, and
there is only one occurrence that is adjacent to the project area. The alluvial forest is part
of a large undeveloped forested section along Eurins Creek. Over 50% of the project area
is open land or developed, and about 50% of the land in the project vicinity is
non-forested. Many of the habitats in the project area exist as narrow strips along the
roadway.
Animal diversity is likewise expected to be moderate. The mix of habitat types and
ecotonal areas is beneficial for some taxonomic groups, but the fragmented distribution
and size of some of the habitats are detrimental for others. Some species are excluded
because they are not tolerant of human intrusion or they require large expanses of natural
communities. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be generally good for bird
diversity, including those requiring forest interiors. However, avian fauna were not found
to be notably abundant. This could be due to the relatively heavy traffic along US 311 and
to the season of the year during which the site visit occurred. Traffic noise masking bird
sounds could also reduce the number of recorded species. There are two small ponds in
the project vicinity and a swampy area downstream of the project area; these should
contribute a distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that would be expected
13
occasionally to traverse or use habitat in the project area. The stream ecosystem and
riparian corridor that Eurins Creek provides should enhance the faunal diversity of the
area.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general groups. Four
are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is considered somewhat
ubiquitous. The specific habitat groups are as follows: more open areas, consisting of
young herbaceous communities, roadsides, lawns, and similar maintained areas;
intermediate habitats, consisting of thickets, most ecotones, and early successional
communities; forest; and aquatic or very wet habitats in streams and ditches.
Generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland chorus
frog, and spring peeper. Eastern newt and the slimy salamander are expected in the
moister forest habitats. Treefrogs should be common, particularly in the alluvial forest.
Reptiles such as the five-lined skink and black racer are likely to occur in the
project area. The eastern hognosed snake might be expected in some of the more open
areas having friable sandy soils. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include
eastern fence lizard, eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles such as
eastern box turtle and brown snake are expected in the forested habitats.
Some avifauna of open areas often include American kestrel, turkey vulture, and
killdeer. Intermediate areas might include birds such as brown thrasher, mockingbird, and
goldfinch. Some forest species might include various wood warblers, wood thrush, and
tufted titmouse. Some species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk,
screech owl, and common crow. Green-backed heron and belted kingfisher probably
utilize the Eurins Creek riparian zone.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include species such as southeastern
shrew, least shrew, and long-tailed. Examples of those ranging into forests as well as
open and intermediate habitats are northern short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, striped
skunk, and gray fox. Examples of species usually shunning open areas, but in the
intermediate and forested areas, include opossum, eastern chipmunk, and pine vole.
Several kinds of bats can be expected foraging over the forested bottomland of Eurins
Creek and other broken forests present in the area. Exclusively forest species include
raccoons, gray squirrel, and evening bat. Muskrat and mink are expected in the ditches
and riparian areas. Evidence of white-tailed deer, a typically mid-successional species,
was not observed in the project area, but deer probably occur in the project vicinity.
Aquatic Life
No fish were observed during the study. Fish that might be expected in the deeper
sections of Eurins Creek are robin, warmouth, and suckers. The smaller and shallower
habitats probably support other species such as Creek chub, dace, and shiners.
14
Aquatic amphibians noted in the project area included a calling frog and
observation of two frogs, none of which could be identified. Bullfrog, green frog, and
pickerel frog probably occur. The habitat appears to be suitable for such species as
two-lined salamander, three-lined salamander, and northern dusky salamander.
Good turtle habitat does not occur, but the snapping turtle and painted turtle are
probably present in pools and still water areas of Eurins Creek. Northern water snake
and queen snake are the most likely water snakes of the area.
Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Systems
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are given in Table 3.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the
precision possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial photographs
onto which prospective R/Ws were drawn. In most cases, only the edges of natural
communities will be impacted. Most of the roadside community will be destroyed during
construction, but some of it will be eventually recreated. Depending on the alternate
selected, there could be reductions, in small part, of the total natural habitats in the project
area. The alternates may be ranked in order of increasing impact to well-established
natural communities as follows: Alternate 4, Alternate 3, Alternate 2, Alternate 1. The
taking of alluvial forest is considered to be the most serious potential impact.
It is likely that the actual impacts to biotic communities will be less than those
indicated in Table 3 because the calculations are based on R/W limits, rather than
construction limits.
The data in Table 3 suggest only the direct impacts on land and community types
due to construction. There should be little net loss of habitat for small animal species and
predators and scavengers that utilize open areas such as roadsides. There may be a
reduction in the available habitat for animals that require forest and intermediate habitats.
Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not change
significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase because
there will be no additional roadway to be traversed by animals when the project is
completed. The bottomland forest and riparian zone of Eurins Creek is probably an
important corridor for animal movement. The existing roadway already disrupts natural
corridor movement, and the new creek crossing, once constructed, will not introduce a
significantly new factor in the corridor.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W. Such
damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and injury, placing of fill dirt over
tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and skinning of trees by machinery.
With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be avoided.
Impacts due to fragmentation of habitat will be minimal because all construction
will occur on the edges of communities adjacent to the existing R/W. Impacts to larger
15
species and for those smaller species that require large tracts of unbroken forested land
(such as many neotropical migrant birds) will be inconsequential.
Table 3. Area estimates of community and land types impacted under the
construction limits. Values in hectares (acres). Totals are not additive.
Alt.l Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt.4
Alluvial Forest 0.3(0.7) < 0.1(<O.1) 0.2(0.5) <0.1(0.1)
Alluvial Thicket <0.1(0.1) 0.1(0.2) 0.1(0.3) < 0.1(0.2)
Upland Thicket ----- <0. l (<0.1) <0.1(0.1) <0.1(<0.1)
Upland Maintained <0. l(0.2) <0.1(<O.1) <0. l (<0.1) -----
Herbaceous Community
Remnant Hardwoods <0.1(<O.1) ----- ----- -----
Old Field-Pine <0.1(<O.1) ----- ----- -----
Old Field-Herb 0.4(0.9) <0.1(0.1) 0.6(1.5) < 0.1(<O.1)
Stream <0.1(<O.1) <0.1(<0.1) < 0.1(<0.1) <0.l(<0.1)
Maintained Roadside 0.2(0.6) 0.2(0.4) 0.3(0.7) 0.1(0.2)
Lawn and Landscaped Areas 0.3(0.8) ----- ----- -----
TOTAL 1.5(3.6) 0.5(1.1) 1.3(3.3) 0.3(0.8)
Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Systems
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement
are introduced. The project will require the installation of culverts to channel streams and
ditches; culverts can cause behavioral inhibition of movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance
and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively
alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have
negative effects on sessile benthic organisms. Eurins Creek and, possibly, several ditches,
will be impacted in this way.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
16
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge
of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of jurisdictional
wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgment of required
criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Jurisdictional waters present in the R/W include surface waters of the riverine
system in streams and small areas of wetlands (Tables 1, 3; Fig. 4). It is determined that
parts of the alluvial forest and alluvial thicket communities within the R/W meet the
criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. The soils of this area are not hydric throughout; some
are only moderately mottled and no gleying was observed. However, all of these two
community types are considered as wetlands, pending a delineation. Some other wetlands
lie near the R/W, particularly downstream of the bridge site, and they potentially will
receive inputs from road construction.
A few wet ditches and culvert wet areas appear to be a direct result of modern
road construction. Even though they have appropriate hydrological conditions and
hydrophytic vegetation, they are almost exclusively developed on upland, formerly
non-hydric soils. Some of these ditches are contiguous with ditches in jurisdictional
wetlands; others are not. For the latter reason, some of the ditches are excluded from
meeting the definition of jurisdictional wetlands.
In the NWI system (following Cowardin et al. 1979), Eurins Creek would be
classified R2UB2H (Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand,
Permanently Flooded) with some tendency to R2UB3H (Mud). The alluvial forest would
be classified PFO 1 A (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily
Flooded), and the alluvial thickets would be PSSIA or C (Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub,
Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded or Seasonally Flooded). It will be
impossible to avoid these in project design and construction.
Table 4. Apparent or potential jurisdictional wetland takings for each alternate.
Alluvial Forest Alluvial Thicket Total
Alt. 1. 0.2 ha (0.7 acre) < 0.1 ha (0.1 acre) < 0.3 ha (0.8 acre)
Alt. 2. < 0.1 ha (<O.1 acre) 0.1 ha (0.2 acre) < 0.2 ha (<0.3 acre)
Alt. 3. 0.2 ha ((0.5 acre) 0.1 ha (0.3 acre) 0.3 ha (0.8 acre)
Alt. 4. < 0.1 ha (0.1 acre) < 0.1 ha (0.2 acre) 0.1 ha (0.3 acre)
It is difficult to judge the extent of wetland impacts, except for potential takings under the
entire R/W, until the particular design requirements are known.
17
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. Individual or General
Permits are required for situations where the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not met.
Other permits may be necessary. Because the project area lies in a trout county,
discretionary authority by the COE requires that the NCDOT must seek concurrence from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to the COE
authorizing the project under one or more nationwide permits (pursuant to 33 CFR
330.8). As discussed earlier in this report, however, no trout waters will be impacted by
this project. Nationwide Permit 23 will authorize the project following review and
concurrence by the NCWRC.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity in
surface waters where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and a
small amount of palustrine wetlands. There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing
Eurins Creek. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. However,
compensatory mitigation is generally not required where Nationwide Permits or General
Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. If an Individual Permit should be
required, all sites will have to be accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of drainage
culverts will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices will have to be
installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and soil
stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after construction
of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil will be
disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and borrow locations should not be
placed in wetlands.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the U. S. Fish
18
and Wildlife Service reports two species with one of these classifications for Stokes
County.
Schweinitz's sunflower fthanthus schweinitzii, Endangered) is a tall perennial
composite with a restricted regional distribution centered in the south-central Piedmont of
North Carolina. No populations of this plant were found in the project area during the
investigation for this report. Basic soils that provide suitable habitat for the sunflower do
not exist in the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera, Endangered) is a small
biennial/perennial mustard. Surveys for small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine
micranthera) were conducted on 10 May 1995. The habitat of small-anthered bittercress
consists of seepages, wet rock, crevices, streambanks, sandbars, and wet woods along
small streams. The streambanks and seepages along Eurins Creek and adjacent wet
woods in the vincinity of the project area were surveyed on a plant-by-plant basis during
the site visit. There were no small-anthered bittercress observed during the survey.
Therefore, no effects to this species will result from the construction of the proposed
project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
19
X. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4M
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-311(6)
State Project 8.1640801
T. I. P. No. B-3046
Description:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing replacement of
Bridge No. 53 (eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) on a new location to
the north of the existing bridge (see Figure 2) with a triple barrel reinforced concrete box
culvert, each barrel measuring 3.0 x 2.1 meters (10 x 7 feet). Traffic will be maintained on
the existing structure during construction. Upon completion of the new culvert, Bridge
No. 53 will be recorded as described in the Summary of Project Commitments (Section II)
of this document and then removed.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or ?
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is ?
on or eligible for listing on the x
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic
Landmark? F-1 X
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation ?
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
Do nothing x F-1
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered X
deficient?
20
Yes No
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety ?
hazards? X
2. Build a new structure at a different ?
location without affecting the historic X
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/or iv) he existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without ?
affecting the historic integrity of the x
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
21
MH'q] I ATION OF HARM
Yes No
The project includes all possible planning x F]
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
Q For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
NCDOT will record Bridge No. 53 prior to removing the bridge. Recording
means producing a report including photos, gathering blueprints, and a written history of
the bridge. ( See attached concurrence form, MOA, and letter from Advisory Council)
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
22
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer See Attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation See Attachment
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies See Attachment
d. US Coast Guard N/A.
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
3-19-5W ?/. &±
Date Arr' rManager, NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch
Date f,,,<Divisi Administrator, FHWA
23
FIGURES
13-
1
0
1
A,? 16U3 v V
1689
1722 ° I? 772 1 •7 .4
1739 1727 1.683 1729 .5
1726 -:1
172E
s
17,21 BRIDGE NO. 53
A
18
1717 7
OD
1916
a
Cerar
!2.1917
--P "
r
I Fr nci co
6 g
ItSt ill
I Moore 66
¦
? . Ree? 1 ? c
11160 \
5 •c9
.4 96
N
1159 -1158
i
734-, lLy•
Sharps
X®?
1190-4,
o U f ? PS
1724 772 1b
1723 •4
s 1741 .4 1900
1722 4 8 w y•6 ,
1q ?.. 1913
1911 Pine
Hall
1912 .3 .11912
?r
.6
1911 '
1915 ??tt
l?lv
P?. 1908
1909 1
IUNJ ,?,
andy Ric
1139
1137
116 f1
?? 111
\ 1112 1119
1908 I
¦ Studied Detour Route
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
STOKES COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 53 ON US 311
OVER EURIN'S CREEK
B-3046
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
lyl
SBA
t-li

b
6

6 c?

cn °
?? 6J
F
,
COO
c?
=C-K l a17
ZONE A
•... 1\ •,.•,.K .
\i 1689 ,.•?:
II 9
gE.
. ??\\ 172 \ ? 1688
?\ 9Q i
N
1683 ?? 1129
it Mq0/S
II II ON q0
II It
1729
1726
+I ,?•;I ? ii 9
11
11 It NE
It
9t it t
ZONE X p
??// 772 ::•?:f(:''?: /%/
1 \
ZONE A -
\ nza 11 ZONE A DA;v
FLINCH UM \\ 11
RD it RIVF_R `::`.,•:;:::.;.:.
?? /
PROJECT SITE tl
II
II TALMEDGEII
?O
C II
NORFOLK
V jl ZONE A SOUTHERN '
1 I SAM :i:;
RAILWAY
X911 ?? 1904I9 FIGURE 4
ATTACHMENTS
Federal Aid # 0-OrF 341(0) TIP # ?' 3o4G County STeI«s
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
1ZZ;rLe.6,r, 13,w00-F, t4•• 5yi a? us 3u VVzx- sufZ4" G w?V-
On 11. , 1115" , representatives of the
? -North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
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.
Siszned:

Repr D'ivCDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section Date
FHWA, for the Division Ad istrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representativ , SHPO D Le
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
(over)
tJ0-,J .I(V 1°1°15-
s
Federal Aid # ? tp _ -,,it V) TIP #
8 - 3046
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
?7?lt7CrE IV•. Ci'7 `??) - ApvE?s? ?1FE?-f'
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA , SHPO OYJ
f
?? f?,
1 44 cl?
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources
J? do
V n.. ^ Z
y lu C'' S
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program p f
DATE: October 11, 1995
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of bridge over Eurins Creek along US 311
north of Pine Hall, Stokes County, TIP #B-3046.
This correspondence responds to a request by W. John Williams for our review and
comments regarding the subject project. The NCDOT propose to replace the existing bridge with
a multi-celled reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) on existing or new location.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have the following
recommendations regarding this project:
1) The RCBC should be constructed so that all water flows through only one cell during low
flow to maintain fish passage. At least one cell should be buried 1 foot into the substrate
unless bedrock is encountered. If both cells are buried, water should be diverted through
a single cell by constructing a low flow notch through that cell or by installing a short sill
on the upstream end of the other cell to block low flows.
2) Construction should be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
We anticipate commenting to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the 404 permit
application when it becomes available for review. Eurins Creek does not support trout, and our
comments to the Corps will reflect this.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.
cc: Ms. Stephanie Briggs, NCDOT

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 31, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 53 on US 311 over Euvins Creek, Stokes
County, Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-31 1 (6), TIP
B-3046, State 8.1680801, ER 96-7242
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by John Mintz of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no archaeological resources were located within
the project area. Due to the absence of archaeological sites, Mr. Mintz 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 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
J. Mintz
b: File , ?!'
Clagge`?Hall
County 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
RF
?` SfATF u
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 7, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for
replacement of Bridge 53 on US 311 over Eurins
Creek, Stokes County, B-3046, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-31 1 (6), State Project
8.1640801, ER 96-7733
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of October 16, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible fcr the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Bridge No. 53. Criterion C--The bridge is an intact example of a single-span,
reinforced concrete, through girder structure, and one of only twenty-eight
bridges of its type remaining in the state.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
,?. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

? 1.ao
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 20, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 53 on US 311 over Eurins Creek,
Stokes County, B-3046, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-311(6), State Project 8.1640801, ER 96-
8015
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
C; E-7
P
_ ri• n
L f •5'3
CP h';G,ybv,tYr C)P
Thank you for your letter of December 13, 1995, transmitting the Memorandum of
Agreement for the above project.
We have reviewed the Memorandum of Agreement for the replacement of Bridge
53 on US 311 over Eurins Creek, a project which will adversely affect the National
Register-eligible bridge, and believe it adequately addresses our concerns. I have
signed the Memorandum of Agreement.
Sincerely,
S?tatftist ' Preservation Officer
JJC:slw
Enclosure
cc: - H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?&
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #E809
Washington, DC 20004
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Bridge No. 53 on US 311 over Eurins Creek
FAP No. BRSTP-311(6)
Stokes County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf:
The enclosed Memorandum of Agreement for the referenced project has been accepted by the
Council. This acceptance completes the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Council's regulations. We recommend that you provide a copy of the
fully-executed Agreement to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Due to the partial shutdown of the Federal government, brought about first by the impasse
between the Congress and the President over the budget and then by the recent snow emergency,
the Council has been closed for nearly four weeks. We are redoubling our efforts to address the
backlog of requests for Council comments, but for the time being we are experiencing delays.
We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you.
Should you have questions regarding this matter, please contact MaryAnn Naber at (202) 606-
8505, extension 228. We appreciate your patience and cooperation.
Eastern Office of Review
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.6(a)
REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 53
ON US 311 OVER EURINS CREEK
STOKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NO. B-3046, STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1640801
FEDERAL AID NO. BRSTP-311(6)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
replacement of Bridge No. 53 over Eurins Creek in Stokes County, North Carolina, a
property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will have an
effect upon the structure, and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) participated in
the consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take in to
account the effect of the undertaking on Bridge No. 53.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
Prior to the demolition of Stokes County Bridge No. 53, NCDOT shall record the
bridge in accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan
(Appendix A). The recordation plan shall be carried out and copies of the record
sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to the start of construction.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO
and implementation of its terms evidences that FHWA has afforded the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Stokes County
Bridge No. 53 on US 311 over Eurins Creek and its effect on historic properties, and that
FHWA has taken in to account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.
F'o kFtDE5kL HIGMWAY ADMII?IISTRATION
NORTH

kn?
A HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
a-
Ll -3
DAT
DATE
/z)Ie /95
Concurring Party
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ACCEPTED for
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
112
DATE
APPENDIX A
Historic Structure Recordation Plan
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 53
Stokes County, North Carolina
Historical Background
A brief historical and physical narrative/description of Bridge No. 53
Photographic Documentation
Photographic views of Bridge No. 53 including:
Overall views (elevations and oblique views)
Overall views of the bridge in its setting
Details of construction or design
Format:
Representative color transparencies
3 5 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
4 x 5 inch black and white prints (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
Graphic Documentation
Reproduction of the construction drawings from microfilm
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic and graphic documentation and the historical
background information will be deposited with the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent
part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
F,r C
E 1
? t ,,pl t
N C h P ?'R7 Di T OF, TRANSPORTATION

A oA
L tl!P
TRANS

J ? ?? ?3
TO : ?1 "I -j?y3 REF. NO. OR ROOM,.. BLDG.
C

FROM REF: NO.. OR ROOM, DG.-
i?
l?
€. ACTION
? [[[
NOTE AND?FI ? PER OUR CONVERSATION

? f
NOTE AND'RDT RN ITO?ME
El
PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WIL'T FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? M` ( x:5
NOTE AND ?s MEI:ABO UT :HIS
?
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSI R? ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
[I PREPARE REP, i?,R ?M?Y 5 GNI.TU RE ? SIGNATURE'
? TAKE APPROP '4T E" CTIOI?F ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT.
1#€ r`
CO MMENTS:
i
?

OCT - 61994

1NETL ANs? S
? ??IATER UAL I3V SEC???Pi

.L
a. e ? ??3.?d f q F h?:? iE _
Z

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 53 on US 311 in
Stokes County over Euvins Creek, B-3046
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 November 16, 1994 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 John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/pl r 0- ? () 20 ? ZZ?21o
Attachment i' - V-S ?T, S 4
of uSt s . ? ?s?
?Co
-- GCi I?. ; rte, 3 S .
m4

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 9-30 94
TIP PROJECT B-3046 DIVISION 9
1t7% STATE PROJECT not set available COUNTY STOKES
F.A. PROJECT not set available ROUTE US 311
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 311, BRIDGE NO. 53, STOKES COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER EUVINS CREEK
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 15.5 METERS; WIDTH 6.1 METERS
51 FEET 20 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 225,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST ................................... $ 245,000
CLASSIFICATION: RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR
J A

¦
I-
NORM. OAROLINT: DEPART 'a?T.L)F
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
STOKES COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 53
ON US 311 OVER EUVINS CREEK
B - 3046
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
0 miles 1 miles 2
7 of a N '? \\ ?? 1 ` y) I(
? ? ?? `J ,\.,, ? l ?.?? ..i ; ? ; ,? `.` ? ? -\' ` / , .,?-? ??? ;.may U ,. i
x
It LcP
fir .??1?? % ,.J ' \ v , ?• ?
700
11 imomin tar
1 - it 729
lqj
-' ? I V n - % i \ "'•-v\ / `? V i . ?., ?`1 ?' / / ice, ?' ?? •
20
Na 31 i i '
0
jraile
t ? ? eark
599 r
1
700
>11
r'1 (,:
Ch,
V l lf???? i^ _i
6i
o ? : yr L
r
_ 1915 Cylw? 1/\?%???•?q,

JI
J
0
:
o ? 655?,___` <
v ?? ,?/?\?Ic Pi e ?
r\? • .?
Ga\1
li

Vil
l
,,?i ,;r of?\\
r ) % l it y.6 I

0
USGS Map
Belews Lake
7.5 Minute Quadrangle