19960548 Ver 1_Complete File_19960605

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 19, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Branch Chief
Dear Sir:
D
i,L? NdV2i?
Subject: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen Creek
on SR 2182, Federal Project No. BRSTP-2182(1), State Project
No. 8.2493501, T.I.P. No. B-2834, Action I.D. 199602306.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the
subject project on June 14, 1996. This permit expired on January 21, 1997. The
replacement of Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen Creek on SR 2182 is not scheduled to be
let to construction until June 1998. Consequently, the Department of Transportation
(DOT) needs to renew authorization for this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the Categorical Exclusion in a letter dated June 4, 1996. Bridge No. 101
will be replaced at its existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 x 3.0 meter (12 x 10 feet)
reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained on an on-site detour south of
the existing roadway. Construction of the proposed project will impact approximately
0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of jurisdictional wetland communities.
The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in
Guilford County under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water
Quality Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested.
(9
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr.916JDy,, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr., P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Supply Watershed Protection
A LT.WMA
ID FE F=1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Galamb, ESB
RECr@VED
FROM: Brent C. McDonaldl r.... t5
DATE: January 12, 1998
RE: DOT Bridge Replacement over Horsepen Creek classified as
WS-III-BW (Guilford County)
Eric,
WSWP appreciates the opportunity to review this project. As you know,
vegetative buffers are required along all perennial streams located in WS-III
watersheds [15A NCAC 2B.0215 (3)(b)(i)(G)], and no new development is to be
allowed within these buffers. However, public projects such as road crossings
may be allowed in the buffer where no practicable alternative exists [15A
NCAC 2B.0215 (3)(b)(i)(H)].
In their "project planning report," NCDOT presents, in essence, four
alternatives for the bridge replacement. Obviously from a purely water
quality protection standpoint, the "do-nothing" alternate or the road closure /
off-site detour alternate are preferable to an on-site detour. However, NCDOT
states in the document that the bridge will continue deteriorating until
unusable and that "the traffic volume is too large and the detour too long to
make a road closure economical." I do not have the necessary expertise to
consider whether these alternates should actually be considered as practicable
alternatives or indeed if any other practicable alternatives to an on-site detour
exist. Lacking this expertise, I tend to rely on NCDOT's facts and figures
which recommend replacing the bridge at the existing location with an on-
site detour during construction.
cc: Lisa Martin
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
http://h 2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/
r ,. 6A S7AIg°
960
-? 5 4 8
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 4, 1996
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTEN i ION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W. S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY

18 EFNED
51996
4??Sc
Subject: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen
Creek on SR 2182, Federal Project No. BRSTP-2182(1), State Project
No. 8.2493501, T.I.P. No. B-2834.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 101 will be replaced at its existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 x
3.0 meter (12 x 10 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained on an
on-site detour south of the existing roadway. Construction of the proposed project will
impact approximately 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of jurisdictional wetlan0?a?ego 's.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration cal
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do requesting a n 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.

0% r. 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
SH. 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
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr., P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
. ? s
r
Guilford County,
Bridge No. 101 on SR 2182
Over Horsepen Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP - 2182(1)
State Project 8.2493501
TIP B-2834
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3-? I -96 ` `? ? ?`
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
:3-1 9(o tW ? ' 40
Date icholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
t T ? ..
Guilford County,
Bridge No. 101 on SR 2182
Over Horsepen Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP - 2182(1)
State Project 8.2493501
TIP B-2834
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
V"? e

Wayne tlliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
`,???i?tntnNV??
..?? 1 BAR ?4P
?Q??,?r,?•o ,,,,
:.,.
T, G J
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
Guilford County,
Bridge No. 101 on SR 2182
Over Horsepen Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP - 2182(1)
State Project 8.2493501
TIP B-2834
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 101 in Guilford County. This bridge carries SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road) over Horsepen
Creek (see Figure 1). NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) classify this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no notable
environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 101 at the existing location as shown in Figure 2. Traffic
will be maintained on-site. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a four-barrel 3.7 meter
by 3.0 meter (12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert and maintaining the roadway at
approximately the same grade as the existing roadway. The improved roadway approaches will
have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) wide travelway plus 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders. Preliminary
design calculations show that the completed project will provide a design speed of approximately
80 km/h (50 mph). Alternate l is estimated to impact less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of
wetlands.
The estimated cost is $ 709,000 including $ 59,000 for right of way acquisition and
$ 650,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1996-2002 TIP is $ 387,000.
11. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception may be needed for this project due to the existing vertical alignment of
the eastern approach roadway.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be included and properly
maintained during project construction. The specific BMPs mentioned throughout this document
will be given serious consideration.
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." A Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 2182 as a minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The surrounding area is a mix of forest, single residences, and residential subdivisions.
SR 2182 serves as a collector route allowing local residents to reach nearby commercial
development and major roadways on the way to more distant destinations.
Near Bridge No. 101, SR 2182 is a 2 lane paved road, 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with
grassed shoulders. Horizontal alignment in the area is good, however the vertical alignment of the
east approach is only fair. A design exception may be required due to the vertical design speed of
the east approach.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 101 in 1957. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a
timber deck and timber joists with a substructure of timber posts and caps (see Figure 3). The
bridge is 26.2 meters (86 feet) long with a 7.56 meter (24.8 foot) clear roadway width. It carries 2
lanes of traffic and the posted load limits are 10 tons (9 metric tons) for single vehicles and 17
tons (15.5 metric tons) for Truck-tractor Semi-trailers (TTST). The deck of Bridge No. 101 is 4.0
meters (13 feet) above the streambed, and the creek is approximately 0.3 meters (1.0 foot) deep in
the project area.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 101 is
25.5 of a possible 100.0. The bridge has an estimated remaining life of 8 years.
The current traffic volume is 5,900 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to 9,700 VPD by
the design year (2020). Truck percentages are 1% TTST and 3% dual-tired vehicles. The speed
limit in the project area is 70 km/h (45 mph).
Traffic Engineering Accident Records indicate 6 accidents occurred in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 101 between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1994. Four of these accidents
occurred on the same day and can be attributed to inclement weather and ice on the bridge and
roadway.
The Transportation Director for Guilford County Schools indicated there are 12 school
bus crossings daily (3 buses crossing four times per day.).
2
V. ALTERNATES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 101 were studied. Each of the alternates studied
involves replacing the existing structure with a four-barrel 3.7 meter by 3.0 meter (12 foot by 10
foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. The approach roadway will have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) wide
travelway plus 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders.
Alternate One ( Recommended) - replace the bridge on existing location with a four-barrel 3.7
meter by 3.0 meter (12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic is to be
maintained along an on-site detour south of the existing roadway, as shown in Figure 2.
Alternate Two - replace the bridge on existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 meter by 3.0 meter
(12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic is to be maintained along an
on-site detour north of the existing roadway. This detour would be similar to the detour
shown in Figure 2 for Alternate One, except to the north of SR 1282 instead of south.
An alternate involving road closure and an off-site detour during construction would result
in a road user cost of approximately $1,950,000. This cost is associated with 5900 vehicles per
day traveling up to 9.1 kilometers (5.64 miles) out of their way for up to 180 days. Comparing the
road user cost to the $226,700 cost of an on-site detour results in a benefit cost ratio of
approximately 8.6. This ratio clearly indicates that the traffic volume is too large and the detour
too long to make a road closure alternate economical. Therefore, a closure alternate has not been
included in the alternates studied in detail for this project.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue
deteriorating until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance.
VI. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate One Alternate Two
Recommended
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure & Approaches
Structure Removal
Mobilization & Miscellaneous
Engineering & Contingencies
Total Construction
Right of Way & Utilities
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 135,200 $ 135,200
48,800 48,800
226,700 226,700
13,600 13,600
125,700 125,700
100,000 100,000
$ 650,000 $ 650,000
$ 59,000 $ 320,000'
$ 709,000 $ 970,000
' Includes one residential relocation.
3
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 101 at the existing location, as shown in Alternate 1,
Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour during construction. The on-
site detour will require four pipes 1800 mm (72 inches) in diameter to facilitate the crossing of
Horsepen Creek.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 101 on existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 meter by
3.0 meter (12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the same roadway
grade as the existing structure.
Initial. design indicates that the completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 80 km/h (50 mph). The project will require improvements to approximately 30
meters (98 feet) of the roadway on both approaches. The new approaches will have a 7.2 meter
(24 foot) wide travelway plus 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders. Including the paved shoulders,
total shoulder width will be 3.3 meters (11 feet) unless guardrail is not required; in which case a
total shoulder width of 2.4 meters (8 feet) will be provided.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 because it will avoid 5900 vehicles per day traveling an
estimated 9.1 kilometers (5.64 miles) out of their way, as would be required by a road closure
alternate. Alternate 1 is estimated to impact less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of wetlands, while
Alternate 2 is estimated to impact 0.07 hectares (0.18 acres) of wetlands. Alternate 2 would also
have greater utility impacts and would require the relocation of one residence. For these reasons
Alternate 1 has been chosen as the most economical and least environmentally damaging alternate
for replacing Bridge No. 101.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 1 recommendation. He also supports the
decision not to include a road closure alternate in the list of alternates studied in detail for this
report.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more than 30
centimeters ( 12 inches). Figure 4 shows the 100-year flood boundaries. Construction of Alternate
1 will not place significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be medium or normal for a project of this type and
magnitude.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
4
The 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 the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will
be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area and no unknown sites are
likely to be found.
B. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are no known
architectural or archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown sites are likely to be
found. Therefore, SHPO has recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys be
conducted in connection with this project.
C. Natural Systems
Physical Resources
Guilford County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province. The topography of Guilford
County is characterized as generally rolling with moderately steep slopes along drainageways.
The mean sea level (msl) elevation of the project study area is 218 meters (720 feet).
Soils
Two specific soil types, Congaree loam and Cecil sandy clay loam, are found within the
project area. Congaree loam (Co) soils are found on long narrow flood plains, are frequently
flooded for brief time periods and have a non- hydric classification. These soils are nearly level
with slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent. Congaree loam soils are also well drained and
moderately permeable. The main limitations in the use and management of this soil type are
flooding, wetness and permeability.
Cecil sandy clay loam (CeC2) soils are found on broad to very broad, smooth ridges, as
well as on long, narrow side slopes. These soils have a percent slope ranging from 6 to 10 and
are classified as non-hydric. Cecil sandy clay loam soils have moderate permeability and are well
drained. Limitations in the use and management of this soil type include erosion, slope, runoff and
permeability.
Water Resources
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project study area includes two water resources which lie within the Haw River Sub-
basin Drainage of the Cape Fear Drainage. Horsepen Creek flows in a northeasterly direction and
originates approximately 19.2 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of the site. This creek empties into
Lake Brandt, which is located about 16 kilometers (10 miles) northeast of the project. The
average width of Horsepen Creek is 6 meters (20 feet). The creek has an average depth of 0.15
meters (0.5 feet ) although some spots are 0.45 meters (1.5 feet) deep. Areas of Horsepen Creek
show scouring along the stream banks. Horsepen Creek has a sand substrate with some silt, a
moderate water flow rate and good water clarity. (Substrate classification is based on Cowardin,
et al., 1979)
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM). An unnamed tributary is attributed the classification of the stream to which
it is a tributary. Horsepen Creek (Index No. 16-11-5-0.5) has a best usage classification of WS-
III NSW. WS-III streams are protected as water supplies, are located generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses. The Class C designation
refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) is a supplemental classification and
refers to waters requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW) nor Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of project study area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DEM and
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. A BMAN monitoring site is located about 3.2 kilometers (2
miles) downstream of the study area at the US 220 crossing of Horsepen Creek. This site
received a BMAN rating of GOOD during an April 1986 sampling.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. Three permitted dischargers are located on Horsepen Creek at its
headwaters. Each discharger releases less than 100 gallons per day of industrial/ commercial
domestic wastewater, oil separator wastewater and oil terminal wastewater.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacement of Bridge No. 101 with a concrete box culvert may impact water resources
in four ways: construction of temporary on-site detour, removal of the old bridge, construction of
the concrete box culvert and removal of on-site detour. Impacts associated with this bridge
replacement project include increased sedimentation/erosion, alterations of water flow and
scouring.
6
Construction of the temporary on-site detour can be harmful to a water resource without
the implementation of proper sedimentation and erosion control measures. Burying, grubbing
and/or clearing of the flood plain forest and streamside vegetation can increase erosion and
sedimentation. The amount of suspended sediments in a stream usually reflects the amount of
burying, grubbing and clearing performed on streamside embankments. Sedimentation affects are
recognizable at the construction site as well as downstream. Fluctuations in water temperature
will also result from the loss of streamside vegetation at the site.
The removal of the existing bridge may require in-stream disturbance to remove piles
thereby disturbing the substrate and suspending sediment in the water column (turbidity). In-
stream construction of the temporary detour is to be avoided to the extent possible. This action
would reduce impacts to water resources with its installation as well as with its removal.
Box culvert construction will result in increased sedimentation, water flow alterations and
a decrease in natural stream characteristics. Culvert installation usually increases sedimentation
and turbidity because the stream substrate is disturbed in addition to the previously mentioned
construction clearing methods. Water flow is interrupted and altered by culvert installation.
Culvert construction results in the loss/deterioration of natural stream characteristics. Water
movement through a culvert becomes focused thereby increasing the velocity of the water. The
increase of water movement from water channelization will likely lead to scouring regions at the
culvert outflow. Scour regions already present in Horsepen Creek may become worse as a result
of culvert installation. Most of these effects occur at the site and downstream although
interruption/ alteration of water flow also has negative effects upstream of the site.
A concern throughout project construction is the likely increase of toxic compounds (gas,
oil, etc.) being washed into Horsepen Creek. The use of construction machinery near Horsepen
Creek may result in temporary increases of these compounds in this water resource. These
compounds are carried into water resources via precipitation. Increased amounts of these toxic
compounds can adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its
biological and chemical functions.
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) and sedimentation control guidelines will be
administered throughout project construction. Streamside embankment will be revegetated as
soon as possible after construction. These measures will help control erosion, as well as reduce
the wash of sediment and toxic compounds into water resources. Utilization of the above
measures will limit the water resources impacts to reasonable levels.
Biotic Resources
Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities have been identified in the project study area:
disturbed community, hardwood flood plain forest and emergent freshwater marsh. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Disturbed Community - The disturbed community involves those habitats
frequently disrupted by human activities. This community type can be divided into
subtypes: roadside shoulder and sewer line ROW corridor.
The roadside habitats consist of areas regularly and irregularly maintained.
Roadside shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities by
filtering waters carrying toxic compounds off the roadway. Regularly maintained areas
are predominated by grasses such as fescue and foxtail. Ornamental holly and wax myrtle
are found in the neighborhood entrance of Quaker Run Drive. Irregularly maintained areas
7
are found on slope embankments and are covered with kudzu. Other vegetation found
here includes fescue, pokeberry, wing stem, grape, greenbrier, wild rose, trumpet vine,
bushclover, elderberry, dog fennel, broom-straw and scrub pine saplings.
The sewer line ROW corridor runs parallel to Horsepen Creek and north along the
eastern bank. The corridor south of SR 2182 has been recently disturbed by grading and
no vegetation has regrown here. The corridor north of SR 2182 contains areas with pools
of water as well as hydrophytic vegetation such as rush, caric sedge and knotweed. Plants
growing along other areas are goldenrod, blackberry, bushy aster and fescue.
Birds frequenting disturbed habitats include eastern bluebird, blue jay, mourning
dove and rufous-sided towhee.
The American toad and black racer are commonly found in disturbed habitats.
American toads are insectivorous and inhabit a variety of habitats.
Mammals likely to occur here include red fox, hispid cotton rat, eastern cottontail
and Virginia opossum. Cottontails are found primarily in disturbed habitats and forage
mainly upon herbaceous plants.
Piedmont Levee Forest - Piedmont levee forests are influenced by the water
resource on which the forest is located. These forests are seasonally to intermittently
flooded, and the forest vegetation is frequently disturbed directly by flooding.
This forest occurs on both sides of Horsepen Creek although width size varies
along the stream. The largest tract of forest lies in the southwest quadrant and will be
impacted by Alternate 1. Dominant canopy trees include sycamore and box elder with red
maple and sweet-gum also found sporadically in the canopy. Understory constituents
include mimosa, silky dogwood, pawpaw, Chinese privet as well as saplings of green ash.
Plants in the herb/vine layer are Japanese honeysuckle, wing stem, poison ivy, kudzu,
trumpet vine, pokeberry, panic grass, blackberry, false nettle and rose. Goldenrod and
bushy aster are found along the edge of these forests.
Mammals that may be found here are golden mouse, gray squirrel and white-tailed
deer. Golden mice are typically found in areas affording protective cover such as Japanese
honeysuckle.
Avian species likely to occur here include acadian flycatcher, red-eyed vireo,
yellow-throated warbler and tufted titmouse.
Reptiles and amphibians commonly encountered in this habitat include slimy
salamander, box turtle, worm snake, and black rat snake.
Emergent Freshwater Marsh - Emergent freshwater marsh community types lie
in the northeastern and southeastern quadrants of the subject project. These wetland areas
were likely formed after sewer line construction. Installation of the sewer line raised the
ground elevation such that water movement to Horsepen Creek from the surrounding
landscape became impeded and pooling of water occurred. Remnant trees of red maple
and sweet-gum are found here. Black willow, green ash saplings and tag alder grow along
the edge of the marsh. Other hydrophytic vegetation includes: rush, jewel-weed,
arrowhead, peltandra, tearthumb and duckweed.
Mammals potentially found here include least weasel, muskrat and meadow
jumping mouse.
8
Black willow and tag alder provide good foliage and food for avian species such as
Carolina chickadee, eastern phoebe, ruby-crowned kinglet and northern waterthrush.
Amphibians and reptiles that may utilize the moist habitat of this community
include northern cricket frog, bullfrog, Fowler's toad and eastern ribbon snake. Marsh
areas are the favorite habitat of the eastern ribbon snake and the northern cricket frog.
Aquatic Communities
Piedmont Perennial Stream - One aquatic community type, Piedmont Perennial
Stream, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics of a water body i
and conditions of the water resource reflect faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
aquatic communities.
Horsepen Creek has relatively stable forest streambanks. Some fallen trees lie in
the stream and create pockets of deep water, thus providing habitat for fish. The detritus
content of Horsepen Creek is low although trash is prevalent in areas. Perhaps the lack of
detritus may be due to high flow rates from precipitation in the previous weeks. Bank
heights along Horsepen Creek are as high as 1.8 meters (6 feet), and scouring is well
noted in these areas as well.
Fish species likely to occur in Horsepen Creek include redfin pickerel, rosyside
dace, bluehead chub, spottail shiner, bluegill and redbreasted sunfish.
Many of the previous mentioned amphibians and reptiles may frequent Horsepen
Creek.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources
in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities - Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources
reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities.
Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed ROW
width of 12.1 meters (40 feet) for the proposed on-site detour. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
9
Table l Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY TYPE ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
Disturbed Community 0.08 (0.2) 0.02 (0.06)
Piedmont Levee Forest 0.08 (0.2) 0.06 (0. l6)
Emergent Freshwater Marsh <0.01 (0.02) 0.06 (0.16)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.17 (0.42) 0.14 (0.38)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the study area serve as foraging, nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Impacts to biotic communities will have minimal
impacts on faunal species because most impacts occur to the disturbed community. These
impacts to faunal species are considered minimal because disturbed habitat species are
very adaptable. These animals will be temporarily displaced by construction activities, will
repopulate areas suitable for the species and, in time, will return to the study area post-
construction.
Construction through the flood plain forest will likely cause animals to migrate
further away from the study area; however, less mobile species may be lost as a result of
the proposed project regardless of alternate chosen. This displacement of animals,
whether temporary or permanent, may result in an increase, or possibly a decrease, of
competition for the remaining resources.
Terrain cleared and modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
shoulders and early successional habitat. These post-construction habitats will attract
wildlife suitable to these areas.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities - Aquatic communities are sensitive to even
small changes in their environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation,
sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work will effect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental
impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects to
the biotic components.
Alterations in the aquatic communities will result from the replacement of the old
bridge with a box culvert and the provision of the temporary on-site detour. A site
specific impact is modification of bank/shoreline by grubbing and clearing as well as burial
and removal of bank vegetation. Likely consequences from these construction activities
include increased sedimentation, erosion and introduction of toxic compounds from
construction machinery. Ground vegetation holds and stabilizes the soil thus reducing
these processes from occurring as severely.
Water flow of Horsepen Creek will be temporarily diverted by culvert installation.
This diversion of water movement alters aquatic communities at the site and downstream.
Sedimentation, erosion and scouring are also likely consequences, and these results from
culvert installation effect the site and downstream aquatic organisms.
10
Post-construction impacts usually associated with culverts include scouring along
the substrate (stream channelization) and streambanks. These effects are attributed to
increased water velocities from direct water flow through culverts. Scouring may also be
noted at the culvert outflow. These effects may benefit certain aquatic species by creating
pockets for fish to spawn and shelter. However, these effects also reduce the natural
characteristics of the stream as well as increasing erosion, sedimentation and siltation
which are linked to turbidity and creation of sandbars.
The previously mentioned effects cause consequences at the site and downstream.
Excessive amounts of sediment can clog the feeding apparatuses of sessile filter-feeders
and deposit feeders, as well as the gills of fish. Benthic organisms can also be covered by
excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a
stream. The redeposition of sediment creates sandbars not only at the site but
downstream. These sandbars can alter current flow and potQntially modify the
bank/shoreline and vegetation.
Selection of Alternate
From a natural resources perspective, Alternate 1 is preferable. This alternate impacts the
greatest amount of disturbed habitat and the least amount of emergent freshwater marsh.
Regardless of the alternate selected, administration of NCDOT BMPs and sedimentation control
guidelines will help control erosion, as well as reduce the wash of sediment and toxic compounds
into the aquatic communities.
Jurisdictional Topics
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action
that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Jurisdictional Wetlands
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. These criteria are outlined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual." Three wetland sites were determined to exist in the project study area.
Site I and 2 are a part of the emergent freshwater marsh community. Site I is the
southeast quadrant wetland and Site 2 is the northeast quadrant wetland.
Site 3 is the sewer line in northeast quadrant. This site was determined to be "wet"
because pools of water, hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils were found here. The sewer line
found in the southeast quadrant was not determined to be a jurisdictional wetland because the
sewer line had recently been graded.
Two mechanisms are currently being used to evaluate wetlands; a classification system
developed by Cowardin (1979) and a numerical rating system developed by the DEM.
The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in describing concepts and terms used in
classifying ecological taxa found within a wetland system. The Cowardin classification of Site 1
11
and 2 is PEMl/F05H. This classification is interpreted as palustrine (P), emergent persistent
(EMI) vegetation and forested (FO) habitat with dead canopy vegetation (5). The water regime
is permanently flooded (H). The sewer line has a classification of PEM 1 C. The water regime "C"
denotes seasonally flooded.
The DEM rating system gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system (0-100
with 100 being the highest value). This wetland rating system (Fourth Version) emphasizes water
storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal and aquatic life values. Other wetland
attributes considered in this rating system include wildlife habitat and recreational/educational
values. The rating of Sites 1 and 2 is 54. The rating of Site 3 is 46.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to study area wetlands will result from construction of either alternate's temporary
on-site detour. These impacts are calculated using the entire proposed ROW width of 12.1 meters
(40 feet). Table 2 details the anticipate impact per site and alternate and includes Cowardin
Classification and the DEM rating.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Wetland Sites
COWARDIN DEM AMOUNT IMPACTED BY
SITE CLASS. RATING ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
Site l PEMl/F05H 54
Site 2 PEMl/F05H 54
Site 3 PEM 1 C 46
TOTAL IMPACTS
<0.01 (0.02) -0-(-0-)
-0-(-0-) 0.06 (0.16)
-0-(-0-) <0.01 (0.02)
<0.01 (0.02) 0.07 (0.18)
Note: Impacts values cited are in hectares (acres).
From a natural resources perspective based on likely impacts to wetlands, Alternate 1 is
preferable. This alternate impacts the least amount of wetlands.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required
from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or
part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
12
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
In addition, this project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from
the DEM prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Final decisions concerning applicable permits
rests with the COE.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance - Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of project
construction is inevitable in order to achieve the purpose and need of this project.
Minimization - Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to
minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the entire
life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/ elimination of direct
discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed
areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/debris control.
The types of methods listed above are utilized to minimize impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands and surface waters. Information was provided to the project manager prior to this
technical report concerning potential wetland impacts. The selection of Alternate 1 (temporary
on-site detour constructed south of existing bridge) will minimize likely impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands (as shown in Table 2). The footprint of the temporary on-site detour is to be limited to
the extent possible along the alternate chosen to minimize wetland impacts.
Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
13
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Authorizations under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and the COE. Final
decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rest with the COE.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. As of 28 March 1995, the FWS lists
one federally-protected species, the bald eagle, for Guilford County. The FWS has classified the
bald eagle as Endangered. This classification denotes a species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A brief description of the bald eagle's
characteristics and habitat follows.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by
their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight
path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for the bald eagle does not exist in the project study area. Horsepen Creek and its
tributary lack size to support foraging habitat for the bald eagle. The project is located
approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) from a known bald eagle nest on Lake Higgins. A review
of the NHP database for rare species and unique habitats was performed prior to site visit. This
search revealed no documented occurrence of the bald eagle within a 3.2 kilometer (2 mile) circle
of the study area. No impact to the bald eagle will result from project construction.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point nonattainment area for ozone (Oa) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as a "moderate"
nonattainment area for O;. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were
redesignated as "maintenance" for O; on November 7, 1993. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires
that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures
for Guilford County. The Greensboro Urban Area 1995 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the
TIP is July 18, 1995. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is September 20, 1995. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rules found in 40 CFR Part 51.
There have been no significant changes in the project design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analysis.
14
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. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of economic resources. The SCS was asked
to determine whether the alternatives under consideration will impact prime or important farmland
soils. According to the SCS, the proposed bridge replacement will not impact prime farmland
soils. Therefore, no further consideration of impacts to farmland is required.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will cause
no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a Categorical
Exclusion.
WTG/plr
15

00

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GUILFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 101 ON SR 2182
OVER HORSEPEN CREEK
B - 2834
FIG. 1
I
Looking West
E ross Bridge
Looking North
at South Elevation
of Bridge No. 101
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
(o oi' Division of Highwavs
9 1C,'
Plannine, & EnN -onmental Branch
Guilford County
Replace Bridge No. 101 on SR 2182
Over Horsepen Creel:
B-2831
i Figure Three
ZONE
ZONE B
ZONE B
?RpW E?? p?A
y
0
f
m
r
r
ZONE C
2182
RM1
PROJECT SITE
ZONE B
EB
I zis2
FIGURE 4
STAYZ
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
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 101 on SR 2102 over Horsepen Creek,
Guilford County, B-2834, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-2182(1), State Project 8.2493501, ER
95-9162
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
July 12, 1995. However, Debbie Bevin met on August 29, 1995, with Bill
Godwin, project planning engineer, to view the aerial and discuss the. project.
Based upon this discussion, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this
project.
4
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT,addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
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: F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
y}ya „a SUTE
H ?nM
STATE OF NOKTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
November 19, 1997
S Army Corps of Engineers
WUilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Branch Chief
i
?I
3
1
Dear Sir:
Subject: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen Creek
on SR 2182, Federal Project No. BRSTP-2182(1), State Project
No. 8.2493501, T.I.P. No. B-2834, Action I.D. 199602306.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the
subject project on June 14, 1996. This permit expired on January 21, 1997. The
replacement of Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen Creek on SR 2182 is not scheduled to be
let ter construction until June 1998. Consequently, the Department of Transportation
OT) needs to renew authorization for this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the Categorical Exclusion in a letter dated June 4, 1996. Bridge No. 101
will be replaced at its existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 x 3.0 meter (12 x 10 feet)
reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained on an on-site detour south of
the existing roadway. Construction of the proposed project will impact approximately
0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of jurisdictional wetland communities.
The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in
Guilford County under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water
Quality Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested.
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

?-??1 . SrATE
960548
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
June 4, 1996
-US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRFt'r JR.
SECRETARY
401 IsSljEz)
RECEIVED
51996
EWa TI 6SCVEKES
N
Subject: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen
Creek on SR 2182, Federal Project No. BRSTP-2182(1), State Project
No. 8.2493501, T.I.P. No. B-2834.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 101 will be replaced at its existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 x
3.0 meter (12 x 10 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained on an
on-site detour south of the existing roadway. Construction of the proposed project will
impact approximately 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of jurisdictional wetland co ' 'es.
Vie project-is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration "Cgo cal
_ =1 ion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(6} Therefore, we do n to
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.

Guilford County,
Bridge No. 101 on SR 2182
Over Horsepen Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP - 2182(l)
State Project 8.2493501
TIP B-2834
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 101 in Guilford County. This bridge carries SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road) over Horsepen
Creek (seeigure 1). NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (. ) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Admi tion
(FHWA) classify this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no- ble
environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 101 at the existing location as shown in Figure 2. Traffic
will be maintained on-site. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a four-barrel 3.7 meter
by 3.0 meter (12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert and maintaining the roadway at
approximately the same grade as the existing roadway. The improved roadway approaches will
have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) wide travelway plus 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders. Preliminary
design calculations show that the completed project will provide a design speed of approximately
80 km/h (50 mph). Alternate 1 is estimated to impact less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of
wetlands.
The estimated cost is $ 709,000 including $ 59,000 for right of way acquisition and
$ 650,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1996-2002 TIP is $ 387,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS _
A design exception may be needed for this project due to the existing vertical alight of
the eastern approach roadway.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be included and properly
maintained during project construction. The specific BMPs mentioned throughout this document
will be given serious consideration.

V. ALTERNATES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 101 were studied. Each of the alternates studied
involves replacing the existing structure with a four-barrel 3.7 meter by 3.0 meter (12 foot by 10
foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. The approach roadway will have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) wide
travelway plus 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders.
Alternate One ( Recommended) - replace the bridge on existing location with a four-barrel 3.7
meter by 3.0 meter (12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic is to be
maintained along an on-site detour south of the existing roadway, as shown in Figure 2.
Alternate Two - replace the bridge on existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 meter by 3.0 meter
(12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic is to be maintained along an
o ate detour north of the existing roadway. This detour would be similar to th ur
sh?ia? in-Figure 2 for Alternate One, except to the north of SR 1282 instead of s
An alternate involving road closure and an off-site detour during construction would result
in a road user cost of approximately $1,950,000. This cost is associated with 5900 vehicles per
day traveling up to 9.1 kilometers (5.64 miles) out of their way for up to 180 days. Comparing the
road user cost to the $226,700 cost of an on-site detour results in a benefit cost ratio of
approximately 8.6. This ratio clearly indicates that the traffic volume is too large and the detour
too long to make a road closure alternate economical. Therefore, a closure alternate has not been
included in the alternates studied in detail for this project.
The " do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue
deteriorating until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance.
VI. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
i
Alternate One
- Alterna , wo
Recommended -
$ 135,200 $ 135,200
Structure

Roadway Approaches

,800
48

48,800
Detour Structure & Approaches 226,700 226,700

Structure Removal
13,600 13,600
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 125,700 125,700
En ineerin & Contin 7encies 100,000
100,000
$ 650,000 $ 650,000
Total Construction
"' 000
$ 59 T320,000'
& Utilities
Right of Wa ,
000
$ 709 $ 970,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST ,
' Includes one residential relocation.
3
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 101 at the existing location, as shown in Alternate 1,
Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour during construction. The on-
site detour will require four pipes 1800 mm (72 inches) in diameter to facilitate the crossing of
Horsepen Creek.

NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 101 on existing location with a four-barrel 3.7 meter by
3.0 meter (12 foot by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the same roadway
grade as the existing structure.
Initial. design indicates that the completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 80 km/h (50 mph). The project will require improvements to approximately 30
meters (9*et) of the roadway on both afp`roaches. The new approaches will have a 7. er
(24 foot) ' travelway plus 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders. Including the-paved:shrs,
total shoulder width will be 3.3 meters (11 feet) unless guardrail is not required, in which caw a
total shoulder width of 2.4 meters (8 feet) will be provided.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 because it will avoid 5900 vehicles per day traveling an
estimated 9.1 kilometers (5.64 miles) out of their way, as would be required by a road closure
alternate. Alternate 1 is estimated to impact less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) of wetlands, while
Alternate 2 is estimated to impact 0.07 hectares (0.18 acres) of wetlands. Alternate 2 would also
have greater utility impacts and would require the relocation of one residence. For these reasons
Alternate 1 has been chosen as the most economical and least environmentally damaging alternate
for replacing Bridge No. 101.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 1 recommendation. He also supports the
decision not to include a road closure alternate in the list of alternates studied in detail for this
report.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more than 30
centimeters 12 inches). Figure 4 shows the 100-year flood boundaries. Construct-ion of ate
1 will not pfiace significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be medium or normal for a project of this type-mod
magnitude.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
4
Water Resources
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project study area includes two water resources which lie within the Haw River Sub-
basin Drainage of the Cape Fear Drainage. Horsepen Creek flows in a northeasterly direction and
originates approximately 19.2 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of the site. This creek empties into
Lake Brandt, which is located about 16 kilometers (10 miles) northeast of the project. The
average width of Horsepen Creek is 6 meters (20 feet). The creek has an average depth of 0.15
meters (0.5 feet ) although some spots are 0.45 meters (1.5 feet) deep. Areas of Horsepen Creek
show scouring along the stream banks. Horsepen Creek has a sand substrate with some silt, a
moderate water flow rate and good water clarity. (Substrate classification is based on Cowardin,
et al., 1979)
Best Usage Classification
Aam& have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of EnviroAal
Managemeh (DEM). An unnamed tributary is attributed the classification of the stream hich
it is a tributary. Horsepen Creek (Index No. 16-11-5-0.5) has a best usage classification of WS-
III NSW. WS-III streams are protected as water supplies, are located generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses. The Class C designation
refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) is a supplemental classification and
refers to waters requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW) nor Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of project study area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DEM and
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. A BMAN monitoring site is located about 3.2 kilometers (2
miles) dWstream of the study area at the US 220 crossing of Horsepen Creek: This site -
received a BMAN rating of GOOD during an April 1986 sampling.`
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted througb the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger iTrequired
to register for a permit. Three permitted dischargers are located on Horsepen Creek at its
headwaters. Each discharger releases less than 100 gallons per day of industrial/ commercial
domestic wastewater, oil separator wastewater and oil terminal wastewater.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacement of Bridge No. 101 with a concrete box culvert may impact water resources
in four ways: construction of temporary on-site detour, removal of the old bridge, construction of
the concrete box culvert and removal of on-site detour. Impacts associated with this bridge
replacement project include increased sedimentation/erosion, alterations of water flow and
scouring.
6
Construction of the temporary on-site detour can be harmful to a water resource without
the implementation of proper sedimentation and erosion control measures. Burying, grubbing
and/or clearing of the flood plain forest and streamside vegetation can increase erosion and
sedimentation. The amount of suspended sediments in a stream usually reflects the amount of
burying, grubbing and clearing performed on streamside embankments. Sedimentation affects are
recognizable at the construction site as well as downstream. Fluctuations in water temperature
will also result from the loss of streamside vegetation at the site.
The removal of the existing bridge may require in-stream disturbance to remove piles
thereby disturbing the substrate and suspending sediment in the water column (turbidity). In-
stream construction of the temporary detour is to be avoided to the extent possible. This action
would reduce impacts to water resources with its installation as well as with its removal.
Box culvert construction will result in increased sedimentation, water flow alterations and
a decrease in natural stream characteristics. Culvert installation usually increases sedimentation
and turbi ' because the stream substrate-is disturbed in addition to the previously mentioned
construct- clearing methods. Water flow is interrupted and altered by culvert installati -
Culvert con -ctio- results in the loss/deterioration, of natural stream characteristics. -Waft
movement through a culvert becomes focused thereby increasing the velocity of the water. The
increase of water movement from water channelization will likely lead to scouring regions at the
culvert outflow. Scour regions already present in Horsepen Creek may become worse as a result
of culvert installation. Most of these effects occur at the site and downstream although
interruption/ alteration of water flow also has negative effects upstream of the site.
A concern throughout project construction is the likely increase of toxic compounds (gas,
oil, etc.) being washed into Horsepen Creek. The use of construction machinery near Horsepen
Creek may result in temporary increases of these compounds in this water resource. These
compounds are carried into water resources via precipitation. Increased amounts of these toxic
compounds can adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its
biological and chemical functions.
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) and sedimentation control guidelines will be
administered throughout project construction. Streamside embankment will be revegetated as
soon as possible after construction. These measures will help control erosion, as well as reduce
the wash of sediment and toxic compounds into water resources. Utilization of the above
measures will limit the water resources impacts to reasonable levels.
Biotic_Resources
Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities have been identified in the project study area:
disturbed community, hardwood flood plain forest and emergent freshwater marsh. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Disturbed Community - The disturbed community involves those habitats
frequently disrupted by human activities. This community type can be divided into
subtypes: roadside shoulder and sewer line ROW corridor.
The roadside habitats consist of areas regularly and irregularly maintained.
Roadside shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities by
filtering waters carrying toxic compounds off the roadway. Regularly maintained areas
are predominated by grasses such as fescue and foxtail. Ornamental holly and wax myrtle
are found in the neighborhood entrance of Quaker Run Drive. Irregularly maintained areas
7
mmmw .--

to, .

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GUILFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 101 ON SR 2182
OVER HORSEPEN CREEK
B - 2834
FIG. 1
i'
Looking West
Across Bridge No. 101

Looking North
at South Elevation
of Bridge No. 101

North Carolina Department of
Transportation
DiN ision of Highwa`-s
Planning & Environmental Branch
Guilford County
Replace Bridge No. 101 on SR 2182
Over Horsepen Creek
B-2;34
I Figure Three
S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 23, 1995
Ate 2 5 IW5
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
nq A k rnu
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P.E.I
Project Planning Engineer'
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 101 on
SR 2182 over Horsepen Creek, Guilford County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-2182(1), State Project No. 8.2493501,
TIP No. B-2834
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on July 12, 1995. The following
persons were in attendance:
David Cox NC WRC
Eric Galamb DEM
Kevin Bisby Traffic Control
Derek Bradner Location & Surveys
Darin Wilder Program Development
Jimmy Capps Program Development
Ray Moore Structure Design
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics
Susan Tedder Hydraulics.
John Alford Roadway Design
Don Hurlbut Roadway Design
Stephanie Briggs Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and through
correspondence prior to the meeting.

Possibilities for utility conflicts will be moderate on this project. There are power
transmission lines along the north side of SR 2182. There is an underground natural gas line along
the north side of SR 2182. There is an underground water line along the south edge of pavement
of SR 2182. There is also a RCP sewer line crossing SR 2182 approximately 20 meters east of the
existing bridge.
This project will be designed in Metric units. The design speed will be 100 km/h
(62 mph). The approach roadway will have two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes. Roadway shoulders
will be at least 2.4 meters (8 ft) wide with 1.2 meters (4 ft.) of this shoulder width paved.
Mr. Abdul Rahmani of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that the replacement structure will be
a four barrel reinforced concrete box culvert, with each barrel being 3.7 meters (12 ft.) by 3.0
meters (10 ft.). The culvert elevation should be set such that the roadway elevation will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway. An on-site detour consis-ling of 4 pipes 1800 mm
(72 in.) in diameter is recommended. The temporary structure can be approximately 1 meter
(3 ft.) lower than the existing bridge.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated, by
telephone prior to the meeting, that there are no known architectural or archaeological sites in the
immediate project area. No architectural surveys are required; however, if an on-site detour is
used archaeological surveys may be requested.
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated that Horsepen Creek is classified as WS-III, Nutrient
Sensitive. Implementation of High Quality Water (HQW) soil and erosion control measures was
requested. Mr. Galamb suggested replacement in-place with road closure. If closure is not
considered reasonable, he asked that the on-site detour be placed on the side involving the lower
wetland impact.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that he agreed with Mr. Galamb's
recommendations. Mr. Cox asked that one barrel of proposed culvert be constructed to allow use
by wildlife as an underpass; also to allow aquatic species movement through the structure he
asked that the culvert bottom be set 0.3 meters (1 ft.) below the existing stream bed elevation.
Two alternates will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 101 over Horsepen Creek.
Alternate One - Traffic will use an on-site detour located south of the existing roadway
while the existing bridge is removed and replaced with the proposed culvert in the
- same location. -
Alternate Two - Traffic will use an on-site detour located north of the existing roadway
while the existing bridge is removed and replaced with the proposed culvert in the
same location.
3
After preliminary wetland impact information is available, the alternate with the larger
wetland impact will be eliminated. If both alternates have approximately the same wetland impact,
Alternate One will become the preferred.altemate due to utility impacts and the proximity of other
development along Alternate Two.
Preliminary construction cost estimates for the project are as follows: (both alternates will
have similar costs.)
Construction $ 575,000
Right-of-Way $ 52.000
Total $ 627,000
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in January 1997
and construction to begin in December 1997.
BG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants
2'Yq S 6? 6 AJ
C4VO
'/J" 4' ?
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Revised
8/21/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2834 DIVISION: Seven
F. A. PROJECT: BRST-e-2182(1) COUNTY: Guilford
STATE PROJECT: 8.2493501 ROUTE: SR 2182
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen Creek, on SR 2182
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bride
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Guilford, N. C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: minor collector
CONSTRUCTION COST (wmumo EmugmmG AND cONTENGENCMS) ............................. $ 575,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATMON, UTMIES, AND ACQUISMON) ............. ?s ... $ 52,000
TOTAL COST - $ 627-000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... .................................................................. $ 335,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 52,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 387,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR (0(cmaz ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 5900 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 9700 VPD
TTST I % DUAL 3 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE -------------- ---------------------------?
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE __---- 13
4. OTHER
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 26.22 nmmms WIDTH 7.96 METERS
86 FEET 26.1 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: _ 4-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert, barrels 3.7 meters (12 feet) by
3.0 meters (10 feet) each.
z
•os
3qA p0" ?sss
6
1124
J 17
2184 ,p6
t.o
121 ?S
21 J6 :.3
•?B
2140
in an on ?.
am ma am 2_ w
*000*0 1
2252

2190
2339 'JJ
0r
2246 2378
0
2181
2215 FIS •J?
771 0 .??
2 10
w
LQZ

2347
?`
T 2191
1 js 2191` ° .22 Oti
U7 2A
p
08 \
J
7B BI J
O7
]TB2 OJ •?
241 2740 265
by ...,<+;'
2741 \::<';:?•,
.25i 8 .20, SS
7 1189 ?
Jd? fi J ?t'", 231]
. _ O? fAS
-
_ _• , 2192 ?\\
Oi

.'..•??
?UILFORD COURT HOUSE -
':' BATTLE GROUND ...^-
+
.:: NAT. MIL PARK

2210 fly is
2185 !
'
d

7es2 ..
* F:..
J Fit
c!: ,?o
- 37 3.31 -
83 JCi1 l:. ?2340
0

2136 B 3
3831 p
j
// F:''•
C
4:f%k:z ?` /I pQ x.12 ^ 2-'? ryro ::::'."y"''•'?.•..,n-.

37 F'. .

a(j
\;: ) 1222 :O 2227
21 t2 O? g:/ 2216
?r^:":i':i:::%:::•}::5if?%
fi?<
122RJ ,t a G:;::; .01.. v Y

o

0w`p
2179
1
2179

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FIG. 1
GUILFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 101 ON SR 2182
OVER HORSEPEN CREEK
B - 2834

N d Y`a?
D
G p,,,N vd'•
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GovERNoR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
June 8, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Guilford County, SR 2182,
Replacement of Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen Creek,
B-2834
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 July 12, 1995 at 10:30 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 Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842 (Ext. 238).
WTG/pl r
Attachment
aj"ct
C,%c.)k/4 ? ?iea loo to ? ?cvw ?d
I
57
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET (o vJn?s
5/2/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2834 DIVISION: Sewn
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-2182(1) COUNTY: Guilford
STATE PROJECT: 8.2493501 ROUTE: SR 2182
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 101 over Horsepen Creek„ on SR 2182 ?3 f cLo Je S trep-
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Guilford, N. C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: minor collector
CONSTRUCTION COST t wumiNC ENcmgmRmr, AND coNrFwowc[Es) ............................. $ ?,??0,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (m imm RELocAnoN, ummEs, AND AcQuismoN) ................... $ ?,??0,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ ?,??0,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 335,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 52,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 387,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ®(cmCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT i 5900 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 9700 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 3 % i
f l?` S"r 1 r
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section 3
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING, LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR --________w_________?______?
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------- ---------- --- ?
4. OTHER
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
LENGTH 26.22 mffims
86 FEET
-_- ?
WIDTH 7.96 mErm
26.1 F=
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH MHTER$ WIDTH METERS
klEEl FEET

a
•pa =?R190
1/'
oo,oo
22s2
`

2190
246' -
4 2339

2338
?
'*p =182

2245 Fk's "7?
37Z
?
' '2]40 H
• -

2182 2191 o ?? Oti
.08 -
0
,0 07 3 9
C1QyK ?e ?. ?-.tt %
33 Spa ..Zy,
40
3804 .40 224
by Y
2341
.25i a ,2p ._ .SS 2189
7 •ad. P::2?:,i} 2,
01
3039 jja 2192 .

344 0?' 78s5 , :.:._: .•. .::.;.

r-- GUILFORD COURT HOUSE
BATTLE GROUND
, +
NAT. MIL PARK _
m- 2124
104
1136
3 >
t¢¢K
, 2210
v"
'
tiro 2184 9 C
ties 26
7932
3119.
.36 2183
'3J
- ml
!?/?.:'••
?D-

2380

2140 g g 3
'?j. ?? ., B ep/
/`•' `
3197 w _ 2136
1V
9 %
1
i'm
2182 -
222 a
L_• o
30
2177
2179

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GUILFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 101 ON SR 2182
OVER HORSEPEN CREEK
B - 2834
FIG. 1