19970096 Ver 1_Complete File_19970210

??
Tat STATE
J I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETF JR.
GOvERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 18, 1997 ,Q
Fc
ISO
6,
US Army Corps of Engineers Y\
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 255 over South Stinking
Quarter Creek on SR 1005 (Alamance Church Road), Federal Project
No. BRSTP-1005(5), State Project No. 8.249330 1, T.I.P. No. B-2977.
Action I.D. 199700404.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No 255
over South Stinking Quarter Creek on SR 1005 (Alamance Church Road). On
January 24, 1997 we sent you a planning document and notice that we proposed to
proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). On
March 6, 1997 the Corps of Engineers verified the issue of NWP 23 (Action I.D.
199700404).
The CE described the replacement of Bridge No. 255 with a precast four-barrel 3 meter x
3 meter (10 ft. x 10 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert. The design has changed and we
now propose to replace the existing structure with a three-span, cored slab bridge 21 feet
in width. Bridge No. 255 will be replaced at its existing location. Traffic will be detoured
on existing secondary roads during construction. Construction of the proposed project
will result in approximately 0.1 hectares (<O.01 acres) of impact on jurisdictional
wetlands. A copy of the Bridge Survey and Hydraulic Design report for the proposed
structure is enclosed.
?r
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincere ,
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, Division of Water Quality
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. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, Division 7 Engineer
Ms. Michele James, P & E Project Planning Engineer
BRIDGE SURVEY & HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HYDRAULICS UtllT
RALEIGH, N. C.
------------
I.D. No. ..P-.297-7 ........... Project No. .8.2493301 .................... Proj. Station .15+78.80-L-
...........................
SOUTH PRONG
County ...GUILFORD Bridge Over STINKING QUARTER CREEK
.............................. Bridge Inv. No. ...255
On Highway ... SR 1005 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ Between ...SR
.. SR 3347 and SR 1115(ALMAANCE CO. )
1 Q
Recommended Structure 30'-6", 1 0 42'-0", 1 Q 40'-0", 21" CORED SLAB SECTIONS
.. . . . . . . . . ................ . .... . . .
--------•--------•--•-• ..............................................••----•----.............--------.......---•-----.......---......
Recommended Width of Roadway ......
24 . ? ................... Skew 90 ..........
Location is ( 100, At, D&id )G0(A0MXXMdtS Existing Crossing ) _•____________________________________________________
Nearest Shipping Point BURLINGTON
. . - - - On NORFOLK- •SOUTHERN R.R., -13 5. Miles From Bridge
-• --
Bench Mark is _ _ _ _ _ _ BL1001 BL.-POT 5.00
...................•-•-•-•-••-•---...-•-----..-.....-•----.........---- Elev. ...6.06.94.-... Datum: N G VD 1929
........
Temporary Crossing ..IS NOT REQUIRED
-----------------------•--.............-•--------------.......---------------.......•------•....
L
O
L
m
rn
0
n
is
E
0
a?
'n
Designed by: ... KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Assisted by: . _ _ L.D. ROBINSON, M.N. DAWES
Project Engineer : JAMES A BYRD, P.E.
Reviewed & Approved by: ..
%AJ
?,•'??t'? CARO
L
c 1576 3
Date ---- -- r; 2j .•?y
o
o
Q
? o LLJ
o w
Ln Ln ltl i
•73•S'M*?
i W
W
I
CD ?. a?
110,
LLj
41
3 W ? ? 1
it LC)'
d' . CA j } olf
M ?? L -
\\` p i ?L .wit J CQ
10
C. Lti
a. i I - ' I
ilC?d `? o. I I Y
O
? u7 { ,,
40!
I
LAJ
J9 910
Q1 V)
o
o db? I I~ `? ~ I
W
vWN
I ? ?` S I I z ..?
o h: a 5
Q) Ir
W 0
00
to V)
I
0 00 \\t??:c
i• W ? i I ' ?
m' a 1, l
'1 O ?'W ? .;. ? '?pAVE?4. ?? NON ? :? •' ?;' , '? , :.
?
:5 Q
1 ? I
Q Q f`
I
%
1 Q- LLJ J I I 1 I
I U: :0

401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT )R.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 24, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
WETLANDS GR?,:''
l4?hiER ILALIT ti
Subject: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 255 over South Stinking
Quarter Creek on SR 1005 (Alamance Church Road), Federal Project
No. BRSTP-1005(5), State Project No. 8.2493301, T.I.P. No. B-2977.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 255 will be replaced at its existing location with a precast four barrel
3 meter x 3 meter (10 ft. x 10 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be detoured
on existing secondary roads duri ruction. Construction of the proposed project
may impact less than 0.1 hectar (<0.1 a res) of jurisdictional wetlands and 24 linear
meters (80 feet) of surface water .
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 7 115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but pr se proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A -23 The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations b ,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, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
id
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincere y,
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, Division of Water Quality
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. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, Division 7 Engineer
Ms. Michele James, P R E Project Planning Engineer

Date: 1,'93
Revised: 1!94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTIONCLASSIFICATION FOR-'\!I
TIP Project No. B-2977
State Project No. 8.2493301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1005(5)
A. Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 255 at its existing location
on Alamance Church Road (SR 1005) over South Stinking Quarter Creek in
Guilford County. The new structure will be replaced with a precast 4 n
3 m x 3 in (10 ft. x 10 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the
same roadway grade as the existing. The length of the culvert will be adequate
to accommodate two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot)
shoulders. To accommodate the AASHTO standard bicycle safety
accommodations, 1.2 meters (4-feet) of the 2.4 meter (8-foot) shoulders will
be paved. The remaining 1.2 meters (4-feet) will be turf. The approaches will
include two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4 meter (8-foot) shoulders. The
shoulders will be extended to 3.4 meters (11-feet) where guardrail is
warranted. Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during
construction.
B. Furpose and Need:
Bridge INTO. 255 has a sufficiency rating of 48.1 out of 100. The bridge is
posted for 26 tons for single vehicles and 30 tons for truck tractor semi-
trailers. For these reasons, Bridge No. 255 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type E Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
?f
Date: 1!93
Revised: 1/94
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
2

Date: 1 193
Revised: 1/94
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Threatened & Endangered Species:
As of April 1, 1996, the USFWS lists the bald eagle (Hahaeetus leuccephalus) as a
federally-protected species for Guilford County. Kimesville Lake and South
Stinking Quarter Creek are located in or adjacent to the project area. These bodies
of water are too small to offer suitable habitat for the bald eagle. The NCDOT
biologist rendered a biological conclusion of no-effect on the bald eagle.
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
The archaeological report concludes that the Kimesville NO site (31GF349**) is likely
to be disturbed by the proposed project. If this site cannot be avoided, archaeological
data recovery is recommended prior to construction.
Permits:
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

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1%94
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23 will likely be applicable.
Prior to issuance of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23, a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained.
Water Resources:
The classification of South Stinking Quarter Creek within the project area is C NSW.
NSW is a supplemental classification indicating nutrient sensitive waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: or predominantly
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominantly undeveloped watersheds) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Miscellaneous:
This bridge replacement project is located on a section of the NC-2 (Mountains -to-
Sea) Bicycling Highway which runs across the state from Murphy to Manteo. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation has requested AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodations as
part of the replacement of Bridge No. 255.
Estimated Costs:
CURRENT TIP * *
* Construction $ 475,000 $ 475,000
Right of Way 25,000 250,000
Total $ 500,000 $ 725,000
*Cost includes 15% for engineering and contingencies
"" The TIP also includes $100, 000 in prior costs.
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year - 1996: 1200 VPD TTST - 1% DHV - 1290
Design Year - 2020: 2200 VPD DUAL - 4% DIR - 60%
4
Date: 1,'93
Revised: 1/94
Design Speed:
80 km/h (50 mph)
Functional Classification:
Major Collector
Architectural / Historic Resources:
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended a comprehensive
archaeological survey be conducted in connection with this project. An NCDOT
staff archaeologist consulted with an archaeologist from the SHPO on January 30,
1996 with regard to the project. It appeared the site, the archaeological remains of
the kimesville Mill (recorded in the NC Office of State Archaeology as
31Gf349**), would be disturbed by the proposed bridge replacement project.
The SHPO and NCDOT agreed this archaeological site is significant and
potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
eligibility Criterion d. According to the archaeologists, the mill does not warrant
preservation in place and therefore not considered to be a 4(f) property. However,
archaeological data recovery investigations at the site were recommended. These
investigations will be conducted between acquisition of the right of way and the
beginning of construction.
The SHPO recommended an architectural survey of the project area. The Area
of Potential Effect (APE) for historic architectural resources was reviewed in the
field by an NCDOT staff architectural historian. The SHPO and an NCDOT
staff architectural historian met on August 24,1995. The SHPO concurred that
there are no properties over fifty years in the project area. A copy of the concurrence
form signed at the meeting is attached.
School buses:
School buses make a total of eight crossings per day. The Transportation
Director for Guilford County prefers the road be closed in the summer
months during construction. If this is not possible, a turnaround area for the
buses would need to be provided.
Utilities:
According to the Area Locating Engineer, Duke Power has a three phase electrical
service along the south side of SR 1005. Southern Bell Telephone has an
underground cable along the north and south sides of SR 1005. The cable is
aerial over South Stinking Quarter Creek.

Date: V93
Revised: 1!94
Division Comments:
The Division Office concurs with the bridge replacement project. The Division
proposes a detour route utilizing County Line Road (SR 3349), Richland Church
Road (SR 3350), Smithwood Road (SR 3351) and himesville Road (SR 3346).
Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be completed.
If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not need to
be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? 1
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
17, X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x F
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters U X
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? 17, x
6

(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a LAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)'?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
X
YES NO
X
i?
L u
X
X
X
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing -----?
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel r- -?
changes?
SOCIAL. AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
YES NO
F-I
X
r-
X
X i
u X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land use of any adjacent property?
(20) the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
-,
Will
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
7
X
X
Date: 1'93
Revised: 1194
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan -
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, 1
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? 1
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours'? Z _ j
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? u h
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal; State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
YES NO
I
F71 1
FIX
8
Date: F93
Revised: F94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Rest?oases in Part E
Response to question 4 26:
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended a comprehensive
archaeological survey be conducted in connection with this project. An NCDOT
staff archaeologist consulted with an archaeologist from the SHPO on January 30,
1996 with regard to the project. It appeared the site, the archaeological remains
of the himesville Mill (recorded in the NC Office of State Archaeoloo- as
(31Gf349**), would be disturbed by the proposed bridge replacement project.
The SHPO and NCDOT agreed this archaeological site is significant and
potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
eligibility Criterion d. According to the archaeologists, the mill does not warrant
preservation in place and therefore not considered to be a 4(f) property. However,
archaeological data recovery investigations at the site were recommended. These
investigations will be conducted between acquisition of the right of way and the
beginning of construction.
9
Date: 1'93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2977
State Project No. 8.2493301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1005(5)
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 255 at the existing location
on Alamance Church Road (SR 1005) over South Stinking Quarter Creek in
Guilford County. The new structure will be replaced with a precast 4 (a? 3m x
3m (10 ft. x 10 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the same
roadway grade as the existing. The length of the culvert will be adequate to
accommodate two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders.
To accommodate the AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodations, 1.2
m (4-feet) of the 2.4 meters (8-feet) shoulders will be paved. The remaining
1.2 meters (4-feet) will be turf. The approaches will include two 3.6-meter
(12-foot) lanes with 2.4 meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders. The shoulders will
be extended to 3.4 meters (11-feet) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will
be detoured along secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE Il (B)
Approved:
,G -
7,10
ate Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmen Branch
v?
ate Project Planning Unit Head
J
-71-30h4 Aa,?" -
Date Pro' ct Ptannirq ngineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
10
U. 10

~(n ?i
y0
A a 0 Z
y
3
w Ir
Z
?I :D
z
z?xA
:1 OXOUti
a z
0
o
o 0a Lr) U.orn
LO
NwXN -
¢
uoz?x C-LLm
y.v.o u
E
¢
a Z?J
? d_
s
0a

?ca m
w

o (D

E
m0
Z
O
Y
Z
_
f•-
U)
Q Y N _ C
K ^
S ° c
^I i° q S
CO. w 0 y a h
?
•
• I/
i I
I N 0 o
?I h
Z rY ?.r oo ?
?
. ? ?
Co
? ?. 6 k t\ S 9.

N .
- _
I
y

I A

co ^
,
Q
9 v

t\ o
O 9! a S
by S• o yv?! i? \ o ?.
h G- v a 2
1 S
l .
v
ameb
L
0.1

0

o
a
`
NI o \•
`tP o 'o

j
?
b
C' 8
Sy .I.I
o

(b
'n

y
C9

bd
d f

o
IU.NnOO 33NNVWVIV °?, ^ Od a ° q
Cam.
o P - -
L - - - -,?A=4-
S AlNno0 adO=illno °
cll _ _
- V
-
-
y' ?• b co
7

O' M ?X 0D

cn, 1.3
04
M
a
cn
i
o ` Cl?
C) 00
CD, w

O
O/ v ? :?
°
v
r,
;i /

w v W)
.
•
ao, CN M ,?. ?'
1
8 ?
,?

b c? Z Cl)

MI .
ao
I vl ^
, tr ? - a

I D
W c) N, N
I
8

10
9 Sb?
Yd M
?' d
(T.
e In
0 10
"I
v

-T-
-

r r

?` cn
cn }

Z
- C l Z
M

31
?

°
1
°

h
(n
n
M
M
C-) 1

O

n

81 n V U
a.
m l a
"
?
c
' W) ol M r?
ni
I
! •!
o cV
r? o
M
o
0 Vo
'

C)
o
c
r?
q' j tr
J
2&0

?' 0

I Z7,
"
?, / f7
!•
In

? ?.

'
ol
M,
(1 Le)
, ?
?4
vl
O,
r £
1
B Q'

' Q
U-
CO
\

~\
- f'7 " ?

Q
a ? N \M .o
p ch
M (V ry 101
e c
M ? f7
?o
'o O O I
p lL
9
N ^ o o f 0 °l ° 6 P
o ? n d

o .
a
>J s +T
a
52 p. a
c l cn
It
f
TIP # 1? • 1-177 Federal Aid # t3 T P - too * ( *>
County Cru1L-Fvg.p
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
- V--r,PW?GE O'Rlp<rE nl•• 24S p%i SR- lops; ?VGR- Srintlw?JG ©u?F-rER-c?E IC_
On Ay Fusr 14, 101-1s , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed Elie subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National egister and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Re?ister-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
S igned:
Rep
12,
wA,
OT
the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
. U, 1II,;-
7:DgLu-y-?-? 9- a4 - 95
Representative, SHPO Date
toric Preservation Offic6r
111f -
ate
Y
i

If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
Ja STA
o`
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 28, 1996
Re: Archaeological survey report, replacement of
Bridge 255 on SR 1005 over Big Stinking
Quarter Creek, Guilford County, Federal Project
BRSTP-1005(5), State Project 8.2493301, TIP
B-2977, ER 97-7244
Dear Mr. Graf:
project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
ce
AUG 3 0 1996,
Z?
AYS Q
Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1996, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Kenneth W. Robinson and Thomas Beaman I
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
r. concerning the above
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
31 GF349 * *, Kimesville Mill, 'is eligible under Criterion D due to its potential
to yield information about late eighteenth to early twentieth century mill
construction within piedmont North Carolina.
We also concur that since data recovery is appropriate mitigation and preservation
in place is not warranted, that Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
does not apply. If the site cannot be avoided, data recovery efforts should include
archival research, detailed mapping, description, and photographic documentation
of the mill complex which includes the dam, raceway, and mill remains.
In general, the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior. We request that final design plans for the bridge replacements be
forwarded for a determination of effect as soon as they are available.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507
1?3
Nicholas L. Graf
8/28/96, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
K. Robinson
r

n `R? e
TL -
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
1 November 1995
Memorandum To: P. Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
From: Christopher A. Murray, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject: Replacement of Bridge # 255 over South Prong
Stinking Quarter Creek on SR 1005 in
Kimesville, Guilford County. TIP No. B-2977;
State Project No. 8.2493301; BRSTP-1005(2).
Attention: Michele James, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) addresses
four issues: water resources, biotic resources, wetlands, and
federally-protected species associated with the proposed
project. The proposed project calls for the replacement of
Bridge # 255 over South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek in
Kim.esville, Guilford County (Figure 1). The existing structure.
is a two lane, 34 m (110 ft) long and 7 m (35 ft) wide, bridge.
The bridge will be replaced with a 4 @ 3 m x 3 m (10 ft x 10
ft) reinforced box culvert at the same location. An overflow
spill.-.ay that originates at Kimesville Lake f1o1r+5 north under
SR 1005 and empties into South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek to
the north of Bridge # 255. The overflow spillway will not be
impacted as part of this project. Project length is 24 4 m
(800 ft) and right of way (ROW) width is 24 m (80 ft). SR 1005
will be closed during project construction and traffic detoured
to secondary roads.
WATER RESOURCES
Water resources located within the project study area lie
in the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. South Prong Stinking
Quarter Creek and an overflow spillway originating at
Kimesville Lake are located in the project area (Figure 2).
South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek, which originates
approximately 8 km (5 mi) south of the project area, flows
northerly and outfalls into Kimesville Lake, located to the
irr,nediate south of the project area. A dam separates South
Prong Stinking Quarter Creek and Kimesville Lake. South Prong
Stinking Quarter Creek continues in a northeasterly direction
appro:cimately 10 km (6 mi) to its confluence with North Prong

.f
\ _? / -/• Ova.- 69CO)
-
/* ell
?• 312 • ~ ? ' i ?? - ???'? _ _ o '
77
629 - /A
- a ; 5 ' ?eas'an Ch'.. 3346
D /??\?' ?• ?/ ? .' ?? f ? ! ' •_?"' ! ? ??-^ i V'im' •
l\v
650
Z71 I" 3349
;f f
1 ?
Jr
:luo
\ _ I ?•tJ_ ,i O .1:`_x:••1`
''(•/_^h\ `I /% ?/ .?._`?ll r? / /_?/??: \?? ?r
3
Streaiti.s have been assigned a -est usa(je classification 10y
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage
classification of unnamed tributaries is the same as the water
body to which they are a tributary. The best usage
classification of South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek and the
overflow spillway are C NSW. Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. NSW is a supplemental
classification indicating nutrient sensitive waters which
require limitations on nutrient inputs. There are no water
resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
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. There are no monitoring sites located in the
vicinity of the study area.
South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek is approximately 15 m
(50 ft) wide. Due to high water levels attributed to rain for
two days preceding the site visit, water depth and substrate
could not be documented. The flow rate and water clarity were
moderate during the site visit. The overflow spillway is
approximately 2 m (6 ft) wide and 1 m (3 ft) deep. The
presence of hydrophytic vegetation including false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), sedge (Cyperus sp.), water milfoil
(Myriophyllum sp.), seedbox (Ludwigia sp.), lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus), and cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis) in
the overflow spillway indicates that it is frequently flooded.
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation and erosion, decreased dissolved oxygen, and
temperature instability. The latter two impacts are attributed
to removal of stream-side canopy. Sedimentation and substrate
disturbance occurring during culvert construction can
significantly reduce water clarity. In order to minimize
impacts to water resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. This
would include:
-reduction and elimination of direct and non-point
discharge into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams.
4
-installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth
berms to control runoff during construction.
-placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites will reduce runoff and decrease sediment
loadings.
-elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains
or adjacent to streams which would reduce the potential of
accidental discharge of toxins into water bodies.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
A field investigation was conducted on 5 October 1995 by
NCDOT Biologists Christopher A. Murray and James Hauser to
determine natural resources conditions. Two distinct
terrestrial communities are identified in the project study
area: roadside shoulder/maintained yard and disturbed alluvial
floodplain. These communities have recently been or are
currently being impacted by human disturbance.
Roadside shoulder/maintained yards are land parcels in
which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non- to early-
successional state that appeared to be regularly mowed and
likely received frequent herbicide application. This habitat
is dominated by many herbs and vines including fescue (Festuca
sp.) , nig htshaue (SOlanum sp. ) , iviitaii grass (Sctaria sp.) ,
clover (Trifolium sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), bushclover
(Lespedeza sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium
obtusifolium), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), slender
gerardia (Agalinis tenuifolia), heal-all (Prunella vulgaris),
kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and everlasting pea (Lathyrus
latifolius).
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor) forage nocturnally in this habitat and are
often observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways. The least
shrew (Cryptotis ap rva), eastern cottontail (Svlvilagus
floridanus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
woodchuck (Marmota monax), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas dominated by
herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting
habitat. Snakes such as the black racer snake (Coluber
constrictor) and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) may
venture into this community to feed on small mammals and
insects. The ground skink (Scincella lateralis) is a reptile
that inhabits disturbed roadside habitats.
Disturbed alluvial floodplain, located adjacent to South
Prong Stinking Quarter Creek, has been modified by human
5
activity if, t'iie past. The floodplain to the south of Bridge #
255 is currently in an early to mid-successional stage. The
floodplain to the north of Bridge # 255 is a more mature
habitat although prior disturbance is still evident in the ROW.
This type of habitat generally experiences periodical flooding;
however, the presence of the dam upstream of Bridge # 255 may
have affected the flooding regime of this portion of the
project area. The floral assemblage in the floodplain is
dominated by herbs and saplings. Herbs and vines common to
this habitat include beggars tick (Desmodium sp.), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), pokeweed (Phytolaca americana), Japanese
honeysuckle, goldenrod, bushclover, trumpet creeper, wingstem
(Verbesina alterniflora), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), slender gerardia, bushy aster (Aster dumosus),
coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), and heal-all. Sapplings
observed in the floodplain included winged elm (Ulmus alata),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), white ash (Fraxinus
americana), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), black walnut (Juglans
niora) and red mullberry (Morus rubra).
Avian species inhabiting this community may include downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), yellow-bellied sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus varius), and northern paru'l a (Parul a americans).
Characteristic mammalian species encountered include raccoon,
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nuttalli), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus).
Amphibians and reptiles that may occur in and adjacent to
perennial piedmont streams with moderate flow rates include
greater siren (Siren lacertina), eastern mud turtle
(ninosternon subrubrum), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), yellow
belly slider (Chrysemys scripta), northern cricket frog (Acris
crepitans), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Fish species that
may inhabit perennial streams in Guilford County may include
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), shiner (Notropis
spp.), and bluegill (Lepomis spp.).
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the
relative abundance of each community. Project construction
will result in the 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
ROW width. The proposed ROW width is 24 m (80 ft). Usually,
project construction does not require the entire ROW width;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.

6
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
........................................................................................................................................
community Impacts
Roadside Shoulder/Maint. Yard 1.9 ha (0.8 ac)
Disturbed Alluvial Floodplain 0.7 ha (0.3 ac)
TOTAL 2.6 ha (1.1 ac)
The biotic communities found within the project area will
be altered as a result of project construction. The
terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for faunal organisms. The loss of this habitat will
displace animals from this area as thev search for additional
habitat. This may concentrate animals into a smaller area
which can cause degradation of remaining habitat and increased
mortality due to disease, predation, and starvation.
The proposed construction will result in habitat
reduction. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to
terrestrial animals (moles, shrews, snakes, etc.) from
construction machinery used during clearing activities. Strict
erosion and sediment controls should be maintained during
clearing activities. All cleared and grubbed areas along the
roadways should be revegetated soon after project completion to
reduce loss of wildlife habitat.
Construction activities will invariably impact the water
resources located at the project area. Increased sedimentation
and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. Changes in light incidence and water clarity from
sedimentation will affect the photosynthetic ability of primary
producer species inhabiting the streams in the project area.
The suspended particles will also impact filter feeders
inhabiting the streams. These impacts eventually are magnified
throughout the food chain and ultimately affect faunal
organisms located in higher trophic levels such as fish,
mammals, and reptiles.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow
due to interruption and/or additions to surface and groundwater
flow. The change in water level may severely impact spawning
activities of mobile and non-mobile organisms. Toxic runoff
from spills, construction runoff, and highway spills may result
in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources
located in the project area. Strict adherence to BMPs should
be enforced during the construction phase of this project.
=SDICTIOMMI: ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the
United States and Protected and Rare Species.

7
Surface craters and jurisdictional wetlands fail 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 material 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).
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional
wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. One small wetland is located to the
south of Bridge # 255 along the eastern shore of South Prong
Stinking Quarter Creek (Figure 2). Vegetation observed in the
wetland is dominated by sedge, jewel weed (Impatiens capensis),
river birch (Betula ni ra), black willow (Salix niara) and tear
thumb (Polygonum sagittatum). The sandy loam soil present in
this habitat exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 5/1, a color that
is indicative of a hydric soil. Evidence of wetland hydrology
included saturation within 30 cm (12 in) and sediment deposits.
The construction of the proposed project will impact <0.1 ha
(<0.1 ac) of jurisdictional wetlands and 24 linear m (80 ft) of
surface waters. The Cowardin classification for the wetland
would be PF242J (Palustrine Emergent Non-persistent
Intermittently Flooded). Actual impacts may be less than
reported because the entire right of way is often not impacted
by construction projects. The amount of wetland and surface
water impacts may be modified by any changes in roadway design.
Highway construction impacts can severely affect the
functions that wetlands perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands
influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and
storing storm runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of
flooding in surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have
been documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and
toxic materials from water that flows across them. The
presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to
runoff pollutants and toxins.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a
permit will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or
fill material into "Waters of the United States." Since the
project is classified as a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion,
a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely
to be applicable for the proposed construction. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by another

9
fedefai agency or cJepartiient. That agency of department 'iias
determined that the activity is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation, because it will neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental
effect.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the
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. The issuance of a 401 permit
from the DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404
permit.
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review
by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
.>('1S 11J1.J 1.116
Section 9 of the E°" . A T J o fF hl'.(1f1-.11..11 L y, '"1Uo, 1199J?, 1. LYV ''ti'11C p ?(7
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as a federally-protected
species for Cabarrus County. The bald eagle is listed as
Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range). A brief description of its
characteristics and habitat follows.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) T
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret,
Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Hyde,
Montgomery, New Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans,
Richmond, Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.
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. The bald eagle is a bird of
aquatic ecosystems. It frequents estuaries, large lakes,
reservoirs, major rivers, and some seacoast habitats. These
habitats must have an adequate food base, perching areas, and
nesting sites meeting certain requirements to support bald
eagles.
10
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. Fish are the major
food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots,
herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Kimesville Lake and South Prong Stinking Quarter Creek are
located in or adjacent to the project area. These water bodies
are too small to offer suitable habitat for the bald eagle. A
review of the Natural Heritge Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats did not indicated the presence of
any bald eagle habitat near the project area.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal C. Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2977
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
oAtE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
7-19-95
TOI
14 Rail. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
DEM-DEANt-
FROMI REP. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COM M [N TS I

[DECEIVED
gut 2 51995
STAfF. OF Nmri I CAROLINA [NVIRONMENTALSCIFNGES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
]AMVS B. I ZUNI ]R. DIVISION OF HIGI-WAYS R. SAWN I I IUNI I I I
60V1 RN(1R P.O. WX 25201. RA1116I I, N.C. 2701I-5201 SfCRI IARY
July 19, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 255 on SR 1005 over South
Stinking Quarter Creek, Guilford County, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-1005(1), State Project 8.2493301, TIP
No. B-2977
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on April 18, 1995
at 9:30 AM in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following were in attendance:
Jerry Snead
Don Hurlbut
Sid Autry
Ramesh Fofaria
Tom Kunstling
Don Sellers
Debbie Bevin
Darin Wilder
David Cox
Eric Galamb
Michele James
Hydraulics Unit
Roadway Design
Location and Surveys
Structure Design
Traffic Control Unit
Right-of-Way
SHPO
Program Development
NCWRC
DEM
Planning & Environmental Branch
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
Eric Galamb of DEM commented that South Stinking Quarter Creek is
classified as Class C. Implementation of normal soil and erosion control
measures was suggested.
Sid Autry of Location and Surveys reported that Duke Power has a three
phase electrical service along the south side of SR 1005. Southern Bell
Telephone has an underground cable along the north and south side SR 1005.
The cable is aerial over South Quarter Stinking Creek.
9
July 19, 1995
Page 2
The Hydraulics Unit recommends that the bridge be replaced with a
four-barrel 3.0 m by 3.0 m (10 ft. by 10 ft.) RCBC at the same location as
the existing bridge and with approximately the same grade as the existing.
Debbie Bevins reported that archaeological and architectural surveys
were needed.
The project is located on a section of the NC-2 (MOUNTAINS-TO-SEA)
BICYCLING HIGHWAY which runs across the state from Murphy to Manteo.
Curtis Yates of the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation has
requested AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodations as part of the
replacement of Bridge No. 255. The bridge deck should have a lateral
offset of at least 1.2 meter (4-feet) and should have a railing height of
1372 mm (54 inches).
The Division Office would not object to the road being closed during
construction if the closure time is reasonable.
A list of alternatives to be studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge on existing location with a cast-in-place
RCBC. During construction, the road would be closed and
traffic would be detoured along existing secondary roads.
Alternate lA - Replace the bridge on its existing location with a pre-cast
RCBC. During construction, the road would be closed and
traffic would be detoured along existing secondary roads.
Based on available information, it appears Alternate lA is the
preferred alternate. A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended
replacement is $ 505,000.
MJ/wp
Attachment
I %
BRIDGE #
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT B-2977 DIVISION 7
STATE PROJECT 8.2493301 COUNTY Guilford
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-1005(5) ROUTE SR 1005
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1005, BRIDGE NO. 255, GUILFORD COUNTY,
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER SOUTH STINKING QUARTER
CREEK.
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET(S): _KIMESVILLE
STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: MAJOR COLLECTOR
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 325,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 30,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 355,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 475,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED (T.I.P.) RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 30,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $ 505,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,-
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($)
f (%)
1995 2020
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1200 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 2200 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 4 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 34.5 METERS; WIDTH 7.3 METERS
113 FEET 24 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: CULVERT - 4 @ 3m x 3m
4 @ 10 ft. x 10 ft.
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 7-17-9-?
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
3--4-95
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, SLOG,

M ROM
Ll_Nf REF. NO.OR ROOM, SLOG.
ACTION
_
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ML ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANBWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENT!:

)AMEs B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 7, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVED
MAR 0 91995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 255
on SR 1005 over South Stinking Quarter Creek, Guilford
County, B-2977
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 18, 1995 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 Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842, Extension 233.
MJ/pl r o 30U 3 c
Attachment
1c,
I

045
??N«z
J
ce, U-dt
?ivc C,ry( ? Cl ? jliL

~ BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT DIVISION - 7
STATF PROJECT COUNTY ?1tllford
F. A _ PROJECT ____?RSTPi] QR_512- ROUTE Ems] QQ5
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1005, BRIDGE NO. 255, GUILFORD COUNTY,
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER SOUTH STINKING QUARTER
CREEK.
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET(S): _KIMESVILLE
STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: MAJOR COLLECTOR
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 325,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST________________________________ $ 30,000
PRIOR YEARS COST------------------------------------- $
TIP TOTAL COST ---------------------------------------- $ 355.000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ( ) M _

TRAFFIC: CURRENT 12ctu Z? Zo
VPD; DESIGN YEAR
VPD
TTST ! D?
v
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: y

EXISTING STRUC'T`URE : ' LENGTH __ C4 JI-j- METERS ; WIDTH .-Y-0- METERS
_I..L?_ FEET --24- FEET
COMMENTS: TRAFFLQ WTLJ--, BE PRo VI,1?EJ2 Al' 'l'ItF aCQf NCi MEETING.-
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 3-3-95

t
y0 ?N
A d W Ou?
E lY1J
Q 0 ? N W ?4
O m w F-
U p C7
vaa0 V GQr,-0 Cc
?¢`? "a co
z
aN
I "I
Q Y
Z ? N
N
~I = ? ? ^ NI
LLJ
I
C-4 CP.

?• m
M fl • ? P Sby S.
o add

Y
V

'n
00

hc^.

NI

?? P ?

•? Q P^
^4 !

J
°
' ^ ? I b
Z
hl alb
a v
I .c. ?
?, ^I
Z• ^ I
te, ^
N TI Y° ??
b
1'

6' I
s'•\l o NIA. ri H S
'n ?' b`?'
I
' - AINAO0 30NVWVIV _
?.
o o
`?
;
S A1Nno0 as Ino
°
l
j1, ? d r ?. b 00 a
c n,
21
M? N ?, MI 1. .d (,.'
N l,'
b
1,3 N
M
'
1
0 of c?• ?
M OI J N °

h v? r.
b ry ?'
.o D 3V-4 M .-d
-r b fl Mol b ?dd\
CN cP
h
00
00 0, Iv
O
co M CA
Cl) h
o Cl)
roil 8 0'( a
}a P
??? OPI ^ O M
PI v O. M 1 .o
N 0 O l ? N
F? P co
M M ^
M `T` M
P D• b
P
r?
co
?
Q s.

o I
00
N
^
6 N 9•
OI ? OI y

•9
?. A ? o
^I ^
o
?• `
3
1.2
b
S .
,o
0

,o .o
00
S o 0.1 o 0

h
0
v?dO ?
d .a 9
b'L
1'C vPi CA
M O M /X ?ao I .
N ?? ._\ r M

M
? ?
?' 01
U'fI MI
. s
»I
M --
9 --r
w

M lit Cl) ?l
M ^
M'
?-' m: m
1
8 MI

b
M

M
I . Cl)

I
ch
H
N
N tI
o

M MI
h
M
h
c

N M
MI h MI
`0
?I D. ?I ?'? C7
0 .
M o
o h l 8 81 V
0 M
M h b Z M
6,

1`' ??

Z 9' M
N IoC ?

d p
_ y l
coi

O ^ cr)
C7 ?

M `O 01
MI M
M

O
n
Q
of 9' ?i
c o
r

.6
). I

o
h p
O• d- V
J m