20071711 Ver 1_Application_20071009

~~~o
.3~~,~
~i y~
.Q aw.+®~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~\
J•J
Q1

1~
Q.
V MICHAEL F. EASLEY
3 GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Andy Williams
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
pENFt - WAtER QUALITY
yV~t/VJgb ~ I9TE~(tNRNATFR BRANCH
~ Sub~ect: A 1>ICation for Section 404 Nationwide 13 and 23 Permits for the re lacement of
V~ J PP ~ p
,~ Bridge No. 11 over Big Alamance Creek on SR 3394 (Company Mill Road), Guilford
County. Federal Aid Project Number BRZ-3394 (1), WBS No. 33484.1.1, State Project
~~ No. 8.2497901, Division 7, T.I.P No. B-4131.
V
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 97 foot
Bridge No. 11 over Big Alamance Creek with a new single span bridge approximately 110 feet in
length. The new structure will be a single span steel girder bridge. The project will replace the
current bridge with a new bridge on its existing location, while using an onsite detour to maintain
traffic during construction. The new bridge will span the stream and no bents will be placed in
the stream.
Please see the enclosed copies of the pre-construction notification (PCN), permit drawings, half
size plan sheets, and Rapanos forms. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) document was completed for
this project in June 2006. They were both distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are
available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (subbasin 03-06-03). This area is part of
Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03030002. Big Alamance Creek is a perennial stream and will be
bridged by the proposed project. UT1 is an intermittent stream located in the southeast portion of
the project area. Big Alamance Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of WS-IV
NSW and a North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Index # 16-19-(1).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone] Of
919-715-1335
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW NCDOT.ORG
LYN DO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
October 2, 2007
0 71711 ecr o s zooz
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604

In a letter dated March 24, 2004, the NCDWQ incorrectly states that the bridge will cross Little
Alamance Creek (W-IV NSW CA). The proposed project will bridge Big Alamance Creek
(WS-IV NSW).
No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supply I (WS-I) or Water Supply (WS-II) occur within 1.0 mile of the project area. Big
Alamance Creek is not listed as a 303(d) stream according to the Fina12006 303(d) list for the
Cape Fear River Basin nor does it drain into any 303(d) waters within 1-mile of the project.
One wetland, W2, located in the northeast quadrant, will be impacted by the project. W2 is
considered to be non-riverine wetland and is classified as a palustrine, seasonally flooded,
wetland supporting shrub-scrub vegetation (PSS 1 C, Cowardin classification). A site visit was
held for verification of the jurisdictional delineations on May 1, 2007 with John Thomas US
Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) and Sue Homewood (NCDWQ). Due to the time frame of
the field visit an official jurisdictional determination notice was not issued. Therefore, included
in with the application is the Rapanos forms needed to complete the jurisdictional process.
Additional supporting information (wetland data forms) has already been submitted the USAGE.
Permanent Impacts
There will be 26 feet of surface water impacts in Big Alamance Creek associated with riprap
bank stabilization for two stormwater ditches (Sitel).
There will be a total of 0.09 acres of non-riverine wetland impacts (Site 2). These consist of 0.02
acres of impact resulting from fill, 0.02 acres of impact resulting from excavation to replace a
ditch, and 0.05 acres of impact resulting from mechanized clearing in the non-riverine wetland.
Utilit~lmpacts
There are no utility impacts associated with this project.
Bride Demolition
The existing bridge was constructed in 1957 and is 97 feet in length. It is a single span bridge.
The superstructure consists of a timber deck on I-beams. The substructure consists of one
concrete abutment, two concrete interior bents, and on rubble masonry abutment. All
components of the bridge will be removed without dropping any of their components into Waters
of the United States. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
implemented during demolition and construction.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to
avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all
remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the
B-4131 Permit Application
Page 2 of 4

planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the
project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize,
and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the
project's jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by
NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• Stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be
implemented.
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and for Demolition and
Removal will be implemented.
• No bents will be placed in the channel.
• A longer bridge will be constructed, which will allow for better floodplain access.
Compensatory Miti atg ion:
NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described above. The project will have non-riverine wetland impacts and stream
impacts from bank stabilization. However, NCDOT does not propose compensatory mitigation
for the 0.09 acres of non-riverine wetland impacts and 26 feet of stream impacts because impacts
are minimal and the stream impacts will not remove aquatic use.
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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) for Guilford County.
The bald eagle has been. delisted as of August 2007 and is not subject to Section 7 consultation
and a biological conclusion is not required. However, the bald eagle remains protected by the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. No nesting or foraging habitat for bald eagles is present.
In a letter dated March 19, 2004, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
requested a moratorium on in-stream work from April I to June 30 due to a significant fishery for
sunfish at the bridge location. However, the letter incorrectly states that the bridge will cross
Little Alamance Creek. The proposed project will bridge Big Alamance Creek. However, based
on the lack of statutory regulations requiring this moratorium, NCDOT does not believe that this
moratorium is warranted.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of February, 19, 2008 (review date of January 1, 2008) with a date
of availability of April 1, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction
in February.
B-4131 Permit Application
Page 3 of 4

REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: Application is hereby made for the Department of Army Section 404 for the
issuance of a Nationwide Permits 13 and 23 for the above-described activities.
Section 401 Permit: We also hereby request 401 General Water Quality Certifications (WQCs)
3632 and 3626. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the WQCs. Therefore,
written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
0.0501(a) and 15A NCAC 2B 0.200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as
notification.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Deanna Riffey at [phone].
Sincerely
. /~ •
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, Project Services Unit
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Stephen Kirby, PDEA
B-4131 Permit Application
Page 4 of 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & 13
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8

T
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 11 over the Big Alamance Creek on SR 3394
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4131
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Guilford Nearest Town: Climax
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): see map in permit
drawings
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9548 °N 79.7009 °W
6. Property size (acres)
N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Big Alamance Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The land use in the surrounding area consists primarily of
residential development with some forested areas.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 11 will be replaced on the existing location. Traffic will be maintain during
construction by an onsite detour. Heavy duty excavation equipment will be used such as
trucks dozers cranes and other various equipment necessary for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: see cover letter
Page 3 of 8

t
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 2 Permanent Non-riverine shrub-scrub No 200 0.09

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.09
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.09
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must he included_ Tc calculate acrea~e_ multiply leneth X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres
Site 1 Big Alamance Crk Permanent Fill P 40 26 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 26 0.01
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation. dred~in~. flooding. drainage. bulkheads. etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.09
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.10
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Please refer to the attached
cover letter
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8

USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
NCDOT does not propose compensator.Ymitigation.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form.. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Page 6 of 8

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the -NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feed Mitieation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
Page 7 of $

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http:/Ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwctlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

oN~ I~•Z-o
~ ~ A~licant/Agent's Signature ~ ( ~ ~ Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of S

* -
c
v
3
E
E
a
sa o
,"~~
~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~
Un;on
R:t~fl
-as
f.
~~~® ~l
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: 33484.1.1 (8-4131)
BRIDGE 11 OVER
BIG ALAMANCE CREEg
ON SR 3394
SHEET ~ OF ~ 3
I~~][$7[°l~[ ~~I[$~IL~I~A

~~~~ ~~~
--~~~ ~~r_ dal
__ .-'i xa
_ `~,~ ~~
J =~,-- 89
__\ _,- j
TabemaGe Church Rb ~ ' ~~
~ 4~ 421 ~~
~~ '~, ~
- ,--3411
~~
m
,_ ~ _ m ~
END ROJECT ~'~
1='
\ y=-
~ (,. --~
_ ~ -~
BEGIN~~ROJECT~ ~;~ o
f"~ i -,
i ~_
', ~
~~ ~~ n
_~ ~ ~ _~ ~~
i/
3394
~a
~~ ~` ~~3618
-~ ~~
--;~ ~~
1
.\ \'~ .,\
,\
`~ ~ ~ ~ ~l
.~
~~ 1
-ti- ___~ I 1 ~\
i '~ I r
-- ~~ ~~ `I
..
/~
i - ` ~~ 'i
,\
~ 1 3549
i
'i i
~~
L__--_
~~ S©,uth st
~,,~ Greens o3~~c
°' irport
~~~~
GLI
~-
0
~d.
o~
~m~

E
E
0
D
oao
oa

---~JLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
L~LLLLLLLI DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
DENOTES PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
(POND)
KZ11L111JDENOTES TEMPORARY
~~~,!;/~!%~j FILL IN WETLAND
~~LGIDENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
• * DENOTES MECHANIZED
+~` *~` •' * CLEARING
~ FLOW DIRECTION
~- TOP OF BANK
--- WE EDGE OF WATER
__-_ ~ _-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
-----F --- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
---•NG ---- NATURAL GROUND
___ PL __ PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT.
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48"
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
.. WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
= TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT ~ DITCH /
PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
--EAB--~ EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
n WATER SURFACE
X X X X X LIVE STAKES
X X X
O BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
SHEET
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:33~8~.1.1 (B-~131)
BRIDGE 11 OVER
BIG ALAMANCE CREEg
ON SR 339
OF 1~ ~9®19®07

sa
~U1~1~A~I~~ ®]F At~]FEC~IE~ IE~I$®]E~]ERTY ®WN]ERS

TRACT N0. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE N0.
O CLALIDE COOK 6330 COMPANY MILL ROAD
CLIMAX, NC 27233 I
O7 ETTA REYNOLDS 6327 COMPANY MILL ROAD
CLIMAX, NC 27233 2
O JOHN WOODARD 6322 COMPANY MILL ROAD
CLIMAX. NC 27233 2

N`l.~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:33~48~.1.1 (B-131)
BRIDGE 11 OVER
G I I BIG ALAMANCE CREEg
L, ON SR 339
SHEET ~"~ OF I ~ ~ /' 20 / 07

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 -L- 15+20 TO 15+50 LT Embankment Ri Ra 0.01 26
2 -L- 17+3o TO 19+95 RT Roadway Fill/Ditch 0.02 0.02 0.05

TOTA LS: 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 26 0 0
Anticipate no impacts due to construction of proposed bridge or removal of existing.

~U
va
~N
om
M
V
I
•~
W
O

H
U
O
U
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 0 50 100
PLANS
50 25 0 50 100
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
to s o la zo
PROFILE (VERTICAL) ~
nr T nAex of Sheets - - ~ r7 vtra e ~ lf? ~/A m A Y //~ 1rD olfa lC]f ~ A 1fD (/~11< 1f 1®T ,A
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2007 = 3100
ADT 2027 = 5200
DHV = 12 °fo
D = 65 °k
T = 4 °/a '
"• V = 50 MPH
' TTST 1% DUAL 3°/a
PROJECT LENGTH . ,~.,w „, „p ~ „V„ ~.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4131 = 0.119 MI. , Consulting Engineers
loll s~easnea~e nmdm,~ ~s
~r~esiass
LENGTH STRUCTURE ITP PROJECT 8-413/ = 0.011 ML was snu~aRn sPRCrFrranoxs
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT B-4131 = 0.2~ ML RIGHT OF WAY DATE: BRIAN A. WILES P.E.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 PRO/RG7 RNGAl68R
LETTING DATE: MICHAEL A. YOUNG, P.E.
FEBRUARY 19, 2008 PROfRC7 IRiS(GX RNG~Q'ER
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
PE
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
aan swicr aouc~a xa
m xar use roa wxsiaurnox v
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
a aaa p
C~
•,
A
~ i
.. 4
° ra~M~a
PE
NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY ROUSER, P.E.
ROADWAY DESIGN -ENGINEERING COORDINATION

w
,,
,
~ ~
\(~~\ \EIP
II
II
I o .I
p ~ ~•~} .I
I
N l
II
---'----' " .1
I B fl
'--------- 1 1 I
'~~ I I
I I
ISFO 1'1
ill
II .,
II 11
II 1
I II
II 11
I1 1I
II 1
I I ETT~ REYNOLD ~~ ~
II
II i
11 1
~ ;;:.
I
1
l
1
i I ~ .. .. .. ..
I
I
ii'.
f~
1 1
T` I~j PSIM
j j $TA 10+9 ~.11+50 LT
INI EST 175 SY W00D5
I EIP ~ I I ~'
A~y^~ T 0
--'--- ~_ rtuG y -x 1 EI
`~~S618 ~011'ERr RO ~_.
Lln~~
DETAIL B LATEAAL 'V' OITCA
LATERAL 'V' DITCH INOt ro scowl
INwt to $wlwl
N
Narura SNpe
FII 4ouW D I'/Ff.
1. Min. D= t Ft.
iroww O r/Ft. Slope Nrar Maw. d= 1 Ft.
Mln. O= I Ft. Fa6rto D= 2 Ft.
b= 2 Ft.
TYDe of Liner= CL re'Alp-flap
STA 10+50 TO STA II+50 0.T STA 15+67 70 STA 16+50 LT
ESi. Cl 'A' 0.1PRAP = 33 TONS
EST. HLTEA FABRIC = 97 SY
DETAIL C DETAIL H
LATERAL BASE DITCH LATEAAL 'V' DITCH
INOr to scowl INwt to soawt
r/Fr. Slep° _ RL
I D Ground p lFt. Slaps
Fatbr~lc Mln D= I Ft. d MIn. D= IFt.
Max. d= I Ft. Max. 0= I Ft.
•Whn B la < 40' B= 2 Ft. b= 2 Ff.
b= 2 Ft.
Type of Llner- CL.'B'AID'Rap Type of liner PSAM
STA U+30 TO STA 15+20 L7 -0RP/E-~ STA 10+50 TO STA 10+95 RT
En. Cl'B' RIPRAP - 12 TONS
ESL.RUER FABRIC = 115 SY
O NADGRID
b 83
a RO & ASSOCIATES, PIC.
DETAIL E , Consulting Engineers
SPECfA~CDTUITCH lou sawn Ow,surle -im Nwlce,xc aeaw
I Not f0 Scala) lNW ~~
Front
Na d A•1 K;0( Slopown
Cround p W
DETAIL G
Mln. D= I Ft, SPECfAL-CITY-DITCH
INOi to SWw) FraM
STA 16+50 TO STA IB+00 LT Ao( w( Oltcn
w ~ sbpw
GroVq '
RIP RA A~TF6ANKMENT d D Mln. D= I Ft.
I Not ro Scasl MaN d= I Ff.
Type of Llner= PSRY
mra,
GrOaw s• SFA 13+00 TO STA 1] +BS RT
STA 13+IS TO STA U+00 LT
Eat. Ei TanW LS' S7A IT+35 TO STA 19+00 AT
Fat.2p SY F
iypw of Llrlwr= CL T Rlp-Rap
STA 15+20 LT
STA 15+60 LT
CLAUDE COOK ~ ~
i
NOOpS
~ 1 ;+ 1
0 ,1
'
_ II
N '
' r 1, 1 : I
~ uTERU v DrtcH CLAUDE COOK '/
v/CL 'B'nPAAP r /
r• ~g PIIa~ ~ SEE DETAIL D i + ' `
z EIP { 1 fl ESf DDE - 10 CY ' I
o fx 6 1
r / o= 1 ; ~ /
{ ~ i ~ POND 1 I
Za NE 678.9 1 ~
vi IP ~ 1/
UTERAI BASE DITCH 1
f
dCl'B'RO'RAP Rr'CR 04M CIASS B AIP RAP
T SEE DnAII C ~ RIPRAP @ ESi I TONS I
EST ODE = 20 CY ~MBANK1AENi ESi 7 SY FF
door 1 I
;SEE DnAIL " l1
SPK CUT DRCH ~ ' '
IJPSAAI ~
I SEE DETAIL G ~ m f i\ 11 SOrylgl
11 - ~ D SBG r` T
F OS I ~~STA 15+28 '. 1 111 i
1 C ~ 5 I ~' ~ .. SP ~ ~ rt0f i 1 11
1 D uLE Aa'
8 ~ E~Pi
`r' 0 0 . -
-.:.r..tir. ~ ~ _~ .... •~•, .~u NO 21'BSi - 0 ~ " ,~,pVE f
T~ S 00 RUTi'~ '---__ _
.. w0005 .. .. .. __ wl _ - - i
~, -
______ ~ SLtl( ~ RA W0005 _ ---
• _~________ 3 `----~_ _
~" _- -- _ 1 .. D
1'/1PP Tz
G~RTO oRu~_
I ----- / i o I Do -
I I
wboos
_-~ 1 I
I 1
IV I sN~ sPK cur DrtcH --
JAME CLADSON~ I ~~ ~~ I /~/w ~ ,
I DrtcH `rTSA"( ur vDrtcn b
l 5 L A SEE DETAIL G ~~ I I~ n t
11 I cat E - 5 CY SEE DETNLH IT~1 E
4! wopp5 ESi DOE = 3 CY ' ~/ ~ w 1 ° N
/ ~' E ~ CUSS II r1P RAP yP CNP R to
., i i ~ / j . ° i ~ ~ UPfO ELEV. 618.0 A>PI ~ ~ I OdME pOWE
RICHARD REYNOLDS RICHARD REYNOLDS ~ ~ (,I'rf . IsTR IrEAA: ' ~ ed 1 9 ,
ll / 1
1
1 i / ..4r` 1
. ~ EIP e 1~ 11 wtL
1 I k\ ~ 11 11 SPK DRCH
1 r/PS
i ~i k\x 7 /+'' ~ 111 11 SEE 0 L G
11 I `x` \O / ' ~,. .. 1111 111
i i ~,~, /,~ ; '' 1
rl 11 11
1 EIP ~ wDaos O I woaos 1 1 ~ ETT
ii k ~ .7 1 I
1; ~k~ RICHARD REYNOLDS ' 111
i
l i ~~ I E A REY LOS I 1 1 ~-
ll
t ~ '1 j 11
a I1 i 1
~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ - j(// ', ~ 11
9 ~ 11~ ~ I 1/1 111 I 11 1
i i 1
it 1 I
11 11
I J 1
E 1 I
T ~ 0 1, ~ ~ l ..
I 1 ~ /:
11
?. 1 I
- ~1 ~ ~ ~ 11 11
~~ I / 11 11
1
;n woooE: '1
m •\,
I
100 0 I
1
~' ~^ 1 ll ~t~11V V' 1L~ V'W EIP I
~~a
50 100 % ~~7[°~ ~ ~ ~~~]~ ~
~~ SCALE: I"= 100' HORIZ. ~ ~ ~
x "'L.n`.nvr
s x ~}
JOHN w000AR0 ~ I
s x e
I a° ~ , -~
I I
I I
I I
-~ ~ I1
x
CS l
1
IsaRD '
1
I
PAOIECTREFEAENCE N0. I SNEET N0.
B-4131 - i 4
RAV SHEEP NO.
0.0ADWAY OgIGN HYDAAUUCS
ENGINEE0. nAGINEER
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
p0 NM USF N CONNTRUCI'IOY
INCOMPLE E PLANS
00 NOT VSE F00. /N ACOVISTCION
\I\
!) W
~,% ~
~/ I P %
1 "'- _ /0 ~

JDHN woooARo
$FPTIC FIELD
l ~G~°
9 {,~
~,
b
i~'~
• ~ y
~ ]IC ~~ ~0
DU1E POwfA GO 1
I
I
O
I
REYNOLDS IIw; I
JOHN WDODARO
O
2
EIP NOT Ai I ~ v-mow
CORNER
~~~]E ~ (LEGEND
•
-WLB- WETLAND
DENOTES PERMRNENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
°±W~P~ DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
EDWARD SMITH
GLI
1V'l.~®~
D[VLSION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:33~8N.1.1 (E-4131)
BRIDGE 11 OVER
BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
ON SR 339b
SHEET OF d/19/07
`__ W
r
~'.} 11 u i ~ /~/ /~/
0 C• p / r
//G~A1 j~/ T~~/
~~14 ~ ~ RO~Sj/~/
l
Y GG~yNN~i
SA 3y% ~ 4(~Y
~ /7~. / 4Y
~~ U+ ' ~wsnq, c'l
~~wLB
~~ ~ ~ ~ .
~<e ~ ~

i
KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. "`8°`y131"~V °`4'"
DETAIL E Consulting Engineers
a

SPEL`rA[l`DT-DITCH ,
wu eauln ogsune xe wneltxcnero ~ snEEr No.
I NOt to Scobl Owl enure ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
Front
DItCI
( ENGMEER ENGINEER
Sbpe
Na a ~ k~ [N°
o
Dune ry D ~ DETAIL G
-
-
Mln. D= I Ft. SPECfAL
DITCN
COT
I Not M Steel

STA 16+SO i0 STA IB+00 LT

DETAIL F Front
Gfound q\°t •( 51'ope
°
E,\ E$T. CL'R'RIPRAP = 32 TONS RIP RA>~C3ANNMENT d D
~\ EST. FILTER FABD[ - 93 SY I Mot to sadel Mln. D= I Ft. Cj~l
DETAIL C Mar d= I Ft.
1 ~ DETAIL H Trpe of Liner- PSILM Sheet
LATER~Y BAS~ITCH LATERAL 'w DITCH o'cr a -~^~ nA 13+pp TO STA 13+85 Rr
1Nat to Sctlel
in a STA 13+15 TO STA 1l+00 LT
9ea• ~•B T•^• ~ STA 17+35 TO STA 19+00 0.T ''\\
p r/Fr. sap. Eat. RD n n:
~r\~ \\ p ' r/ t.
EIP I iatrlo TYR• o} Liner- a T Rlp-Rop o9`Y
Minx. d=ll Ft. c MIn. D=IFt. ~,~°f .9'~;\
-- \ .Rhn B b (6.0' B= 2 Ft. Max. d= IFt. STA 15+30 LT - \
~' \ b= 2 Ft b= 2 Ft. STA 15+6o LT \
`1/ ~--~ Type of Liner= CL'B'Rlp-Rop iYpe of Liner= PSRM ~ P ~ _-_ _ --- ---\
gl !"J/ ~ $TA 11+3p TO STA 15+2p l7 -0RIVE- 5TA 10+50 TO STA 10+95 RT X ~ ti.+r i _
V I I EST. CL'R' RIPRA! . !1 IONS - r,' X ,n r't
'.` _i _ __Q`ie~, ____ i i EST. RlTE0. FABRIC = 115 SY -' 4/y _ %0 ~ • ____" - -_,
1 ~'Q ,~' ~ ! ~ ~ ~; r ~ ~ ' i ,
_ ~ - e - ~ I >n NC GRID I ' ( ; I °' ~ x; ' -- __ -- ---
~,
- ~~ -_ I_________ f 16 i i ~ ' ~~ h ~''rR' JOHN M ARD: ~ ~, ; ~~ ~c' _ --'---'
..
., ~ ~ j
UdE CdOK i
_ I I
IsFp~' -__- -
E'~
'- I i 'I , rr a~~, w - '~ ~r ~ ROOq~S ~ {!~ 1
' '1 I P ' ~ r --____
~ I l r l i ~ .fir {hl rX 0 I --
I I' .. I I ' N I r~~ ~L^~i
" ' i', ))) < UTEAM 1" DfECH d CLAUDE COOK ~ a ' I OIl
~ i i i II ~ m WCl 'B' RIP0.M y" it i i m ~ '^
' ~ ~ % I ETT REYEIOLO i I i ; ! ~ ' a m rtry ~!r _ I d - ` ,` ` ,
' I I I I ~ 61P i m r~ III IF,Y 11 SEE OEUIL D ;~• ~ i' ~
' ' ~ ' i i n i 4 A./ EST oDE = to CY [ -- r IsBRp '
-, `^ A I b~. ~ 'A' I ~ o 'fir ~ x m L) r' ~ }9~'' I ' i I ,
ll I ; ; p p= , I I' ~~
r l ,J/
i I I II 1 '~ i Su POAp '( rr xi / r -~ E r 1
' ' O I m NE fiN8.9 1 I 1 ~ __ L` ~___
__ - I r~l:` _-'- ~'il ,'~` N i i'w 'I N r m ` 1 ' ,,i " ~~S ,/ 1,' I'. -- "~` ~ 1m0. ~ _ -____'_
__ ~ I : _________ I 'I r UTEr ~brel~GE~~DfEEH ~ 9 _ t r I `~ .'i - r0 . ~N~y j- ~~~ r
-_~-- "~- '--' 1 '1 i W(~ cur Nr 1' flOL~ ' - '' I / pl 1 1 ~ ~~ ~ M ~A
yl N _____ _________ - l i ~ SEE p AL,C ' !'~' K o ,C(A5~- P I it JOHN DARD~ I I r
__;"a ~;1~ I _-rsu,~- ---- I ~ ' ; ~r E 5 Jo Fr rnAl{@ ~ esC~ ar~ °Ir ~ ~ ~. ~', I~}~•;p ~ ~~irc;, ~~ ~` ~~~'."e,
r
r
~,
_ II
`'" _ --' rl3' STA lo+ ~3+sa L B .. 1( ~ er srdt c Dn ~H EE Dt7ML F ~DDOS r , ; EPirc F LB ~ ~' ~ I ~rE_ L m~ ~'~~;~ . y .-~ "--
,' - /~ --
.,
i 7r .
I T
i
_ 9~'i ~~:yez' EST 1 n I ti."'ky, r/PSRM~ O m ~'.' I ~r ~. I T r ~
i n r ;
m w --'.- -' MINI __ SOWS-- ''a- I _ oH, _ StiiuBl R'cR-i N ~ 471 m
' ~' sEE D,n'uL c ,', ~~ -' ~ s'l
~' I
_- rl -_.--J ~. it ~~ r _-
-EIP ,-' -' _- _____~ ., I, I _ _ __
--- '__ , ------- -- p ~ ~ ~o / A tsB i~a'; I I / I ~ I ~~, `` I ` ~ r 1 1 ~r--; .~~ ~ Bst
- -- - -- a A } ~ ~ '
' _a xu~ -x "_ -- _ 'i Ela; .,` . ~ ~~- §~"~.-'_, ~, EItCH _ , o ; 1-i , /J'-/~~ , !~ f%!r e LD,~r~M~i ; ~} 1
s• i ~ • _
TT~SR dNB xDYEgrr RO __i 'I __ GR _ - SFAPR~ B' `\~__66N-_ EIP ___ ' Sf/ - - ,' rs ~~
_'_SA1 __ _ ~ u 4. 'S8' <tB"'C4 __ ~ CO _ u \ ry _-_ _ ~ I
n m ~ ~ COMPANY M RD Yr ~' +
_ _ _---- m TE
_~ i
.. ••VO __ ___ _ , _
______ - ~'~ ~` "-- m -_ ;.REM ~ i ~_ r
s^ _ - 3 1 7Y DSt: ____ __ ~ ~ I alt -__ -_ _ i~ ` 1T. s -',~ ~'.\-' `~ ~' ,'
-- __
--'6YE-__ ~_ _ _ ~. ___ __ __ --______ ~ _ __ - ~ l d
` ~ r~ 0 wuP me a EdWAAb ITW
.6rr3" G~ R TO D t'~2
-iY•-____- .. - _~_ .- ___ ___ _ i~ SCRUB ~/ r _
---rwbDS I - I `? ~ ,f , d0- _ __ __ _ r+~,""• • WN' ~ ~ ~~ I n
sir--- ~ { "__'- _- ,. ~ .. .. - _ - - . •c~• ~• cRU
7 CLAOSON= ----- 'i~_' SHRUB ~.. SPEC-CUi D - ______ _ __ is • ~• ~ ~yf•'~~ ~ ~1 ,1
,_668-'-~ C i __ dTCH ,NrSRM UT:M'Dn - __ _ - - ~(S.s ~ I ' • b
Erb--- - r-a B 'SEE LG-dPSRM ,, 'ry'~i ~; m , ~E ~ ~ ~% ,~, `~, ~g ~g "'-,~'.
-_ - ___ , I I , 4Y '_ • 5 FSi DOE ~' 3 CT 6 "~ ~ ~' ' %~ BA' a r fTYP.1 I E ,
r,-j 1 _ __ ~p ~ I I
I I ___ I ~ _ -_ i
__ i i r ~ 6 . .-' ~ _~` ~: E - ~ E 5 II RIP A~P ~ =1 CMP . ' ER ~ DVtiAE PDxfA CD 't~,'
r , „ ARD REYNOLO$ -"- - ,-RICFIAAD RH`NOLOS-, / i EtEI'. 6le.o RYPI~ m II N otIF.E ~ _ ~~
r - ___ ~ - `~ II ~ 1, M MTL, L A q y I
'err rw ,k1~k; ~ EIP ~~ I ~ ~,SPIL ~ ~~DRCN s dr y~'~ m py.~- ~
•,R\~'~ .`9A ' x\ {~ I ~ 4FE `~i4 m I JdHN LFOODARd ; y'~
- ill. `~ ~'~~`~. `,~~ `r.} f; ~ ul~ ;d~ ~'r ~'. Y.r dr r '--
` r ~I - ~,9 \, .~ s-?59 __ HAR4;A~YNOLDS S ff ' T '-'- Via, ; woops_a, 11y',~' '(:T1' OLD$ ..
r r rA '~,~',-959_ __ _ A EYE ' DS _. ` ~P r, R tY . ~. rl __ 1 i I~ _ rc '` E
r ~ rA m ~~ y yz-•'--_, __ _ _ -- rs'_ a II --'r ..'.. ~" r~ ~ `
m ~ it rn '~`` ~ rr Jrl, __ - , mlm'rl I° r~ "my~ __ __ !I, II ~' ' 0(iN OAT AI }"~.r- ,
~ I _ + - -~ - I I ER
° - - --~~ ~,`ir~m - '~ - ~ ~~ ~~~~ r~,;' -
t ° ~I ~0`~]{ f ,!, ;~ LEGEND *`yI
-r~ ~~ / ~ f A.9' RODOS ~ ~ ~ ___ I` '. Y d •I ~~®°J(°
If 1'.€5B ~'-- ll
N ~ ';~ r -- -WLB- WEiLANO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
`,~/,/,' DENOTES PERMANENT
'1~ ~~";' I ®SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
IOO O I ~ GUILFORD COUNTY
I ® DENOTES FILL IN
~` ~ ~~,v7 ~~~~y ~ WETLAND PROJECT:33484.1.1 (B-413ll
50 Ioo ~',,,' `~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ EIP ®DENOTES EXCRVAT[ON BRIDGE Il OVER
IN WETLAND BIG ALAMANCE CREE%
~~ I' I ON SR 3394
~~ SCALE: III= OO( HORZ. / ~ DENOTES MECHANIZED
~% \ " CLEARING
=e SHEET OF 4/19/07
DETAIL 8
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
I NOt }o Scab)
crww p r~Fr. p°p0
Nin. O= I Fi.
b= 2 Ft.
STA 10+SO i0 STA I1+50 0.T
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
p0 NOT USE Po CONSTRUCTION
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DO NOT USE fOR /A wLVULSiTI°N

~ M
m
_ EI~~
1 ~"~~
a 5 ~ ~' ~
_ - ~ •1
_ ~ 1
--- I
~~ 1
I
RFO 111 I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
I
II
II
I
II
11,
11
11
I '
I I'
11
I
I '
~li,
~~
---~:;__-_ woods . I,..'
"`~~,,.`
wDDDs
JAMIE GLAD
a
,;
R
m
a
a
~;
~,
I ~
v 1~~
l
~ ''I
100 0
I
50 100
SCALE: I"= 100' HORIZ. / ! /
DETAIL A
TEravbRaRY~ITCN
lxot to Sedel
Ffonx
N urd ~ ~t~ $IOP
croulw x D W
Nln. D= I Fi.
STATION TO STATION SIDE
70+50 - 14+00 RT
17+35 -1R+50 RT
EIP
aK._-
Cousultin~
w sauce Nc sum
D~oc~(~
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
W NO'T U5R M CONSTRUCTION'
INCOMPLE E PLANS
W NOT USE FOR /A ACQUISITION
Perms D
'
~
~ PROJECT DEFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
'
,
' a-4~sr z-e
;f9
ncnsos R1V SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDAAUUCS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
~^'~:~~
-n
0
p ~
O JOHN WOODARD
9
//
~ //
~~
6 /~ /./~~
~~ aj
/ ~.
;woods b
`~nncx ' GLI
• 1 ~c~®~°
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
THE WETLAND IMPACTS TO THIS AREA
ARE NDT SHOWN ON DETOUR SHEET. GUILFORD COUNTY
THEY ARE SHDWN ON SHEET 4 FOR PROJECT:3398A.1.1 (B-4131)
PERMANENT ROAD. BRIDGE 11 OVER
LEGEND BIG ALAMANCE CREEg
ON SR 339
-WLB- WETLAND
SHEET OF 4/19/07
~T\\ \ \EIP
II
II
I
II
II

1
_~
DETAIL A
TEMFDAAAYUITCH
trm7 to sodel
Front
Naturd ~ ~ iOY SbP
LYOwd y D
Mln. D= I Ft.
STATION TO STATION SIDE
10+50 -1l+00 RT
17+35 - 18+50 RT
a 4~ & ASSOCIATES, P,C, P0.01ELT DEFERENCE N0.
8-4131
Consulting Engineers WW SHEEP N0.
ue Baum BlL SUaE wE BBI>ara NC nBOB
19141~bBY ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEE0.
1>~r~uK
SHEET N0.
2-B
ENGINEER
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
00 NOi 4'SE PO CON9TAVCTION
INCOMPLE E PLANS
W NOT U9E FOR /Y AWUISRION
E-~ Perms ur Nti
~ ~
1 ~ - .`
\E\` \\EIP I ~' '~\9// 9
II I ~''X ~y ~,
-'Q ye9-' I i e.. 0
~~I I __- •_" i i P ;J ___--_____
I~ s _Y~ ~1~ ~ NC GRID I ~ ^~ ' ~ ,,
______ I i g i i ~' ~:/ i ~ ~ ~~ - _________
- Icy ~--°---- I I I JOHN M DARD% ; ~~ ,6- _
I'g- -_~_- ._ __,_ sue- `~ i r~,,1y1~p m it i ~ CL~UdE CbDK I /\J 5 ',r ~ X ~ B _____- -
ISFO `YYI i P ! ~' 1 i I ' ~ - ` / N w00o9~ y d
_ , 1 I ~ ~ ass m 1 it ~ n~ ~ -
IIr ~ i I ri I I W ,y'
n W i i ~~ , rn _ ~ ~ I
~ I i ~ ~ 111 ~ t tid CLAUDE COOK 1 ~ p~
r i l r ETT~ REYAOLD I '1 I i'I ! i ' a 1 1 r I' I H, ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ' I I ,I 1 II ~ p EIP ' m ' ~ ____ __]n • I I
4l I IJ ~ I 1 r• < 11 ~ ISBRO ti
~I I .69. 'I ~A~ 1 1 O I j'i i r
~- i I 1 1 \1 m i DO // I I y~ -
j1 m 1 1 ~ k IN POND '1 ``Y /I -~ I i/I i___
~1' rl 1 I 11 II Z r wE 69 I ~ 1\_!' _ -1'•. ____- _
' o m 8.9 I I -- -_ .
- 1 7 ' .. 1~ 1\1 li ' ~ i r b In I : '~ 1 ~ yr~ 1'1~ I`` - C ~m~ _ _ _
_ 1F II U Ni IIP '`' CI I P I I .` ` ~
rl 1' ___'- TAI ~~~' ~:~ ~ 1 1 ~ \11 __- :IF ~ Q ..O~y1 //II'.
IrF;: _-"__---- 11 '\ J~, B°• '-Y5 _. -- f ' m I EI `YYI ~~ `rW - ~/' d
~,~.- "~,-'',.' ~'-'' ,'~ I -- ~' . `K D ''~ ' I ~ r, JOHN OODARD~`, 1 ;(!~~ ['.~ 1 _ ~- ~< ~
I% 1 __ _- Y \\I ~ 1 W 4Y 1 ~I O .' .' ~ N A .069
-' .-' ,' -A •' VIII Y T i 5 I v. 1
b4 b66 __ 'I pi ' i Il r' , ' __ d0V8 i ~ EPTIC FI LD - ~ ; ~r9, '" ,'~ i / j~ , __
-" d f~~ ~BL,_ Ir 1 t~ ~ '2[9r I ~ •O N J 1 SCNUB q ~ , r ~' ~ ~ i4q 1' my
~ I I ____ _ Y0005____ ilk -~ gl~ly rr qy' __ __ _ - Ir ~ i S"~ '~ ~r%li,:
w __
"SIP W _ - __ a ~ _: \\ ~ ``"^x` z __ 5T f
__ - 1 B
.___ ,--' 1 , w° ------ ~ - -- I~ eEI ,woooS /yf ~_'` -__ I a~ _ ~ p~ -'~~ ~`po /.
-~--"--- ~c-_ ' .-` ____ I iFy^' ~7„ ~ / ' -" t.' ```~Yg_~,~'•~ I " a 1 \I 1 _II l _ ~'-~ -c I J~~ c°1°p~~ ~I ~3
_`~ _
";~ ~ -e rt ~ ~r ___--~ -x_,. - I -~`:, EIP,I' ~` m I ~ ~ - a ; -1''" o . `EIP `-'-- "? ~ sR,53i~-- __ ~I aoB$ !~I I
T t , "T,P r '~~~ __ _ ___ ____. "' ~ , /j, ,v _ _ Cf~1R I'6E,___ __,s_-"~ ~ i;' I ~~yy
_T. v _
T~SR d6lY Y0.YEF1+R0 m -:~~( ~ `--e ~' DaCMB~ -_- ~_' .- - ,9:'" ^, GATE .___-" ___. %/ '/ __ i I '.D ~ Wf
I --_' _
~,!~~ i
__ T ~ a i 9 CO v-- ,-i4___- B / 1 j Eb' c it ~ ~
=iB1-_ - y ~ . Y X59' c{g"C `~ r' ~+i ,' `• yT r i _ _ 1WB i
_ ~
MP4NY r _.~J AY ~ F ~ ~1 ~r
' .. •,YO -- ~° __ MIL i __ -___' ``BV - ___ ___ _ - __ i "r
,_._~ _ I.
~--
r
--___.~ s ..1 C 'RA - F ~~ .. - ___ Ci.~ I eli _. _. _.--._ -yLLi I y" ~ ~/~ _ ~
, I
i '~
--SBB"=•ca`: " .. ~ _ J)}° ! .. ~' + ~' _ •d~ ~` ~ EdRARD TW ,
~ .; --- ~ -0-; -- %~ - I
" '..
~_ +
i
r ) \`Y
~ ~- -
, __ ~ r
____ _____ `I i __ ~ _
7 GLADSON: ---- 'yu_' sNRUB _ - X66,,,' -' ~ . Z- Y. ; ~~ / `~' ,i ~ `~ t.B ~ ~ ~E9 ~~ ~ ~. ` ~[ d ~ I
_-668•'"~ _ ~I .' , ' - ~ ' I
_ 666____- Y_~ _ , "
I ___________ __ _ 'TEMPORARY DR,CH ~ 6 ~ ~ e`'gi '-
- ____ ____ I I,, ~ "~w s - SEEJ)ETAL A; o ~ ~~~- 9f , ~--~_ _`.r_-« F E m ' __
_ \I ; .662"-' --- -_ -'~ , E s E~ wD00c~~ _ . CMP ,'~ CO D~ POYFA °0 .Z~ ,
'. I ~ ~' ARO REYNOL~S~ ~ ,-RICHARD RE'fNOLDY" / _'i ,~ --
r /EIP ,~~. _ 1 1 s, '. wn, ~ I ~ ~ '~},,"_ c~
P I X ____ i `Y ~iFA1P0 ORCH .~9, °~ /' ,'66- 4f/r
.. `. •_- ' 1 rr m 1<X '- ~ ~' I SEE OEf A ,
S /:' ~ ~' ~ ~ J(dW ~OODARd '
__ `,-,ll ` EIR, \\~,~ `S 6 '~~ / a ani 5~1 ~ ~~`\ m 4/ m i I_ '--
i i ~ R , ~YpDbs O grl - ; w°°BS ` \ li ' ~~ ~ ~ ..
I',1. 1 ~`~ --~ 4 ~ II !!; ' 7° --- ~ ~ ' e I ~~ LOS ~'~
_•'•` X17._ ~ .`~~. .Y 4z9 __ CHpRQ iRkI'NOLDS Tso, `~~ i74 i., __ _ I`-`~~` E~I ~ -
1 1 , t ~ ~9E9_ _ __ _ _ f ~ I -
YY9:,.
n - ~ 111 ~m~W i~'^r 1' A _ ` 1 m __
~}\ II ~I _ I dl ___ i~.~~i ~ r m~' _,~ 'lil it WR ER,~AI
9 /)g \ LJ ' / 1 1 - •-. `, f 777 I~/1 __ 1 _ IY I m GL~
_ ~`` , P r~l 11~ ; ~- - / ; ~ . -- ~'/ I' 1` _ ,III; ~ .._
~ - _ __~ 1 `I'tia - 999_ ~••)~ ` r A'~ ^y{y' 11(; - 11 ~y~~ I111
-~ ~ ~ --_ ''' -6YYY-_ ~ NCB®°~
m
~`,~~,~~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~Y, ~ THE WETLAND IMPACTS TO THIS AREA GUILFORD COUNTY
~QQ Q ' 1 ARE NOT SHOWN ON DETDUR SHEET.
~ I I THEY ARE SHOWN ON SHEET 4 FOR PROJECT:33~8~.11 (B-~13ll
~ 1 EIP 11
PERMANENT ROAD. BRIDGE 11 OVER
SQ QQ LEGEND BIG ALAMANCE CREEg
~` SCALE: III= ~QQB HQR~Z, I I / I ON SR 3394
~_ ~ -WLB- WETLAND
is SHEET OF 4/19007

KO "I01~ E~~'GE ~ SHEET NO.
& AS50CIATES, P.C. XPL
a B-413!
Consulting Engineers ROADWAY DESIGN HYDAAWCS
wu fouuR oR.furrs ~mr ROJDOE.NC516Gf
IPDI 66,Ofi ENGINEER ENGINEER

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
W NOT Ubf CONSTRUCTION
INCOMPL E PLANS
DO NOT USE POR ~~ ACONSITION
~
Sheet li ~~
a
a
v
x
E
a

o
o.
570-
bb5 65.659.fp
b60- ------_~
b55-
650-
I WETLAND
LIMITS
c.P. = 6se,ee
C.P. = 656.49
VWOV ~KB s:r_
-----,gl __-
~~--- ~P 657.95 E~_
6ES.f7B '.
-DET-
'. 16+60.90
FILL IN
WETLANDS
~~~!1E ~
WETLAND
LIMITS
ss. ssa4az
4:/
2~~
656.54
657.20
EXCAVATION IN
WETLANDS
i ~
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
LEGEND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVRTION
IN WETLAND
- 670
- bb5
- S60
- 655
- S50
N~1~®'~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT:33~84.1.1 (8-4131)
BRIDGE 11 OVER
BIG ALAMANCE CREE%
ON SR 3394
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20'
VERTICAL SCALE:1" = 20'
;T OF 3026/07

I c ~
BAI. •1 EL = 652Tr
RR SPIKE IN IN PoLE
21a Rr of -el- Sra Is+o~
Zia Rr of -L- STA n+s9
Coneuldng En~inoere 8-413
m ara~ m4tax rom waoa.acnri AAADWAY ~t61GN
~ mpy aNGINlEI
Pe~m~ rev
x` ~ S EE GI DE S, ]~11 '
~
2
J
W
~ . ~
m W
. z ~ ~ x - o
x
~~
~
~ ~
~
*
~
~^ Q
~
~ E
v =
= 3J5
4D'
w
~ ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W \ W W J ~ = 5 W
~ ~ BRIDGE HYDRAUUC DATA
~
o
x ~ ~ ~' DESicN ascHARGE = z64o cFs
W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS
~ DESIGN Hw ELEVAriOx - 6462 FT
R

x
~
~
_
_ _
~
;~
W ~
~ BASE DISCHA
GE =4600 CFS
BASE FREWENCY = 100 YRS
, BASE HW ElEVAT10N
4 fT
6
w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
50.
N _ ~ ~ OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 70U7 CfS
OVERTOPPING FRECUENCY = 200+ YRS
: ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OVERTOPPING ELEVATION - 6532F7
= fT
x e DATE OF SURVEY = 8-10-05
. e W ~ , WS.ELEVATION
4 FT
~ 636
T
T
F
W h .
A
DA
SURVEY
E O
.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
R ~PL1~N,~SE~ S~IE~'f ~10.~4
N 5 P/PE HYDRAULIC DATA
~ K = 5 STa -DRIVE- 10+95
a ~ DRanaGE AREA = 15 AC
~ DESIGN FREWENCY ~ 5 YRS
W P = ll ~ ~ DESIGN DISCHARGE 8 CFS
W DESIGN FAV ELEVATION ~ 6475 FT
V - W 100 rEat DISCHARGE - 26 CFS
= 100 TEAR rn1' ELEVaTION = 6495 FT
^ g~ OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY 5 YRS
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE 8 CFS
~ ~ ,.~ ' OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 6415 FT
( 2 ~
e 4'R P

a ~~Y7 ln, ~If~
LV ~~® 1l

a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
T GUILFORD COUNTY
LEGEND
v PR07ECT:33I8I.L.1 (B-131)
'-~ BRIDGE 110VER
~m ® DENOTES FILL ]N BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
~~
CQ wEiLAND ON SR 3391

D~
~ 10 11 SHEET OF 3/ %/ 07
ane~r rio.
uuts
ie3a
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
-0 N07 U~ CON57$VC710N
INCOMPLE
W NOT V~ POR E PLANS
/- ACOUISRION

KO & ASSOCIATES
P
C P0.0JER REFEPENCE NO. SHEEP N0.
,
.
. 8-4131 6
a
Coosultin En ineers
g
1011 9OIAN 6R.OVfOY 10't MIHf$NLZIf00
196)Lfl~Bfi6 ROADWAY DEAGN
ENGINEE0. HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER

PRELIMIN
no vor vse ro RY PLANS
m~sreocnov
rditll
$hA9t Ot
F R LA EE S EE 0. -
i

`
n ~ ro T MP RA Y RID E, 1~9 '
m N Ep
u N
d
.
g
W
tD

~
\
.dri
~
~
W
v ~
c`DD
1=
3f8
1b
,~ N
m
~
~
~
~-
I''~ ~

~
gti

o
~~

~S ~ W
C =
=
2
2
EQ
~
~
~
~

p

= 17

~i y-
:r1
~m 4
2
W II

~

~~

~
~
~
g
:'~
~~..
\~ ~
W
"
~
v
_
a
~ ~
~W
-
'~
/
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA
\ + ~ o` ~' ~ o D - Om
(+)5 ~
OESIGN DISCHARGE = 1100 CFS

+
~ ~
~` ~
_
%'
%
v DESIGN FREQUENCY = 5 YRS
DESIGN MN ELEVATION = 6418 fl'

W

~~
~~

r
~
~
o
~
~ BASE DSCHARGE = N/A CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = N/A YRS
SASE HW ELEVATION = N/A fT
~ ~~\ -~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ o ~ OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = N/A CFS
0/ERTOPPING FREQUENCY = N/A YRS
~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ W *
W m W 0/ERTOPPlNG ELEVATION = N/A fT
~
p ~
~ ~/ W+
mC = FT

DATE OF SURVEY = 8-10-05
W ~, WS.ELEVATK)N
AT DATE OF SUR/EY °6358 ~

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

F R P N, SE S E T 0. 2-

P =1 70
+ ~V = '
?i ce W
mW W P
E =11
= 25
S ~ ^~.'
Eo
_ ~' K =2 W W
`\ ~~ /ssF GLI
~
- -
~r
z
i I
i
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROlECT:33484
1
1 (B-413ll
.
.
BRIDGE 11 OVER
BIG ALAMANCE CREEg
ON SR 3391
10 11 SHEET OF 4/20/07
'n
m
m
a~
~~
°'6
~z
oie
~rc~

See 5r>/ei 1-tJ r or convennonol ~ymmis
\ c'i ~ ~ ~ ~ ' --
,. ~" '~ /
`` ~ • ~
rw.m.mcn~a~d a ~\ -`~ -
. r-~_,
~ ~~ ~ l
/ J•l
EN I~OJECT j '~%
~' I
.,l \ I 1 ~I
•`_.
~•, i ~~
BEGINPfZOJECT ~ ~
J ~--- ~~ 4' ~5 3549
---~ ~ ; r
-- i ', 0 1 ,- ',
__~~ - ~-.
', . / ~ rc 3394 ~ I Sost
I a ~ e ~ 1 Greensboro
/•`_ 3618 '~ irport 337
,~ ~
VICINITY MAP
Mp~y618 1~1
-tom-RD 11
1
BEGIN TIP PRO
-L- STA. 10+10.00
B-4131
** DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND
VERTICAL STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIRED.
ll ~~ll/ ®~I AV ®u`i ll uu `1i 171®~~A~ 17~ rt~n ern naom ~oecRa rn ~~
R\`/y TAT ~j 1~r~q~~r Q~ .C. B-4131 1
~~ a ~~~~~b.V ®ll llJL~~~~!]l~~ nnuuo rrwu~s wa~n~
33484.1.1 BRZ~394(1) P.E.
- 33484.2.1 BRZ~394Q) PA4 & U1
CONST
GUILFORD COUII~TY
LOCATION.• BRIDGE NO. II OVER BIG ALAMANCE CREEK ON
SR 3394 (COMPANY MILL ROAD)
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING
STRUCTURE

NC GRID
NAD 83
4
a

BEGIN BRIDGE END BRIDGE
~- STA. 14+0.00 _
~ -L- ST~.15+90.00
_--~'t I
V! ~I ; ,~ r1~
',S !1
1
I j 1 ~ !
111 I -1
II 11
i+ Ill
11 1
l
I
V
~
I ~ 11 I r
111 ~ J!
1
I
~
U 421
S
0
l
f
it 11
If ll I It j1
r! ! -
^~\ (/
rl I 1
I
SRI 3394 (COMP 11
'
7 ~ ~
!r j r ~ If
r ~,~.~~~
II ANl ItOADJ ~-?
~ 1r11 rr1 LY'' ' -'
~
- ~' '~
L , -
11 ~ - -
-
--- _ tf' ~ ~.-
~I,
~-1 i ~I
r r ' ~

`
/~ r ,
r
!r I
1
1
'~
rl

Ir

~ ~ ~
~ ,1~
+ I
/ ~1

1 '~
~ 1 ~ TEMPORARY DETOUR
111 BEGIN BRIDG~
,_ T ll~f
!Ir
f -DET- STA./1,0+85.00 ~ ~ ~ 1
1
11
rr 1111
r r 1 `
, ~ j 1 ~
END BRIDGE
r
1 r I
r .,
~' 1~% DET- S .15+75.00
\ \ 1,° 1
NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY HOUSER, P.E.
ROADWAY DESIGN -ENGINEERING COORDINATION
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 0 50 100
PLANS
so zs o so lao
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 5 0 10 20
PROFILE
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2007 = 3100
ADT 2027 = -5200
DHV = 12
D = 6 5
T = 4 % "
" V = 50 MPH
' TTST 1% DUAL 3°k
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4131
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4131
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT &4131
rR r~ arrroe or,
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
= 0.179 MI. , Consulting Engineers
r° r r saved a-sem az rmwra+ nc aens
f9f91Ri19.~Bi
- 0.021 MI. :ea4 srumARO srRC~resrroRs
0.200 M1. RIGHT OF WAY DATE: BRIAN A. WILES. P.E.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 PR°/RCf RNGINRRR
LETTING DATE: MICHAEL A. YOUNG, P.E.
FEBRUARY 19.2008 PROJRCr ORS/GN RNGINRRR
END TIP PROJECT B-4131
U STA. 20 + 65.00
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
Pd
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o xoT vg roa coxnxvrnora
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
M0~ M
e
r~~
PR

Note.• Not to Scale

~S. U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering
II9IIVd~~~DN ~]F H[I~ff-3[W.~~~
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.•
St
t
Li
a
e
ne
County Line
Township Line
Cit
U
y
ne
Reservation Line - ~ - ~ -
Pro
ert
Li
p
y
ne
Existing Iron Pin
Pro
ert
C
p
y
omer -K
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Line -x-x-x-
Pro
osed Woven Wi
f
p
re
ence e
Pro
osed Chain Li
k F
p
n
ence e
Pro
osed Barbed Wir
F
p
e
ence $
Existing Wetland Boundary ----~.----
Proposed Wetland Boundary ti

Existing Endangered Animal Boundary ~-
Exisiing Endangered Plant Boundary

BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or llG Tank Cap 0
Sign 0

Well o
Small Mine ~
Foundation
Area Outline ~
Cemetery
Building
S
h
l
c
oo
Ch
h
urc
Dam
HYDROLOGY.•
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone 2
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream
Snrinn
Swamp Marsh
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
r-----~
L-___J
-u- -
-.~~ -
-wz z-
m
RAILROADS.•
Standard Gauge
csx rnµsmeraav
RR Signal Milepost o
ww~nsr Js
Switch ~
mrar
RR Abandoned ~ -.- -•- ~--
RR Dismantled
RIGHT OF WAY.•
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker Q
Existing Right of Way Line -
Pro
osed Ri
ht
f W
li
p
g
o
ay
ne ~-
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Access -_.~c~-
Proposed Control ofAccess -~_
Existing Easement Line -__E-_
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement- ---E
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -Tae--
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement - -Fae-
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement _roE_
RDADS AND RELATED FEATURES.•
Existing Edge of Pavement --
Existing Curb -
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut ~
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill F
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp ~vc~r
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp - cr
Existing Metal Guardrail -~- -
Pro
osed G
d
il T
p
uar
ra
Existing Cable Guideroil "
Proposed Cable Guideroil "
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
I~EGETATlON.•
Single Tree Q
Single Shrub o
Hedge ~•-..~
Woods Line ~^~.
Orchard p Q p p
Vlneyafd v~"eYa'd
SYMBOLS
EXISTING STRUCTURES.•
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert 0
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - ~ caxc ww
MINOR:
Head and End Wall w ew
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge ~----<
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB ^~
Paved Ditch Gutter -----
Storm Sewer Manhole 0
Storm Sewer 5
UTILITIES•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole b
Existing Joint Use Pole ~
Proposed Joint Use Pole 1
Power Manhole ~
Power line Tower
Power Transformer 8
USG Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole ~--~
Recorded l4G Power Line
Designated l4G Power Line (S.U.E.`) ----~----
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole ~•
Telephone Manhole 8
Telephone Booth 0
Telephone Pedestal ~
Telephone Cell Tower ~
lLG Telephone Cable Hand Hole f~
Recorded lLG Telephone Cable '
Designated lVG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.`)- ----'----
Recorded U'G Telephone Conduit '°
Designated llti Telephone Conduit (S.U.E."~ ----'°----
Recorded U~ Fiber Optics Cable "°-
Designated lbG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.`)- ----"°---
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Water Hydrant ~
Recorded lYG Water Line '
Designated lLG Water Line (S.U.E.`~ - ---'----
Above Ground Water Line uc w°,er
N:
TV Satellite Dish 0
TV Pedestal
N Tower
l6G TV Cable Hand Hole
Recorded lbG TV Cable ^'
Designated lYG TV Cable (S.U.E.`) ----^'----
Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cable r'°-
Designated lLG fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.`)- ----rvro---
GAS:
Gas Valve 0
Gas Meter
Recorded l4G Gas Line °
Designated USG Gas Une (S.U.E.`) ----°----
Above Ground Gas line uc c°.
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout +p
l4G Sanitary Sewer Line R
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer UG Smltary Saeer
Recorded SS Forced Main Line n=
Designated SS Forced Main Une (S.U.E.`) - ----~a----
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pale •
Utility Pole with Base p
Utility Located Object p
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown WG Line wiw-
tLG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil a
AEG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
l4G Test Hole (S.U.E.') ~
Abandoned According to Utility Records - AATUR
End of Information E.0.1.

PAVEMENT SCHEDULE

Ct
PROP. APPROX. 11+2° ASPHALT CONCRETE SUflfACE CDUASE
TYPE S9.5B PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BABE CDUASE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AVEAAGE HATE OF 114
"
,
,
AT AN AVEAAGE RATE Of 168 LBS. PER SD
Y0
EZ LBS. PEA S0. YD. PEA 1
DEPTH. TO
BE
"
.
. PLACED IN LAYEAS NOT LESS THAN 3
IN DEPTH OA OAEATER
THAN SN2" IN DEPTH.
PROP. APPROX. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE SUflfACE CDUASE, TYPE S9.5B

L"'2 ,
AT AN AVEAAGE PATE OF 188 LBS. PEA S0. Y0. IN EACH OF TWO
J
PROP, B" AGGREGATE BASE CDUASE.
LAYEflS.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE CDUASE, TYPE 59.58

C3 ,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LBS. PEA $D. YD. PEA 1" DEPTH. TD
T
EARTH YATEAIAL

BE PLACED IN LAYEAS NOT TO E%CEED 11¢" IN DEPTH. .
D' POOP. APPRO%, 2Y7" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE CDUASE,
TYPE T19.OB, Ai AN AVEAAGE AATE OF 285 LBS. PEA SD. YD. U EXISTING PAVEMENT.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTEAYEDIATE CDUASE,
DZ TYPE I19, OB, AT AN AVERAGE AATE OF 114 185. PER SD. Y0. PEP 1"
DEPTH, TO BE PLACED IN LAYEAS NOT LESS TNAN 21g" IN DEPTH DA W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAYEYENT.
GREATER THAN 4" IN DEPTH,
E1 PROP. APPROX. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE CDUflSE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AYEAAOE RATE OF NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES AAE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE

458 LB9. PEA S0. YD, .
TRANSITION FROM EXISTING TO T.S. N0.1
-L- STA. 10+10.00 TO 10+60.00
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
sTA.lo+bo.oo ro 12+so.ao
Detail Showing Method of Wedging
~ ~_
VARIES VARIES B' 30'
EXIST. TO 12'
21' VARIES
0' TO 1.5'
2'
Cl FDPS
C2
-_--- ,MATCH EX. MATCH EX~ 0~1
6:1
912• T
U ~ D1
~:r
GRADE TO THIS UNE YMw~
slaE
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1
-L- (SR 3394)
4 -L-
lu' 6' 11' S' 12' 12' °S'

'ADD 3' NRTH GUARDRAIL
VALUES 21' VARIES
1' TO 2' GRADE 1' TO 2'

£
~ ~ ~ 2' POINT 2.

ORIGINAL YuorES 2,1
i
ii P
u :
i~ FDP
C2
W
C2
FDPS
GROUND 4 ~ Z
x "
5rl ~ 0.02 /0.02 FThT 0.02 FLfT~
0.02
0-0~
5:1 ~..~ __.~.~
q:I
` T
E
i Dl 9 I2• U s' ~• Dl T
El
a USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.2

-l- STA. 12+50.00 TO
13+7s
00 GRADE TO THIS UNE

-L- STA. 18+00.00 TO .
19+60.00 RIGHT SIDE GRADE To THIS uNE

a
m
-L- STA. 16+00.00 TO
19+00.00 LEFT SIDE TYPICAL SECTION N0. 2
'
a -L- (SR 3394)
A TRANSITION FROM T.S. N0.2 TO EXISTING
~~ -L- STA. 19+00.00 TO 19+s0.00 LEFT SIDE
a -L- STA. 19+60.00 TO 20+65.00 RIGHT SIDE
.a
~~
~~
6:i
ORIGINAL
SIOfE
oRrGINu
oalclNu
owclNu
C
TES
S
OC E N0. SHE
N0.
PR01
~
.
a $~ & A
, E.
S
IA 2
B
^~3~
, Consulting Engineers ROADWAY DESN:N EAVF/AENT DESIGN
~~°0~~`~~~~ ENGINEER ENGINEER
I~1 ~~
PRELIMTN Y PLANS
0o Nar uar ro mmRnarnoN
SURVEY

PAVEMENT SCHEDULE

C~
ATDAN AVERAGE RATE OFPHeBTLCBSNCPEpESSOUAYAOCE COURSE, TYPE S9, SB,
Erz PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 825.08,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 185. PER SD. YD, PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERB NOT LESS THAN S" IN DEPTH OR OAEATEA
THAN 51+2" IN DEPTH.

C2 PROP. APPROX. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE 59.58,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 188 LBS. PER SD. YD. IN EACH OF TWO
J
PROP, B" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE.
LAYERS.

C3 PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE 59.58,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LBS. PEA SD. Y0. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 11"2" IN DEPTH.
T
EARTH MATERIAL.
D) PROP, APPAO%. 21t" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
TYPE I19.08, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 2B5 LEIS. PER SD. YD,
U E%ISTING PAVEMENT.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
O? TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVEAAOE RATE OF 114 LBS. PEP SD. YD. PEA i"
DEPTH, TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 21"2" IN DEPTH DR W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT.
GREATER THAN 4" IN DEPTH.
E' PROP. APPRD%. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 458 LBB. PER 30. YD. NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES AAE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
_ 6' _ _
~-~YAUUIE ~9
ORIGINAL _uoFEs
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
-L- STA. 13+75.00 TO 14+65.83 (APPROACH SIAB)
-L- STA. 16+04.17 (APPROACH SLAB) i0 18+00.00
~ -!r
• ADD J' YrtnH GUARDRAIL
12' 8' 12' 12' '8'
GRADE
¢ 2' POINT 2'
E ~ FOPS C2 FOPS
i~
x
0.02 10.02 FLFf 0.02 F6FT~ 0.02 0~,
6:1
T v lz• T
El Ol
GRADE TO THIS LINE
-L- (SR 3394)
4 -0ET-
oRECINu
GROUND
c
m
v
d
T
-DET- STA. 11+56.69 TO 14+85.00 (BRIDGE)
T -DET- STA. 15+75.00 (BRIDGE) TO 18+81.91
~o
vT
0
`o
°v~
1 1 fIW1L JC~.I IVI`1 I`RV. ,7
-DET- (TEMP. DETOUR)
vnAwlE
ROPE
owcINAL
ORIGINAL
GROUND
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Coneultina EElgioeere
Ru lIXVA UR.IIRIR'Itl WDGt NG I1W
_ Irol meoe,
4 -nuvE-
T REFERENCE N0 . SHEEf N0.
8-413/ 2-A
AY DESIGN EAVEAV:Nf DESIGN
HNEEA ENGINEER

tEL[M1N RY PLANS
__ _. ___ __ __..._4UC110N
ORIGINAL
GROUND
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 4
-DRIVE-
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.4
-0RIVE- STA. 10+14.00 i0 11+45.00
6:1
owclNu

REVISIONS
R/W /tevlalan /P///8Q06 Paroel 5 ainnyed and added M Parod 4l
28izoo~ ~' Rel'/e/an lvl/~ Parad B cVpnyed and added io Parod 7.
.rood.+ey\pro~\B4131_Rdy_psh_det.dgn /3/H~ ihVlSlan l/3/~J poroels 2 ald 3 dmge0 and added fo Paraal 1.
~r r ~. C
~` $ S'69f
~~ ~ ~~f f/~1 ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ 3.9 .SS .61 N
E A2 E E
'~ ~ ~ /
3~~_~ J~^"1• fem.-. t~^~ ..~~ ~~, t U ~~ ~ ~ {{+~~ {{'!~~ ~^ /
Yfi•LOC -_-~E _ ~ 'v'im V `i;' ~ I I z . l t~ I
1 1 1 1 1 ~ X
~q~ ~ ~ ~k
~~ ~ k. k
~~ 1 '~`'~ ~ -+
(`` ~j / ~ ~
_N.. ~ ~ I ~ f' O
-- ~ N N
~~~, x S
V _+
2 y ~ L~
1 1 1 1` 1 1
~~~~~~~
~~
1 1 1 1\ 1 1
~~~'~~Qa~~+Q~
!-C
1 1 I ~ ' ~ ~
~~~~~q~
~~

7: },~y \
88 (~l )~
~.r~'~..rtiy~+.
6~~ ~`
+~, aS
#~ " ~ ~(
a~~~0,
.. ui ,
CJ
p , ,,o~ I~~.\
~ >~
'mow ~ ~ ~
:~~~,~ ~
A
J ~ ~m~ I ,~ ~ .~
xt \
4 ~P"' ~ `C
~ ~ a
~1 o
E. N ~ ~''
,.~ 41 _.,h•6s~
~ ~~. ~-
/ ! N ~2 ~
a~
'^ ^_~ m ~
m O m Z ~~ c
_- N D 2 S~ E
9f '' ut ~ ~~ \jv
.~ ~ S~
~~ ~ ~ __~.
O R.
~ ~~
o "-'
A~
a
-I

•
~ ~~ O
`~~ I aS~
~. ~ ~~
~~
~a ~S
A A ~ly
E
. _ff?l.f!~n.f!~l.s!ll..t
m
E ~ ~ ~
r V ~'
.fc
a ~
~
~< ~ ~,}
~ °
Z
~~ ==v
V1 C

9

A
1 I j ~;3
;;~_~
C5 ~ ~O
i 3 , ,f=.91 N ... -' '}_~ ~ .. . 'ti.: yr ~... .
}~r
Zf'65_1 ~ --
~ _m
3 .ff .YI.9L N N •SZ 9G,L9 S ~
ee^^ ~ ~ ~y ~~~~~ Yp~O
I b N : m ~ ~ „• y~ SOlwY~3nn ~ A
as z 9L•
I =am ~~ rIO~rD
Im ~I 1
C `iI'
;~,. t j ~ r.~3
ri ~ l
~ f,}
~l ~ ~, ~~~~ ~ /
~ Ra i
n ~;~ ~,.~
ax~ ,~ i,f~s^v,.;~ l
I ~~ l*' ~~
F ~ ~ G~ ~. /
+ 'i.~-~ /
~` ~ '°~ ~ ' ~.. w `4
r

n r
a
C n

M N
I 1
o
4S
m
a
y
N N N

r r
n ~

.N ~n9 ~ w ~~6 + +
~~ , ~ ~ ~ O
11 ~~
y
-Sf u 916 \....~ / SONS Z
~ ~, 1 ~ Q
' I t, y : ~ ~i1 tl ~'~' m
I( 7
~ I
f l Ac ~~+wps
r N 3
fZ rfr li .nu ~ _-
3 pl _.
3.9Y .Z !~ v ~ I~~ ~ 3_
S
n
n
nr ~~~
_m~ ~ - h ~, _ t~ 1t* _ t4
1 ' ~ ~' " -- ``'--~ ``4
b I ""' rr~ i
ti ~ a' ~J. ~•~l .l ~ ~ 4 iln
~ ~ 1,~ ~~,~m~ ~~ ~~E~
J„_
I t `~ $ oo
.v ~
0
:2479 ~ ` , m s ~
` r,;;, 3
f6y~1~ c 89• .5~, N^ ~ ~ ~1
. ~ s
.~~„ 1 ~
I ~ ~ ~ ~~
I '~ .
rarS ~ ~ 1
~ ~ `y
_ ~ ~
~ ~~~ ~ ~ # ~
\ ~,~~~ ~
J ~ ~ ~ ~\~-~kJ ~ ~ ~
II
~' ~ /
I,
~ ~~- ~~
\~ ~'\
c~
\ \q
~\1.
,\ `~~
~'J5\\
N (~ O
~Sti
CC .~..__.._ 1~
`~ 9~~ r
'~ S -e
r' ~ ~ f5 ~ .
.',~,_ 69'65, 9 H 4 ~ ri {} ~ ~.~1_ !".._...._.__.
a m `~
\R m ~ M I ~ : ~ J ~ ~ t~s F3
D -.rA `~
:. r f
z - ,~ 5
\ \ s 5
.+. fJ `\

~i ~ ~ 1
~, ~~,
~ ~

~, ,b
r1 ~~ __ ~
1 \11 ~
i ~~-
~, ~`~.~ ~
7 g ~ K
~~ :
I
o I~
n
/ ~
~~
0
R~ ~
p
~~6°6
,
~a
64
•
/ ~
~ A
~
~
n

V

O ~
~ ~
M
M Tn
)• y
\y
H
Z
~
~~ ~
m
o s~ ~ o
T z ~C
`fir" ~~
C ~~ Z€ ro

~ ~
~~

Ib~Ib ~ ~
~~~ `~ ~
~., ~' ~~
f ; ~,~ I
-,~~ r /
1 1 1 1 1 ~~
jj~~(' ~q~a Q ~ , /
~C~ ~ ` I '~t",., ,k
.. ~~-
~m
_ ~ ~ ~
~.. ~-__] W k r
~~_
~~ N
~~
_ ~. ,
r..vm ~ '99g ~
\f\_ l ~ ~.
L+l~~~rOp 4,
1j11`11
~g ~`~ ,. r~-t.~,
;c" a
r
v
9669 6 S
~v 65
1 1 1 1` 1 1 f.~;f" '""~
~ ~ y
yti
J>
~~
_..
•`~y~_~ ~
~.,..
a
8i~+1~~rOp
1
11 11 r .~

\ \
\~ti
'~ 'f~ ~
~ ~~~
m
'g~~~5 x
a n
~ s
IML~~
~~~ ~` ~~
N ~~
Jm 1
......ti ._.~ -...__
y, IL'dtl A3311~ 39NVwv Id
r.~c,sz.zB s
~-~._~'"
J ~/" -'Y.YV1'YS vY ~-... ~.1
~~ ~~ °~m ,
: V ~1~` ~~ ~ 9 s?
/r. Z~y.
~'Ta
1
'~~ ~ m~~~
~ ~~-
~N~m
m4rm; c
ca~B ~ p _r
H ~ a ~ T
- N y Z i 4„
~~ V ~ ~~
a Q
~m _
~~ T f7.Bb
mZ
o
y
~.~ ~
REVISIONS
R/W Ravlalan /Q///P10i06 Parod 5 dpgped and adder to Paraal ~
R/W Rw/e/m /P~//~Oi6 Prod 8 ahorged and added fo Porod 7.
_Rdy_psh_04.dgn R/W ReY/s/M 1/3/800! Paroe/e 8 and 3 N17n~ed a71d added l0 Po/od 1.
8
~...
~ g ~ ~~ E -~
+ 19'BB[
:, 11 _
O
cry ~f ~~ ~~ f~' m .9 . S.BL N
a u+ ~ II •~ ~~ I~ i ~E ~~ E~~ E
' ~ 11 ~~ ~ ~~

, ~,j
4
O
ag
~ a~~
4~
yea
~~
~ ~~

r
11~~ a ~ rn

o o
~ ~
o
~ ~
=
o

0
m

u rn
p
a
{~ cr}
01

W ~r~~ ~ V~I
L.._______J I I
- ~ 1
N ~
~ s , r /i I\ • ~ m
- a, _
~~ ~1~ a~ ~, ~~
~' ~y , m
'+ /
I ~ o ~.~
;~_ ~ ~`_ m
-~- ~~
2, a zt~ y s m
~ 3.if .Y1.91 N M SZ ,gf
i N ~ m ~ ~ ..m y`s s
O
,~ ~.
~' ~
f~ 1 ~ 1
~
I. yy
amn~ y
2 ~ 1
til

-= a ~ ~~
~ ~ Z ~~O tl ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ I N N
u ~ ~~ ~ N 44~~ .I * 4~ I ~
Q ~ v~ N N Q o N•
\~ ,u,1 ~N'y ~rt~^ ~
-~:. _- ~ -
T T
~' n~:r y
~~ y~ ~ ~
L: ! 1
F,,, .Ti 3¢ NMONMNIi .y
~~6 -~J ~ S ~ ~' SONJ ,fx
L ~`® b
+ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ m~ ~o g~ o~ a ~aN~
i ~ io In y ~ P
G iii
J •~ ~ ~5 wp ~ 4~~ . I ~ ~ d >. • I
V 1 J T *pp~ ~.~epWP ~ (~
S O ,YF N H t+ii Np~~ 2
~O ~~n 1~ 1m11~m VV 1ApJi ** yy~~ <
~ !~^ u I~e~,{nav A ~ ~ con /~9~
,~ ~' ~
L ~
CN .:.,~ ~i s r"+~f X7111) 'a
"'no'r' ^'~" ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~
x ;,
R ~ ~ ~~ ~.~~~ ~~~~~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~
0 s
., m
is ~ ` ¢` ~-~n,~y,t` ~ ~ (~ Q
H
ni ~ ~ y
~~~~\~~~ ~ ~ H O
2 )i r. ..~ q ~ ` 3
~~ ~~~ ~\ ~.~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~p ~ ~
...~ ~ _ ~
054 ~ ~• ~
~ j y y s
v 4
m .:i~i:r ~ ,~
JOB.97 ~ `^~^ _
-.;;r.
~`~ '^ S `"' ~~
~ JI ~ ~
} 1
V ~~
.7 M
11 X
IQ~Vf)
1
to g
~ ~~
~~~ f...._.= ~>
,~ « a
• . e~ ~~
N = ~ ~ ~; ~ ~
y..
y N 1B .~
~~` `Y A ~ / N C ~ W rl vr~..r ~I M
`` a . N 4j ANN ~~~iZ [f~ OOtn 1p{~ ~~
,uA ~,
~ ~ 7
~ ~
~ ~ I
I
~~ ~ ~~
I
ism ~ ~
\1 ~ ~' ~ /~
1 ~ i~ i
~• i
,I-- ~~
age
~a
b*
a
,_ _
T
~ y
~
~
'
~,~
\
fi~ ~, cggs
~.
,~ ~
~ ~'
.. ,f

'
,
~
t 6
~
~
L , j ;
7
~i
' E ~
~~.
~
~, •, ~
.~
~b

BJI,•1 EL ° EJZJr
RR SPIKE IN {X ASSOCIA C
KO TES
P.. MtO1ECT REFEA®ICE N0. SMEET N0.
N !N POLE ,
a B^4/31
~ 2!O'Rr OF -BL- STA l5f0! ConRUlting En$ineerR
, Ro~ow~r oESicN NroRwucs
~'(~ ~ ..~- SrA n~ m «>u-YR. HAIR 'p1 w~aL nc Hoot ENGMEER ENGNEEA
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
~~• .. -, I OD Ntlf ONI Po CONSIAVCI70N

F R P N .5,E - E T 0 4 E
_.

. ~ _ _
D

.
_ i
. is
_
-. !:_ '' ! ~ .:
,.: -
_ -
':
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA

_ ars~aRSE - es~o cFs

' -
~ ~
~
~ ~
.. k .o, Q
E
iqN -

: _:

eASE Q~NARf+£
^ ~soo
~
'
.. . ~ -
BASE fREOUENq
X10 YRS
.._

':
;
BASE hW ELEV,Q,gN

-
~
; _ aERrapPrNG as~rwsE - mon cFs
_ - , ; '

_
,.

... aERraPP-r~c fREQUENA
- soot rRs
... ; : ' _ afMGPPING ELEVATKIW - 6ra32PT
::
;.. PT
` lp-Q5
- 8-
::: -: i
DATE Of SURVEY
.. W.SELEViQX1N
__ : . ._ . AT RATE 01~ SURVEr - G7G! Ff

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

;~. ._
..
__

_
. µ
,

..
_

.

...
' ~ ; PIPE HYDR AULIC DATA

-

,
' ' S
-
, ,~
.., .,
tr ~'S
_ . _
_ QRNE- X}185
TA A
,; ,; - ,
_ DRNNASE AREA -
~k

,

.
_ _ I . - QES16N FREQUEhCr - 5 YRS ~

,-

,,
,

.
_ DESAiN C1SplAR6E - B CPS , ,

_,

..

..

.

.

..:
DES
GN hW ELEV
-
,
ATXJW
615 PT
..::
..
; .
. _
,
, .
-
_

,ao rEAR DISC~lARGE - Es r~s

.

.
_ _ ,no TEAR tiw EtEVArnw - s~5 PT , .

... ~
-
:
aERTOWPINS FREOUEMd' - 5 rRs _ _ .: . . .
aERrDPPlNS a~rARSE - e cFs
_~ . _ aERrawPrNS ELEVATXJW -s~5 ~
a _ ;. _
_
:

w
a __
_
_
r

Q
a

-
_
_.
.
.
,..
.
;
.

;.

. .

m -

- ; .. ::
,
.
o
a _

,

.
_T
~9 .- :.
-.
..
V ..... .. ~ ... .. ....~ .... .. .. ~. .. ~ ... ..
~0
%, 10 11

m ~
KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. PROJECT PEFERBJCE N0. SHEEf N0.
a 8-4/31

-
- Consulting Engineers
` Ro,~nw~r oESwrl Ittouulua
. - _
. ~ tlR ACBMl U1. IlTB'A1 WBCR. N.G 1,Mf
onl ~,~
ENGINEER
ENGINEER

II PRELIMIN RY PLANS
.. .. - ; oo Nm vss ro coxs,nucnoN

F R LA E€ S EE 0.

~, , ,~

~:. ~ ~
i'
BRIDGE HYDRAUlJC DATA
. ; aES~sN asarA~cE - rA70 CfS
. , , .. ,'
' a
~
s
~
.... _ ` ~ . cE-
xw -
ore
.

~ I ;
/A CFS
, , ~ f EMGY N/A YRS
:. ; .
.

..

.
.
...
BASE M1' ELENATigN
~ N/A fT
Qi~ERfQPPl
G OVSICH
AGE N/
F
,~ ti h
A
A C
S
. .. . . aVERTQPPING FREW
~ ,.. W ERTQPPIhG EIENATIOW ~ N/A Fr
a
~
c
~ 9
r DATE Of SURVEY
WSEIEVATA~Y
. AT DOPE Af SURVEY ~ 6.35eFT
_ , .. _ _ _
10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 ;9
18 20 21 22

,, .
_.
, ,..

_.

R p ~, SE S E T' 4. 2- ..: .. _ _;. _ ....

_
~, _.

~_

~

.r

~. ,.

'! . .

.

_.

_
..
,.
._ n _..
~..
...

,_

..
_
.,.
.~

E

_. _

.

-

m
_ X
_.
a

~;
m
0
~T
q
.. ..
..
......
..
.,. ..
:
Nq
~ ~ .. . ... .. ... ....
O
10 11

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Wilmington, B-4131 (stream)
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Guilford City: Climax
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.9548° N, Long. 79.7009° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Big Alamance Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Big Alamance Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03030002
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
^ Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be':no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required)
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~
TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 200 linear feet: 40 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section 111 below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

(b) Genera] Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick'List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick`--List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick.List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
fiA natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick Liat
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: USACE field verified Non TNW as a hydrologic connection
between this wetland and another wetland abutting a TNW.
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximit~(Relationshipl to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick<Ist floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:shrub/ scrub wetland (90%).
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Plck List
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
DirectlKabuts? (Y/N~ Size (in acres) Directlyabuts? (YM) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section 11I.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: 2001inear feet 40 width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: .
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section 111.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.19 acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
^^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
sSee Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (fr).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (fr).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
^ Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
^ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

4
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Wilmington, B-4131- (Wetland 2)
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Guilford City: Climax
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.9548° N, Long. 79.7009° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Big Alamance Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TN W) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Big Alamance Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03030002
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~
Q TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.19 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 19$7'Delineation Ma»ual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section Ill below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

..
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that anplv):
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick-List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/rit~le/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick`List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick Last
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick Lisf
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick Liiiit. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
hA natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:0.19 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Palustrine, seasonally flooded wetland supporting scrub-shrub vegetation..
Wetland quality. Explain: Medium.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationshin with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW•
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
® Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: USACE field verified Non TNW as a hydrologic connection
between this wetland and another wetland abutting a TNW.
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 1 (or less) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 {or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 100 - 500-year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:shnab/ scrub wetland (90%).
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acresl Directly abuts? (YM) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: The wetland in question (W2) is connected to a second wetland (W3) via a
hydrologic connection/channe). W3 lies in the floodplain of the TNW (Big Alamance Creek) and is abutting and therefore
connected to the TNW. Afield visit with USACE was conducted on May 1, 2007 and found W2 & W3 to be jurisictional.
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
I. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: 200 linear feet 40 width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
~] Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 200 linear feet 40 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: .
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: .
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.19 acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
^^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)a°
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
RSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III. D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Fo!/owing Rapanos.

w
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
[] Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Signitcant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for imgated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, pl2ns, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicanUconsultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
^ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

i
Guilford C'.ounty
SR 3394
Bridge No. 11 over Big Alamance Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-3394(1)
State Project No. 33484.1.1
T.I.P. \To. B-4131
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGH~T~A1' ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ".TRANSPORTATION
APPRGVED:
D ~~15~ V ~ n
U
OCT 0 ~ 2001
DENR -WATER LK1gLITY
~11AND,4At~0 ST()f;-y~v,{7~ BRANCH
o~i~ii
. ~ ~
DATE Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
~j~G~~ ..
DATE ~~'~' John F. Sullivan III; P.E.
Division Administrator. FHWA

d
Guilford County
SR 3394
Bridge No. 11 over Big Alamance Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-3394(1)
State Project No. 33484.1
T.I.P. No. B-4131
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 2006
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C. ,~s~se<<+ea4
r`°~oQ~gK i~~` ~ `9ra
,...,,Q.• ~.~.
o ~ Q¢ ~~.
~~ ~ $Ea~.
L. J ard, P.E. ~ ~ ~~E1
Project Manager r; ~•:F/~"~+
'~%~F~•I~E••'~
Nl.W
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
A
S. Wade Kirby, P. ., P.G.
Project Development Engineer

M
K ~
f
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Guilford County
SR 3394
Bridge No. 11 over Big Alamance Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-3394(1)
State Project No. 33484.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4131
In addition to the standard Section 404 Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, Regional Conditions,
State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, Construction and Maintenance Activities, and for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification Conditions, the following
special conunitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
NONE
Categorical Exclusion
June 2006
Green Sheet
Sheet 1 of 1

•T ~
Guilford County
SR 3394
Bridge No. 11 over Big Alamance Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-3394(1)
State Project No. 33484.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4131
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 11 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure lA. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion". It should be noted the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program describes
TIP B-4131 as "Little Alamance Creek, replace Bridge No. 11." However, a U.S. Geological
Survey map names the creek as "Big Alamance Creek"; therefore, this report will refer to the
creek as Big Alamance Creek. Information for the project found in the Appendix refers to the
creek as "Little Alamance Creek."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 43.2 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 3394 (Company Mill Road) crosses over Big Alamance Creek in Guilford County
approximately 0.54 mile south of its junction with US 421. Development in the surrounding area
is primarily residential. The immediate area around the bridge primarily consists of woodlands.
A rock dam is situated approximately 150 feet upstream from the bridge to the west. Two power
towers are located northeast of the bridge. In the vicinity of the bridge, two residential dwellings
and a farm are located on the north approach. Four houses are located on the south approach.
SR 3394 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System.
SR 3394 has an existing pavement width of 20 feet with 4-foot grass shoulders in the area of the
bridge. The roadway approaches are on a tangent section and. on downgrades toward the bridge.
The vertical sag occurs at the bridge, but the bridge is flat. SR 3394 curves to the west
approximately 300 feet north of the bridge.
1

The estimated annual daily traffic (ADT) for 200 on SR 3394 at Big Alamance Creek is 2,900
vehicles per day (vpd), and for the design year 2025, the estimated ADT is 5,000 vpd. The
volumes include an estimated 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3 percent dual-tired
(DT) vehicles. The posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.
The existing two-lane bridge was constructed in 1957 and has a timber deck on I-beams. Bridge
No. 11, as shown in Figures 2A and 2B, has an overall length of 97 feet and a clear deck width of
19.2 feet. Bridge No. 11 has abed-to-crown distance of approximately 14 feet. The substructure
consists of one concrete abutment, two concrete interior bents, and one rubble masonry
abutment. The current posted weight limit is 13 tons for single unit vehicles and 18 tons for
truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles.
One crash was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during a recent three year period.
An underground telephone line emerges and crosses Big Alamance Creek overhead on the east
side of the bridge. Overhead utility lines cross over Bridge No. 11 diagonally from the east side
of SR 3394 south of the bridge to the west side of SR 3394 north of the bridge. In addition, and
overhead high-voltage transmission line crosses SR 3394 approximately 220 feet north of Bridge
No. 11. The City of Greensboro has an 18-inch sanitary sewer line located north of the bridge,
and associated manholes are present. No utilities are attached to the bridge. The impact on the
utilities is considered high.
Nineteen school buses cross daily over the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 11 with a new bridge approximately 125 feet long. The
new bridge will have a clear roadway width of 40 feet. The final length and width of the new
bridge will be determined during design; however, Figure 3A shows a proposed bridge typical
section. New approaches to the bridge will provide 12-foot travel lanes in each direction with 8-
foot shoulders (2-foot paved). The proposed typical sections and design criteria are shown in
Figure 3A. Figure 3B is the proposed detour criteria. The posted speed limit is 45 mph and the
corresponding design speed is 50 mph.
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
Two alternatives were evaluated for the replacement of Bridge No. 11 over Big Alamance Creek.
See Figures 4 and 5 for depictions of each alternative.
2

.r ~
Alternative 1 replaces Bridge No. 11 at its existing location maintaining traffic with a temporary
structure and detour on the east side. This alternative provides a 50 mph horizontal design speed
and a 35 mph vertical design speed. Although the grade of the new bridge will be raised about 4
feet, a design exception will be required for the vertical alignment. The estimated cost of the
detour is $750,000.
Alternative 2 replaces Bridge No. 11 on the east side maintaining traffic on the existing
structure as an on-site detour at a cost comparable to Alternative 1. This alternate provides a
horizontal and vertical design speed of 50 mph and would raise the grade of the new structure
about 12 feet.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but this alternative would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of Bridge No. 11 is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition;
therefore, this is not a viable alternative. The bridge has been classified as structurally deficient.
The site of the rock dam located on the west side of the bridge has been determined eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. It is not feasible to relocate the bridge or to provide a
temporary structure for detour on this side without impacting the historic site. This option was
not considered as an alternative.
The use of an off-site detour of SR 3394 traffic while constructing a new bridge in the existing
location was considered. The most direct detour route (see Figure 6A) would utilize SR 3394,
SR 3381, SR 3549, and US 421, a distance of about 7.3 miles. In accordance with the NCDOT
Guidelines for Evaluation of Off-site Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects (Apri12004), the
average delay per motorist using the detour is estimated to range from 5-10 minutes for a
construction period of 12 months, which falls under the Evaluation (E) range of the Guidelines.
The Evaluation (E) range suggests an on-site detour is justifiable from a traffic operations
standpoint but must be weighed with other project factors to determine if it is appropriate. The
Division Engineer (October 10, 2002 memorandum) stated an off-site detour was not feasible
due to the traffic count on SR 3394 (2900 ADT in 2005), and the location of a residential
development just south of Bridge No. 11. The Division Engineer also noted the most logical
detour would require traffic to cross 4-lanes of US 421. The EMS Department of Guilford
County (phone conversation April 3, 2006) stated that SR 3394 is an important route used by
EMS responders to this part of the County. Since there is no available detour route, road closure
would require EMS responders to travel US 421 to NC 62, located approximately 3.8 miles south
of the US 421/SR 3394 intersection and return to access the area south of Bridge No. 11. This
3

NT
would result in considerable delays in EMS response time. The Guilford County TIMS
Coordinator stated there are 19 school bus crossings of Bridge No. 11 per day. Road closure
would add about 20 minutes to bus routes in the area, but the TIMS Coordinator also stated that
the bridge replacement would not present an unworkable problem for the Guilford County
Schools Transportation Department. Based on the above factors, road closure was not
considered a viable alternative.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1, replacing the bridge at its existing location while maintaining traffic with an on-
site temporary detour on the east side is the preferred alternative. This alternative has fewer
impacts to wetlands and reduces impacts to residential driveways.
The new structure will be approximately 125 feet long with a maximum clear roadway width of
40 feet. New approaches to the bridge will provide 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders
including 2-foot paved shoulders. Approximately 800 feet of new approaches will be required.
The design speed of the replacement structure will be 50 mph; however, a design exception for
the vertical alignment will be necessary. The design exception for the vertical curve with a
design speed of 35 mph is required because maintaining a 50 mph design speed will result in a
longer vertical curve and a higher vertical grade. A longer vertical curve and grade change will
have a greater impact on adjacent property resulting in higher costs.
The estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $2,192,100. The current estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the NCDOT 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program, is $350,000 for right-
of-way and $1,375,000 for construction.
After further study, Alternative 2 is not being considered. This alternative would result in more
environmental impacts than Alternative 1 and require significant relocation of existing
residential driveways.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
4

~T j
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on 2005 prices, are shown in the following
table:
Alternate 1
On-site Detour Alternate 2
New Location
Structure Removal $ 28,800.00 $ 28,800.00
Structure $ 456,875.00 $ 548,250.00
Roadway Approaches $ 251,175.00 $ 555,325.00
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 186,150.00 $ 336,625.00
Engineering and Contingencies $ 177,000.00 $ 231,000.00
Temporary Detour $ 750,000.00 N/A
SUBTOTAL $1,850,000.00 $1,700,000.00
Right-of-Way/Const. Ease./Util. $ 342,100.00 $ 360,700.00
TOTAL $2,192,100.00 $2,060,700.00
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 percent is included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 percent for engineering and
contingencies.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a variety of sources
including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Climax, NC 7.5- minute
quadrangle [1982]), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) mapping (Climax, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle [1982]), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1977), N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) proposed Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats (NCWRC 1998), and recent aerial photography (Ko & Associates).
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Subsequent mapping
of jurisdictional boundaries was accomplished utilizing Trimble XRS GPS technology.
Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
5

i ~'
Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field
Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (1996). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements
and distributions were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980,
Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ
2002, DWQ 2004b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current USFWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into
Guilford County (USFWS 2003) is considered in this report. In addition, NHP records
documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted on April 17, 2004,
prior to field investigations. Furthermore, Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats
proposed by the NCWRC (1998) were consulted to determine the presence of Proposed Critical
Habitats for aquatic species.
The project area (Figure 7) was visually surveyed on foot for significant features. The project
study area is approximately 300 feet in width (centered on the existing roadway) and
approximately 1,900 feet in length, encompassing approximately 12.9 acres. Potential impacts
of construction will be limited to cut-fill boundaries for each alternative. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water
quality protection of Big Alamance Creek.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located within the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina. This ecoregion is characterized by irregular plains
with low hills (ecoregion map). The project area is located within a moderately sloping
floodplain valley. Elevations within the project study area range from a high of approximately
710 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), in the southwestern corner of the project
area, to a low of approximately 637 feet NGVD within the channel of Big Alamance Creek
(Climax, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle [1982]). Land uses within and adjacent to the project area
consist of residential lots, woodlands, roadside shoulders, and a pond.
Based on soil mapping for Guilford County (SCS 1977), the project study area is underlain by
three soil series including Chewacla sandy loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), Enon fine sandy
loam (Ultic Hapludalfs), and Wilkes fine sandy loam (Typic Hapludalfs). Within the project
study area, Chewacla sandy loam occurs adjacent to the stream, while Enon fine sandy loam and
Wilkes fine sandy loam are found on slopes. None of the above soil series are considered hydric
by the NRCS (1996); however, depressions within the Chewacla series may contain inclusions of
Wehadkee silt loam (Typic Fluvaquents), a hydric soil.
6

~'
The Chewacla series, with 0 to 2 percent slopes, consists of somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable, nearly level soils found on floodplains. Depth to bedrock is greater than
60.0 inches and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. This soil is
subject to frequent flooding. Based on NRCS mapping (SCS 1977), within the project study area,
the Chewacla series occupies the floodplain adjacent to Big Alamance Creek and encompasses
approximately 1.6 acres of the project study area.
The Enon series, with 2 to 6 percent slopes, is a well drained, slowly permeable soil found on
interstream divides and long, narrow side slopes. Depth to bedrock in the Enon soil is greater
than 60.0 inches and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 1 to 2 feet. Based on
NRCS mapping (SCS 1977), the Enon series (2 to 6 percent slopes) occupies approximately 0.5
acre of the southwestern quadrant within the project study area.
The Enon series, with 6 to 10 percent slopes, is a well drained, slowly permeable soil found on
long, narrow side slopes on uplands. Depth to bedrock in the Enon soil is greater than 60.0
inches and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 1 to 2 feet. Based on NRCS
mapping (SCS 1977), the Enon series (6 to 10 percent slopes) occupies portions of the
northwestern and northeastern quadrants, encompassing approximately 1.6 acres of the project
study area.
The Enon series, with 10 to 15 percent slopes, is a well drained, slowly penmeable soil found on
long, narrow side slopes on uplands. Depth to bedrock in the Enon soil is greater than 60.0
inches and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 1 to 2 feet. Based on NRCS
mapping (SCS 1977), the Enon series (10 to 15 percent slopes) occupies portions of all four
quadrants, encompassing approximately 6.5 acres of the project study area.
The Wilkes series, with 15 to 45 percent slopes, is a well drained, moderately permeable soil
typically found on side slopes adjacent to drainageways. Depth to bedrock is 40 to 80 inches and
the seasonal high water table is at a depth greater than 6 feet. Based on NRCS mapping (SCS
1977), the Wilkes series occupies portions of the southwestern and southeastern quadrants,
encompassing approximately 7 acres of the project study area.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-06-03 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ
2000). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 (DWQ 2000) of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region. The structure targeted for replacement spans Big Alamance Creek and the
7

adjacent floodplain. The portion of Big Alamance Creek traversing the project study area has
been assigned Stream Index Number 16-19-(1) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
(2004a).
2. Water Resources Characteristics
The project study area contains three streams: Big Alamance Creek and two unnamed tributaries
(UT1 and UT2) to Big Alamance Creek (Figure 7). Big Alamance Creek generally flows
eastward through the center of the project study area. The first of the unnamed tributaries (UT1)
is located in the southeastern quadrant formed by the intersection of Company Mill Road and
Big Alamance Creek. UT1 flows from south to north reaching a confluence with Big Alamance
Creek approximately 85 feet east of the existing bridge. The second unnamed tributary (UT2) is
located in the northeastern quadrant formed by the intersection of Company Mill Road and Big
Alamance Creek. UT2 flows from northwest to southeast before discharging into a forested
wetland 120 feet northeast of the existing bridge. UT1 and UT2 have not been assigned a Stream
Index Number by the DWQ. Unless otherwise noted, unnamed tributaries typically assume the
same Best Usage Classification as their receiving waters.
Big Alamance Creek flows from west to east, bisecting the project study area. Adam from a
former mill occurs on Big Alamance Creek at the western edge of project study area. The dam
impounds the reach of Big Alamance Creek immediately upstream of the project study area,
creating a 2.6-acre pond. The pond discharges over the top of the dam into a 120-foot wide, 60
foot-long pool before defining to a more typical stream channel upon approaching the bridge.
Big Alamance Creek is 30 feet wide upstream of the bridge and widens to 42 feet on the
downstream side. Throughout the project study area, Big Alamance Creek has approximately 4-
foot banks and a sand and gravel substrate. During field investigations, the water level appeared
low and with a depth to 2 feet. Flow was moderate to slow and water clarity was moderate. No
persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream, although, a filamentous
alga was observed in the shallows. Opportunities for habitat within Big Alamance Creek include
overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
UT1 is afirst-order, intermittent stream with a sand substrate. UT1 originates from an 18-inch
pipe underlying a driveway located 50 feet south of the existing bridge. This tributary likely
formed as the result of the installation of the pipe, which concentrates runoff from areas upslope
of the driveway. UTl flows northward for approximately 85 feet before discharging into Big
Alamance Creek. The bed of UT1 is eroding downward to the elevation of the Big Alamance
Creek. Consequently, the bank height ranges from 4 feet at the Big Alamance Creek confluence
to 2 feet at the pipe where UT1 originates. During the field investigation, no flow was observed
in UT1, but standing water was present. In the past, the UTl possibly only served as storm water
conveyance; however, over time the stream bed may have eroded down to the water elevation of
8

Big Alamance Creek. This likely explains the presence of standing water in UT1. No persistent
emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream. Due to bed erosion, opportunities
for habitat within UT1 are limited for much of the reach.
UT2 is 2-foot wide, first-order, intermittent stream with 1-foot banks and sand and gravel
substrate. UT2 originates on the southern side of a driveway located 150 feet north of the
existing bridge. Flow from a seep wetland on the north side of the driveway (Figure 7, Wetland
2) is collected and passed under the driveway through an 18-inch pipe. UT2 conveys outflow
from the pipe southward for 85 feet, eventually discharging into a forested wetland within the
floodplain of Big Alamance Creek. During field investigations, the water level was low with
little flow. Water clarity was good. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed
within the stream. Opportunities for habitat within UT2 are limited to leaf packs and vegetation
along the stream banks.
A 0.35-acre portion of an approximate 0.88-acre pond (Figure 7, Pond 1) is located in the
southeast quadrant of the project study area. The pond occurs in an upland area approximately
660 feet south of the existing bridge. Outflow from the Pond 1 exits through a pipe in the
northeast of the pond, which is outside of the project study area. Pond 1 is not connected to any
water bodies within the project study area.
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. The
list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is
one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative
criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may
be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of
impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric
deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology
is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b)
guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting
(PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. Streams are
further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list, according to
source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support
aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina has developed a priority
ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those
waterbodies provide to the State. Big Alamance Creek is not listed on any section of the N.C.
2002 Section 303(d) list (DWQ 2002).
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage
9

c "t
Classification of WS-IV NSW has been assigned to this reach of Big Alamance Creek and its
unnamed tributaries. Class WS-IV waters are used as sources of potable water. In general, WS-
IV waters are in moderately to highly developed watersheds. There are no categorical
restrictions on discharges in WS-IV waters. Additionally, WS-IV waters are suitable for all
Class C uses, such as aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary
recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human
body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
are areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from
nutrient enrichment. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas
(CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the project area (DWQ 2000).
The DWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project area is summarized in the Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2000). Big Alamance Creek is currently listed
by DWQ as Supporting its designated uses. No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations
occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area (DWQ 2000).
Sub-basin 03-06-03 of the Cape Fear River Basin supports six permitted, point source discharges
with a total discharge of 12.1 million gallons-per-day; however, no permitted dischargers are
located on or upstream of Big Alamance Creek at Bridge No. 11, or within the project study area.
One of the permitted discharges is classified as a major discharger, discharging 12 million
gallons-per-day. The five remaining permitted dischargers are minor (DWQ 2004b). Major
non-point sources of pollution within the Cape Fear River Basin include runoff from
construction activities, agriculture, timber harvesting, mining, hydrologic modification, failing
septic systems, roads, parking lots, and roof tops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major
problems associated with non-point source discharges (DWQ 2000).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area may result from activities associated with project
construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation,
and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water resources could result
from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in
the project area.
10

.,
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in Big
Alamance Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting
from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the life of the project.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion
control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of
Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The existing two-lane bridge has a timber deck on I-beams supported by mass concrete and
rubble masonry. The structure is expected to be removed without dropping components into Big
Alamance Creek.
11

~ ~t
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area:
disturbed/maintained land and Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. Plant communities were
delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each (Figure 7). These
communities are described below in order of their dominance within the project study area.
Approximately 0.6 acre (4 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by open water
systems and impervious surfaces.
a). Disturbed/Maintained Land
Approximately 10 acres (78 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by
disturbed/maintained land, which occurs in all four quadrants. This community includes
residential lots, roadside shoulders, and a power line corridor, all of which are maintained by
mowing. Two wetland areas were found in this community.
Grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation in this community. Representative species include
fescue (Festuca sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), false strawberry (Duchesnea
indica), violet (Viola sp.), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), white clover (Ti~ifolium repens), red clover
(Trifolium pratense), and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Trees and shrubs are present to a lesser extent in the residential lots and powerline corridor. In
general, the observed trees and shrubs have a scattered distribution, occurring in small groups or
as individuals. There are, however, two strips of mixed forest on either side of Company Mill
Road, approximately 250 feet south of the existing bridge. Observed tree species include
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis). Observed shrub species include Virginia pine, crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia
indica), Leyland cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii), azalea (Rhododendron sp.), eastern red
cedar, flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), lespedeza (Lespedeza
virginica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Two wet areas, one 400 feet and the other 500 feet north of the existing bridge, support
hydrophytic vegetation atypical to the rest of this community (Figure 7). Both areas are
dominated by grasses and herbs such as soft rush (Juncus effusus), a sedge (Carex sp.), bushy
seedbox (Ludwigia alte~°nifolia), and dichanthelium (Dichanthelium scoparium). Shrubs
observed in the wet areas include black willow (Salix nigra) and marsh elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis).
12

.~ ,
b). Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest encompasses approximately 2.3 acres (18 percent) of the
floodplain adjacent to Big Alamance Creek in all four quadrants of the project study area. This
community occurs in the floodplain and floodplain slopes of Big Alamance Creek. It consists of
a mature, secondary growth forest with well developed forest strata. A sewer corridor runs
parallel to the north bank of Big Alamance Creek. Vegetation within the sewer corridor is
maintained at a relatively lower height than the rest of the community. Three wetland areas were
found within this community.
Canopy species observed in this community include red maple (Ater rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore, American elm (Ulmus americana), and river birch (Betula
nigra). Sapling and shrub layers include canopy species as well as multiflora rose, ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood, and eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis). The
limited number of observed tree and shrub species reflects a community with little diversity.
The herbaceous layer is densest in the maintained sewer corridor, but does extend, albeit more
sparsely, throughout rest of the community. The herbaceous layer consists of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), violets (Viola spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), stellaria (Stellaria sp. ), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), bidens (Bidens sp.), and
woodland oats (Chasmanthium sp.)
The three wetlands in the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest are located approximately 120
feet northeast, 100 feet northwest, and 130 northwest of the existing bridge. Vegetation in the
wetlands consists of unique species as well as species found throughout the rest. of the
community. Trees, shrubs, and herbs occur in the three wetlands. Red maple is the single tree
species present. The shrub layer contains green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), marsh elderberry, and black willow. The herbaceous layer consists of
jewelweed, soft rush, blackberry, and Japanese honey suckle.
2. Wildlife
a). Disturbed/Maintained Land
Avian diversity is expected to be moderate in disturbed/maintained areas, as shrubbery and
canopy tree patches in residential areas afford roosting, nesting, and feeding habitat, as well as
shelter from predators. In addition, most of these species are tolerant of habitat fragmentation
and regular disturbance. Birds observed within disturbed/maintained land include turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), common grackle (Quiscalus
13

~ '7
quiscula), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor),
chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus). Other bird species
expected to be found within the disturbed/maintained portion of the project study area include
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis).
The diversity of faunal species utilizing this plant community is low, as little foraging, nesting,
or breeding habitat is present. Mammalian species are expected to be especially scarce, but may
include such adaptable species as least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon llispidus),
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). No
terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit, although, a beaver (Castor canadensis)
lodge was seen in the impounded area of Big Alamance Creek upstream of the existing bridge.
An American toad (Bufo americana) was observed during the site visit. Other terrestrial reptiles
and amphibians which may occur within maintained/disturbed land include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene Carolina), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidomorphorus sexlineatus), eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), black racer (Coluber constrictor), southeastern five-lined skink
(Eumeces inexpectatus), and northern cricket frog (Acris c~°epitans).
b). Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Avian diversity is expected to be high as a result of high foliage height diversity and the
availability of diverse foraging and nesting resources. Birds observed within the
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest include Carolina wren, eastern phoebe (Sayornis
phoebe), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), and Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus),
northern cardinal, common yellowthroat, red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), and
red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus).
The diversity of faunal species utilizing this plant community is expected to be high, as abundant
foraging, nesting, or breeding habitat is present. In addition, semi-aquatic, as well as terrestrial
mammals will utilize Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. A opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
was observed during the site visit. Additional evidence of mammal activity includes raccoon
(PT~ocyon lotor), whitetail deer, and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) tracks. Mammal species
expected to occur within the forested portion of the project study area are gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis).
14

Diverse water sources provide habitat for multiple species of amphibians, which provide prey for
aquatic and terrestrial reptiles. Two species of amphibian, southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus)
and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) were observed during the site visit. Some terrestrial reptiles and
amphibians which may occur within the forest include eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), southern ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), copperhead (Agkistrodon conto~°tT°ix), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor),
spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer°), American toad, and slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus).
3. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic-oriented wildlife observed within the project study area include great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), green heron (Butorides virescens), and unidentified tadpoles. All were observed in
the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest: the herons on the impoundment of Big Alamance
Creek and the tadpoles in pools of still water. Limited investigations resulted in no observations
of aquatic reptiles. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the
project area vicinity include green frog (Rana clamitans), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus
odoratus), and two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata).
No sampling was undertaken in Big Alamance Creek to determine fishery potential and no fish
species were observed during the field survey. Fish species that may be present in this reach of
Big Alamance Creek include smaller fish species such as margined madtom (Noturus insignis),
rosysided dace (Clinostomus funduloides), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius). Shells of
two species of bivalve were observed in shallows of Big Alamance Creek: Asian clam
(Corbicula fluminea) and an unidentified mussel.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has developed a Significant
Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance planning and impact analysis in areas
proposed by NCWRC as being critical due to the presence of Endangered or Threatened aquatic
species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat occurs within the project area. The
nearest Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat within the Cape Fear River Basin occurs
approximately 10 miles to the southeast (NCWRC 1998) on the North Prong Rocky River.
5. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Project alternatives include both permanent and temporary impacts. Permanent impacts are
considered to be those impacts that occur within proposed cut-fill limits. Temporary impacts are
considered to be those impacts occurring within the cut-fill footprint associated with the
temporary detour of Alternate 1. Plant communities within the project study area were
delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each (Figure 7). A summary of
plant community areas and the potential impacts to each is presented in Table 1.
15

1 •f
Table 1. Plant Communities Within Cut/Fill Areas of Respective Alternatives)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Plant Communi Permanent Tem ora Total Permanent
Disturbed/Maintained Land 1.02 0.36 1.38 2.78
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest 0.24 0.09 0.33 0.19
Total 1.26 0.45 1.71 2.97
' Areas expressed in acres.
Of the two alternatives, Alternate 1 has the least amount of expected impacts to plant
communities within the project study area. Projected permanent impacts to natural plant
communities resulting from bridge replacements are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent
to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. In terms of area, little of the natural plant
community is expected to be permanently impacted by the proposed project. Temporary impacts
result in additional impact to natural communities, and although these impacts are considered to
be short-term, re-growth of this community to pre-project stand age and ecological function will
require several decades.
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory
wildlife movement patterns.
No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat exists within or near the project area.
Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement
will be minimized through stringent erosion control measures.
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated to be avoided by bridging the
stream system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). The
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) system for classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats
was used to determine the type of each wetland present (Cowardin et al. 1979). Section 404
jurisdictional areas are depicted by Figure 7.
16

Through the majority of the project study area, Big Alamance Creek exhibits characteristics of a.
well-defined, third-order, perennial stream with moderate flow over a sand and gravel substrate;
the exception being the upstream-most portion of Big Alamance Creek which is impounded by a
former mill dam. Big Alamance Creek can be classified as riverine, lower perennial with an
unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand and gravel (R2UB2); and flows east through
the project study area for approximately 300 feet. UT1 can be classified as awell-defined, first-
order, lower perennial stream with low flow over an unconsolidated bottom of sand (R2UB2);
and flows southeast for approximately 90 feet to its terminus at Wetland 3 (Figure 7). UT2 can
be classified as awell-defined, first-order, lower perennial stream with low flow over. an
unconsolidated bottom composed of sand and gravel (R2UB2); and flows north for
approximately 90 feet to its confluence with Big Alamance Creek.
Pond 1 is an approximate 0.88-acre upland pond. The pond is not hydrologically connected to
any other water bodies in the project study area. Pond 1 can be classified as a palustrine system
with an unconsolidated bottom of mud, that is permanently flooded (PUB3H).
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). The project area contains five vegetated wetland
areas (Figure 7).
A grass and herb dominated, 0.23-acre wet depression occurs in the northeast quadrant of the
project study area, approximately 500 feet from the existing bridge (Figure 7, Wetland 1). The
depression appears to accumulate groundwater seepage from an adjacent hill. The wetland can
be classified as a palustrine, seasonally flooded wetland supporting scrub-shrub vegetation
(PSS1C). Soils exhibit hydric chromas, though layering and mottling are absent due to
disturbances associated with power and sewer line installation. Hydrology indicators include
saturation to surface and oxidized rhizospheres. In terms of mitigation for impacts, this system
would be considered "non-riverine" by DWQ.
A second grass and herb dominated wet depression occurs in the northeast quadrant of the
project study area (Figure 7, Wetland 2). This depression is 0.19 acre in size and is located
approximately 400 feet from the existing bridge. It appears to drain the adjacent field as well as
accumulate groundwater seepage from an adjacent hill. From north to south, the wetland
narrows from a broad depression to a 3-foot wide ditch paralleling Company Mill Road. At its
southernmost point, the ditched portion of the wetland enters an 18-inch pipe underlying a
driveway. The pipe connects this wetland to stream UT2. The wetland can be classified as a
palustrine, seasonally flooded wetland supporting scrub-shrub vegetation (PSS 1 C). Soils exhibit
hydric chromas, though layering and mottling are absent due to disturbances associated with
17

•~
power and sewer line installation. Hydrology indicators include saturation to surface and
oxidized rhizospheres. In terms of mitigation for impacts, this system would be considered
"non-riverine" by DWQ.
A 0.03-acre, forested wetland occurs within a low portion of the Big Alamance Creek floodplain
in the northeast quadrant of the project study area, approximately 120 feet northeast of the
existing bridge. (Figure 7, Wetland 3). The wetland originates at the terminus of UT2. The
wetland can be classified as a palustrine, seasonally flooded, forested wetland supporting broad-
leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1C). Soils exhibit hydric chromas and mottles. Hydrology
indicators include inundation, flow lines, water-stained leaves, and oxidized rhizospheres. In
terms of mitigation for impacts, this system would be considered "riverine" by DWQ.
Two small, less than 0.01-acre, low, wet areas occur in the spillway of the former mill dam in the
northwest quadrant of the project study area (Figure 7, Wetland 4 and Wetland 5). These
wetlands can be classified as palustrine, seasonally flooded, forested wetlands supporting broad-
leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1C). Soils exhibit hydric chromas. Hydrology indicators are
inundation and flow lines. In terms of mitigation for impacts, these systems would be considered
"riverine" by DWQ.
Alternate 1 calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 11 at its current location while maintaining
traffic with a temporary structure on the east side the bridge. In contrast, Alternate 2 calls for the
replacement of Bridge No. 11 at a location approximately 50 feet east of the existing bridge.
Permanent impacts associated with Alternate 1 will occur to the disturbed/maintained wetland in
the northeast quadrant (Figure 7, Wetland 2). The Alternate 1 temporary detour will result in
additional, temporary impacts to the Wetland 2 (Figure 7). Permanent impacts associated with
Alternate 2 will occur to the unnamed tributary in the southeast quadrant (Figure 7, UT1) and to
the two disturbed/maintained wetlands in the northeast quadrant (Figure 7, Wetland 1 and
Wetland 2).
Information pertaining to jurisdictional area impacts within the project area is summarized in
Table 2.
18

.~
Table 2. Projected Impacts to Jurisdictional Areasl (Areas are depicted in Figure 7)
Jurisdictional DEM Wetland Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Area Ratin Permanent Tem ora Total Permanent
Big Alamance - - - - -
Creek
UT1 - - - - 8
UT2 - - - - -
Pond 1 - - - - -
Total - - - 8
Wetland 1 20 - - - 0.02
Wetland 2 20 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.10
Wetland 3 42 - - - -
Wetland 4 42 - - - -
Wetland 5 42 - - - -
Total 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.12
Stream impacts are expressed in linear feet. Wetland impacts are expressed in acres.
The existing bridge is expected to be removed without dropping components into Big Alamance
Creek.
2. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional areas are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in
charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP)
23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U.S.
expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403). If temporary structures are necessary for construction
activities, access fills, or dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15,
2002) permit and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366) will be
required. Impacts to vegetated wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078)
and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWPs
23, 33, and 3 will not suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach
improvements may qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington
USACE District. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP
031 (GC 3404). Notification to the Wilmington USACE District office is required if this general
permit is utilized.
19

~ +~
3. Mitigation
The USACE 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, and 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 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 USACE, 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.
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 to median widths, right-of--way widths,
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters.
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. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), DWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 1.0 acre of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream
impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092 (January 15, 2002); the USACE
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and
value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of
appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
20

.,
preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due
to the potentially limited nature of the project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated
with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and DWQ.
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such
listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species"
is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the single federally protected species listed for
Guilford County (USFWS 2003). The bald eagle is listed as Threatened.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald eagles are dark
brown with a white head and tail. Inunature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail,
belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small
mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et al.
1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water.
Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). The USFWS
recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this
primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a
21

l •~
distance of 1.0 mile from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted
to the non-nesting period. The USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural
shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500
feet of known roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
As of April 17, 2004, NHP had no documentation for bald eagle within 2.0 miles of the project
study area, and no bald eagles were observed during the field visit. The impoundment of Big
Alamance Creek located just upstream of the project study area, as well as the pond located in
the southeast quadrant of the project study area provide the open water communities that bald
eagles require for foraging; however, a survey of those impoundments determined that there are
no suitable trees for nesting, roosting, or feeding within those areas. Both shores of the Big
Alamance Creek impoundment support secondary growth forest which lack tall trees. In
addition, the pond is surrounded by maintained land and small trees less than 20 years old.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The USFWS list (USFWS 2003) also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed
in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. As of April 17, 2004, NHP had no
documentation of this species within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
One FSC species is listed for Guilford County, the Carolina darter (Etheostoma Collis
lepidinion). Carolina darter habitat is slow creeks and small rivers with clear to slightly turbid
water and mud, sand, and rock substrate (Rohde et al. 1994). The reach of Big Alamance Creek
within the project study area does provide suitable habitat for Carolina darter.
Alternate 1 is anticipated to impact slightly less natural habitat and one-third of the vegetated
wetland area anticipated with Alternate 2. Neither alternative is expected to adversely impact
federally protected species.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
22

Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on January 12, 2004. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later a NCDOT staff architectural historian
reviewed these photos. There were 13 structures within the APE over 50 years of age, and 13
were determined to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the NCDOT staff
architectural historian. The photographs were shown to the State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) in a meeting on September 13, 2004. At that meeting, HPO staff concurred that 12 of the
structures were not eligible for the National Register; however, the property known as "Company
Mill" would have to be evaluated by the NCDOT archaeology section. A form was signed that
reflects these findings. In addition, a memorandum from the HPO, dated March 26, 2004, states
that there are no historic structures within the APE for this project. Copies of all correspondence
are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In May, 2005, an archaeological site evaluation for this project recommended the "Company
Mill" property be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation Office concurred that
the property (31GF326**, Field-Company Mill Site) is eligible for the National Register in
August, 2005. In September, 2005, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Office of Human
Environment, and the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology determined this project would
have no effect on the "Company Mill" property. See the Appendix for correspondence.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
23

.,
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle
route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
No residential or business relocatees are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
No adverse impacts on families or communities are anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project is excluded from the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) since the
project is located within the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning area of
Greensboro (7 CFR Part 658).
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.
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High
Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAA) designed these areas as moderate nonattainment areas for 03. However,
due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as maintenance for 03 on
November 8, 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
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the
High Point MPO 2030 LRTP, the Burlington Graham MPO 2030 LRTP, and the 2006-2012
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs) conform to the intent of the SIP.
The USDOT made a conformity determination of the Greensboro MPO LRTP on April 1, 2006,
the High Point MPO LRTP on April 1, 2006, the Burlington MPO LRTP on April 1, 2006, and
the Greensboro MPO MTIP on October 1, 2005, the High Point MPO MTIP on October 1, 2005,
and the Burlington Graham MPO MTIP on October 1, 2005. The current conformity
determinations are consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
24

~,
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High
Point nonattainment area for fine particles PM 2.5 as defined by the EPA. This area was
designed nonattainment for the PM 2.5 standard in accordance with the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) on January 5, 2005, with an effective date of April 5, 2005. 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 Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the High Point MPO 2030
LRTP, the Burlington Graham MPO 2030 LRTP, and the 2006-2012 Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT
made a conformity determination on the Greensboro MPO LRTP on April 5, 2006, the High
Point MPO LRTP on Apri15, 2006, the Burlington MPO LRTP on April 5, 2005, the Greensboro
MPO MTIP on April 5, 2006, the High Point MPO MTIP on April 5, 2006 and the Burlington
Graham MPO MTIP on April 5, 2006. The current conformity determinations are consistent
with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant
changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
Guilford County was designated as a moderate nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone
standard on April 15, 2004. Effective on November 22, 2004, EPA reclassified Guilford County
from a moderate nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area. Guilford County is under
an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the nonattainment designation has been
deferred until December 31, 2006. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable until December
31, 2007 (one year after the nonattainment designation becomes effective).
The results from apre-scoping geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation performed by
the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit showed that no underground storage tank sites or
hazardous waste sites or apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. The
geotechnical pre-scoping report is included in the appendix.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A "start of study" letter was distributed to local officials and agencies requesting information and
concerns relative to the proposed study alternates. Their responses are included in the Appendix.
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement
program was initiated.
25

..:
IX. AGENCY COORDINATION
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Wildlife Resources Commission
*NC Division of Water Quality
Federal Highway Administration
*Director, Guilford Community Development Department
Manager, Guilford County
Chairman, Guilford County Board of Commissioners
*Superintendent, Guilford County Public School System
Director, Guilford County Emergency Services
Sheriff, Guilford County
Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written/oral comments were received. Scoping
comments and corresponding responses are given below. Copies of the comments received are
in the Appendix.
1. United States Department of Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "There is only one federally protected species listed for Guilford County -
the bald eagle...If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for [this] species,
survey should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species".
Response: A survey of the project area determined it lacks suitable habitat for the bald
eagle.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge".
Response: A new bridge will replace the existing bridge at its current location.
Comment: "A significant fishery for sunfish exists at this site, therefore we request an
in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30".
26

Response: FHWA, NCDOT and NCWRC have determined a moratorium for sunfish will
not be required.
3. North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Comment: "[Big] Alamance Creek is listed as WS-IV NSW CA... Since the project is
located within the Critical Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins
may be required for this project based on traffic count, percent truck traffic or proximity
to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project shall incorporate the
requirements for WS-IV Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B
.0215".
Response: According to the natural resources technical report and the NCDWQ website
(accessed 1/31/05), the project area for TIP B-4131 is not within a critical area of a water
supply watershed.
Comment: "There are 30-foot vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to
the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use of BMPs.
Response: Public road projects may be allowed within the buffer where no practicable
alternative exists, as long as built-upon area is minimized, runoff is directed away from
surface waters, and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is maximized. In
order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT BMP's for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
4. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation Office
Comment: "The proposed bridge replacement is likely to affect [an] archaeological site,
so we recommend that the site be tested to evaluate its significance".
Response: The site was evaluated and the Office of State Archaeology determined the
project would not affect the archaeological site. See comments in the Appendix.
27

REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2000. Cape Fear River Water Quality Management Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm [April 26, 2004]
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004a. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-03-
06.pdf [April 26, 2004]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004b. List of Active Permits (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/BIMS_031604.x1s [April 26, 2004]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary table, and
photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
28

Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina,
USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald
Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (online).
Available: http://www.nwi.fws.gov [Apri129, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Guilford County Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/guilford.html [Apri129, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1998. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
30

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 1999. List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas. North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Guilford County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
29

,~ a ~_ -
-`•~•..'" r ` 1...+/ r J /~ ~~ ~ ~ ;=eC ` 3511 3-ac ~w.\ \~ 1 J.
fJ! ~j t ~t~.9f f ~...•~ r
f([j/
~I , 341' ~ 42 t ~ ~~ ` \ ~1~ ' 3393
1 `:
341 ~ / ~w ~ 2\~ ~ ~~ 3~~; 3e
-''"'.,~, r°_`~ 3394 ~~\ ~'` ,---_~_,"~ ,~ l 3~s,` -~
f(1 ~, ~ ~eaK -
f'~ ~ ~ 3336 i
< n L._._.~~ ~ ~ /~ ~J~~
z~
i j
~~' 3411 '' ~ ~
a 3er _ i.6t..~-~- j ~"
1 A ~ ~
_ J ~ /~ l }
~fZ~~C3E ~~. ~~ ~~ ( 3392 ~ I
3<ec 3sas 'v
~.
..~ ~, .1~.._~ ~ r 3618 3,>9 ~ f ,Q I
~ ~ s
____~ ~ ~ - , L .~ .9e 421
3393 3393 r~ R
f..~/// \ .3 \
- 353'r 353
g 3613
Southea
36i5k g Greensboro
r' 3 35~a F+irport
le 33rc
358e - ~+(~
353e - V
-~~ L 3 618 ~ s _ .3,35,:. __ ~,
,~' C~ ~ 3 3 9 6 ' '`-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~`-,
~'~-'-`" ~ ~~ ~ i ~~~~
~-°/ Y ~ `~ 3407
-' ~r~, ~.--~ ~
~ 3a02 /"\
I s J fiV./y
_ _ _ _ _ 3397 ~~ ~ 3392 3555
~ ,,,_931_____
'€ iRn '~~C aK I N G £M= i tk~ n
alnui~ .Fnhtn.-~ g 5 i ~ Y
r ~y _
jai: e4rtek ~ ~ ~ ~ 2.. l ~_~-~~8 ~ 5 Bxr1:.:Bt~ S
S, . L ~ i ~F'I~mC R
U
ftf ~
'._
,~ ,
~3ti,.
-r r.-~ 9.rx c
3 ~'1 Pardla.i.an may, Can ~ 9p a
t ' ~ ; ~ ~_ '~ n`~ " " ~p~` NORTH CAROLINA 1~PARTMSNT OR TRANSPORTATION
PrieoE De.ebpasa6 aad Sa.ireue~Eal Aad~.u. Br.'oL
'<,
4~ sp~e
f 1P>p
BRIDGE NO. Ii
SR 3394 OVER BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
GUILFORD COUNTY
B-4131
VICINITY MAP
0 0~5 ~
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE IA

., ~,, _.
._
~.--
V
,,
~ ~. - ~`1. 334 -. -~, ~- ~'~.
a
t [
_~ r ti..' T - i _ J
. , ~ -...~ 7 \r
~. -'~ .,,
_ -,_..~
~, _
~ t _ .,
-.: 1 (,~i ; :-.- ~ ' ~ - ..wit --" _._ ~ ~-----.
. ~- -. ,/
~_
l
North Carolina Department of Transportation
N~,TH Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
g ~~~,,
• T.LP. B-4131
Z
~~ ~y' Bridge No. 11 Over Big Alamance Creek.
~~">oF~a~~ On SR 3394 - Guilford County, N.C.
Quad. Map: Climax
Figure 1B

..
LOOKING NORTH ACROSS BRIDGE
n~„~.~~~,;,, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
i~' =', TRANSPORTATION
I' ~,
`" r' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
\y
"~°°~-% ~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
~ BRIDGE NO. 11
ON SR 3394 BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
~ GUILFORD COUNTI'
B-4131
FIGURE 2A
LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS BRIDGE

o,wo„"4* NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
°°~ TRANSPORTATION
„~~
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
BRIDGE NO. 11
ON SR 3394 BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
GUILFORD COUNTY
B-4131
FIGURE 2B
STRUCTURE PROFILE , LOOHING EAST & UPSTREAM
STRUCTURE PROFILE , LOOHING WEST & DOWNSTREAM

PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0. II ON SR 3394
OVER BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
GUILFORD COUNTY
B-4131
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL MINOR COLLECTOR
POSTED SPEED: 45 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 2,900
2025 ADT = 5,000
TTST = I%
DUAL = 3%
DHV = 12%
DIR = 65%
DESIGN SPEED: 50 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/fit
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE:6°50'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 7%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 96 Kcrest = 84
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 2.0 ft FDPS 8.0 ft TOTAL (II.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 12.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 40.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 125.0 ft -ALTERNATE I
BRIDGE LENGTH: 150.0 ft -ALTERNATE 2
10' 6' 12' MIN. 8' 12' ~ i 2'
VAR. SLO~PE~~ 1 18' DES. ~ 2 ~ ~ POINT
.02
6;%
FIGURE 3A
~ 8' 30,
2' l.._ r- VAR. SLOPE
~ I i' WITH GUARDRAIL
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
40'
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
8' 12' ~ 12' 8'
GRADE
i POINT
~
.02
.~ r .az ~
.02
NOTE:
. HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED. APPROVED BY: DATE:

N PROPOSED DETOUR CRITERIA FIGURE 3B
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. II ON SR 3394
• OVER BIG ALAMANCE CREEK
GUILFORD COUNTY
B-4131
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL MINOR COLLECTOR
POSTED SPEED: 45 MPH (ASSUMED )
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT
2025 ADT
TTST
DUAL
DHV
DIR
2,900
5,000
I%
3%
12%
65%
DESIGN SPEED: 35 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.08 ft/ft (USE .06 MAX. ON BRIDGE)
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE: 16°20' (7°30' ON BRIDGE )
MAXIMUM GRADE: 12%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 49 Kcrest = 29
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE :4.0 fit TOTAL (7.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: II.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 28.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 145.0 ft
q~ 4' II' _~_ II'
I GRADE
~ ~ POINT
.02 I~ .oz
~ 4'
~ 7' WITH GUARDRAIL
DETOUR APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
2'a'

i
3' II' ~ II' 3'
GRADE
i POINT
i
.02
.02
DETOUR BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
NOTE: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-24-04
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN REVISED BY:
EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED. APPROVED BY: DATE: