19950275 Ver 1_General Correspondence_19950309

P. .
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bridge No. 76
Road); State
I-2201AA
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an Individual
Permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
we anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
/Si??nc-erelyL
B. O'Quin P.E.
Assi eager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 27, 1995
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
OFM it 95x--75

ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
401 issuE p
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
REo'ENe'D
MAK 09
EM1???ae A?c?1EN?,ES
Subject: Guilford County - Replacement of
over I-40 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge
Project No. 8.T491604; T.I.P. No.
9

BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: John Thomas, COE; Raleigh Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
J.W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Ed Lewis, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
yj . -
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. I-2201 AA
State Project No. 8.T491604
Federal-Aid Project No. IMF-40-3(84)2
A. Project Description: GUILFORD COUNTY, BRIDGE NUMBER 76
OVER I-40 ON SR 1850 (SANDY RIDGE ROAD). REPLACE BRIDGE
WITH FIVE-LANE STRUCTURE, WIDEN APPROACHES TO FIVE LANES,
MINOR WORK AT RAMP TERMINALS (SEE FIGURE 1 FOR PROJECT
LOCATION).
Note: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for a detailed description of the project and a list of
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT IS TO
REPLACE A RAPIDLY DETERIORATING STRUCTURE AND DELIVER A
FACILITY WHICH CAN ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE TRAFFIC NEEDS
IN THE AREA. THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPATIBLE
WITH PROJECT I-2201AB, WHICH WILL INCLUDE WIDENING I-40
TO EIGHT LANES AND FURTHER IMPROVING THE I-40/SANDY RIDGE
ROAD INTERCHANGE (SEE FIGURE 2). PROJECT I-2201AB, WHICH
INCLUDES THE SUBJECT SEGMENT OF I-40, IS SCHEDULED FOR
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION IN FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND
CONSTRUCTION IN FISCAL YEAR 2000.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, rec nstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary Ines (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
1

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
2

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
9. Rehabilitation or
and bus buildings
only minor amounts
and there is not a
number of users.
reconstruction of existing rail
and ancillary facilities where
of additional land are required
substantial increase in the
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
1. Environmental Commitments
There are no special environmental commitments. Best
Management Practices will be in effect, and a Sedimentation
Control Plan will be developed. A Hazardous Material
Preliminary Site Assessment was performed in the project
area. No involvement with UST's is anticipated (see attached
memorandum, M-1).
There are two candidate species (C2 Status) listed in
Guilford County. They are the Greensboro burrowing crayfish
(Cambarus catagius) and Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula). No
impacts to federally protected species are anticipated.
2. Bridge Data
Bridge Number 76 was built in 1956. It has a
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
sufficiency rating of 19.4 out of a possible 100.0 and a
remaining life of 4 years. THe bridge is 192.0 feet long
and has a clear roadway width of 26.0 feet. The approach
roadway consists of a 22-foot travelway with 6-foot
shoulders.
3. Proposed Improvements
Proposed improvements call for replacing the existing
bridge with a bridge 255 feet long with a clear roadway width
of 72 feet. This width will allow for two twelve-foot lanes
in each direction, a center turn lane, and six-foot shoulders
along Sandy Ridge Road. The proposed bridge length will
allow for the future widening of I-40 to eight lanes proposed
under Project I-2201AB. The bridge approaches will consist
of a five-lane cross section with 8-foot useable shoulders (4
feet paved). This cross-section will be carried from ramp
terminal to ramp terminal, and then it will taper down to the
existing cross section. The proposed ramp terminals will be
generally located in the same location as the existing
terminals. The grade on the proposed structure will be
raised to allow for 16 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance
over I-40. There will be a minor grade change on the ramps
to accomodate the increase in grade on Sandy Ridge Road. The
project is 0.33 mile long along Sandy Ridge Road. The
proposed improvements are shown in Figure 3.
The proposed structure will be constucted immediately
west of its present location while traffic is maintained on
the existing structure.
The project is scheduled for right of way acquisition
and construction in fiscal year 1995.
4. Estimated Cost
The total estimated cost for the project is
$2,250,000 (construction costs only). No additional right of
way will be required for the proposed improvements, and no
changes in access control are recommended. All required
right of way and control of access acquisitions. for the
ultimate interchange design will be processed under TIP
Project I-2201A.
5. Estimated Traffic
The estimated 1995 traffic along Sandy Ridge Road is
8,800 vehicles per day (vpd). The estimated 2015 traffic
along Sandy Ridge Road is 15,700 vpd.
The estimated 1995 traffic along I-40 is 60,900
vehicles per day (vpd). The estimated 2015 traffic along I-
40 is 99,200 vpd.
4
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
6. Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 50 miles per hour.
7. Design Exception
A design exception will not be required.
8. Bicycle and Pedestrain Facilities
No bicycle or pedestrian needs have been identified
along Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850). No sidewalk or extra
pavement width for bicyclists is recommended on the bridge or
the approaches.
5
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
vl-
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third ? N??
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? ?/
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water ?
resources be adversely impacted by
proposed construction activities?
(7)
(8)
(9)
Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ?
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?

F-1 vl
6
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
a N
F-1
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ?
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? v1
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ?
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? ?
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project. involve any changes in ? ?
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the a y1
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on ? v11
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
NIA
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ?
increase in traffic volumes? [7 .
(23) Will traffic be maintained during
construction using existing roads, staged V/ F
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks, ?
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, a /
across, or adjacent to a river designated ?/
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
8
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
N/A
9

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. I-2201 AA
State Project No. 8.T491604
Federal-Aid Project No. IMF-40-3(84)2
A. Pro.iect Description: GUILFORD COUNTY, BRIDGE NUMBER 76
OVER I-40 ON SR. 1850 (SANDY RIDGE ROAD). REPLACE BRIDGE
WITH FIVE-LANE STRUCTURE, WIDEN APPROACHES TO FIVE LANES,
MINOR WORK AT RAMP TERMINALS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
12-2I - c7 4--
Date P ct Planning Unit Head
12ZI9 EdAvz?l
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
10
N
1 FIG. 1 1

rrn CD m ?s In o m A -t o
n r a Z C O o > Z
v nc•IJ jZZ ? -+-. t? mMO ?
0 'A tA 1) 71 -4
;Im=(nIn N n 1 -(v\ O
V Vo V V Y 31 -1 O m 0 0 ,
(1 "L o r r O O z c- Q
OT0pDrn In P z < In
ZOZ Y •j.j00 a to m•-1•
VIC V, m m z
Cm -c" gZCC P z 10
r (1 'U p C1 n y ti
_I-1 c U, -, • •pb
n.?a. _025 = v /
.y ?.. '_? tp L ~ 2 Z 1
L(1 O A _ M
(n at- D= OrR // i
'01
D 1• Z
j, E5
M-1
m-• o /
tn; n /
mP9
_nl a
U. z
r-o P , n tr tn%
M - o
? \ 0
v e
tiD ?+
J p
? ?,
L 0
< ?
IA V. ?
O

mil
rm
0
? I•

G 7?
'? L G', m
M

»
p t
i1
7J J•
••
l
m w o
R Z r
?? -10 m -
;
V
m ° ,
.n
O O
m C
2\
p
4 N -?
K N
N
°
-/'n Z In DA G T
pa ?
-EN O N

1 fn
m m
?
3
't
° o
G IJ
C 1•
f- -. Q
Z
nun

'
ci
?.

? N m
D
PkA
O
lA y C
C N
,a -
CQ l
O
P
O K? 4 A? UD n

M O

C
G 1
o c M
m D
D In
r i
N
n
UO
a
`

V'

n

o C

Z U
\ A
O T
O
+1 ti -
D
r -1
a ^
?
)
Q N p C
P
g Q N Q 10 .

J L <

f
10
U,A
a ti
O
N
m C m
> ,n

Q O 1 b Z \C? 'If N K • Q
°n w 0% m

K ?' . ,np
A- ?
A Um
a m
8°
° ° Ns
W <
ut L
L
yt
3 ' 1
0

o
Z
Cl
-°
C0 m
1 ?
C y In
» » J: pn N -1 .a
fJ ? .. -. A \ b °T P
° a m Ol e ta A O Q O
A O - i O 0
° \ N
A- A a l -,
0 0
O O M S
y? d to
< a, !-
0
<
Mm
D
1 s y?-1 r
chi ? 5 '? ?i 1!+

N
u.
s
O r
O
A -1
A
-"t
ri
N
8 Z _ r O
Q
.a
.a
D
1 N ma, v

O _
p O
Q o n u N ?i °v
,n Q z-t
< I c
,? D O f1

?
n '

3 n
goo
.ti r.
m
^_ N
p
<9 a? o Z
O
tS ,
me r-
O
0 LA
,
Z m Q
Z
f. <rt ti
N
Q

v V
l POM
3 < N
D

J
In I
C fJ ?, ?Q P O 71AZ , ? IJ C7 Q
a C, a o
CC, =
C"o O
'M
p 'o
r O O co

0 -
(3"?
V,
1 n ? V
P . ^1Y ?

z Al
P
< n < dm O

I? g l i 1
t
r /
` GN IIAgpR
tI)aRY RO.
r ) ?F t
n ? 1 lu, t 7? fZn N c
is J ?'A.1 1 O -C ? p
?pdoo ?dh 4
T r t T
? 1 y
O ( O
Z ( ?C/l Z
1 GUIIFORU3..-LA ESTOWN RO.
_ I
{i cr
O
O
ti$
u,
A
/' ? f 1 t`' ? Ley _
N
I A?E?iT! ,a
OR y?
u
0
.yc?i 020\ v
.oO ROIQ sf
1 \Q1,
V
sroRr
/r r
1-2201,
J?CC
tf Gt
1
i
N
N
O
C
o0
O
C?
O
c
z

W
:?lo 7C)
m?:u
D O
D 7?- tc-'
0 1 ,
0(-)
z
O1
t
r
I
P0T -Y- 71k* 50 LB x .' 1 11?
-Y IE-50 L
T, -ij
/ ` = ?' ; l i? l ? ?ti°\ • ? ? ? `fir h/-\F
,,; ,i-y o ?,,? ? ,, vii •'/(a
r:•,I• ,•1 ,;:"i•„:r1n:r'1,• tC} / i - _?t \ q FGA \ \ \ ' ?. `?fo \'
Clm.'; 14 •L I>L1•r, t• .: 1 ?;.i, ,: r '1 r r f? I IIII v ?4TCy \\ \ b\ ?,
s ;•t : I 1 I I • i 61:4.a:o r F 5 ?! r! • ?? t a'? _
\ Qa, ? esr
"r ...1•?t i -ir I I?M 0 S•S-9pQS \ \ ,?. ?arwn
\
!rg
Iq• q1. SSB L !'I dp. C
to ,. C1 I ,i:'_ " ?_ R •??s2e2?' T ? ? I / ?I iM€? \\ ? E'1\• .
3 40,
'tis, _ I j l V. ? 0 nrr '•.\
25
09
••i . t. S aa.rsn li j
'r '1; I I A '`
QG
\ =YYI,EV-'-r 6_7. J: fr7 1_ _ I .I `'t Il
• ? . 1•r•.?:i . ? . i ll1 "1 I i c - n C( d/F0.
?\ ' ? •rJ?r" `mil I _ (? -r I I ? n •C `
1'Fi:b
\ '1? =J1' ,. 'i1?i•?4 r.;t.r n? ° I I [, 71 I I .`:r F:? . \
./'tira?r.;.,L17. Ir_lv_l.gi?J
r+. `?\ \ t3
f
YV. il).gl•,.cG _._.
'1 r. ?...,? \ s•'1 1 Pn 1 I IIIT jr
1 w `` J' 1 \I I
? \\ ? 1 ' '1 1, 1 y l ?r1 ?O •
IP
III
r ??,.r I I
r ?
.. - ,?-? N 1• I f, I I
•
i
. N ., rte- _ li •
\ 1 1 Z
1 ?

F .
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
C E/
?SWfO
1994
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
September 19, 1994
MEMO TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
L
FROM: C. Edward Hales, III
Geo-Environmental Section
Re: State Project: 8.T491604 (I-2201A)
County: Guilford
Description: Replacing of Bridge over I-40 at Sandy Ridge Road
SUBJECT: Hazardous Material Evaluation
R. SAMU `
DIVISICV OF
HIGHWAYS
t DIRT III
On September 14, 1994 a project corridor reconnaissance was undertaken by members of
the Geo-Environmental Section to determine the potential for underground storage tanks
(USTs) impacting the construction corridor. Since all construction is to take place within
existing right-of-way there are no new UST sites to investigate. Two (2) UST facilities
were located near the project corridor on both sides of the existing bridge. Both sites are
far enough away from the existing right-of-way that they should not pose any problems
for the bridge replacement.
If you have any further questions or comments please do not hesitate to call Greg Smith
or myself at [phone].
CEH3
M-1
e