19960645 Ver 1_Complete File_19960703

• A ?
Ai?
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
"? d Y mA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
June 28, 1
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P. W. S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:

,?96 06 4
Subject: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 213 over Little Alamance
Creek on SR 3073, Federal Project No. BRZ-3073(1), State Project
No. 8.2493401, T.I.P. No. B-2835.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 213 will be replaced on new location approximately 10 meters
(32 feet) upstream of the existing bridge with a new bridge 40 meters (130 feet) long and
9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction. No jurisdictional wetland communities will be affected.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as "Catego cal
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not tici
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide ermit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, for their review.
401 ISSUED
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
e
+i . \,%
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone], Ext. 307.
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E., P & E Project Planning Engineer

Guilford County,
Bridge No. 213 on SR 3073
Over Little Alamance Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 3073(1)
State Project 8.2493401
TIP Project B-2835
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
APPROVED:
6
3 -12-1
Date
Date
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

Nicholas L. Graf, ?P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Guilford County,
Bridge No. 213 on SR 3073
Over Little Alamance Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 3073(1)
State Project 8.2493401
TIP Project B-2835
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: ,,t,is1,ir,,,
,
1?0
yyn?aa?- /
J "ac, 3
rysfi ` ; ?. V r16 0%5-f
? Y

? •'
J" 1
A I r
e -
a Lrrl? °s -
., v?`
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E.
Project Planning Engineer

7
?i?r
o
WCc e
Wayn Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Guilford County,
Bridge No. 213 on SR 3073
Over Little Alamance Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 3073(1)
State Project 8.2493401
TIP Project B-2835
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 213, Guilford County. This bridge carries SR 3073 (Village Road) over Little Alamance
Creek (see Figure 1). NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) classify this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no notable
environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 213 on new location as shown in Alternate 3, Figure 2.
NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a new bridge approximately 40 meters (130 feet)
in length and 9.0 meters (30 feet) in width, on new location approximately 10 meters (32 feet)
west of the existing bridge. The new bridge will be at approximately the same elevation as the
existing bridge. The new roadway approaches will have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) wide travelway plus
2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately
80 km/h (50 mph).
The estimated cost is $ 754,000 including $ 54,000 for right of way acquisition and
$ 700,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1996-2002 TIP is $ 348,000.
H. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT may be required to seek a design exception due to the low design speed for this
project. The design speed for the project is affected by the poor existing horizontal alignment. The
recommended alternate will improve the design speed of the roadway, but it may not reach the
desired design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph).
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices will be installed and properly
maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 3073 as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The surrounding area is primarily wooded with a few scattered residences and a sizable
mobile home park. The residents of this mobile home park cross Bridge No. 213 daily as most
possible trip destinations are in and around Greensboro which is located to the north of Little
Alamance Creek. Also, I-85/140 is north of the project area by less than 0.5 kilometers (0.31
miles) and SR 3073 intersects SR 3143 which is a service road for the interstate.
Near Bridge No. 213, SR 3073 is a two lane paved road, 5.4 meters (18 feet) wide with
grassed shoulders. At the bridge SR 3073 is reduced to one lane about 3.3 meters (11 feet) wide.
Approximately 200 meters (650 feet) south of Bridge No. 213, SR 3073 becomes a narrow
unpaved roadway approximately 6.0 meters (20 feet) wide. Vertical alignment in the area is good,
while horizontal alignment is poor.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 213 in 1953. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a
timber deck with a steel girder and steel floor beam system (see Figure 3). The bridge has timber
caps and pile bents and timber end bents. The deck of Bridge No. 213 is 5.8 meters (19 feet)
above the streambed. Water depth is approximately 0.15 meters (0.5 feet) in the project area. The
bridge is 27.7 meters (91 feet) long with a 3.6 meter (12 foot) roadway width. It carries one lane
of traffic and the posted load limit is 5 tons for single vehicles. Truck-tractor Semi-trailer (TTST)
are not allowed on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 213 is
26.4 of a possible 100.0. The bridge has an estimated remaining life of 3 years.
The current traffic volume is 1300 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to 2100 VPD by the
design year (2020). The speed limit is not posted in the project area, therefore it is assumed to be
55 mph by statute.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate one accident occurred in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 213 between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1994.
The Transportation Director for Guilford County Schools indicated there are no school
buses crossing the bridge due to the load restriction.
2
V. ALTERNATES
Three methods of replacing Bridge No. 213 were studied. Each of the alternates studied
involves a replacement structure 40 meters (130 feet) long and 9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. This
structure width will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 feet) travelway across the structure with a 1.0
meter (3 foot) lateral clearance on each side. The approach roadway will consist of 7.2 meters (24
feet) of pavement and a minimum of 2.4 meter (8 foot) grassed shoulders.
The alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate One - replace the bridge on existing location with a new structure. Approximately 200
meters (650 feet) of approach roadway work is required. Traffic is to be detoured along
existing roads as shown in Figure 1. This alternate will include improvements to and
paving of substandard (unpaved) detour roads, SR 3000 and SR 3073.
Alternate Two - replace the bridge on existing location with a new structure. This alternate
would involve approximately 200 meters (650 feet) of approach roadway work. Traffic
would be maintained on a detour structure located just west of the existing structure
during construction.
Alternate Three - replace the bridge on new location approximately 10 meters (32 feet) upstream
(west) of the existing bridge. This alternate would involve approximately 350 meters
(1150 feet) of new approach roadway. Traffic would be maintained on the existing
structure during construction of the new structure.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue
deteriorating until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance.
VI. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Improve Detour Roads
Detour Structure & Approaches
Structure Removal
En ineerin & Contingencies
Total Construction
Right of Way & Utilities
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Alternate One Alternate Two Alternate Three
Recommended
240,000 240,000 240,000
150,000 150,060 360,000
230,000 -0- - 0 -
- 0 - 435,000 - 0 -
10,000 10,000 10,000
100,000 140,000 90,000
730,000 975,000 700,000
52,250 54,000 54,000
782,250 1,029,000 754,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 213 on new location, as shown in Alternate 3, Figure 2.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge and roadway during construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 213 with a new bridge that will be 40 meters (130 feet)
long and 9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. This structure width will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 foot)
travelway across the structure with a 1.0 meter (3 foot) lateral clearance on each side. The new
structure will be approximately 10 meters (32 feet) upstream (west) of the existing bridge.
Initial design indicates that the completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 80 km/h (50 mph). The project will require approximately 350 meters (1150 feet)
of new approach roadway. The approach roadway will consist of 7.2 meters (24 feet) of
pavement and a minimum of 2.4 meter (8 foot) grassed shoulders. If the design requires guardrail,
the shoulder will be at least 3.3 meters (11 feet) wide. The new structure and roadway approaches
will be at approximately the same grade as the existing roadway.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 3 in order to improve the substandard horizontal
alignment. Alternate 3 is also the least expensive alternate for replacing Bridge No. 213. This
alternate has the additional advantage of maintaining traffic on-site. Alternate 3 increases the
estimated design speed from approximately 65 kph (40 mph) to approximately 80 kph (50 mph).
Both Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 use the existing alignment and would require a design exception
due to lower than desirable design speed. While the environmental effects of Alternate 3 are
slightly greater than those of the other alternates, the cost savings and safety/design improvements
more than compensate for these minor effects.
The division engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate 3. He states that traffic
should be maintained on-site due to the number of vehicles involved and the substandard
condition of some of the detour roads.
Construction of Alternate 3 will not have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain or
associated flood hazard. The elevation of the 100-year flood will not be increased by more than
30 centimeters (12 inches).
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be medium or normal for a project of this type and
magnitude.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
4
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will
be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area and no unknown sites are
likely to be found.
B. Architectural and Archaeological Resources
Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are no known
architectural sites in the project area and no unknown sites are likely to be found. Therefore,
SHPO has recommended no architectural surveys be conducted in connection with this project.
Archaeological Resources
The SHPO has indicated that there are no known archaeological sites in the project area,
however an archaeological investigation was requested to determine if any previously unknown
archaeological sites are to be found along the proposed alignment.
Archaeological surveys were conducted and no prehistoric or historic remains were
encountered. SHPO has recommended no further archaeological investigation in connection with
this project.
C. Natural Systems
Physical Resources
Guilford County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province. The topography of Guilford
County is characterized as generally rolling with moderately steep slopes along dramageways.
The mean sea level (msl) elevation of the project study area is 164 meters (540 feet).
5
Soils
Three specific soil types, Congaree loam, Madison clay loam and Wilkes sandy loam, are
found within the project area.
Congaree loam (Co) soils are found on long narrow flood plains and are frequently
flooded for brief time periods. These soils are nearly level and have slopes ranging from 0 to 2
percent. Congaree loam soils are well drained, moderately permeable and non-hydnc. The main
limitations in the use and management of this soil type are flooding, wetness and permeability.
Madison clay loam (McD2) soils are found on fairly narrow ridges and long, fairly narrow
side slopes. Madison clay loam is a non-hydric soil. Madison soils are typically well drained,
moderately permeable and have slopes ranging from 10 to 15 percent. Slope, runoff, erosion,
permeability and mica content are the main limitations in use and management of this soil type.
Wilkes sandy loam (WkE) soils are generally found on border side slopes adjacent to
major drainageways. Wilkes sandy loams are non-hydric soils. These soils are well drained and
moderately permeable. The percent slope of this soil type is 15 to 45. The main limitations in the
use and management of this soil type are slope, runoff, erosion and depth to rock.
Water Resources
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Little Alamance Creek is the primary water resource in the project study area. This water
resource lies within the Haw River Sub-basin, of the Cape Fear Drainage. Little Alamance Creek
originates south of Greensboro, approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) east of the project study
area. This creek empties into Big Alamance Creek 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) downstream of the
project study area.
Little Alamance Creek has a width of 12 meters (40 feet) and a depth of 0.13 meters
(5 inches). This stream has a moderate flow rate and good water clarity. Detritus, leaves and
sandbars are observable in this creek. The substrate consists of silt, sand and pebble as classified
by Cowardin, et al. (1979).
An unnamed tributary to Little Alamance will be crossed by Alternate 2 or Alternate 3.
This stream has its confluence with Little Alamance Creek approximately 4.5 meters (15 feet)
west of the existing bridge structure. This stream is 2 meters (6 feet) in width and has an average
depth of 0.13 meters (5 inches). The substrate is sand and pebble. This tributary had a fast flow
rate and poor water clarity due to heavy precipitation prior to the site visit.
Best Usage Classification
Streams which flow through North Carolina have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). An unnamed tributary is attributed the
classification of the stream to which it is a tributary. Little Alamance Creek (Index No. 16-19-3-
0.5) and its unnamed tributary have a best usage classification of Water Supplies (WS-IV) NSW.
WS-IV streams are protected as water supplies, are located generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses. The Class C designation refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) is a supplemental classification and refers to
waters requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
6
Neither Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW) nor Water
Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of project study area. However,
a Critical Area (CA) for a water supply intake begins approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.3 miles)
downstream of the project study area. Sediment wash will be limited by stringent application of
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters. These
precautions will avoid possible disruption of the water supply intake station downstream of the
project.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM and is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macromvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macromvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. No BMAN monitoring sites are located on Little Alamance
Creek near the project study area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. Two permitted dischargers are located at least 3.2 kilometers (2 miles)
upstream of the project study area on unnamed tributaries to Little Alamance Creek. These
dischargers release domestic wastewater from a school and a mobile home park. Release amounts
total 15,000 gallons daily and 43,000 gallons daily, respectively.
Biotic Resources
Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities have been identified in the project study area:
disturbed community, basic mesic hardwood forest and oak/hickory forest. Many faunal species
are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Disturbed Community - The disturbed community involves those habitats frequently
disrupted by human activities, such as roadside shoulders and utility corridors.
Grasses such as fescue and foxtail dominate the roadside shoulder habitat. Other
vegetation found here includes Japanese honeysuckle, wild onion, goldenrod, wing stem, bushy
aster, clover and dandelion.
Fescue, foxtail and other grasses dominated the sewer line corridor. Vegetation found in
the power line corridor can be dense with blackberry very prominent here. Saplings of scrub pine,
white ash, mockernut hickory and southern red oak grow in the power line corridor. Other plants
found growing here are bushclover, boneset, wing stem and elephant's foot.
Common crow, rufous-sided towhee, mourning dove and mockingbird are avian species
found in disturbed communities.
Mammals frequenting this community type include eastern cottontail, raccoon and Virginia
opossum.
The black racer frequents the ecotones of disturbed habitats and woodlands.
7
Basic Mesic Hardwood Forest - Basic mesic hardwood forests generally occur in moist
and topographically sheltered sites. Sites of these forest are typically located on lower, north-
facing slopes. The occurrence of these forests on steep slopes has allowed many of these forest
types to remain undisturbed for the most part. These forests are typically uneven-aged with
reproduction occurring primarily in canopy gaps. Some old trees may be present in the canopy.
A NHP identified priority area for this forest type lies in the project region, approximately 1.6
kilometers (1.0 miles) east of the project study area.
Canopy constituent trees include American beech, red maple, green ash, sycamore and
tulip poplar. Mapleleaf viburnum and musclewood dominate the understory. Other understory
vegetation includes red cedar, sassafras and strawberry bush. Christmas fern grows well here as
well.
Gray squirrel, golden mouse and eastern chipmunk are mammals frequently encountered in
this community type.
Avian species frequenting this community type include northern waterthrush, American
redstart and hooded warbler.
Reptiles and amphibians potentially found here are black rat snake, rough green snake,
upland chorus frog and Fowler's toad.
Oak/Hickory Forest - Oak/hickory forests were once the dominant community type of
the Piedmont. This community type is found typically on slopes and upland flats. These forests
generally contain uneven-aged trees with some old trees present. The herb layer of oak/hickory
forest is generally scarce.
Dominant canopy members include shagbark hickory, mockernut hickory, southern red
oak. Other trees found here are sycamore, tulip popular, red maple and American beech.
Musclewood, mapleleaf viburnum, red cedar, strawberry bush and black cherry compose the
shrub layer. Cross vine grows here, and Christmas fern dominates steep inclines of the forest and
along the stream banks. Wild ginger grows in the forest floor.
Mammals potentially found here are southern flying squirrel, white-footed mouse and
long-tailed weasel.
Avian species commonly encountered in this community type are red-tailed hawk,
northern cardinal, red-bellied woodpecker, yellow-throated vireo, red-eyed vireo, ovenbird and
black-and-white warbler.
Reptiles commonly encountered in upland habitats like oak/hickory forest are copperhead
and eastern box turtle.
Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic communities, Piedmont Perennial Stream and Piedmont Ephemeral Stream,
occur in the project study area. Physical characteristics of the water bodies and conditions of the
water resources reflect faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Piedmont Perennial Stream - This piedmont perennial stream has trees growing along its
banks. This shading of Little Alamance Creek provides for only slight fluctuations in water
temperatures. Little Alamance Creek has steep banks, with some banks as high as 2 meters
(7 feet). Leaves, detritus and sandbars are present in the stream.
8
Fish species that may be encountered in Little Alamance Creek include satinfin shiner,
bluehead chub, redbreasted sunfish and largemouth bass.
Piedmont Ephemeral Stream - Ephemeral streams, such as the unnamed tributary to
Little Alamance Creek, include those areas which persist for brief periods of time. These waters
typically form during seasonally wet periods (late fall to early winter) and become dry during the
summer months. Climatological events greatly influence the faunal composition of ephemeral
pools/streams and may cause the fauna to vary from year to year.
Fauna found within this community have adapted various mechanisms in order to survive
dry periods. Amphibians, many insects, such as dragonflies (Order Odonata) and midges
(Order Diptera), as well as other organisms have aquatic life stages and emerge early in the
spring. Amphibians, such as those mentioned in the terrestrial community descriptions, deposit
their eggs in ephemeral pools/streams in order to avoid egg and larvae predation by fish. The
larval stage begins when eggs are deposited during the wet seasons. This stage ends when
metamorphosis of juvenile amphibians emerge. Metamorphosis of frogs and toads is marked by
drastic morphological changes from a tadpole (juvenile) to an adult. Adult amphibians will emerge
from these pools/streams before the warm summer months dry the streams. Previously mentioned
amphibians may utilize the ephemeral ditch for the above purposes. Many types of insects may
often use this aquatic community for reproduction purposes.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources
in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation
of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire
proposed ROW width of 20.0 meters (65.6 feet). Usually, project construction does not require
the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1 Antici ated Im pacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY AREA IMPACTED
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Disturbed Community
Basic Mesic Hardwood Forest <0.1 (0.2)
<0. 1 (<O. 1) 0.4 (0.9)
<0. 1 (0. 1) 0.4 (0.9)
<0. 1 (0. 1
Oak/hickory Forest <0.1 (0.2) 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.1(0.5) 0.5(1.3) 0.5 1.3
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Clearing will be required regardless of the alternate chosen. Trees would be cleared along
Alternate I in order to accommodate a two lane bridge. Alternates 2 and 3 would necessitate
more clearing of forested habitat because these alternates occur along new location.
9
Plant communities found within the study area serve as foraging, nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife. Impacts to biotic communities will have minimal impacts on faunal
species because new bridge construction will occur primarily in disturbed communities. These
impacts to faunal species are considered minimal because species are very adaptable and prefer
disturbed habitats. Dispersion of mobile wildlife from the study area will occur from construction
work; however, less mobile species may be lost as a result of the proposed project. Animals
temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species. This
displacement of animals, whether temporary or permanent, may result in an increase of
competition for the remaining resources. A decrease of competition may result if the faunal
species is able to migrate to find foraging opportunities.
Terrain modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. These post-construction habitats will attract wildlife suitable to these areas.
The area associated with the existing bridge will revegetate over time after bridge removal to a
forested habitat, first with opportunistic vegetation. This community will in time provide habitat
for wildlife adapted to such an area.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities
From a water resources perspective, replacement of a bridge on existing location with
road closure (Alternate 1) is almost always preferred when compared to bridge replacement on
existing location with an on-site detour (Alternate 2) or to bridge replacement on new location
(Alternate 3). Alternate 1 will have fewer impacts on water resources than Alternate 2 or
Alternate 3.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work will
effect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible
effects to the biological components.
More alterations in the aquatic communities will result from the new location bridge
construction. Impacts to the aquatic community include increased siltation and sedimentation, as
well as exposure to atmospheric changes.
A correlation exists between the amount of sedimentation in a stream and the amount of
grubbing, clearing and disturbance within a streamside habitat. Sedimentation can cause changes
in a stream's flow rate at the site and downstream by creating sandbars. These sandbars can also
modify a stream's course, thereby causing scour and erosion of stream banks. Turbidity, another
effect of sedimentation, reduces light penetration, thus decreasing the growth of aquatic
vegetation. Effects from sedimentation will be greater from the construction of Alternate 2 or
Alternate 3 than from Alternate 1 because greater grubbing and clearing are required to construct
a bridge on new location.
Alternates 2 and 3 will clear more trees and create a larger open area over Little Alamance
Creek. The larger opening means greater exposure to atmospheric conditions (wind, direct
sunlight). Greater exposure to these factors leads to increased fluctuations in water temperatures.
In-stream construction disturbs the stream substrate and creates siltation. Siltation of the
stream clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and
deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species. Fish species feeding by sight would be hindered in
their predation by turbid conditions. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts
of sediment. The stabilization of a stream's substrate can require a great amount of time, thereby
altering the aquatic species in the stream.
10
Construction of either Alternate 2 or Alternate 3 would require a portion of the ephemeral
stream to be piped and/or relocated. These construction practices will eliminate the opportunity
for amphibians and insects to use this stream (ditch) for reproduction purposes.
The amount of toxins in Little Alamance Creek may increase from the proposed
construction, particularly from the use of construction machinery. Toxins from vehicles and
machinery can degrade an aquatic community and affect the entire ecosystem. These chemicals
may cause deformations of developing faunal species and can be harmful to aquatic vegetation.
Selection of Alternate
From a natural resources perspective, Alternate 1 impacts the least amount of forested
habitat. Less impacts to the aquatic community are likely from this alternate because the
ephemeral stream found along the alignment of Alternates 2 and 3 will not need to be piped
and/or relocated.
Regardless of alternate selection, administration of NCDOT BUTS for the protection of
surface waters will help control erosion, as well as reduce the wash of sediment and toxic
compounds into the aquatic communities. Streamside embankments will be vegetated as soon as
practical after construction is complete. These measures should be implemented throughout the
life of the project.
Jurisdictional Tonics
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, do
support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action
that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Study Area Waters of the United States
Only surface waters will be impacted by replacing Bridge No. 213 over Little Alamance
Creek. Determinations for jurisdictional wetlands revealed no occurrence of wetlands in the
project study area.
Alternate 1 will impact only surface waters associated with Little Alamance Creek while
Alternates 2 and 3 will impact both Little Alamance Creek and its unnamed tributary.
Permits
Impacts to surface waters will occur to complete the proposed project. In accordance
with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Section 404 permit
will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or
part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
11
that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
In addition, this project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from
the DEM prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Final decisions concerning
applicable permits for the subject project rest with the COE.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance - Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Encroachment into surface waters as a result of project construction is inevitable in order
to achieve the purpose and need of this project. From the perspective of avoiding impacts to
surface waters, the selection of Alternate 1 would avoid impacts to the unnamed tributary of Little
Alamance Creek.
Minimization - Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to
minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the entire
life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct
discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed
areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values
12
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Authorizations under Section 404 Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and the COE. Final
decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rest with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activity. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists
one federally-protected species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocMhalus), for Guilford County.
The FWS has classified the bald eagle as Endangered. This classification denotes a species that is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A brief description of
the bald eagle's characteristics and habitat follows.
Haliaeetus leucocWhalus (bald eagle) E
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by
their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight
path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for the bald eagle does not exist in the project study area. Little Alamance Creek
and its tributary lack the size to support foraging habitat for the bald eagle. A review of the NHP
database for rare species and unique habitats was performed prior to the first site visit. This
research revealed no documented occurrence of the bald eagle in the project region. No impact to
the bald eagle will result from project construction.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as a "moderate"
nonattainment area for 03. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were
redesignated as "maintenance" for 03 on November 7, 1993. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires
13
that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures
for Guilford County. The Greensboro Urban Area 1995 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The WO approval date for the
TIP is July 18, 1995. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is September 20, 1995. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rules found in 40 CFR Part 51.
There have been no significant changes in the project design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analysis.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
based on criteria such as potential crop yield and possible level of input of economic resources.
The SCS was asked to determine whether the alternatives under consideration will impact prime
or important farmland soils. According to the SCS, the land impacted by the project is not prime
or important farmland soil. Therefore, no further consideration of impacts to farmland is required.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will cause
no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a Categorical
Exclusion.
WTG/
14

70
3052 ,3 0 v's
.S 2751."
56 ,p
O F 30,59
Sall c, 4.s I
3053 054 •2 * 1 Z
wmmmmmw -¦
#0I
??
? to
-• 3- N 9 1` 2808 •? .4
.3 28 2806 A
't 88 . • aM co
8?2_ 0 y •? 29 7r
690 C
3051 , Z 0 .S 2807
8 27:
4 ~ ?2922 • 2_
3125 0
FAI 3.0 _ 13 N
143 - -
30 i3O56 30
0 1'3000 1•
1. s• i+ ?.
3A, 98
4 •`3071
3098 2.2'*
3217 .?'
.3219 •? Vll3056 .
p 3096 ?? • 309 3188
? 3-3176
' 3179 A ) b .6
•
0 3048 31
co
Ce !
3000 aafft 3045
78
3000 S
.Q, •6
3173
b 3091-
32_ 3045
.? 2.1.
Studied Detour Route -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GUILFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 213 ON SR 3073
OVER LITTLE ALAMANCE CREEK
B - 2835
FIG. 1
Looking North
Across
Looking South
Across
3FIdae No. 213
/of \ North Carolina Department of
y., Transportation
IG ?
Di-sision of Highways
Plannina & En-v-ironmental Branch
Guilford County
Reaiace Bridge No. 213 on SR 3073
Over Little Alamanee Creel:
B-283;
Figure Three
ye YS?AT[o
0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
September 12, 1995 C e / L
Nicholas L. Graf 4
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration SEP I 51995
Department of Transportation z
310 New Bern Avenue ZO ????SIC^
?G. V
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 F,y N?`4'•
C
Re: Replace Bridge No. 213 on SR 3073 over Little
Alamance Creek, Guilford County, B-2835,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-3073(1), State Project
8.2493401, ER 95-9163
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
July 12, 1995. However, Debbie Bevin met with Bill Goodwin, project planning
engineer, on August 29, 1995, to view the aerial and discuss the project. Based
upon this discussion, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
Since the likely alternate for the bridge replacement is on a new location east of the
existing bridge, we recommend an archaeological survey of the area of potential
effect prior to project implementation.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?P
Nicholas L. Graf
September 12, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation.and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B.. Church
T. Padgett
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
January 16, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf C E
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue JAN .0 1950
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Z
Re: Bridge 213 on SR 3073 over Little Alamance Di'?i;r, .;
Ct
Creek, Federal Aid Project BRZ-3073, B-2835,
ER 96-7985
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of December 7, 1995, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Megan O'Connell of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were
located within the project area. Due to the absence of archaeological resources,
Ms. O'Connell has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation
since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Ii D`a?r(d rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
M. O'Connell
ODI
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 `?&V
.A 1
M?NFa?
?.pn sy
? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
August 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Project File
Bill Goodwin, P.E.%
Project Planning Engineer
RECEIVEQ
AUG 3 01995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
^" A "Ll
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 213 on
SR 3073 over Little Alamance Creek, Guilford County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-3073(1), State Project No. 8.2493401,
TIP No. B-2835
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on July 12, 1995. The following
persons were in attendance:
David Cox
Eric Galamb
Christina Todd
Derek Bradner
Darin Wilder
Jimmy Capps
Ray Moore
Allen Thompson
Abdul Rahmani
Susan Tedder
John Alford
Don Hurlbut
Stephanie Briggs
Bill Goodwin
NC WRC
DEM
Traffic Control
Location & Surveys
Program Development
Program Development
Structure Design
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and through
correspondence prior to the meeting.
Possibilities for utility conflicts will be moderate on this project. There are power
transmission lines crossing SR. 3073 diagonally directly over the existing bridge. There is a RCP
sewer line crossing SR 30 7 3 ?,pproximately 75 meters noilb.. of the existing bridge.

This `.prbjeet ?vill be designed in Metric units. The design speed will be 100 km/h
(62 mph).The approach roadway will have two 3.3 meter (11 ft) travel lanes. Roadway shoulders
will be at least 2.4 meters -(8 ft) wide. The structure should be 8.4 meters (28 ft.) wide, this width
will allow for two 3.3 meter (11 ft.) travel lanes and 0.9 meter (3 ft.) shoulders on both sides.
Mr. Abdul Rahmani of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that the replacement structure will be
a bridge approximately 40 meters (130 ft.) in length with a minimum gradient of 0.3% to facilitate
deck drainage. The bridge elevation should be set such that the roadway elevation will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway. If a temporary on-site detour is required it
should be approximately 37 meters (120 ft.) in length and may be up to 1 meter (3 ft.) below the
existing roadway elevation.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated, by
telephone prior to the meeting, that there are no known architectural or archaeological sites in the
immediate project area. No architectural surveys are required; however, if an on-site detour is
used archaeological surveys may be requested. -
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated that Little Alamance Creek is classified as Class C,
Nutrient Sensitive. Implementation of standard soil and erosion control measures was requested.
Mr. Galamb suggested replacement in-place with road closure. If closure is not considered
reasonable, he asked that the new structure be located to the east of the existing bridge. There is a
moderate sized stream that flows into Little Alamance Creek just upstream (west) of the existing
structure. Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that he agreed with Mr. Galamb's
recommendations and had no specific wildlife requests for this project.
Three alternates will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 213 over Little Alamance
Creek.
Alternate One - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place. The
existing structure and SR 3073 will the closed to through traffic during
construction. Traffic,will be detoured along SR 3000, SR 3056, and
SR 3143.
Alternate Two - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place.
Traffic will maintained during construction using a detour structure located
just east of the existing bridge, as required by topography and alignment.
Alternate Three - The existing bridge will be replaced on new location
downstream (east) of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing structure during construction.
x
3
Construction cost estimates for this project are as follows:
Alternate One Alternate Two Alternate Three
Construction $ 740,000 $ 975,000 $ 700,000
Right of Way $ 38,000' $ 38,000' $ 38,000'
Total $ 778,000 $ 1,013,000 $ 738,000
'TIP right of way estimates only, actual right of way cost for alternate three may be higher.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in February 1997
and construction to begin in January 1998.
BG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants ,
Q
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Revised
8/24/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2835 DIVISION: Seven
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-3073(1_ COUNTY: Guilford
STATE PROJECT: 8.2493401 ROUTE: SR 3073
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 213 over Little Alamance Creek, on SR 3073
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Gibsonville, N. C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local route
CONSTRUCTION COST (wcLuDIN(; ENGINEERING AND coNTENGENcEEs) ............................. $ 700,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST oNmumm RELocAnoN, urnmEs, AND AcQuisrrloN) ................... $ 38,000
TOTAL COST .... ...................... ......... ......... ................................................................. 738,00
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................... ....... .....:..................................................................... $ 310,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 38,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ........................................:........................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 348,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR NO (cmcLE oNE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 2100 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 1 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF. REPLACEMENT:..
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ---- ----- ------- ----------------------?
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR ----------------- ------?
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE ----------__________?____________M?__?_ ?
4. OTHER ___-------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
LENGTH 27.75 mmmm
91 FEET
LENGTH 40 METERS
130 FEET
WIDTH 5.49 METm
18 FEET
WIDTH 8.4 mmmRs
28 FEET
®®an mm am ?a_
s?
to *0 00 0000

H d w ? 'a
JAMES B. HUNT JP,
GOVERNOR
June 8, 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
?NSP?-s?\ti
E?\R?N apc?rN
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Guilford County, SR 3073,
Replacement of Bridge No. 213 over Little Alamance
Creek, B-2835
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for July 12, 1995 at 10:00 a. m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842 (Ext. 238).
bDZ
WTG/pl r C J30
Attachment LA Je ow,,A Q C ?L L N s i") r ? - ? ? ? f
S Cam„-{??I
uc- ?o?? c dos
ftfi wee-.- 4-o eaS4 5?Je
Yva-
t
?t u
?? 4c, J

201, r
1?.
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET .ri
5/2/95 _ ?61 P?
TIP PROJECT: B-2835 DIVISION: Seven sQc
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-3073(1)_ COUNTY: Guilford
STATE PROJECT: 8.2493401 ROUTE: SR 3073
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No.- 213 over Little Alamance Creel, on SR 3073 ,
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Gibsonville, N. C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local route
CONSTRUCTION COST (wmumm ENGIlQEIImG AND coNTENGENCIES) ............................. $ ?,??0,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (wmumm RELocAmoN, unums, AND AcQumnoN) ................... $ ?,??0,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ ?,??0,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 310,000
. .........................................................
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ............................................... $ 38,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ........................................................................:........................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 348,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ®(CIRCLEONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 2100 VPD
J
TTST _4' % DUAL 1 % ` GCG ki t
?S
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ------------- -------?
2. EXISTING LOCATION'- ON-SITE DETOUR ------ __ _?_?
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --_________ _ ?
4. OTHER - ----- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 27.75 mmms WIDTH 5.49 MErEtts
91 FEET 18 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH METERS WIDTH METERS
FEET FEED
lk %
am maEn an on -

I I
00100000
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GUILFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 213 ON SR 3073
OVER LITTLE ALAMANCE CREEK
B - 2835
I FIG. 1