20201505 Ver 1_FINAL State MCD Checklist B-5728 11-23-20_20220106

11/13/2020 1 of 7
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
Bridge Program Project No.: B-5728
State Project No.: 45684.1.1
Project Location: Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Description: Bridge Program Project B-5728 includes replacing Bridge No. 112
on NC 87 over Reedy Fork Creek partially within the northeastern municipal boundary of
the town of Ossipee.
Existing Conditions – The bridge was built in 1949, and it has six spans, each being 50’
long, totaling 300 feet in length. The clear roadway width is 25.833 feet. The posted
speed limit is 50 MPH. The bridge is also currently posted for weight restrictions of
vehicles traveling over it – 31 Posted SV and 35 Posted TTST. Currently, the bridge is
bordered by residential and wooded land to the west and farmland and wooded lands to
the east.
Proposed Conditions – The preferred alternative is to replace Bridge No. 112 in place
with an onsite detour via a temporary bridge west of its existing location. The bridge will
include a two-lane roadway with twelve foot lanes and a minimum of six foot paved
shoulders. The design speed limit is 55 MPH. The bridge will be replaced with a new
bridge approximately 340 feet in length. See vicinity, project study area, and
environmental features maps below for reference.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: It is anticipated that this project
will meet requirements for USACE 404 NWP 3 for the bridge replacement impacts and
NWP 33 for temporary impacts due to temporary detour structure, DWR 401
Certification, and Jordan Lake Buffer Permitting.
Special Project Information
Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed project is to remove a structurally
deficient bridge and replace in-place with a bridge that meets current design
standards and can accommodate future projected traffic volumes as well as
accommodating all legal loads. The bridge is considered structurally deficient due
to a substructure condition appraisal of 4 out of 9, according to Federal Highway
Administration standards. NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate
Bridge No. 112 currently has a sufficiency rating of 29.32 out of a possible 100.
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year (2023) 6,433 vpd
Future Year (2043) 7,100 vpd
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
11/13/2020 2 of 7
TTST 3%
Dual 7%
Truck Percentage 10%
Roadway Classification: Minor Arterial
Hazardous Materials:
Two (2) sites of concern were identified within the project study area as documented in
the August 23, 2016 GeoEnvironmental Planning Report (refer to locations of these sites
in Figure 3). NCDOT’s GeoEnvironmental Unit will conduct a Phase II
GeoEnvironmental investigation for the sites of concern anticipated to be impacted by the
project. Following the completion of the Phase II investigations, NCDOT
GeoEnvironmental will prepare a Right of Way Acquisition Recommendations summary
prior to new right of way being acquired. Contaminated soil, underground fuel storage
tanks, and ground water monitoring wells in conflict with the project will be removed
prior to construction or addressed in a Project Special Provision.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations:
The Alamance County planner noted that this bridge provides access to two schools in
the area and pedestrians from Young’s Trailer Park use the bridge to cross Reedy Fork
Creek. NC Bicycle Route 74 also passes along the Closest Available Detour Route on
Old NC 87. Bridge construction could temporarily impact access to pedestrians,
however, the NCDOT WZTC has new poilicies in place to handle pedestrian traffic
during construction which can be evaluated during final design.
The Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Comprehensive
Transporation Plan (CTP) for bicycle paths recommends improvements to the NC 87
route in Ossipee. Although, no special bicycle or pedestrian accommodations (i.e., 8 foot
wide path and/or sidewalks) have been requested on the bridge. The current design has
shoulders on the bridge six feet in width, which a bicycle or pedestrian could use to
cross the bridge.
Alternatives Evaluation:
No-Build – The no-build alternative would result in eventually closing the road, which
is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by NC 87.
Rehabilitation – The bridge was constructed in 1949 and is reaching the end of its useful
life. Rehabilitation would only provide a temporary solution to the structural deficiency
of the bridge.
Staged Construction – Staged construction was not considered because of
the availability of an acceptable onsite detour.
Offsite Detour - An offsite detour was considered but ultimately not chosen because no
NC routes were available to detour traffic, especially truck traffic onto.
Preferred Alternative: Onsite Detour - The preferred alternative is to replace Bridge
No. 112 in place with an onsite detour via a temporary bridge west of its existing
location. This alternative was chosen based on the cost and the availability of an
acceptable onsite detour.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
11/13/2020 3 of 7
Source for Cost: M&N Estimate Submittals and NCDOT STIP.
N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules:
NC River Basin Buffer Rules for the Jordan Lake Watershed apply to the portion of
Reedy Fork Creek within the study area and include 50-foot wide riparian buffers on all
mapped surface waters. Potential impacts to protected stream buffers will be determined
once a final alignment and design have been determined.
Alamance County Trails Plan:
In coordination with Brian Baker, Director of Alamance County Recreation and Parks, on
November 21, 2019, he mentioned that Alamance County is currently acquiring the two
parcels, one on each side, adjacent to the bridge on the south end to provide for pedestrian
access under the bridge. The proposed trail may also be constructed within the next five years.
The purpose of this trail is to link to the Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) that is present at a
nearby bridge replacement project over the Haw River.
Public Involvement:
Landowner notification letters were sent to property owners on February 16, 2016.
No comments have been received to date.
Alternate Construction Cost ROW Cost Utility Cost Total
Alt. 2 On-Site Detour $ 5,800,000.00 $ 83,500.00 $ 77,578.00 $ 5,961,078.00
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with Alamance County and the Town of Ossipee on the
greenway trail and potential access needed by pedestrians. Depending on the number of
pedestrians crossing the bridge daily, NCDOT will use the Work Zone Traffic Control's
(WZTC’s) new guidance to provide accommodations.
The Alamance County Planning Director, Libby Hodges, indicates a desire for a paddle trail
under the bridge, and within the NCDOT right-of-way. There is an existing need for
recreational boat users to be able to exit the creek at this point before getting to the nearby
dam. Ongoing coordination with the county for the use of NCDOT right-of-way is
recommended, and a boater safety plan should be coordinated on during the time of
construction. The boater safety plan will be produced along with the Traffic Management
Plans (TMPs).
The Reedy Fork Greenway is proposed to follow Reedy Fork Creek and pass under this bridge.
The Alamance County Trails Plan 2015 confirms this plan, and indicates that this planned
shared use path connects several municipalities and cultural/historic destinations. The Plan calls
for construction over the next 10-20 years, with the schedule being revaluated every two years.
Construction of the trail may overlap with construction of the bridge.Working with the
Piedmont Triad Regional Council (Senior Regional Planner Jesse Day) and Alamance County
to ensure that this bridge replacement accommodates the planned Reedy Fork Greenway
passing under this bridge is recommended.
NCDOT's current design has included lengthening the bridge which has generated additional
space from the stream bank to the end bent and therefore, could accommodate a future
greenway trail under the bridge on either side of the creek.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
11/13/2020 4 of 7
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
Item 1 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO
1.Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is “no”, then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? 9
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
Items 2 – 4 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO
2.Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3.Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4.Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
Item 5-8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
5.Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands;
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6.Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7.Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
11/13/2020 5 of 7
YES NO
8.Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
YES NO
9.Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10.Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
fill in waters of the United States?
11.Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12.Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
13.Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
Cultural Resources
14.Will the project have an “effect” on a property or site listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
15.Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Response to Question 9:
Northern long-eared bat
The USFWS has developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in conjunction
with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), USACE, and NCDOT for the
northern long-eared bat (NLEB) in eastern North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire
NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The
programmatic determination for NLEB for the NCDOT program is “May Affect, Likely
to Adversely Affect”. The PBO provides incidental take coverage for NLEB and will
ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five years for all
NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Alamance
County, where TIP B-5728 is located.
Bald Eagle
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, also extending 660 feet outside of
the project limits, was performed on April 8, 2016 using 2014 color aerials. The Reedy
Fork Creek may be large enough or sufficiently open to be considered a potential feeding
source. A visual survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits
was conducted on April 11, 2016. No nests or individuals were observed at the time of
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
11/13/2020 6 of 7
the survey. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on April 8, 2016 revealed no
known occurrences of this species within one mile of the project study area. Due to the
lack of known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been
determined that this project will not affect this species.
Response to Question 10:
Three (3) jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area. Final stream impacts
will be determined during the final design phase of the project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
11/13/2020 7 of 7
PART D:( To be completed when either category #8, 12(i) or #15 of the rules are
used.)
16.Project length:
17.Right of Way width:
18.Project completion date:
19.Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
20.Total acres of wetland impacts:
21.Total linear feet of stream impacts:
22.Project purpose:
Prepared by: Date:
Rebeckah Sims
Environmental Scientist
Moffatt & Nichol
Approved by: Date:
Kevin Fischer, P.E.
Structures Management Unit
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
11/23/2020
11/13/2020
Project Commitments
Alamance County
Replace Bridge No. 112 on NC 87
over Reedy Fork Creek near the Town of Ossipee
WBS No. 45684.1.1
Project No. B-5728
FEMA Floodplains and Floodways (NCDOT Division 7)
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-regulated stream. Therefore, the
Division will submit sealed as-built construction plans to the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit upon completion of
project construction, certifying that the drainage structures and roadway embankment located within the 100-
year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Floodplain Mapping Program Coordination (NCDOT Hydraulic Design Unit)
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program to determine the status of
the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Phase II GeoEnvironmental Investigation (NCDOT GeoEnvironmental Unit)
Two (2) sites of concern were identified within the project study area as documented in the June 22, 2018
GeoEnvironmental Planning Report (refer to locations of these sites in Figure 3). NCDOT’s
GeoEnvironmental Unit will conduct a Phase II GeoEnvironmental investigation for the sites of concern
anticipated to be impacted by the project.
NC River Basin Buffer Rules (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
NC River Basin Buffer Rules for the Jordan Lake Watershed apply to the portion of Reedy Fork Creek
within the study area and include 50-foot wide riparian buffers on all mapped surface waters.
Alamance County Trails Plan (NCDOT Structures Management Unit)
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with Alamance County and the Town of Ossipee to accommodate the
proposed greenway trail to be constructed parallel to Reedy Fork Creek underneath Bridge No. 112.
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
")
B-5728
UV1669
UV1804
UV2519
UV1680
UV1684UV1563
UV2781
UV1663
UV1699
UV4797
UV2501
UV1796
UV1567UV2773
UV1691
UV1579
UV1520UV2743UV2883
UV1574
UV1610
UV2516
UV1604
UV1660
UV1575
UV1635
UV1641
UV1606
UV1555
UV5301 UV2518
UV1791
UV1694
UV1654
UV1686
UV1577
UV1653
UV1559
UV1634
UV1522
UV1573
UV2700
UV2724
UV1672
UV2504 UV1769
UV1592
UV1687
UV1667
UV1521
UV1569
UV1625
UV2799
UV2500
UV2713
UV1623UV1514
UV1548
UV1670
UV2721
UV2711UV2708
UV2716
UV1632
UV1649
UV2989
UV1803
UV2502
UV2771
UV1565
UV2720
UV2734
UV1683
UV1729
UV1557
UV1600
UV4796
UV4719
UV2742
UV1552
UV1611
UV2741
UV1693
UV1607
UV2738
UV1561
UV2801
UV1551
UV2736
UV2769
UV2768
UV1596
UV1590
UV2765
UV1601
UV1603
UV1677
UV2767
UV1595
UV1564
UV1583
UV1554
UV2718
UV1558
UV1589
UV2715
UV1730
UV1560
UV1549
UV1609
UV2772
UV1594
UV1553
UV2733
UV2739
UV1582
UV2712
UV2737
UV1547
UV2740
UV2735
UV1584
UV1529
UV1545
UV1598
UV1001
UV1597
UV1605
UV2770
UV2717
UV1576
UV1602
UV2746
UV1504
UV1571 UV1587
UV1500 UV1530
UV2719
UV1593
UV2705
UV1581
UV1002
""62
""87
""61
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,
MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSPROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
Div:TIP#
Date:
7 B-5728 1Figure
TIP Project B-5728
VICINITY MAPReplace Bridge No. 112 on NC 87 over Reedy Fork Creek in Alamance County 0 0.75
Miles
p
DECEMBER 2015
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
Re
e
d
y
F
o
r
k
C
r
e
e
k
""87
SR-1622
SR-1559SR-1557SR-1558""87
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSPROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
Div:TIP#
Date:
7 B-5728 2Figure
DECEMBER 2015
STUDY AREA MAPReplace Bridge No. 112 on NC 87 over Reedy Fork Creek in Alamance County 0 275
Feet
p
TIP Project B-5728
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
¥f¤
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Ü
0 725 1,450 Feet
Legend¥f¤Bridge 112
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology
Project Study Area
Stream
Ossipee
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee
B-5728Environmental Features Map
Haw River
Reedy Fork Creek
Town of Ossipee
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
AT-1
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
ANTICIPATED DESIGN DATA
05025 50 100
BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
FOR -ALT1- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
(OFF-SITE DETOUR)
REPLACE IN PLACE
B-5728 ALTERNATE 1
ALAMANCE COUNTY
REVISIONS
4B-5728
GRADE
POINT
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
12’12’12’
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
12’12’
GRADE
POINT
6
:12:1 MAXSEE X-SECTIONS
FDPS
2’
6:1
6’10’
4
:1
6
:1
2:1 MAXVAR. SLOPE
SEE X-SECTIONS
REGIONAL TIER
40’ CLEAR ROADWAY
8’8’
8’
FDPS
2’
11’ W/GR
8’30’
DESIGN EXCEPTION
TERRAIN
CLASSIFICATION
SE MAX.
K crest
K sag
MAX. GRADE
MIN. RADIUS
TTST
DUAL
D
K
ADT 2043
ADT 2023
POSTED SPEED
DESIGN SPEED
DESIGN STANDARDS
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
N/A
ROLLING
MINOR ARTERIAL
0.06
114
115
5%
1060’
3%
7%
65%
10%
7100
6440
50 MPH
55 MPH
AASHTO vvvvvvvv vvvvvv152025-ALT1-
-ALT1- STA 20+22 +/--ALT1- STA 23+22 +/-
END BRIDGEBEGIN BRIDGE
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III 12’12’0212’0212’END STATE PROJECT B-5728
-ALT1- STA 27+50.00
END CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN STATE PROJECT B-5728
-ALT1- STA 16+50.00
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
0230020330070202GREU TL-3
GREU TL-3
GREU TL-3HAMLETT BARBARA LEEJONES MI
STY DBARBER LEE LOUI
SBARBER LEE LOUI
SCOOPER JOSEPHI
NE PEREZSUTTON ALBERT G & BETTY JOBARBER LEE LOUI
SBOOE WILLIAM R & KATHRYN T
SUTTON ALBERT GURNEY
& BETTY B
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
4700 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 300
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
[phone] VOICE [phone] FAX
NC License NO.: F-0105
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.5/31/2018Q:\RA\9437\CADD\B5728\Roadway\Func\Proj\B5728_rdy_psh_04.dgnthuffman8/17/9902
-ALT1-CL
08 02
02 02
-ALT1-CL
08
TO ELON TO ALTMAHAW
NC-87 REEDY FORK CREEKVARIABLE SLOPE
8:1 8:1
8:18:1
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION5/14/99SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
5/31/2018Q:\RA\9437\CADD\B5728\Roadway\Func\Proj\B5728_rdy_psh_05.dgnthuffmanB-5728
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
5
680
590
580
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2815
570
560
550
540
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
590
580
570
560
550
540
29
FOR -ALT1- PLAN SEE SHEET 4
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
4700 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 300
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
[phone] VOICE [phone] FAX
NC License NO.: F-0105
-ALT1--ALT1- STA 20+08 +/-BEGIN BRIDGE-ALT1- STA 23+68 +/-END BRIDGE612.31PI = 19+00.00
EL = 609.40’
(-)1.1632%(+)0.5000%
VC = 200’
K = 120
PI = 25+10.00
EL = 612.45’
(+)0.5000%(+)4.0457%
VC = 410’
K = 116
622.16STA 19+39.87LOW POINTELEV = 622.16’
-ALT1- STA 27+50.00
END GRADE
DS = 56 MPH
DS = 55 MPH
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
ELEV = 612.31’
-ALT1- STA 16+50.00
BEGIN GRADE
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
ANTICIPATED DESIGN DATA
05025 50 100
BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
11’
GRADE
POINT
REGIONAL TIERREVISIONS

6B-5728
(ON-SITE DETOUR)
B-5728 ALTERNATE 2
ALAMANCE COUNTY
26’ CLEAR ROADWAY
11’2.00’2.00’
4:1
GRADE
POINT
VAR. SLOPE
SEE X-SECTIONS
6
:12:1 M
A
X
2:1 M
A
X
6’
4’4’8’11’11’
FDPS
2’
FDPS
2’
FOR -ALT2DET- PROFILE SEE SHEET 7
DESIGN EXCEPTION
TERRAIN
CLASSIFICATION
SE MAX.
K crest
K sag
MAX. GRADE
MIN. RADIUS
TTST
DUAL
D
K
ADT 2043
ADT 2023
POSTED SPEED
DESIGN SPEED
DESIGN STANDARDS
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
N/A
ROLLING
MINOR ARTERIAL
0.06
40
64
6%
485’
3%
7%
65%
10%
7100
6433
50 MPH
40 MPH
AASHTO vvvvvvvv vvvvvvPI Sta 15+85.07
D
L = 176.70’
T = 88.51’
R = 1,200.00’
PI Sta 18+71.77
D
L = 176.70’
T = 88.51’
R = 1,200.00’
PI Sta 25+09.13
D
L = 176.70’
T = 88.51’
R = 1,200.00’
PI Sta 27+95.83
D
L = 176.70’
T = 88.51’
R = 1,200.00’152025-ALT2DET- PC Sta. 17+83.26-ALT2DET- PC Sta. 14+96.56-ALT2DET- PT Sta. 16+73.26-ALT2DET- PT Sta. 19+59.96-ALT2DET- PC Sta. 24+20.62-ALT2DET- PT Sta. 25+97.32-ALT2DET-
-ALT2DET-
RO = 83.00’
SE = 0.04
RO = 83.00’
SE = 0.04
RO = 83.00’
SE = 0.04
RO = 83.00’
SE = 0.04
-ALT2DET- PC Sta. 27+07.32
-ALT2DET- PT Sta. 28+84.02
0211’11’04040002040400-ALT2DET- STA 14+96.56
BEGIN DETOUR
-ALT2DET- STA 16+71.73
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
-ALT2DET- STA 28+84.02-ALT2DET- STA 27+15.71
END DETOUR END CONSTRUCTION
TYPE-III
GREU TL-3
TYPE-III
AT-1HAMLETT BARBARA LEEJONES MI
STY DBARBER LEE LOUI
SBARBER LEE LOUI
SCOOPER JOSEPHI
NE PEREZSUTTON ALBERT G & BETTY JOBARBER LEE LOUI
SBOOE WILLIAM R & KATHRYN T
SUTTON ALBERT GURNEY
& BETTY B
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
4700 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 300
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
[phone] VOICE [phone] FAX
NC License NO.: F-0105
CL
02
CL
TO ELON TO ALTMAHAW
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.5/31/2018Q:\RA\9437\CADD\B5728\Roadway\Func\Proj\B5728_rdy_psh_06.dgnthuffman8/17/99NC-87 REEDY FORK CREEK-ALT2DET--ALT2DET-
02
02
W/GR
080208
F F
C
C
C
C
FF
F F
FF
F
F
F
F
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION5/14/99SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
5/31/2018Q:\RA\9437\CADD\B5728\Roadway\Func\Proj\B5728_rdy_psh_07.dgnthuffmanB-5728
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
7
680
590
580
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2815
570
560
550
540
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
590
580
570
560
550
540
29
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
4700 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 300
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
[phone] VOICE [phone] FAX
NC License NO.: F-0105
FOR -ALT2DET- PLAN SEE SHEET 6
ELEV = 614.84’
-ALT2DET- STA 14+96.56
BEGIN GRADE
-ALT2DET- STA 20+15 +/-BEGIN BRIDGE-ALT2DET- STA 23+65 +/-END BRIDGEELEV = 627.61’
-ALT2DET- STA 28+84.02
END GRADE
DS = 40 MPH
DS = 40 MPH
-ALT2DET-STA 18+47.42LOW POINTPI = 17+40.00
EL = 610.24’
(-)1.8865%(+)0.3000%
VC = 140’
K = 64
PI = 25+60.00
EL = 612.70’
(+)0.3000%(+)4.6018%
VC = 275’
K = 64
627.61DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 3
16-01-0055
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-5728 County: Alamance
WBS No: 45684.1.1 Document: CE
F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: NWP
Project Description: The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 112 on NC 87 over Reedy Fork Creek
in Alamance County. Bridge No. 112 was built in 1949, and is considered to be structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. The Proposed Study Area for the project will be centered on the bridge and
measure about 300 feet wide by about 2,100 feet long. Overall, the Study Area will encompass about
605,920 square feet (13.9 acres), inclusive of the existing roadway and structure to be replaced.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Friday,
January 15, 2016. An archaeological study has been conducted along this particular stretch of NC 87 (see
Glover 1994 [TIP# R-2560]), and three (3) archaeological sites have been recorded within one-half (1/2)
mile of the proposed project. Digital copies of HPO’s maps (Ossipee Quadrangle) as well as the
HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Monday, January 25, 2016.
There are three (3) known historic architectural resources (Ossipee Mill [AM0321], Ossipee Mill Houses
[AM0322], and Troxler House [AM0510]) within the vicinity of the Study Area; however, intact
archaeological deposits associated with these resources would not be anticipated within the footprint of
the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey
maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have
contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of
modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive-type disturbances within and surrounding the
archaeological APE.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
This is a State-funded project for which a Federal permit will be required. The need for temporary and/or
permanent easements has not been determined; however, the overall dimensions of the Study Area will
capture any necessary easements. At this time, we are in compliance with NC GS 121-12a, since there
are no eligible (i.e. National Register-listed) archaeological resources located within the project’s Study
Area that would require our attention. From an environmental perspective, Alamance County lies within
the upland portion of the Piedmont Plateau region. The Study Area is characterized by gently rolling
topography, which gives way to more rugged terrain near Reedy Fork Creek. The Study Area consists of
six (6) soil types: Lloyd loam, 10-15% slopes, eroded (LbD2), Buncombe loamy fine sand, 0-2% slopes,
occasionally flooded (Ba), Wilkes soils, 10-15% slopes (WbD), Helena coarse sandy loam, 2-6% slopes,
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 3
16-01-0055
eroded (HbB2), Enon fine sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, eroded (EdC2), and Wilkes soils, 6-10% slopes
(WbC). The eroded, occasionally flooded, and moderately sloped soil conditions within the Study Area
are not favorable for containing intact archaeological sites/resources. Preservation of archaeological
materials within such soil types is likely to be poor. In addition, the Study Area falls within the project
limits that were surveyed in 1994 as a result of the proposed NC 87 road widening project (TIP# R-2560).
Based on the field methodology for that survey, the B-5728 Study Area was not deemed appropriate for
formal archaeological investigations. In 1949, NC 87 was rerouted to bypass the towns of Ossipee and
Altamahaw in northwestern Alamance County. As noted above, Bridge No. 112 was built in 1949, thus
as part of the bypass project. Much of the corridor would have been greatly disturbed by the construction
of the new alignment for NC 87 at that time. For comparative purposes, the Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) has reviewed several projects within the vicinity of Bridge No. 112 for environmental compliance,
including two (2) borrow pits (ER 86-7162 and ER 86-7504) and a stream restoration site (ER 06-1831).
Stating a low probability and “NR eligible sites unlikely,” OSA did not recommend archaeological
surveys to be conducted. Although three (3) archaeological sites are located nearby, one at the confluence
of Reedy Fork Creek and the Haw River and two further upstream along the Haw River, none of the sites
were deemed eligible for the National Register. The contextual integrity of these sites has been greatly
compromised by erosion and flooding episodes, limiting their archaeological interpretive significance.
Based on the nature of the proposed project, current soil conditions, and previous review/survey work, it
is believed that the current Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and significant
archaeological resources. No archaeological survey is required for this project. If design plans change or
are made available prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be
required. At this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If archaeological materials are
uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set
forth for “unanticipated discoveries,” to include notification of NCDOT’s Archaeology Group.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
January 25, 2016
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 3
16-01-0055
Figure 1: Ossipee, NC (USGS 1970).
Bridge No. 112 on NC 87
over Reedy Fork Creek
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
GF
NC 87OSSIPEE FRONTBRIDGEVIEWGERRINGER
TRO
X
L
E
R
Ba
W
LbD2
Ba
WbD
LbB2
WbC
HbB2
WbD
Wd
WcE
EdC2
W
CaC3
W
LaE3
CaC3
Wd
EdC2
EeC2
CaC3
EeD2
LbB2
R
e
e
d
y

F
o
r
k

(
H
a
r
d
y
s

M
i
l
l

P
o
n
d
)
R
e
e
d
y

F
o
r
k

(
H
a
r
d
y
s

M
i
l
l

P
o
n
d
)
Ossippee Mill
Ossippee Mill Houses
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
B-5728 (PA 16-01-0055)Replace Bridge No. 112 onNC 87 over Reedy Fork Creek in Ossipee, Alamance County, NC
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
GF Cemetery
NCHPOpoints
Contour_002
HYARUT
Named_streams
NCHPO_NR_SL_DOE_Boundaries
mapfldhazar
Soils_All
Alamance_2014Parcels
Streets ¹
0 100 200 300 40050
Feet
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC
DocuSign Envelope ID: F7D97807-A109-4373-A6CC-E3B8536C88DC