20100571 Ver 1_401 Application_20100718

x
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
[phone] fax:[phone] 100571
Letter of Transmittal Sheet No.: 1 of 1
To: NC Department of Environment and Date: 7/15/2010 Our Job No.: 2969000
Natural Resources DWQ
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250 File Code:
Raleigh, NC 27604 Attention: Mr. Ian McMillan, 401 Coordinator
ference: Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement Project
Ogg 0 JUL 16 2010
a Qom. nsa VA VX0
SER
JER
?tllS:D. ANO
We Are ®Attached []Under Separate Cover via ®Overnite []2nd Day []Regular mail the following items:
Sending:
[]Shop []Prints []Sepias ?Mylars []Samples []Change Order
Drawings
[]Copy of []Reports []Specifications []Cost Estimates []Electronic Media
Letter
®Other: Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement Project Request for JD and NWP #14.
Item Rev. Quantity Description Action Code
No.
1 5 Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement Project PCN G
for NWP #14.
2 I C
C11eck for application fee in amount of $570.00
Action Codes: A. Action Indicated on hem Transmitted C. For Your Use E. For Information Only G. For Approval
B. See Remarks Below D. As Requested F. For Review & Comment
Remarks Ian,
Attached, please find five copies of the Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement Project PCN for NWP #14 for
processing. -- 1

Copies Signed: Michael A. Iagnocco, PWS
on emplovee-owned company providing quality service since 19 11
100,571
?CC?GfldC??j
JUL 1 0 2010
U
z
O DENR • WATER OUAIJTY
o WETLANDS ANDSTORMWATERBRANCH
a
G
°
v

G R
d

Ca U
?
G O
U •p ?
V? ? L. M
O U
`
y O
'fl G M
" aR+ v

O G
G o
o
b N
U ? ? N N y b
? o o
A U N ro

o 3
,? 3
?
.. ?Mzo z
.+
E
U y y M
°: M O? N y
Q O
G
Z

^^S aGi O 0.l C M y ro o c ro
Vj y O y0, M aU+ Q H 01 A O
Q. Ua C7M -a z1 4. g
U "
?
y L °
b ?
? td N
C y
•p ? Ri ? N bG O Q
F7
° 0.l
. =
p
?
° v
? O
.a U
z .b 7?
?
o
°
A o
}'
°
`4 O
a O O U
° b
O

C to

O
v
C
°
Q
z

u

U
U m

c? .?
G
° d' '_' z ti W
3 w L c
v R y
E o b z
o E U
o ? o

• R 0 1.° ? R x U u
W E y0, O Y y p C G d Q
7s 0
R d
E E R a a
a o
` z ca a d
v i U U a
a a 3 3 a
a l
`"
R .? N M 7 VJ ? r 00 O\ ? r1 .N-1 Mr
U
C.
M
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
[phone] fa x:(704 ) 372-3393
July 15, 2010
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
SUBJECT: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit #14
City of Greensboro - Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement Project
Guilford County, North Carolina
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Project No. 2969000
Dear Mr. Williams:
On behalf of the City of Greensboro - Engineering Division, STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
(STV/RWA) is submitting an Agent Certification of Authorization form (Attachment A) and a Pre-
Construction Notification (PCN) application form (Attachment B) in accordance with General
Condition No 27 and pursuant to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number 14-Linear Transportation Projects (Federal Register Vol. 67,
No. 10; updated March 19, 2007). The City of Greensboro (COG) has retained STV/RWA to act
as agent in matters related to wetland permitting services for this project. A 'Request for
Jurisdictional Determination' regarding the approximate location and extent of jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. within the approximate 3.5 acre project area, including a Request for
Jurisdictional Determination form, USACE and NCDWQ Stream Assessment Data Forms,
Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form, Approximate Waters of the U.S.
Boundary Map, and Photographs are found in Attachment C. Accompanying figures and permit
drawings are included in Attachment D.
Based on the City of Greensboro Geographic Information System (GIS) aerial photography and
verified by field review, the project study area consists primarily of undeveloped forest, disturbed
(maintained) right-of-way and roadway. Recreational COG park property is located north of and
directly adjacent to the project area. There is a former golf course located immediately south of
the project area which is now the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's (PTAA) wetland mitigation
site. This report documents the methodology used to assess the approximate boundaries of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S., and the findings of our field review.
Project Description/Purpose and Need
The Ballinger Road Bridge project study area is located west of downtown Greensboro and east
of the Piedmont Triad International Airport in northwest Guilford County (Attachment D - Figure
1 and 2). The COG is planning to replace the existing Ballinger Road Bridge #97 over Horsepen
Creek with an improved modern structure.
an employee-owned company providing quality service since 1912
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWp #14
The existing bridge conditions were most recently evaluated on February 10, 2010 by MI
Engineering in a preliminary inspection report prepared for the COG, and the recommendation
for priority maintenance repairs was made by the inspecting engineer. Repairs to the concrete
deck are required due to the extensive delamination of the concrete located on the underside of
the bridge. The delamination and spalling of the concrete has exposed the reinforcing steel,
which has now rusted. Additionally, the structural steel beams of the bridge are experiencing
extensive corrosion due to the protective paint flaking off and exposing the steel.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has prepared an updated Structural
Inventory and Appraisal report for the Ballinger Road Bridge (identified as Bridge 400097). This
Structural Inventory and Appraisal report gives the bridge a sufficiency rating of 18.3 out of 100,
with a status considered structurally deficient. It was determined that the replacement of the
bridge would be preferred to the major repairs that are required, based on these inspection
reports. If immediate corrective actions are not taken the bridge could be closed to traffic.
Closing the bridge to traffic would inconvenience the citizens of Greensboro by limiting access
to the COG park property from the east, and would limit access to the businesses that support
the Piedmont Triad Airport. The detour route around the Ballinger Road Bridge during
construction, or for any closure of the bridge would require the use of Old Oak Ridge Road, and
Chimney Rock Road to get around the closure. The COG does not see the additional costs for
repairing the bridge as necessary since the bridge is proposed to be replaced as soon as
possible.
The replacement of the bridge as the preferred alternative to the recommended priority repairs
will include additional improvements to the bridge and roadway. These improvements will
include a longer and wider bridge, wider travel lanes, the construction of a sidewalk on the south
side of Ballinger Road, and the construction of a multi-use trail on the north side of Ballinger
Road. These additional improvements will necessitate the use of a Nationwide Permit #14 for
this project, as opposed to using a Nationwide Permit #3 for the repair, or in-kind replacement of
the bridge.
The bridge replacement will require the removal of the existing Ballinger Road bridge abutments
and the construction of new abutments for the proposed bridge. An existing foot bridge that
crosses over Horsepen Creek south of the Ballinger Road Bridge will be removed (Attachment
C - Photographs 1 and 2), but the foot bridge abutments will be left in place to avoid additional
impacts to Horsepen Creek (Attachment C - Photographs 3 and 4).
The relocation of a portion of an unnamed perennial tributary to Horsepen Creek, herein
referred to as Stream A, (Attachment C - Photographs 5 and 6) will be required for the
construction of the new bridge and for the roadway improvements. The new channel to convey
the flow of Stream A to Horsepen Creek will be constructed on the north side of Ballinger Road,
and the confluence of Stream A to Horsepen Creek will be moved approximately 80 feet further
downstream than it currently exists on Horsepen Creek. In order to construct the new western
bridge abutment and the relocated stream channel, a temporary conveyance channel for
Stream A will first be constructed to prepare the construction site. The temporary conveyance
channel will be an open ditch lined with geotextile matting to prevent erosion. When the flow
from Stream A has been diverted into the temporary conveyance channel, work on the relocated
stream channel and new bridge abutments will commence. Temporary sheet piles along each
bank of Horsepen Creek will be used to ensure that bridge abutment work and relocated
Page 2
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement- Request for JD and NWP #14
channel excavation can be completed in dry conditions. No live concrete will come in contact
with any waters during construction.
An existing 12" ductile iron pipe (DIP) potable water line is located on the north side of Ballinger
Road and crosses under Horsepen Creek and Stream A, north of the existing bridge. This
potable water line will be routed away from the roadway and bridge, and will be jacked under
Horsepen Creek further to the north where an existing utility easement is located to avoid
additional impacts to Horsepen Creek. The relocated potable water line will follow the existing
utility easement to the northwest of the Ballinger Road Bridge.
Impacts to Jordan Lake Rules stream buffers will occur from excavating the sending and
receiving pits required for the directional drilling of the relocated potable water line (utility
jacking). The proposed sending and receiving pits will be located within the existing utility
easement, which is currently maintained. Other buffer impacts include the expanded bridge and
the associated road improvements.
Improvements to the roadway and the creation of a sidewalk on the south side of the roadway
and the multi-use trail on the north side of the roadway will require the construction of a
retaining wall between Ballinger Road and Horsepen Creek in the eastern portion of the project
study area. The retaining wall is required to avoid the undermining of the roadway from the
Horsepen Creek stream flow, which has already scoured out a portion of the streambank
adjacent to Ballinger Road (Attachment D - Figures 5 and 6). The retaining wall will be placed in
the scoured out portion of the streambank, and the scoured portion of the stream behind the
retaining wall will be backfilled. A line of riprap protection will be used at the base of the
retaining wall to prevent erosion and scouring at the base of the retaining wall.
Impacts to waters of the U.S. (Stream A and Horsepen Creek) are unavoidable considering the
existing location of the two jurisdictional RPW's and the Ballinger Road alignment. The PTAA
wetland mitigation project completed immediately south of the roadway has forced the
realignment of Ballinger Road to the north resulting in impacts to both a COG public park as well
as Stream A - see project 'History and Review of Alternatives' below (pages 5-6).
Background and Methodology
Field surveys were conducted within the proposed Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement project
study area by STV/RWA scientists on October 20, 2009. The proposed project study area that
measures approximately 120 feet wide and 760 feet long, was field reviewed. Streams within
the project area were assessed and plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded.
Jurisdictional waters are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and protected by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area were delineated
using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Routine On-Site Determination Method as
defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual'. Potential jurisdictional
stream channels were delineated and classified according to recent North Carolina Division of
Environmental Laboratory, 1987, "Corps ojEngineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Page 3
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement- Request for JD and NWP #14
Water Quality (NCDWQ)z and USACE guidance. NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms and
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets are included in Attachment C. The Approved
Jurisdictional Determination (Rapahos) Form and representative photographs of the potential
jurisdictional features located in the study area are also included in Attachment C.
Prior to fieldwork, the following references were reviewed to identify possible waters of the U.S.,
including wetland areas:
• U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps (Guilford, NC (1997))
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map (Guilford,
NC)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) now known as
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC (1977)
• USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey
• City of Greensboro GIS Viewer
The USGS map depicts one named stream (Horsepen Creek) and one unnamed stream
(Stream A) within the study area. The Soil Survey also depicts these two streams in the
location of the Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement
project study area. The USFWS NWI map depicts Horsepen Creek within the project study area
as a blue line stream.
The proposed Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement Project is located entirely within the southern
outer Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina, which is characterized by broad,
gently rolling interstream areas and by steeper slopes along drainageways. Based on
topographic mapping (Attachment D - Figure 2), elevations in the study area range from
approximately 800 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to 780 feet NGVD. The
highest elevation in the study area is located on Ballinger Road in the western end of the study
area. The lowest elevation in the study area is located within Horsepen Creek where it exits the
eastern portion of the study area.
According to the USDA SCS, the study area contains two soil types: Congaree Loam (Co), and
Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded (MhC2) (Attachment D - Figure
3). Congaree loam is considered to be hydric due to inclusions of the Wehadkee, undrained soil
type. Horsepen Creek and Stream A are located within the areas mapped as Congaree loam.
Mecklenburg soils are located in the western end of the study area.
The proposed project corridor is located in the Cape Fear drainage basin, subbasin 03-06-02.
The major stream in the project region (Horsepen Creek) generally flows in a northeasterly
direction to the Haw River and then to Jordan Lake. The Hydrologic Unit Code 8 (HUC 8) for the
Cape Fear-Haw Watershed is 03030002.
z North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Identification Methods for the Origins oflntermittent and Perennial Streams.
Version 3.1. 2005.
Page 4
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Findinas of Field Review
The results of the on-site field review conducted by STV/RWA environmental scientists indicate
that two potential jurisdictional Relatively Permanent Waters (RPW's), namely Horsepen Creek
and Stream A, are located within the project study area. No potential jurisdictional wetland areas
were located within the project study area. Attachment C - Approximate Waters of the U.S.
Boundary Map and Attachment D - Figure 4 depict the approximate locations of the
jurisdictional features. Representative photographs of the potential jurisdictional features located
within the project study area are included in Attachment C.
Streams
Potential jurisdictional stream boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field with blue and
white striped surveyors tape at the top of the stream bank. The boundaries were surveyed with
a Trimble GeoXT hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit capable of sub-meter
accuracy and mapped using ArcGIS 9.1 software.
Horsepen Creek was concluded to be an RPW with perennial hydrology. Horsepen Creek,
concluded to be providing important aquatic function, begins off-site to the southwest and flows
east-northeast across the project corridor. Approximately 277 linear feet of Horsepen Creek is
located within the project study area. Horsepen Creek is depicted as a blue-line stream on the
USGS topographic quadrangle and is depicted as a stream on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford
County (Attachment D - Figures 2 and 3).
Stream A, an unnamed tributary to Horsepen Creek, was also concluded to be an RPW with
perennial hydrology. Stream A, also concluded to be aquatically important, begins off-site to the
northwest and flows southeast to the project study area where it drain into Horsepen Creek.
Approximately 115 linear feet of Stream A is located within the project study area. Stream A is
depicted on the USGS topographic quadrangle as a blue-line stream and is depicted as a
stream on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County (Attachment D - Figures 2 and 3).
More information on the individual stream characteristics can be found on the NCDWQ and
USACE Stream Forms included in Attachment C.
Project History and Review of Alternatives
STV was provided the Notice to Proceed on the Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement from the
COG in June 2003. STV/RWA proceeded with the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE).
The CE was based on existing uses such as the golf course and park properties. The golf
course was subsequently acquired by the PTAA and used as a wetland mitigation site for the
airport expansion. A meeting was held on July 30, 2004 between the COG Engineering, COG
Parks and Recreation, STV/RWA, Greensboro DOT, NCDOT, the USACE, the NCDWQ,
Federal Highway Administration, and the Piedmont Triad International Airport to discuss the
issues related to the bridge replacement alternatives and potential impacts to the PTAA wetland
mitigation site and the COG park property. The USACE and the NCDWQ strongly
recommended avoiding impacts to the PTAA wetland mitigation site due to the legal restrictions
and obligations that may result. Beth Barnes of the NCDWQ agreed that impacts to Stream A
were unavoidable due to these constraints and the need to shift the Ballinger Road alignment to
the north.
Page 5
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Shifting the proposed design to the north to eliminate impacts to the PTAA wetland mitigation
property put all of the proposed construction impacts on the City's park [Section 4(f)] property
just north of Ballinger Road. As a result of these impacts to the park property, a ten foot wide
multi-use trail was proposed and required as mitigation as part of the 4(f) evaluation. The ten
foot wide trail will be accommodated for in the design along the north side of the bridge with the
trail tying into an existing trail on the west end of the project along the existing park property. A
concrete barrier will be placed between the roadway and the multi-use trail for safety. The
Categorical Exclusion was updated to reflect this change and was approved and signed on
November 9, 2005.
The revised design just north of the existing roadway now crossed Horsepen Creek in a
challenging location. Horsepen Creek and a tributary (Stream A)' joined in this area and
Horsepen Creek had a sharp bend immediately downstream of the proposed bridge. The
revised design crossed existing Horsepen Creek at a very sharp angle or skew.
This skew between the road and creek prompted NCDOT to require a longer 3-span bridge with
sloped banks beneath the outer spans of the bridge. This would mean that the existing 40-foot
single span bridge would be replaced with a 3-span bridge approximately 300 feet or longer.
STV/RWA, City of Greensboro and the NCDOT all met in June 2007 to discuss this issue and
came to an agreement that a single span bridge approximately 85 feet in length with vertical
abutment walls would be allowed.
In August 2009 the Jordan Lake Rules came into effect. This proposed bridge is located within
the now regulated riparian buffers of both Horsepen Creek and the adjoining tributary, Stream
A. Given the location of the existing stream, the PTAA wetland mitigation property to the south
and the City of Greensboro's park [Section 4(f)] property to the north, the construction or
placement of devices within the buffers of Horsepen Creek or Stream A is unavoidable.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The project involves the replacement of the existing bridge that crosses over Horsepen Creek
on Ballinger Road, the widening of the travel lanes, the construction of a sidewalk and the
construction of a multi-use trail. The widening of the travel lanes from the existing 24-foot width
to 40 feet wide to meet City thoroughfare standards, the addition of the sidewalk for pedestrian
use, and the addition of the 10-foot wide multi-use trail and concrete barrier to the proposed
bridge have increased the width of the crossing over Horsepen Creek to approximately 63 feet
total width. Construction activities will require the use of temporary sheet pilings within
Horsepen Creek to ensure that work is conducted in dry conditions (Attachment D - Figure 5).
Temporary impacts totaling approximately 254 linear feet (If) of Horsepen Creek are anticipated.
The project will require the relocation of Stream A to the north of the project site, the
construction of a retaining wall in a scoured-out, backwater portion of Horsepen Creek, and the
placement of riprap along the stream bank in portions of Horsepen Creek. Approximately 94
linear feet of Stream A will be impacted for the construction of the west bridge abutment,
sidewalk, multi-use trail and roadway shoulder improvements. Approximately 128 linear feet of
Horsepen Creek will be impacted for the construction of the bridge abutments and the retaining
wall. A total of 222 linear feet of jurisdictional stream will be impacted by fill and riprap
(Attachment D - Figure 6). Section views of the proposed bridge replacement are located in
Attachment D - Figures 7 and 8. Jurisdictional stream impacts are summarized in Table 1.
Page 6
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Table 1: Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Figure
Number Jurisdictional Area Impact
Length Impact Area Type of Impact
5 Horsepen Creek 254 If 2,539 sq. ft. (0.058 acre) Temporary
construction
6 Horse en Creek 128 If 673 s q. ft. 0.009 acre Ri ra
6 Stream A 84 If 675 s q. ft. 0.015 acre Fill
6 Stream A 10 If 88 s q. ft. 0.002 acre Ri ra
TOTALS: 254 If
222 If 2,539 sq. ft. (0.058 acre)
1,436 sq. ft. (0.033 acre) Temporary
Permanent
Hydraulic calculations have been prepared based on the placement of the new abutments and
bridge span. No increase in the upstream flood elevations is anticipated based on these
calculations. A "No-Rise" certification from the City of Greensboro has been granted with the
condition that a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is prepared for the post project conditions.
Avoidance and Minimization
Due to the nature of the project, avoiding impacts to Horsepen Creek and Stream A while
achieving project goals is not possible. Given the constraint of the PTAA Mitigation site
immediately south of the project area, there is not a practicable alternative that would achieve
the project purpose of replacing the bridge and improving the roadway without relocating
Stream A and causing minor fill impacts to the banks of Horsepen Creek. Best management
practices (BMPs) and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed and
maintained during construction activities to allow for the least adverse effect on the stream
channels and associated water quality.
Additional minimization efforts are discussed below:
Stream A and Horsepen Creek
Impacts to Stream A and Horsepen Creek are unavoidable as these stream channels have a
confluence at the Ballinger Road Bridge and are perpendicularly oriented across the proposed
Ballinger Road right-of-way (R/W). Stream A relocation is necessary for the same reason.
Efforts to minimize impacts to these streams included:
• The crossing of Horsepen Creek will essentially remain in the same location within the
existing Ballinger Road RAW in order to reduce the expanded footprint of roadway fill and
avoid additional impacts to Horsepen Creek.
• The design of Ballinger Road will maintain a two-lane undivided section.
• Stream A will be relocated to the north of the bridge crossing as an open channel
instead of being piped, and a new Stream A to Horsepen Creek confluence will be
created north of the bridge.
• Fill slopes have been designed to be 2:1 or 3:1, opposed to the standard 4:1.
• The existing footbridge abutments will be left in place to avoid additional impacts to
Horsepen Creek.
Page 7
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement- Request for JD and NWP #14
• The existing potable water line will be relocated to the existing sanitary sewer easement
and jacked under Horsepen Creek to avoid additional impacts to Horsepen Creek.
• The use of sheet piling during construction to prevent impacts to the banks of Horsepen
Creek.
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the
General Conditions of the USACE Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 10;
updated March 19, 2007), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional Conditions, and
applicable NCDWQ consistency conditions (November 2007).
Compensatory Mitigation
Due to the existing constraints of the roadway and bridge location, namely the Piedmont Triad
Airport Authority's wetland mitigation site on the south side of Ballinger Road and the City of
Greensboro park property on the north side of Ballinger Road, opportunities for avoidance and
minimization of impacts are limited. Impacts to Horsepen Creek will be primarily from the
placement of riprap on the banks of the stream for bridge abutment protection from stream flows
and erosive velocities. Permanent impacts to the Horsepen Creek stream channel will include
the addition of a retaining wall and riprap to the washed out portion of the bank that has created
a notch that extends toward Ballinger Road.
Temporary impacts to Horsepen Creek will result from the placement of sheet piling within the
channel to create a dry working condition along the banks. The 254 linear feet (0.058 acre) of
temporary impacts to Horsepen Creek resulting from the sheet piling that has been proposed
will be removed when construction is completed. The stream flow of Horsepen Creek will be
permitted to resume from stabilized bank to bank upon the completion of construction.
Additionally, permanent impacts to Stream A will be compensated by the relocation of the
stream further to the north of the project area. Due to the short length of stream to be relocated
and the constraints on available space due to the location of the City of Greensboro park
property on the north side of Ballinger Road, bioengineering the stream using Rosgen natural
channel design is not practicable. The proposed channel for Stream A has been designed with a
geotextile matting along the bed and banks to control erosion and handle the expected flows.
No riprap or other hardened structures will be placed within the channel. After construction has
been completed and the new channel has stabilized, water will be directed back into the
channel. The channel will be permitted to revegetate naturally to mimic a natural system.
Therefore, since impacts to Stream A were a result of the need to avoid the PTAA mitigation
site, the COG hereby requests that no additional compensatory mitigation be required for the
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement project.
Stormwater Management Plan
As a result of the proposed roadway and bridge section, including the mandated multi-use trail
and sidewalk, the amount of impervious surface within the project area has increased from
approximately 30,048 square feet to approximately 55,987 square feet. This increase of
approximately 25,939 square feet represents an impervious surface increase of approximately
17% of the approximately 3.5 acre project corridor. Since this increase is less than 24%, no
Stormwater Management Plan is required.
Page 8
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
The location of the existing Ballinger Road bridge crossing at the confluence of Horsepen Creek
and Stream A has constrained the type of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are
available to use for stormwater management. Additional constraints caused by the Piedmont
Triad Airport Authority's wetland mitigation site on the south side of Ballinger Road and the City
of Greensboro park property on the north side of Ballinger Road have limited the area available
for the placement of typical structural BMPs.
A preliminary analysis and review of potential best management practices (BMP's) for the
treatment of stormwater runoff determined that scour holes were the only feasible options in
regards to quantitative stormwater treatment. Also considered, yet determined to be not
practical or feasible for this project, were level spreaders with a vegetative filter strip, stormwater
wetlands, wet or dry detention basins, and sand filter/bioretention. The physical constraints of
this project seriously limit the use of any of these devices since each of them requires a large
footprint to recognize any measurable benefit.
The proposed stormwater management systems that drain the additional impervious areas are
designed to discharge at the existing ground elevations at the proposed pipe outlets discharging
to preformed scour holes (Attachment D - Figure 10). Stormwater on the new roadway will be
diverted by curb and gutter, picked up in catch basins, conveyed by pipes, and directed into one
of four proposed preformed scour holes. The four preformed scour holes have been added at all
proposed storm pipe outlets prior to discharging into vegetated upland areas outside of the
stream buffers adjacent to Horsepen Creek and its unnamed tributary, Stream A. (Note:
Approvals were obtained from the PTAA to allow minor encroachments into the mitigation site to
accommodate the placement of the BMPs) These measures are being used to reduce the
velocity of the runoff, minimize erosion and scour potential, and provide diffused flow of the
stormwater runoff prior to its entering the riparian stream buffers of Horsepen Creek and Stream
A in accordance with the Jordan Lake Rules which were implemented in August 2009.
During the construction phase of the project, stormwater from the construction site will be
treated before it is released. The sediment and erosion control structures for this project consist
of silt fence, the use of construction entrances, check dams, ditch checks, inlet protection,
temporary mats, permanent turf reinforced mats, and outlet protection.
Jordan Lake Rules Stream Buffer Impacts
Stream buffers based on the Jordan Lake Rules apply to both Horsepen Creek and its unnamed
tributary (Stream A). Fifty-foot wide riparian buffers have been set directly adjacent to the top of
bank of both of these surface waters. The 0 to 30-foot Zone One buffer, and 30 to 50-foot Zone
Two buffer adjacent to each stream and the anticipated impacts to these buffers are depicted in
Attachment D - Figure 9. A total of 7,515 square feet (0.173 acre) of Zone One stream buffers
and 6,248 square feet (0.143 acre) of Zone Two stream buffers would be impacted by the
proposed bridge replacement project. Impacts to buffers include the road crossing of Horsepen
Creek, the bridge abutments, and the directional drilling sending and receiving pits that are
required to reroute the existing potable water line around the proposed bridge.
Of these proposed stream buffer impacts, the directional drilling sending and receiving pits that
are required to reroute the existing potable water line will be temporary impacts that are located
within the existing utility easement located to the north of Ballinger Road. Vegetation within the
existing utility easement is currently maintained in order to meet the sanitary sewer easement
Page 9
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
existing utility easement is currently maintained in order to meet the sanitary sewer easement
requirements. The easement will continue to be maintained after the potable water line is
rerouted to this easement.
Bridge and roadway impacts to the stream buffers are unavoidable due to the location of the
existing roadway and bridge, the location of Horsepen Creek and the location of the unnamed
tributary (Stream A). Bridge, roadway, and utility easement uses within the stream buffers are
existing and ongoing and are therefore exempt from the Jordan Lake Rules. Therefore, the
COG requests that no additional compensatory mitigation be required for the Ballinger Road
Bridge Replacement project.
The necessary widening of the existing roadway and shoulder for the addition of the sidewalks
and the multi-use trail requires that the project meet the diffuse flow requirement of the Jordan
Lake Rules. To meet this diffuse flow requirement, preformed scour holes have been proposed
at the ends of the stormwater collection and conveyance systems to be installed. From the
scour holes, the stormwater runoff will be permitted to diffuse into the vegetated areas outside
of the 50-foot buffers of the two streams.
Cultural Resources
In an August 14, 2003 letter, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that they "are
aware of no historic resources which would be affected by this project." Additionally, SHPO
stated that "there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area" and that it
is "unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project" (See Attachment E - SHPO
Correspondence).
A literature review of historic and archaeological sites in the vicinity of the proposed Ballinger
Road Bridge Replacement project site was conducted in 2010. The National Register was
consulted and indicated that there are no sites listed on the National Register within one mile of
the project area. The City of Greensboro GIS web site was reviewed and showed no historic
sites located within one mile of the project area. Considering the limited impacts to waters of the
U.S. as a result of this project, the likelihood of unidentified cultural resources being present in
the proposed permit area is considered remote.
Protected Species
STV/RWA conducted a protected species habitat assessment and review of the project site on
October 20, 2009. Prior to the field reviews, STV/RWA reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases, which
provided existing data concerning the potential occurrence of federally and state protected
(threatened or endangered) species in Guilford County. These databases indicate that there is
one federal threatened species, one state threatened and one state endangered species that
may occur in Guilford County. These protected species and their respective physical
descriptions and habitat requirements are described below.
Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - Federal Endangered - State Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial herb with a smooth hollow stem terminating to a whorl of
five or six light green elliptical leaves. The stem measures from 9.5 to 25 cm and the leaves
Page 10
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
mid-May to mid-June. The habitat of this species consists of open, dry, deciduous woods with
acid soil and relatively high shrub or sapling coverage.
No individuals of small-whorled pogonia were observed within the project area. There are no
records of small-whorled pogonia being located in the Guilford, NC USGS quadrangle. The NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the location of the
nearest populations of small-whorled pogonia. The NCNHP determined that no current
populations of small-whorled pogonia were present within several miles of the project area.
Although limited portions of the project corridor may provide potential habitat for this species,
there are no known populations with the proximity of the project area, and it is unlikely that
small-whorled pogonia would be found within the project area. Based on the field review, the
available databases, and the limited amount of potential habitat it is determined that this project
will have 'no effect' on small-whorled pogonia.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Triangle Floater (Alasmidonta undulata) - State Threatened
The triangle floater is an NC state threatened species. The triangle floater is a small freshwater
mussel that rarely exceeds three inches (75 mm) in length. The shell of the triangle floater is
subtriangular to ovate, solid and thicker at the anterior end than at the posterior. A posterior
ridge is present and distinct. Strong ridges run parallel with the growth lines. The exterior shell
surface is smooth and shiny, yellowish greenish with broad green or blackish rays, becoming
black with age. The interior shell surface is white but includes salmon pink or red anteriorly and
becomes iridescent posteriorly. The triangle floater is only found on very stable substrates even
though the substrate can include some silt. Historically, it was reported to be common in
sections of moderate flow in small rivers and headwater streams. The fish hosts of the triangle
floater are diverse, so the fish community is not likely to limit its distribution.
No individuals of triangle floater were observed within the project area. There are no records of
triangle floater being located in the Guilford, NC USGS quadrangle. The NC Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the location of the nearest populations of
triangle floater. The NCNHP determined that no current populations of triangle floater were
present within several miles of the project area. Although the project area may have potential
habitat for this species, there are no known populations with the proximity of the project area,
and it is unlikely that the triangle floater would be found within the project area. Based on the
field review and the available databases, it is determined that this project will have 'no effect' on
the triangle floater.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina Creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) - State Endangered
The Carolina creekshell has an ovate shaped shell in males and an elliptical shaped shell in
females. The outer shell of the species is moderately shiny, greenish yellow to dark brownish
yellow with numerous green rays. The male Carolina creekshell averages 60 mm while the
female averages 54 mm. The Carolina creekshell is usually found in silty sand or clay along the
banks of small streams. In areas of abundance, this mussel has also been found occupying
substrates of mixed sand and gravel.
No individuals of Carolina creekshell were observed within the project area. There are no
records of Carolina creekshell being located in the Guilford, NC USGS quadrangle. The NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the location of the
Page 11
City of Greensboro Engineering Division
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
July 15, 2010
nearest populations of Carolina creekshell. The NCNHP determined that no current populations
of Carolina creekshell were present within several miles of the project area. Although the project
area may have potential habitat for this species, there are no known populations with the
proximity of the project area, and it is unlikely that Carolina creekshell would be found within the
project area. Based on the field review and the available databases, it is determined that this
project will have 'no effect' on the Carolina creekshell.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Closing
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] should you have any questions or concerns
regarding this request for jurisdictional determination and Nationwide Permit #14. Five copies of
this PCN and supporting materials have also been forwarded to the NCDWQ.
Sincerely,
STV/1Raalp_h Whitehead Associates
Brandon J. Phillips, .H.M
Senior Environmental Specialist
Michael A. lagno co, W.S.
Senior Scientist
BJP/MAI.bp
Attachment A - Agent Certification of Authorization Form
Attachment B - Pre-Construction Notification Form
Attachment C - Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Attachment D - Figures
Attachment E - SHPO Correspondence
cc: Bruce Overman, City of Greensboro Engineering Division
Virginia Spillman, P.E., City of Greensboro Stormwater Services
Ian McMillan, NCDWQ
Donald Arant, P.E., STV/RWA
Page 12
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement- Request for JD and NWP #14
Attachment A
Agent Certification of Authorization Form
AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I Bruce Overman representing the City of Greensboro, hereby certify that I have
authorized Michael A. Ia¢nocco, P.W.S. of STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc., to act
on my behalf and take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of
this permit and all standards and special conditions attached.
We hereby verify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Applicant's signature
Date -
Agent's signatur
?. FO
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement- Request for JD and NWP #14
Attachment B
Pre-Construction Notification Form
O2 FwA 7F9'q
oliii? -
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ®No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement
2b. County: Guilford
2c. Nearest municipality / town: City of Greensboro
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: City of Greensboro
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 004317-00409 per Guilford County GIS
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): City of Greensboro Engineering Division
3d. Street address: P.O. Box 3136
3e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
3f. Telephone no.: 336 373-2302
3g. Fax no.: 336 373-2338
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
41h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Michael A. lagnocco, P.W.S.
5b. Business name
(if applicable): STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
5c. Street address: 100 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 28208
5e. Telephone no.: 704 372-1885
5f. Fax no.: 704 372-3393
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): Ballinger Road RAN (004317-00409)
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.101739 Longitude: - 79.90992
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 3.5 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Horsepen Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-III NSW
2c. River basin: Cape Fear
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Based on the City of Greensboro Geographic Information System (GIS) aerial photography and verified by field review, the project
study area consists primarily of undeveloped forest, disturbed (maintained) right-of-way and roadway. Recreational COG park
property is located north of and directly adjacent to the project area. There is a former golf course located immediately south of the
project area which is now the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's (PTAA) wetland mitigation site.
Field surveys were conducted within the proposed Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement project study area by STV/RWA scientists on
October 20, 2009. The proposed project study area that measures approximately 120 feet wide and 760 feet long, was field
reviewed. Streams within the project area were assessed and plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded.
The results of the on-site field review conducted by STV/RWA environmental scientists indicate that two potential jurisdictional
Relatively Permanent Waters (RPW's), namely Horsepen Creek and Stream A, are located within the project study area. No
potential jurisdictional wetland areas were located within the project study area. Attachment C - Approximate Waters of the U.S.
Boundary Map and Attachment D - Figure 4 depict the approximate locations of the jurisdictional features. Representative
photographs of the potential jurisdictional features located within the project study area are included in Attachment C.
Potential jurisdictional stream boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field with blue and white striped surveyors tape at the
top of the stream bank. The boundaries were surveyed with a Trimble GeoXT hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit
capable of sub-meter accuracy and mapped using ArcGIS 9.1 software.
Horsepen Creek was concluded to be an RPW with perennial hydrology. Horsepen Creek, concluded to be providing important
aquatic function, begins off-site to the southwest and flows east-northeast across the project corridor. Approximately 277 linear feet
of Horsepen Creek is located within the project study area. Horsepen Creek is depicted as a blue-line stream on the USGS
topographic quadrangle and is depicted as a stream on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County (Attachment D - Figures 2 and 3).
Stream A, an unnamed tributary to Horsepen Creek, was also concluded to be an RPW with perennial hydrology. Stream A, also
concluded to be aquatically important, begins off-site to the northwest and flows southeast to the project study area where it drain
into Horsepen Creek. Approximately 115 linear feet of Stream A is located within the project study area. Stream A is depicted on the
USGS topographic quadrangle as a blue-line stream and is depicted as a stream on the USDA Soil Survey of Guilford County
(Attachment D - Figures 2 and 3).
More information on the individual stream characteristics can be found on the NCDWQ and USACE Stream Forms included in
Attachment C.
The proposed project corridor is located in the Cape Fear drainage basin, subbasin 03-06-02. The major stream in the project region
(Horsepen Creek) generally flows in a northeasterly direction to the Haw River and then to Jordan Lake. The Hydrologic Unit Code 8
(HUC 8) for the Cape Fear-Haw Watershed is 03030002.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
392
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The City of Greensboro is pursuing the Ballinger Road bridge replacement project because of the dangerous conditions caused by
the deteriorating condition of the bridge. The COG is planning to replace the existing Ballinger Road Bridge with an improved modern
structure, and will improve the existing shoulder of Ballinger Road with the construction of sidewalks and a multi-use trail.
The existing bridge conditions were most recently evaluated on February 10, 2010 by MI Engineering in a preliminary inspection
report prepared for the COG, and the recommendation for priority maintenance repairs was made by the inspecting engineer.
Repairs to the concrete deck are required due to the extensive delamination of the concrete located on the underside of the bridge.
The delamination and spelling of the concrete has exposed the reinforcing steel, which has now rusted. Additionally, the structural
steel beams of the bridge are experiencing extensive corrosion due to the protective paint flaking off and exposing the steel.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has prepared an updated Structural Inventory and Appraisal report for
the Ballinger Road Bridge (identified as Bridge 400097). This Structural Inventory and Appraisal report gives the badge a sufficiency
rating of 18.3 out of 100, with a status considered structurally deficient. It was determined that the replacement of the bridge would
be preferred to the major repairs that are required, based on these inspection reports. If immediate corrective actions are not taken
the bridge could be closed to traffic. Closing the bridge to traffic would inconvenience the citizens of Greensboro by limiting access to
the COG park property from the east, and would limit access to the businesses that support the Piedmont Triad Airport. The detour
route around the Ballinger Road Bridge during construction, or for any closure of the bridge would require the use of Old Oak Ridge
Road, and Chimney Rock Road to get around the closure. The COG does not see the additional costs for repairing the bridge as
necessary since the bridge is proposed to be replaced as soon as possible.
The replacement of the bridge as the preferred alternative to the recommended priority repairs will include additional improvements
to the bridge and roadway. These improvements will include a longer and wider bridge, wider travel lanes, the construction of a
sidewalk on the south side of Ballinger Road, and the construction of a multi-use trail on the north side of Ballinger Road.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The COG is planning to replace the existing Ballinger Road Bridge with an improved modern structure, and will improve the existing
shoulder of Ballinger Road with the construction of sidewalks and a multi-use trail. An existing foot bridge that crosses over
Horsepen Creek south of the Ballinger Road Bridge will be removed, but the foot bridge abutments will be left in place to avoid
additional impacts to the Horsepen Creek streambank. The relocation of a portion of Stream A will be required for the construction of
the new bridge and for the roadway improvements. A new channel to convey the flow of Stream A to Horsepen Creek will be
constructed on the north side of Ballinger Road, and the confluence of Stream A to Horsepen Creek will be moved approximately 80
feet further downstream than it currently exists on Horsepen Creek. A retaining wall will be constructed in a backwater portion of
Horsepen Creek north of Ballinger Road and east of the bridge, to ensure that the newly widened roadway shoulder and multi-use
path will not be undermined by erosive stream velocities in Horsepen Creek. An existing 12" ductile iron pipe (DIP) potable water line
is located on the north side of Ballinger Road and crosses under Horsepen Creek and Stream A, north of the existing bridge. This
potable water line will be routed away from the roadway and bridge, and will be jacked under Horsepen Creek further to the north
where an existing utility easement is located. The new potable water line will follow the existing utility easement to the west of the
Ballinger Road Bridge, where the line will end. Stormwater on the new roadway will be diverted by curb and gutter, picked up in
catch basins, conveyed by pipes, and directed into one of four proposed preformed scour holes. The four preformed scour holes
have been added at all proposed storm pipe outlets prior to discharging into vegetated upland areas outside of the stream buffers
adjacent to Horsepen Creek and its unnamed tributary (Stream A). These measures are being used to reduce the velocity of the
runoff, minimize erosion and scour potential, and provide diffused flow of the stormwater runoff prior to its entering the riparian
stream buffers of Horsepen Creek and Stream A in accordance with the Jordan Lake Rules which were implemented in August
2009. Typical construction equipment to be used will include track hoe and backhoe excavators, bulldozers, grading pans, cranes
and dump trucks.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: JD request is included in Attachment C.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: STV/RWA
Name (if known): Brandon Phillips, C.H.M.M. Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Fill and ri ra
p p unnamed trib to ® PER ® Corps 9 94
Horsepen Creek ? INT ® DWQ
® PER ® Corps
S2 ® P ? T Fill and riprap Horsepen Creek
? INT
® DWQ 27 128
S3 ? P ® T Construction Horsepen Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 27 254
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 476
3i. Comments: Approximately 222 linear feet of permanent impacts is anticipated to Stream A and Horsepen Creek. The listed
254 linear feet of impacts will be temporary until the bridge construction has been completed and the new channel is
stabilized.
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tor-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
Due to the nature of the project, avoiding impacts to Horsepen Creek and Stream A while achieving project goals is not possible.
Given the constraint of the PTAA Mitigation site immediately south of the project area, there is not a practicable alternative that would
achieve the project purpose of replacing the bridge and improving the roadway without relocating Stream A and causing minor fill
impacts to the banks of Horsepen Creek. Best management practices (BMPs) and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls
will be installed and maintained during construction activities to allow for the least adverse effect on the stream channels and
associated water quality.
Additional minimization efforts are discussed below:
Stream A and Horsepen Creek
Impacts to Stream A and Horsepen Creek are unavoidable as these stream channels have a confluence at the Ballinger Road Bridge
and are perpendicularly oriented across the proposed Ballinger Road right-of-way (R/W). Stream A relocation is necessary for the
same reason. Efforts to minimize impacts to these streams included:
• The crossing of Horsepen Creek will essentially remain in the same location within the existing Ballinger Road R/W in order
to reduce the expanded footprint of roadway fill and avoid additional impacts to Horsepen Creek.
• The design of Ballinger Road will maintain a two-lane undivided section.
• Stream A will be relocated to the north of the bridge crossing as an open channel instead of being piped, and a new Stream
A to Horsepen Creek confluence will be created north of the bridge.
• Fill slopes have been designed to be 2:1 or 3:1, opposed to the standard 4:1.
• The existing footbridge abutments will be left in place to avoid additional impacts to Horsepen Creek.
• The existing potable water line will be relocated to the existing sanitary sewer easement and jacked under Horsepen Creek
to avoid additional impacts to Horsepen Creek.
• The use of sheet piling during construction to prevent impacts to the banks of Horsepen Creek.
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the General Conditions of the USACE
Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 10; updated March 19, 2007), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional
Conditions, and applicable NCDWQ consistency conditions (November 2007).
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Sedimentation and erosion control plans have been prepared for pre-construction and final conditions of the project area.
Sedimentation and erosion control devices were designed in accordance with appropriate City and State erosion and
sediment control ordinances and will thereby equal or exceed the requirements specified in the latest version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The initial excavation and grading of the relocated stream channel, the
construction of the new bridge abutments and the construction of the retaining wall would be done in the dry using cofferdams
with sedimentation and erosion control devices clear of any jurisdictional waters.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ® Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWQ ® Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this ? Mitigation bank
project? Mitigation not offered due to extenuating ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
circumstances - see cover letter page 8.
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Stream Quantity
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a . Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b . Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
The City of Greensboro is requesting that compensatory mitigation not be required on this project due to extenuating
circumstances; see 'Project History and Review of Alternatives' section of cover letter.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? Jordan Lake ® Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 Crossing, bridge 7,515 3 (2 for Catawba) 22,545
Zone 2 Crossing, jacking 6,248 1.5 93,720
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 116,265
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
Project located in Jordan Lake Watershed. Mitigation not being offered by City of Greensboro. Please see cover letter for
explanation.
6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
ta. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Use of preformed scour holes will provide diffuse flow outside the 50- ® Yes ? No
foot buffers.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 17 % increase
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ®No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Improvements to existing bridge and
roadway; % impervious increase is less than 24%.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Greensboro
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
® Other: Jordan Lake Rules
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ® No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ®No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ®No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discha rge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a . Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ®No
habitat?
5b . Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes No
impacts?
El Raleigh
Sc. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
STV/RWA reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
databases prior to field review. Refer to the cover letter pages 10, 11, and 12.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA website.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
SHPO was contacted and correspondence is included at Attachment E. The National Register was recently consulted
and indicated that there are no sites listed on the National Register within one mile of the project area. The City of
Greensboro GIS web site was reviewed and showed no historic properties within one mile of the project area.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A "No-Rise" certification has been reviewed and approved by the
City of Greensboro with the condition that a LOMR be prepared when the project is completed.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM maps on-line
r
Michael A. Iagnocco, P.W.S.
a, 7/15/10
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Age t' Si nature
' Date
(Agent's signature is valid only
rf an a h i tion letter from the applicant
s rovi ed.
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Attachment C
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
-Request for Jurisdictional Determination Form
-USACE and NCDWQ Stream Assessment Data Forms
-Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
-Approximate Waters of the U.S. Boundary Map
-Photographs
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: July 15, 2010
COUNTY Guilford TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT 3.5 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT (name, address and phone):
City of Greensboro Engineering Division
Mr. Bruce Overman - Chief Project Manager.
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro North Carolina 27402-3136 [phone]
NAME OF CONSULTANT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Mr. Michael Iagnocco, WS
1000 W Morehead St., Suite 200
Charlotte North Carolina 28208 [phone]
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one)
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X) Project in planning stages
(Type of project: Linear -Transportation)
( ) No specific development planned at present
( ) Project already completed
(Type of project: )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
(X) Site Location Map (Attachment D - Figure 1)
(X) USGS 7.5' Guilford, NC (1997) Topographic Quadrangle (Attachment D - Figure 2)
(X) USDA SCS Guilford County Soil Survey (Attachment D - Figure 3)
(X) Approximate Waters of the U.S. Boundary Map (Attachment C and Attachment D-Figure 4)
(X) Proposed Impacts (Attachment D - Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8)
(X) Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit (Attachment B)
(X) Agent Certification of Authorization Form (Attachment A)
(X) Stream Classification Forms (Attachment C)
(X) Representative Photographs (Attachment C)
Signature of Pr p wrier or
Authorize Age t
Mr. Michael A. lagnocco, PWS
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
Horsepen Creek
AIL.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: City of Greensboro. NC 2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/20/09
5. Name of Stream: Horsepen Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: -50 acres
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 50'
4. Time of Evaluation: 10:30 am
6. River Basin: Cape Fear
8. Stream Order: 2nd
10. County: Guilford
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): north of Ballinger Road
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.101739 ° N -79.909920 ° W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): to be determined
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, warm, dry
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, warm dry
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Qf yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
50 % Forested 40 % Cleared / Logged % Other
21. Bankfull Width: 15' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 52 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature L i ' Date 10 / /0 q
This channel evaluation form is intended to be sed only as a guide to assist landowners and en rv onmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Horsemen Creek
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGIO NT RANGE SCORE
Coastal iedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points), 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration

extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max. points) 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
a
5
Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. =maz points) 0-3 0-4 0-4 1
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
r?
no flood lain = 0; extensive Flood lain = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access

CL
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max oints 0-5 0-4 0-2 2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetland's = max points) 0- 6 0- 4 0 -2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 ' 0-4 3
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
L I
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA* 0-4 0-5 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

,?.
.
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) -5
0 0-4 0-5 2
M
13 Presence of major bank failures
ra
(severe erosion= 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3

14 Root depth and density on banks

F+
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5 2
rA 15 Impact by agriculture or livestock production

substantial impact --0; no evidence = max. points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
d 1 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
0.] Canopy coverage over streambed
.
?Z 18 (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
r 19 Substrate embeddedness *

(dee I embedded = 0; loose structure= max " NA 0- 4 0- 4 3
20 Presence of stream. invertebrates

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
21 Presence of amphibians " '

O
no evidence = 0;,common, numerous types. = max points) 0 4 0 -
4 0- 4 2
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also-enter on first page) 52
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10/20/2009 Project: Ballinger Road Bridge Latitude: 36.101739 de N
Evaluator: B. Phillips site: Horsepen Creek Longitude: _79.909920 deg W
Total Points: Other Guilford, NC
Stream is at feast intermittent County:
8219 or perennial if >_30 3550 Guilford e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = 20.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong ...I
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3. 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2. 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2. 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2, 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic fleodplain 2, 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2. 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0. 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1. 0 1 2 3
9` Natural levees 1. 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1. 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0, 0 0.5 - 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 3.
No = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B. HVdrologV (Subtotal = 6.5 )
14. Groundwaterflcwldischarge 1. 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 his since rain. or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 2. 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter t. 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1. No = 0 Yes= 1.5
C. Biolcav (Subtotal = 8.50 1
20'. Fibrous roots in channel 2. 3 2 1 0
21 '. Rooted plants in channel 2. 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish I. 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0. 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0. 0 O.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0. 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 0.5 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
` Items 20 end 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Horsepen Creek RPW
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ # I
Stream A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET L
L Applicant's Name: City of Greensboro, NC 2. Evaluator's Name: B. Phillips
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/20/09
5. Name of Stream: unnamed tributary to Horsepen Creek
7. Approximate Drainage Area: <50 acres
4. Time of Evaluation: 1 1:30 am
6. River Basin: Cape Fear
8. Stream Order:... I st
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 50' 10. County: Guilford
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks):- north of Ballinger Road
12. Site Coordinates (if known): 36.101978 ° N -79.910249 ° W
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): to be determined
14. Recent Weather Conditions: sunny, warm, dry
15. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, warm, drv
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Of yes, estimate the water surface area:
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: _% Residential 10 % Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
60 % Forested 30 % Cleared/ Logged % Other
21. Bankfull
22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 5' to 8'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: -Straight -Occasional Bends X Frequent Meander -Very Sinuous -Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 45 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature / /? z" /-) Date /0I ? /o 9
This channel evaluation form is inte ded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Stream A
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGIO NT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal. iedmont Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
I
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3

2 Evidence of past human alteration

0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = ,max points) -6 0-5 0-5 2
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
5 Groundwater discharge

(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain '

y
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) 0- 4 0 - 4 0- 2 2
F„tr'
7 Entrenchment / tloodplain access
0
a' (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) -5 0-4 0-2 1
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points). 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
9 Channel sinuosity

(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander= max points) 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
10 Sedimentinput 0-5 0-4 0-4 1
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
1 J fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max, points NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
?. (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0- 5. 0-4 0-5 1
Presence of major bank failures
.?i 13 severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 2

14 Root depth and density on banks
H, (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5 2

I S Impact by agriculture or livestock production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)' 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pooltripple-pool complexes

no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0; well-developed = max
oints) 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 2
F p
d 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
H (little or no
habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
r
r Canopy coverage over streambed
18 (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max NA 0- 4 0- 4 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0

(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) - 4 0- 5 0- 5 1
21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) _
0 2z Presence offish 0-4 0-4 0-4 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
23
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 4
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter, on first-page) 45
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10/20/2009 Project: Ballinger Road Bridge Latitude: 36.101987 deg N
Evaluator: 13 Phillips Site: Stream A Longitude: _79.910249 deg W
Total Points: Other Guilford, NC
Steam is at least intermittent 'j County:
if 2 19 or perennial if 2 30 ? Guilford e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 17.5 7 Absent Weak Moderate strong,
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3. 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2. 0 1 2 3
3, In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2. 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2. 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 2. 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1. 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0. 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 2. 0 1 2 3
9E Natural levees 1. 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1. 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. 0.
No = 0
Yes = 3
"plan-made ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 6.0 )
14. Ground•materflo4discharge 1. 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain: or
Water in channel -- dry or grwAng season 2. 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 0. 1.5 1 0.5 0
17, Sediment on plants or debris 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
19, Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? 1. No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 8.50 )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 2. 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2. 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 1, 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0. 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversilyand abundance) 1. 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0. 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed 0.5 FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0: Other = 0
` Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Stream A RPW
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Form 1 of 1
State:NC County/parish/borough: Guilford City: Greensboro
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.101978° N, Long. -79.9102490 W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 3995809.2; E 598092.0
Name of nearest waterbody: Horsepen Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Haw River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUG): 03030002
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
( Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 10/18/09.
® Field Determination. Date(s): 10/20/09.
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are nq "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the US." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: Horsepen Creek = 277 linear feet: 27 width (ft) and/or 0.17 acre; Stream A = 115 linear feet; 9 width (ft)
and/or 0.02 acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Establishe--- d by OHWM]
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):}
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically [lows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections HI.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
. Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
wen.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain: Clay. -
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/Pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM ' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
? High Tide Line indicated by: ?
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
me lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A namral or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's now
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick Lisi. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pieklist
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section HLD:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream A and Horsepen Creek have a well defined, continuous bed and bank, moderate to strong flow,
alluvial depositional banks, aquatic life (fish) and are both depicted on the USGS as a blue line stream. Stream A drains to
Horsepen Creek, Horsepen Creek drains to Lake Brant, a navigable lacustrine waterbody, which drains to Lake Townsend, a
navigable lacustrine waterbody, that drains to the Haw River (TNW).
E] Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: Horsepen Creek= 277 linear feet 27 width, Stream A= 115 linear feet 9 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
Asa general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
" Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA DO for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultantAttachment C - Figure 4.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24000, Guilford, NC (1997).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Soil Survey of Guilford County, NC. Sheet 20 of 48.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Guilford, NC.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Guilford County GIS Aerial (2007) Attachment C - Figure 4.
or ® Other (Name & Date):Attachment C - Photos 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (10/20/09).
? Previous determination(s). File no, and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The boundaries of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., Horsepen Creek and Stream A
(Attachment C - Figure 4) were marked and surveyed using a Trimble GeoXT hand-held GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy. Stream A
flows into Horsepen Creek. Stream A was determined to be an RPW with perennial flow. Horsepen Creek was determined to be an RPW
with perennial flow that drains to Lake Brant, a navigable lacustrine waterbody, which drains to Lake Townsend, a navigable lacustrine
waterbody, that drains to the Haw River (TNW).

?,.I
I I ?
it
2
:C
v m
°e

v \ Ez
m ° O
\\ i i
? ? . W b- lfl O
WU x
LL

t?j 05
d0 I I
Ju-
N o?
?? P
o

`
\
\

I3
C.D
zt
c)

s
I
I
?
W
m

w
it `) > ? i
? J
J o
a
pr
9L, rr

Ljj
cc: CLj.

,Wp 5`,4
k LL.

I

1 LUCL?

\

„<
y ?
p ??
'
.I
2
M
z
$?
_Q):ZZ,
Mh ?i. .j
1

1
\ pW

p (r
W p
to Y w °
O UI fh \
I \• 1
4
?
?
^
?
?` ??
m I ?m
\
Ct:I
° PI
w
I
V y 11?
jj '5S, I
F-
Cf)
} •y' ''kykyll''ryry--' / Q 0 O
X I ? W<
LF) W W F Y

K O O
W
gyp} l o r

I/
I

}

I

y
3 `

1

, U ? Q F

U 0 N
o O a
J G

III `
/ 1
I
<
?
;
??I
Oo
1
I _ '{

? I
I
}

? ??
?
i I

', i I? m U

w o o

P I i
r `i l •. ? u o m
U W
I

(??
??
/

?l
J .

I ?
\
I

I? \

?

? 'N
LL
O W Z ?
? ? J t0
/ I { I < I \ Um mm
O
I

I

I I

{ I

L

=' I) I

II ?
r o
a i a
au o°
Q Q x U
I ? 11 ? ,c

''
\'•
1 I I
.I
2
? v; w
v
r
?
U
.
1
\ I
I II
II O
¢2 0
?
?
a
oU

m
V I ?m o °
1

O? W

a
;
0
.mac e ma
x
W? x

,a.

N y?
?
?
• I?LU
?? ?t s'
? : io
"
Z 0
P
W ?
p
/
sb
I i i ?
? 41
3W .
?° o o
m
05,
= W ? }. . I? i ?
i ?3 "o
I

d

I

I
?

w
02i > I F
CA J
< a
'
t, i I
1
? I
1
? AWN I
i
I t 1 I

U??
2 C ?
'
I
I
i ILL
i l \
W??
t WAN I j
i 31 Who
U?vWi
o
$o

W
Y,24 w
w gg
?

I ?
p?
ycr?
J 4
a
ck:
O O I
CL 1 •?
\ 1?, ??
;1
r\ I
ui o IF) ?y -,Yy r, I w
z:
Lo
Q co
Off.. S

0
Z a

0 0 0

L
10 O
<
-1 1 m W o
m
O
o 3
?c
{{?
" 1
W Q
:K CD z
x
W_ r- r
W X
u 0 oz
W I ? ? z
a z r w
1 I o o
a- a
+ 1 Ij I ? ,. r
J U N O
5•
11 I ?

/ I
I /
/ i
i
.
I

I
p z
0
I
I } ? ?
i I
i
I? m y
W N¢
z

}
UhU F? PI _

LyI?$ ?? ? ?/? I
I? I
II

i

`

e I

?1\

W
Ww
U

C?
?c?
?4 ? c? o ¢
U W
O m
a v
U m m m
Cc c)
/I I } I
??N

i

I'
I
Q_? I I I \
I \
? WN
?? w
r o
U
N {, -; I v dv o0
? ?1 < Q CL V

I
Lr)
1
P 0
N
Y

IT O
00 0
00 \ 6')
\
N O'7
fl-
b W
U
s
I
UO z o
\\ Q ? m
H N J O ~=Q x
/ ?Q W O U u MXZ LL
> x in T' :. ?Wo
c?>F-
o
\ kQ) `, WOU P
. O
Q

m

Q
LLJ
G
O

W
, O F J a

W ?
0-8 O h 11 L V m
OW ? W 1 WQ
? ? Lf ?Q 1 ?
? Wm )
?
Lu
1
0
CA-
uj ZE i
i
g
o
z
w
O

a a?O V
)
o?
n
w o?
z
L
0 0 -
?Za
J
U ~
W J n z
n< i Q
l
? O p O
` <

41
\nW ¢ b
° o Q N
og

O? m? "?;
0
w w ?
m J r
K J O j
QQ U U Z ?
QW W
O

? cl-

?
w
Q
/ ?2 o o F
- a
?? Q J U N G
Z?i
U
?
? I Q
1 9 j ? zo
1 m
w
d
? z ¢
QQQ
U
°
ow z
OQa
WUW
? ? J ?
? °- J P
?
? U m [D m
a
F-
U
W

O
W
O
Ln
O O
a a
O
oC O
m 0-)
ti 0')
N w
a "
a U o °
Q Q ¢ U
? o
O Ln O Ln w
O m m of Y w
co r- r- I? tl U o
p z o
? W m
Q N o
O O O _
r N J fU ?. m= x
w O U v (xw LL
> 2 N+-' .W?
S ?UV m
3= Wr
o? a
x ? -
w
Z i
Q ? ? J o
OW I ? m a
ch
m /.. _. ?... Lki
v O
Q
Lr Q- w ? p 3 f
W LU Z
ZE
?Ln II ?¢
LLJ
CC)
LLJ
O? U + x'
zz+
O Lli Q
?CL a FLU
UWH O8 / a
W N to
0 V) / O Q N
U / m s o;
cr "X: / p
o)Q- / W J r r
/ 0 S o
co 0 z -o
Z
j \r
/ W? w
/ a z r w
U > a r
Q)? o o r a
J U N p
Q)
I
QW 2 I
QZ' CDQ K O
Z Z
?fmm? J m U
Q- Q W ? Z
U O
Q W U ?
O W Z N
m U J t?D
} E J Q
t: E
U m ¢] m
R
r
U
W
r o
O Ln (D L.() a r a
w
Q 6-) 61 N ? r c?
ti t` ti a r 0
00
a " o °
Q Q ? U

cu

U -
U?j
¢ Z
r o
i t

II ? 2
Y

y
Y

w
U-
ru
?g
?? N j
?
mc
0
? m v o
o
O
m00 w. ?
?UU
.I
;IAN ?h ?O¢ ?' z n
ww m
N2y o
0
?~
--- to I? W2?
V- LL -
o
? d via m
WNO
U
N
20L
2LLJ
?
\
?

> w
11 O
?r7 WV)
it N?W?.U?
.
al
y'-
mo.

=te
.

a
LL
?bJ
NU
j?g mUN 5"??' : ?ww

?'rd-
\ h
NON
2 p
n
N
LL I? _? Boa
w

?
2 NU

LL
! W
w n m
;
-
U- ! i m
L,j
V)

N?Q-

I
W
,
I c
d
_
N
LLJ

Z
,

I

i

U
I Q lL??
??``

N
Nm
Z

i CO

II ? mU'O?
Q.

p

`wo o
o N y. 11 R)?p N2?
N w
a I .? ;I
WT
W 0)
N
I

\Wh? ?'i uLn

UN
?
? m?
N
O`
I
~ 'co
W (
U- WS? (D I
j?R WQW- I
° `I
nl
w
cu
)
W2^ mWV4: uwi o n
Z z
WHO 28? U?,

WV40?v `\ I
0 0 0 N Q) ?. I
Q) f

I
I t

7

1

C < IU

/
/ o
*,
o
I
oNN
a
-? J

O of o
o a N
I ?

? ?
z O
Z F- z
ai
V)

N
I
R 1

A S )
0 W w
a I
LL 3: CD
mp w r r

u 0 °z
` 1

?- U)
2 8 et. \ o
t- w
.. a z r w
1 I Nme J U N p

U- Y m I 08
m??? I I
1

N?W
1 ?

! I

I '
? z
°-
o ?_
y . P C;

W ?L o w z
U
jQ- h ? 2 co .
Zo ?v
W 0 J
to
F
UY F??`i'
m
0 m
I { i
s .
i I om
2-44
l N (7O R a P
V m m m
2
'G?O /
WSW N W
? ?U 1 I N2?y
j
h
)
{
a
J
W
NU?
i ??vM i 1 I N NUO o
N N?WM I i L
o = I N? z ?: a
Q
,
I
a ~ 0
L;l
i
I -_ 1
,
, 1 a u O O
a a ? ci
¢4// o? ?Z
LL.
U U Li
j i
C>W
u
iI 4 i i a aoa
i iI iI iI iI ? w? o
I m
? ? o
// ? it o?n I i I ? a a
? ?... n8 .. •s I ?" iI , ° it it 'I iI it it
i
i t
iI oil iI ii i i it
iI iI 4I iI
i
i i
8
yy `r i i
i IIII
\•. ?. i iI 0A i it i
\ ?i \d o o
0 0
m u
II i if i/ i i I ?o o
a
/? w W r y
W it it ??il I it w o J
i
...?N v> a
?i i o o r- a
II`imcs l i it I I JU No
? vl\i I i I I i i i i i
1 Iilililil
I x i
y 'i iI a Q i i it
i o 0
? I UU ? i i i i ? o f
i i it w o
w
i U W
I
iI o w J v
__? 2ND \ ?? i i I i i w
m \ \ \? v i i i it i it i z 0
/ ? \ \ i i i i i J? r c?
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Attachment E
SHPO Correspondence
t-

L.1
l?
I_J
0
L_1
LJ
L_1
LJ
0
or?lrhr?
Y
ana
er Office of A??? d
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Adw; Wstratar
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisheth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
August 14, 2003
E. Richard Capps, P.E., Project Manager
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
454 S. Anderson Road
BTC 517 .
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Division of Historical Resources
SUBJECT: Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement over Horsepen Creek, B-4695,.
Guilford County, ER03-1876
Dear Mr. Capps:
Thank you for your letter of)uly 3, 2003, concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may he eligible for
conclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project We, -
therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project
In the future, we would like to request that your project scoping correspondence include a \
USGS Quad map with the project location circled and the name of the quad. For bridge //\
projects, we would also like to be provided with the bridge number.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 1Q6 of the-National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
J Section 106 codified. at 36 CFR Part 800.
J
www.h po.dcrstate.nc.us
Location
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St„ Raleigh NC Maillog Address
4617 Mal Service Cmaet. Raleigh NC 27699-1617 Telephna
(9'^' --3-
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Smiu Ctnter, Raleigh NC 276994617 (9 1-
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4617 \1x11 Smice Canty. Raleigh NC 376994617 (t B a-1 5. tuI
J
August 14, 2003 O O
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. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely, PL"
avid Brook
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
1J
0
0
U
it
U
U
I
4
B-1 d
J
RPW Horsepen Creek (277 If, 0.17Ac.)
•
4
it's
4P
m$W
Legend
U Project Study Area
_ Jurisdictional Stream (RPW)
Note:
1. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were delineated by
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates on October 20, 2009.
Jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field
with surveyors tape and surveyed using a Trimble GEOXT
hand-held GPS unit capable of submeter accuracy. This map
is intended for planning purposes only. a
2. Jurisdictional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not
been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are j'
subject to change following verification.
Reference: 1998 Color-Infrared Orthophotos, NCDOT

r
r Approximate Waters of the
U.S. Boundary Map
L J
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates Figure 4
BJP AWN BJP MAI 11/20/0
SURVEYED BY PREPARED BY F,ECKEC B?' APPI,-,VtCBy LATE
SHEE7 I ?7F
N:\PROJ\2969a\
2969000 1 "=275' GIS-GPS\ApproxWaters 1 1
Joe me cr_.ALE GiGiCAD FILE PA7.
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Photograph
A view of the Ballinger Road bridge to be replaced, looking to
(note existing foot bridge on the right side of the picture).
east
Photograph 2. A view of Horsepen Creek (RPW) flowin?o under the Ballinger Road
bridge looking north (downstream) as seen from the foot bridge located to the south.
City of Greensboro Engineering Division
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
? .•` •' SSA- ,?. ?

,i .'
T- t
July 15, 2010
Photograph 3. Another view of Horsepen Creek (RPW) looking south (upstream), as
seen from the foot bridge.
Photo
m) as
seen from the Ballinger Road bridize.
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Photograph 5. A view of Stream A (RPW ). an unnamed tributary to Horsepen Creek.
Photograph 6. Another view of Stream A (RPW).
City of Greensboro Engineering Division July 15, 2010
Ballinger Road Bridge Replacement - Request for JD and NWP #14
Attachment D
Figures
MAVQHEST 200 m
600 it
r-
Approximate Project Study Area
2
+o
l
G
7
H
O L R.
tL
Cr
F, F
J
© r0
2r09 tlapCurst Inc. hAap data 2?J09NAYTEO or TFIFAt'as
Not to Scale
Reference: MapQuest, 2009
F7&*Q
n y» Mont:<rlin
it;C e, mm, su?.nw
utl bam llo le
.ten
Mgwewom
,?,rw nod
M N? _
Ile .. -.,..?.--?--•. s
NM:M1ww M -
_ ??yy LuMwE ? G?M6wo
411
(luulord
Ballinger Road Bridge
Replacement over
Horsepen Creek
Guilford County, NC
N STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Site Location
FIGURE 1
New &14?m?
?1 J 't abern?cle } b ?• \ / \
it /?? __ ,• , .?? 1
Co. V
?} ??/?? ^,\??'I`l` 1-?;'I `?•??? J` +? 1 .L//` ?I '??/ / LI?, ? ',\? ,/i /n???///\\??•.,_-\?-/ 1,?r?'l? / /X.,?••? 11
Approximate Project Study Area ?_ c???```s',?•? ( =/` +IZ%' ???
MA,
/. X- i nl i i? rc
V _z_
gal[ingeToadi
Tower 1 `•.
i
'I•;• fL R
%
Sag
%
/i ?? ? / u _S1? ???: " 1 ??
8.5
I?1
1?A ? ,> ??i 11114
X ? ? I ?' I ?? ??. ? ;?? FPS'-'_?t ? 1 ?.,.? ?c,? +rlr?'} ? ? h• ??
B96
?\ \ '`? `.\ 1 1 ?., ?""?` tit,, ( ? i f-: r ;m>= • "? ? 1 t -
If ,proximate Scale: 1:24,000 a

Ballinger Road Bridge
Replacement over USGS Map
Horsepen Creek STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Guilford County, NC FIGURE 2
t:
I/ N\ l : I S
I ?
,
.f,H f, F
Cc5
CeC2 _ Ow,
Aut3 ;uti7
C I; (,kh.
+r.: r> for
N
ai
:J
v
mltcz
\, CefY tH
cam ; 1 art Cn Ehp
cowl MhR; frlrtli7 "C
Ct,C
r. MnC2 e.I t,
1 mim,,! crC 1
Mhn9 1:1 M,fiL C? ! f l?
? ? ? ? t \ ``,%• En8 ?` Mho ' \ .. 1 •??.
IrO
f ?4, l
?IR7 I, R \? t1 M1dJ r MhC2 _.
CO M11W ? C. g ? e
.. [uL3
-•? Mr, U'1 ? i
MhCZ ? (6? - ( I :lilt ? ? *,c•
t. c. rrC ?? ?.•
C:
/?/"?•• Mhr)7 \ I 1.\ ?..? `... AniC. MI,R
FuS
f C.
?,t>; rl3z cu
?;
I_,F3 Mrrr;; Cu N' nr
If ' C' C, 4
Mapped Soil Units in Project Study Area Approximate Scale: 1:20.00(
Co - Congaree Loam
MhC2 - Mecklenburg sandy clay loam. 6 to 10 percent dopes, eroded

Ballinger Road Bridge Soil Survey
Replacement over STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates Map
Horsepen Creek
Guilford County, NC ,
FIGURE 3

RPIN SlrearTl A (1 5 f. O i;2 AC.
- i .:
M
RPW Horsepen Creek (2771f, 0.17 Ac.)
Or
pii;4 •
4b
i
4V f
1
f
Legend
?J Project Study Area
- Jurisdictional Stream (RPW)
Note:
1. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were delineated by
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates on October 20, 2009.
Jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field
with surveyors tape and surveyed using a Trimble GEOXT
hand-held GPS unit capable of submeter accuracy. This map
is intended for planning purposes only. r,.A.
2. Jurisdictional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not
been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are
subject to change following verification.
Reference: 1998 Color-Infrared Orthophotos, NCDOT

r
ti

¦

0
A -Is
Approximate Waters of the
/ U.S. Boundary Map
! TV, Ralph Whitehead Associates Figure 4
_BJP AWN BJP MAI_ 11/20/0
SUPVEYED BI FHEPAHLD BV CHECKr-D HV APPHOVI.-C, HY DATE
M FT or
N:\PROJ\2969a\
2969000 1 "=275' GIS-GPS\ApproxWaters 1 1
JOB NO SCALE GGICACO Q E PATH