20060786 Ver 1_Complete File_20060510

e.. u?vi o?
rt.' Z s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 8, 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Todd Tugwell
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
stir (J u?
0,
?V?
ST0%j
114
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
0 'q 0
"
Subject: Nationwide Permit 33 Application for the replacement of Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001
over North Buffalo Creek, Guilford County. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1001(18),
WBS No. 33000.1.1, State Project No. 8.2494901, T.I.P. No. B-3337, Division 7.
Please see the enclosed Categorical Exclusion, PCN, permit drawings, and design plans for the
subject project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
the 113-foot Bridge No. 527 in its existing location. The new structure will be a 2-span 33" steel
plate girder bridge, approximately 127-feet in length, with concrete deck slab, 1 span at 42'& 1
span at 85'. The bridge will have 1 bent that will be located on the bank on the south end of the
structure. The total superstructure width will be 78' wide overall with 5'-6" sidewalks on both
side and a clear roadway width of 65'. The bridge will be built utilizing staged constructed with
traffic maintained on site. To avoid substantial right of way impacts, the replacement bridge will
have approximately the same roadway grade as the existing structure. The new crossing will
include horizontal clearance for a 10-foot wide pathway beneath the bridge along the south side
of North Buffalo Creek.
The City of Greensboro plans to widen SR 1001 (Church Street) to a five lane curb and gutter
typical section. Their standard five lane typical section includes four 11-foot lanes and 10-foot
center turn lane and will include 2-feet of additional pavement to the outside travel lanes for
bicycle accommodations. Therefore, the roadway approaches are 64'-6" face to face curb and
gutter roadway with sidewalks on both sides is proposed to accommodate their future plans for
the route to provide 5-lanes and accommodate bicycles. An 8-foot berm will be provided on both
sides of the approach roadway to accommodate 5-foot sidewalks. The new structure will be
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] or LOCATION-
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 919-715-1335 PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT FAX [phone] RALEIGH NC 27604
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH 14C 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
approximately 75'-6" wide between the railing faces to accommodate the requested five -lane
roadway with 3, 11'-6" lanes; 2, 13' outside lanes with 2' offsets to the curb face for bicycle
accommodations; and 5'-6" sidewalks on both sides of the bridge.
A temporary work pad will be used for removal of the existing bridge.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (sub-basin 03-06-02). This area is part of
Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03030002 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The section of
North Buffalo Creek crossed by the subject bridge has been assigned Stream Index Number 16-
11-14-1 (8/1/85) by the N.C Division of Water Quality. North Buffalo Creek is a third-order
stream with a best usage classification of C NSW. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply (II), waters occur
within 1.0 mile of the study corridor.
North Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2002 List of impaired waters [Section 303(d)] for the Cape
Fear River Basin. Listed waters do not meeting water quality standards or have impaired uses.
North Buffalo Creek is listed due to impaired biological integrity and high levels of fecal
coliform and ammonia. "Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds" will not be used because
North Buffalo Creek is not impaired due to sedimentation.
There will be 75-feet (0.021 acres) of temporary impacts to North Buffalo Creek resulting from
the construction of a temporary work pad placed instream, parallel to the stream along the
interior bend of the stream. The work pad will be used for removal of the existing bridge. There
will be no permanent impacts to North Buffalo Creek resulting from the replacement of Bridge
No. 527.
There are no wetlands located in the project area.
Construction of the new bridge will require relocation of existing aerial power lines and cable
television line located on the eastern side of bridge as well as existing underground telephone
lines. Existing telephone, cable, and telephone lines will be relocated to poles located further
east outside of the project area. No jurisdictional impacts will result from the relocation of these
utilities.
Bridge Demolition
Existing Bridge No. 527 is approximately 113 ft long with a clear roadway width of 44-feet. The
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams with 5-foot sidewalks on both
sides of the bridge. Sidewalks are only present on the east side approaches and do not extend
beyond the project limits. The substructure consists of end bents of reinforced concrete caps on
steel piles and an interior bent of reinforced concrete post and beam on spread footings. There
are no bents located in the water.
There is potential for components of the existing deck and rails to be dropped into waters of the
United States during demolition. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck
B-3337 Permit Application
Page 2 of 5

and rails is approximately 177 cubic yards. If removal of substructure will create disturbance in
the streambed, a turbidity curtain will be used.
All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. This project is classified as Case 3
in there are no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Restoration Plan
Following construction of the bridge, all material used in the construction of the structure will be
removed. The impact area associated with the bridge is expected to recover naturally, since the
natural streambed and plant material will not be removed. NCDOT does not propose any
additional planting in this area. Class I riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization.
Pre-project elevations will be restored. NCDOT will restore stream to its pre-project contours.
Schedule: The project calls for a letting of January 19, 2007 with a date of availability of
February 7, 2007. It is expected that contractor will choose to start construction in February
2007.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the
removal of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use
excavation equipment for removal of any earthen material. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes
and various other pieces of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadways and
bridges will be used on site. All material placed in the stream will be removed from the stream at
that time. The contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer
deems suitable in the construction of project. After the erosion control devices are no longer
needed, all temporary materials will become the property of the contractor.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Compensatory Mitigation: The NCDOT is committed to
incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional
impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional
impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA compliance stages;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize,
and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the
project's jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by
NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
o The proposed project will completely span North Buffalo Creek, allowing for pre-project
stream flows to maintain the current water quality,. aquatic habitat, and flow regime.
B-3337 Permit Application
Page 3 of 5
o The new bridge will be built in the same location and have approximately the same grade as
the existing bridge.
® Traffic will be maintained on site by utilizing staged construction and maintaining one lane
of traffic in each direction during the construction period.
v The design of the new bridge is such that backwater elevation will not encroach the current
100-year floodplain or modify flood characteristics.
o Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control schedule and use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs).
The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as
outlined in23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation,
and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include
the use of dikes, berms, silt basin, and other containment measures to control runoff;
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to the 10-foot wide
pathway beneath the bridge along the south side of North Buffalo Creek.
Mitigation:
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in jurisdictional waters of the US and that the proposed action includes all
practicable methods to avoid and/or minimize jurisdictional stream impacts that may result from
such use. Project impacts are temporary there are no permanent impacts. Therefore, no
mitigation is proposed.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 8, 2006, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally protected species for Guilford
County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The project area does not contain suitable
habitat for the bald eagle. There are no large bodies of open water that might serve as bald eagle
habitat. The nearest large body of water, Richland Lake, is approximately 3.0 miles to the north.
Tall, old trees, which might serve as perching sites, do grow near the stream, but the lack of open
water access is probably a key limiting factor for the species. NHP records document no
occurrences of bald eagles within 5.0 miles of the study corridor, and no eagles were sighted
during the site visit on June 13, 2001, therefore, a biological conclusion of No Effect was
determined.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: Application is hereby made for the Department of Army Section 404 for a
Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing for the above-described activities and the use of a temporary
workpad in the stream for removal of the existing bridge.
Section 401 Permit: We also hereby request a 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC)
3366. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of these WQCs. Therefore, written
concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.0501(a)
B-3337 Permit Application
Page 4of5
and 15A NCAC 2B 0.200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as notification.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Erica McLamb at 715-1521.
Sincerely,
g., &E rpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Elmo Vance, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendan, USACE, Wilmington
B-3337 Permit Application
Page 5 of 5
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
?0060786
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Pagel of 9
111. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of bridge 527 on SRI 001 over North Buffalo Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3337
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Guilford Nearest Town: Greensboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From 220 (Wendover
Ave), travel north on Church St. (SR1001), past Moses Cone Memorial Hospital
approximately half a mile.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36.0979 ON 79.7811°W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: North Buffalo Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/niaps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project area consists of a mixture of commercial,
service, and residential development. The section where the crossing is located is part of the
Greensboro designated bicycle route called Carolina Circle.
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 527 will be replaced on existing location with a temporary work for use during
removal of the old bridge. Heavy duty excavation equipment will be used such as trucks,
dozers, cranes and other various equipment necessary for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. NA
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
NA
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:Jusrisdictional impacts include
temporary imapacts due to the construction of a temporaray work pad to be constructed
instream, around the interior bent, parallel to the stream
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
se aratel list impacts due to both structure and floodin .
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
NA

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres

1
North Buffalo

Creek Temporary
damming and

dewatering for
construction of
work ad

erennial

5

5 (temp)
0.021

(temp)

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 75 0.021
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
exca
etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody I Type of Impact I Tvpe of Waterbodv Area of l
Page 4 of 9
Site Number
(indicate on ma (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Impact
(acres)
NA

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): .021
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) .021
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 75
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included'with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Please refer to the cover letter
pie 3
Page 5 of 9
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/stn-ngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Compensatory mitigation is not needed as this project has only temporary impacts.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at hqp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Page 6 of 9
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* I Impact CI I Required
Zone ,? .. ,.o ml. Multiplier
1 NA 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 9
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. No mitigation is required
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. NA
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://b2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Page 8 of 9
None

5-1001t) L
Applicant/Agent's Signature bate I
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
NORTH CAROLINA

0 a¦
¦ aa¦ ¦a¦aanwoomma¦ano¦ Nunn anuo¦
¦
¦
¦ 158 ISO ¦
¦
¦
a ¦
¦
¦
q iso a
g? ¦

¦
220
SITE
¦ a
70 a -
¦ ¦
¦
n a
¦
¦ 40 a
40 ¦
O g5 ¦
¦
¦
¦ ¦

at

¦
¦ a» ¦
220 a

¦ a
° 22 0

'3¦ an a ¦
¦ ¦a¦ °
°OjO aasaanNa °
¦a
Naa¦NaN¦aP
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 MH ES

NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT: 33000.1.1 (B-3337)
VICINITY GUILFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 527
AIA-P OVER NORTH BUFFALO CREEK ON SR 1001
SHEET I OF 7 JULY 2005

?l TEL ?, 3??h
r
f?-
rr

421
r•
4 1,! tJ. /F
f I`
a ? Y
3
Ail I
3

V X
J-W
r 4?;
rrrrrr X .. ? t i ? ' ?'
'It I'i l.. 1 J iA. -
4y r
afar
f r ? f i:' F4 ??r`
{
Ik ,
!
y ?.i,(??F ?.? N ?.,I • Y?yr'4 ?? ? ? i _, ?I ? S ?t J SI I
N. Q DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: 3ZOG011 - D-=7
SITE MAP
I1riIBGE I'= OVER
NORTH BUFFALO CREEM ON Sri 101
SHEET 2 OF 7 JULY C33
? Z
c
m ? ?g a8
V) o
N
o 1rm ,,

C
tn?
V
4! 4: Z
3 ? n 1
0 o m ? ?
2 >t ? ??
r
day ? ? 8???
w1!
4tM
. 8
a
$tiN?
tiz
00+S1
}bS
ou,or

e• w
?? 7muc
€3 43 43 a y°
A
r`
m v? f?00 ?
J
I
1
cow r
rr
E ?I gs?
?pEM ,VE ? ,
Y
I? o
o
U N o N
e III
I, L
YI
X
I ?II?
?i? saJ.oc
i
tl 31Nr7?
9
s
???? ? rvcP
ate .
1 ?
I

i
l? ? 1. y ? •??6 ` / ,
f. Q o?'F' .oAj
W _3/ ??
? \ S
{ II 111' ?o--p AL,
1 14-
?I
I _` C "c
O "c
? I1I
I I ?` ?' N J
a ?
II I?
a I? J? Y I?
II o I- _1 7
I I a 11 I I II??
I I I I IS• CONC Ell
C-1 I
II ??c? l t3 ?L ? J
? ? ? III I a
I
III i 3 LL W ?
15
IuL ,
III i it \J
r
11 I II ?e
a
Q• -
?. I??I 'I ljo II .9
x
II'?I ?' II C3
i
i
i
1
i
i
sl
.11
?-a
oW
Ov
aQ
0?
Z-j
WJ
aM
0
s
x
N
N
fie
a
v
U-
W
V
0
a
V..
D
m
4
Z
0
V

0
8lRI7 JNOJ.9
OV ?:
K -i N

a
ro
,

y
l=.
I

SNOTS A M
L
?y
?i
`• gal
RI?i
l=??S
s 9 F
i r
? t
r?t?a
?gai=9
a2i

d ^.
ertu . •rasa
8
1 H

y) 77u '0 N
Z C,

n
>
Q N M O N
?- >- M h z
p?m ,NO
p
= r O w
Nc90? zw
cc U E W
F-0IY M oO

?

N U. z O M J
Opp j= mLL

w

c `

c
O
o F- N W w LL.
C7? Um

co wwQ
h
a w O
Z p o
z I-
w
2
N

cm .0

?

C:L
E cu

.g U)
U) d

- C4

U C ?
N O `
L
V ? U
Q
a

W U
?
Q w U E

w

Q O
N O
l
L .
?

C ? U
:4
N
Z

N ?

.C N'C-f9

m
?
} c a' c
(0 fn ? U
N
L1. U O N ?

? C

V y
C
? c
V/ d
L > a U

C d N
? y v
?
V g w c
Q ? _ N
W
LL
O
O
I' C
N
C ?
C
U
LL. N `
O .N.1
a Q
y
? Y F-
O
m
U N ?
O

L
W
H
O
O O +
E
?
0
0
N
i +
t 0
N
m Q

n Z

0
O W ?-
U
w
? M
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
1
CREEKSIDE PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING ASSOC.
1517 N. CHURCH ST.
GREENSBORO, NC 27405
2
CITY OF GREENSBORO
BOX 3136
GREENSBORO, NC 27402

ttttiittttt
Lc ?lY7l718A1cC7f.° TIP PRpLE(L;7l'e 1?-.3.3.O'D
7
UI
- O U
O

A
N C111
N
Q Ln ?
T
IT O O
z n
O
O H
o o
Z

• gg

?ooy
a Pa?

+ II II II II II II x
v ,.
cow o. -b
;o v y
ul
,o
N N 1y

3e S •
?o
C?
?C
n b ;v
w
v
11 ?? w
14
w
?u
II
I
D
a
0
0
0
m
0
z
-?v
'O
O
V
m
w
w
V
I
0
N
0
.p
N

?
D
-o I

`
r'
IE?IE -

90% PLANS SUBMITTAL
0
? 00
s

9 ?
z
"

D

'?
O

?
?u
i
Ai
CO, G
G7 7o a ?irSn
? 'i
N ?N
Ih
14 0 0 m A

b n b
? w O
in

b Y ? V 4
t
a
m m y
O
cl
a
b
O
'08 O
x
a y
ox
ca a
?N
y
4
d>
®?
? zz
00
V W W
boo
0
?®
rb
H
v^^J
qJ O
V
n
p w w
N ?
O

rn w
L W

_ _ it

o T v'
a °
0 3 ?
c p
o.
y c 0
a S
2
0
0
s
o T m m?= N
O O O
:3 £ 0 o o
I o O
3 3 M 0- N
°- o
I
I I I,
-I
II?Li
N
fD a- to la'
^
O
p
3 a N
a cr
III
4
b
O
O ED
STTmP 3 o o aaa as a oao
3 c o o. 3 a a°_' '^ C`3 v Op v v ny v v m c 0
f]{. 2 O C3. - '91 7 O N O N N N O IV (D O (D ,, N c
r {O f9 O a C 4] la fa fC O c9 is N .? . la . a S C
c o a 3 m m a- a a n ,, m a a c
n° a' a- ° g W' -° = W
U3 ct0O a- a 3 3 C$ 3 + a o
O W W? C?? C Y
DD °c 3
ci 7 a a
o a. 3 0 ° 0 3
a ca n ° `?
7C' O O O] o W
c
q CL o
v ° b
C
I
.0-0 O I I I CO
p T p
a M 'O n •D a- 9 -0 9 N« R O
3=032= ' NO ON ON p' p
,?` ,a ? ? n to to
H CL n o_ 3 `8. `&. m
cr c a o o a'
3 o• co 0
a °• 0 O a c c c°o °,
O c a o n N
c a. - a W o a a. N 1017'
3
a_ _ o m
n v
T
O
o
3
.I
In In
I I
",O .9 .Q .0 m 'O ? 'O '?O "O ? L? ap [? 70 70 N A N
'D v nSVa 'o M:' v nu v v 2,
N N N N O N to o N a O N ' S >• '• N' ?a a 3 to a. B. ' n. a. n n a a a.
:R 10 o
fD f9 fp fD O p O ra 10 Ip 3 3 a O p
a a a c °, a a o^?
D R -°.o va g g a
c_ a a 0 10, C- C. C.
W O
O
p• a N N N :3
O a W W
7' ^^ tt
N W W rt (? ?. '? M. ,
3 0 0 0 s
N y?
0
y 3 m
N
m m m I ?? D 1/ , •
a
7[7010
???II I I a
(O' ° lD' ° {O' ° v v v v v°N-'"• v H $ W f i 17 "? v ° ° Q z a a U
o Boa°j c. n `? > > > > to O °a W a a c p 10o m m
`a a. O ° W W O (D "'1 Z ° a 7 p a- ,,,, a. H to _v, W p ? -1
n O CL O
a. ?, ....I W rtc a. -103 W 7 ._ O ol :3 :3
so. to 0
CL 0 03' a 2. 56
T O" A --1 f? n O S O_ O O O M O O - 03 Cm
0 -0 0 2. :r n O , O Q' O ° W W ' '9 O 0
S W O ' 7' O = x IK?
O
S
10 7
3 ? °
°- ' M 3' Q °_ W a o W W ?' a- c
O O [ N <
z 3:
n° l1 ° a v o
n ° m
0 o a -
co aa n c • o C o 3
!D c, W O in m
in in C a
m m I
V
1 I I I j I ?--?
I I I I I I
-" 7 - m B B m¢ ¢ i m m ®e ¢-- O- o- o l p
?, o cn a c D 3 3 . a. 3 < 3 ;' a a a. to
P
,O a c? °. o n ° ro (??" tip S < 3
> > > 3 0 0 0 ° oa G71 : CA CA 0
s
IA 0
a O= W W O N N = .? C O. •? 4. 41 ad O o' O a' ca a S
p D O O 3 N a' S N V1 O D. N °L 4, 41 ° S ' O
o' O H p O o H f1 O C1 it -1 = 7' 4' W C) cr C3 a m o o Gl W o R CL 4A o N ? <° a
M Q. U3
C
o V 0 0? x ?°? c°o .0 0 co o v a ? 'D a cr 2 to
_ = O O 7 O 'O n' O W Q : 4
C :3 C N n' n W
O
0 o m o o m C
n N ti m
o C
N
Na m CC
%' I I I I ( I I
b C o 0
O o ? a O © ? i ®o ? ? !?] ®B R ? ? o ® 0
0
m
0
r

m
m
vi
w
r
;D
II
h
w O
C
c?
?o
z?
z
oil
) ^
C)
z
SSSYYSS4YYSf SS
„t
B
S 2 q
z
0
s
0
O
ca

W y °b
b y •y. n
o C4
•y ?7
ti y
C ^^? y
VJ °
n °y
lT1 "yi
b h
°
°
r
z Nm
rn co
I S". o p N
o? (?2x xo
mm wmrrnc?8c?,g?.z?
f? V1
8 a o ;Z: p p?ti ?
p atnoc?t?"ii?mrn
p? w??p~??Arnjrnxrnzi?
.-.rn rnip~00P 2
+sp a?+?? cCil?pw2
p? grno?y?2?rnrn
=1by,a, `=1°:?O
p ? in?H r?2
{ o?
rn

IZ)
r-Tl
Z
in
m N
m
Z a
O O
AZ
?o
2 A
N n
_I
O
m z
O N
'p Z
0
a
m m
n Z
o
? O
m +?
r o
O 'n
n
a =
~ N
O
Z m
a op
O ?
N -i
m
-1
v
w
ti
.14
O
7
O
O
O
m
W ti
K m
Io
mz
zo
n
?o
pn
o?
? a
m
H D
Z =
-? N
O D
O ?
nm
a?+
~ 2
m
m
m
m
n
O
2
K
cR!2z r z$ ::$ r zz 2: : p o r F j
N.N. N W • NN NN0 V) CO
yA1 D ? : 9D t? 9 D!O•
O 111'""'"' H• 7C -1 t y -1 N
('p0 z^ : m C0 2
?C W.W m . -IN f - NO m
a a i'=cama
y • 1 • y
Zo ".icy' : 100)
m m w m
r 10
N d ' p
ti V V : : T? •-1 ? V : . T -Ul1 .O V
• N V
Z LA
V : 3 C (al
9c
F
m m s
A.
.•N • W
V 0? W N?+
O
M cl

W W fl
W
W
WK :
UI yy
m m m W WW
f r f' f' V V ?
V 0/• W N•+

W
N Wt PAWa
•
0 0 i
!d•G1 clc9pp ?NVWj ?1 n N?
V.D ra NJiNfD i
•
tD
O
f V V ? V ? ? • fm?1
N
p
?
1?
V UI ONI V•W0 W i
pNp1? W
.LN
N? pWp/? W pNf (T pNNpf? .O
UI V .O ,,ppca i
W V N d •

V V: O
? V • Z VV vN V W V V V O
67 (J RUIN 0#1 • Z
0 d
? CD,D,,pp WV,p i
GD O UIN ?
m r
N• i y
N• NNNN
• 0 NN N0 0d • 0i
•N
o
D p
M.

+ • 2
? S V NJ•l9 Z
V
? O
0 N W N V?
f
?

Y O N m
• ~ N r N t W N R 1
D ?
r NNUINN ? ti
rrrrr
"we
C)
O
r
v
D
w
w
V
Gq

Pr1

t
m=? NCDGR D
_b aka
fffESSSYSi?MEf E f f$
44ff44 4 fffff4EDDNif SSYSfffffSff Sf
qq ggiic
0
H
T
t
2
-1
m
m
N
r
m
N
m
r
U
N
O
0
1
x
a
m
c - i W m
w m
rv m 0 ro
m m A
a N 0my
>7T•<A » » V
31 Dv
1m >9
y31
H >
31 • M'u 0 ZA
O 231
O 00 O O
N 1 =mv 9 V m'O O
: Z9
0 g < < 9 Z
z i 0 0 a- N< s> x> -`> y>> a>
O > 3) O -/U> > D7 b 9 <v <S
m 2
0 y0. x om 0v v
031 T?
m9 my
=M
y
> m
m -4
m m x O•
>mm mm
o mm
o m0 >O >0
m 2m- >x x x mx mx
m > cn -
'1
m m >
m ° n nX?yti mw ma --4 ? s : m-

y
> C
Z rJ
. 3)
m T2> T> T> > M> M a
0
v ? v m >
7C > 2
>
<x U
Ax a
Ux >
m a 0m
a O <
z
0 'o r>-4 r-4 rr4 > 1 m-1 m> y
C x(m0 on U0 m0 m0 m`i
m

i

m
z

2

z

Z

mz

m z
r
m mm 9 0
"I
S N>0
1m 90
T31 ?0
mm D 0 N0 NO
2
m
O m 37 4 9 1 M v m-4 m cl)
.
.1
-IOM 0m Um -i
O m mm mm 0
m O m 9 N 9 m =
r
m m
N .
m a Z A U
m
o;:0 -< •<w U -I Op pN O
Nam Om Om m p . A a C
-4 r 0 0 0 r ae
m K 0
m <'n
>
xm0
y 0 O T
:A H O O m
9
Z 9 0
za m
Am
am- m m 'o-4
m m
m 0
0
o m y
z w < < N 0
0 9 v o a x `i m
o o m °m
v
x• N
U N
U U m
U
9m
31 m m U
m

U
a a m
t 1 y `

i-
CA
N
O
+
w
m
0
0
O
O-
N
0
0

Z
Q
Z A
o
n
C bN w
m
` n A
??2tZo
M co
? p N Z 0
V?mG1?0 1? p?T
l
ill, c !q
0 lal 00 Z
N
N ?
Op
N -
PC` k I ?- i D
. SEC
M NE
TYP: SEC. NO. 1
A
?00
?E
N I.•
N
N
o0+
P?
a0
oo+z
0.
00
+Og
s
O V
+Z
00
O
00
O?
?Z
O
c, S
O?
cZ
00

IO o -? cot
?
? N
VN ?
MATCHLINE
INSET 'A'
V

w <

N
O
-4
O

O
N N
l / m
r C7 m
rn °
o g
Z
z m
z m
o ?, I
I
/1,
A
c?
a0
GRADE Cr= I=
POINT =;;I
w

b O

o'

N
m
m
\ s
?
io
N
N
b N a
N
r?
f?
N
0
m cmSC ?-?0 r?-?- m
CN.) [1 `n Oa ? v
+> 09> ++
14 N
?DO vt LM +? M-'m OO 000
0 ,=t
(A S_^ 0 z
dim
V?0 -10
O Z
N 1) o
ca 0
T + O CA
N R1 w
w A v A Sao tN
T
+ 00° ?o 0
Z 3 0-a F na
0 Ln 0{'NN
z
+ . rg
o m u 0
02..0 mzz1
0 C3
,. N
0 ?GN,A
a-m 14
`I
ss? m
> ?Fnr ?o ¦ ? ? QJ
T7>?i, '? Q K
m m W y N N D O a ••
a °?on Q'Ja ??? m ? ? ¦ ? ??
c A a aeva A ?? ?? ?
-z =7
°a
a O
a
O -Ai -rl H y ? ? O? ? u Cl)
m YI
Z ?
D?. N cF °` c a 0 0 R
2w E r-
86? N F 0
II ? N
M A
0 g a
o
Q [9
z?. 0 0
O? m
Wo N ?4?
A N /\
F n
m co
H ,? F
o?= a
P
r
J J J J O O V/ (?
1 l ?
0 P4
o r' Z
?
c 00
z?
i 7
yr
a
?
- z?
°r
?r
- - ti A
2
?A
I
A
_ N
I'l Pi -- a?
O L` N
v C
?-s
1.
1oo0
m
zQ
a??o co
Hi i
Z {q • O •y
00
O O N
- Xp r y
oo r
J clai m
°
>
os o ? n?
yo 70
A F F N
a m YYY
m
o >- o_
r
y
O ? O
r r?+ r x
O

3

?

N

? m

v r

?

a
W

? v m
a
K
7 yd
O `?
a °
Q w yC
t' ? m ??yyy}}}

+ ?

g
8 7
O O <
?C
N ?
?
O o O O O O O Qp
c
G N p N
P P p N?
1$+j

N
Fp
O -
?
O N_y
6
J

P
N QaN
O }N}
J Y
A

A
NJa
A
y

m ?
! ? ?i zi 4 =a 21 21 !1 ?1 ?l !1 23 21 21 ?i 21 LOCATION (LT, RT, OR CLr

v
V i FROM
s '
TO STRUCTURE NO.
V
u v
Y
Y M
Is '
li
$ TOP ELEVATKIN

8
$
ti
Jt
f4
S
g
w
$
Zj
$ INVERTELEVATION

2t
8
8
$
?1
8
$
93
D
g
$ INVERT ELEVATION
SLOPE CRITICAL
M
?3 ? ? m of ? Y 2g
I
?
e4

R
.ou .?
.ou y
.C11
.ou
i
.011
?
ATI qqq
Ptni

.101

.tat
?
y
13.6DE DRAIN PU'E O
11' CID[ GRAIN PIPH 1?.1
21' SIDE DRAIN PIPE
R.C.P.
v
a ,A
- - PER EACH (0' TNRU 3.01 GUAISTIEI
FOR DRAINAGE O
m
6.7 TNRU 10.0'
> STRUCTURES

'TOTAL L,
FOR PAY M
l'y
10 0' AND ?? u r
.
QUANTITY SHALL CE COL
A'*(1.3X COL-01 ti F'1 G
O
C.B. STD. 110.01 OR STD. 310.02 3'^1
O

- o

M.D.L TYPE V STD. 80.13 M
W
M.01 FRAME AND NARROW SLOT SAO ORATES STD. 8031

MDJ. FRAME MATH TWO ORATES STD.80.21
TRAFFIC CEAMW DROP INLET STD. 80.33
J.B. STD. W.31 OR 81.32
`11.I
_I
O 1/?7V+1
^

T.B.J.& SM. SUM y
?

MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER, SM. 80.8 ? -
4y
TEMP. STEEL PLATE COVER ?
E?•1
r
r__
vJ

a

CORR. STEEL ELBOWS NO. S SIZE
0
u
CONC. COLLARS CL'B' C.Y. STD. 110.72
o
u ' ?
..
CONC. t BRICK PIPE PLUG, C.Y. STD. 80.71

$
$
S
PIPE REMOVAL LIN. FT. gg
g
h ?

REVISIONS
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
?n
C
m
n

NIN

cnlw v 6

r?? D
AIW
N N
00

l
m

p
O
CTN
O
-+ N
= C
A o?
n
= ?
N
4m?`Irpp?
1
i
4m???pp?
II II p II II II
II LDwv ,qp
URN,-?
oma??op?
R II R II II II
otVO+?q??
r ?
n
?

O
i
C7
O
M
A

g
D
m

0
ri N

in
i
I
I
I
? I
x
I I?
I o
o I
rn ;olQ, I
4T •?J
L .
I
I I I
I? I I II, ..
x? II I III
I I I I I I ?
°
a
? m
- Ila illl Ilii
I I?
?I N? I
n
I
I
I r
.
H II
I
ll?
?
I I
?,
,
"? ? R I I i Ili! I
.
IIII
?? \ ?II
I
_
I
=D
??N ? III I? III
??ti?

I
ndf MAX
- P
tat 1
'i
1 ..
?r

JYOJ:re
(- -

°a g A ® 41
P
?
R
+l
z c
N NO N JI

awo
•
?? m I
Z
o
(
I ? - p
I
\? r
g
% ,

?R?
-• J
7LA
{A "' c c
H +/
cm
?
Y,
O
C + ++ yC 9)
?r N+`'r /?? ggmm''
a
ff
00 V)
36'Co,C /

4
VCP-r
ss «? 12• VCP
o
LL.bYN??
M.ZL.
N.ZC.ams o;
m II 0
IIM1,
= 00
O
m?0 li?
TTTT
o oam Ln?
yP X00 N

N i °°
mN
?
x
0
N
v

6e'6/ n
r

STSTTIS'6 30'f8G
3.SI.L2.[LS 27+.71 -M- __._'--
F
N m4°
on°°
-n
I oz
0
N
S
?I

4 L
m m '°Tv +N
y H AN
fV41
P m Py b '
1 J „
a n?
o°
f
CD
?M
g ' i y}p f?
- 6 C•LtE 01
[ TC
dJ •. ? kli ? I ?
ss

ONO
15+00
m
ro ?oz ?? C
• ti ti
m[$
rri
? n
N
1
S
1 PP
k m
Pit 4
_ ,+ N &m
yI* wg omn
M hl?? ¢ ° 4r
:°s ZZ
y y H
n 0
t ?, O
2
n
m I
z
ti
m
O
wm
woo
°
c? n
.'u m / t'rq'b
o ?
\ 'n /
YL'6/.P
Y5 B9/.yJ6L?61. ?C9S
/06-252•P40 3./S,CS.CLS
uw. u pMLSixI U'021•N Zi'/9Z.1 -?
.B
uut co',
q oQ a

N
N
E op' .
OC o" r.?-UN

a
l
(f UpZ ?of ef?tA
.il
l
? . I
+q
;3a
;HE .

'f
r
CL ..
??u.?j
a,'"s,o?IV 'O ion
r
n

I
' ?
a II
II - ? y °
N
)?

25+00
- J
PLANT[ f

CL SL 612 .
rL
-?

I *L r+
4 y ?k ?'
N ?° a A n I
b m OO

I
I
\r
,O
esr
?n
m
N
2
21
N
O
A
rl.'
20
20
O
F
?i
30•Ca0
X? =
6'CONC CURB - M 99-BY
{ ? ? ? ? I I? ?W I JNOJ I ? ? 4 ? ? I
we m ? - III ? I? Z n I
n r n ^?'
? r
m n , ^ - - ? 9 I`? e
r? o I 1Y I
wo 0 ---_-_
orm
H 0 I I, '?'C .91.0/.9LN
M.904047N ------
BRA UR Q ct *!I o ??r
H AI NM
y
Rif 'mip
O
???111
I uuV1 O
?
? ? O
g
y
.Y?
Y h 77
I
9 og...1
? ^1
::
III
P? MMM
CA A
2 ? I
I
= X
1
/1
. I
I

d

I
I i
Z

U 1
n

a 1
1
I
j I
i
w
C I
a

w ?
c c
E

k ea
v _
O1

c -
I

O N V I
C4 A
o
c - -
a m
a ? I
I I
?'_
O ? 9
2. I I
P W Q
CO)
V I
c 3 a
o
4 c
3 d
O 2
R w
o
? e
a a .°.
0

r
I?
co

O I 1

I
I
I
1 1
I I
? I
I I
i
I
I
5 I
?
V

O
z
!

w !

Q
O
O
O
N
M
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
f7
O - - -
-

u
2
N I I
S -
..
O 7
V O
1n N O
N 0
< V
t0 O e}
V
fD
00 Of
7 fD
N Of
W
l9 O co
(a
? ^^
n O 7
r
O
?

I
w 1
I

o
o
o $

0 $

0 o
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
o
c 0
o
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
$ 0
o
0 0
o 0
0
00 0
0
c 0
o 0
0 0
0

J
OO
0
O
O
O
O
0 p
J
O
C
C
O
p
O
O
O 0 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O p
:7 0
O 0
O 0
O
„ 1 o
+
+ p
}
+ 0
+ = O ?n O N O W) O In J
? J
0 N n w ao 0 rn 0
N h N
N N N N N N N N ? ? m m N N E N
N +
fV m
M I

fV i
Z I I
$$$$$3MISAS$$S$$S

**I
Guilford County
Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over North Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1001(18)
State Project No. 8.2494901
T.I.P. No. B-3337
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE ,Gregory J. Thorp , P .D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCODT
?L (i -rA (C; q - a
DATE John F. Sullivan, III, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
4
Guilford County
Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over North Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1001(18)
State Project No. 8.2494901
T.I.P. No. B-3337
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February 2004
Document Prepared by:
TGS Engineers
w •o
v ? a
s v?
Date
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
? 1?m C•
? ?
wY??
Vie. ,.t .. •a,
1'Kenneth Burleson,
Project Manager
Elmo E. Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Guilford County
Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over North Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1001(18)
State Project No. 8.2494901
T.I.P. No. B-3337
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions,
State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design Standards Sensitive Watersheds, Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification
Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following commitments
have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division 7 and Highway Design:
The new crossing will include horizontal clearance for a 10-foot (3-meter) wide pathway
beneath the bridge along the south side of North Buffalo Creek.
B-3337 Categorical Exclusion
February 2004
Green Sheet

Guilford County
Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over North Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1001(18)
State Project No. 8.2494901
T.I.P. No. B-3337
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 527 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Department
of Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program.
The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 48.9 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally
deficient.The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central part of Guilford County in Greensboro just north of
the central business district (Figure 1). SR 1001 (Church Street) is classified as an
Urban Collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. At the
crossing, Church Street is three lanes wide and accommodates a city bus route. This
section of SR 1001 (Church Street) is a part of the Greensboro designated bicycle route
called the Carolina Circle (Figure la).
The land use in the immediate vicinity of Bridge No. 527 is a mixture of commercial,
service and residential. North of the bridge there are medical and service uses. North of
the bridge and to the west of Church Street are older established single-family homes
and schools. Greensboro Fire Station 1 and a fire training center is immediately
southeast of the bridge. This complex includes fire, administration, maintenance,
training and logistics functions. A larger concentration of medical buildings are south of
the bridge near Moses Cone Hospital. According to the Greensboro city planner, there
is little suitable empty space for additional development (Figure 2).
The land in the southwest quadrant is owned by Moses Cone Hospital and is leased to
the City of Greensboro who in turn has an agreement with the Audubon Society to
preserve the natural area.
4
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1001 has a 44-foot (13.4-meter) curb and gutter cross
section accommodating 2 northbound and 1 southbound travel lanes with 6-foot (1.8-
meter) grass shoulders (Figure 3). The roadway grade is relatively uniform throughout
the project. The existing bridge is on a tangent. The roadway is situated approximately
18 feet (5.5 meters) above the North Buffalo Creek stream bed.
Bridge No. 527 is a two-span structure. The superstructure consists of a reinforced
concrete deck on I-beams with 5-foot (1.5-meter) sidewalks on both sides of the bridge.
Sidewalks are only present on the east side approaches and do not extend beyond the
project limits. The substructure consists of end bents of reinforced concrete caps on
steel piles and interior bents of reinforced concrete piers and bents on spread footings
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1965 and is in fair condition. The
overall length of the structure is 113 feet (34.4 meters). The clear roadway width is 44
feet (13.4 meters). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 25 tons for single vehicles
and 28 tons for truck-tractors semi-trailers.
The current traffic volume of 16,800 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to
19,500 VPD by the year 2030. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit on
this section of SR 1001 is 35 miles (56 kilometers) per hour.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but power and telephone lines are
overhead as they cross North Buffalo Creek. There is a USGS gage station (Gage No.
02095271 `North Buffalo Creek at Church Street at Greensboro, NC') attached to the
southwest corner of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be medium.
The City of Greensboro Parks & Recreation Department is planning to construct a trail
along the south side of North Buffalo Creek through the project area. They have requested
that the design for the bridge replacement include providing clearance for this trail to pass
underneath Church Street thus eliminating an at-grade crossing of Church Street.
Sixteen accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 527 during the period from
June 2000 through May 2003.
Fifty-eight school busses cross this bridge daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure will consist of a 3-span bridge
approximately 125 feet (38 meters) in length. To avoid substantial right of way
impacts, the replacement bridge will have approximately the same roadway grade
as the existing structure. The new crossing will include horizontal clearance for a
2
10-foot (3-meter) wide pathway beneath the bridge along the south side of North
Buffalo Creek.
The City of Greensboro plans to widen SR 1001 (Church Street) to a five-lane curb
and gutter typical section. Their standard five lane typical section includes four
l 1-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and a 10-foot (3-meter) center turn lane. As bicycle
accommodations are needed at this crossing, 2 feet (0.6-meters) of additional
pavement width is proposed for the outside travel lanes. Therefore, a 62-foot (19-
meter) face-to-face curb and gutter roadway with sidewalks on both sides is
proposed to accommodate their future plans for the route to provide 5-lanes and
accommodate bicycles. The new structure will be approximately 73 feet (22.3
meters) wide between the railing faces to accommodate the requested five-lane
roadway with 5.5-foot (1.7-meter) sidewalks on both sides of the bridge
(Figure 4). An 8-foot (2.4-meter) berm will be provided on both sides of the
approach roadway to accommodate 5-foot (1.5-meter) sidewalks (Figure 5).
Pavement markings for 13-foot (4-meter) wide outside lanes on both the bridge
and approach outside travel lanes will accommodate bicycle traffic.
B. Build Alternatives
Due to the adjacent development along the northern approach and the restrictive
land use constraints along the southern approach, a single construction alternative
has been developed and coordinated with the City of Greensboro for replacing
Guilford County Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek.
Alternative 1 (Preferred) replaces the bridge in the existing location. Traffic will be
maintained on-site by utilizing staged construction. One lane of traffic in each
direction will be maintained throughout the construction period. The project
length is approximately 960 feet (292.7 meters) long and will have a 40 mile per
hour (64 kilometers per hour) design speed.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternatives replacing the crossing on a new alignment adjacent to the existing
alignment were eliminated from further study due to the proximity of existing
development and the restrictive land use in the area.
The "do-nothing" or "no-build" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not acceptable due to the high volume traffic service provided
by this roadway.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and determined
condition. The latest bridge inspection report describes widespread rusting of the
metal components, cracking of the concrete components and scour at the
abutment caps.
3
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1 (Preferred) replaces Bridge No. 527 in its existing location utilizing
staged construction to maintain traffic on-site during construction. This
alternative minimized damages to the adjacent development along the northern
approach and avoids the restrictive land use constraints along the southern
approach.
The NCDOT Division 7 Engineer and the City of Greensboro concur with the
recommendation of Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the preferred alternative, based on current prices, are as
follows:
Alternative 1
Structure $765,000.00
Roadway Approaches 243,325.00
Structure Removal 61,120.00
Misc. & Mob. 230,555.00
Eng. & Contingencies 200,000.00
Total Construction Cost $ 1,500,000.00
Right-of-way Costs 327,000.00
Total Project Cost $ 1,827,000.00
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $1,587,000 including $97,000 for right-of-way,
$1,350,000 for construction and $140,000 prior years' expense.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
4
mapping (Greensboro, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1995), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping Greensboro, NC NWI
quadrangle, 1995), and aerial photography (scale: l inch= 100 feet).
A. Methodology
A natural resources field investigation for Bridge No. 527 was conducted on June
13, 2001. During the site visit, the study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for substantial features. For purposes of the field investigation and to
assure proper area coverage, the study corridor was assumed to be approximately
1000 feet (305 meters) in length (500 feet [152.4 meters] to the south and north
of the existing structure), with a width extending approximately 200 feet (61
meters) west and 100 feet (30.5 meters) east of the SR 1001 centerline. Plant
community area and jurisdictional area calculations provided in this report are
based on a 100-foot (30.5-meter) corridor centered on the existing alignment.
Final impacts will be limited to cut-and-fill boundaries of the project. Stream
area to be shaded is based on approximate bridge and stream widths. Special
concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential habitat for protected species
and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in North Buffalo Creek.
Bridge No. 527 is located along SR 1001 (Church Street) at North Buffalo Creek
within the city limits of Greensboro, North Carolina. The study corridor
includes the channel and a portion of the floodplain adjacent to North Buffalo
Creek. The section of North Buffalo Creek involved with the bridge replacement
enters the study corridor from the southwest, parallels the west side of Church
Street, then flows under the subject bridge and exits the study corridor to the
east. North Buffalo Creek enters a confluence with Reedy Fork River
approximately 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) to the northeast. Land use within the
study corridor is primarily paved impervious surfaces and developed land, but
does include a successional shrub assemblage and scattered trees along both
banks of North Buffalo Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al.
(1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA
1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification
scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Geographical distribution and
habitat requirements of terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms mentioned in
this document were obtained by supportive literature (Webster et al. 1985, Potter
5
et al. 1980, Martof et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and
Braswell 1995). Fish and wildlife nomenclature follow current standards. Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available
sources (DWQ 1996a, DWQ 1996b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken
to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges
extending into Guilford County was obtained prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federally or
state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located within the North American Southern Outer
Piedmont and is underlain by the Amphibolite and Biotite Gneiss geologic
formation. The landscape is characterized by broad, gently sloping uplands,
narrow convex ridges, and moderately steep valley slopes. Study corridor
elevations rise from approximately 735 feet (224 .meters) National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) at stream side to 800 feet (243.8 meters) NGVD at the
southern terminus of the study corridor (Greensboro, NC USGS quadrangle).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (SCS 1977) indicates that only one
soil series, Mecklenburg-Urban land complex is mapped within the study
corridor. The Mecklenburg-Urban land complex series consists of moderately
deep, nearly level, well-drained soil on 2-10 percent slopes along major streams
anj creeks. This series typically forms in areas receiving heavy development
and topography modification to fit desired uses. Mecklenburg-Urban land
complex is considered to be non-hydric with no hydric inclusions in Guilford
County (NRCS 1991).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-06-02 of the Cape Fear
River Basin (DWQ 1996b). This area is part of USGS accounting unit
03030002 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The section of
North Buffalo Creek crossed by the subject bridge has been assigned
Stream Index Number 16-11-14-1 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ 1996a). The drainage area for this project is 14.2 square miles
(36.8 square kilometers).
2. Stream Characteristics
North Buffalo Creek is a third-order stream within a watershed primarily
6
characterized by forest and urban land. Within the study corridor, North
Buffalo Creek is wide and deeply entrenched, exhibits weak sinuosity and
developed riffle/pool sequencing. The stream has been straightened on the
west side of the study corridor. Stream width is approximately 35 feet
(10.7 meters) at the point of the bridge crossing. The banks drop steeply
from the floodplain approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) on each side of the
stream, are composed of fine textured soil, and rise abruptly to the
narrow floodplain. The substrate is composed primarily of coarse sand
and pebbles with some man inserted rip-rap cobble in areas that the
channel has been modified.
During the field survey, the water level was below bankfull, flow velocity
was moderate, and depths along the study corridor varied from 0.5 to 3.0
feet (0.2 to 0.9 meter). Persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was not
observed. The stream was clear during the field visit, with visibility to
the bottom in pools.
3. Best Usage Classification and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based
on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments
of streams in the basin. A best usage classification of C has been
assigned to North Buffalo Creek. The designation C denotes water
supply waters that are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection,
agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary recreation refers to
wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with
waters on an organized or frequent basis.
No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-1I)
waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. No
watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole-basin
approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the
state. Water quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the
Cape Fear River basin management plan. Water quality in North Buffalo
Creek is currently designated Poor based on macroinvertebrate and fish
samples. The stream has been monitored approximately 0.9 mile (1.5
kilometers) downstream of the study corridor and currently has a use
support rating of Not Supporting. Sub-basin 03-06-02 supports eight
major point-source dischargers responsible for discharging 67.30 million
gallons per day (254.76 million liters per day). The sub-basin also
7
supports 31 minor point-source dischargers responsible for discharging
2.16 million gallons per day (8.18 million liters per day). Non-point
source pollution and agriculture are the prime sources of impairment
within this sub-basin (DWQ 1996a). There are two major and four minor
point-sources that discharge directly into North Buffalo Creek.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
The preferred alternative includes complete bridging of North Buffalo
Creek to maintain the current water quality, aquatic habitat, and now
regime. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation
will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control
schedule and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The
contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications
for Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes,
berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to
waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites;
management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
For the preferred alternative, the proposed bridge replacement will allow
for continuation of pre-project stream flows in North Buffalo Creek,
thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts
resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to
minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT BMPs for the Protection
of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the
project.
There is potential for components of the deck and rails to be dropped into
waters of the United States, resulting in a temporary fill of approximately
176.57 cubic yards (134.9 cubic meters). NCDOT's BMPs for Bridge
Demolition and Removal must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor:
riparian shrub assemblage and disturbed/maintained land. These plant
communities are described below.
8
Riparian Shrub Assemblage- Riparian shrub assemblage occurs on the
floodplain and along the banks of North Buffalo Creek. This is a
disturbed community and shows signs of succeeding to mesic mixed
hardwood forest. The assemblage supports species indicative of a mesic
environment. Scattered trees include American sycamore (Fagus
grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and American elm (Ulmus americana). A
developed shrub layer includes saplings of the canopy, as well as red
maple (Acer rubrum), boxelder (A. negundo), silver maple (A.
saccharum), and white mulberry (Morus alba). The dense understory is
dominated by elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), while jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), and various knotweeds (Polygonum spp.) also
occur. Scattered vines are common along ecotonal boundaries and
include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Disturbed/Maintained Land - Disturbed/maintained land occurs along
the SR 1001 right-of-way and within a power line corridor adjacent to the
west side of SR 1001. The roadside right-of-way area is approximately
10 feet (3.0 meters) wide. The power line corridor west of the road is
approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. These areas support an
herb/grass assemblage which includes bluegrass (Poa sp.), fescue
(Festuca sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), blackberries (Rubus spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), vetch (Vicia sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), and cranesbill (Geranium
carolinianum). Scattered shrubs within this community include smooth
sumac (Rhus glabra), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and red
mulberry (Morus rubra).
2. Plant Community Impacts within the Study Corridor
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within the corridor. A summary of potential plant
community areas within the preferred alternative corridor is presented in
the following table.
9
Plant Community Impacts Table: Area of each plant community within
the preferred corridor. Measurements are given in acres, with hectares in
parentheses.
Plant
Community Alternative 1
(Preferred)
Permanent
Maintained/
Disturbed Land 0.19 (0.08)
Riparian Shrub
Assemblage 0.12 (0.05)
TOTAL: 0.31 (0.13)
Actual impacts are expected to be less than the areas represented here
since impacts will be limited to cut-and-fill boundaries.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading the existing bridge
are minimal. No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created
by the preferred alternative, as the project will result only in relocation of
community boundaries. The preferred alternative may only claim narrow
strips of adjacent natural communities.
Roadside-forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species
into local natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive
species utilizing roadsides is kudzu (Pueria lobata). The establishment of
a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as practicable will limit
the availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
3. Wildlife
No mammals were observed within the study corridor; however, tracks
were observed of raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossum
(Didelphis marsupialis). Evidence of recent beaver (Castor canadensis)
activity was seen within the stream channel and on the stream bank.
Other Mammals expected to occur within the study corridor include
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus
subflavus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray - squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), weasel
(Mustela frenata), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus).
Bird species that were identified during the field visit are northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
10
comunon grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos),
song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus
ater), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), and eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). The stream
side habitat may also be expected to support northern flicker (Colaptes
auratus), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), common
yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), barred owl
(Stria varia), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), tufted titmouse
(Baeolophus bicolor), white-hreasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), gray
catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
albicollis).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study
corridor. Species that might be expected in this habitat are Fowler's toad
(Bufo woodhousei), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), rough green snake
(Opheidrys aestivus), eastern ribbon snake (Tieamnophis sauritus), and
eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina).
No aquatic amphibian or reptile was observed during field investigations.
North Buffalo Creek provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-
aquatic reptiles including snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Typical amphibian species for
this habitat type include northern cricket frog (Acris gryllus) and green
frog (Rana clamitans). Only one mollusk was observed within the study
corridor, the Asian clam (Corbicula jluminea). Crayfish chimneys were
observed outside of the banks and adjacent to the stream.
No sampling was undertaken in North Buffalo Creek to determine fishery
potential. Small minnows were seen during visual surveys, but no larger
fish were noted. Species which may be present in North Buffalo Creek
include redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), whitefin shiner (Notropis niveus), greenfin
shiner (N. chloristius), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), and
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus). Migratory fish are not expected to
occur within the study corridor.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. No substantial
habitat fragmentation is expected since potential improvements will be
restricted to or adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction noise
and associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected
to be inconsequential. Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended
sediments resulting from construction of bridge bents will affect benthic
populations on a short-term basis. Temporary impacts to downstream
habitats from increased sedimentation during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of North Buffalo Creek are
subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3).
North Buffalo Creek is characterized on NWI mapping as a riverine,
lower perennial, permanently flooded stream with an unconsolidated
bottom (R2UBli). The field visit verified this characterization, finding
North Buffalo Creek to be a perennial stream with an unconsolidated
bottom of sand, gravel, and pebbles.
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria:
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near
the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA
1987). No vegetated wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United
States" (33 CFR section 328.3) occur within the study corridor.
Within the study corridor, jurisdictional areas are limited to the open
waters of North Buffalo Creek. Replacement of Bridge No. 527 will
result in no direct impacts to jurisdictional areas.
There is potential that components of the bridge deck and rails may be
dropped into waters of the United States during construction. The
resulting temporary fill associated with bridge removal is approximately
176.57 cubic yards (135.0 cubic meters). This project can be classified
as Case 3 according to the DOT "Policy on Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" where no special restrictions
other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
12
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has
made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874, 65916;
December 13, 1996) for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has
made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23.
However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use of this
permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23
will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated
approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge
Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
3. Mitigation
Fill or alteration of streams may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). However, compensatory
mitigation is not expected to be offered for this project due to the
avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional areas. Utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to further minimize impacts. A final
determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for such listing are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the
term "Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the only federally protected species listed
for Guilford County (February 18, 2003 FWS list). Bald eagle is
considered "Threatened" by FWS.
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater
than 6.0 feet (1.8 meters). Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white
head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the
tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may
13
also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season
extends from December through May (Potter et al. 1980). Bald eagles
typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open
water. Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees
for perching (Hamel 1992). Disturbance activities within a primary zone
extending 750 to 1500 feet (229 to 458 meters) from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987).
The FWS recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including
construction and tree cutting within this primary zone. Within a
secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a
distance of 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) from a nest tree, construction and
land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-nesting period.
The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines
where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities
within 1500 feet (458 meters) of known roosting sites.
The study corridor contains no large bodies of open water that might
serve as bald eagle habitat. The nearest large body of water, Richland
Lake, is approximately 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) to the north. Tall, old
trees which might serve as perching sites do grow near the stream, but
lack of open water access is probably a key limiting factor for the species
within the study corridor. NHP records document no occurrences of bald
eagle within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the study corridor, and no
eagles were observed during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The North Buffalo Creek study
corridor contains no suitable open water habitat for bald eagles. No
nearby occurrences have been documented by the NHP, and no eagles
were seen during the site survey. Based on these factors and professional
judgment, the proposed project will not affect bald eagle. NO EFFECT
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 18, 2003 FWS list includes a category of species designated
as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is
one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is
insufficient information to support listing). There is one FSC species
with ranges that extend into Guilford County, the Carolina Darter
(Etheostoma collis lepidinion).
14
3. State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, Candidate, Significantly Rare,
or Proposed (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited
protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-
331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.
106-202 et seq. ). No species with these designations are documented
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted)
on properties included in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford
the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on March 1,
2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by
NCDOT architectural historians and the State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO). None of the properties were considered eligible, and in a concurrence
form dated June 1, 2000 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A
copy of the concurrence form and the SHPO's memorandum of January 3, 2001
are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated January
3, 2001 stated that "We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of
no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which
would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project
as currently proposed." Based upon this memorandum, no archaeological
investigations are required. A copy of the SHPO's memorandum is included in
the Appendix.
15
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of
substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
substantial change is land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No substantial impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way
acquisition will be minimized by the preferred alternative. No relocatees are expected
with the implementation of the Preferred Alternative. The Relocation Report is included
in the Appendix.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether minority or low income populations were receiving
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result
of this project. The investigation determined the project would not disproportionately
impact any minority or low income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project does not require taking lands from any known Section 4(f) properties. There is
one wildlife refuge in the vicinity of the project. The land in the southwest quadrant is
owned by Moses Cone Hospital and is leased to the City of Greensboro who in turn has
an agreement with the Audubon Society to preserve the natural area. The Audubon
Society's agreement with the City of Greensboro could result in this land being
determined a wildlife refuge of local significance. However, the project has been
developed so that no land is taken from and no impacts are anticipated to this property.
There are no lands of publicly-owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of National, State, or local significance taken by the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or
16
important farmlands in the immediate vicinity as a result on the urban character of the
land uses, the Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point nonattainment are for ozone(00 as defined by the EPA. The 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate"
nonattainment areas for 03. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas
were redesignated as maintenance for 03 on November 8, 1993. Section 176(c) of the
CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent
of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Guilford County. The Greensboro Urban Area 2025
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2004-2010 Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Pram WTIP) have been determined to conform to the
intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality conformity approval of the LRTP was
October 1, 2001 and the USDOT air quality approval of the MTIP was October 1, 2003.
The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found
in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There have been no substantial changes in the project's
design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analysis.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process and no additional reports are necessary.
Since the project is located along the existing alignment and will not substantially
increase traffic volumes, the impact of noise levels will not be substantial due to the
existing development within the project area. Noise levels will increase during
construction, but the increase will only be temporary. Also, construction activities are
usually conducted only during daylight hours along project of this nature. Therefore,
traffic noise reports are considered unnecessary. This noise assessment completes the
requirements for evaluating highway traffic noise in Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 772
Guilford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project
area is included in a detailed study for North Buffalo Creek in Guilford County. Bridge
No. 527 is located in a 100 year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
floodplain. The base floodway elevation is listed as 737 feet (224.6 meters). The
floodplain for North Buffalo Creek at the project crossing is shown in Figure 6. The final
design of the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond
the current 100-year floodplain limits. The length of the new structure may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies. The proposed replacement will not adversely affect the existing floodplain, or
17
modify flood characteristics, and will have minimal impacts on the floodplain due to
roadway encroachment. The existing drainage pattern will not be affected.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks hazardous wastes sites within the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On November 15, 2000, a scoping letter was mailed to federal, state and local agencies
to solicit input regarding this bridge replacement. Extensive coordination with City of
Greensboro officials was conducted during the development of the preferred alternative.
In September 2003, a project newsletter describing the preferred alternative was mailed to
nearby property owners and other interested parties. A Citizens Informational Workshop
was held on Thursday, October 9, 2003, in the NCDOT Division 7 Office. No issues were
raised during the workshop and no additional written comments have been received.
X. AGENCY COMMENTS
City of Greensboro - Director of Transportation
Comment: We propose that the bridge needs to acconunodate 5 lanes with wide
outside lanes for bicycle traffic and sidewalks on both sides.
Response: Coordination with the City of Greensboro resulted in the proposed 62-foot
(19-meter) face-to-face curb and gutter width on the bridge with sidewalks
on both sides. An 8-foot (2.4-meter) berm will be provided on both sides
of the approach roadway to accommodate 5-foot (1.5-meter) sidewalks.
Pavement markings for 13-foot (4-meter) wide outside lanes on both the
bridge and approach outside travel lanes will accommodate bicycle traffic.
Comment: We recommend that the Alternate 1 construction staging proposal be
selected.
Response: Alternate 1 with construction staging is the preferred alternative for this
project.
Comment: The City's Parks & Recreation Department is planning to construct a trail
18
(along the south side of North Buffalo Creek) that will connect an existing
trail west of the project to a proposed park in northeast Greensboro. The
Parks & Recreation Department respectfully request that the design for the
bridge include providing clearance for the trail to pass underneath thus
eliminating an at-grade crossing.
Response: The new crossing will include horizontal clearance for a ] 0-foot (3-meter)
wide pathway beneath the south end of the bridge and access will be
allowed beneath the new crossing for this pathway.
19
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -
79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996a. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Management Plan: Draft. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996b. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for
the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The
Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the
United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North
America Program.
LeGrand, H. E. and S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
20
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1991. Hydric Soils:
Guilford County, North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation
Service Technical Guide, Section II-A 2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp. Potter,
E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater
Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North
Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Palmer, W.M. and
A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
21
-urnwall r
State St.
Bridge No. 527
r
u
acy t. ?
U
z
li„ Il,do c,•eeti
3? Drip
C? 0
o ?
00 ?,
.o
e
x
V

E. endov?r Ave. x I 220
0? < ? Osc0a1?,
ate.. ,?
? a?6tN in
UId F`/O R
w,dm
MAN
.s t
V7
O
A
a
AV
1J
ire
APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 1000
FEET
N
.r
cn
29
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY Bridge No. 527
on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over North Buffalo Creek
Greensboro, NC
TIP No. B-3337
St.
d
W
Y
G
f
3.d
Figure I

1
l
r?
i
' f
j
1J
jai
.ATE SCALE
1500
FEET I
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
«? » °! & Environmental Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY Bridge No. 527
on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over North Buffalo Creek
Greensboro, NC
TIP No. B-3337
I Figure 1 a
r a
n
r? tF
Bridge No. 527
Alternative 1

t ?S
P
?
4
{ Y i.
r?
'

Meters 30

Y 0 100
Feel

v`+ APPRO>_INIATE SCALE

t

S4
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY
Bridge No. 527
on SR 1001 (Church Street)
Over North Buffalo Creek
'riP No. B-3337
Alternate I
f ign re 2

1. _f

3k

,
4

t 1. t 1 4f.4
Y ?
7

£
?f7? V J 41,
c
vl,
Aa, 6.
s.
Looking, North

rr
x
ridge r\,Toe 527

Looking South
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY
Bridge No. 527
on SR 1001 (Church Street)
Over North Buffalo Creek
TIP No. B-3337

Figure 3

09
O'
?t
oC ?
N ?
I?

?. W
W
O ?
O U
oC O
N Q
Z U.
O D
N
N
00
Z Z
W pe
ct O
co
U
b
Ly
C
E
O
p
its ?

^

o
_ U C O
Z N MD
0
C Z
O Z 0 CL
P

C7 0
O

O
U
O
H
w
z
0

N N
C4 C4
N
q ?
y
e
0 0
4 4

O
N
J
I
00
ZZ
V1 0
0
00 61
N
OBI
N
0
Z
O
o•
N
01I
CiJ
1_ _
?O
a0 irf O
? O
00
ZZ
_Fn0
CO
U
A14
q3
oW
a0
x0
U?
O 4
N
U

o ?
r m

N
m
P,
f °
Z 0In8
u c - ?
; 2
€ '_
?s

W
C,
O?TC Q N
co
Z
m 0 ZF
t7 `o
O

O
U
O
F
U
O
tit.
I an
II U
Q ?
V
?e
n

y.

S7REEf ?
.v. ?
:?. T
???

73
ZONE X
o?

i ;?
)
L
AE I?7s8

? /i
r
1
G?r
73
f
x? 'R M 11
li I IL
?> _
?'. YL=S

.ZONE AE
ZG
1aNKERSIf -pR
w!ZONE AE
740 ZONE X
b,
'k ti l
736
Bridge No. 527 j
FEMA - Floodplain Map of Project Area

0 500
1 FEET I
APPROXIMATE SCALE
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
k7!Y Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
Figure 6
GUILFORD COUNTY
Bridge No. 527
on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over North Buffalo Creek
TIP No. B-3337
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Pose Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 22, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your November 15, 2000, requests for information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge
replacements in Guilford County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information
and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes
for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the
following bridge structures:
1. B-3337 Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 over North Buffalo Creek;
2. B-3652 Bridge No. 20 on SR 4121 over Deep River, and
3. B-3851 Bridge No. 21 on SR 3163(421) over US 29/70.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility
corridors, or previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland
systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where
bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic
regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed.
Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway
embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices
and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside
fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Greensboro and High Point East 7.5
Minute Quadrangles indicate there may be wetland resources in the specific work areas.
However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they
should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using
an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above
guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the
following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Coms of
En6neers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-
place to relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each
bridge be replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Guilford County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of
the project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's
recommendations based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and
comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but
further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of
these taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable
effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be
contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to
advise us during the progression of the planning process, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these
comments, please contact Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
,? - Dr. Garland B. Pardue
cological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/22/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\3brdggui.lfd
Guilford County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern Page I of 2
Updated: 02/18/2003
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
GUILFORD COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bald eaplp Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened(Proposed for
delisting)
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range."
Proposed - A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
CI - A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient
information to support listing.
FSC - A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future
(formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing).
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator)--a species
that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is
listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened
and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP - A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as
threatened on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for
listing on private land.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than SO years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
* * *Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Conforti
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 2, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-3677, B-3504 B-
3694, and B-3700.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
Bridge Memo
2 January 2, 2001
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
Bridge Memo
3 January 2, 2001
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsf field design). This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3404 - Anson County - Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421 - Cabarrus County - Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway. No
comment.
3. B-3822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-1V. We are not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity.
4. B-3828 - Cleveland County - Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 - Davie County - Bridge No. 37 over I40. No comment.
6. 13-3835 - Davie-Forsyth counties - Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands
Bridge Memo
4 January 2, 2001
entirely. The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
7. B-3454 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
8. B-3839 -Forsyth County -Bridge No.139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3840 - Gaston County - Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3851- Guilford County - Bridge No. 21 over US 29/70. No comment.
13. B-3677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April I to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 -Rockingham County - Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 - Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
U
M ?to?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
January 3, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook L
Deputy State HistorYc Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. 527 on State Road 1001 over North Buffalo Creek,
B-3337, Guilford County, ER 01-8185
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore,
we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
IM Fact Tnnra'ZtrPPt 6 Aatniah NnTA f -Ar(%1;"%'lTfl1/_?4(17
l'cdet-u1.4a1 =BRSTP-1001( IS) TIP FB-:337 Counir: Guilford
(_UNCURItENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FUR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
P,rujecr Dcscrin1i0)7: Replace Bridge No X27 on SR 1001 over North Buffalo Creek
On June 1. 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
ederal Highwav Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
El a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
Q? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
[there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
" c,- U- I -c0
Representative; NCD T Date
FHWA. for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Aeencv Date
4ensentitive. O Date

Historic Preservation Officer

h' a surve\ repurt is prepared. a limil copy of this form and. the oniched list X\ ill IW included.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. Jeff Harris
Guilford County Schools
131 Franklin Blvd.
Greensboro, NC 27401
Subject: Guilford County Bridge Replacements
Dear Mr. Hams:
This letter is to update you on the status of the replacement of three bridges in
Guilford County. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has completed the
project development and environmental analysis and begun the design phase for all three
of the following projects.
Replacement of Guilford Co. Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 (Church Street) over N.
Buffalo Creek in Greensboro, Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1001(18)
State Project No. 8.294901, T.I.P. No. B-3337. This project replaces Bridge No. 527 at
the existing location using stage construction to maintain traffic on-site during
construction.
Replacement of Guilford County Bridge No. 21 on SR 3163 (Old US 421, Market
Street) over US 29/70/220 in Greensboro, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-3163(3)
State Project No. 8.2495901, T.I.P. No. B-3851. This project replaces the structure
slightly north of the existing location. The construction will be staged and traffic will be
maintained on-site during construction.
February 23, 2004
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Replacement of Guilford County Bridge No. 20 on SR 4121 (High Point Road) over
Deep River in Jamestown, State Project No. 8.2495801, Federal Project No. BRSTP-
4121(2), TIP No B-3652. This project replaces the existing bridge on the existing
alignment. A temporary detour structure and approaches will be provided to the south of
the existing structure to maintain traffic on-site during construction.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALVsIs
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEssnE. www. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BLNLDING
1 SOUTH VNLMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
The NCDOT is in the process of designing the proposed bridge replacements. If you
would like to check the design status of this project please contact Ms. Cathy Houser,,
P.E. at NCDOT Design Services Unit at [phone]. Construction is anticipated -to
begin in 2005 for all three of these projects. If you have any questions or comments
concerning the project development please contact Mr. Elmo Vance of the Branch at
[phone], extension 263.
Sincerely,
? f Pt 't
Gregory J.1oipe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director,
_ Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Cathy Houser, P.E.
Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
L CA ) (C.-y -1 C/
j?RD 0
W ? W
y r?
N o
GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS
December 4, 2000
William D. Gilmore
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Effects on Guilford County School Buses in Relation to Bridge Replacement Projects
B-3337, B-3851 and B-3652.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The purpose of this letter is to respond with input solicited by NC DOT in regards to the above
named bridge replacement projects. Transportation routing software, TIMS, was used to compile data
concerning the number of crossings by buses daily and alternated routes available. Separated below by
project number and description are the effects of each project to school bus routes and possible ways to
overcome the project's impact.
Bridge Replacement Project B-3337, Replace Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 (N. Church St)
Data indicates that arranged school bus routes cross this bridge approximately 58 times daily. SR
1001 or N. Church St. is a major thoroughfare for bus travel, connecting E. Wendover Ave. to E. Cone
Blvd. This street is utilized to access an elementary school, a high school and a school bus parking site.
Although travel on this section is frequent, the project does not present a problem. Bus routes would be
altered as to detour around this project. Streets used as detours include Ehn St., Yanceyville St., E.
Cornwalis Dr. and E. Northwood St. Currently, there are no bus stops that could not be accessed because
of this project.
Bridge Replacement Project B-3851, Replace Bridge No. 21 on SR 3163 (E. Market St)
Data indicates that arranged school bus routes cross this bridge approximately 65 times daily. SR
3163 or E. Market St. is a major thoroughfare for bus travel connecting East Greensboro to the downtown
area. Closure of this bridge would present a minimal problem since this section is used to travel between
neighborhoods on the east and west sides of US 29/70. Bus routes would be altered as to detour around
this project. Streets used as detours to the north would include E. Bessemer Ave. and Sullivan St., to the
south McConnell Rd. and E. Lee St.. Currently, there are no bus stops that could not be accessed because
of this project.
B U I L D I N G F U T U R E S
131 Franklin Boulevard Greensboro, NC 27401
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
Bridge Replacement Project B-3652, Replace Bridge No. 20 on SR 4121 (W. Main St/Old US 29/70)
Data indicates that arranged school bus routes cross this bridge approximately 41 times daily. SR
4121 or W. Main St is a major thoroughfare for bus travel connecting West Jamestown and East High
Point to the High, Middle and Elementary Schools in that area. Although travel on this section is
frequent, the project does not present a problem as long as buses can travel Parkside Dr. as a detour.
Otherwise, if Parkside Dr. can not be used, travel will be detoured using Scientific Rd and
Dillion/Ragsdale Rd to access the neighborhoods east and west of the bridge. Extra time will accrue on
routes that are currently tight time wise. Therefore, some of the routes will experience a change in stop
sequence or new routes may be created to accommodate the change.
In summary, the above named bridge replacement projects will not present unworkable problems
for the Guilford County Schools Transportation Department.
Sincerely,
Harris
TIMS Program Administrator H
Guilford County Schools
01--4j,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. Jim Westmoreland
Director of Transportation
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
Subject: Replacement of Guilford Co. Bridge No. 527 on SR 1001 (Church Street)
over N. Buffalo Creek in Greensboro, Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1001(18)
State Project No. 8.294901, T.I.P. No. B-3337
Dear Mr. Westmoreland:
This letter is to update you on the status of the replacement of Bridge No. 527 on Church
Street over N. Buffalo Creek in Greensboro. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
has completed the project development and environmental analysis and begun the design phase.
The preferred alternative replaces Bridge No. 527 at the existing location using stage
construction to maintain traffic on-site during construction.
The NCDOT is in the process of designing the proposed bridge replacement at the
existing location. If you would like to check the design status of this project please contact Ms.
Cathy Houser, P.E. at NCDOT Design Services Unit at [phone]. Construction is
anticipated to begin in 2005.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the project development please
contact Mr. Elmo Vance of the Branch at [phone], extension 263.
Branch
February 16, 2004
Gregory AMo h.D. I
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
cc: Cathy Houser, P.E.
Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEastm. www.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BVILOJNG
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
. r
November 16, 2001
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Bridge Replacement Project, TIP Project B-3337
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
_i
The City of Greensboro Department of Transportation appreciates the Opportunity to comment on the proposed bridge
replacement project on Church Street (SR 1001) over Buffalo Creek in Greensboro.
At our meeting with Ron Elmore and Ken Burleson we discussed (1) the proposed project by GDOT to widen Church Street
north and south of the bridge replacement project location; (2) the proposed alternatives for construction staging and
environmental concerns with an adjacent Audubon Natural Area; and (3) a proposed Parks & Recreation trail that is proposed
to cross Church Street within the project limits.
1. City of Greensboro has identified the need to widen Church Street from Northwood Street (south of the project sue) to Cone
Boulevard (north of the project site). Funds for the street widening project are being provided by a municipal bond and
construction is planned to begin as soon as 2005. The cross-section of our proposed Church Street widening exceeds the width
of the bridge replacement project. We propose that the bridge needs to accommodate 5 lanes with wide outside lanes for
bicycle traffic and sidewalks on both sides.
2. We recommend that the Alternate 1 construction staging proposal be selected. The natural Area is leased to the City of
Greensboro for 99 years by the landowner Cone Hospital. And the local chapter of the National Audubon Society has an
agreement with the City of Greensboro to preserve the natural area.
3. The City's Parks & Recreation Department is planning to construct a trail trough the natural area that will connect an
existing trail west of the natural area to a proposed park in northeast Greensboro (please see attached map). The project is
funded by municipal bonds and expected construction by 2003. The Parks & Recreation Department respectfully request that
the design for the bridge include providing clearance for the trail to pass underneath thus eliminating an at-grade crossing.
I appreciate the efforts to include us in your project planning efforts and the requests we have put forward. Please contact me
or Tyler Meyer should you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Jim Westmoreland, P.E.
Director of Transportation
Cc: Ken Burleson, TGS Engineering
Ron Elmore, NCDOT
Tyler Meyer, GDOT Planning Manager
Attachments
t B - 333'1
City o C eesboro
t
N;orivh??,?{ i0 a
November 6, 2001
Jim Westmoreland, P.E.
Director
Greensboro Department of' Transportation
P.U. Box :3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
Dear Jim,
Attached please find a map of the proposed trail, through the Tankersley Drive natural
area, associated with NCDOT's plans for a new bridge on Church Street over Buffalo
Creek. (A copy of the lease for this natural area and the agreement between the City and
the T. Gilbert Pearson Chapter of the Audubon Society are also attached for your
records.)
Through our request for a pedestrian underpass at this location, it is our desire to
incorporate this new bridge into our plans for the Keeley Park Connector Route. As you
may recall this bond project will connect the Latham Park Trail from its current terminus
at Elm Street to Keeley Park by utilizing both sidewalk and trail. A pedestrian underpass
will further our efforts considerably in making this connection.
Should there be an interim between the completion of the new bridge and the completion
of the Keeley Park Greenway we would connect trail users to GDOT's future planned
sidewalk on Church Street.
At your request we have reviewed NCDOT's bridge alternative options for this project
We found Alternative l to be suitable.
Please do not hesitate to call upon us for clarification of the enclosures.
Sincerely,
Candice M. Bruton
Assistant Trails Director
Greensboro Parks & Recreation Department
336-545-5961
1
Y
P.O. Box 3136 • Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 - www.d.greensboro.nc.us - [phone] - TTY # 333.6930

RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR M DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PRWiCT' COUNTY
- :::q Guilford AIIemDlo 1 Of 1 Altem DID
I.D. NO.: 8-3337
DESCRIPTION Or PROJECT. F.A. PROJECT N/A
Replacement of bridge f152T on SR 1001 over 6uftalo Creek
ESTIMATED DISPLACKII INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacem
owners,
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0.15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-SOM
SO up
Residential p 0 p (J D Q
Businesses p v VALUe OF DWELLING OW DWELLING AYARAke
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For R ont
Non-Profit p 0 p 0.20M Q $O-ISO 0-20M t S O-ISO
ANSW n ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 150.250 2D-4m 12 150-250 0
Yes No oln an -rl s-ans"rs. 40-IOM 250-400 40670M 40 290-400 a
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M O 400400 TO.100M 00 400800 1
2. Will sdloois or uhurthes be affect by 100 uP Q 000 uP O IMP 4S 600 up 1111
displace rrent? 10TAL 0 178 12
3. Wine business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by slumber)
project? I The cervices are available elsewhere.
4. Will any bustness be dlsplacW It so.
Indicate size. we. estimated number of
ernplDytleS. minoriCls. etc
?

5. WJ0 re?OCaaon cause s h0llshlg cnortage? .
.
6. Soutte lot available housing (Gsq.
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Reson Housing be considered?
9. Are there largo, disabled. eldeq. etc.
ramilies? 11. Greensboro Housing Autharity
10. WII public housing be needed for projmV 12. Several homes available In area.
X 11. Is public Musing availab)e? U. Business sites for rent available in area.
X 12. Is it last dlere will be adepuete OSS hoUsing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. WS two be a problem of housing vAthln
financial means?
X 14. Are sullable business sites available (Gst
source).
Is. Number mom" estimated to complete
RIELOCATION7 AlZA

1U
J
10-1D?3
Me A Oved D Date
rorm io.4 mevlsea 10/00
Ong" d 1 Copy State ReloaatloD Agent
2 Cow OhAsion RWIli of way
Offte