20051422 Ver 1_Complete File_20050208

Z2
United States Department of the Interior D5 (C
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE "1???
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 8, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 28, 2005 which provided the'U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation that the replacement of Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 over the Deep River in
Guilford County (TIP No. B-3847) will have no effect on the federally threatened bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Based on the information provided and other infonnation available, the Service concurs with
your determination that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle. We believe that the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations
under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
in
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Si e ,
Pete Ben?n
n
W AT F9QG
r
? ni i ta),
(DWI

August 17, 2005
Dr. Greg Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Subject: NCDOT TIP # B-3847, Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) in Guilford County
West Fork Deep River (Oak Hollow Reservoir) [03-06-08, 17-3-(0.7), WS-IV] Q 6^1 c? Z Z
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
This project lies within the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed. This project includes 2,467.4 ft2 of impacts to
the protected riparian buffer (790.5 ft2 in Zone 1 and 1,676.9 ft2 in Zone 2). According to your July 19, 2005
Nationwide 23 Permit Application, there are no practical alternatives that would avoid or further minimize impacts to the
protected riparian buffer. This project has been determined to be exempt from the Randleman Lake Water Supply
riparian area protection requirements per 15A NCAC .02B .0250(2)(e).
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please me at 336-771-4600 extension 287 or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
cc: Ms. Cheryl Gregory, PDEA
DWQ WSRO File Copy
DWQ 401/Wetlands Transportation Unit
AUG 1 9 2005 0
1? DENR WATER QUALITY
"EIIANDS AND STOR1, W4TER BRA1JCH
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtowm Street
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Nor Carolina
Ntumlly
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
J O?
r '
STATE
Ufa ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA s11?0c},
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDOPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 19, 2005
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120 f'
Raleigh, NC 27615 ,?, L d ?? ',?'
ATTN: Mr. John T. Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Road), over Deep River in Guilford County. State Project No. 8.2496101,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1850(1), WBS Element 33295.1.1, Division 7,
TIP No. B-3847.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, jurisdictional
determination, design plan sheets, and permit drawings. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 80-foot Bridge No. 63 over Deep River with a 98-foot
long bridge over the existing alignment. The cross section of the travel way across the new structure
includes two 12-foot lanes with 5-foot 11 -inch shoulders on each side. The proposed approach roadway
will provide two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders on each side.
There will be 0.001 acre of permanent stream impacts associated with this project. No temporary
impacts to wetlands or surface waters will occur due to this project. Traffic will be detoured offsite
during construction.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project study area is located on the Deep River in the Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-08, and is part
of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030003. At SR 1850 and Deep River, the DWQ Stream Index Number
(SIN) is 17-3-(0.3). In the project study area, Deep River is a single channel stream with a constricted
bank-full width of approximately 16 feet just south of the existing bridge. The substrate consists of rock,
sand, silt, and gravel.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG.
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PL13 SUITE 168
RALEIGH. NC 27604
From the source of West Fork of Deep River to 0.3 mile downstream of SR 1850, the best usage
classification of DVS-IV* was assigned on April 1, 1999 (Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment, DENR
1999). The designation of "WS-IV" denotes a highly developed water supply. The symbol "*" denotes
waters that are within a designated Critical Supply Watershed and are subject to a special management
strategy specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0248. From 0.3 mile downstream of SR 1850 to the dam at Oak
Hollow Reservoir, Deep River has a best usage classification of WS-IV CA. The supplemental
classification CA indicates this is a critical area due to the water intake. No Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-II Waters occur within three miles of the
project study area.
Deep River is not listed on the 2002 List of Impaired Waters [303(d)] for the Cape Fear River Basin, nor
is Deep River designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River or a National Wild and Scenic
River.
A NCDOT wetland mitigation site (R-609D) is located northeast of Bridge No. 63. This site is one part
of five sites, totaling approximately 10.7 acres, used to mitigate for the US 311 Bypass in Davidson and
Guilford Counties.
Permanent Impacts: There will be 0.001 acre of permanent fill due to piers.
Temporary Impacts: There will be an offsite detour during construction. There will be no temporary
impacts associated with this project. This bridge is being supported with pipe piles and constructed with
prefabricated concrete bridge panels using top down construction.
Utility Impacts: An AT&T fiber optic cable is buried throughout the entire length of the project. It will
be relocated from Station 13+70.00 RT to Station 14+10.00 and will utilize directional bore methods
under the stream. An MCI buried fiber optic cable crosses Station 11+44 -L- and will not need to be
relocated. Duke Energy has five poles along the project site, two of which will need to be relocated. An
aerial cable owned by Timewarner Cable is attached to the two Duke Energy poles and will require
relocation. A sanitary sewer line crosses the project centerline at Station 17+93 approximately nine feet
below the existing roadway and will not require relocation. Jurisdictional areas on this project will not
sustain any impacts from relocated utilities.
Bridge Demolition: No temporary fill associated with the removal of the structure of Bridge No. 63 is
anticipated since the deck is composed entirely of steel and timber and will be removed in such a manner
that no components will be dropped in the water. This project is categorized as a Case 3 stream crossing.
A Case 3 stream crossing occurs when there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best
Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters.
Schedule: The project is scheduled for a letting date of April 18, 2006 with a date of availability of May
30, 2006.
Restoration Plan: Following construction of the bridge, all material used in the construction of the
structure will be removed.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal
and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment
for removal of any earthen material.
NWP 23 Application Pa-c 2 B-3547
RANDLEMAN BUFFER RULES
Permanent Impacts: This project lies in the Randleman watershed, and includes 2,467.4 ft2 of allowable
impacts from Station 13+80 to Station 15+35 (790.5 ft2 in Zone 1 and 1,676.9 ft2 in Zone 2). This project
is exempt from the Randleman Buffer Rules per conversation with Nicole Thomson of DWQ on March
14, 2005 and according to 15A NCAC 0213.0250 Section 2 (e)(i) of the DWQ Red Book of Rules. This
section states that the project would be exempt from the buffer rules if "no practical" alternatives exist.
An analysis for no practical alternatives was conducted at the time of the CE. It concluded that the No-
Build alternative is not acceptable due to the eventual closure of the bridge. A box culvert was
considered but is not a feasible alternative for this location. Rehabilitation of the existing structure is not
feasible due to the age and deteriorated condition of the bridge. Replacing the bridge with a 135-foot
structure 50 feet upstream of the existing structure was also considered, but was eliminated from further
study due to impacts to the NCDOT wetland mitigation site located northeast of the project study area.
A ten-foot mechanized clearing limit is included in the buffer calculation. Therefore Zone 2 shows a
buffer impact within the non jurisdictional ditch that regulates the hydrology of the adjacent wetland
mitigation site. This area is displayed as an impact; no fill will be placed in the ditched channel. Only
clearing is anticipated at this location.
Utility Impacts: No impacts to buffers will occur due to utility relocations (See Utility Impacts in
"Impacts to Waters of the United States").
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003 USFWS lists one federally protected species
for Guilford County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Due to the size of Deep River, habitat
for the bald eagle would not be preferable due to the lack of food sources in this shallow river.
Accessibility is limited due to the heavily wooded environment. The project study area was searched on
June 13, 2001 and January 5, 2005 for bald eagle nests. No nests or potential habitat were found during
the survey, therefore a biological conclusion of "no effect" was issued for the bald eagle.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted. All structures within the APE were
photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence
form dated October 18, 2001 and a memorandum dated August 29, 2001, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) concurred that no historic architectural or archaeological resources are listed on or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places within the APE would be affected by the
project. A copy of the concurrence form and memorandum are included in the Appendix of the CE.
NWP 23 Application Page 3 B-3347
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) COMPLIANCE
Guilford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Bridge No. 63 is located in a
100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain, Zone AE. A detailed study was
prepared and established a 100-year flood elevation of 819.2 feet for Bridge No. 63. No changes to the
flood elevation are anticipated.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, and MITIGATION
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) Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize,
and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to Waters of the U.S. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization:
• The new bridge will be 18 feet longer than the existing bridge.
• No fill material will be placed on the mitigation property (R-609 D) located to the northeast of
Bridge No. 63.
• The alignment has been shifted approximately 2 feet south to avoid impacts to the wetland
mitigation site.
• Fill slopes are 2:1 to avoid fill in the stream.
• Impacts to the stream will be minimized during demolition by removing bridge components in a
manner which will avoid dropping any component into the creek channel.
• There will be an offsite detour during construction of the new bridge.
• Directional bore methods will be utilized for utility relocations.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practical alternative to the proposed
construction and that the proposed action includes all practicable methods to avoid and/or minimize
jurisdictional wetland, stream and buffer impacts that may result from such use.
Miti ?a? tion
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project because of the negligible nature of the impacts.
However, utilization of Best Management Practices (BMP) will occur in an effort to minimize impacts,
including avoidance of staging areas placed within wetlands.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this project. All
general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met. Therefore, in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B Section .0200, we are providing two copies of this
NWP 23 Application Page 4 B-3847
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their notification.
Randleman Buffer Certification: This project is exempt from the Randleman Buffer Rules according to
15A NCAC 0213.0250 Section 2 (e)(i) of the DWQ Red Book of Rules. This section states that the
project would be exempt from the buffer rules if "no practical" alternatives exist. An analysis for no
practical alternatives was conducted at the time of the CE. It concluded that the No-Build alternative is
not acceptable due to the eventual closure of the bridge. This application serves as a courtesy notification
to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. A copy of this permit application will be posted on the
NCDOT website at: http://www.ncdot.ori*/pi innin!/pe/nattir ilunitiPemiit.html. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Knepp, NCDOT - Natural
Environment Unit, at [phone] or cknepp(c)dot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
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
Ms. Kristina Solberg, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
NWP 23 Application Pages B-3847

NORTH CAROLINA
GUILFORD
SITE
VICINITY
MAP
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 33295.1.1 (B-3847)
BRIDGE NO. 63 AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1850 OVER DEEP RIVER
r1Gu,o-,E I oF°1
5/11/05
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Kernersville, NC

£8 aVN
i
2
W
w
a
O
II?
i I
S/

9
1
1
1
«
Q
SITE MAP
0-

C)
O
/J Ln
C)
191
Si?
p6S \ \ ? O,? /
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 33295.1.1 (B-3847)
BRIDGE NO. G3 AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1850 OVER DEEP RIVER
3 o.^ cl 05/11/05

W

04
ti z
0
N
co ti
C) < 00
Cf)
CD Z ? Q }}
Z z 0? Z m

J
o a 2
Z( :) .-
Or-
o
U ui
rn o
N
0 co
=
0 LLZ
00 OM
L?
W cn _
?w
N a
?_ -1
0 00 0

O o
CL
a.

w
a
w

z
z
w z

Z o

CL

O =
00

W
U
CL
w

a
O

a: -
y
O

a.
f
r
d
,Lcs\b3847-hgd_ BUFF PMT.d9l
00
O
O
0
N
W
00 N W
O O O
1> m
Dm wZ
+ >N
i z
O I I + S
O { O m
os
oa
z
O
?v
az
i '.•a
+ N
O 9
T
O n
2
lr??
cn ?;
of
V
w
10
p -
y a ?
OO
., o
n
O? p n H ti
ROj?A?fmii?
o a ro
?4- m
m? n b
iV N U
m K
O N N
o
u
"o
REVISIONS
O
z
Q
w,?
N O
N v to Z W C13- w + in rt a .
A
°i m is m
iirv?wir,p
Ol N +
+ + W
+ +
N W w w O
A m H W
N Z? ? T
W NO u,afw W.O
N W Cn i cn w
m
v II C13 X11
m o
N
S
Im Q
r-
am
r. H
C i Z
m to i
0 co
(a :- -4
0
r.=NOm
O
A
m
N
C
m
m
a
n
N
Z
I
W
?rN
n
n
II II
II
_
iA0)i
CA w N N
O ON

o
R ca W
6
° a
o m
M
i =
A O
+ S
i
O
60
0M
qqq? RRR
p?°'N,H
?o
ss
oo b? m
?Q o
n
5z V w -
N
am
Z
0
i W
Ol
w
+
H
O
O
!0
Om
C7C m•a O
C7 II r H
II II II
i
NW W -+
G)-O)
4
O
A -+
i .

8

.-. m N
mm D m
r• o
000 o
in •• W
I O
m
4

m 0

? 1 ,o
a
m -? I m
+0 0
co
om c
m
m
OH

O N O

.? H
Z

\ o??'3s ,r8b
II
v
1>
}
11
I
?I
r- r-
M m m -?.
.Ixt?
ti.
5 --
C3,
M z C.Cl

\- ny
?0 vJ
<?VO
0 V

\ n? /??
C",
N N :
-P Q k i
N
O
a
a
N
m
W
N
N

0
S 1
I
tl3Ntl d -
Ems`, ?"??i".gyp MtlOJ 15
I
m ?
1
_- O r r 1
en a 1
1
{
O ?
D -7Z i 70
tl)rO N y
V7r-1
C Rt ,c.' ? ,
3 <>, m W
mZ
'U
N E
D ?
?m D D ti I, z7 u.
NN O O
'O ? D D ? rQi ? 1 - S
mm m
Zo 3 3 ~
? M
D D
n n
O U7 (n
W S6tP0??S
W N N yG'
U1 ?7 ' p 6O
Z Z
o? m m /
mm
?m
N VI -?
-? t
$v r
? p
Jl m
?r
v
_w
In
O
J m
O
D
Dm
z):2
vn
8/17/99
Y
$ ° /raVj
°
5. 10'
5?ir IZ /r 5 -Ir
" c \ / o sop
tim Pte--? ? ° _
a 0 -
°o
/ \ K / k
m
orb 1`
h
J \ µ
I c?4>
1

z
?- AZ'- ?0
m? -
- ?6J O
15
O ro?
L 4- / O
t
I I i ? ?l
I 11 .I t l ? ?I.,'
I
} i III ,,I
I
0
zzo
I I ?? _
I I -x °
I m
m I N? a
55
u n N
m
T °
0
I `.
I _
C) D
°o
,.z ° ' ------ ----
II`• --- ?c - I f f ? e
1 I I r?
O
O?

b
rr
az
a?
?z
til
Z3
(is
1141 .
CO)
N'
o A
0
I
z A
Z
?0 P
I I
z?O
A? ?o
--UII LI\b3B47_V.yd_BUFFPMT,d9„
00
0
O
O

N
CA)
Ull
O?
V
co
%O
O
0
z
n
mrwwmrww-q
CA r y r L:
O
H.y+m W N My a Z
Ewa
(V(}}1??i-+r mmN Wit A
++' -ito+ N
i V1m 0fJ co
MAmi M Qli
z Ul Z Z m 1l
-UWNO f)1 OW1W W p
O N W Vl
i 19 p i r m
? v C... .i 2
0v n It O
m m r
00 N W
O O O
-yip r-m
Y N Z
oc DM
O R1 i
O1? °+m
O 'y1 O N
C
°oa
0
z
G'l
lM
rzv
N ?.
Dz
i ?
+ N
O 9
'TI
°w
z
c?
?i

A
ti 0 2 w 0 r
O R7 0 a ?
n+ i C y
x e = 6 Zt
Z
;
0:
00
a o m H b:1
u O
m u
D
b Q la '
?? 4~ a
N
m
a
z
v
Nw
+m
p M
,a v
m
om
O
A
0 r M
11
II II
II i
NWmi

i
4 C) C)
N tD +
m
i 1
`O
O

N

p
O

m N
z
mam
0<• z
P• o
o
co co C,

>
D
1 ?vVOm
m 1 O
m o 1 o
f
co a

p M
01
M
z
v
wry?m
C1 ? a N
C • i Z
M ri I
W i -.
^'- N` m
O
Si
m
N
9
n
M

N ?
U
j rM
n
u°nn

0 0+
V

0. ca
w
a
m

z
i =
w
+
t M
? M
O
on
0m
P V,-,
y 0
O -
lr
+
? Om
W O?
lJ ?O)
N O
OZ
N uCZ7
;a 0
-i
Sg04-s
mfg
/r0 \`\
m A
% ? H m p ?k
L #a
V,

3JN313tl,. .. x ?m 1 ?
----------------- - -

O r m
LA a
0
D'Tlz +
'n`--4 ; S oN +
C: m <' -
3 it
mZ '<>, w
En '<>
' N£ ''' ? 'Cl? O Z
D
? lD (7
m? r r C3 <
NLn o o =15°
M? D D \r?i3
mm cu cu ?c }l o
?? r r
Wm m m o
3
ZO 3 3 ~
-4C
n n
D -4
W O ul LO
(Ji Q ~ QZ'i
_ 0
.20 z z
m m
M CD
-Am
mz
yM
-. m
? rn
? A
N r
REVISIONS
17/99
$ / H 5' 1d
5/
5=m !r !r 5'-Ir
n m // Nti//
fro \ tn? ?`
0' a K /
ti
M
a / %`
1k
IZ,
OQ
®mo
I?
yf4
1 -----
O 15

on
v
!!11 O
\

)Cy
i _
2
ti
1
1 n

I 1
I 1 ? a

1 „?

I I?
1 1
I I x `

I I I m. ?
_ C: ? c

o ?Y?r+,e
c
S ?<9
I I c 4,n
I ?? ?rx x X ob
I m$ aq
m I ? NI s ? ?.
0
m ?
IA?I ? tig ?'
x d I o
I O'^1 ?? r•?tiy T mn2
' I wo 1 1 M W y
I I s,; Ef?e Mz z9-4 z
:?__-- ----------- a o
II
Z?a
1:7 / 2004
.co•-nos\324a6d\roeo,.ey\•sc\o-3847_.dy
o! oe . _.pl.dc,n
- ,.•I ft 8/ 23/99

_
__
T
___ rI. +
; I:tII ' I
f i r1{
}
T1
11 +? _
I ' ,. r+ y _ J 1 rl: t ,
_
_
, i t
- +rr- ,- + I- "
TIC r+ r I I
t
1 I
' ? ? ' r _'
? tt { ill I, 1 ` -
, . r?. . li ?1; iI i i.T .1?
::: i
- II
1: I ;
1
-

I L

-'1
,i

?
+
-
J - 1 ,
,# ; , , r -' ' * i- am- • --i , 1 I II 1 11i , 14 _
'
-. __
r_-- {
'

I __
- •
• ;
'.
t -,
i -
+T
Y-1 `

+

l
}

t
?
_
? _•--r
' t ?

x t
4
f
1I
+ r
".; I t l
1

{ a

1 I

, •

,

'_-; +

.

__
-
- . _.-. l
.,.,
.-.
.... . w 7i 1
,
•

+

}r
l
j
1

W
- :-,:- : .: -': ::*:: : :: 77 t-if t - -=4 - _-7T ,T _
. r at -L
1,4 4 If I , T.. : ,?q :,,..

]]
_ ''t?t+}
rtt, 1' S
I +T
+f +•
+ ,
_
.
- i ' - I-+ '
'IT
L
f -, 1T 1 t?

??.

l t

r„ I '

i {-
' I j{

lri C

..1

1-r...

' r{ r1

111

{., .J
,.... . - I. i '.-i ! : J
r 11,1
: 1
; 1.
_t? _
... ? ..
I i +a t
i+
-
?- Y
X111•
Lrtr' }
+ . Y _
+ Y
+{,'r
,
- + 111
, }}}
-y
' - i i,
;T 1 1
}}
jl. -
. { 1
i1 ,.
.
1 ,
1,
;-1 -
,
+
,-''
..
.

: - - -, ,1-

I
, + Y t -,{ , + I` .i. , _ _
1 111 {
I{
itl yi
l 1 l I.t + II
1 ,
. i- 1
' 11
.?

.
_ _ - t ?-, ;1; i,i
+ i
t- `?" i 7J i r ;,. 11, tr i :1 ?1 I,rr
i.,
a
f

.
.
-
_

-
-.

-
_

_

.
_

.. _ .
, L,

r ? + ; r _
II
'+

' -1
r+

r
r

t+
,-
I"J

i

'

I

t

F

T

-

! +

i r :

r 1 F I.
rI

+

Y?

.
1ii

t
1_J,

-
i;i.

?11
!I
,? :l:

r
-
. !;
1I

' }+
fit

i
F

1--t
I1
I
17

krl-•
I+i
+,
-- _ . _ , - I I i ?

µ , iS
;
•L ,
I+ i I I
1 4I
I
:I : ! 7 r

I
I T t
1

-

1 iY 1
, i+
' + '
{ ,1
, ?
=-, -T
!?
+ T
T
1
?„
+-t
+
"
- Y
K
1
?
j
t- ,
1„ r . ,
r
t
?
_t

it r
, 1 ,
7 ?? , - -

+r+T
i
?..

r4r •-
rye
,trl

_
_ 'r
I?I +I ;
tIi
• 1-1 *+ .
+* j r ? _ _
l+
-
"-
.
?
'" ^. -?
i -
?
' W 4 '''T
11 Jt1r
7.. [
i
rT t
•
,r ",1
, ' 1
Ill
, rTT+???-
Ty-. .. I-
./.
!_ T}
+-? ?},
y V
-,
. - - 1'1 1` + . 1
T T r • I
I i_
, 11 j '
1
- _ t
# I

- I
I ! , 1 •1f {
i i-
}. H I ? . *, -1
.,{ +}

+

1 ; ]

f

1 I .Tr

I ifil

i I

t
;
I
117

i
i

i
li., --

r. ,•
1 ..I ,
rT
.«.
t_ ,-
l
: -I
+
ZZ
J
I
+i +
,7•-
l
,
11
li
?'
+
' I
' - +
`:t

r
_ +
L• I F
{ +
,._t;
.+a-
t
rT
t
I'
,
T

t

.
,
r --
-
„

$
t

i

+ i
r 11 ,
l
rj.I..
. ,. 7
1

-
rI
$
t,
7
1 L+
I+` 1
r+ ,
r `

1 l

+

. F.

1
--

__:
, +. {

M
I , }
1.. i 1

,.,t
{
1 11-T
J

'r.
z
.
al
+
.
,
y
-
Tr
,1 _.

?!

?

}

r .
Y I

I

1
r T
1
.

,
!
'i ,

i
' '

' t

,
_

-

,
, ,
+
{
,i
I. ?
* .1
-
- Y,
- . ; IT
:.: 1 1„ 1t
: ,I
I ?.'t !J?i
_

- r.

`
_ +I= h1
lr r

,.
Ia

.
,
I L
k

J
? L.,+
r*.
1
i - -,
; *.

,- Y
Lf T
T

;T-11

,

r
i Yt - , ,
tT?

"r
i +
1 • ,

?'il ,, L

I
?'? FIJI
-

I L
W

11 ,
i

lI L_' 1- -_'?

, t :+
, j

I,

' ` I
,
}
t'
-i
:I:

~?
t ?
1

,
R

}

?

+ {

Z

1

?
,

i

1

?

I

7
,

,'

4
I

' I

*'

'

.1 i-i
- - 1 rt Tt,a 1 ., 1
?
, -
t i-:
r • -t
r +-+

' i i I { ! r
_ - ( _A _ j r

?
t .I} 1 I1+ t r+
r«+ ` i

1 _ ; T {Y ? ,I - J r

9-1 ±=

= -1? t
!T if ;

, 1
1+
, 4, l
,

T
}
;' l
r

. - - _. , J? u +- r `- 1-
.
;.
} .
.1
1
!
l
i1t;,
+ T
,I
- r
, {,
'I+,+
I

..
! 1
i
11 i
1 1.
I
, i
+?-
±
T
~" L
.. ;. ,.
„ , 1 I , t ! 41 l i !
; i- 1 -1 +
I T

-
.
_
_
:.I
it :
_

}
I.
A
,
,
1I 1i
1 -,;,,
„ I;
' {
1
-4. }
+ri
-- I -_ •
1 ' ` t
4i r1,
t?
?. t
, , +T'
L? t +
-
} ' r_' r ?
,I'
+r
+ Tr: T,}}"
L t
it ty1~,
•{Ir - ll r
ilrl :-I
.?- 4
!
, ? 1
r
- *. ;
l
" ? ? , ? ;
t•
I r+,
! Tt+
`} _ - I
•1
- _ i f
l,.b ' l ,
}7:1 I ff r ?= , iu + " 1
-. 1 _- , I
1 !; tJ1 ; li ?

- _1 .
_T It .-7? + r, Y :_ T..
? ,
+
*
} ? .. T
I ;Y'r-
1,+y -1 -i.-1
* 1,I " . It
: Tf t-1r
iI t ',, .1 1 r
!' J' i TY1
Yr. 11
f
r+ 1.11
_I:I 1-.+rt
F
-,
T •r t
.t r,. /,.1. ;?: F rl -t+, , _t tJ ?
#
.t -
1 - r'+

4 4It-l

' r
;
tr;i
r ,
1{I?. Y 1- i :-f .
rI I it
r,-i
1 ;i
1
!r i
1 ,rl i
1
?--, i . r'
--4
'!
i
._ .. - ', rl-I

' -j4"T
11
l 1 L,•

r,{ f f+rr?

I t r;'1

1 4

1 - -

, ?
-
1
-? ` •+

' i ' ?

+1
{
' '
] ??
,:
: 1

t I j +
I +
r

, r

Yr• r. r 1,r

i
.
•
__
I ? i *

y _ r i -t I , J
,-T J
-„ 1 I
.
,

•

rt-.

.1 I }i .,

..

t+
- - ?
'' r
i 1 r
1 ±
'+ i }
- r. - r + r ~ `1 I!
i 1l
- I .17 y1.. r
I , , , u

--
- - .
1
4

-
, ?.I
:
+ -:
„
-
+
.,
?_
T
+
-
1
1
}
'
.{
1 I:

:
i
- 1.
i1
.
I
.+}
T::1
T Y - 1
? -1 ? , f , .1
:
_
_

._

_

-
-

- ..
1 1 is ,

, i -i
Ii I
]

4j}-

k,?

F
tr
t

+7- }4'----r

-

-

_

'?

?

+

?

l

,

1
1

+
1

, -r-

,

?

r?-i-,1,
I

,-

,+1
_+m

r :
I

I?.tr
,

F...yi
_. - - IY .r1+, T.! F+,-, ? - +- r -' -t T-, Y - _ - f I 4-
1 J - { t } 1 .., ,.
_
? - I , i FT+- r- t r r
t

1
,; „

T
T.Lf,
r:;.

-~
:~i t
;
t
-
?
-t
rI
+`

1
T ,

;
?

1 4m

r. f1

.r t

Ii" t

.:,
1 - t+
r _ t +
.. t
r
T - - -
i 1 I
' t
f1
i 1
i

r
1
I ,
ii I { ,
r•

F . ?._
_ .__ -' •.
L 1
.1
, I : ?' ; 1
I 1!
I {1 II--1
' ,-r
'-
{
F , +
J
1
.I
;.
t
:
+
?
'
'
'
.
1
r
?_ _ _. ._ _- r. ,. .1-.4 --
i..y. •r t, +„r +, {
F r { _ 11 J Y _ t r} ; I r' + 1
; 4 - •1 1, 1 ;1
1 TI P" i { .-,? F... ,.
i f 1. 4 i 7 T - + r + 1 J T . ± a.?? {r ,
t +! T+ { _1i -,71-7
_- _ _ - _ -t I 1i''-

'
, c _I

;
r - r '+-
t
>' Yt
r
r+-,- 1
+ # T1*?
YY+
~ r , - +??
---- ,-
,
,
;T• i

r y t
Y

-;
+ r-
„
1.
r
, -
1 ?
,
, -+
r
i `?
I11 J Y
+ I ,+ , - __ ,
,-?
i , ; tia t I'l
+ r
a r

- .
? 1
"C
f
I
-?t'
,
II _
'
'
Fa k-•

+

•
+,
F-
f f
±
,? l,+
r.
1
J
1
r.
+ ,
J,
+
L

- •;e ( Il
I
• t,
-! ?
1 iH I.
.{I. •T,4
? ?
yi1i
iti ?
?
iy 11
:'
L ,- II?t
}
. .

J

I

",-1 iJI?. +,
-,

~ ,+

•i}

T1
J

I
1 1

i I

1 .
' 1

f _

'j

I -1

-
-
-
_

_
1

- ?
?
,
1
I ' -I

!

r7
N

if
.i
I
,
i+ I7*
1 , ,
i
I

"?y$
i_ + -
rfii
?T.
1 Ltf4 I- ,' i
1111 -
z

- ,
-

T -' 1

a?_}
raa?

rrt7
t

.
i 1
7i?
J

I
! 1

M

:!
ti 4

1
?

'

I

i .

i'jf t.•

1
I
_._

--

:.-.

-. _

-

: r

! C' I .:

-. '

tII2

,.}t;

, y;-

-

,-aT

F

+

_

ri
I-

?t ,

'! - .
r
j
;i-;; 11

Y :
1
_
+IJ ":,
- .

r- Y

-, _

*r 1

r
,
J ?
' ri-T T
-
-^ .r, i . . 1 ,
..: t ' ?
-
. --
_ - --
_ _..
- -: -, -
I
I f
i i- ,.-r ?
i f r
.
y
'-Fr
y
+
-
. - _ i L , -+t- tom 1-ti + Y

- + 7 + +rr.
{
J _7

t ' tf

J-1 lii jrt?
' :' 1
1
:i ' 4r ,4-4 1{ _?

.ML . I. :
+-
-
_ -
.. l i ( -,
.-?
t f ,
I,
;
' ' ,
`+ii
t
$I
'' +
''
T
i , 1 f - if
I "
' :
' 1 .
-' , t
I I 1 I
i I { r
-
I r!- r•+T ;
Yt tt j '
r "'F
11 ?---r;
I L Y, -
+I1 ;.,-1
f1. a
l
1 +* i+
, I ,•F,
i.?.i 4
1
i; -i r . : -Iii
rl, . f
'
. ! ?
I '. t:' ;' ' , ' '.-r 1 j t ?-
44 I r TI 4, 1
1 ' t I-
`
i
i
r H
r 1-, I ! t , P ,
r ,
1 •
i 11 {..:
.
11 1:
I?r _ P
-
-
I
' I
111
1,' 1
i J
..-:
'
' T
-
T
i }'
k1
- .._ -_. -
i1.... I

• , t+
, l r I
• , r
1-'-Tr

; Ti ,-+
• 7
4

m- +
lr1r

Y'

u -

+ !
-
L
T!
-
+
??
'' rI

T =

r •

•
{ +1 1= ,-

+
+ = f
1J f
1

.?
,'_{

I
I,t
i
TI - r,
I
t
I t
t
, , Y

i
, ,
:1 I I

1
1

?
1.
1

y..
+
I--. =
--
_
.. _
___, 11
?
-1 ?,.
F-
'.
T i
1-
+
i .
:
L,
` ?-
tt
TTiY +
T 7
"T
+
'
1
r
4
0
..
}
1.i?
-...
I
.t.
t
14 ,
L . . 1
r
+} I? . T
"
1 1-
•
-t
+
'
J- I
r
{
I
,
r # f : ;
1 Iii; _r ff
t + ? iffi
v + {
I - +
i ' ; : I 1 t i 1
'
? ? ? t
' 1 ., t
}
- :- -_
_ M. . ---. _-7 ? r r ,-
- tY- -- ml-
• I -
-
- . P? ? ,
i:_t .
;
1
- , r 1 ; 1
, : - I $ .-
- '•r? 1 1 " r.1
.' ~!. I _

-

- -

- - __ ' J -1 I,
I
I

r t; -T {t F_ 1-t + +
} ? Y F +" t- t,-ir
t+-1
+i I
T ?-T r, I
+t C t
ri *+ 1 ?}1?t i y
1 -1 1 1 +
--IT
T r 1 {
I i 1-?-1. 11{
, TI '
stir 1.
-I I
+
- L
_. _ -
C F+I , i!.
1 i
+
t +
t , y
i yff 1 +
+ r _-_ L _+
+ !
• Y41
r 1 i. , I i ,.. l

-
-
- I, t 1 r l s i-
'# -
f
I i
tLl r
- -:TJ - 't
,
?
- j
+?.I.. 1
!- 1 11: j 1
-. 1 i 1 'r ,
_ i
F'
i
f f i
f ,t,
`: Y
1 # .f r
; J.r.
I 1
-- _ _ T, +
r yr+t

r , . 1 . , -. - _ 1
,
__ -
-
- ?
-
.]?
Y,
_+
=
tY'
t '•
! r
- !
.r -: C-
f-'
.
" V H- , r - f--r+ -44 I_i4 1L

_
;
,
i
rT
+
#1
z
-
,]
t
+
_1z i
T{
rt
't
[ ;11
t
i
: ?
Y'
_
L1 `
_
r;*; Y
r+ 1
$ j - r ,
1 }t YY
i t'T Fi - I
i r `4 ;
l+ {
+T T , I
L ,+ 14 - T 1 -1 ,1 1
-`I
- I •_.
-
- '-
-_ r
r' 1_
Y
(
, I
t-
-
a
tr
i
1
•
r r_
'..
_
-r
Y
t -1
r t
Y -!- r
` r.
t'

- ..
.

-

-

.
• r.
•

t _

1.

? ry
+.-1."

.

i
f
r

1
1

t
r t

1
.

, 1-

IIf
?

i
, -.-1
a

_4 4 r4.

y
?1

?

"

+
,
-•
11 -1

??
I _
_ --
- :_. .. __. ,
- -f,
r µ,' ,i4
Y
,H+ .r t- •
T

t
_ -

?

- y

-t +f

r +. i4
, 1..1 Y + 4- +.
- •-
r 1 , .-

, 1 Y" r• 1

-r,
?' , I ++.
T
! ,,
1 4H
1
7 T.-._ 1

a
i-
i r
r •
y '
.-?+ ~i
-I
? _ -
+ 1 i i y 1
J ?il I1 ?' I- L 1I,
. - --- __

-

., r •f 4, T

•,,
' $

_J _ 1
1L

+

Y -

+--r-

'.-

?.

tY_

+.

-r
r {

1{

T

?

{I+

7.

L1 1

i. 1
J

T

'r

1

{.

y

I

,-
- - _ _ -- ! r +
+- T
7 I ~ t r
1
7_ .J _-
{ +i -T+
F T, Z ? r
• Y
.__ J? a:T Irr 1 ; err "i "I 1- I * •,I
? Y „ / ` i n ;?
: r _ +7r` - _
Y
f
w +
i = ? T . 1 Tf , T . 1 r
?? 7 :1 q
- i-
I =
; T
?
$i
r Y 7
i{ F, _,,
1 +t? '+$ 1 ? - - ' t,. . I
I It
? ,t
'I t+ i_4 'i f I
{„ ?

1

t

1

it

+rr ,-

4

t

}+ r+

H

r

:. T

r

N

tr

1.,

I

, r? 1

-
TI

, ,i
.

fr 1

Y y i

1'
,
Y11,

1 I
.+ 4

tr;

? i I '.! $T1 i? , ' ?' ,
fi 4 . I+ ? .
` Y + + tr ,., .I I ;, • 1 r1 -}f tr, , ;
.. -
= rY +

41 Y r r,-r•r f * T " -,
r-,
r
+
,.,. _ ,111 1 .? N ?'
- ?I _
- -
- r t 1 t r. +; 11. ^ I .I t
_ _
r -
_
Y1 ,_
, T
,Y+

?
,
,

t
,I ,

t

-
,•

1 r
,

r I

,
,
;

,
- _'
..- --
_ __
-
, tl
-+, 1-- T
T r
},j '- -
l
r` ,
I I
i Y, f
T
T t - +
r' + t rt'
:..f +
-
11%1
r I{ -
Y - _{r+
i?it , ij
tIC r1 .
rl 1?, ,
1 ir1 ,'i
' -j/ -, ml
T 1+ - II
'
1. i
fl I
"-I*

_+
- - _-
?
_
r-
-
_
, t
T'
7i i11t
h i
-I r
f
, t
• + ;
•-r,
+
t'
'- Tt
rl

rr +

tr t i

+
+r' r.

1

1
r
it
,

t -
i
11
,.I
1 ? L,!
1
-
+,
tt
+

_
1
t . O
. • . 1 ; +I ' "; +

r r• _;
I+ -., I +-.: 3 - , y
L 9
, "_ $ t ' }1-i
, 1 i,--,r
++
i $
t , _
T
-.
r Y?1 ' "
J.+
-
-
11W t
;,., 1
ill
11 I
' 7
I
T1yl..'ir ' i Y-' -
r,-i t` '
,-",
,,, I
fJir
tj-1ri
r -
-_ -1
-'-1 - __ - IJ?.
.Ti i.-L '
.. I, ?? i _-a
~ H
- t?
T H-r
+ ,. I -y}
4 ' 1 T' ,+
•
t y(i 'I't yt, i t
I
I
? t. Y ?I r 1+i
r
Y
1' r ,
;• t -}
" i -1
,
. i ly-1 N
1- . - -- - --- 71 rIj T 1
l - - iT T t Y ' - „1 t
L {
- a , t
4 1
I M
- •-`-" 1

1 ,Y„ Y-! { I 11' 1 ...
.
11t i,+ I
r,1
L. t.

_

- •r - -
__ T+
r l
;I
-
I
.
,.
.

_
+
1'I
,_r
'

I

r

_,i

?

+ F -

T_

_

j

r -„

tr r ;

#J•
TY
-

-
,

I,
-1
;It ;,'
-
r,

i !

I

f

1 ,

,

,

o

.

_
-

_ F

r
- _
1
I Y
i ., .
y r if
.

,
tt
7
I 7-
Y k
r _1

r T

I -
1
_ t.?

,Y -

, Ij -
4:
r-•
i
t
r
{?t t -
;aJ x ,

,
++
l

I-= ,
t
r
l;
i 1( 11
-
i- ,: , j
i
1 ,
, 1 r
1
i ::

1!
t
T'
i.

,11
r? 1
1 a
r.
?:-- I
Cnl m

---

-

-

--T-

1 -

-

t j=+

I+;.

I T
r

T

!
«

t

r'7r

-

t

,?
14 i
-,

}

r.,
+.

.

+
.

.,:

rr1

?;:1 ,' a
-A

!
TTtT
.,...I.1 r..
i
?-r
1;'rr
it

x :.I

_

?
IIY-.,
?
- --L- - F
_ r, T.
f- r -r rr. ,-.I ? r?: , i _ t `^ ,? i , 1
..
,. r_y
- Z

•_

_
_
t~t r,
7-.i
,
-'Y7

t,.
'*
?+
1Y
_ r

?

fT
-+
- ?T
rT?
1I'1i
l'TFI'll

.

i
T
+•
t
q
1
T I - ,
11 I, Ir•f
I t
I

t
1
, 1Y'r

1-1
Y 1 L.
1 rr•-
tl.
I ri
r.r
I. ,..r
I-,
T
- ?.

M

t

`I
1-I
O
-11.1 . T , , r 4
• f1, r ` iii $++ ' vIT - Y;r; 0 i1 •
i ?:: r'1 4 11 j'i?- t r 1-t r_I r ?? lr
+ +-i r
+
T H

f

_:
•

L`
I

-I

l
1 I I

-::. ;f'i
,

IC?1 _!

I-
'.

7 11
T

{}- -?:?,

?

4

r
77
7 1 !t {
Mq

I

,

+

T
+.I. - .;-, r

.

:

?

~.I

.: i

1 t

,.

..

-

I i1 r:
•

1
`
II "1

?,
if
l

li
Ir.

;:

?
7
. t

Y1r
1:411

x

p
L
7/2004
cde-ca\30G06a\-ooo,.oy\?ac\n-38<7--dg_?pl.dgn
8
- - _ _._ - - f 1 r ? ? 1 , 1 ' -) -, r 1 - '?Y* 1 11 t Yr+ ti-, ?. ? ?} + y ; . • i ! -j.? ?. , l i i • ? ?' ? ; , 1 l , 1 .. i + , r^» -• ; a ?

?
TTT _4 ,
1
i$ _
*
r.• I r } r
1
-
'
-
f
Y i ts }
4!Y -r;-11 - - _ : {- -1 V r - -T -? ? ?
1 Y T 1 ,? h
i I ! -, _ }
7, • - r r
J

r ;r

r

rr•

Y
rl U
t-

;;

1

;

}
1

?{
?1:
,1

+

l

1 ,

T
Y
?

#

•

1
- ... --

, ., ,

- -

+

f 4- 14

1f,

JI

Iir

j

i
7"

y
t;

1

,

{ IT1
_ _.. ... __
T?
? _.a..-1 r., Y TT
.• Y,,.. III , 1. ..; •' i t :; r 1 l
r
14 TT. N
r
j
j Y + { 1 +?

-
-.
- t
;- T ,
I

_

I

,.

r TFT
EPH
_ -

_ - ;; r a
,- I

77
T ,E1
-- "_ --_ - 1 ;. I ty? ??ti r•; t ?
t-
1 ,4
'
; 1
'+
- i_ Y _r; $ -T rx , #: i _ I
1 -r .,, f
' • ,+Y - ++ _I
x Y$

T
=77

-

--

`+

-

T

i •-

r

/-

-"1
t
'. r 4
i t

Y x

??

r

l

rY
y-,-. r
- _ it + T y Y {- - +fi.
?Y T- - - t -al
1
1
+ Y 4 ?? . rr1
ii Y, 1s. r i, j M 1 IT

1
i'
i it
i
4i
'
' 1
T
t
'
,+ t
-.
t
t
rr
{Y
+ -,
_ 1 + t? , + t Y? `?` ' +

-
-
!
F Y
1 •-#
1- J-? } y-, Z-1
- T 1
Y ,
? 1-t - r TY?r Y. k

w il l

f ± ~

1
4
4
4 ?, Pd R
rY,-r
Y
?
? I
r
Y
1- r
r l
Y
i r
T
-
Y
i I 1
1
f
t
t
t
: + ` i r + r S , 1. i? + 1 Y
Y I ? * T
*-' - ' t=-
f ? j r , I } Y '_ ?
?
i i
i -
:-
• y.} .
. , f. i :
r-.,. ?T
.
-:
.'_ - -_ - - - }
r 1 ?t +
i +
-
r
++ ice' ' y4Y-

t , V

+ Y 1- .r ? ,.
1
-4

#

r

jtT
ti 1Z, '.r r { C L F F

-1
T" *r .?

I r

t Fl

1
,-

4

_ Y*

h 1

r

++
' 1
i
* ~
' r r T 'f r t Y t iY T 1 I 1 j _r ,Ij 11 Yr i? -

•
_. i
I

1
•
?-
j TTY y

{
- ;

-
-
-
7 7,'
_
{?1I
1-I+,f
r
Ii11}
y
y
-rH
.+ •YT?
r1
i
-

.

r
_
_
{

tr?

.Iy
?'

1

r
__ -1. Y +Y+1 r }.
Y S r + t
f , , l j 1
l a 1-#+ , 11 i # + ' ?:+ r t i s i t
t t` ri $ ' 1
__ _ Y
` • , .
r ...
- .-}
q Y
-
, r
-

44

1
'

rr
-r -Y
t:z

+
4
r Tl 1 j Tlti 1 # ' _ r,_

L

j
I ? i l
a -
y
7T
_ _ f '
t 'I ;
r: , 4
-
' ,? l + r r{ t ,'+`
Y _ V ?
# }r,r ? i T' T
V 1r
. f r
j Y t
j H i 1
I J
?1 1
• r .. ? 7• *.T

_
_

-
-'
7-7
+-
t t
l k

E
•
r

t

t?

,tY
:i
+
,.*...
.r
y
_
i.
r.
t
,
TI
_ }
yi.+
r W
,
4 y
1
11 1t} t - 1 ;,
Y+ 4 T
, IJ 7
1 ?*
_ _ YY,,{
+ - 4 O t
4
i
'
41'
-#44 .

?

?

i

i

;' _

1

T

1
-14

4 1 1
r

-

+ f-
T" T 4
7
1
1-

I
1
1 4'
_"T

?. .
t

.

•

1-

*

.r.

,: •_j

-Ft
'1. ti;. t, l : ;1 ,,
-4 L 4
'
'
1
i:

1 1
:
-? i
; ;1
i
? +
r
i
t
t
1
4 4 r,..... .. t Y i• + r ,
,, - ..
.. , .-I Y r -?' 1 ,1 r 1
r
77

_ f

t

?
[
{ .? _.

.., t. '
I
y$

Y 4

i

t

r

l,T
tt

y

r?
TTr

; i

I1

jt

rt
_ _ ? =? T •

_
_.
;
t+t

f
f

_
I I-
5

Y
Y _
_

'1'

T

-
+
fit

rta?

'-
_

il+

i
1

1 ?

li
i+

•j
`

ii
lI`'

, t
,

,

i 41

?
+-

l
.E•. 7
t,
:r,r
It+.
.. r
kT+

? II Ir 4, H 4-
+tj rt. i; r 1 i + T

- -
'-_ Ij:
- ,err
' i' Ei + . +? * r , r T,;-r r t r
r T .-? , r+
!i• - -rr#- r + ?? Y
y F
= 1. tTr .--l ; .1 '- Si Y .-,A-

_ I{4 N} t Y r ? h T t tlT 4 r - '
Tr +
-i .
tH-•-T F
i
1-, +1.
+•
'??
, f
ri
,; .,

Y

. L4

1

-1

,{
-rt

777 7 17t
17
T tT r, - - r
... ._ _-"_- --iT 1 r1 l r
H TT ' T

77
L

$ Y F

t
?

t
i _ r
{T T

_ = -_- i ;,Y-. i, iT1r
, _
•r r .r

4
1
1-
*

r

_

[ttf

fj:

z

t
?T
T

1

i

N

1

4

1

r ± ? ?r

;k
H+ 1 -T. T •-r 1
t t- - _ Y Yt IT
r t. T ?y Y ?' f Y -H' Y t, 1
_ _ _ - _ -+ j
%1 r;?i ? r r? M4 w o
++ fi
L
+
r
Y
` t
? µ
F
ate' .
#.
+ = ? -T l ii t 't

-

T 1 t -4 -I
? • a

It
?
?
y T
'?
ar
t
4
?
?
r.
? _
-t ti
ITS
- -- - ;? ' ? -r'r .?
?.-1 T
? - r : Y - Y Y? i--rr l
t , +-?
+t , t ti ,, i
l 5 -+, ' SZ
- - ; -?, 1-
j t? - ,-

'
' i T - ? • + t ; -- r' _ _ -t1 - r i ?_-; :'; ,: -r a-:t -+.
r

.
,E? r t +1

, . r=-

-+1 t

r#

-

.# -
r
It
ji-r Y j ` I I 1 I

11 +

1

i

- 1

T- 1f

_{ O

-
#
IT
-
, - 1 rt

'

7- . T+Y , ?
j , ,
l, r

i

t

l

l
7= :_
77
-
= 41
r
T rr

.,-?•-
i + i + 7 _ 1 $r r 1 tt 1
a n - a T + _ j 11 T I

1

? 1

7

Y-F+ i

rr?

Yr

.

r{
4
4, CU
___ . I
I T 11 4
r
±
" T-1
+1
_•T
'
F
*'
.
•
?1
Y }: r+ i f i ri{ i i
.r: _ . F' ,.T i YI
t =
+ .?
} y 1 r T Y t r 1 r 1 Ya -?
-1 T,
- - _ Ir

T - , 'FFf

1+ +it 1:

l 1

I- t - 1

??

_ f
SYY
y'
T
,y

?J
yyr Y #
1.! ;•+T

t?

•-r1
r
1-

1
Y
Y
T
yam{
+t

`-

_
rM ,1
MAY-2C05 11;16
r aclHay\proy?b3347_-dy_!sh.dan
CONTJ
CP7" 0
TIP IB-3847
i nv?z
0
.. m?
a0
?.
m
OnQ . \
i - x
yzO Z `w o 0
5 u
?*, - S - o k
??*+Z
CA
i ??/'i?? 3?
,amz
m ry 1; _ _ ?.
XO :c
oa?t
M 40
° c R/FV PLAN SUBMITTAL
..•1jtz
13
ODc
E?O
mZ..
r m / b!
m ?
y
` o
(7)
o
420.
'o
p?
?b3 b ?o
_ DMIP?
?... r / a f!7 b
00 .. ?
b3 +
o obi
6 ? y
o.
a
xc GRID Ea
NNa
NAD V
a
m
?y V
Wz
Z _4

09/08/99

N
8
'1:17
47_rdg_typ.dgn
5/28/99
Q7 to •'O T cn CA cn ° -Ti ;q t0
CL
3 to tQ 0
m no 3 •O 0
-? O
Q. t0 .' g o 3 0 co
o

3
C W 'O m W
w
-. 0
FL
to CL

O 0 Y

to
Z
M
e
n t
i
3- V7 0
rL
o o y ©
,
°
=o
o x . b
a- c
' O
o m

n i ?
o ? 4YI A

0 0 0 H 0 H 0 0 0 M
to
'
w .
w
N
17 'i7 •17 ?. 't7 ti. 3 ? •D •
. _.. q
-
o m m o n 0 m to ?.

3 LM
m o
„_,?, © to
S °
7C CO

S ul

v

p

O O

° ?

° f

°

O

5
v
a v
a n
°•
D
n .
° °. . .
. 3
.
O 0
to
Q

t
c
C
m
W

w
O

+
Ci

0

t, J
T M 0 i
u 4 v 3 ?.
w N 3 j = 1E

a It

t' c m a •v
N N
m
O
O

W . .

m
I

I

I I

!
ID
I
nI
p 4
o -9 g, n- ? -u -y -u -u n Q
<
q c
Q O
tr O
p O
P O
'O O O c
'U
W
C ° `f+
{1 ? W W 3 O W W Q O
©
3 ?
tr 0.
O Q n °- = to to m
pr pr X, CD
_
vJ
O 70 ° T W N N •
?•
W Q W
^
m
-n
c
lt?
v n
Q
m © m ?y
C
?
]

U
'

L
I I
I I
I I ?

? ?

I o [I
I?
I
i
In I
1
i I

I
31 °
m C m tr o o o Q En -V 0 0 m n o 0 0= m o m o
O . < m m ?7C•" -+. © .a N w m W O m C 'O W m ' m °• O' (,) vq .O 'O .w.. •p
7 0 O' 'fl 3 m ?' ?• C p 0 Tr °-? o (? p m .3. 0 m 0 0 O© © 0 O O
m f = = to = °W too ° © ° X = m Q -? m Q to m © _ > > ca o m
N m n= 7C' m m = W -p 7 © 3 O .? _v O n •p W -. '* -O •p m m
-' t^ °- Z, m n -1 ° T ° to 3• 3 '" ° •9 T
c !- ;o v g - W Q w o© 2.,u o o n? n °' °a ° 0 N N 0 0 0
,y, 3 Q C _ S O m Q 3
Q ° W 0. P ©= 3 p O
W _Q. 0: S a? n S m 3 S C p ° , b O° W W
o n o to o 0 S 3 n Q © a 0
S 7 K 3 to _ o O p n. O m p`
am m W © _ °
•V X .t O = ;
Q s °" 7
-« o Q.
-3. ° o
CL
OQO a m 0®0 0 ®I ir1 0' D O O+® CS a p p p O p f o-
r
a _? T •v v •v •a v -v v n -1 n y
N •w?' O m to O O O rn O O w ?' O
•O 0. S '! n n 't] C
•17 'D ?, •Q •O m
0 c• 3 m m W m m m W n != u 3°
to ca M o. CC 3 At0 C. c o Q 3 v
m
JD Q
m a- c o o -o > 3 _ C m© O
0 0 'Z r
to a:i 3 m O' C m = to 7 m
0 m= m m 0.; m m n O
m m °- n o m; 3 tr
°.Q.o am a? o
3
Q = tD 7 m 0.
-« 3
C
to ° 0:3 to S m
O W Q- O 0. N
3 o w c O /!?
?
C :3
O 3 N CL
_• 0 7.
w W w
N O
I I I I I'?' i I!? ? y
I I I ?? I I L? I l l l
m .? 0 0 0 a w l Oi N? 70 ? I 1 (? b
m w r r m M X C- I I I I 1 f
I I m m m I ?? I ? 1 1
? III III
c cn
0
n c 3
O 0.
? n
m• C
'a to
0 m

H
-v v o -p = 3z
g
Q o

v L C fp
=W 0
m ° 7

o Q.

c
N
4

1
Y
??
I " II
)t v a v po C v? v po v PC rt° w v to v
94 q ° m W 3 W W C) W q q W W q m ° m W
Q N n _w n g7 to n N n n o O N n N n = w n
a < tQ tQ' tt2 ca CQ' CO• To =+ O
O m O m O © ° = 0. 3 0. 3 Q. = 0. 3 n. Q 7 a
m rt ° (D 0. m 0. Q W Q q p m Q W Q m •? Q m
:3 CL CL - CL CA 8- D- 8- D- CL
M s Q- _n Q- -I C Q. Q. -1 Q. -v Q. Q_ to m Q. -0 0 n -:2
in 0 in °° 3' m ° _° ° vs m m °
'o n n Q- 2 3• ? Q N ° m
n °o• °v- a °_ ° n °• (n C N
Q• m o ° n °° C m "t o C
m t:l 0 ° in -? O n' T
,T _ to O a N •? n m .r
cn C 0. C C W _?
C T c Q
O. m ??- -« v O 3
m
? I I I I I
0 0 ? I I j I ? b I ?, ? N N I 1
0 s CA (A c o n© m m c? c° n n s
o a o Q O c 0 M. ° c m c 3• Q o
S O co m •• Q W t0 W Q E a a N ?.
w m ca - O O p. C m 0. 0. °-+. to to En 3
S -, c O co <
4 2 m m m Q C) O ' O ?, CO
Q' Q m n
T C a ° 0
= tr '`3
_ o c
Oi
O
y ?

I I I , ?
I I I n \

to
?
I I I
I
, ?
? I
I

I I
I
I 1
,

CA "' ° Q 0 -0 Q ? T 0
°- © 3 3 o
3 rt
p n
? S
C
W
<
rt
0

Q

n

I?
x £o yo I I '

m
0
? W
o c
C n.
Q 3.
to
N• N
P'99
0
3?:
W
0
CA
to
C
T
II
t/f
C
m
to
C
n
to
T
Z
0
m
T
X
00
M
P1

C
0
0
0
25-MAY-2005 II:17
r:\roodwey\pZ-o„i\6 47-rdy-tyo.dgn
i
?T
8
O
c
z
v
I?
I?
II
I?
I?
I
I
II
II
I?
I

1
O
0
C
z
v
c
N
m

O
n D
r
yb y n 0 g m ?(Mn

;I 0 0
z
•
O N W
A
y
o
Z a
o
i
?i
S
O
c
z
0
v
•o
m
-1
O

1
v

1 m
3
S?
0
3
3
w ?7 • -
O S
aq3`
2i 'T
.w
5 C
(!1
PP m
+ +
+ + -p
o?4?
00
C2 D
? r
O
0 m
m A
8: _
G1 °o O
Z
O m
0
m
Z; Z O
u 22
°o G01 N
?ll
1 1 g
1
O
O
C
z
a
i
S
A
O
c
z
13
yyy
mx
N ? W
O
OO
N N
n N ? ? m
E
v a
Z I
I
c ?
I?
m t Imo"
0 !41
N I m
? ? m II n
Ib
i III
C
rl
m
P. P n
w=:
wo ?
00 M
m
OO =j
m 0
+ + Z
W N
0
O
O O Z
O
6/2/99
2
c
g?
3
3
3
Y
E
0
m
•
m v
N v
fJ n
N

m0 '
ZO
?ZO
O
>Zl
O mvv

>
mb ,
a
Z
??'
rnj N
?

?'?'•
4C,C,
1A
O
?A Q
O
. mm O
?c -?n0 C
n0 n0
z
O
t
a mm

?•
= t

-"
T
n

s
i
??-a 0 O- o
j> p p
j
z ~ N "'1 N !4
N N 'y O
.0
7a7 "0
z mo
NZ ;n
=? Tao
N=
'n

?nnn
p
Zma

?
?n
P f,?r Z
o.'nn
m 7n ?O
r'nn
7? n
+O
A Z
(
m ? Nm
A- N?
P N
P r enA
A

o

p V 2:

vP„
?
o>
O r'a0 O Tm m
m
N J O rn
m p
n
n O
vc
.n a
pn
C O
m
.my
C
m N"1N
p
m rn -4-yf -(

u

O

?

y
-G

m
p'
m M
rn

N yy
K

rn
Z '
r

?

s m

o m

?

m

Z
nn
m
n
vv m v >
Zy >
' _ m
? Z

c -? '- N 3 n

S
S -0
n
,' (n
_
Z z
O z
n m>
z a n
Z° C
?.
m 's o
O v
0 m
3 L1
j
o
A 1?
Q

Z

a -1
-1 ;
?
v
3.
?n y
m

0 =
?n
u A O
_? C N =
m
Zv

m
a rn
Tin
p
p
,°
c
m
N `
N y
O?
rn
Z rn w
?u
so
P
_ n
m
=o,
a

t
1 `L•
A H
® N

3 3 a:?
3 C ? T
a s$
p o' n
• ?
? HINGE POINT
ij• P

? • N
n
3:•

3
o
?
o
A
1

O
O
C
z
v
u
S
?- o
n
>
la
"? p,
go

ut N D

O

0 O z
as 0
0
+
0
;0 ` m0

N
n
0
Q
F
nnv
-i
O
to
S
n
3
S
O
CL
A
a
n
n
o

SR

tb A
0
y ~ Or
? x
I^' O

y
24
3?
po
_
0

25-MAY-2005 11:20
r:\rend,ny\XSC\R-3347 dy-*pl.dgn 8/23/99
k -land Ai 80212417

z
0
"rl
G.
G
0
w
C
w
G
O
O
O
0
d
0
0
a
cu
0
O
0
0
0
0
o
-i m
D z
7 o
y

C
C3 -0
T C

m m m

y
N
m
N
FL D

m z
w
Q ;a

+

o
0
w
m o 00
x Zo C
'
ci n
-
n
m
?a ;u
a?
r
m
n
i
r T

-0 n
-4
I ?N
z
0 0
M m D
r Cl)
0 0 Cn
4 rn - * - C
FO m m D
to

a a r ,?
N
.? O

o
0 - m
?
N

O N D
03
r- I
m

0
?N D
o r"
0
M
-0 M
;z m
?c
n
m
m
N R: m
m
tim
N ?..'

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200520381 County: Guilford U.S.G.S. Quad: Kernersville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATI
Property Owner/Agent: Phillip S. Harris, Hi, PF, RECEIVED
Address: NC DOT
1598 Mail Service Center ?s
RaleiLh. NC 27699-1598 I FEB . 2005
Telephone No.:
Property description: DIVISIM OF HIGHWAYS
Size (acres) 7 Nearest Town HiLhPoint PDEA-OFFICE OFNATURAIENVIRONMOff
Nearest Waterway West Fork Deep River River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC Coordinates N 360322.79 W 800117.71
Location description Bridle # 63 on SR 1850 adjacent to West Fork Deep River, north of HiLh Point, in Guilford
County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Applv:
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered fmal, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X_ The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
Action ID:
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact John Thomas at 919 876-8441.
Basis For Determination: There are stream channels within your project site which are tributaries of Nest Fork Deep
River which flows into the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean.
Remarks: I conducted site inspections of the project site with Pete Stafford of RK&K consultants on Novermber 5,
2004. 1 determine that site C that was previously identified as being wetlands did not meet the Hvdric Soil criteria and
therefore are not jurisdictional waters subject to Department of th-e?lArmv permits. The wetland B site is an old /
miti ation Wi1't . ?,' ?L i),, ?? j-!?b f 4?v t? CUAnaG ti' i?4f 5, V& fn ,.u?.?+ ?''?•?? v'j?jl
,
AN 'h¢ 4 i`P ?? r 4'ra"'1 `?r?t. iy ,(.7 it 1o y .?? M ,'?
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 02/03/2005 Expiration Date 02/03/2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Pabe 2 of 2
- 'The term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural
river berths, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent.
NOTIFICATION OF AI)MINISTR-,?ITIV1,?'AI'I'LAL OPTIONS ANI) YRO ESS AND
IZEQIJFST FOIZ 1'1'11:iL
Applicant: NCDOT File Number: 200520381 Date: 02/03/2005
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION 1 - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at littp://,,v?vw.usice.armv.mil/inet/functions/cw/ceewo/rer or
Corps re relations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Pemiit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - RE UEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INF ORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact: Al,?& (3e //
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490
UA t-A FOHM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-3847 Bridge Replacement Project No: B-3847
Applicant/Owner: Elmo Vance
Investigators:
n_ i ,+i /?i? 1
Date:.:. 13=Jun•2001
County: Guilford
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Al (and Cl)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID: A (and 0) 3
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) Southeast of bridge
VEGETATION (USFWS Reckon No. 2)
Dominant Plant Species Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant Species Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Betula nigra Tree FACW Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
Birch,River Greenbrier,Common
Acerrubrum Tree FAC Parthenocissusquinquefolia Vine FAC
Maple,Red Creeper,Virginia
Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
Arrow-Wood Cane,Giant
Ulmus americana Shrub FACW Boehmeria cylindrica Herb FACW+
Elm,American False-Nettle, Small-Spike
Acerrubrum Shrub FAC Peltandra virginica Herb OBL
Maple,Red Arum,Arrow

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 10/10 = 100.00% FAC Neutral: 5/5 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 24/10 =2.40
Remarks:
See soils comment. Along bands, soils do not indicated hydric conditions. However, vegetation and hydrology show wetland conditions. Transects A
and C have similiar soil, vegetation and hydrology conditions.
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators.
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data YES Water Marks
NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A.(in.) YES Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) YES Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey.Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: = 8 (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Elizabeth Mack Page 1 of 2 WeiForm'"
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-3847 Bridge Replacement Project No: B-3847 Date: 13-Jun-2001
Applicant/Owner: Elmo Vance County: Guilford
Investigators: Elizabeth Mack; Tim Baumgartner State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Al (and Cl)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee silt loam
Map Symbol: Wh Drainage Class: poorly drained Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0-4 A 10YR5/3 N/A N/A N/A Silt loam
5-24 131 10YR6/2 10YR6/1 Few Faint Silt, Blocky
25+ B2 10YR5/1 N/A N/A N/A Sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol YES Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NOHigh Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
YES Aquic Moisture Regime YES Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
YES Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Chewacla soils found on a 20' buffer areound Deep Creek. Deep red soils with faint and few mottles, not less than chroma of 3, absent from hydric
indicators. Alluvial deposition, especially along creek bank, ranging from 3-6".
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hvdric Soils Present? es No
(Remarks:
Elizabeth Mack Page 2 of 2 WetForrn ":
Project/Site: B-3847
Applicant/owner: NCDOT
Investigators:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project No: B-3847
Date: 10-Nov-2004
County: aG:.•IFor?l
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Upland Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION n is G,AJC o .: PA- n%
Dominant Pl
t S
i
an
ec
es Latin/Common
Acerrubrum Stratum
Tree Indicator
FAC Plant S ecies Latin/Common
Corpus florida Stratum
Shr
b Indicate
F

Maple,Red
Dogwood, Flowering u ACU
Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC+ Fagus grandifolia Shrub FA

Gum,Sweet
Beech,American CU
Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC Vitis rotundifolia Vi F

Greenbrier, Common
Grape,Muscadine ne AC
Carpinus caroliniana Tree FAC Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
Hornbeam,American Cane,Giant
Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC
Ivy,Poison

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 7/9 = 77.780/o' FAC Neutral: 1/3 =33.33%
Numeric Index: 2819 =3.11
nc:nwI ns:
u?wvvu ?
11 tvv rtecoraed Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
N/A Other NO Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
YES Drift Lines

Field Observations NO Sediment. Deposits
NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands

Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):.
NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) YES Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) NO FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Page ] of 2 WetFOrm"
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-3847 Project No: B-3847 Date: 10-Nov-2004
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: I F&'
Investigators: State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Wetland C
SOILS
IMap Unit Name (Series and Phase): Congaree
Map Symbol: Co Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth
(inches)
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0-8 A 7.5YR4/4 N/A N/A N/A Loam
8-14 A/B 10YR5/4 N/A N/A N/A Sandy clay loam
14 25+ B 7.5YR6/4 N/A N/A N/A Sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
NO Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland C was removed due to soils
Page 2 of 2
W otForm"
Guilford County
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road)
Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1850 (1)
l
j State Project No. 8.2496101
T.I.P. No. B-3847
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
?9lOSq? P !t ` (9,
?S"0TFPP
cy
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
V36 0
DA
DATE l
319 0
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., nvironmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Guilford County
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road)
Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1850 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496101
T.I.P. No. B-3847
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2004
Document Prepared By:
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
/Z ca J ZLZ-=?-
Eli a th S. Workman
Environmental Specialist
.??
T. Peacock, Jr., P.8.
Associate
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Robert Andrew Jo er, P.E.
Project Manager
???unuur?,
H CAR
k f SEAL 9? r
X=
A?{ 464,2
?? ?' '••..•.•••' V
Consultant Engineering Unit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
1 Introduction
1
I. Purpose and Need Statement 1
J H. Existing Conditions 1
III. Alternatives 3
1 A. Project Description
1 3
B. Build Alternatives 3
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study 4
D. Preferred Alternative 4
IV. Estimated Costs
J 4
V. Natural Resources 5

A. Methodology 5
B. Physiography and Soils
6
C. Water Resources 7
1. Waters Impacted 7
2. Water Resource Characteristics 7
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources g
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal 9
D. Biotic Resources 10
1. Plant Communities 10
a. Man-dominated Community 10
b. Upland 10
c. Wetland 10
2. Wildlife 11
1 3. Aquatic Communities 11
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities 13
a. Terrestrial Communities 13
J b. Wetland Communities 14
1 c. Aquatic Communities 15
E. Special Topics 15
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues 15
2. Permits
a. Section 404. of Clean Water Act
b. Section 401 Water Quality Certification
c. Bridge Demolition and Removal
d. Coast Guard
e. Tennessee Valley Authority
f. Designated Public Mountain Trout Water
g. Special Waters
3. Buffer Rules
4. Mitigation
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Endangered and Threatened Species
2. Federal Species of Concern
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
VI. Cultural Resources
A. Compliance Guidelines
B. Historic Architecture
C. Archaeology
VII. Environmental Effects
VIII. Public Involvement
IX. Agency Comments
X. References
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.0 Estimated Costs per Alternative
Table 2.0 Plant Community Impacts per Alternative
Table 3.0 Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
23
24
5
13
15
PROJECT COMMITMENTS

Guilford County
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road)
Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1850 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496101
T.I.P. No. B-3847'
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
1A Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for
1 Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
DESIGN SERVICES UNIT, DIVISION 7
No fill material is to be placed on the mitigation property (R-609 D) located to the northeast of
J Bridge No. 63.
• The project is located in waters designated as WS-IV* which are subject to.special management
l strategies specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0248. Hazardous spill basins may be required.
• NCDOT will consider alternative methods of construction with an aggressive construction
schedule to minimi e time of the road closure.
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
April 2004 Sheet 1 of 1
Guilford County
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road)
Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No.BRZ-1850 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496101
1 T.I.P. No. B-3847
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 63 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the Federal
Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location of this bridge is shown on 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 indicated that Bridge No. 63 was inspected July 8, 2003 and has
a sufficiency rating of 23.4 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. This bridge is considered
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in
safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
`4l The project is located in Guilford County on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road), approximately 260
1 feet east of the junction at SR 1855 (Squire Davis Drive). The local area surrounding the proposed
project consists of gently rolling hills and land use is best described as residential development, natural
forest vegetation, and wetlands.
SR 1850 is classified as an urban local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
1 In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1850 is a 20-foot paved, 2-lane roadway with 4-foot grass
shoulders. The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area. The roadway is situated
approximately 11 feet above the riverbed at Bridge No. 63.
1
The 2001 traffic volume of 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 6,200 VPD
l
l by the year 2025. The project volume includes 1-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3-percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit in the project area.
There were 3 accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 63 during a recent 3-year period.
These figures resulted in a total accident rate of 248 ACC/100 MVM.
Bridge No. 63 has three spans and a clear roadway width of 24.5 feet. The bridge has an asphalt-
wearing surface on a 4 X 12 timber floor. Supports 1 and 2 contain eleven lines of S15 X 36 steel I-
I beams. Support 3 contains thirteen lines of W12 X 27 steel I-beams. The bents consist of timber caps on
timber piles with timber bulkheads. The posted weight limit on this bridge is 16 tons for single vehicles
I and 22 tons for tractor trailer/semi-trucks. Bridge No. 63 was built in 1956 and is in fair condition.
I In a letter dated March 6, 2001, the Piedmont Natural Gas Company stated, "at this time we have
no existing natural gas pipelines or plans to install any in the foreseeable future" (see letter in Appendix).
In a letter dated March 5, 2001, the City of Greensboro Water Resources Department stated, "there are no
water or sewer lines affecting the listed properties" (see letter in Appendix). The City of Greensboro has
a sewer outfall crossing under SR 1850 approximately 400 feet east of the existing bridge. Overall, utility
impacts are anticipated to be low and any specific impacts will be coordinated with appropriate utility
personnel during construction.
Arranged school bus routes cross Bridge No. 63 approximately 10 times daily. In a letter dated
March 12, 2001, the Guilford County Schools indicated that during the August 2001 school year "buses
would be routed off Bunker Hill Road to access these students, adding approximately 10 minutes to each
route" (see letter in Appendix).
Guilford County Emergency Services stated,.' on-site detours are always the least disruptive when
it comes to response times for EMS. We do understand financial considerations and will work with the
final decision as best as possible". The Colfax County Fire Station is located just north of the bridge and
is likely to be affected. They also prefer an alternative with an on-site detour.
2
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a multiple span cored-slab bridge that is approximately
95 feet long and 39 feet wide. The replacement structure will require spill-through abutments on each
end. This structure provides two 12-foot lanes with 7.5-foot shoulders on each side. The proposed
approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot pavement width to provide two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot
shoulders, of which 2 feet are paved, on each side in accordance with current NCDOT Policy (see
Figures 2a and 2b).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic review. The final design of
the bridge will be such that the proposed roadway and structure will be placed at approximately the same
elevation. The bridge length will be maximized. Alternatives 1 and 2 follow these general guidelines and
are therefore acceptable. No changes to the flood elevation are anticipated. The new structure will
improve existing conditions, accommodate design flows, and minimize environmental impacts on any
sensitive natural ecosystems that may be in the vicinity of the project study area.
B. Build Alternatives
1 The alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 63 are shown on Figure 3 and described below:
J Alternative 1 (Preferred) - replaces the bridge with a 95-foot long bridge on the existing
alignment. The approach work will extend from approximately 215 feet west of the bridge to
l approximately 320 feet east of the bridge for a total distance of approximately 630 feet. The
J design speed is 60 miles per hour (mph). A design exception will not be necessary for this
alternative. An off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
This 4-mile detour uses SR 1850, SR 1826 (Dilworth Road), SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) and
l SR 1818 (Johnson Street) (see Figure 1). Bridge No. 308 on SR 1818 over the Deep River was
J replaced in 1997 and is in good condition. This bridge will accommodate detoured traffic. This
detour will involve an unpaved portion of SR 1826. Paving 1.3 miles of SR 1826 will increase
construction costs by $260,000, which is reflected in Table 1.0.
Alternative 2 - replaces the bridge with a 95-foot long bridge on the existing alignment. The
approach work will extend from approximately 215 feet west of the bridge to approximately 320
feet east of the bridge for a total length of approximately 630 feet. The design speed is 60 mph.
A design exception will not be necessary for this alternative. During construction, traffic will be
3
l maintained on a temporary detour structure located approximately 45 feet south (downstream) of
the existing bridge. The detour structure will be approximately 170 feet long and 26 feet wide.
1 The detour approach work will extend from approximately 540 feet west of the bridge to

approximately 220 feet east of the bridge for a total length of approximately 930 feet.
Alternative 2 was not selected as the preferred alternative because it has greater wetland and
stream impacts and costs more than Alternative 1.
Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "Do Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This
is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1850.
A box culvert was considered but is not a feasible alternative for this location.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Alternative 3, which replaces the bridge with a 135-foot bridge on new location approximately 50
feet north (upstream) of the existing structure, was eliminated from further study due to impacts to the
NCDOT wetland mitigation site, associated with R-609D, located northeast of the bridge.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1, replacing the existing bridge on its existing alignment with an off-site detour, is the
I preferred alternative. Alternative 1 is recommended because it retains the existing tangent alignment on
SR 1850 over Deep River, has no relocates, and minimizes wetland and stream impacts.
The Division office concurs with the selection of Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current prices (2002/2003), are shown in Table 1.0.
4
Table 1.0 Estimated Costs per Alternative
Alternative 1
(Preferred) Alternative 2
Structure $259,300 $259,300
Roadway Approaches $112,700 $263,800
Structure Removal $18,500 $18,500
Misc. and Mobilization $157,300 $153,800
Temporary On-Site Detour $0 $305,200
Paving portion of SR 1826 off-site detour $260,000 $0
Engineering & Contingencies $142,200 $149,400
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $950,000 $1,150,000
Right of Way / Utilities $40,000 $84,700
TOTAL PROJECT COST $990,000 $1,234,700
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT's TIP is $ 562,000, including
$ 62,000 for right-of-way and $ 500,000 for construction. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal
year 2005. Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2006.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
The information contained in this section is based on the Natural Resources Technical Report
(March 2002) prepared by Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP.
A. Methodology
The project study area was visited, walked, and visually surveyed for significant features on June
13, 2001 and September 20, 2001. The project study area encompasses the various alternatives under
consideration and is approximately 1,650 feet in length and up to 450 feet at its widest point. Impacts
were calculated for each alignment using a width of approximately 60 feet; actual impacts will occur
within construction limits and will be less than those calculated for this report. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality
protection (see Figures 4a and 4b).
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
5
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delineation guidelines (1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial
wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through
field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Peterson 1980, Burt
and Grossenheider 1980, Martof et al. 1980, Lee et al. 1982). Water quality information for Deep River
j and its tributaries was derived from North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
` (DENR 2000, DENR 2001), formerly known as the Department of the Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR 1993, DEHNR 1997). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing
data.
The most current United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing (intemet update
February 18, 2003) of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Guilford County was
obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting the presence
of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province. Topography is
I
characterized by gently rolling hills and moderately steep slopes along drainages to small lakes/reservoirs.
I Elevations in the project study area range from approximately 810 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along
the Deep River bank to approximately 835 feet above MSL in the vicinity of the proposed project along
J SR 1850. Land use in the project region includes a mixture of urban, residential and agricultural uses.
(USGS Kemersville, NC quadrangle 1969).
The project study area crosses four soil series: Appling (Typic Kanhapludults), Cecil (Typic
Kanhapludults), Chewacla (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), and Congaree (Typic Udifluvents). The Appling
series is a sandy loam and consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils and formed in residuum
weathered from acid igneous and metamorphic rocks. It occurs on broad ridges and narrow, long slopes.
The Cecil series is a sandy loam and consists of well-drained moderately permeable soils that formed in
residuum weathered from acid igneous and metamorphic rocks. It occurs on broad, smooth ridges and on
long, narrow side slopes. The Chewacla series is a sandy loam and consists of somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils that formed in recent alluvium. The soils are in long, flat areas parallel to the
6
major streams on the floodplain. Congaree series is a loam and consists of well-drained, moderately
permeable soils that formed in loamy alluvium. These soils are on long, narrow floodplains.
The project study area crosses six soil mapping units: Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes;
Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent; Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent; Cecil sandy clay loam, 6 to 10
percent, eroded; Chewacla sandy loam, nearly level; and Congaree loam, nearly level.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located on the western fork of the Deep River in the Cape Fear River
subbasin 03-06-08. Subbasin 03-06-08 contains the City of High Point and parts of the cities of
Greensboro and Randleman. The subbasin comprises the headwaters for the Deep River. Most of the
Deep River has a rocky substrate while many of the associated tributaries are deeply entrenched with sand
and gravel substrate substances. This area is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030003 (USGS 1974).
Bridge No. 63 crosses Deep River approximately 260 feet east of the intersection of SR 1850 and SR
1855. Deep River flows from north to south within the project study area. At SR 1850 and Deep River,
the Stream Index Number (SIN) 17-3-(0.3) has been assigned by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ).
A NCDOT wetland mitigation site (R-609D) is located northeast of Bridge No. 63. This site is
one part of five sites, totaling approximately 10.7 acres, used to mitigate for the US 311 Bypass in
Davidson and Guilford Counties.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Stream Characteristics
Deep River is a perennial piedmont stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of rock,
sand, silt, and gravel. In the project study area, Deep River is lined with a silt substrate and has
entrenched banks with access to its floodplain. Deep River is a single channel stream with a constricted
bankfull width of approximately 16 feet just south of the existing bridge. No rooted aquatic vegetation
was apparent in the channel, but some branches and leaves were seen.
7
Best Usage Classifications 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. From the source of West
Fork of Deep River to 0.3 mile downstream of SR 1850, the best usage classification of WS-IV* was
assigned on April 1, 1999 (Cape Fear River Basinwide Assessment, DENR 1999). The designation of
"WS-IV" denotes a highly developed water supply. The symbol "*" denotes waters that are within a
designated Critical Supply Watershed and are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A
NCAC 2B .0248. From 0.3 mile downstream of SR 1850 to the dam at Oak Hollow Reservoir, Deep
River has a best usage classification of WS-IV CA. The supplemental classification CA indicates this is a
critical area due to the water intake. Due to the project's close proximity to the water intake, a hazardous
spill basin may be required.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-II Waters
occur within three miles of the project study area. Deep River is not designated as a North Carolina
Natural and Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic River.
There are many small dischargers in the Deep River subbasin 03-06-08; however, only two
facilities have permitted flows of over 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD). High Point Eastside WWTP is
permitted to discharge 16 MGD to Richland Creek, just above its confluence with the Deep River,
Randleman WWTP is permitted to discharge 1.7 MGD directly to the Deep River. Neither discharger is
within the project study area. Furthermore, there are no NPDES dischargers located within one mile of the
project study area.
One benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station is located in the project study area at SR 1850
and Deep River. This station received a bioclassification of Good/Fair in 1988 (Cape Fear River
Basinwide Assessment, DENR 1999).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
After construction activities are completed, abandoned approaches associated with the existing
structure and/or temporary detours will be removed and revegetated in accordance with NCDOT
guidelines. See Table 3.0 for the calculated impacts to surface waters within the project study area.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Best Management Practices (BMP's) can minimize impacts during
8
1.
construction, including implementing stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures, and avoiding
using wetlands as staging areas can minimize construction impacts.
Other impacts to water quality that are anticipated as a result of this project include: elevated
j stream temperatures as a result of canopy removal, increased shade due to the construction of a new
detour bridge, and changes in stormwater flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface in the
1 case of detour construction. The limited amount of overall change in the surrounding areas are expected
to be temporary in nature.
The NCDOT wetland mitigation site (R-609D) is located northeast of Bridge No. 63. NCDOT
has stated that no fill material is to be placed on the mitigation property. Therefore, Alternative 3 was
eliminated from further study due to impacts created from replacing the bridge north of the existing
structure. A retaining wall is proposed to minimize or eliminate any wetland impacts that may occur due
to fill from the bridge replacement project. With the retaining wall, approximately 0.001 acre of fill is
anticipated in the wetland mitigation site R-609D.
DWQ classifies the West Fork of Deep River from a point 0.3 mile downstream of SR 1850 to
the dam at Oak Hollow Reservoir as a designated Critical Supply Watershed. Due to the location of the
project study area, it is recommended that the replacement of Bridge No. 63 follow a special management
strategy specified in 15 A NCAC 2B .0248. A hazardous spill basin may be required.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled Removal
of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
as well as guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in Deep River resulting from demolition.
No temporary fill associated with the removal of the superstructure of Bridge No. 63 is
anticipated since the deck is composed entirely of steel and timber and will be removed in such a manner
that no components will be dropped in the water. No temporary fill associated with the removal of the
substructure of Bridge No. 63 is anticipated since the bents are composed entirely of timber and will be
removed in such a manner that no components will be dropped in the water.
This project is categorized as a Case 3 stream crossing. A Case 3 stream crossing occurs when
there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters.
9
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area. One community has been
severely altered by anthropogenic changes and is described as maintained/disturbed. The two other
communities follow the Schafale and Weakley classification of natural communities. These three
1 communities are described as the following: 1) a maintained plant community containing residential
lawns, roadsides, and a sewer line with easement, 2) an upland community consisting of a mixed
hardwood stand, and 3) a wetland community consisting of a piedmont bottomland forest. Impacts within
the 60-foot right-of-way were calculated and are shown in Table 2.0. Refer to Exhibit 3 in the Natural
Systems Report (March 2002) for locations of each area.
a. Man-dominated Community (Maintained/Disturbed Community)
Along maintained areas of roadsides, residential lawns and the sewer line easement, the vegetation noted
includes the following: lawn grasses, such as fescue (Fescuta spp.) and bermudagrass (Cynodon
dactylon), and early to mid-successional invasive vegetation such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidantbar styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrunt). Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) also is found on the site.
b. Upland (Mixed Hardwood Forest)
The upland community is a mixed hardwood forest composed of loblolly pine, sweetgum, red maple
(Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), flowering dogwood (Contus florida), American
holly (Ilex opaca), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia).
C. Wetland (Piedmont Bottomland Forest)
The wetland community is a piedmont bottomland forest composed of river birch (Betula nigra), willow
oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple, arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianunt),
American elm (Ubnus americana), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineunt), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) and arrow arum (Peltandra virginica). Within the
piedmont bottomland forest, two variations exist. First, a levee forest that lies next to the river is
dominated by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple, river birch, sweetgum, American elm,
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), common greenbrier, and grapevine (Vitis spp.). Second,
the floodplain depression or pool (NCDOT Mitigation site R-609D) is surrounded by common alder
10
(Alnus serrulata) and black willow (Salix nigra). Within the pool, herbaceous vegetation dominates.
Sedge species (Carex spp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), common cattail (Typha latifolia), jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), duckweed (Lemna spp.), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and ground
nut (Apios americana) thrive in the more open, flooded areas.
2. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial fauna. The red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamicensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) were seen within the project study area. Mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc.) observed
from wildlife include the raccoon (Procyon lotor) and opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
-1 Expected wildlife species are those adapted to the ecotone between the maintained roadsides,
,I open residential neighborhoods and adjacent hardwood forest. Bird species expected within and around
the project study area include the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), great-crested flycatcher
(Myiarchus crinitus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), hairy and downy woodpeckers (Picoides
villosus and pubescens), and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis). Mammals expected include the
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), deer mouse (Zapus hudsonius), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and beaver (Castor canadensis). Expected
reptile species include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rat
snake (Elaphe obsolete), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrU), and eastern hognose (Heterodon
platyrliinos).
3. Aquatic Communities
Kick-net surveys and limited bottom sampling along the edges of the Deep River yielded very
few aquatic macroinvertebrates due to heavy sedimentation and the high velocity of stream flow caused
by recent rains. Very little habitat such as leaf packs, large rocks or dead logs were noted in the project
study area. Organisms collected were identified to Order and included stoneflies (Plecoptera) and midges
(Chironomidae).
The floodplain pool located to the northeast of Bridge No. 63 is excellent breeding habitat for an
array of amphibians. Several species are largely dependent upon pools that seasonally dry up, protecting
amphibian eggs from fish predation. Limited surveys did not result in documentation of any salamanders
11
I
j in the Deep River or floodpool. Amphibians expected to be found in the project study area include the
eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), spotted salamander (Ambystoma n:aculatum), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), northern spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). The slow moving water
of the river provides suitable habitat for a few aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles such as the yellow-bellied
slider (Chrysemys scripta), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern mud turtle
(Kinosternon subrubrum), stinkpot (Steniotherus odoratus), spotted turtle (Clenunys guttata), and various
watersnakes (Nerodia spp.).
Visual observation of stream banks revealed no evidence of freshwater mussels. Aquatic
conditions appeared to be normal, without any obvious pollution from litter or pungent odors. Banks
were vegetated and no major erosion problems were noticed. The project study area is typical of a
piedmont woodland stream.
Wildlife rely on the constant flow of fresh water, moist soils and saturated pools nearby. During
seasonal flooding events, the Deep River replenishes water to floodplain, providing areas for breeding,
shelter, feeding and watering for a variety of fauna.
Small non-game fish in the area that inhabit Deep River include a variety of chubs, shiners, and
dace. Darters can be found in riffles upstream of the project study area. Sunfish travel between Deep
River and Oak Hollow Lake. Game fish living in Oak Hollow Lake and occasionally found in Deep
River include the following: red-eared sunfish (Lepomis n:icrolophus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white crappie (Pomoxis
annularis), yellow bullhead catfish (Ictalurus natalis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Hybrid striped bass (Morone spp.)
-+ and channel catfish are stocked in Oak Hollow Lake. An apparent decline has been reported for game
I fish in Oak Hollow Lake. The decline in aquatic macrophytes, namely water lilies, results in decreased
refuge areas for game fish. Increased competition of white perch (Morone americana) has also been
blamed for the decline in game fish populations.
12
i 4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the acreage of each plant
community present within the proposed right-of-way of 60 feet; actual impacts within construction limits
will be less. Alternatives 1 and 2 both propose to replace the bridge at the existing location; however,
Alternative 2 has an on-site temporary detour located 45 feet south of the existing bridge. A summary of
potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 2.0.
Table 2.0 Plant Community Impacts per Alternative
ESTIMATED IMPACTS

PLANT COMMUNITY in acres
Alternative 1 (Preferred) Alternative 2
Impacts Impacts
Maintained/Disturbed Community 0.67 -0.67
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0 0.11
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.02 0.20
Total for Alts: 0.69 0.98
Alternatives 1 and 2 are in close proximity to the existing structure, which will reduce permanent
..1 impacts to plant communities and limit community fragmentation. Impacts as a result of bridge
replacement are generally limited to narrow strips adjacent at the existing bridge structure and roadway
approach segments. Terrestrial community impacts range from 0.69 acre for Alternative 1 to 0.98 acre
for Alternative 2. Alternative 2 has the larger amount of potential impact due to the temporary detour
located south of the existing bridge, which consists of approximately 0.29 acre of the total 0.98 acre of
potential impact.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations.
Wildlife movement corridors are currently limited within the project study area and are not expected to be
significantly impacted by the proposed project.
13

b. Wetland Communities
Through field surveys, USGS topographic maps, Guilford County Soil Survey, and NWI
mapping, jurisdictional wetlands, and streams were determined, flagged, surveyed per GPS methodology,
and subsequently calculated. Field surveys occurred between June and September 2001. See Table 3.0
for jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Wetland values for representative areas within the project study area were evaluated using the
Fourth Version of the Guidance for Rating the Values of lVetlands in North Carolina. This system rates
the value of wetlands based on ability (characteristics such as hydrologic regime) and opportunity
(fulfilling a given value such as removal of pollutants). Six categories are evaluated and a rating is
determined. The categories are 1) water storage, 2) bank/shoreline stabilization, 3) pollutant removal, 4)
wildlife habitat, 5) aquatic life value, and 6) recreation/education. Two wetland evaluations were made in
the project study area: 1) includes both Wetland A and C and 2) includes Wetland B. Wetlands A and C
are piedmont bottomland hardwood forests located southeast and northwest of Bridge No. 63. They
received a value of 80 out of 100. Wetland B is the NCDOT wetland mitigation site R-609D located
northeast of Bridge No. 63. It received a value of 76 out of 100. For the purposes of this study, values
derived from the DWQ system were considered to exhibit high value with scores 60 or higher. More
information on wetland ratings is included in the Natural Systems Report (March 2002).
Wetlands A and C
Species found in Wetlands A and C include river birch, red maple, arrowwood, American elm,
greenbrier, Virginia creeper, Japanese grass, giant cane, false nettle and arrow arum. Hydrological
indicators consist of watermarks on trees, oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches and water-stained
leaves. Saturation occurred in the soil at eight inches deep. This soil series is mapped as Chewacla with
Wehadkee inclusions. Soil matrix colors were between 10YR6/2 and 10YR5/1. Mottling, reducing
conditions and low-chroma colors indicate hydric conditions.
Wetland B
Species found in Wetland B include black willow, common alder, soft rush, jewelweed, cattails,
duckweed, arrow arum, ground-nut, and yellow jessamine. Hydrological indicators consist of saturation in
the upper 12 inches of soil and inundated in other areas. The soil series is mapped as Chewacla with
Wehadkee inclusions. Soil matrix colors were between 5YR6/4 to 5YR6/1. Aquic moisture regime,
reducing conditions, and low-chroma colors indicate hydric conditions.
l
14
i c. Aquatic Communities
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be minimized by bridging the system to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from
increased sediment during construction are expected to be reduced by limiting the amount of in-stream
work. BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts. BMPs
for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed to minimize impacts due to anticipated bridge
demolition.
U. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Deep River are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3).
Linear feet of impacts to Deep River for each alternative were estimated along the stream
channel. The 60-foot right-of-way width was used for the calculation of jurisdictional stream impacts.
This calculation is associated with the construction of a temporary or new bridge and demolition of the
existing structure. The area represented in the preliminary construction limits was used for the calculation
of jurisdictional wetland impacts. Table 3.0 shows the jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts for
Alternatives 1 and 2 (see Figure 5).
Table 3.0 Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts
Alternative Wetland Impacts
in acres Stream Impacts
in linear feet
1 0.001 60
2 (without temporary detour)
2 0.001
0
061 60
105
2 (temporary detour) 0.060 . 45
According to wetland calculations, Alternative 2 impacts the larger acreage of wetlands, totaling
0.061 acre and the larger linear feet of stream at 105 feet. Due to the temporary detour located south of
the existing structure, most of the wetland and stream impacts will be temporary in nature. Alternative 1
had the least acreage of wetland impacts at 0.001 acre and least linear feet of stream impacts at 60 feet. A
retaining wall may be necessary to limit the amount of fill in the NCDOT wetland mitigation site
R-609D. Further minimization of impacts to the wetland mitigation site will be developed during final
design.
15
_I
The waters in Deep River within the project study area exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower
perennial, unconsolidated shore, permanently flooded, and excavated waters (R2UBHx). The wetland
located northeast of Bridge No. 63 exhibits characteristics of palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved
deciduous, temporarily flooded waters (PSS1A) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
2. Permits
a. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(x)(23)] has been
TJ issued by the USACE for use with projects classified as a CE due to expected minimal impact. 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 No. 31 issued by the USACE
Wilmington District. Notification to the USACE Wilmington office is required if this general permit is
utilized. NWP #33 may be used if temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams are
necessary for this project.
b. Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Section 401 of the CWA delegates authority to the states to issue a 401 Water Quality
Certification for all projects that require a Federal Permit, such as a Section 404 Permit. DWQ has issued
a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. Use of this permit will require written notice to
DWQ. However, if mitigation is required, the project must be coordinated with DWQ for review of the
mitigation plans.
C. Bridge Demolition and Removal
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled Removal
of Existing Structure. This section outlines guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in Deep
1 River resulting from demolition. This project is designated as a Case 3; no special restrictions beyond
J those outlined in BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and Removal. After
construction activities are completed, abandoned approaches associated with the existing structure and/or
temporary detours will be removed and revegetated in accordance with NCDOT guidelines.
16
._.) .l
d. Coast Guard
Bridge replacement or construction over navigable waters used for commerce or that have a
maintained navigation channel may require United States Coast Guard (USCG) authorization pursuant to
33 CFR 114-115. Deep River is not designated as a navigable river.
e. Tennessee Valley Authority
Bridge No. 63 and the Deep River are located outside of the Tennessee River drainage area and
l no TVA land or land rights are involved. Therefore, TVA's approval of the plans pursuant to Section 26a
of the TVA Act for Bridges and Indicated Locations is not required.
' f. Designated Public Mountain Trout Water
Guilford County is not among the twenty-five mountain counties designated as having trout
waters. Therefore, Deep River is not a Designated Public Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW) managed for
€Z stocked and wild trout by WRC. No trout moratoriums apply to this project.
g. Special Waters
No HQW, ORW, WS-I, or WS-H Waters occur within three miles upstream or downstream of
the project study area (DEM 1993). Deep River is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic
River, or as a National Wild and Scenic River.
-I 3. Buffer Rules
No buffer rules currently apply to the Cape Fear River Basin. However, the Randleman Buffer
Rules have been implemented for Oak Hollow Lake watershed, High Point City Lake watershed, Oakdale
watershed, and the Randleman Lake watershed. The buffer widths are broken into two parts and
described below.
i • Zone 1 begins at the top of bank for intermittent streams and perennial streams and extends
landward a distance of 30 feet on all sides of the waterbody, measured horizontally on a line
1 perpendicular to the waterbody. For all other waterbodies, Zone 1 begins at the top of bank or
1I mean high water line and extends landward a distance of 30 feet, measured horizontally on a line
perpendicular to the waterbody.
17

• Zone 2 begins at the outer edge of Zone 1 and extends landward a minimum of 20 feet as
measured horizontally on a line perpendicular to the waterbody. The combined minimum width
of Zones 1 and 2 shall be 50 feet on all sides of the waterbody.
According to the Randleman Buffer Rules, any new structure must span the width of the buffer
zone. However, because this is a bridge replacement project, spanning the width of the buffer zone does
not apply.
4. Mitigation
Avoidance - Due to the presence of surface waters within the project study area, avoidance of
impacts is not possible. Wetland and stream impacts are previously discussed in Section V.E.1.
Minimization - The alternatives presented were developed in part to demonstrate minimization
of stream impacts. Impacts to Deep River will be minimized during demolition by removing the
existing structure in a way that avoids depositing debris in Deep River. A retaining wall is
proposed for both alternatives. This retaining wall will minimize or eliminate impacts to the
NCDOT wetland mitigation site R-609D.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation probably will not be required for this project due to the
1 limited nature of project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to
minimize impacts including avoidance of staging areas placed within wetlands. Temporary
impacts associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed
areas with native species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion.
The DWQ requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to Waters of the United States
(including wetlands, open waters, stream channels, etc.) that exceed 0.10 acre of wetlands/open
waters and/or 150 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. The USACE may require
compensatory mitigation for impacts to Waters of the United States at its discretion.
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Endangered and Threatened Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially proposed
(P) for such listing, are protected under Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
18
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). There is only one federally protected species listed for Guilford
County (USFWS internet update February 18, 2003), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus):
Bald Eagle - The adults have a blackish-brown back and breast; a white head, neck, and tail; and yellow
1 feet and bill. The bald eagle is the only eagle confined to North America, and there are no other large
black birds in North America with white heads and tails. The female bald eagle is 35 to 37 inches, slightly
larger than the male. With a wingspan which varies from 79 to 90 inches. The male bald eagle has a body
length from 30 to 34 inches. The wingspan ranges from 72 to 85 inches.
Even though they are fish eaters, they will take whatever prey is available and easiest to obtain. Bald
eagles, which live along the coast and on major lakes and rivers, feed mainly on fish. Bald eagles fish in
both fresh and salt water. Eagles are at the top of the food chain, making them more vulnerable to toxic
chemicals in the environment, since each link in the food chain tends to concentrate chemicals from the
lower link. Because of their size, they have few natural enemies and require a large hunting area.
Biological Conclusion- The bald eagle lives near major lakes and rivers and feeds mainly on fish.
Due to the size of Deep River, habitat for the bald eagle would not be preferable due to the lack
} of food sources in this shallow river. Accessibility is limited due to the heavily wooded
environment. The project study area was searched on June 13, 2001 for bald eagle nests. No nests
were found. However, nesting potential is present and a nearby feeding source exists at Oak
Hollow Lake. The bald eagle's recovery has lead to a proposal (50 CFR 17) for delisting it from
the Endangered and Threatened List. NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 26, 2001 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the
species listed. One FSC species, Carolina darter (Etheostoma collies lepidinion), was listed for Guilford
County. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) within the
project study area has been evaluated for the Carolina darter. Potential habitat does occur within the
project study area with the mud and sand creek bottom; however, no species were found during limited
kick-net and seine surveys.
19
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Neither the bald eagle nor the Carolina darter were found in or near Deep River. Potential habitat
does exist for the Carolina darter; however, NHP has no recorded sightings of it or any other rare species
within three miles of the project study area.
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, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR 800. Section 106 requires that for federally funded,
licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential affect (APE) was conducted. All structures within the APE
were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence
form dated October 18, 2001 and a memorandum dated August 29, 2001, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) concurred that no historic architectural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places within the APE would be affected by the project. A copy of the
concurrence form and memorandum are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
J In a memorandum dated August 29, 2001, the SHPO concurred that "no properties of
?j archaeological significance would be affected by the project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Field surveys were performed and a Hydraulic Technical Memorandum was produced for this
project in February 2001. Guilford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Bridge No. 63 is located in a 100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain,
Zone AE (See Figure 6). A detailed study was prepared and established a 100-year flood elevation of
j 819.2 feet for Bridge No. 63. No changes to the flood elevation are anticipated. There are no USGS
gages sites on the Deep River within 20 miles of the project study area.
.l
20
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact on the local area. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
The project is considered to be 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 the current NCDOT standards or specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project. This area is used as open space. East of
Bridge No. 63 is listed as single family residential; west of Bridge No. 63 is listed as future growth area.
Zoning is mapped as residential and agricultural (phone conversation with City of High Point Planning
Department, Transportation Planning Administrator).
Some adverse effects on individual families and communities are anticipated. Alternative 2's on-
site detour impacts a small portion of the City of High Point, Duke Power, and Robert Davis properties.
However, no relocatees are expected with the implementation of the Alternative 2. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effects on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the surrounding area.
NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Unit recommends AASHTO standard bicycle-
safe shoulders on the replacement bridge and on the roadway approaches. Although SR 1850 is not part
J of the existing state-designated NC-2 Mountains to the Sea Bicycling Highway, it is a connecting
roadway between two designated bike routes and is therefore likely to be used by bicyclists (see email
S dated February 7, 2002 in Appendix). The proposed 8-foot shoulders, of which 2 feet are paved, are wide
enough to accommodate bike traffic along SR 1850.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
21
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however, this increase
will be only temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in
traffic volumes after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on
existing noise levels. Noise receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No
additional reports are required.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all Federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. There
are soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project. The
following prime farmland soils are located within the 0.5 mile search radius: Coronaca clay loam (CrB),
Appling sandy loam (ApB), Cecil sandy loam (CcB), Cecil sandy clay loam (CeC2), Helena-Sedgefield
sandy loam (HhB), and Vance sandy loam (VaB). Of these prime farmland soils, ApB, CcB, and CeC2
are found within the project study area and are expected to be impacted by the replacement of Bridge No.
63. State and locally important soils within the 0.5 mile search radius include the following: Madison
sandy loam (Mal)), Cecil sandy loam (CcC), Appling sandy loam (ApC), Madison clay loam (McC2). Of
these state and locally important soils, ApC and CcC are found within the project study area and are
l expected to be impacted by replacement of Bridge No. 63.
This project is in an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis, and a project level CO analysis is not required. Guilford County is a
designated non-attainment area, which means the area does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO). Construction impacts will add minimal CO to the
atmosphere and no permanent impacts to air quality are expected for the project. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of 23 CFR 772 and for
air quality (1190 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no
additional reports are required.
22
A search was performed of the project study area utilizing the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-00). This search included the NPL (National Priority List),
CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System),
RCRIS (Resource Conservation and Recovery Information), and UST (Petroleum Underground Storage
Tank Database) as well as other applicable databases. The results of this search documented no mapped
sites found on the target site or within the ASTM search radius.
Guilford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regulatory Program (FIRM).
l The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown on Figure 6. There are no other
` practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
J effects will result from implementation of the proposed project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement for this project initially involved compiling a database of property owners,
area business persons and local public officials. This database was used to send out Newsletter No. 1 in
October 2001 announcing the project and detailing the three alternatives being considered (see
Appendix). No comments or questions were received from local public officials or citizens.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agencies have commented upon the proposed bridge replacement. These comments were noted,
considered in the environmental and design processes, and included in the Appendix.
23
X. REFERENCES
I 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; North Carolina
1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh. 88 pp.
Bolen, E.G. and W. L. Robinson. 1995. Wildlife Ecology and Management. 3`d ed. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey. 620 pp.
Burt, W.B. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. Peterson Field Guide - Mammals. 3`d ed. Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York. 289 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS 79/31. U. S.
Department of Interior; Washington, D.C. 83 pp.
Gregory, J.D. 2001 Hydric Soils and Growing Season: Wetland Delineation Data for North Carolina.
Department of Forestry; North Carolina State University; Raleigh, NC. 104 pp.
Hunter, M. L. Jr. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry - Principles of Managing Forests for Biological
Diversity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 370 pp.
Justice, W.S. and C.R. Bell. 1968. Wildflowers of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, NC. 217pp.
Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert. 1993. Inland Fisheries Management in North America. American
Fisheries Society, Maryland. 593 pp.
^? Lee, D.S., J.F. Funderburg Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1982-10.
Leithead, H.L., L.L. Yarlett, and T.N. Shiflet. 1976. 100 Native Forage Grasses in 11 Southern States.
Soil Conservation Service; United States Department of Agriculture; U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 216 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 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;
/ Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh, North Carolina. 93 pp.
Little, E.L. 1995. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees - Eastern Region.
Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York. 714 pp.
24
l Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
264 pp.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North Caroina Mammals.
North Carolina Biological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina. 70 pp.
-? North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) 1995. Fourth
Version, Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. North Carolina DEHNR,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section; Raleigh, North Carolina. 57pp.
I NCDEHNR 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear
River Basin. Internet update, 20 September 2001. Internet address
httl2://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydroCat)eFear.pdf
NCDEHNR 1997. Standard Operating Procedures Biological Monitoring. NCDEHNR, Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Section; Raleigh, North Carolina. 28 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000. Basinwide
Assessment Report: Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NCDENR, Division of
Water Quality, Water Quality Section; Raleigh, North Carolina. 131 pp.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). Division of Parks and Recreation. Internet update
January 2004. Listing by county of the elements of natural diversity known to occur in North
Carolina. http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/elements2.fm
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1993. North Carolina Wild Places - A Closer
Look. Division of Conservation Education; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission;
Raleigh, N.C. 73 pp.
Owen, O. S. and D.D. Chiras. 1995. Natural Resource Conservation - Management for a Sustainable
Future. 6d' ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 586 pp.
Peterson, R.T. 1980. Peterson Field Guides - Eastern Birds. 3 d ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, New
York. 383 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.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2). U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.2). 124 pp.
25
. Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, A.G. Lindquist and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC. 222
PP
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis Minnesota.
Schafale, M.P. and A. S Weakle . 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North y Carolina:
-? Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation; N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
-1 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
` Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 100 pp.
_l
J United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1975. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil
Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina. 77 pp.
USDA. 1998. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. 4`h ed. USDA, Fort Worth. 30 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Guide to Environmental Issues. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 84 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 18 February 2003. Update of USFWS Protected
Species Lists for Counties in North Carolina. Internet Address: http://nc-es/fws.gov/es/cntylist
USFWS. 29 January 2003. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of
Concern by County in North Carolina. USFWS. Raleigh, North Carolina. 55 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1969, photo revised 1994. Kemersville, N.C. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Wetland Training Institute. 1991. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation - 1987 Corps of Engineers
Manual. WTI, Inc., Maryland. 133 pp.
Winborne, F.B. 1994. A Guide to Streamwalking. Division of Water Resources; North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh, NC. 35 pp.
26
FIGURES
i
i
i
1
1856
1854 I
F

?-s ? i•
f 1853
Sondy Ridge N
i
1855 i uaintenonce

r Comp
1 O
1 ?
i
1
1 i
1

i S
08
i !
1 ! 1850
i i
j
jc) i

818
1 1855 !.
i

i '

j0 ! 1 66
i '

u_ `?. 1968,
1834
Ni .
i ..........
. ...
. .
i , i

1850
1826
i i
O;
=
18:

i
1 i' • . iii
f .' 1818 e = <?
It 189

<
i 1820 ;<
1827 ,_
j 1828 L
o
! 1973
1825 OFF-SITE DETOUR `-
1934
N
Ji \CCMVOS\300-10b\b3847\Sul 12. dgn r • ° ti? North Carolina Department of Transportation
0 0.5 1 Project Development and
SCALE Environmental Analysis Branch
29 GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 63 ON SR 1850
421 (SANDY RIDGE ROAD) •
70 OVER DEEP RIVER
iv I T.I.P. No. B-3847
FIGURE 1
l
_=
o
0 o
C4
t
on -c
O w
w

O o 9--
E
mom` LO
00
L)
q?
N U-

NZ C w a.U
o
E-? W
Z
>

pp
z? zQ 16

?''
'` Z
O O
cv,
O
O a 1
C\j o N V
o
cc _°c_.o o
W
Q o
0
O
° O
w °CL-s
o ._.
O w Z
o oco ???°, s J ZLU a
>? o w0 ~
b q) Z O cD
92

Cp a ? j ? '• ..r?

?
o
I

L! F-

W 2 W
?
~ N
?
o
a U
Q Q
.
car y.
1- Z
000
W 2 I-- ?n
V
Q =
[] ? ? ? O ? N F
-
Q q W Z
3 o a 0J
W
~ ?(D

4 Q m
V cD
a a z
_
'- N
?7- VX)

CCdO'
7?
Q
Z ?
O
C7 p '-? O
? ? O O
O
O O
N
O 0
O Ln l17
[1
N V
00 D
D
w
Z N w
o > > 00
UO Ow C'o
US, o? ?uj o
o. _ c Z
?o 0 0
p V UO Z;
.,( :3 w0 H
o" z
1 ,? m
i
cJ
0
W
t?
$?
qN Q z
o
? V
W z cW
O n
D ~4 W
?2 3
Q a
C\j
o
o
Q t7i
?o 0
C.D c)
V
o cL d.
APPENDIX
1 ®North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Ms. Ism Lelght Q
Rummel, Klepper & Dahl AUG 0 4 2001
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, Highway Projec Coordinator RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL
RALEIGH, NC
Habitat Conservation Program X
DATE: August 6, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Ashe, Wilkes, Watauga, and Alleghany counties
of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3300, B-3607, B-3714, B-3922, B-3925, B-3926,
B-3928, B-4007, and B-4010
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
1 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
1 U.S.C. 661-6674).
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. Wet concrete should not be allowed to contact stream water. This will lessen the
chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill-
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
M,ilinv AilArrcc! T)ivicinn nFTnInnAF;s6trirc • 1721 Mail Servirr. Center • RateiA.NC:27A99-1771

Bridge Scopings
2
08/06/01
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. 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.
l 6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
stream 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
1 recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
f 8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
l 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
L, information on requirements of the Endangered Species Art 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. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly
inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Bridge Scopings 3 08/06/01
I
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. The culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed. The installation of the
culvert or pipe should insure that all waters flow without freefalling or damming on
either end during lour flow conditions. 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.
. 1 2. When two pipes are installed, only the lower pipe should be buried 12" into the
substrate so.that-all base flows continue uninterrupted in the lower pipe during normal
and low flow conditions to maintain aquatic life passage. The bottom of the second
pipe should be placed at grade or at bankfull elevation. The second pipe should
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage. Where disrupted,
natural floodplain benching should be restored upstream and downstream of the
second,'"dry", pipe.
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 he placed on the $treambed.
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
1 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.
I Project specific comments:
l 1. B-3300 - Ashe County -Bridge No. 57over Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek at this location
1 in all likelihood contains wild trout. The bridge is located at a major intersection. A culvert
would be a hindrance to fish as well as wildlife passage. We will require a trout moratorium
from Oct. 15'h - April 15"h.
J 2. 'B-3607 - Ashe County - Bridge No. 503 over Buffalo Creek Buffalo Creek at the bridge
replacement in all likelihood contains wild trout. We will require a trout moratorium from
Oct. 1P - April 15`x'.
l 3. B-3714 - Wilkes County - Bridge No. 83 over Mulberry Creek Mulberry Creek supports
small mouth bass and redbreast sunfish at this location. We will require a moratorium from
May is` - June 3 0P.

,
1 Bridge Scopings
08/06/01
B-3922 -Watauga County- Bridge No. 316 over Cove Creek Cove Creek is designated
Public Mountain Trout Water. In addition to stocked fish, it contains some wild brown trout.
We will require a trout moratorium from Oct. IP - April IP. The bridge should be
replaced with another bridge. We are concerned that a box culvert will impede fish passage.
B-3925 -Watauga County -Bridge No. 35 over Meat Camp Creek Meat Camp Creek is
designated Publi c Mountain Trout Water. In addition to stocked fish, it contains some.wild
brown trout. We will require a trout moratorium, from Oct. 15e - April 15P. The bridge
should be replaced with another bridge. We are concerned that a box culvert will impede
fish passage.
..) 6. B-3926 -Watauga County -Bridge No. 36 over Meat Camp Creek. Same continents as B-
J 3 925.
7. B-3928 - Watauga-Ashe County -Bridge No. 334 over South Fork New Rivet. We will
require a small mouth bass/ rock bass moratorium from May I" - June 3 P. The South Fork
New River is high quality water and designated "scenic" by the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. The bridge should be replaced with another bridge. This is a popular canoe
section; the new bridge should be at the appropriate height so boaters do not have to portage.
8. B-4007 - Alleghany County - Bridge No. 38 over Crab Creek Czah Creek is in a High
Quality Water Zone and is designated Hatchery Supported Water. We will require a trout
moratorium from Oct. I P -April 1 P.
-1 9. B-4010 - Ashe County - Bridge No. 7 over South Fork New River. We wi11 require a small
I mouth bass/ rock bass moratorium from May 1"' -June 3&. The South Fork New River is
high duality water and designated "scenic" by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
--, The bridge should be replaced with another bridge.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOTshould 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. We are comfortable with the bridge
demolition proposed, but are concerned about aquatic life'passage with the new structure.
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.
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.
i
6C3- to ?
..A
s
?,I A Michael F. Easley, Governor
V 5 ?OF ??QP William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Jf- \Q? G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Z ?- Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
1 > Acting Director
p -? Division of Wat©r-Qualir/
August 15, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Elmo Vance, NCDOT Project Developme• & Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Qualit
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordi or Ga,1
Subject:. Scoping Comments for Eleven Bridge Replacement Projects .
This•memo is in reference to your correspondence dated July 23, 2001, in which you requested Scoping
comments for the above projects. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following
topics be addressed:
1. Bridge projects shall comply with the requirements for Water Supply Watershed, High Quality
Waters and. Outstanding' Resource Waters with regards to stormwater management, sedimentation
and erosion control and buffer requirements.
2. Ensure that sediment & erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
3. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extant practicable. Prior to the
I approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain a 401 certification
from DWQ.
4. The DWQ prefers that the structures that will be replacing the eleven deficient bridges 4 ill be.,
bridges.. All structures shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles are.not
altered (i.e. the depth- of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Existing stream'dimensions are to be mainntained- above.and below locations of culvert extensions.
5; All work shall be performed during low flow conditions.
.6.' Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to' only what is necessary to perform the
bridge demolition and removal. Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in
the stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing
i other pollutants into the stream.
7. All. mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly inspected and
maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters'from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or '
I other toxic materials. .
8. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required•for these projects (e.g.,
applications requesting coverage under NW 14 or Regional General Permit. 198200031). Please be
aware that 401 certification may be denied•if wetland or. water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
I Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality •
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Tom McCartney, USFWS Raleigh Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS Asheville Field'Office
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
Fil- f nny
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
?/30i2001 17:11
1
Michael F. Easley, Governor
lusbeth C. Evans, Secretary
August 29, 2001
I
NC STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 97909382 NO.559 D01
o -- (Q ?°
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., managa
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy Stare wlisrop:eserg,2.6on Officer
Re; Replace Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 over Deep River, B-3847, Gtvlfotd County, ER 02-7213 `
Thank you for your memozaadurn of July 23, 2001, concerautg the above project
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no pzopcrties of architcr=14 historic, or
archaeological significance, which would be affected by die project. Thezefore, we h-xve no .comment on
the project as curreatly proposed.
The above comments are made pursuaat to Section 106 of the National 1 Iistoric Preserbation Act and the
Advisory Council oa I iistouc Pzeservatidn's Regulations for Compliance with Section, 106 codifsed at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and•consideration. If you have questions concerning the above •Cornm=;
contact Renee Gla&hill-Earley, F-aviroamental Review Coorclinatoi; at 919/7334763.
DB:kgc
ec Mary Pope FLU.-, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
brand fay transmittal memo 7671 B,,ar?ac°9°a
J6 •.? From
Co.
x
I.otation Maiting hddroci TelephotieNat
Adminiatration 507'K. Mount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699.4617 () 733-4763 o733-8653
6547 •715-4801
Restoration S 15 N. Blounc St, Raltiglr, NC 4613 Mail Scrvicc Centel, Ratcigb 21699-4613 [phone] -715-4801
sarvcy Jt Pl9ttnlpg 5)5N. Dlount.S; Ltalelgh, NC 461 a Mail Servieo Ccntcr, Raleigh 27699-463 9 (919) 73 3
Federal Aid # BRZ-I ;l) TIP AB-3847 nty; Guilford
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 over Deep Rivet
On 10/18/0 1, representatives of the
l North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Highway Administraticn (; HWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
E] Other
Reviewed the subject project at
I coping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/.consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
here are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over -fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
-historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties identified as'
are considereTnot eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation
of them is necessary..
DI There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE*have been considered ai this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
[There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach ¢ny notes or documents as needed)
Signed: ' .
Representative,' CDC ?J Dale.
+ ?'? ?s+^ /D f?
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Da e
Representative, HPO Date
DJ1lt !-of (8101
State Historic Preservation Officer
Dz
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
ATER
sources
p` city of Greensboro
b inistration
» )373-2055
Fax [phone]
..1
:ustomer Service
t? )373-2344
1 [phone]
1ter Supply
chell Plant
jj6) 373-5855
'ax [phone]
nsend Plant
) 375-2230
'ax [phone]
Pater Reclamation
forth Buffalo Plant
)373-5913
[phone]
'.Z. Osbome Plant
1 6) 375-2240
[phone]
Instruction &
?intenance
e ice e Center
336) 373-2033
J [phone]
Qeter Services
6)373-2071
[phone]
ter Conservation
6)335-5459
ax [phone]
1
1
1505
March 5, 2001
RUMMELL'KLEPPER & KAHL, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place Suite # 105
Raleigh, NC. 27609-3960
Re: T.I.P. No. B-3847; Bridge No.63 SR 1850, and T.I.P. No. B-3848; Bridge No. 102 SR
2124
Dear Ms. Mack,
Per our recent conversation and at your request, let this letter serve as verification that one of
our engineers has checked and there is no water or sewer lines effecting the above listed
properties.
Sincerely,
Michele Newberry
Services Specialist
City of Greensboro
Department of Water Resources
0002

P. O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 • www.ci. reensboro.nc.us • TDD [phone]
Iar . 06 01 12: 21P
Li .1v ws - w7 a f
March 6, 2001
Elizabeth Mack
Rummel, Klepper, & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
P.1

Piedmont FI3°4
Natural Gas r ks?
Company
Post Office Box 23527
Greensboro, North Carolina 27429.9527
Re: TIP No. B-3 847; Bridge No. 63 on Sandy Ridge Rd @, Deep River
TIP No. B-3848; Bridge No. 102 on Lewiston Rd @ Brush Creek
Dear Elizabeth:
T have compared the location sketches provided by your firm for the projects referenced above, to our
facilities map. At this time we have no existing natural gas pipelines or plans to install any in the
foreseeable future. Should this situation change we will submit a Right of Way Encroachment Agreement
to our local NCDOT division office.
Please call me aL 336-378-1831 ex 2311 if you have any questions of coaumcnts.
Sincerely
Michael Stanley
4L
Piedmont Natural Gas

?pRD C\
d
`?oHo 0
GUILFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS
March 12, 2001
Elizabeth Mack
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
SUBJECT: Effects on Guilford County School Buses in Relation to Bridge
. Replacement Projects - T.I.P. No. B-3847 and T.I.P. No. B-3848
Dear Ms. Elizabeth Mack
The purpose of this letter is to respond regarding the impact on school bus routing
by the above named bridge replacement projects. Transportation routing software, TIMS,
was used to compile data concerning the number of crossings by buses daily and alternate
routes available.
1 T.LP. No. B-3847; Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) over Deep River
Data indicates that arranged school bus routes cross the above named bridge
approximately 10 times daily. Currently, a division exists North of Sandy Ridge Rd
separating adjacent school boundaries. If this bridge were closed during the current
school year, it would have a major impact on bus routes. Routes would be detoured using
Johnson St, Skeet Club Rd, Dilworth Rd and Squire Davis Rd. This would enable the
routes to access students who reside East of Deep River on Sandy Ridge Rd. Detouring
1 routes would add 20 minutes or more ride time to each route. An additional route in the
afternoon may be created for the elementary school level, in order for the bus to arrive to
the next school in time to pick up the middle/high school students.
The project would not have as much of an impact if it occurred in the subsequent
school year, August 2001. The above mentioned separation of school boundaries will be
merged in this area due to redistricting changes. In order to accommodate the bridge
closing, buses would be routed off Bunker Hill Rd to access these students, adding
approximately 10 minutes to each route.
B U I L D I N G F U T U R E S
131 Fraaklia Boulevard Greensboro, NC 27401
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
Ms. Elizabeth Mack
Page 2
March 12, 2001
T.I.P. No. B-3848;, Bridge No. 102 or SR 2124 (Lewiston Rd) over Brush Creek
1 Data indicates that arranged school bus routes cross the above named bridge
approximately 20 times daily. Lewiston Rd is a connector between Fleming Rd and
Pleasant Ridge Rd. If the bridge were closed, routes would be detoured using Fleming
Rd, Jessup Grove RA, Horse Pen Creek Rd and Carlson Dairy Rd. Detours would add
approximately 10 minutes to each route.
. The only problem I can conceive due to the bridge closing is having a turn-around
location South of the bridge. We currently have a stop at 3859 Lewiston Rd. If a turn-
around could not be- constructed, students who reside at this location or any student who
is North of Hackamore Rd would be required to meet the bus at the intersection of
Hackamore Rd and Lewiston Rd.
1 In summary; the above named projects would not present unworkable problems
for the Guilford County Schools Transportation Department.. All routes involved would
be impacted in varying levels. If given ample notification, one week if possible, our
department would be able to make necessary adjustments and convey the changes to
parties affected.
Sincerely,
is
S Program Administrator H
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO. 63 OVER DEEP RIVER
Guilford County, North Carolina
October 2001 T.LP. No. B-3847 Neivsletter No. 1
NCDOT to Replace Bridge No. 63
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform citizens about
the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 over Deep River (tributary to the Haw River in the Cape Fear
River basin) in Guilford County. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin in 2003 and 2004,
respectively.
Planning Studies Initiated
During Step 1 of the planning process, information was
collected on the existing human and natural environments.
This information was used to identify preliminary
alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 63. In Step 2, the
preliminary alternatives were evaluated and, based on their
potential impacts, three "reasonable and feasible"
alternatives were selected for detailed environmental
` studies. Step 3 will involve conducting detailed
environmental studies for the "reasonable and feasible"
alternatives. Following completion of the detailed studies,
Step 4 will consist of selecting the preferred alternative.
Step 5 will be the completion of the environmental
document.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The schedule for the project is shown below:
Fall 2002 Complete Environmental Document
Fall 2002 Select Preferred Alternative
2003 Begin Right-of-Way Acquisition
2004 Begin Construction
HOTLINE
A project HOTLINE has been established to provide a
toll free telephone number for information requests.
Please call [phone] for information regarding the
replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Deep River (T.I.P.
No. B-3847).
Description ofAlternatives
Three "reasonable and feasible" alternatives will be
evaluated during Step 3 of the planning and
environmental process. These alternatives are briefly
described below:
Alternative 1 - replaces bridge on the existing
alignment. An "off-site" detour will be used to
maintain traffic during the construction period.
Alternative 2 - replaces bridge on the existing
alignment. An "on-site" detour located along the
south side (downstream) will be used to maintain
traffic during the construction period.
Alternative 3 - replaces bridge on new alignment
approximately 50 feet north (upstream) of existing
location. Traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction.
T.I.P. No. B-3847
i
i
I
:l
1
1
1
J
I
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 63
B-3847
Looking East
Looking West
22 00 ?
I
I 1A55 ?
I /
a8
1? I
1854
Sandy Ridge
Maintenance
camp
? 1 1850
1 I? _.._.. r I• t nla
1855 I l
10 66
N?tL ?? 1? 1968 1834
??
?I 1850 \ ?? -
1826 % ??/
OIL
tL ? 1 1??
/ ? ?•;? t 1 t
?- ?.:-- 1818 1
t 8 ? 1 ??
1827
lnl6 1828
I 182 '
1 I 1825 t -- ,?

N
0
S
y% 1 1 ?
1
1
1A70
North Carolina Dcpartmcd of Transportation
' Project Development and
Errvironwrtal Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 63 ON SR 1850
Sandy Ridge Road
Deep River
T.I.P. No. B-3847
FIGURE 1
I
1856
6
0 0.5 1
SCALE
NCDOT Welcomes Citizen Inout I
Public Involvement is an important part of the planning process. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is
committed to ensuring all issues of concern to the public are addressed and considered before any recommendations or
decisions are made. Your opinions are important to us! Please send your comments to the addresses listed below:
Mr. Elmo Vance
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone] Ext. 262
eevanccndot.state.ne.us
or Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P.E.
or Ms. Kimberly S. Leight
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
[phone]
kleiehtnrkkengineers.com
If you have questions on other transportation projects, please call our Customer Service Office toll free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU
or check our website at www.dot.state.ne.us.
Mr. Elmo Vance
1 North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
I ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
T.I.P. No. B-3847
.` ANL o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY TIPPETT
GOVERNOR RP=@20Wff 9RETARY
December 10, 2004 JAN 1 2 2005
Mr. John Thomas DENR-WATER QUALITY
Army Corps of Engineers VO.WIDSANDSTORNINATERBMW
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
SUBJECT: Request for Jurisdictional Determination for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 over the Deep River in Guilford County, Division 7,
State Project No. 8.2496101, WBS Element 33295.1.1; T.I.P. No. B-3847.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Delineations have been completed for "Waters of the United States," including wetlands for the
above referenced bridge replacement project for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The Deep River, a perennial stream, along with three wetlands (WL
A, B & C) were identified at this site. The Office of Natural Environment would like to request a
jurisdictional determination of the wetland delineations. Please contact us before February 20,
2005 if you would like to schedule a field visit. The tentative letting date is November 15, 2005.
See attached supporting documents:
1) Project vicinity maps.
2) Project summary.
3) USACE wetland assessment worksheets and wetland rating worksheets.
If you have any questions, please contact Cheryl Knepp at [phone].
Sincerely,
Phillip S. Harris, III, PE.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
cc: B-3847 project file
Ms. Beth Barnes, Division of Water Quality
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER PUB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEOSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 27604
X
! 2007 >i2
i 1856
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
'Biid a 't*l0. 63
i
i?
i
i
iO
1
i ,
!U-
N
?J
i
i ?
t
1850 1826
i
OIL
1854 I
1 1
i
,
:m
im
1850
1818
1855
M
'J
1968
w
1
Sondy Ridge
Maintenonce
comp
1853 N
O
S

LL! l `
r j' •.• .?........ 1818 .I
z ' 1895
................
i, 1827
1833
. ,?
• .
L t
-I
1820
1828 `
i 1826 -i
i 1973
i
i 1825
IOil A
?c\ zrvLlfll:\ h'7AL
0 0.5
SCALE
?y North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and
••• ..? Environmental Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 63 ON SP 1850
SANDY RIDGE ROAD
OVER DEEP RIVEP.
T.I.F. No. E-3847
EXIHIBI-
(A)
4041)
^/ Alternative 1 Legend
Alternative 2 NW I Wetlands
Alternative 3 Jurisdictional Wetlands
1" = 250'
250 0 250 Feet
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDuE Ne, el? Ot? SF 1950
Rim koau ove- [leer rtivf. -.J :, Nr.. L- 3E,4'
c M:!

I
Guilford County
' Bridge No. 63 on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road)
Over Deep River
' Federal Aid Project No.BRZ-1850 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496101
T.I.P. No. B-3847
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 63 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the Federal
Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location of this bridge is shown on 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 indicated that Bridge No. 63 was inspected July 8, 2003 and has
a sufficiency rating of 23.4 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. This bridge is considered
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in
safer and more efficient traffic operations.
I
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
' The project is located in Guilford County on SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road), approximately 260
feet east of the junction at SR 1855 (Squire Davis Drive). The local area surrounding the proposed
project consists of gently rolling hills and land use is best described as residential development, natural
forest vegetation, and wetlands.
' SR 1850 is classified as an urban local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
t 1 l_ A r-
' shoulders. The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area. The roadway is situated
approximately 11 feet above the riverbed at Bridge No. 63.
1

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LJ
LI
I
LI
I
I
The 2001 traffic volume of 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 6,200 VPD
by the year 2025. The project volume includes 1-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3-percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit in the project area.
There were 3 accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 63 during a recent 3-year period.
These figures resulted in a total accident rate of 248 ACC/100 MVM.
Bridge No. 63 has three spans and a clear roadway width of 24.5 feet. The bridge has an asphalt-
wearing surface on a 4 X 12 timber floor. Supports 1 and 2 contain eleven lines of S15 X 36 steel I-
beams. Support 3 contains thirteen lines of W12 X 27 steel I-beams. The bents consist of timber caps on
timber piles with timber bulkheads. The posted weight limit on this bridge is 16 tons for single vehicles
and 22 tons for tractor trailer/semi-trucks. Bridge No. 63 was built in 1956 and is in fair condition.
In a letter dated March 6, 2001, the Piedmont Natural Gas Company stated, "at this time we have
no existing natural gas pipelines or plans to install any in the foreseeable future" (see letter in Appendix).
In a letter dated March 5, 2001, the City of Greensboro Water Resources Department stated, "there are no
water or sewer lines affecting the listed properties" (see letter in Appendix). The City of Greensboro has
a sewer outfall crossing under SR 1850 approximately 400 feet east of the existing bridge. Overall, utility
impacts are anticipated to be low and any specific impacts will be coordinated with appropriate utility
personnel during construction.
Arranged school bus routes cross Bridge No. 63 approximately 10 times daily. In a letter dated
March 12, 2001, the Guilford County Schools indicated that during the August 2001 school year "buses
would be routed off Bunker Hill Road to access these students, adding approximately 10 minutes to each
route" (see letter in Appendix).
Guilford County Emergency Services stated, "on-site detours are always the least disruptive when
I
I
I
I
it comes to response times for EMS. We do understand financial considerations and will work with the
is likely to be affected. They also prefer an alternative with an on-site detour.

1J
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a multiple span cored-slab bridge that is approximately
95 feet long and 39 feet wide. The replacement structure will require spill-through abutments on each
end. This structure provides two 12-foot lanes with 7.5-foot shoulders on each side. The proposed
approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot pavement width to provide two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot
shoulders, of which 2 feet are paved, on each side in accordance with current NCDOT Policy (see
Figures 2a and 2b).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic review. The final design of
the bridge will be such that the proposed roadway and structure will be placed at approximately the same
elevation. The bridge length will be maximized. Alternatives 1 and 2 follow these general guidelines and
are therefore acceptable. No changes to the flood elevation are anticipated. The new structure will
improve existing conditions, accommodate design flows, and minimize environmental impacts on any
sensitive natural ecosystems that may be in the vicinity of the project study area.
B. Build Alternatives
The alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 63 are shown on Figure 3 and described below:
Alternative 1 (Preferred) - replaces the bridge with a 95-foot long bridge on the existing
alignment. The approach work will extend from approximately 215 feet west of the bridge to
approximately 320 feet east of the bridge for a total distance of approximately 630 feet. The
design speed is 60 miles per hour (mph). A design exception will not be necessary for this
alternative. An off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
This 4-mile detour uses SR 1850, SR 1826 (Dilworth Road), SR 1820 (Skeet Club Road) and
SR 1818 (Johnson Street) (see Figure 1). Bridge No. 308 on SR 1818 over the Deep River was
replaced in 1997 and is in good condition. This bridge will accommodate detoured traffic. This
detour will involve an unpaved portion of SR 1826. Paving 1.3 miles of SR 1826 will increase
nn»ctrnntirn -tc I- V)An nnn nh+?h _+71-t-1 ;» Tvhla 1 n
Alternative 2 - replaces the bridge with a 95-foot long bridge on the existing alignment. The
approach work will extend from approximately 215 feet west of the bridge to approximately 320
feet east of the bridge for a total length of approximately 630 feel:. The design speed is 60 mph.
A design exception will not be necessary for this alternative. During construction, traffic will be
3

' maintained on a temporary detour structure located approximately 45 feet south (downstream) of
the existing bridge. The detour structure will be approximately 170 feet long and 26 feet wide.
' The detour approach work will extend from approximately 540 feet west of the bridge to
approximately 220 feet east of the bridge for a total length of approximately 930 feet.
' Alternative 2 was not selected as the preferred alternative because it has greater wetland and
stream impacts and costs more than Alternative 1.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "Do Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This
is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1850.
I A box culvert was considered but is not a feasible alternative for this location.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Alternative 3, which replaces the bridge with a 135-foot bridge on new location approximately 50
feet north (upstream) of the existing structure, was eliminated from further study due to impacts to the
NCDOT wetland mitigation site, associated with R-609D, located northeast of the bridge.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1, replacing the existing bridge on its existing alignment with an off-site detour, is the
preferred alternative. Alternative 1 is recommended because it retains the existing tangent alignment on
SR 1850 over Deep River, has no relocates, and minimizes wetland and stream impacts.
The Division office concurs with the selection of Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current prices (2002/2003), are shown in Table 1.0.
4
I
b. Wetland Communities
Through field surveys, USGS topographic maps, Guilford County Soil Survey, and NWI
mapping, jurisdictional wetlands, and streams were determined, flagged, surveyed per GPS methodology,
and subsequently calculated. Field surveys occurred between June and September 2001. See Table 3.0
for jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Wetland values for representative areas within the project study area were evaluated using the
Fourth Version of the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. This system rates
the value of wetlands based on ability (characteristics such as hydrologic regime) and opportunity
(fulfilling a given value such as removal of pollutants). Six categories are evaluated and a rating is
determined. The categories are 1) water storage, 2) bank/shoreline stabilization, 3) pollutant removal, 4)
wildlife habitat, 5) aquatic life value, and 6) recreation/education. Two wetland evaluations were made in
the project study area: 1) includes both Wetland A and C and 2) includes Wetland B. Wetlands A and C
are piedmont bottomland hardwood forests located southeast and northwest of Bridge No. 63. They
received a value of 80 out of 100. Wetland B is the NCDOT wetland mitigation site R-609D located
northeast of Bridge No. 63. It received a value of 76 out of 100. For the purposes of this study, values
derived from the DWQ system were considered to exhibit high value with scores 60 or higher. More
information on wetland ratings is included in the Natural Systems Report (March 2002).

Wetlands A and C
I Species found in Wetlands A and C include river birch, red maple, arrowwood, American elm,
l greenbrier, Virginia creeper, Japanese grass, giant cane, false nettle and arrow arum. Hydrological
indicators consist of watermarks on trees, oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches and water-stained
leaves. Saturation occurred in the soil at eight inches deep. This soil series is mapped as Chewacla with
Wehadkee inclusions. Soil matrix colors were between 10YR6/2 and 10YR5/1. Mottling, reducing
conditions and low-chroma colors indicate hydric conditions.
Wetland B
Species found in Wetland B include black willow, common alder, soft rush, jewelweed, cattails,
duckweed, arrow arum, ground-nut, and yellow jessamine. Hydrological indicators consist of saturation in
the upper 12 inches of soil and inundated in other areas. The soil series is mapped as Chewacla with
Wehadkee inclusions. Soil matrix colors were between 5YR6/4 to 5YR6/1. Aquic moisture regime,
reducing conditions, and low-chroma colors indicate hydric conditions.
14
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-3847 Bridge Replacement Project No: B-3847
Applicant/Owner: Elmo Vance
Investigators: Elizabeth Mack; Tim Baumgartner
Date: 13-Jun-2001
County: Guilford
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Al (and Cl)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID: A (and C)
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) Southeast of bridge
VFGFTATION tUSFWS Realon No. 21
Dominant Plant Species Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Betula nigra Tree FACW Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
Birch,River Greenbrier,Common
Acer rubrum Tree FAC Parthenocissus quinquefolia Vine FAC
Maple,Red Creeper,Virginia
Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC Arundinaria gigantea Herb FACW
Arrow-Wood Cane,Giant
Ulmus americana Shrub FACW Boehmeria cylindrica Herb FACW+
Elm,American False-Nettle,Small-Spike
Acer rubrum Shrub FAC Peltandra virginica Herb OBL
Maple,Red Arum,Arrow

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 10/ 10 = 100.00% FAC Neutral: 5/5 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 24/10 =2.40
Remarks:
See soils comment. Along bands, soils do not indicated hydric conditions. However, vegetation and hydrology show wetland conditions. Transects A
and C have similiar soil, vegetation and hydrology conditions.
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 inches
YES No Recorded Data YES Water Marks
NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) YES Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
;". NU Local soil :iurvey uata
Depth to Saturated Soil: = 8 (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Elizaheth Mach. Pao, 1 o' , Wetrrxr. "'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-3847 Bridge Replacement Project No: B-3847 Date: 13-Jun-2001
Applicant/Owner: Elmo Vance County: Guilford
Investigators: Elizabeth Mack; Tim Baumgartner State: North Carolina
Plot ID: Al (and Cl)
5UIL5
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee silt loam
Map Symbol: Wh Drainage Class: poorly drained Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes (No)
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0-4 A 10YR5/3 N/A N/A N/A Silt loam
5-24 B1 10YR6/2 10YR6/1 Few Faint Silt, Blocky
25+ B2 10YR5/1 N/A N/A N/A Sandy loam
IHvdric Soil Indicators:
NO Hlstosol YES Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
YES Aquic Moisture Regime YES Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
YES Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Chewacia soils found on a 20' buffer areound Deep Creek. Deep red soils with faint and few mottles, not less than chroma of 3, absent from hydric
indicators. Alluvial deposition, especially along creek bank, ranging from 3-6".
NETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Res No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? No
Remarks:
zabeth Mach. Pao( 1 of " WWFnrn "'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-3847 Bridge Replacement Project No: B-3847
Applicant/Owner: Elmo Vance
Investigators: Elizabeth Mack; Tim Baumgartner
Date: 13-Jun-2001
County: Guilford
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: B1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Q3 No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID: B
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) northeast of bridge
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Latin/Common Stratum Indicator Plant S ecies Latin/Common Stratum Indicator
Salix baby/onica Shrub FACW Impatiens capensis Herb FACW
Willow, Weeping Touch-Me-Not,Spotted
Anus serrulata Shrub FACW+ Typha latifolia Herb OBL
Alder, Brook-Side Cattail, Broad-Leaf
Lemna trinervis Herb OBL Apios amenicana Vine FACW
Duckweed Potato-Bean,American
Pe/tandra virginica Herb OBL Ge/semium sempervirens Vine FAC
Arum,Arrow Jessamine, Yellow
Juncus effusus Herb FACW+
Rush,Soft

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 9/9 = 100.00% FAC Neutral: 8/8 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 16/9 =1.78
Remarks:
n vnvwl7 t
NU Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Nr) wafar-et.; 4 I
Ivv Local boll burvey wata
II Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Elizabeth Mack. Paa<: 1 of we Form In
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
'roject/Site: B-3847 Bridge Replacement Project No: B-3847 Date: 13-Jun-2001
4pplicant/Owner: Elmo Vance County: Guilford
nvestigators: Elizabeth Mack; Tim Baumgartner State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 131
;OILS
Vlap Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla sandy loam
flap Symbol: Ch Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Faxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Irof Ile Description
Depth
(inches)
Horizon Matrix Color
(Munseil Moist) Mottle Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle
Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
0-3 A 5YR6/4 N/A N/A N/A Sandy loam
.4-16 B 5YR7/1 N/A N/A N/A Loam
17-26 C1 7.5YR6/8 N/A N/A N/A Loamy sand, Many stones and cobbles
26+ C2 5YR6/1 N/A N/A N/A Loamy sand, Many stones and cobbles
ryaric son indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
YES Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
YES Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
lemarks:
'ETLAND DETERMINATION
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Jetland Hydrology Present? as No
lydric Soils Present? No
emarks
abeth Mac:, F'aao 2 of ^ w(xi-orn,"'
W21lands AanJ ?.
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name - 8 Nearest Road S 2
County LLY0 £Covrl Wetland Acreage Wetland Width (Feet) '
?
Name of Evaluator Liz- M ac?L Date (a (13 o f
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/i mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
ma strea • Forested/natural vegetation (ob %
• On intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban -3-5_ %'o
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface S c7o
• Other
Soil Series i J.L l a L st Dominant Vegetation
b

• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or n
d
Peat (2) ?
?
r, p 11
I C ---
re ominantly mineral - non-sany
rQs S
T
• Predominantlysan y (3) anan?s? C1
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
• Ditched or channelized easonall flooded or inundate
o we > 0 eet Intermittently flooded or inun aced
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Tyfng (select one)
QOttOmland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Water storage 6 _ X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization _3 X 4.00 = Z
Pollutant removal _ X 5.00 =
Zo
Wildlife habitat U I X 2.00 =
Aquatic life value
Z- C)
Recreation/ Education X 1.00 =
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
RATING VALUES:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower

_80
COMMENTS:
W S- ww7ft CstiFa ert -? a ?iw-t;? n zn' i
L) L,Ia, I
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name ? - 3 8 y Nearest Road S R ITS 0 Sand
/ (orr-inu£S 01455-clL
County L: I-t o(CJ Wetland Acreage'^d? a« Wetland Width (Feet) 300
Name of Evaluator LZ Y'Ia Gk. Date (.11-3 101
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or
• On and or lake radius)
• erennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 0 %
• On intermittent stream Agricultural, urban/suburban - 35 %
• Within interstream divide Impervious surface S %
• Other
Soil Series ?c . Dominant Vegetation ----
ld
r
7aa
p
(1) ?

•
Predominantly organic - humus, muck or n/
nn
''
rr
Sot'1 t5 h
Peat
- (2)
• orninantly mineral - non-sandy
C-Pred
3
• Predominantly sandy (
)
Hydraulic Factors Floodin- and Wetness
• Steep topography permanently flooded or inundate
SemipermaflW
• Ditched or channelized • Seasonally r inundate
oded
otal w e an wi > eet Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
Pine savanna
reshwater mars F(aodr?a:^. ?ov
Bog Zen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
RATING:
Water storage X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization X 4.00 =
Pollutant removal H I X 1 5.00 =
tzr;i at;co; c:.,? W i V 1 1) nn- i
1?
RATING VALUES:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower
12 ' \
Aquatic life value X 4.00 =
Recreation/ Education - L- X 1.00 =

COMMENTS:
,ll S - ? ??-t-?s ? sltic?( + I vt . o I ?.-+,b r. r t M e ? a..l .