20051611 Ver 1_Complete File_20050808

I''
7
orqn
M Scvr STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 2, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
V
9Uc ??.?
4A t4o,
LYNDO TIPPETT
?ycy
SECRETARY
Subject: Request for compensatory wetland mitigation confirmation for replacement of
Bridge No. 102 over Brush Creek on SR 2124. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-2124(1), State Project No. 8.249620 1, WBS 33296.1.1,
T.I.P. No. B-3848, Division 7.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for
the project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by
the USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. There are jurisdictional wetland impacts that
need compensatory mitigation. This mitigation will be provided by the EEP program. An
application for a Nationwide Permit will be submitted upon receipt of acceptance of this
mitigation. A copy of the permit application, when submitted, can be found at
http://www.ncdot.orWplannin??e/naturalunit/Applications.html//www.ncdot.orWplannin??e/naturalunit/Aplications.html.
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit
03030002.
• Impacts are to 0.091 ac of riverine wetland.
Please send the letter of confirmation to John Thomas (USACE Coordinator) at U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of Neuse Rd,. Suitel20,
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814. Mr. Thomas' FAX number is 919-876-5823.
MAILING ADDRESS: ' LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
.I
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be
addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Rachelle Beauregard
at 919-715-1383.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
vWr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Sue Homewood, NCDWQ
Mr. John Thomas, USACE
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
L
Y
pS
E,co stem
PROGRAM
August 16, 2005
Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
-40C z ?
oSANO Sr??q?«i 1
RB11,1HC6
B-3848, Bridge 102 over Brush Creek on SR 2124, Guilford
County; Cape Fear River Basin (CU 03030002); Central Piedmont
(CP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the
unavoidable impacts associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the
NCDOT's mitigation request letter, the project will impact 0.091 acre of riverine
wetlands.
EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland
mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year
in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA
signed on July 22, 2003. EEP understands the USACE will allow remaining high quality
preservation assets to be utilized as a component in the mitigation strategy at a 5:1 ratio.
Therefore, EEP intends to utilize high quality riverine wetland preservation assets in the
following manner:
High Quality Riverine Wetland Preservation (5.1) in Same Eco-Region
Allen Site, Franklin County 0.455 acre
Central Piedmont Eco-Region
Tar-Pamlico River Basin, CU 03020101
TA
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, N( 27699-1651 / 919-715-047`6 / www.n(eep.net

The reminder of the required 1:1 riverine wetland mitigation will be in the form of
riverine wetland restoration. Riverine wetland restoration mitigation assets available
include, but are not limited to, the 2005 Request for Proposals - Full Delivery Mitigation,
South Buffalo Creek, Horsepen Creek, Morgan Creek Floodplain, and McLeansville
mitigation sites. The EEP is in the process of completing the execution of the full
delivery contracts for the accepted mitigation sites in the Cape Fear River Basin in
cataloging unit 03030002. It is anticipated that the contracts will be fully executed in
August 2005. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory stream
mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year
in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
illiam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3848
t
cosstem
PROGRAM
August 16, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3848, Bridge 102 over the Brush Creek on SR 2124, Guilford County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
will provide the riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information
supplied by you in a letter dated August 2, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03030002 of the
Cape Fear River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.091 acre
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22,
2003. Mitigation for this project will be provided in accordance with the above referenced
agreement. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory wetland mitigation to offset
the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is
permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon
at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely, c -
i liam D. Gilmore, P. E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr., USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3848
CDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Todd Tugwell
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 7
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 for the replacement of
Bridge No. 102 over Brush Creek on SR 2124, Guilford County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2124(1), State Project No. 8.2496201,
T.I.P. No. B-3848: NCDOT Division 7
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 102 over Brush Creek [DWQ Index # 16-11-4(1)], a Division of Water
Quality Class "WS III NSW" Waters of the State. The project involves replacing the
current 110-foot bridge on its existing location, while using an off-site detour to maintain
traffic during construction. The proposed bridge will be a 3-span, 120-foot cored slab
bridge with a width of 33 feet. The replacement structure will require spill-through
abutments on each end. The structure provides two 12-foot lanes with 4.5-foot shoulders
on each side. The proposed approach roadway will be two, 12-foot lanes with 2-foot
paved and 6-foot grass shoulders. Please find enclosed a copy of the project planning
report for the above referenced project, as well as half size plan sheets and permit
drawings.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
rs?
August 22, 2005

doe
qii11-.
lyFn, O A ?sTgT'yUg
?D
oR,?y??RB
?'Cy
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Permanent Impacts: The construction of the bridge and roadway approaches will
impact riverine wetlands adjacent,to the creek (lake). The resulting permanent impacts
are 0.011 acre of fill and 0.080 acre of mechanized clearing for a total of 0.091 acre of
riverine wetland impact. There will be impacts of 0.001 acre to surface waters from the
two bridge bents. The proposed impacts are depicted in the attached drawings (Sheets 6
and 7 of 7).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE. MM..NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
.A
Utilities: No impacts to jurisdictional areas will occur from any utility
relocations.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Existing Bridge No. 102 is approximately 110 ft long with one main and four
approach spans and a clear roadway width of 19.1 ft. The bridge has an asphalt-wearing
surface on a timber floor. The end bents and bents 1 and 4 consist of timber cap and pile.
Bents 2 and 3 consist of reinforced concrete cap and timber pile. There is the potential
for fill to be temporarily placed into Waters of the United States, although all guidelines
for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. This project is classified as Case 3 in
there are no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and Removal.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design
features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory
mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures
were taken during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures
were incorporated as part of the project design.
The following measure were taken to avoid and minimize impacts to
jurisdictional areas:
The bridge will be replaced on existing location with an off site detour
o Wetland impacts were minimized by the use of 2:1 slopes
o The number of bents in the creek were reduced from 4 to 2
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District" (MOA), it is understood that the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources EEP, will assume responsibility for satisfying the
federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that
are listed in Exhibit 2 of the subject MOA during the EEP transition period which ends
on June 30, 2005.
Although the subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2, or included on a
supplemental project list submitted to EEP, EEP will provide the necessary compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal
Clean Water Act. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets
already in existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. The Department has
avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible
as described above. The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 0.091 acre of riverine wetland
in the Cape Fear Basin will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP
program. Enclosed in this application is the EEP acceptance letter.
2
SUMMARY
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR Section 771.115(b). Therefore,
propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2082;
January 15, 2002. We anticipate a 401 General Certification (WQC #3361) will apply to
this project, and are providing 2 copies of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Rachelle
Beauregard at 715-1383.
Sincerely,
0 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Derrick Weaver, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
3

o S?e r
PROGRAM
August 16, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter.

AUG 22 2005
DIV6 .1 of 1`i':Ii AYS
n?rri tTf ."?,7' nP r? ? II
PDcP-C,FCICE
B-3848, Bridge 102 over the Brush Creek on SR 2124, Guilford County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
will provide the riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information
supplied by you in a letter dated August 2, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03030002 of the
Cape Fear River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.091 acre
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22,
2003. Mitigation for this project will be provided in accordance with the above referenced
agreement. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory wetland mitigation to offset
the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is
permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon
at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
• 0?
liam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr., USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3848
z- MM-
'CDEK
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

s'N
cowstem .
PROGRAM
August 16, 2005
Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3848, Bridge 102 over Brush Creek on SR 2124, Guilford
County; Cape Fear River Basin (CU 03030002); Central Piedmont
(CP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the
unavoidable impacts associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the
NCDOT's mitigation request letter, the project will impact 0.091 acre of riverine
wetlands.
EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland
mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year
in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA
signed on July 22, 2003. EEP understands the USACE will allow remaining high quality
preservation assets to be utilized as a component in the mitigation strategy at a 5:1 ratio.
Therefore, EEP intends to utilize high quality riverine wetland preservation assets in the
following manner:
High Quality Riverine Wetland Preservation (5:1) in Same Eco-Region
Allen Site, Franklin County 0.455 acre
Central Piedmont Eco-Region
Tar-Pamlico River Basin, CU 03020101
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhan
:ement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
;sM
NCDENR
/ 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
? NORTH CAROLINA
GUILFORD
VICINITY
MAP
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 33296:1.1 (B-3848)
ee ? BRIDGE NO. 102 AND APPROACHES
NS
LAKE ?lp ? 3/23/05
ON SR 2124 OVER BRUSH CREEK /

?? ?Y 1' ,'^LJ ?.?J+, f_ i.( ! 7,' y ??• T•1/? ,,j ?i--ti ? ?'?; to 1??.-??, ?'??'? ? ? f?- ?? ,
?? (fit r '\1' ?\?%: r?l r ? •\- ` 1 11?., \?' ? - 1; ( '-'1.w -{ ?•i •??? -: /•' ?^ J , \ '
\f r L"?il j r J??•_./?????_-? t'.l \ } +ri 1 r\ ?^.r. ?? ? ? ??/ ?? ? J ?lf ? ? +?.I, r II\ ` ) i /I /.. - C., ., t'?-.. _? jr,` r `,% ..\ r •:-J "? 'n'. l ; Soo
I rIi I l?/r ?/ _?f ,I\I
t?i 1, J , r 1:3t i .?/ ;?J d v, r x- o l;
r
IT,
,( z'Q. . )Aa r (,-?? Il
4 l i L?I} )%?\\:Ivr?V 220`
?? ?'11 !? 5rY'j? Y`?\\}7-??1 ?'_??''•• ? i ' 'f?? '\?,lF`7Ll ? J / `?.,,\?\?\ 2 ?? ?,? ess
?'%?J t``V' 1 ? \?l) ?•r?c1 ,- t_ 'r..JS'? \?_ - .i 1 ? 1 ? .?` ? ' ; a ? .. _ ? = s? i , ,
? \!,/? / ? \?r ?.` ??; ' .-' - -? ?` •? C44 1= i ``rig -' r\ ?\\?iy1 -766 , `f?? ? ?? -, d ?;•
C i+:r?..; ?/??'?lV /.?i9?\?, F?,Q?J/ V/nl ,,?• ,I.,,.t ?_.?_ ..f?r._..? Y •o? ..?i
-y v
I
fl' lyr -.
???114 ??', r??Ti ) Cl`_]? ~?1'\J/f,rl ?1,r\'? sc?,\ \•? ?yO..rT , __,t _.,,? ` ?: ?
•\ Ir/4'. •1J? -?ti. -/i v?-J ?` J?il li `1 ??//'I ? P 1 ?f - /sue , t ???- f ?r. ?•--?'?C";'r
`?- ' 1\ ??.- 1/ r `l/? ?. r 1 ?? ?` ?? i 1 '- ? •? ?? (?i ? i ?iZy • ` /? ``?I i ? I f / ? , ? s`?
4Q- 1 ?, ?,,\••_ 1 ?I`,. l` PTl ?; .? `\,l\ % ,` (?; •' //. F?- \\1 Z?11??,(1•+•-? `(t ' _ ?% 1'r
`v9 1 813 ?? I 7 }V ?/\V? ? v r? i;l ??.
i t -r. \-•? 1. y 1 ?`\'. ?? • Z??O. M '?: /s' .
\ J?' \ ? i? J / I I ' / '? •+?f 9'''. ??t?y 11 ?% J? ? ( f? t ? . jM®t `• r
\`\ ?`_ ?? J? '? '_ '•\ \ ' \il `7".t{f'1, ?• a SU 11
'?? ,?g\?? mot` •'rj /' ' ,j-??? ?_?, 1.?. ?v?1r -J? b11.90 1; 'N .J.•? )N.?
I <\, ,? : - ??V: `?- 1? `'' - i' / ?/8(j ?'`.?? - '/ ?. J? "-;?''. '`?.. ( `fir .,, 1'?1? _`?\ ?.'/ u•r
gr,A. -,'?-/?``'?:`-= _ a`r O t,'?? 1 ??y..\\?? A w ,•?\' (r^?•,??- _.?rt.
44
??,\Jy?c/.-/J! Ij I f ?• ???,/ i •?• 2?d1,\ (? 1 ;r C l?r
7 '? STN '(J \'? .7• 'rr? !%. i ;"-'/':?r;?r /• V. ?? ?/^` '_`--``r?I?r.
?r.l \ • ??`il ?`? \? sue= ? ti?,?,: •j'` ?? ?"?.[- ?? •L l ,!r, . `'.? . ,,, `,-l ? ?-?f ,?,?
C •? J ?. ?- 1 .? i u- I
,`? •\ ?S J 11. .? ((rJ\- r_ ??i_i 1' = f F?1 ?I ii/rim _ _ `? ire ,r/.
)?T' ? yr ))> r ?• a/% -'
'? p,?r `K } - ~ ? .\?'1 \ Y r/"?s ? l,?i+ ?-(.':?(?. \ \, e'?, i i eJl? _i f??jr? - ?? -• _ ','?) 1J:
' Y'/ r x J'- •? ••.. .yi/ °r?: ?'Ilt -',-! \C J'? ?> )?n?l ?'~/\?/J r?-
34.
," `;A? 4,!000! rr}'rEem
0? •,, X2;000 rr ^1 ;? N . C . DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1 inch equals 2,000 feet GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 33296.1.1 (B-3848)
LOCAA" ION BRIDGE NO. 102 AND APPROACHES
ON SR 2124 OVER BRUSH CREEK /
LAKE H GGINS
Shet+ a 0 7 3/23/05
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Summerfield, NC

c? ;
ml
1
W I f?,
Q
` o ------------------------------------------------
I
s,Vl ?I II.

N N
Y Z Y Z

?U i C?
_
?- U = I U 2 f-
Y I =
`
Ln I V1 Y
Z

J -. m J
m
/
d .I
?I I II
11 I I I.
I I ?

°
t
W

W

?

?
?
I I

0
~

I I

I
SITE MAP
P
0
0
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT 332S6.1.1 (B-3848)
BRIDGE NO.102 AND APPROACHES
ON SR 2124 OVER BRUSH CREEK /
LAKE H?+IGGINS
S1,ee'j- 3 ar 2 03/16/05
n
a
Cl)
LLI
?
LL'
D -4'
D o
a Q U) -?
co
co
?Q 6
OO g M?
CC)
Iz
LO O?
0)
O
3:
C
F-
z
?
V M
CC) (D
r
n
aa
°
a n_

U) r

O

')
°
Q a
.
a
'O
aa ¢= U
o o

?i D_???
LO ?00LD co
.
?.,MO MLL.
F-'O ?N
?cM N
N
?
r
?(DN041, 0) M V LL
Z OM ?
M
N M
CIO C 00 J
-
W mm?m?m?m
LM
? ? ? 1- (A F
V
z W

O
Z

a
w

a
w

z

w O
W
Z m
z
w
O w
O
LL
?.., O

W
IL

a
O
z
a °
O
w
a
X
d
O
d
m
a
TcT
U
N
N

co t
w )
z
tm -3
-
U) c E
C)

<
t-
T< -r- E
UJ

c
UJ .N aE
t
wc> E
? a

w
a?
}
a' (D _L
m a

Q U)

C N
M y V O O
O
,m '
E? O
O O
E
U a
Q
c
H m ?.S ? m
? U

W

a
?
Z c
U
` co co

g ?
v
a?m
0L 0
C5 O
0
W ?
U )
2

? I c
m _r
z U
g W
w y
? C
(D U
v
LL y?
C t/l
C

(0 _ (D U
(0
Q _
O
LL G)
CD O C

m a w

m
? N m
0
o C 0
+
a E
lL J

m J
?
O
cq Z p
F-
REVISIONS
c/25/20Q5
I II fl ?"`?
T ? I I }?]f4
60,
2 I i ?
I? I
I I
v
4
n
4
??m°m°Sm° ?• I I 3 lp
ILI
14 ?4 14 14
D. -4 m
m?RB{?jn??nn = pCJb ?, pppp P1
10
00 W NO 72 ? I II (4J 4 ??9mmw ww?w K
-N0, ff,
O I I 1 °ww ° 4nc,rN o
I ?u?-?vmm,,,N
1\1®r, JO'u 00 N 1
r
.my C3
- N o w r- -r m -- - }
o x r'. z
( I /?0 /0
lu,
N•+° m
CliO
O I till/,
m
m
n i" M C: * I r
r y V
0 -4
03 0
- I JJ
C I w l X13 !
_ ° I r rn
[
N I i z { r, ?£ ? i
i •.
N
J+m
p
?'u ilpJ,u K C I !) n
rr I l
f 12
W1t1 _u 1 E V?C?IDry
pQ p Qrv p i
A10
L 9o
\ ________ ? ?S?Tno ? v vvvv? 'b v? i
{? c
bj mm ? n I
R ,
n N
A .7 oa 4= N ;v r,§ IX
F
I (Al m
_f A
I >o ?
.a
wrr- wm 9.r? I T +v
!i
CAI 1* z ca co
v, E" m w o, "'+ cm y m
?• A• w I o
U) -
+ N Imp' y r I-• _ I• f) f I
POP Ln -4 0
jb N3
?+ O) ED O) H A. V COD) II I I Ip, I 15
It
z ?4 Z_ CO it
9W••.A ?tDV .` I
1 1 "'
W Q)NID O•+N - y0 AV
4 -1
• I I ?.'?`
M
m II ,I ti . i } ... 1 .,•
D-? .,
cam
tAZ \''t.-_.__-- -? 5.? .? I 1 S •I t?'. I.. \\\\\\\\\\ ? O Z O (n0
M cm
V N p y-'"t.J++,.r?.l"`?` ' ? I li I ?? ?..1 n?c?n??c?c??? i o Z Z
;uO
r) m
r- M m DM
Amy r3 - mN
N P' D -I z
<•
n RI O ''`''"'...-..,J?..:J- ?z,.n?f-?.?--.J-..,J ?:.,r y.,r t., 1. l _ _?.:... l = G f" J>. f
J
C co
O?m
_ LRAVCL GFH } El. / ` 1 N Z Z
y v \ y m c o
m \ NW• -{ill N.'STSb'C 24.33Vt. {'',IF 1
+ o m w c) y z.. (` 5 I
MR Wm n I> ,I \\\\\\\\\\ O tr '' I - I
Z I<u) 7 c ){ { I
?O v 11'1 ?? _??r.?: I V
u?$KPUjOO O I O I o?
y U) (1) O
t Lnn " s VI7 A M ({<?? o
F 0 111 efllF W'7 1 r.. J ?. 4•, •Y
VA
'0 z
I C7 i
g a
n o b I I g~y' ?z m
I
lin.
o N ?, ?{ I I I , •?
I Nj ? •?' 2
?o o m
C/I u o t ?` w,'' J? I I f1 rl li?" ? A n A "?
REVISIONS
Q4/25o 2?OQSca\b3848_nyd_PN'.dg,
'_.
q
14 -4 ?4 14
° l S7
o??.??N?N m t ?l g
Ln ON 14 00
10
AT"
n CIRRR b IIJ p n
10
ESE
° I ? ty u O
w
• Z
X00 O -
?r ` I g ??? yr /0
O M C• _ \\
5
ti "' DD o "' 6 I f? f"
aAmv NI N
u w n u a /
K) GO -4
4 -4
N N C71
co ° \ 1
0 o I ! ?, \ !is
N t3 l
m m
rn in
I
•g y
m
w _ N ?_ I I I I ?n Y 2
i
90
• ?????° ? „<<°?,o?°.??m ?^ ?? ?? ?` ???` moo
h l O 0 ° \
n
I'1 •
' V) c?J Jam` N ' 4
ao
46
\ rn
U) m
-4 1;3 -1
U3 +
y y I P ?o
1
G 1+ CW3 1.4 r+ EA
?r ?• a I o ' i r (1'I i.
Cn r- y r • .. _ _ - L 1 - / I ( f? f - \
NNH A +C) n r""
.gb K)
HM sv =a-4o7 D u D n I I fj P I /5
W CtNy C) - - f0 At
LI1
0` yn wm %
D -1Z
Cam
M Lo C3
cm:
v ?, r? ?: ?; I it ?-??_ RRRARRRRRv m z z
Z:m .? J t `? - .. L- ,.. ;p• ??'_iuuw
t [
-0 M r,n f£T1 0 ...: DO
A
m
A -u 77 Jk
r F.
.. _ y D \\ . .. °m V °+? _m m =`"'"^`_'^'?`hs"`.-^?.-?...?*vr`,?, ?••t,.,.• ?, ,^..n.? ?awc ,• f` ?e5 _ _ ?`'' _ i m'I m z I? z
z 11` - ^. G r LI . : o
-+ \ to m to m Z-
a O , Nte 7 'S6T 1 a c ? ?. ? .. ? I
m \ N f0 ? z ,? F
00
`4 'i m c, \\ Y ,I r i
+o
a y wm ? o gm?$3 "_ 5 I ?"
x A)
C, m
Eft
a f..
m
x i<,ii _ onc?c9iRt?ic?R?c?i z• \ ^ ? I ?," ,t" I \ I
?p
?? ? ti 6 JII1 f
CJ Ra r u ? +•
1113
D
V7 ?, o C^ t^? ? • ,
?1. " ?• •d o
?•1 p S n O vRr APLF \ w m l
x mD ti + I I (b a? ?' W
p 0 n?j CID
p ?' p b 'tJ - „a. \ 1 `'I{jI \1 1 {?. $ 1 `? M z z
I, n I { \
,
00.
u O
I.D 'A
?4 -4 00 p
14
D ,y?, 1- os 1
14 10
4
AI'k-ZUU', 1400
rooJrrey\prD?\h
,,,Inn?l AI R0.
eA I
Imh.d on
?b 1
C) N N
ye naar
y
x
1
?o

?g
W
m
li
O
?--11 f
E R11V PLANK SUBMITTAL
l? o
?t
o ? ? ^a
o
b
15
o?
C-n
7 n

r-ePR-'[loos \ 11140 5? fi9l
rt roe i ? ? \ B4B_rdy_typ.dgn
M m N N cn p S v •o -n -o v v m -v m 'a n 'v -o -v •v v -o (? 2
a; 'a• o ?. ° a a a ' a o a a ? P c a c a a a a ~o a c ca
a w ?' a 3 a p v v ;Z v a p v c r, p ?- v v vv n o (1 v p v} w
fn 0
CL ° o, ?° D m c-p ra 3 -o -1 -1 m n S Z°. c°. z°• c n Q o 0 0 ?' ?rC
30 ow
79. 0 cn C, a m o N a W Q v n n o ~ 0. ° cn (A
; C
A T vir ,?• a o ° °- ° a per- I w m -CL ::E gl
In! C,
n T n -. `T
= p m S 3' W 2 w O C ,? C C .p ° ~, ° 3 -n
3r cil p? IK t ry ® ; + + a 7 a w C p a Q no ?C7
[L O M 7 G: C w w 4 ° O $ N
a ci O V ~ Ll
;
w I.y
I ? , i i y Z
0 [1
n I I I I I
I TS I I i I I'y 7K m IDf11
o 11
I \
i"? I I I, I I I I I j' I I I I I
?! -1 -1 -1 cn -v -1 -o ?v C n -1 -o fl -1 "v -v "o O 0
c> >o
n ~ -, a- < -? 'v ~ n ?' ~ ,m ;3 CL n Er 0
- -v ° -1 a' .. o -1 -1 -o ° :2.
3 0 -, o n ° © o ° ° ° ° C o so c ftm?
-9 O o ° -•
3 -V N cn a o •? 0 q ° w a p a 8 cl a C? pD w '° Qp O n ° 'nom A ]
a ?: t0 0
-?
n ° p n; -? o o-O o o a n?' a u °9: 0
L a -0 P°° o o O x a
on :3
=:3 0 F3
-J :3
A °
p CL ?
i i
;
Y if 0
®aBA Qo?mo®oo®InoI),.ooSO CSa1210 + ¢ + o-- i ; II 1
I I II
r
I 0 0 ?Q
-v -o n -? n en C C C C ?o p C N O C En
C 1_,
0 no
0 ca
r? m A c' m$ n w a i (s a :1 a C o Q a a Q o a a. a a. a a. a a. a :3 CL
? r--? g EL EL EL Et
JO EL
> > ° ° p c Z n ° C. C 0 > ° n. S a. n. a. a a. •v o. O n. cn o °-a. 0 0 171
to ca a :r a
9, CA 0
a' -ca :r
w a a In : ° C o v a w a° ° ? a°
bo a• ac n my a- ° n ° `•" y °
n ?• t? a °. I I I o R n n 11 .s o n 0 CJ1
: 3?:
° r3 c ; ° o• tT o ° n ur U.
G m o C
in d
CL I a' a ; ; ?o a c °
a $ p ; ; H C C 3
n. °' ' a. C' m O
a !,n N
l 1 C
in
I I I I I ? I I I I I ? I ( I ( ( i I I I I I I I ? I I
? I I? I I 1 1 I I I i o 7 7 ? I ? I ? I ? ? ? ? ? I
{? O b 3? i• I (D@23 $0 ® o I I I I ?1 I I I ' I i
d co i IQ X
I I F I o "0 7 7 'y " .? i i v N N r i
II I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
,??IIII? II?II

N=
a
a c
0 °
i
a
a ?
O S c!! !n
a a ° am W m
Q O
a a CA ?
2 a
o-
I
i
;
i
c
c?
I8 O
(a
Q
J Q
I ;
i
i i
17
m
a-
S
°
c
$
?+7
;
OI
i
a
0
T
1
0 n a
a:
06
0
m w 'v
K 4: A V.
o
c
o
0
I
'rf
I i
? ,
I I I ,
• ' I I I
1 I I
I 0
1 1 1 I IY{ ?
1 I
I I i
I J-l
a o
?- ° n. °
w
o c cn
O 0 nn'
°
CA
II
I I I
i
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1

3
a
m
0
0
3 0 o `n °
° - 3 3 o Or 1n
I ? t v
0
n
0
I
I I I
0 0
, w
,n ty
a C
7 Q
4 7
n
0 CO
i

O
i
I ,
x to No
n
?I `' I

APR-LOOS 14140 3y -
jui ?? iy\PA'P?R 2144 fdW-Igp.dgn

c
c
t/1
m
0
r
0
A
z
a
4
n
m
Q
O
z
z
0
N
v
?ro
O
= O b
O 0 01
n Co'
0I P Z
CO O r
(AZ0
0 m j
N ?
C
0M y
U O (?1
to N
0
v
C
Z
v
A N
Q Q
tJ1
O
0 O
a v
ca N
10
O
?o
Om
m
A. Gl
Q
O ,Q
C
N
m
t"
m
0
Z
Z
O
N
.
N
M
v
r
rfl a
I
?- 0
n
A
v
Z?1
0
8

? L

F
O

?
v
n o b?
z m z
Z
0
J _
-Ar
li
G1
C
Z
v
0

r-
0
N s
?+ N v
v 0
+
O
r
S
O ? ? 0
o ?, ?s
o N mO
? m
9
0 8
r

r
lca
?N W
N
J
s ?, N
V
- 0C:
VI O
Q O
00 0
Z
ON
o! Z
O
00
00
N R
?. Po o s?o dig
L
ft
z >
?0
0 t
C) 2Z
22
?
0 y
n ?T? y?O m
0
La r m? 0? Or'
u

? o
TF
1
an Ez ?n "y
z "
r

Pz
'
z z
n

N z

m
N
(
?
.-.
p _
. PN pN
?
;* A n
.s
;j ?n
ii 0
Jc c ? '

A
"0
o- p
"
M
O
;
K
rNw `NO N /

>
Z?v ??
_
o
>
m
y on; O m
_h Z Z

2
a s<:
m O o
Z () ?^ n < A C
z
?w o

N

u O
z

i -:-n
0oc

m
N i?
Om
?
mm
m"
.? u
u ?o
0

v
T
O
a
Q
S
O
G.
0
A
a
m
a'
m
On
c?
r
1400
4848,rdY-typ.d9n -
4k I'l,
Z
N
b °N
rm
mo
io?? b
;??z C y
n co'
07=
v J A? ? i
NZ0Ip
O Y m j
N (A
Mi 0 m
u ••
lb to
0
0
W
n
O
m
v
m
D
r
0
0
0
}} O
TA ?
08
2
to
tl?N
++ v
No.
$o D
J
Q
L
z
c
-? o
4
I
------ ------- I
i
r?
N
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I

?N
I
?. i ., ?i.
?? i ?. i
al fr?0U5 14:51,.,..., tii23itiY

?. i.

i
..
Y-Ptl vtp
Guilford County
Bridge No. 102 on SR 2124 (Lewiston Road)
Over Brush Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2124 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496201
T.I.P. No. B-3848
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
20051 61 1
AND PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
?G
DATE
4I-30104
DATE
Gregory TJ horpe, Ph.Y., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

fio`( John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Guilford County
Bridge No. 102 on SR 2124 (Lewiston Road)
Over Brush Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2124 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496201
T.I.P. No. B-3848
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
April 2004
Document Prepared By:
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
e," A
Eli th S. Workman
Environmental Specialist
Peacock, Jr., P
Associate
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
CA
.. ? X=
SEAL I
toJ? S 4,642 C
c"
ev,
10 0
41 •......••
/a/ 4t d'
Robert Andrew Jo r, P.E.
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Introduction 1
I. Purpose and Need Statement 1
11. Existing Conditions 1
III. Alternatives 3
A. Project Description 3
B. Build Alternatives 3
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study 4
D. Preferred Alternative 4
IV. Estimated Costs 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 8
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal 9
D. Biotic Resources 9
1. Plant Communities 9
a. Man-dominated Community 10
b. Upland 10
c. Wetland 10
2. Wildlife 10
3. Aquatic Communities 11
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities 13
a. Terrestrial Communities 13
b. Wetland Communities 14
c. Aquatic Communities 14
E. Special Topics 15
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues 15
2. Permits 16
a. Section 404 of Clean Water Act 16
b. Section 401 Water Quality Certification 16
c. Bridge Demolition and Removal 16
d. Coast Guard 17
e. Tennessee Valley Authority 17
f. Designated Public Mountain Trout Water 17
g. Special Waters 17
3. Buffer Rules 17
4. Mitigation 17
F. Rare and Protected Species 18
1. Federally Endangered and Threatened Species 18
2. Federal Species of Concern 19
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 19
VI. Cultural Resources 20
A. Compliance Guidelines 20
B. Historic Architecture 20
C. Archaeology 20
VII. Environmental Effects 20
VIII. Public Involvement 23
IX. Agency Comments 23
X. Section 4(f) Resources 23
M. References 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.0 Estimated Costs per Alternative 5
Table 2.0 Plant Community Impacts per Alternative 13
Table 3.0 Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts 15
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Guilford County
Bridge No. 102 on SR 2124 (Lewiston Road)
Over Brush Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2124 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496201
T.I.P. No. B-3848
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for
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
• Per conversation with NCDOT biologists in March 2002, the project study area needs to be revisited
during the bald eagle nesting season prior to the signing of the FHWA right-of-way consultation. A
bald eagle survey was performed in March 2003. No nests were found within 1.3 miles of the project
study area.
• NCDOT will provide the Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department an opportunity to review plan
sheets prior to construction.
• NCDOT will consider alternative methods of construction with an aggressive construction schedule
to minimize time of the road closure.
Categorical Exclusion
April 2004
Green Sheet
Sheet 1 of 1
Guilford County
Bridge No. 102 on SR 2124 (Lewiston Road)
Over Brush Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2124 (1)
State Project No. 8.2496201
T.I.P. No. B-3848
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 102 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
During the August 6, 2002 inspection, the Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge
has a sufficiency rating of 19.3 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
The project is located in Guilford County on SR 2124 (Lewiston Road), approximately 0.8 mile
south of the junction of SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road). The local area surrounding the proposed project
is protected for drinking water supplies and is used as recreational facilities managed by Greensboro
Parks and Recreation Department. The area surrounding Lake Higgins/Brush Creek is a well-known
environmentally sensitive area in the Lake Brandt watershed and used extensively for recreation at nearby
parks and golf courses. Biking is common along the roadways and several bike routes are marked in the
area. There is a multi-use trail crossing SR 2124 approximately 500 feet northwest of Bridge No. 102.
Other land uses include agricultural areas with a few residences throughout.
SR 2124 is classified as a rural minor collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System.
1
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2124 is a 20-foot paved, 2-lane roadway. The roadway grade is
relatively flat through the project area. The roadway is situated approximately 16 feet above the riverbed
at Bridge No. 102.
The 2002 traffic volume of 2,600 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 5,200 VPD
by the year 2025. The project volume includes 1-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit in the project area is 45 mph.
There were 2 accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 102 during a recent 3-year period.
These figures resulted in a total accident rate of 176 ACC/100 MVM.
Bridge No. 102 is a 110-foot long bridge with one main and four approach spans and a clear
roadway width of 19.1 feet. The bridge has an asphalt-wearing surface on a timber floor. The end bents
and bents 1 and 4 consist of timber cap and pile. Bents 2 and 3 consist of reinforced concrete cap and
timber pile. The posted weight limit on this bridge is 18 tons for single vehicles and 23 tons for tractor
trailer/semi-trucks. Bridge No. 102 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). There are some underground
and aerial utilities along the south side of SR 2124, but no utilities are attached directly to Bridge No.
102. Overall, utility impacts are anticipated to be low and any specific impacts will be coordinated with
appropriate utility personnel during construction.
According to a letter dated March 12, 2001, Guilford County Schools reported that Bridge No.
102 is crossed 20 times daily by school buses on their routes. If the bridge is closed, routes can be
detoured using SR 2136 (Fleming Load), SR 2187 (Jessup Grove Road), SR 2182 (Horse Pen Creek
Road), and SR 2190 (Carlson Dairy Road). This detour would add approximately 10 minutes to each
route. This project would not present unworkable problems for the Guilford County School
Transportation Department. However if the bridge is closed, there is a request for a turn-around location
south of Bridge No. 102 to allow for the pick up of students residing north of SR 3807 (Hackamore Road)
(see letter in Appendix).
2
The City of Greensboro Police Department and Guilford County Sheriff's Department found no
significant impacts on the response times to areas affected by the project. However, Guilford County
Emergency Management Services uses this route to access a large housing development south of the
bridge. Detouring traffic could add approximately three minutes or more to response times. They prefer
an on-site detour.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a multiple span cored-slab bridge approximately 120
feet long and 33 feet wide. The replacement structure will require spill-through abutments on each end.
This structure provides two 12-foot lanes with 4.5-foot shoulders on each side. The proposed approach
roadway will consist of a 24-foot pavement width to provide two 12-foot lanes with 2-foot paved and 6-
foot grass shoulders 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. Alternatives 1 and 2 follow these general guidelines and are therefore acceptable. The new
structure will satisfy economic constraints, 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. 102 are shown on Figure 3 and described
below:
Alternative 1 (Preferred) - replaces the bridge with a 120-foot long bridge on the existing
alignment. The approach work will extend from approximately 295 feet west of the bridge to
approximately 485 feet east of the bridge for a total distance of approximately 900 feet. The
design speed is 50 mph. A design exception will be necessary for this alternative due to the sag
vertical curve at the east end of the bridge. An off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic
during the construction period. The length of the off-site detour is approximately 4.6 miles using
SR 2187, SR 2182, SR 2190, SR 2133 and SR 2124.
3
Alternative 2 - replaces the bridge with a 120-foot long bridge on the existing alignment. The
approach work will extend from approximately 295 feet west of the bridge to approximately 485
feet east of the bridge for a total length of approximately 900 feet. The design speed is 50 mph.
A design exception will be necessary for this alternative due to the sag vertical curve at the east
end of the bridge. During construction, traffic will be maintained on a temporary detour structure
located approximately 40 feet southwest of the existing bridge. The detour structure will be
approximately 115 feet long and 26 feet wide (see Figure 2b). The detour approach work will
extend from approximately 400 feet west of the bridge to approximately 540 feet east of the
bridge for a total length of approximately 1055 feet. The design speed of the temporary detour is
40 mph. This alternative is not recommended because construction of an on-site detour would
require more disturbances to Brush Creek. The cost of a temporary structure can be avoided by
using the off-site detour presented in Alternative 1.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
A box culvert was considered but is not a feasible alternative for this location.
The No-Build or "Do Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. The
Division believes that this alternative would not be acceptable to the public.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1, replacing the existing bridge on the existing alignment with an off-site detour is the
preferred alternative. This alternative was selected because it minimizes the environmental impacts to
Brush Creek/Lake Higgins, minimizes impacts to the Section 4(f) (public park) resources, and costs less
than Alternative 2.
. The NCDOT Division Engineer concurs with using an off-site detour to minimize environmental
impacts to Brush Creek/Lake Higgins.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
4

Table 1.0 Estimated Costs per Alternative
Alternative 1
(Preferred) Alternative 2
Structure $269,300 $269,300
Roadway Approaches $340,400 $511,400
Structure Removal $17,400 $17,400
Misc. and Mobilization $162,900 $242,200
Temporary On-Site Detour $0 $117,700
Engineering & Contingencies $135,000 $192,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $925,000 $1,350,000
Right of Way / Utilities $43,300 $81,600
TOTAL PROJECT COST $968,300 $1,431,600
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is $ 663,000, including $ 63,000 for right-
of-way and $ 600,000 for construction. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year 2004.
Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2005.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
The information contained in this section is based on the Natural Systems 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 2,350 feet in length and 350 feet in width. 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.
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
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
5

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 area streams
and tributaries was derived from available sources [Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR) 1993 and 1997] [Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DEN R) 2000
and 2001]. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data. See Figures 4a and 4b for
photographs of the project study area.
The most current United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing (internet 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 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
characterized by rolling hills and moderately steep slopes along drainages to small lakes/reservoirs.
Elevations in the project study area range from approximately 770 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along
the Brush Creek/Lake Higgins bank to approximately 820 feet above MSL on the project boundaries
away from the lake (USGS Summerfield, NC quadrangle).
The project study area crosses five soil mapping units: Appling sandy loam (Typic
Kanhapludults), 2 to 6% slopes; Chewacla sandy loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), nearly level slopes;
Madison sandy loam (Typic Kanhapludults), 15 to 35% slopes; Madison clay loam (Typic
Kanhapludults), 6 to 10% eroded slopes; Madison clay loam (Typic Kanhapludults), 15 to 25% slopes.
(USDA 1975). Chewacla is classified as a hydric soil having Wehadkee (Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts)
inclusions and is mapped at the northwestern end of the project study area. The remaining map units are
listed as well-drained, non-hydric soils.
6

C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within the Reedy Fork Creek drainage basin,
subbasin 03-06-02, of the Cape Fear River Basin (DENR 2000). This area is part of USGS hydrologic
unit 03030002 (USGS 1974). Bridge No. 102 crosses Brush Creek approximately 0.8 mile south of the
intersection of SR 2133. Within the project study area, Brush Creek flows into Lake Higgins from the
south. From the source of Brush Creek to a point 0.5 mile downstream of SR 2190, the Stream Index
Number (SIN) 16-11-4-(1) is assigned by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A small, unnamed ephemeral/intermittent tributary is located southeast of Bridge No.102,
draining a nearby depression. It's channel extends for approximately 150 feet before it turns into a swale
and flows toward Lake Higgins. The tributary lies 215 feet from SR 2124 and is outside of the 60-foot
right-of-way. No SIN has been designated to the unnamed tributary.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Stream Characteristics
Brush Creek is a perennial piedmont stream with substrate consisting of 90% sand at an upstream
sampling site located at SR 2136. Because the project study area is located at the confluence of Brush
Creek and Lake Higgins, the Natural Stream Channel Classification System (Rosgen 1996) does not
apply to this site due to its lake characteristics. No obvious channel measurements could be made from
Bridge No. 102. The substrate in the project study area consists of silt. Rooted aquatic vegetation and
some branches and leaves were apparent along the banks. Table 3.0 shows linear footage as well as open
water impacts associated with Brush Creek.
The unnamed tributary drains a depression by a roadbed located southeast of Bridge No. 102. The
tributary was dry and covered with leaf litter on September 20, 2001. The one foot wide channel began at
the depression and traveled towards the lake but dwindled into a swale. This swale that did not meet
USACE requirements for jurisdictional wetlands through the three-parameter approach.
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. Brush Creek from the
source to a point 0.5 mile downstream of SR 2190 has a best usage classification of WS-III NSW
assigned on August 3, 1992 (DENR 1999). The designation "WS-III" denotes a moderately developed
7

water supply. The "NSW" designation means nutrient sensitive waters in which nutrient loading,
primarily nitrogen and phosphorous, have exceeded acceptable levels in the area, and a specific program
is needed to reduce nutrient inputs from human activities. Downstream from the project study area and
from a point 0.5 mile downstream of SR 2190 to Lake Brandt, Brush Creek (Lake Higgins) has received a
best usage classification of WS-III NSW CA. The supplemental classification "CA" indicates this is a
critical area due to the City of Greensboro water supply intake located downstream. The unnamed
tributary, located east of Bridge No. 102, has no separate best usage classification and therefore shares the
classification of Brush Creek.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, WS-H Waters
occur within three miles of the project study area. Brush Creek is not designated as a North Carolina
Natural and Scenic River, nor as a National Wild and Scenic River..Brush Creek is not a Designated
Public Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW).
There are no NPDES dischargers on Brush Creek within one mile of the project study area.
No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occurred at SR 2124 over Brush Creek.
However, one mile upstream of the project study area is a monitoring site located at SR 2136. This station
received a bioclassification of Fair in 1998 (DENR 2000).
Another measure of water quality being used by DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish
community; however, no fish community structure sampling has been reported for Brush Creek in the
project study area (DEM 1994).
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 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
construction, including implementing stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures, and avoiding
using wetlands as staging areas can minimize construction impacts.
8
Other impacts to water quality that are anticipated as a result of this project include: elevated
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
case of detour construction. Limited overall change in the surrounding areas are expected to be
temporary in nature.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from any of the
alternatives being considered. These alternatives include bridge replacement and will allow for
continuation of present stream flow in Brush Creek, thereby protecting stream integrity.
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 the creek resulting from demolition.
No temporary fill associated with the removal of the superstructure of Bridge No. 102 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. The removal of the substructure has the potential to
result in temporary fill in Brush Creek. Per scoping comments on August 24, 2001, the Division advised
that the existing structure is on creosote piles and the beams are coated with aluminum paint over red lead
paint. Special precautions may be necessary.
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. This
project is subject to BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Terrestrial communities are divided into three types: maintained/disturbed, upland, and wetland.
The maintained/disturbed community has been severely altered by anthropogenic changes including
mowed roadsides. The upland community consists of a mixed hardwood stand. The wetland community
consists of a piedmont bottomland stand. The mixed hardwood stand and piedmont bottomland forest
follow the Schafale and Weakley classifications of natural communities. Distribution and composition of
9
w !
plant communities throughout the project study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography,
soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. Natural land disturbances such as fire, hurricanes,
and tornadoes result in uneven-aged vegetative stands or a patchy mosaic within even-aged communities.
Impacts to these communities are shown on Table 2.0. Refer to Exhibit 3 in the Natural Systems Report
(March 2002) for the locations of these communities.
a. Man-dominated Community (Maintained/Disturbed)
In the maintained areas along roadsides, the vegetation documented includes the following:
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), red maple (Ater
rubrum), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
b. Upland (Mixed Hardwood Stand)
Upland areas consist primarily of a mixed hardwood stand. Documented species include river
birch (Betula nigra), red maple, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum),
shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), white oak (Quercus alba), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum).
C. Wetland (Piedmont Bottomland Forest)
The wetland area consists of a piedmont bottomland forest. Within a few feet of Lake Higgins,
there are wetland and flood-tolerant vegetative species that line the banks. These wetland features are
lacustrine in nature. The bottomland hardwood forest surrounds the banks of Brush Creek and Lake
Higgins. Therefore, alluvial sediments are not as prevalent as in riverine systems. However, lake
flooding does occur, creating the hydrology and hydric soils for vegetation that is characteristic of
bottomland communities. Tree and shrub species include tag alder (Abius serrulata), silky dogwood,
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), and
swamp rose (Rosa palustris). Herbaceous vegetation grows thick with jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
netted chainfem ffooativardia areolata), false nettle (Boehnieria cylindrica), arrow arum (Peltandra
virginica), soft rush (Juncus effusus), grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), and ground-nut (Apios americana).
The littoral zone is covered by common cattail (Typha latifolia), waterlilies (Nymphaea odorata) and
duckweed (Lemna spp.).
2. Wildlife
The study project area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial fauna. The white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), barred owl (Stria varia), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern cardinal
10
? L
(Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) were seen within the project study area.
Mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc.) observed include the domestic dog (Canis familiaris), raccoon (Procyon
lotor) and opossum (Didelphis virginiana). No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study
area.
Expected wildlife species are those adapted to the ecotone between the maintained roadsides,
open residential neighborhoods and adjacent hardwood forest. Bird species expected within and around
the project study area include the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), hairy and downy woodpeckers (Picoides villosus and pubescens), red-winged blackbird
(Agelaius phoeniceus), and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis). Mammals expected include the
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), golden mouse
(Ochrotomys nuttalli), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagusfloridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and beaver (Castor canadensis). Expected
reptile species include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) and eastern hognose (Heterodon
platyrhinos).
3. Aquatic Communities
DWQ sample sites include 12 benthic macro invertebrate sampling stations in this subbasin
sampled since 1993. Sample site B-6 is located one mile upstream of the project study area at SR 2136
and Brush Creek. Here, the dominant EPT taxa were grazing baetid mayflies, especially those species
that favor algae growing over a coarse sand substrate. Uncommon baetid species at this site included
Barbaetis, Paracloedoes, and Baetis cinctutus. These taxa were abundant under the low flow condition
observed during July of 1998, but might be washed downstream during periods of higher flow (DENR
1999): Through benthic macroinvertebrate collections and analysis, this sampling site received a
bioclassification of Fair in 1998. This rating may be influenced by upstream land uses which include an
airport, a golf course and many residential areas. Refer to Section V.B. for more information on
physiography and soils surrounding Lake Higgins (DENR 1999).
Aquatic life from Brush Creek may find refuge in the deeper waters of Lake Higgins. Routine
kick-net surveys and limited bottom sampling were not performed at this site due to the absence of leaf
11

packs, depth of water, and silt-covered substrate. Limited sources of food, oxygen, and shelter are
expected to affect the diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in the project study area.
Slope in the project study area limits the hydrophytic vegetation to the hydric soils at the normal-
level water line. The littoral zone is covered by rooted emergent plants like arrow arum, common cattail,
and soft rush. As the water gets deeper, floating plants like waterlilies and duckweed cover the water
surface. Many reptiles and amphibians find refuge in these dense patches of vegetation. Aquatic
conditions appeared to be normal, without obvious pollution from litter or pungent odors. Banks are well
vegetated. No erosion problems were noticed.
Due to the shallow water and vegetation around the lake perimeter, the project study area is
expected to provide a suitable breeding habitat for an array of frogs, toads, and salamanders. Limited
surveys did not result in documentation of any salamanders in the unnamed tributary or Brush Creek and
Lake Higgins. Amphibians expected to be found in the project study area include the eastern tiger
salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata),
northern spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), green frog (Rana clamitans),
eastern mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Stable lake banks
provide 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 (Clemnrys guttata), and various watersnakes
(Nerodia spp.).
Small non-game fish in the area that inhabit Brush Creek include a variety of minnows, shiners,
and dace. Darters can be found in riffles upstream of the project study area while sunfish travel between
Brush Creek and Lake Higgins. Recreational fishing is one of the activities supported by Lake Higgins.
There have been no recent reports of problems related to the quality of fishing at this lake. Game fish
living in Brush Creek and Lake Higgins and found in the project study area are the following: red-eared
sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), black
crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), bullhead catfish (Ictalurus
natalis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill
(Leponus macrochirus). Hybrid striped bass (Morone sp.) were stocked in Lake Higgins prior to year
1995 and may occasionally be caught (District 5 Fisheries Biologist, Division of Inland Fisheries,
personal conversation).
12
t
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities are estimated based on the acreage of each plant
community present within the proposed right-of-way width of 60 feet; actual impacts within construction
limits will be less. Alternatives I and 2 both call for replacement of the existing structure; however,
Alternative 2 uses an on-site temporary detour while Alternative 1 uses an off-site detour. Impacts for
both alternatives are presented in Table 2.0.
Table 2.0 Plant Community Impacts per Alternative
Alternative 1
(Preferred) Alternative 2

Community Types
Impacts in acres
Impacts in acres Temporary Detour

Impacts in acres
Maintained/Disturbed Community 0.55 0.55 0.05
Mixed Hardwood Stand 0.10 0.10 .0.06
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 0.19 0.19 0.10
Total: 0.84 0.84 0.21
Total for Alts: 0.84 1.05
All alternatives for this project are in close proximity to the existing structure, which will reduce
permanent 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. Permanent community impacts are approximately 0.84 acre for Alternatives
I and 2. Alternative 2 includes 0.21 acre of temporary impacts associated with the temporary detour
placed southwest of Bridge No. 102. Alternative 2 contains the greatest amount of impacts, totaling 1.05
acres to all three communities.
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 impacts were determined, flagged, surveyed per GPS methodology, and
subsequently calculated. Field surveys occurred bet%veen June and September 2001. Table 3.0 shows the
amount of jurisdictional impacts in each alternative.
Wetland values for representative areas within the project study area were evaluated using the
Fourth Version of the Guidance for Rating the Values of 1etlands 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. One wetland evaluation was made that
characterizes the piedmont bottomland forest that surrounds Lake Higgins. Hydrophytic vegetation is
limited to this area because of the immediate elevation increase away from the lake. For the purposes of
this study, values derived from the DWQ system were considered to exhibit medium value with scores
between 40 and 49.
The assessment of wetland present in the project study area was performed using the three
parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils) outlined in the USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual (1987). Below are the results from the wetland determination and rating.
Lake Higgins Welland
Species include red maple, sycamore, tag alder, silky dogwood, swamp rose, arrow-wood,
grapevine, ground-nut, poison ivy, jewelweed, soft rush and arrow arum. Hydrological indicators
consist of water marks on trees, drift lines, sediment deposits and water-stained leaves. The
depth of free water in the pit equaled 6 inches. Soil type is listed as Madison clay loam. Soil
matrix colors were between 2.5Y2.5/1 and 5Y4/1. Sulfidic odor, aquic moisture regime, reducing
conditions and low-chroma colors indicate hydric conditions. This wetland scored 47 points,
giving it a medium wetland value.
C. Aquatic Communities
Potential down-stream 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
14

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.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Brush Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Table 3.0
shows the jurisdictional features and related impacts. The construction limit from the preliminary design
was used for calculation of jurisdictional wetland/open water impacts. Because the wetland acreages are
affected by the water-level fluctuations, these impacts are lumped together as open water impacts. The
60-foot right-of-way width was used for the calculation of jurisdictional stream impacts as the areas had
been surveyed per GPS methodology. Linear footage of impact for Brush Creek was calculated and is
shown below even though open water impacts more accurately describe its potential impacts. The
unnamed tributary southeast of Bridge No. 102 is outside of the project study area and therefore will not
be impacted.
Table 3.0 Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts
Intermittent
Open Water Brush Creels
Alternative Tributary
in acres in linear feet
in linear feet
1 0.06 60 0
2 (without temporary detour) 0.06 60 0
2 48
0 100 0
2 (temporary detour) 0.42 . 40 0
The open water impacts for Alternatives 1 and 2 (without the temporary detour) are 0.06 acre.
Alternative 2 has the larger impact of the two alternatives due to the temporary impacts associated with
the detour. Temporary impacts for Alternative 2 are 0.42 acre; therefore, total impacts for both
permanent and temporary structures associated with Alternative 2 are 0.48 acre. Stream impacts to Brush
Creek are both 60 linear feet for Alternatives 1 and 2 (without the temporary detour). Alternative 2 has
the larger impact of the two alternatives due to the temporary stream impacts of 40 linear feet; therefore
total impacts for both permanent and temporary structures are 100 linear feet. See Figure 5 for locations
of jurisdictional features.
15
The waters in Brush Creek within the project study area exhibit characteristics of lacustrine,
limnetic, saturated, permanently flooded, diked/impounded waters (L1BHh) (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(a)(23)] has been
issued by the USACE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water
Quality Certification for NWP 423. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In
the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit No. 31 issued by the Wilmington
USACE District. Notification to the Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is
utilized. NWP 433 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 423. 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 restrictions and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
as well as guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in Brush Creek resulting from demolition.
This project is designated as a Case 3; no special restrictions beyond 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. Per scoping comments on August 24,
2001, the Division advised that the existing structure is on creosote piles and the beams are coated with
aluminum paint over red lead paint. Special precautions may be necessary.
16
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. Brush Creek is not designated as a navigable river.
e. Tennessee Valley Authority
Bridge No. 102 is located outside of the Tennessee River drainage area and 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, Brush Creek is not a Designated Public Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW) managed
for 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). Brush Creek and its unnamed tributary have not been designated as
North Carolina Natural and Scenic Rivers, nor as National Wild and Scenic Rivers.
3. Buffer Rules
No buffer rules currently apply to the Cape Fear River Basin. This project is not within the Oak
Hollow Lake, High Point Lake, Oakdale or Randleman Lake watersheds. Therefore, the Randleman
Buffer Rules will not apply to this project.
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 and open water impacts. Impacts to Brush Creek will be minimized during demolition
by removing the existing structure in a way that avoids depositing debris in Brush Creek.
17

Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation probably will not be required for this project due to the
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,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). There is only one federally protected species listed for Guilford
County (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
feet and bill. The bald eagle is the only eagle confined to North America. 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 that 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.
The bald eagle lives near major lakes and rivers and feeds mainly on fish. Due to the size and
continuation of Lake Higgins into Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend, habitat for the bald eagle is
present. This is a well-known environmentally sensitive area. A bridge replacement immediately
downstream (northeast) on Carlson Dairy Road was delayed for many months because of a
18
V
nesting eagle nearby. The bald eagle's recovery has lead to a proposal (50 CFR 17) for delisting it
from the Endangered and Threatened List.
An aerial survey for the bald eagle was conducted by helicopter on March 10, 2003. No evidence
of bald eagle nests was noted within 1.3 miles of the proposed bridge replacement during the field
investigations for this project. A single active and single inactive bald eagle nest were noted
approximately 1.8 and 2.0 miles, respectively, from the proposed bridge replacement. Land
disturbing activities associated with the proposed bridge replacement will not occur within either
the maximum primary zone or maximum secondary zone extending from the active nest. The
proposed bridge replacement will not affect this species. Refer to the Bald Eagle Survey (March
2003) for more information. Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 18, 2003 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.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Neither the bald eagle nor the Carolina darter was found in or near Brush Creek. Potential habitat
does exist for both rare species. NHP has two recorded sightings of the bald eagle within three miles of
the project study area. In 2003, a bald eagle was sighted approximately 2.1 miles from Bridge No. 102. In
2001, a bald eagle was sighted approximately 2.6 miles from Bridge No. 102. However, the bald eagle
survey in March 2003 found no active nests within 1.3 miles of the project. NHP has no recorded
sightings of the Carolina darter within three miles of the project study area. The purple fringeless orchid,
a state proposed significantly rare species, was reported by NHP in 1990 approximately 2.7 miles the
project.
19

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 properties of historical or architectural significance would be affected
by the project. A copy of the concurrence form and memorandum are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In a memorandum dated August 29, 2001, the SHPO concurred that no properties of
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. 102 is located in a 100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain,
Zone A4 (see Figure 6). A detailed study was prepared and established a 100-year flood elevation of
769.2 feet for Bridge No. 102. There are no USGS gage sites on Brush Creek.
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.
20
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. The area is zoned as Public Institutional
for watershed use. Surrounding areas are zoned as residential (Guilford County Planning Department).
No adverse effect on individual families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of either alternative.
The proposed project will require right-of-way acquisition or easement land protected under
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. There is an insignificant impact
anticipated on Lake Higgins, a publicly owned park. Due to the limited size and nature of the proposed
bridge replacement, the project will not impair the use or intended purposes of the park. See Section X for
a description of the facility and impacts associated with the proposed right-of-way limits. The project is
not expected to affect economic or religious opportunities in the surrounding area.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Unit stated that this section of SR 2124 is near
the edge of the urban area growth boundary. In the next 20 years, this area will likely experience
significant development. The revised NCDOT Bridge Policy (March 2000) advises that bridge
replacements with shoulder approaches that are within urban area growth boundaries should allow for the
future placement of sidewalks by providing additional shoulder width on the new bridge. There is also
justification for accommodating bicycle safety with wider shoulders on the replacement structure. A
4-foot shoulder on the replacement structure will accommodate for bike and pedestrian traffic along
SR 2124.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS). 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.
Found within a 0.5-mile search radius, prime farmland soils include Cecil sandy clay loam (CeC2),
Appling sandy loam (ApB), and Madison clay loam (McB2). Of these prime farmland soils, the ApB is
21
F]
found within the project study area and may be impacted. Found within a 0.5-mile search radius, state
and local important soils include Madison clay loam (McC2), Appling sandy loam (ApC), Madison sandy
loam (MaC), Vance sandy loam (Val)), and Madison clay loam (McD2). Of these state and locally
important soils, McC2 is found within the project study area and may be impacted.
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 requested.
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). No additional reports are required.
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).
The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown on Figure 6. There are no other
practical alternatives to crossing Brush Creek and Lake Higgins.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the proposed project.
22
r
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 two 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.
X. SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, states in part "The
Secretary may approve a transportation project or program requiring the use of publicly owned land of a
public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of national, state,
or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the
park, recreation area, refuge, or site) only if -
• there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and,
• the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation
area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.
The proposed project requires the use of any property used as a public owned park, recreation
area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge. Therefore, a Section 4(f) Evaluation is required.
In a letter dated November 5, 2003, the City of Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department
preferred Alternative 1 due to the least impacts to the natural resources and recreational opportunities (see
letter in Appendix). Jurisdiction of Lake Higgins Park is under authority of City of Greensboro. The Parks
and Recreation Department manage the safety, security and recreation of the facility. The Water
Resources Department manages the water quality and related issues. A Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation was completed for this project and is included in the Appendix.
Lake Higgins Park
Lake Higgins is one part of three connecting Greensboro Municipal Reservoirs that supply water
to the citizens of Greensboro and some areas of surrounding Guilford County. It is the smallest of the
23

three City lakes, but offers some of the best fishing. All three lakes offer excellent recreational
opportunities for a modest fee.
Lake Higgins is a 226-acre municipal reservoir, constructed in 1956. The office is located on
Hamburg Mill Road off Hwy 220 North about 3.5 miles north of the city limits. Fishing, boating,
picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, and nature study are some of the activities found at Lake Higgins.
Fishing, by boat or pier, is common throughout the park. Game fish species like largemouth bass,
catfish, and crappie are commonly caught by anglers. Boating is a popular activity among park visitor in
the warmer months. Rowboats, sailboats and canoes can be rented hourly. A launch ramp is also
available for personal crafts. No motorized boats are permitted. Lake Higgins provides numerous
educational activities for the general public and school groups. Indoor and outdoor classroom facilities
are used for environmental education and are popular year-round. A snack area and restrooms are
available.
The replacement of Bridge No. 102 may temporarily affect fishing and boating activities within
the project study area during construction. BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly
enforced to protect the water quality of Lake Higgins. Alternatives 1 and 2 are expected to impact
approximately 0.06 acre of open water area due to the replacement of Bridge No. 102. Temporary
impacts expected from Alternative 2's temporary detour are approximately 0.42 acre of open water area.
Alternative 2 has a total impact of 0.48 acre and is the greater impact of the two alternatives.
In addition to open water impacts at Lake Higgins, land impacts within the proposed right-of-way
limits would infringe on the park's property. For Alternatives 1 and 2, not including impacts associated
with the temporary detour bridge, approximately 0.34 acre of the 226-acre park (approximately 0.1
percent of the park property) will be used to replace Bridge No. 102. Access to the land within the project
study area will be temporarily unavailable to bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as automobiles, during
construction. Since fishing is not permitted on Lake Higgins' bank, construction on land should not
interfere with this recreational activity. After construction, this project will not impair the use of the park
for its intended purposes.
Bald Eagle Trail
The Bald Eagle Trail is a multiple use, 3.0-mile trail at Lake Higgins, commonly used by
mountain bikers. It can be accessed from a parking lot off Hamburg Mill Road just west of the Lake
24
Higgins Marina entrance. The trail winds along the edge of Lake Higgins and southwest of Lewiston
Road to Brush Creek. The trail intersects with SR 2124 at approximately 500 feet northwest of Bridge
No. 102. Impacts are not expected to occur to the Bald Eagle Trail.
25
XI. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation; North Carolina
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.
26
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.
NCDEHNR 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear
River Basin. Internet update, 20 September 2001. Internet address -
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.usibiros/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/h dY roC,ipeFear.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. littp:/htitivw.ncsparks.net/nilp/cleinents2.fin
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.
27
i
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 Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North 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.
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.
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"' 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/fNvs.gov/es/cnlylist
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. Kernersville, 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.
28
FIGURES
L

' f
N
O
S
3833
399
(\ L

.I
...........•'t l
220 \
I • ?
••
2133 •••,••••??•"'•.
ne.n
2283
••.,,••• 2135

•,. is
1
I
-? 43221
2321 !
9?\ 4224
3990 :' .1.
2135 ,..• / i
1 ?
• ••? • 1•a\ \ I Ih ..
2190 •• •.. ? ; iN,?
? 1'?'?: v' Y •2
2124
`4 /Y•
'•••? 3836
124 '•
':

• i •

a t?
OFF-SITE DETOUR 38
ti •
<•. 2252
r • 2247
%
2246
3945
3944
2191
2337
2338
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and
.1' Environmental Analysis Branch
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 102
ON SR 2124 (LEWISTON ROAD)
OVER BRUSH CREEK
T.I.P. No. B-3848
I FIGURE 1
0 0.5 1
SCALE
1 r
C p
°
0 N

C14 D
D
° o
- ° cu N U
ILL

to O f
`
E.
1-
N w :14

LL.J

co .
c Z
D W
ZU tt
ao
°N° 0 0 ch
'
E U NN ca

C
DO
cn1 O:) O

Z
/
.
`Y
O ° O W O O M
0 o a? a LL Z we
w
.0,
?
e -? W
W O
H

p Z Ue u,
-
o
'
5K C 1
. m
C ? f

U
44 j
7K

W
Z
'4 J
?CL
V

c °-
LC)
It
c?
-
Z
C),
?-

R O W
O N
Q
^ Z
47 3 4 LU

CO
C13
G V ?
a Z
r?
?fE
N
N
k
? x
?

7
O
O

? O C7
?
O
o

a N
°.
LLI
o
?QQ N 0
o c •'^
-
E ? Y
LLJ

N

00
s
=
-
.o M C3
E-° .12 Z LLJ

o C3 o p
0 Z U
0 m
M
V

N
N m
o o
• p O
r O
o?=
... w
O
O M Z
Z Li LL. Z w °-
1-4o o 5 >
W
00
o p

r

O

W

o CL Z
t? (D Q- 0

4 }. V

' W
Q)-j N
:z W
O
w N
0
?
L
?
o
Q w
Q m

oa Cie
D
N
b O o
)
W
q
o
• J
Q

G..
O
?
+ cr
t?

O
I is
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 102
8-3848
I

r,

I A

GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 102
-3848
1
Looking at
Northwest side
i
Looking at
Southeast side

t?r
tJA,(l?J"t! rlftiJ1)"U?rtl?llt'tlft?U
i! ?,ftJ11 L? (A) a('tt1.?? (t1 tJ t ?. f
i..i`t i• i i,f`?,f'?jl?f+lf?, r1fh.?lJ',lJ`t;(ff'4(lJ' ?' i ,
/'?tlA/°?V'Up
Ar1rVVk,?Jth1 itU1?!JL J o
? rl,i?J?lr4?`l?,hJ?,J?1I11?,.?1,.f1,r4?"4?..??4??1•<1?4(
1(V-0`4. (A ) lrll'lrl?'kf d 1 t1 ?J ??
PSS1 Ch r 1 t?r<ft?rtrVtn?V?l'?r
VtIVWVrt (t(L?t t11.

v v v ?v v •§.v u v v v
?rt1?J°t tVVll0llVVVVVVta"1Vrlrt V1rWo-
( X
bF ?"t
7 ? ?tF
? !.?FA i'
I
PF01
I
flJ'V'?rll'Vl ?rtr-11
f tiI LN?J??t,PM !'w„r?l L.??11J' Wlrl, l '1. ?'1.
t?,+?,!'v11?.r?,rLr?rtrt,'?!`t?'+,r?r4?'?.4•?.?:1.
ru)AnrVWAn,AAA,r AfV
"
'

?
s1
•
tJ1t11
tJ?+l?•!tl a..rtJ
lVlrtltllr?.IL+J?II,(
f
(1IV'
ltd`t
"•
('
?
r
11"l
?
'?
?`
`
4
l
?J
.J
tJ
l.
l
i
V
l
l
.
N

'
'
11?l flf4t??
llfVV
1,,A VlrV1WL.V1J
P8Hh
.A,nW VVl?

rllv`v`•V?ru1.a?. @?

r
fVVV)A
`SrrO
AfVV?

?
f
'?'+x
; x yt
?
? -
`
'
4
3 i =?
?
y"" •s
'{jif ?
?
.
? ? ..
s
?

A

Legend' ` North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
• GPS Stream Delineation ? Aitemative 1
Jurisdictional Wetlands Af Altematfve 2 GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 102 ON SR 2124
V m 2W Lewiston Road over Brush Creek T.I.PNo. B-3W
ZOO o 260 F"
Figure 5
4c uj
26 9 9
54 111 W w
Do W
a 0" OM 6
LL. LL. z M
m
w
r
4
N
w
3 ?Y
cc
? ?? tyy?? t?`?1 i?1 1 ?•
?°t w r t r?.y ?. l?fl
4 1
0 4
\ W
Z m

•
v?
A)

APPENDIX

CI
November 5, 2003
Ms. Elizabeth Workman
Environmental Specialist
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place
Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
Ms. Workman:
oro
Pertaining to bridge project No. 102 in Guilford County on SR 2124, T.I.P. No. B-3848
please let this letter serve as official notification that Greensboro Parks and Recreation
Department recommends Alternative Number 1 (off-site detour). I feel this option
impacts the natural resources and recreational opportunities the least of the two
alternatives.
Jurisdiction of the property in question is maintained by the City of Greensboro. Parks
and Recreation Department manages the safety, security and recreation of the facilities.
The Water Resources Department manages water quality and related issues. May I
suggest you contact Steve Drew, Water Quality Supervisor if you have not already. His
number is 336-373-5855.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Thank you,
Mike Simpson
Lakes, Trails and Greenways Director
Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department
n n U-.. 0100 . --- NTO O?fAAO 01 -3c ..............?...._..L..-.......... . /00a% 0,70 onam . rMR7il 0,30 Onon
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project
State Project
T. I. P. No.
BRZ-2124 (1)
8.2496201
B-3848
Description:
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 102 on SR 2124 (Lewiston Road) over Brush
Creek (T.I.P. No. B-3848). Two alternatives are being studied. Alternative 1 replaces the
bridge on its existing location with an off-site detour. Alternative 2 replaces the bridge on
its existing location with an on-site detour located 50 feet west of the existing bridge.
Alternative 1 is preferred because it is the least disruptive to the public park and least
expensive.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of ?
existing highway facilities on X
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ? X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or ?
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? ? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
For Alternatives 1 and-2, not including impacts associated with the temporary detour
bridge, approximately 0.34 acre of the 226-acre park (approximately 0.1 percent) will be
used to replace Bridge No. 102.
Yes No
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its ? X
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and ?
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest ? X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land ? X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and ?
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X ?
impacts of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adjacent public park, recreational ?X
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of ?
retaining walls, etc., or traffic X
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering. transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land, or wildlife and ?
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a X
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MIlNMZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
0 Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
NCDOT coordinated with the Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department. They
have not asked for additional minimization measures.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
The replacement of Bridge No. 102 without using the adjacent public park was not
considered because it is not possible. The park surrounds the bridge; therefore any
alternative except a "no build" alternative would cause an impact.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
U Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local./State/Federal Agencies
c. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
413010
Date
t;?2Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
? ? " 0vision Administrator, FHWA

® North CaroLaWAdae Resources Commission
Churles R Fullwood, Executive Director
D_'
TO: Ms. Kim Leight
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl AUG, 0 9 2001
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, Highway Project Coordinator RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL
Habitat Conservation Program AA. RALEIGH, NO
a-L
DATE: Augdst 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
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
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
-. ... . II t. __._._-- _Lr_1__J•c:-L--.-.. 1 7-11'kf-:IC...4...?'..,....R,I.;&I, N(:77A49_1771
Bridge Scopings
08106/01
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.
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
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist I%Jr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. gedimentation 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.-terra erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted is 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 minsmime 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
08/06101
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 low 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.
2. When two pipes are installed, only the lower pipe should be buried IT' into the
substrate soo 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
pips 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 orpipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the 9treambed.
In most cases, we prefer the ieplacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. * if road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized -with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCBOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site maybe used as wetland mitigation for the subject'
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific commen=
1. B-3300 - Ashe County -Bridge No. 57 over Buffalo Creek Buffalo Creek at this location
in all likelihood contains wild trout. The bridge ig 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's - Apri116's.
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. 15 - A.prU 1P.
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 ls' -June 3 0ei.
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. 15`h - April 1P. The bridge should be
replaced with another bridge. We are concerned that a box culvert will impede fish passage.
5. B-3925 -Watauga County -Bridge No. 35 over Meat Camp Creek Meat Camp 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. 15'4 - 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 comments as B-
3925.
7. B-3928 - Watauga-Ashe County -Bridge No. 334 over South ForkNew River. We will
require a small mouth bass/ rock bass moratorium from May I" - June 3e. The South ForIc
New Fiver 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.
B4007 - Alleghany County - Bridge No. 39 over Crab Creek Crab Creek is in a 13igh
Quality Water Zone and is designated Hatchery Supported Water. We will require a trout
moratorium from Oct. 15a- April 15ei.
B-4010 - Ashe County-Bridge No. 7 over South Fork New River. We will require a small
mouth bassi` rock bass moratorium from May I" -June 30e'- The South Fork New River is
high quality water and designated "scenic" by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systerm
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. TheNCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life ofthe 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.
Iq la cement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
lverts, 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.

o?o? WAT?c9QG
wa)
o ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Wat©r Quality
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 C X?I-J
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 extent practicable. Prior to the
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 - will 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 fo orily 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
other pollutants into the stream.
7. AIL 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.
8. Written concilrrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be re-quired*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
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 .
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NO 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
'?/z001 17: li
V.
0
hael F. Easley, Governor
Abeth C. Evans, Secretary
August 29, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.I., Manager.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook C C?.l
Deputy State I Iistori 'reservation Officer
NO. 559 D02
G•
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Director
Ire: Replace Bridge No. 102 oa SR 2124 over Brush Creek, B-3848, Guilford County, ER 02-7214
Thank you for yotir memorandum of July 23, 2001, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architecmural, historic, or
archaeological significance, which would be affected by the project. Wherefore, we have no comment on
the project as c=cntly proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National, Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on 11istolzc Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 105 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and eonsideratioa. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB-.kgc
cc: Mary Pope burr, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
bc: Counry'---"
Reading
Location MillingAddrM Tolcphone/Fax .
tiro iaistration 507 N. Blount St, Ralcigh, NC 4617 Mail Scrvice Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
toratinn 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone]'•715-4801
rvey & planning 515 N. Blount St, Roleigb, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801
NC STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 97908382

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Ifistorie Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrnlor.
i
` Federal Aid # BRZ- ;(l) TIP # B-3848 bunty: Guilford
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 102 on SR 2124 over Brush Creek
On 10/18/01, representatives. of the.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
D?North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
[J Other
Reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
F1 Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old-within the project's area of potential effects.
D There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects. '
F1 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 considered not eligible for the National Register and no fujther evaluation
of them is necessary.
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 at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance forhistorie architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Q/ There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents. as needed)
Signed:
Representative N OT
?.? c/,
A-1-1?
1-,
1c)
Date/
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency

Representative, HPO
State•Historic Preservation 0
v
ate
-0
Date
jo (e a?
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
0
AMER
sources
Clty of Greensboro
Ainistration
;336) 373-2055
Fax [phone]
Customer Service
( -)373-2344
[phone]
f) er Supply
hellPlant
[phone]
Fax [phone]
R send Plant
375-2230
Fax [phone]
Q
Water Reclamation
Korth Buffalo Plant
() 373-5913
." [phone]
T.Z. Osborne Plant
( 375-2240
' (336) 6211-
-3523
struction &
ntenance
Service Center
[phone]
[phone]
U
er Services
(T ) 373-2071
(336) 574,4067
rII
er Conservation
fl)335-5459
('
Fax[phone]
0
M
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

.0 P. O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 • www.ci.greensboro.nc,tts • TDD [phone]
1505

06 01 12:21p
le?lllllr?
March 6, 2001
Elizabeth Mack
Rummel, Klepper, & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
p.1

Piedmont fla?° ?'°6
Natural Gas «? ks`
Company
Post Office Box 29527
Greensboro, North Carolina 27429.9527
Re: TIP No. B-3847; Bridge No. 63 on Sandy Ridge Rd @ Deep River
TIP No. B-3848; Bridge No. 102 on Lewiston Rd @ Brush Creek
Dear Elizabeth:
I 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 at 336-378-1831 ex 2311 if you have any questions of comments.
Sincerely
Michael Stanley
Piedmont Natural Gas

jORD co
• Y 77
\CFIO 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.
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
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 Friaklin Boulevard Greensboro, NC 27401
Dl-- MA) 370-R920 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
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 Rd, 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 tum-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 ofHackamore Rd would be required to meet the bus at the intersection of
Hackamore Rd and Lewiston Rd.
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,
i
is
S Program Administrator H
Cl
June 26, 2001
Ms. Elizabeth Mack
RK and K
5600 Faringdon Place
Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
Ms. Mack:
Oro
Enclosed please find information pertaining to our telephone conversation June
25, 2001 concerning trails and recreational activities in the vicinity of Lewiston
Road and Brush Creek in Summerfield NC. Lake Higgins and the surrounding
trail system usually accommodate 25,000 to 30,00 visitors annually. I should
mention that two Bald Eagles (which are rare in our area) have nested near the
bridge site you mentioned. However, storms have destroyed the nest but the
eagles continue to frequent Lake Higgins.
If you have any additional questions please feel free to call me at 336-545-5955.
Thank you, ?10?
Mike Simpson,
Greensboro Parks'and Recreation Department
P 0 Rix 3136 • Greensboro. NC 27402-3136 • www.d.greensboro.nc.us - [phone] - TPY# 333-6930
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
INTO. 102 OVER BRUSH CREED
Guilford County, North Carolina
October 2001 T.I.P. No. B-3848 Newsletter No. 1
NCDOT to Replace Bridge No. 102
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform citizens about
the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 102 on SR 2124 over Brush Creek (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. 102. In Step 2, the
preliminary alternatives were evaluated and, based on their
potential impacts, two "reasonable and feasible"
alternatives were selected for detailed environmental
studies. Step 3 involves 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. 102 over Brush Creek (T.I.P. No. B-
3848).
Description of Alternatives
Two "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
west side will be used to maintain traffic during the
construction period.
TUP. No. B•3848
1_ _7
/ 2128
N
0
S
3833
l?ll?itlk? 1n ,1??
1 i
!
1 i
1 1
? ! 2?1
1
?' - ? ..i?
?t •??• 1 1??.
2133 F313 ?•,?'
F2A3%%??,,y
2135
_i
2321
7

ZU,
3990 r^? /L: •I \ :<? ??dCC/ ~-'? `%
219p
2124
2124
i
! 1
1
1
1
``
I
t
? I.
I
?

383 ?, ?\>r / •' ?/
i
i
?? ?" F 12253
I
2252
3836
%
n'37AR _
F ?. f
23$J•? ?? /
--1
yam,: ?J I
t
0l
1
2337
e
1 2247
l
3945
220
2338
112245 \
2190
North Cmrm Dopartinal of Transportation
Prod D;.rclopmmt and
..i ErniironmmAH Analysis knch
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE No.102 ON SR 2124
Lewiston Road
Brush Creek
T.I.P. No. B-3848
FIGURE 1
0 0.5 1
SCALE

..33 b
x
44
?? Xy'•?r
?F j ? yr' 7• ?yl?f ???{ l^ai ,! .? .. .rf ; . '??
". jj
ti 1
t.: t y ? Y.
14
?•? s qt- - ?y r r.?Y?+ rr111"""4\y\y\FNki
- `z c° ?fir
iW'?i'?-.,? t
? SyT++1 - fir. '? .l ? a { ?t ? I } ? ? ? .C F" -???'?
GUILFORD GGUNT`'r'
BRIDGE No. 102
B-3843
Looking Northwest
Looking Southeast
.,, 1r
NCDOT Welcomes Citizen Input
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
eevan ce(a, dot. state. nc.us
or Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P.E.
or Ms. Kimberly S. Leight
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, UP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
[phone]
kleight(@rkkengineers.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
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
TIP. No. B•3848