20210554 Ver 1_B-5717 CE_20220128

v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 1
•
Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form

STIP Project No. B-5717
WBS Element 45673.1.2
Federal Project No. N/A

A. Project Description:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridges 400109 and
400121 on East Gate City Boulevard/ E. Lee Street (SR 4240) over South Buffalo Creek in Guilford
County. Refer to Figure 1, Project Vicinity Map.

Bridge Number 400109 is 200 feet long with a deck width of 32.25 feet. The structure is reinforced
concrete deck girders with cast-in-place concrete substructure and steel piles. Bridge Number 400121
is 200 feet long with a deck width of 33.3 feet. The structure is steel beams with precast concrete piles
and cast-in-place concrete substructure.

The NCDOT proposes to construct two 215-foot-long three span structures, each with a minimum
roadway width of 33 feet. The new structures will include two lanes at 12 feet wide, as well as bike
lanes and sidewalks, each at 5.5 feet wide. The bridges will be replaced-in-place sequentially while
maintaining two-way traffic on one bridge during construction.

B. Description of Need and Purpose:

The purpose of the project is to replace Bridge 400109 (SR 4240 EB) and Bridge 400121 (SR 4240
WB). Bridge 400109 was built in 1957 and was previously structurally deficient. It has had
maintenance performed and is now considered functionally obsolete. Bridge 400121 (SR 4240 WB)
was built in 1964 and is structurally deficient due to a superstructure and substructure rating of 4 out of
9. The bridge replacements will improve active transportation system linkages.

C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:

Type I(A) - No Ground Disturbance or Limited Disturbance within the Operational ROW

D. Proposed Improvements:
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace
existing at-grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-6).

NOTE: The following Type I(C) Actions (NCDOT-FHWA 2019 CE Agreement, Appendix A) only
require completion of Sections A through D to substantiate and document the CE classification: 1,
5, 8 (signs and pavement markings only), 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20; or several other Type I
Action subcategories identified in past NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreements (see
Appendix D). Pre-approval as a CE does not exempt activities from compliance with other
federal environmental laws.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 2
Special Project Information:

Alternative Analysis: In addition to the No Build Alternative, two build alternatives were considered.

No Build Alternative: No changes to the existing bridges and the need would not be addressed.

Alternative 1: The proposed replacement bridges would include two lanes, a 12-foot inner lane and
14-foot outer lane. A five-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the outer lane of Bridge 400109. The
bridges would be replaced-in-place with median crossovers to maintain traffic on-site throughout
construction.

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 would replace the bridges in-place with median crossovers to maintain
traffic on-site throughout construction. To accommodate the proposed South Buffalo Greenway under
the bridge, an increased grade is proposed. The City would be responsible for a cost-share that
increases the cost of this alternative. The City indicated that they do not have funding for the cost-
share at this time. The replacement bridges would include two 12-foot lanes with a five-foot bike lane
and a five-foot sidewalk. The hydraulic analysis indicated the increased grade proposed in Alternative
2 may result in adverse flooding effects.

Selected Preferred Hybrid Alternative: The selected alternate provides two lanes, a five-foot bicycle
lane, and five-foot sidewalks in each direction. It does not raise the roadway grade to accommodate
future greenway trail access under the bridge.

The Selected Alternative was chosen because it best fulfills the purpose and need for the proposed
project. The Selected Alternative minimizes environmental and property impacts by maintaining the
existing vertical alignment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 3

Estimated Costs:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Hybrid
Alternative
Roadway Construction Cost1 $6,400,000 $7,400,000 $7,100,000
ROW Cost2 $99,736 $99,961 $99,961
Utility Relocation and
Construction Cost1 $344,768 $344,768 $344,768
Alternate Total $6,844,504 $7,844,729 $7,544,729
1 Data is based on cost estimate completed February 2021.
2 Data is from July 2019. Estimated Traffic:
Current Year (2020): 18,184 vpd
Design Year (2040): 20,100 vpd
Duals: (4,1)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 4
Summary of Impacts:
Summary of Impacts
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred Hybrid
Alternative
Length (ft) 1,299 1,299 1,711
Streams (lf) 25.7 26.8 0.0
Wetlands (ac) 0.70 0.75 0.52
100-year, excluding
floodway (ac) 2.04 2.14 1.87
Floodway 0.40 0.45 0.35
500-year 0.76 0.78 0.71
Biotic Communities
(Unclassified-existing road) (ac) 3.59 3.74 3.84
Biotic Communities
(Maintained Disturbed) (ac) 3.32 3.62 3.62
Biotic Communities
(Piedmont Levee Forest) (ac) 1.25 1.33 1.07
Parcels 6 5 5
Relocations 0 0 0
Detour Route: Replace-in-place construction. Traffic will be maintained on site during construction. Route Information:
Route
Federal
Functional
Classification
Road Characteristics
Current - 2021 MTP Proposed –
by 2040
Gate City Blvd Other Principal Arterial 4-lane divided 4-lane divided
Cedar Park Rd Local 2-lane undivided 2-lane undivided

Public Involvement: No public meetings were held. The property owner contact database on file for
this project indicates the following individuals/organizations were each sent a design survey letter by
Stantec who performed the surveys for NCDOT in mid-November 2016:

Contacts
RICHARDGREENE M M FOWLER INC NORTH CAROLINA
STUDENT HOUSING LLC
BUILDING SOLUTIONS
DEVELOPMENT INC
NC DEPT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PENSKE TRUCK
LEASING CO LP
CITY OF GREENSBORO NORTH CAROLINA A & T
STATE UNIVERSITY
STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 5
Other Agency Comments: A start of study letter was sent to state and local agencies on February
28, 2019. The following comments were received:

Water Resources Department City of Greensboro (March 12, 2019): Permits for wetlands may need to
be acquired. City-owned water and sanitary sewer utilities would need to be evaluated closer to the
letting of the project in order to repair, replace, or relocate.
Response: Comment has been noted.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource (April 4, 2019): South Buffalo Creek
is listed for impaired use for aquatic life so there is concern with sediment and erosion impacts that
could result from the project. Road design plans must provide treatment of stormwater runoff through
best management practices. The project falls within the Jordan Lake Basin. Riparian buffer impacts
shall be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0267.
Response: Comment has been noted.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (April 3, 2019): Design considerations for a future
greenway should be taken into consideration.
Response: The City confirmed that plans for a greenway are not being considered during this time.
Therefore, the bridges will not be raised to accommodate the greenway; raising the bridge (increasing
the approach grade) would also lead to adverse hydraulic effects.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (April 3, 2019): Mitigation site is missing from the
environmental features map.
Response: Impacts to the mitigation site will be avoided.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (April 15, 2019): South Buffalo Creek is impaired, and
wetlands are nearby.
Response: Comment has been noted.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 6
E. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:

F2. Ground Disturbing Actions – Type I (Appendix A) & Type II (Appendix B)
Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type I Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement,
Appendix A) including 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22 (ground disturbing), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &/or 30;
&/or Type II Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B) answer the project
impact threshold questions (below) and questions 8 – 31.

• If any question 1-7 is checked “Yes” then NCDOT certification for FHWA approval is required.
• If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions
in Section G.

PROJECT IMPACT THRESHOLDS
(FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked “Yes”.) Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? ☐ 
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)? ☐ 
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
reason, following appropriate public involvement? ☐ 
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-
income and/or minority populations? ☐ 
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial
amount of right of way acquisition? ☐ 
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ☐ 
7
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
☐ 
If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions in
Section F.
Other Considerations Yes No
8 Is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination unresolved or is the project
covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7?  ☐
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ☐ 
10
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW),
High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed
impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?  ☐
11 Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout streams? ☐ 
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
Section 404 Permit? ☐ 
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensed facility? ☐ 
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 7
Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued) Yes No
14
Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological
remains? ☐ 
15 Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.? ☐ 
16
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory
floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a
water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart
A?
 ☐
17 Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially
affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ☐ 
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ☐ 
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? ☐ 
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ☐ 
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS,
etc.) or Tribal Lands? ☐ 
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or
construction of an interchange on an interstate? ☐ 
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness? ☐ 
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ☐ 
25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? ☐ 
26
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or
easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the
property?
☐ 
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐ 
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☐ 
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy? ☐ 
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? ☐ 
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
affected the project decision? ☐ 

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 8
F. Additional Documentation as Required from Section E (ONLY for questions marked ‘Yes’): Question 8: According to the NRTR, Schweinitz’s sunflower has a Biological Conclusion of
Unresolved. Habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower is present within the study area along the maintained
road shoulders and utility corridors. No occurrences of Schweinitz’s sunflower were found during
surveys conducted outside of the recommended survey window. A review of NHP records on
December 27, 2019, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. The
Schweinitz's sunflower was added to the list of protected species after the completion of the original
NRTR, and outside the survey window for the NRTR Addendum. Surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower
will be conducted during the flowering season of 2021.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has revised the previous programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern
North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT
projects and activities. Although this programmatic covers Divisions 1-8, NLEBs are currently only
known in 19 counties, but may potentially occur in 11 additional counties within Divisions 1-8. Since
Guilford County is not included as one of these 30 counties, the Biological conclusion is May Affect,
Not Likely to Adversely Affect, and the two conservation measures found in the PBO will not apply to
this project. The PBO will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for ten
years (effective through December 31, 2030).
Question 10: South Buffalo Creek is class WS-V; NSW; waters of the State. South Buffalo Creek is on
the North Carolina 2018 Final 303(d) list for impaired use for fish community and for benthos
exceeding criteria. The project falls within the Jordan Lake Basin and the Jordan Lake Water Supply
Watershed Riparian Buffer Rules apply. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot
wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to “uses” identified within and constructed in
accordance with 15A NCAC.02B.0295.

Question 16: The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR).

This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s). Therefore,
the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of
project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are
located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally
and vertically.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 9
G. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form):

NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS

STIP Project No. B-5717
Replace Bridges 400109 and 400121 on East Gate City Boulevard/ E. Lee Street (SR 4240) over South
Buffalo Creek
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project No. N/A
WBS Element 45673.1.2

NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit (EAU) / Biological Surveys Group –
Schweinitz’s Sunflower
According to the NRTR, Schweinitz’s sunflower (federally endangered) has a Biological Conclusion
of Unresolved. Habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower is present within the study area along the
maintained road shoulders and utility corridors. No occurrences of Schweinitz’s sunflower were
found during surveys conducted outside of the recommended survey window. A review of NHP
records on December 27, 2019, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
The Schweinitz's sunflower was added to the list of protected species after the completion of the
original NRTR, and outside the survey window for the NRTR Addendum. Surveys for Schweinitz's
sunflower will be conducted during the flowering season of 2021.
NCDOT Division 7 – Continued Coordination with Local Officials
NCDOT should coordinate with City of Greensboro Emergency Services (Katie Buckner, GIS
Analyst | 336-574-4089) at least one month prior to construction.

NCDOT should coordinate with City of Greensboro Public Schools (Beatrice Cheely, TMIS
Coordinator, Guilford County Schools | 336-370-8920) at least one month prior to construction.

NCDOT Hydraulics – Buffer Rules
The Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rule applies to this project.

NCDOT Hydraulics & Division 7 – FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine
status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval
of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR).

This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon
completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction
plans, both horizontally and vertically.

NCDOT Division 7 – Geodetic Markers
There is a Geodetic survey marker on the northeast corner of the existing bridge that will be
impacted by this project. The NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted one month prior to the start of
construction.
NCDOT Division 7 – Mitigation Site
On April 3, 2019, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission provided a comment related
to the absence of a mitigation site in the environmental features map. Impacts to the mitigation site
will be avoided.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 10
H. Categorical Exclusion Approval:

STIP Project No. B-5717
WBS Element 45673.1.2
Federal Project No. N/A
Prepared By:

Date Kory Wilmot, Senior Urban Planner
AECOM Prepared For:

Reviewed By:

Date Phil Harris, Environmental Analysis Unit Head
NCDOT

 Approved • If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion.

☐ Certified
• If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2
and 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II
Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval.
• If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.

Date Kevin Fischer, Assistant State Structures Engineer
NCDOT

FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.

N/A
Date for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see
Section VII of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details).

NCDOT Structures Management Unit
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
5/17/2021
5/17/2021
5/18/2021
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 11
Appendix:

Vicinity Map

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 12
Mitigation Site

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 13
Agency Comments
Water Resources Department City of Greensboro (March 12, 2019)
The environmental issues that we note include adhering to section 30-12-3.9 of the LDO
regarding stream buffers for South Buffalo Creek, wetland mitigation as delineated in the
attached project data sheet, floodplain development permits for any work in the designated
floodplain, and a potential no-rise certification for any fill or structures installed in the designated
floodway. Considering this is an NCDOT project, I believe these permits would need to be
acquired from the State, but I am not fully certain on that. There is also city owned water and
sanitary sewer utilities within the project limit that we would evaluate in order to repair/replace or
relocate that would be handled closer to the letting of the project.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (April 4, 2019)
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of
additional streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. If any jurisdictional areas are
identified, the Division of Water Resources requests that the following environmental issues for
the proposed project are considered:

Project Specific Comments:
1. South Buffalo Creek are class WS-V; NSW waters of the State. The NCDWR is very
concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The NCDWR
recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to
reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to South Buffalo Creek. Additionally, to meet the requirements
of NCDOT’s NPDES permit NCS0000250, the NCDWR requests that road design plans provide
treatment of the stormwater runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 14
recent version of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Stormwater Best
Management Practices Toolbox manual.

2. South Buffalo Creek are class WS-V; NSW; 303(d) waters of the State. South Buffalo Creek
is on the 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life. The NCDWR is very concerned with
sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The NCDWR recommends that
the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented in accordance with
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B.0124) to reduce the risk of further
impairment to South Buffalo Creek. Additionally, to meet the requirements of NCDOT’s NPDES
permit NCS0000250, the NCDWR requests that road design plans provide treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation Stormwater Best Management Practices
Toolbox manual.

3. This project is within the Jordan Lake Basin. Riparian buffer impacts shall be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0267. New development
activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to
“uses” identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC.02B.0295. Buffer
mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as “allowable
with mitigation” within the “Table of Uses” section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance
under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services, must be provided to the NCDWR prior to approval of the Water Quality
Certification. Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities
classified as “allowable with mitigation” within the “Table of Uses” section of the Buffer Rules or
require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, coordinated with the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services, must be provided to the NCDWR prior to approval of
the Water Quality Certification.

General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the
proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is
necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if
not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental impact statement alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the
impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include
road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management
practices as detailed in the most recent version of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Stormwater Best Management Practices Tool box manual, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water
Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate
the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum
extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission’s Rules
(15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to
wetlands. If mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services may be
available for assistance with wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission’s Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 300 linear feet to any
perennial stream. If mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
may be available for assistance with stream mitigation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 15
5. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, shall
continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
6. The NCDWR is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from
this project. The NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts
that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the
impacts.
7. An analysis of any anticipated cumulative and secondary impacts due to this project is
required. The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Resource
Policy on the assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
8. The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging,
fill, excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian
buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any
construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401
Water Quality Certification Application.
9. Where streams must be crossed, the NCDWR prefers that bridges are used in lieu of
culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts.
Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish
and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are
impacted, a bridge may prove to be preferable. When applicable, the NCDOT should not
install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
10. Whenever possible, the NCDWR prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually
do not require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require
stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges
shall allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure. Fish passage and
navigation by canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked. Bridge supports (bents) should
not be placed in the stream when possible.
11. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-
formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. To meet the
requirements of NCDOT’s NPDES permit NCS0000250, please refer to the most recent
version of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Stormwater Best Management
Practices Toolbox manual for approved measures.
12. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
13. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality
Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
14. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be
permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
15. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands
and streams may require an application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401
Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met, and
no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a
formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWR. Please be
aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of
wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an
acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans
where appropriate.
16. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts
uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated
pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 16
17. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to
stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using
temporary structures, the area shall 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 re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
18. Unless otherwise authorized, placement of culverts and other structures in waters and
streams shall be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with
a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having
a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design
and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control
measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands
or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and downstream of the above structures.
The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if
requested in writing by the NCDWR. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NCDWR for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether a permit modification will be
required.
19. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream
cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation,
floodplain benches, and/or sills may be required where appropriate. Widening the stream
channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures
typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
20. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3883/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities.
21. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of
NCS000250.
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved
BMP measures from the most current version of the NCDOT Construction and Maintenance
Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures
shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
23. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations
prior to permit approval.
24. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into
streams. This equipment shall be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination
of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
25. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be
properly designed, sized and installed.
26. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent
possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the
project by the end of the growing season following completion of construction.
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (March 7, 2019)
The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has no objections or comments.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (March 5, 2019)
The NCNHP would like to provide what information we have on natural heritage resources in or
near this project; however, as of October 2018, the NCNHP moved to a fee structure for this
analysis and these are normally processed by the NCNHP at $65/hour if the request is
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
v2019.1 B-5717 Type I(A) CE Page 17
submitted directly to the NCNHP. AECOM has a paid subscription to our Data Explorer
(ncnhde.natureserve.org) which allows the subscribed user to perform proximity analysis at their
convenience. The automated analysis functionality is included in AECOM’s paid subscription
and it appears Charles Benton in your office is the subscribed member and has access.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (April 3, 2019)
There is a mitigation site not identified in the Environmental features map. The site is located
south of SR 4240 along South Buffalo Creek and an unnamed tributary. Impacts to this area
should be avoided. Also, any design consideration for future greenway trails should also take
into consideration the site boundary of the mitigation site as to not direct future greenway
impacts into the mitigation site.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (April 15, 2019)
Waters of the United States: A review of the proposed project area shows the presence of one
impaired waterbody, South Buffalo Creek. Based on GIS analysis of the National Wetlands
Inventory, there are several acres of Freshwater Emergent wetlands located in the proposed
project area as well. The EPA recommends that any contractor working on-site should use best
management practices and should address any potential impacts to off-site streams and
waterways. The EPA also recommends that site grading, excavation, and construction plans
should include implementable measures to prevent erosion and sediment runoff from the project
site during and after construction.

Consistent with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the project should avoid and minimize, to
the maximum extent practicable, placement of fill into jurisdictional waters of the United States,
which include wetlands and streams. Any fill material in waters of the United States will
potentially require a permit authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Any
wetland or stream losses allowed under a COE Section 404 permit should be mitigated by the
applicant. This mitigation can be designed and implemented by the applicant or procured by the
purchase of wetland and/or stream mitigation credits from a commercial wetland mitigation
bank. Wetland and stream mitigation can add considerable expense to any project, which is a
good reason to avoid and minimize those impacts during the project planning phase.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (2019 and 2021)
NCDOT sent a tribal coordination letter to the Catawba Indian Nation concerning this project on
December 20, 2019.

A tribal letter was sent to the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation tribe on April 28, 2021.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 3
16-01-0126

NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: B-5717 (UPDATE) County: Guilford
WBS No: 45673.1.2 Document: MCC
F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE (not specified)

Project Description: The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 121 on SR 4240 (Westbound Lane)
(E. Lee Street) over South Buffalo Creek in the City of Greensboro, Guilford County. Bridge No. 121
was built in 1964 and is considered to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. This project
now includes the r eplacement of Bridge No. 109 on SR 4240 (Eastbound Lane) (E. Lee Street) over South
Buffalo Creek. The Proposed Study Area for the project will be centered on both bridges and now
measures about 1,938 feet in length and about 250 feet in width with a bump-out along SR 3140 (Cedar
Park Road). Overall, the new Study Area will encompass about 12.06 acres, inclusive of the existing
roadways and structures to be replaced. An updated Study Area has been submitted for review. This PA
form shall serve as an addendum to the original PA forms completed in February 2016 and August 2016.

SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW

Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:

A map review and site file search were originally conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on
Tuesday, February 2, 2016. Based on the information compiled at that time, an additional review and file
search at OSA was not necessary. As a result of the original review, an archaeological survey was
recommended and conducted for this project. Although one (1) unassessed archaeological site (31GF24)
had been recorded in the Northwest Quadrant of the proposed project, no evidence of that particular site
was recorded during the course of the archaeological survey. No additional archaeological sites ha ve
been recorded within one (1) mile of the proposed project since the initial review and survey. Digital
copies of HPO’s maps (McLeansville Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were reviewed once more on Monday, April 8, 2019. There are no known
historic architectural resources located within the expanded Study Area for which intact archaeological
deposits would be anticipated within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps,
historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and
inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement
within the project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other
erosive-type disturbances within and surrounding the new Study Ar ea .

Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:

This is now a State-funded project that will require a Federal permit; it was initially a federally-funded
project. Temporary and/or permanent easements should not be needed, but the need for additional ROW
was not conveyed as part of the new request for review. However, the dimensions of the new Study Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 3
16-01-0126

will capture any ground-disturbing activities beyond NCDOT’s existing ROW. At this time, we are in
compliance with NC GS 121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e. National Register -listed) archaeological
resources located within the project’s new Study Area that would require our attention. From an
environmental perspective, the new Study Area is still located in an industrial section of Greensboro off
of I-85 Business, straddles the floodplain of South Buffalo Creek, and is composed of Wehadkee silt loam
(Wh) and Pits (Pt), a classification for areas where the original soil material has been removed or altered
beyond recognition. In addition to the highly disturbed quality of the Pits (Pt) soil type, the poorly
drained conditions of Wehadkee silt loam (Wh) would not be considered favorable for containing intact
archaeological materials. A portion of the expanded Study Area now consists of Enon fine sandy loa m,
6-10% slopes (EnC); however, a reconnaissance of the project area during the survey two years revealed a
significant amount of disturbance and erosion within this area, as a result of the construction of Gateway
Research Park. The entire Study Area still consists of poorly drained and highly disturbed soils.
Preservation of archaeological materials within such soil types is likely to be poor. As noted in the
August 2016 PA form, no artifactual evidence or stratigraphic evidence of Site 31GF24 was recovered or
observed in the field. The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed several projects within the
vicinity of new Study Area for environmental compliance, including cell tower locations (CTs 01-0599
and 01-0600), residential development (ER 02-11141), improvements at the NC A&T State Farm (ER 02-
9014), and transportation improvements (ER 03-2900). Citing a low probability for intact archaeological
resources to be impacted by the proposed projects, OSA did not recommend an a rchaeological survey for
any of these projects. Within five (5) miles of the Study Area, NCDOT’s Archaeology Group has
reviewed at least twenty (20) transportation-related projects for environmental compliance under the
Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC -HPO), including this very
project. An archaeological survey was recommended and conducted for only one (1) of thes e projects,
based on the presence of favorable topography and soil conditions crossed by various new location
corridors. Only one (1) historic cemetery was documented as a result of that survey. Based on the nature
of the proposed project, current soil conditions, and previous survey and review work, it is believed that
the newly expanded Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and significant archaeological
resources. No archaeological sur vey is required for this project. If design plans change or are made
available prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be required. At
this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If archaeological materials are uncovered
during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set forth for
“unanticipated discoveries,” to include notification of NCDOT’s Archaeology Group.

**This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized Tribe(s)
has expressed an interest: Catawba Indian Nation. It is recommended that you contact each federal
agency involved with your project to determine their Section 106 Tribal consultation requirements.
Please know that the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, a State-recognized tribe, has also expressed
interest in activities within this county.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 3
16-01-0126

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED

April 8, 2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date

Figure 1: McLeansville, NC (USGS 1952 [PR68]).
RED = Original Study Area
NAVY = Updated Study Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
S o u t h B u f f a l o C r e e k
South Buffalo CreekWh
Pt
W
EnC
MhC2
WkC
WkE
WkC
WkE
EnB
E LEE ST
CEDAR PARK RD
ON RAMP I85S\40W
E LEE ST
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
RESUBMITTALTIP# B-5717 (PA 16-01-0126)Replace Bridge No. 121 and Bridge No. 109 onSR 4240 (E. Lee Street)over South Buffalo CreekGuilford County, NC
Expanded Study Area
Original Study Area
Named_streams
HYARUT
mapfldhazar
NCHPOpoints
Local_District_Boundaries
NCHPO_NR_SL_DOE_Boundaries
GF Cemetery
Streets
Soils_All
Guilford_2014Parcels
¹
0 140 280 420 56070
Feet
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT
1581 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

RDecember 20, 2019

Dr. Wenonah Haire
Catawba Indian Nation, Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, SC 29730

Dear Dr. Haire,

The North Carolina Department of Transportation has started the project development, environmental, and
engineering work for the replacement of Bridge Nos. 109 and 121 on S.R. 4240 (East Lee Street) over
South Buffalo Creek in Guilford County as project B-5717.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency and a permit is anticipated under
the Section 404 process with the FHWA.

A project vicinity map is attached. The coordinates of this project are approximately 36.053280,
-79.739123.

This project was reviewed/surveyed for cultural resources by NCDOT under the terms of the 2015
Amended Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for Minor
Transportation Projects in North Carolina (PA). The results of that review/survey are attached.

Please find attached Archaeology Survey Reports. No Archaeological Survey was required for this project.

Please respond by January 20, 2020 so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project. If
you have any questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact
me at [e-mail] or [phone].

Thank you,

David Stutts, P.E.
NCDOT Project Engineer – PEF/Program Management

cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Joe Geigle, PE, Div 5, 7 & 9 - FHWA

DocuSign Envelope ID: D9445F79-FF3D-43EB-A788-1173F2754FE7DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE
!(
!(
!(
!(
")
B-5717
UV3244
UV3724
UV3263
UV3209
UV3625
UV3251
UV5401
UV3284
UV5419
UV3288
UV3321
UV3270
UV3181
UV3151 UV3223
UV3025
UV3079
UV3185
UV3688
UV1467
UV3177
UV3170
UV3264
UV3254
UV3145
UV3154
UV3183
UV3160
UV3030
UV3165
UV3169
UV3194
UV3307
UV3171
UV3166
UV3020
UV3265
UV3203
UV3287
UV3295
UV3267
UV3034
UV3274
UV3153
UV3150
UV3252
UV3208
UV3721
UV3123
UV1115
UV3138
UV3207
UV3272
UV3088
UV3292
UV3314
UV3028
UV3134
UV3164
UV3136
UV3076
UV3280
UV3315
UV3130
UV3075UV3158
UV3262UV3220
UV3027
UV3141
UV3319
UV3035
UV3026
UV3460
UV3193
UV3552
UV3149
UV3046
UV3461 UV3261UV3180 UV3157UV3182
UV3505
UV3161
UV3717
UV3140
UV1417
UV3313
UV3039
UV3008
UV3024
UV3041
UV3078
UV3036
UV3285
UV3163
UV3841
UV1398
UV3549
UV3762
UV3033
UV1007
UV3037
UV3000
UV1005
UV4240
£¤29
§¨¦840
§¨¦85
§¨¦40
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSPROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
Div:TIP#
Date:
7 B-5717 1Figure
TIP Project B-5717
VICINITY MAPReplace Bridge No. 121 on SR 4240 WBL over South Buffalo Creek in Guilford County 0 0.5
Miles
p
!(Other Nearby STIP Project
DECEMBER 2015
DocuSign Envelope ID: D9445F79-FF3D-43EB-A788-1173F2754FE7DocuSign Envelope ID: 4AC69259-AE9A-41EA-AB06-DC0B63EC8ABE