20071234 Ver 1_Application_20070718

c~
~3
11
U
h
L
J
~Y°r.H.
.Y µA~o~
~ ~:a
.! ~,~,,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
G /~~
J~
cJ/ ~
~- D
wFT~ v~,~F;. ~'Qp~
NpS~Ni)Sr~R~sW9 CRY
DEPARTIV~NT OF TRANSPORTATION ~~'~~"
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 13, 2007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 9
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
071234
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 for the replacement of
Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek on SR 1631 (Mi2:pah Church Rd), Forsyth
County, Division 9. .Federal Aid Project No: BRZ-1631 (2),
State Project No: 8.2625901, WBS No: 33467.1.1, TIP Project No: B-4112.
Please see the enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Pre-construction Notification (PCN),
permit drawings, and design plans for the above-referenced project. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek on SR 1631 (Mizpah
Church Rd) in Forsyth County. The current 80-foot bridge was constructed in 1961 and has a sufficiency
rating of 19.6 out of 100 (for a new structure); it is therefore considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The project proposes to demolish the existing bridge and construct a one span, 39-
inch pre-stressed concrete box beam bridge on the existing horizontal alignment. This new structure will
span Muddy Creek. The new bridge will be approximately 100 #'eet long and 33 feet wide, with two 12-
foot lanes and two 2-foot, 11-inch shoulders. The new bridge approaches will have two 12-foot lanes
with 8-foot shoulders. During construction, SR 1631 will be closed near the existing bridge and traffic
will be re-routed using an offsite detour.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description
The project is located in the Yadkin River Basin (sub-basin 03-07-04) in Forsyth County. This area is
part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03040101. Water resources within the project study area include
Muddy Creek, an unnamed tributary (IJT) of Muddy Creek, and two small ponds.
Muddy Creek is a third-order perennial stream that flows southward through the project study area. The
portion of Muddy Creek that flows through the study area is .assigned Stream Index Number 12-94-(0.5)
(08/01/1998) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and has a best usage classification of C.
It is approximately 25 feet wide where it flows under Bridge No. 30 and has 4 foot high, steeply sloping
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] RALEIGH NC 27604
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBS/TE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

banks. During field investigations associated with the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR;
September 2004), water clarity was described as being good, visibility was to the substrate, and flow
velocity was moderate. The substrate was primarily composed of cobble, gravel, and sand, but contained
some silt.
The UT to Muddy Creek is also a perennial stream, with banks that range up to 2 feet high and water up
to 1 foot in depth. The UT generally flows northeast prior to entering the study area, then turns north
within the study area, and flows into a small man-made pond (Pond Z). The UT exits the pond beyond
the western study area limits and flows west/northwest towards Muddy Creek. During NRTR-related
field investigations, the water clarity was rated as good, flow velocity was moderate, and the substrate
was composed of silt and fine sand.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS I: undeveloped watersheds or WS II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.0 mile of the project study area. No portion of Muddy Creek, its tributaries, or other surface waters
within 1.0 mile of the project are listed on the NCDWQ 2006 Fina1303(d) List of Impaired Waters.
The first small pond (Pond 1) is located in an area adjacent to Muddy Creek, southeast of the current
bridge. It occupies approximately 0.3 acres within the project study area and is classified as palustrine,
with an unconsolidated shore primarily composed of silt and clay, and lying within a basin excavated by
man (PUS3x Cowardin classification).
The second pond (Pond 2) is located approximately 450 feet southeast of the bridge and is adjacent to
Mizpah Church Rd. This impoundment was created when a gravel driveway was constructed across the
UT to Muddy Creek. Approximately 0.5 acres of the pond lies within the project study area. The pond is
classified as a palustrine, permanently flooded impoundment with an unconsolidated bottom composed
of mud (PUB3Hh).
The second pond was not originally described in either the NRTR or CE and was first identified during
the Jurisdictional Determination (JD) field visit between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (LTSACE)
Regulatory Specialist John Thomas and EcoScience biologists on June 12, 2007. The pond was created
some time between 2005 and 2007, submerging a significant portion of the UT to Muddy Creek
originally identified within the project study area. The submerged portion formerly ran north/northwest
through the area the pond now occupies. The remaining UT segment located within the study area lies
south of the pond, well outside of the construction limits. The pond has also submerged a small wetland
originally described in both the NRTR and CE. The former riverine wetland was located in an area just
south of Mizpah Church Rd., which is now part of the northeast portion of the pond. It was classified as
a palustrine, shrub-scrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded wetland (PSSIC) and was 0.01
acres in size.
Permanent Impacts
The new structure will span Muddy Creek. Additionally, the UT to Muddy Creek (not shown on the
permit drawings) is well outside of the construction limits. Therefore, no permanent stream impacts are
anticipated. No permanent impacts are anticipated for Pond 1 or Pond 2, both of which are located
beyond the project construction limits.
Temporary Impacts
No temporary impacts are anticipated for the UT to Muddy Creek or the two ponds. However, a
temporary causeway will be placed into Muddy Creek to allow for removal of the existing in-water bent
and erection of the box beam units. The causeway will be composed of Class II riprap topped with 1 foot
B-4112 Permit Application

of Class A riprap. The Class II riprap will be placed below the observed high water (OHW) mark and
will result in 0.01 acres (31 linear feet) of temporary impacts to the stream.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 30 has a timber deck on I-beams supported by timber caps, piles, and bulkheads. NCDOT
shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and Removal. It is
anticipated that the existing structure will be removed without dropping any components into Muddy
Creek.
Utilitypacts
No impacts to jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of utility work associated with this project.
However, a directional bore will be installed by Bell South under Muddy Creek, approximately 2 feet
inside the right-of--way, on the south side of the project.
RESTORATION PLAN
No permanent fill will result from the subject activity. The stone materials used as temporary fill in the
construction of the causeway will be removed from the streambed. The temporary fill areas will be
restored back to their pre-project elevations. NCDOT will also restore the streambed to its pre-project
contours.
Removal and Disposal Plan
The causeway will be removed from the stream after the existing in-water bent is removed and the box
beam units are erected. All stone material placed in the stream for construction of the temporary
causeway will be removed by the contractor using excavation equipment. The contractor will be required
to submit a reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location.
The contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the
construction of project.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part
of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• In-stream activity will be limited to the use of a temporary causeway for bent removal and erection of
box beam units.
• During construction, traffic will be re-routed using an off-site detour.
• No bents aze to be placed in Muddy Creek.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of NCDOT's BMPs for Protection of
Surface Waters.
B-4112 Permit Application
3

• NCDOT's BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during this project.
Compensatory Miti ag tion
No permanent impacts will result from the construction of the new structure. Therefore, no mitigation is
proposed for this project.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of its most recent update on May 10, 2007, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website lists three federally-protected species for Forsyth
County: the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and
small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera).
Table 1. Federally protected species in Forsyth County

Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status Biological Habitat
Conclusion present
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T(S/A) Not Required No
red-cockaded
Picoides borealis
wood ecker E No Effect No
Yes, but
small-anthered species
Cardamine micranthera bittercress E No Effect not found
in river
basin
Suitable habitat for the bog turtle does not exist within the project study area and no individuals were
observed during a site visit on May 19, 2004. Additionally, a search of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (most recently on July 12, 2007) revealed no known populations
within 1.0 mile of the project. This species is listed as T(S/A) due to its similarity of appearance to
another rare species listed for protection. T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a
biological conclusion for this species is not required.
The project study area does not provide suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker and no
individuals were observed during a site visit on May 19, 2004. Furtherrore, the NCNHP database shows
no known populations within 1.0 mile of the project study area (most recently checked on July 12, 2007).
Therefore, this project will not impact this species and a biological conclusion of No Effect has been
rendered.
Although suitable habitat for small-anthered bittercress exists within the project area, no individuals were
located during aplant-by-plant survey conducted by Ecoscience Corporation biologists on May 19, 2004.
Additionally, since the initial survey was performed, it has been determined that surveys for this species,
which is endemic to the Roanoke River basin, are not necessary outside of sub-basin 03-02-O1 (the Dan
River drainage basin). This project is located within the Yadkin River basin, sub-basin 03-07-04.
Furthermore, the NCNHP database shows no known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the
project study area (most recently checked on July 12, 2007). Therefore, this project will not impact this
species and a biological conclusion of No Effect has been rendered.
B-4112 Permit Application
4

SCHEDULE
The project calls for a review date of November 27, 2007, a letting of January 15, 2008, and a date of
availability of February 26, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in
February/March 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: A request is hereby submitted to the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 33, issued under Section 404 of the CWA, authorizing the above-
described activities.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate that Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3634
will apply to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of this WQC. Therefore,
written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section
.0500 (a) and 15A NCAC 2B, Section .0200, we are providing two copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), NCDWQ, as notification.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information
please call Mr. Jim Mason at [phone].
Sincerely,
~~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Victor Barbour, Project Services Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. S. P. Ivey, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Kent Boyer, DEO, Division 9
w/o attachment:
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Wade Kirby, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
B-4112 Permit Application

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Ralei>;h, NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch fornlat;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek on SR 1631 (Mizpah
Church Rd~
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4112
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Forsyth Nearest Town: Winston-Salem
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): North on US 52, left on
SR 4002, right on SR 1631, 1st bridge crossing:
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): °N °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Muddy Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: SR 1631 is classified as a Rural Local Road in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. Land use is primarily residential, agricultural, and forested
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project proposes to demolish the existing bride and construct a one span, 39-inch pre-
stressed concrete box beam bridge on the existing horizontal alignment. This new structure
will be approximately 100 feet long and 33 feet wide, with two 12-foot lanes and two 2-foot,
11-inch shoulders. The new bridge approaches will have two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot
shoulders. During construction, SR 1631 will be closed near the existing bridge and traffic
will be re-routed using an offsite detour. Heavy duty excavation equipment will be used such
as trucks, dozers, cranes and other various equipment necessary for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The current bridge was constructed in 1961 and
has a sufficiency rating of 19.6 out of 100 (for a new structure); it is therefore considered
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient.
IV. Prior Project I3istory
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
Page 3 of 9

accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: No permanent impacts are
anticipated for Muddv Creek, the UT to Muddv Creek, or the two small ponds. No
temporary impacts are anticipated for the UT to Muddy Creek or the two ponds. However, a
temporary causeway will be placed into Muddv Creek to allow for removal of the existing in-
water bent and erection of the box beam units. This will result in temporary fill being_placed
into MuddYCreek. The causeway will be composed of Class II riprap topped with one foot
of Class A ripra~ The Class II riprap will be placed below the observed high water (OHW)
mark and will result in 0.01 acres (31 linear feet) of temporary impacts to the stream.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres). 0.0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0.0
Page 4 of 9

4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 Muddy Creek Temp. Causeway Perennial ~ 25 ft 31 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 31 0.01
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of

Impact
(acres

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Im act acres : 0.01
Wetland Im act (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01
Total Stream Im act (linear feet): 31
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Page 5 of 9

8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for Bride Demolition and Removal will be used during the demolition of the existing
bridge. Also, BMPs will be used during the construction of the new structure. In-stream activity
will be limited to the use of a temporary causeway for in-bent removal and erection of box beam
units. Additionally, all stone materials associated with the temporary causeway will be removed
after the existing in-water bent is removed and the box beam units are erected. Furthermore, no
bents are to be placed in Muddy Creek.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
Page 6 of 9

If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Cazolina, available at
http: /hi2o. enr.state. nc. us/ncwetl ands/strm gide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/lineaz feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Cazolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they aze will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regazding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
Page 7 of 9

3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total 0.0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendiculaz from the top of the neaz bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.N/A
Page 8 of 9

XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
f~ ~ - ~~ ~3.d~
Applicant/Ag~nt's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

l~l ®~~~ `1~~~®~~L~~
D

~~
d
R R „~nl-rr Y y. .
t
Flatlrnl
luii 8 f1 ~ ~ - - ~.I,~ ~-r 1
1 sn t
'~
•
~
b so ~ 14rN1111 Gap bury
31 1
1 D11 ~ ,pn
k~ldl• n
`~~~~ f S T 0
601 Gwaa 4i,!Ngwr
I~ E ~~
b -~'M,n. -in08CIC In R ' G IC i t
8 ~ ton ft -M [fart
1 4 knell "Iloi rn d ~~ ~ \ ~~ {C
l ~'R b ; 1 II's to
a wsinY[i Ins Z l
Ju le
R
~alr a -r} :~
...
COVC
~..~. -~ GNnnanl
' l ook'ord
07 d Srnd l+.lnrn xrrovi 1~; ~< nn P 7. ! ]! 15
1
~ '- ~ ~ ~ '
Ntll w
s „ Cast bend Ij. I urn' ail ! ~naw ~ , I
s '
fi
ld
D ~ K ( N Inrnl a a
e
'°r'"'1' 3I1 „ Iy8
r,
lk
~Q
k ~

I ~
' w
wrn
a
fl
CcntC 1
~k IIIC +ee!tew
~
3looks Enon ,
u; ;
;rocs Rrnlas n ~ ~ erner ~ ° U ~~ ~~

,:^~,
n[IInM
e~ ~ ~~~ r ~
t
~ • L
.{ CU161ll c
~
,.
CYYi .
smptonvlw cs
J
~
I min i {.1
..,s
~ 4
S
.
k

`
t ~- ~' t: r ~
. r ~. c • y ~^~ . ~~ , ~ ~
~ _ 311 # t u
~
.
4~n~
- Fautti:, ~ s ~81ROf1
:.,C...
_
' {
,Wsnhur ~ ~" ~ s~
J
H~
,
1 r sal ® ills ,~
IllrmOt~y' ~
15 -. Ar~sdl ~
~. r rru~ ' 1
D
'
QI
1 22~
~
0 D b r V
E~
~ 4
MidWOY 1
]i
7
o
"~
'
~
wercvm
~•,. tlrarwY
mrR „- i
.
k~
~ -'` o
~
~
i ,.
A
1
Thomasville ~
!
,
*
o.
or
ma
>
ocwsnn~
®
~
E, b Fork
s ! aus ' .. f7 ~
AtCll{1818
3
s
*t, r~ r
cnola
\'
~
a
4
-
. 4 ~~,
.
l
~
_
N~~®7C
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FORSYTH COUNTY
PROJECT:33~67.1.1 (B-~112)
~/(~ ~ ~ BRIDGE 30 OVER
~° 1L MUDDY CREEK
ON SR 1631

SHEET f OF $ 3 / 07 / 06

~~~~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
° is9e g rs , ~ n
I sz H 1~
I 1
/ 52 _ i I
I ~ 1'~ I - -
\\~, i I ' ~~ ~ /
j / I I :~
r a
_~ a
'~ ,- ---- '~~ / ~ i'~
BEGIN END ~ ~~
PROJECT PROJE T ,~
tea, 1 ~~ ~ Nr~wt d
~ ~ t<au.
.\
___~ 85
~ 52
\ ~ ~ ttl3
l i ~ r
~ .~. ~w~. '. 3
~ I 1831 ~ ~ ~ -~'= 1°7 .2p ~ F
I~ / \ I I ~ ~ At ~ ~ If
Mudd "~" °~ ~~ ~
1 _~_
a..• ___---- - Y ~~Cr I
~~_- ~ 7.12 \ 'e
~ \ _
\ ~ rl
O - _ titi ~ R'
,e~,
_ ~ ~.
~,€
~b
/ vJ~4~
~~~~
N ~ ~ ~1/ ~L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FORSYTH COUNTY
PROJECT:33~67.1.1 (B-112)
BRIDGE 30 OVER
G ~ I MUDDY CREEK
ON SR 1631
- -- SHEET ~ OF (J 3/ 07/ 06

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ I
-WLB~-' WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
DENOTES MECHANIZED
. .
CLEARING
-~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION
TB
~_ TOP OF BANK
-•-• WE EDGE OF WATER
- ~ -PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - ~ - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - -NATURAL GROUND
- PL-- - PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
- TOE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT ~ DITCH /
~ GRASS SWALE
- PDE - PERMANENT_ORAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENOANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
---~------ WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
SHEET ~ OF V 3 / 07 / 06 J
N~C~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FORSYTH COUNTY
PROJECT:33~167.1.1 (B-~112)
BRIDGE 30 OVER
MUDDY CREEg
ON SR 1631

C

Z ~ ~ ~
n N

~
OfN.y.,
_
C C ~ Q.
(
~ ~

M (
~ ~ .r ~
~ 00
~ CV

Q ~ N d
wU ~~ Ch (7 ~
x ~ o
~ ~ cq
Op

w c
cc ~ ~ ~
EE.. d'
z 0 ~ M
Q .X
€~ ° ~ O~
c~
=~
WU c,
A
U a 3 0
w
~ ~ ~'~'
~ E'Sm~
`~ O o A
Z
} ~ ~~ E o
o
~
~ ~
Q
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ U
O
f0 E~ Ev o
F
V d ._
a
a ~' ~
~ ~~ o
F U ~
~
W m rn~
a "-=m
Z s ~
~
~ o
J ~ V
F-
Q ~
~
~ c
~
~ is ~ ~
~ c -
~ o
°
Z X O
W
'~O
d ~ c .~.
E=_c°ro
°
o
H W ~ °
C fq
C

OS - f0 ro
_ °

O
LL N
m O
a
0
0

ui
d ~
~ o
~
~~ m
m
~~ w
m
O
m
o~
co
0
c O
0 cc

O
co G
~ ll ~
.... ~ ~ 2
J
Q
(~ Z 0

TOP EL = 806.4
12" CLASS "A"
RIP RAP OHW =
805.4
s
a
4E
Y
v

E
a
.~
S-~
~~-
~es
~~
CLASS "II" RIP RAP

RIVER BED
VOLUME AND AREA OF TEMPORARY FILL
(CLASS "I" RIP RAP) BELOW OHW
AREA = 0.01 Ac
VOLUME = 28 CY
GLI
1

~/ U/!V 1
i.cs\dgn\ e
oa
17_hyd_prm_we t_04.dgn
o ``~`` Ili II g ~~ ``-~-ti.
., ,
° I.
., . ~
' ~'
° ~, ~,;~.
n ° ,I , I ,. .. .. .. .. .. ..
r- ,,. I
m ;~ I ____
1i I ~ ~~O _ ___ p'~?NEC ________________
° I' I` '` I i
o . ' ~° ~,
, m N
1
T° I, II J- 1 ,1
N
N li li I i• 1i
° ,11 111 I I ~ I !
I, 11 I ti ~ W 4Y '~ k i i
I i I 1 1
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~. ~ ~ 1 ~~r~_ ~
rf
Jo 8 F\
~wr
' f~R\
~~
N,F,
,4,~ rf
\'36. _
m
~ `\
R ~ ~ ~~
\..
,~\ ~~~~ OaO ~~G
tim
\\ O VN
~~~ ~g~
\~.. -.~ ,~\.. .. .. ..~ .. ~ s
,_~._\ GVFt.4, ~... ~

'~ mgr.: _ ' ~;r-
--~ wow
~Z ~ ~
~ ~~ N°
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
'~ P ^ O
,. /
~'
~^ ~. ~'
~ ~~ ~ >~
m G7 / / ~m
~ z m z ~/ N\ O '~ 'S~
cn ~ / .d oo O' O ~m
m ~ , ,~
~ 'h v ~ a \ vq`~ _
o
r' a
m~ \~o ~ /
O D /\ 3
ul -i o
~ ~ ~ ~~~
\ '`
~-~ / \ `: E
i
' i ~ /i
i~
~ati/ / \ d ~
_ , , i ~ ~I
~ t~ ~'~ i 0,~ ~ ~
b / 5~ ~ 1
~ % / ~ `~`
`nwCo, ; x ~ ~ j / ~ i
°' } J 1
~~c ~ x
r~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ x
N ~
V y ~ ~
~ r
\ ~ ~~
o / //
V
0
g
~~~
~~~ ~~~
~~4 ~~g
~N~ ~
J~ ~

8
=- ~o
° _,

~~
>~
>~ ~

8z 0
~b
~
s o ~ ~
.~
~~ = N
~ o ~
~
>,
~
~r
=z
A ~
( ~
•
~
~~
a~
T
s
N _
mm~~ O
A~
J1__~
~_ ~`L~
~~~
~ , _ ~Lr^.
.r/yam ^e' i
V~ o
+e~ o
~-~ _
i -- .
-~~ _f
/ `. ! __
w-t~

,`
»
1~ f~ cn,
~; ~t.7
>~
ti
e
O ' ~ ~~
~ + ~ ~
N S ¢ ~ a
H
o.~~
08
'~~ _-
T ~~=pp=]SS~~]
{ ~ ~Sx
~~
s~
~~~
~ NAD 8395

,/IU/LV /
1rauilcs\dgn\ erml is\84112_hyd_prm_l.et_04.dgn
5/14/99
(n _ \II`I 1111 ' µl ! i '- `_==_--'-___ `=_=__- __-- `- • ••• ;````~'~ •
-' , 111 11` ° _w~ CRAVEG __~ ~',--_'___~ =_` .. ``;; .``,
II 0 11 it 'Z^'Ly, 1\I _ '----~ "'__ --_- ~; ``` `• ~s```• 1!y`~``.'`V~~`~l•/~~
-- 1
'•, 1 ~ \ ' 111 IIY I X19 I 1` - - _ :`• `;•, ••
N 1 1 1 ~ - i i• `, `
~ ~ ~ ' ~I I 1 , ,`
1 1 1 11 //~ ~ i l i ,
` ~ j N I I %~ ;;' `I
i l ~ • ~J f+/ 'f' 1 I
1~ 11 J' ~ r k 1 1 1
1 1 ~- I / 1 I
1 1 1 ~' I 1 1
1 1 1 I / 1 1
~~ i I ~ k i
1 1 1 _"_ _ i u M i
i 1 \ a~ ~ hi
,
,
~_ _
'1 ' 111 `~ 1 IA ~ ~~~~--Y' ,;//[
11 ~ _ ~ \ ~ '' 111- ~ar''il~ b. ~ II ~ • , i i ~"~'~
\~. ~~ 1,111` \f'rfj,,.~ \ -` f ~'__" ______ - ~_~_ ~J
\`1 ,,`` ~ 'R\~pg N~ ~;1 X111 'YV' , --- _----``----_`=- ~W:
~. I\\ i~ .T\F ~__ ____ 11i ~ Ilnl _
,))II \11111 1 ~ Ca, Q I `` r'I I '-" ~ ~ ~ _
`;; __ \~aw k <~.... _-_~1 ~' ^ i ' ~~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. MIRY k. q E _~_
'. 111.__ - __ f _________ .K~~`" • a' ~,__ 1' _ __ IS'+~'Nl pe
~t • f61\ _ &~ ._~ 1 ~~~~• ,1 ~ 1 I pis h c • •` ,/~, '''' `'_
;~11 I~s` _ ~ ~"~ r 487 ~T +07 C I y In ~i4~ \•', `'I: __.
111` _____ •• ` : ` 1`, `1•ti ; 010-;: 'sue=' ~~ ``;.
111'. __ ~,`,' , i ~ ' i/i~ 1'ir--' 11 n _ ``~`••\; •1~ _ •~ [( _
\.AS 11 .1`It ~i~ ,'ii 1'11111 ~,\ _L~a - '- ~... i •.j
_ ~'. i i ~ (i i '~ 111: I"~ ..``. '~1~ ~ - - _ ,isj~$ _ £ ~- _ 1 .,'""_.,_____ :c=_=-=,-._.
\~ 11' 1, /,/1111 . 0 _- 1 - %~ 1. 1 , _ `_ i11_-'>
\`~; 111 ' 11 / 11 1 1_ 1I M ~~' ,"g~ ' 1• 11 BjO~~%._.~` L_ e,,
• 11 111 11' I I' , / , _ ` - _ _ ..~-... '~~`., __. ~
I 1 1 - ~J ~ m,
• 'li~tt~ ~~~ I1. I~ ' _ ! _
~, •• \`~, I11~11'1 11 \```IIt ill`~il _..r 8 `-- -- _' ~~' ~' -_• ~e~~`1 `\ "----'
`` 1` ` 111111 `tll; Bn 1111111~N1111 ~~•.; i``I'I Cfc. ~~ ____ 1--_'--,_ -__ a S ~_ ~ - ="~~~~
```\•`` 111111 1111 ~~ ~•~• I - ___' `___ ~~` _ _ '-''~ `li
` 1 1 1 111 11111 111 1 ` 11 . ill ~I ~- •s ~ ' ~ ~ Jym ,• ! _ _ ~' ~ /'' ' _
~' ~`,`, 'I ;11 ' ,',111111•It,'111:;"•; ,'% 1~ : a=' ~ ~~I • •-- - " ~'~ _ '--- `= ... __`_e
'~ ~~'tl 1 i ~ \\',1• 1;;;;; ' /' e4 " 44 _ iAyw --- =_=eie--: ;,_--- ------
~.` 11'11 III '11'11'11 1\`•;%;';/, ',/ 1' ~ ~ ~! /r _- c '~`--`--- _--
I~ -'
1 1 1 1 ~~
1 `
1 ~ 1
v Lq .m 1 X1111171 ~ / 1 i~l' ,q, ~ / I( O-~ Ul ~ +27 27 •. ,~•'1~©~~~• _0'________ -.~ "•_______
i i,', 11 111 1111 / il' iiil,il l i) i ,i~ o .', C
11111111,111111'1 i~r!ill;~llllttll~ll `i ti ~ I' ____ ~ Pf'~ ~~' ~' ~( of
11 11'111111 r '/ /i/,I 11111 0i r' /~ TO ~ I` ___-~ ~~-02 -',~1 i' ___________ _--_ O 1
___' 1111111\t1111'Iti ll'iiiir'ij l'iii ~ , ~ I __ _-.yn~ ___ m
I1 1111'1 /' I ~i~ i~/,'i ~ < / :.-~+1 ~l~ i,`-_ O
1 1;i; 111'Il~lil ill 6~i /,, ' ~ s~ / A(i I •1' ~ '. ~^-O'.~('~(~ __ ___ .. ~ ~ ~ H
1~1 II I '' - lil'I 11 l~lli 1 i~l l l I ~ I~ I I ~ = O /\ _-_ '', ~ •II I ~ ~ _ _I[ 1 _ ~""'~.''~ ,A = '~~~ ~ l_ ~~
r`-~, i$'~~- :~ 1/1111111 111111 rf' ~~-I `f '' -~, ~~ '~'_^ ~ _ ' }
,~'~ „ ~~~~_ ~-~ 111'111 1111'; , ~~ .~~r10 ' i're.' _- _~JdVg' ~~ '~ __: ''' ~ n
~~ ' ~ .,'x'11, ~ z~ ~' " ~ ---- ~-';;~ `"-~ ------ R ~
' - rii,~' /ii,~i'ii,'iii "/ '_ _ i ' / !/ ~+r'~ /)~'T.,' '4~ / r-p_5~~,-'^ ~ ~1
_ ~ , '_
'~ __' fig: EBB 3
o r ;; , ; ~~ ; , M -;-- _ _ f1
~ ~m ~; „~ ~%, ~' j ; ~• ~\ : o~~` 1'>~~ ! ~~ 1 °~ ; . _ .~--- "~, ~--~ NAD 83/95
/f ~ ~ 1 _ ~ 1 ~~ ' /
'ii. 1111 "\II~ ,,'~;, '_ ~~' `$,` ~.` / ~'~. i~~,'' i/ ; ~ ,
,' ; \ ,111111 „,~~ 1 "1 _ _ `.~'a.` ~: 1 ~; :~ / ~ ,~'~~ _
!~ //^~ ~/ 11111 ~` ~;, ~~ - .;:!~: '!/` -; I~ r _ _ C:^ ' _ ~ i' ' ~ ' ,
%'~ %~ 1 1` '~' ~ =i --- ri- ~~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ``i 111`_`11 1 i
/,+[ i ' i ~/', i~ .L r fl Q ~; ;' _ /dl`s 1~ 1 \ ! I A \ i ' 1 1 11 ~ ~ ' ,' i
/ ~/ ~ /( `, ~' .;$f/ ~% ~ -- ' V~ ~ ~ ~~~• ------ i ttl\11'1' r!a, ~ ~ ~ _--os~/
!: ';~%'~'~ r' ~; 1 d ~,' ` ~ , 1~. ` 11 i 111 . (' /
~ - ~ ~~0''"'3*/, ' % °~ ~ - i'~ye-:` _ .111 ~ ~ `, ; 1 ~`~~'1. •\I >~,'• 11 11111 1' '1 A,~`:; ~ _
~ ---' l 1`"-5;;%~•,'' // ", ~ ~ ~ `~ -- '411` ~~-~y~~It` ~%' -
~f8--~~';~ /I Re's 'Z~ __~.~ ' m ''1 - I i 1 1 /
i ~_ , '' / '',~,•'~ ~___ '-_ 1 _- I / ~I 111 1 1 1 I I I / 1, 1/ I
~l ~~oojj 1 ` ` ~ 1, i 1 I I
yroy ,'.-~/ r, l/ r' ?-.'' •''"'~___ ,//~~ - ~ 111 •~r ~_ __' - i'' .1 ~ 1 / 11 I I 1 __ A 3
C ~ i I', ll'~''/ ~' i'i rpr ~ ~`~/ \3 ~ ~~~`'. r'~~ \`I• •____ - _ i ~ I •Itl I ' ~y I I I I I ~ 70
0 (fj _q,'~(l,~i;~ -I 1/yg/V/. I~---- - ~ Y ~`` 1~ .~~~`I`~~~/~ it I i ~ ~ W I I ii 1 I I 0
O ~ d (Ci7j m p ~ .r~,,~ / ~-'e ~~ ' I-} \ '`~;• r 11„'~ ``. -ese• ' 11 ; % ~ I ~ II g7' Z< to
r ~ O V ~ ~1y ~ r''/; ~/ , '/"~"'``'1 ~ r/ •_l_''•_ I` ~__ `r- _I 111,1 111 j / i' 1 j' A\
~ I~.~w1 C Y ~ nj ~ ~'~ , rr /~'r ~ j/~~-~ _ _- `___ 6~• _ ~ I I I r 1 0
I~ /~ ~ ~ ~ / ,'/~,' 1 r/A ____li___ • ' I 1 i '1~ I fO~j ~.y~.~j
MV+ •~• m ~ • ///' ~"' 1 ~-` _/_1 6je' r` ! ' . .' ~ tlll 1 1~ 11 ~ Z~
/ ~ ~
~ ~/ ~~ ~~ Q ~ A ~
o i //

i9i2oo?
e\HoydreuLcs\dgnoPerm~ts\B4i12_hyd_wat_pfl_05.dgn

r
0

/
I

r /
/
r
/

/
/

r I
/
N

~ BE
5T IN
13 AD
.00
w EL l92 fIN 0 / ' OV R
'
'
~
+~i
~~
E 8/9
~ y •
~C~rnw
~~m~

~ 2u
~

~
~ ~,~
i
.-
~
r
~
m rn ~`~?~
~ ~ ~ ~~

~ ~ u uu i ~~ m ~
_ -. ~
cn I ~
_ ~
~ m
x
; y
m ~
z \ ~
z
I
I
~ ~

~ m
~

o,
o
gg~
~~~
m m
mmrn
~ rnQxxx l~
~~~
~
---- ---- -- ~
rn
'' ~ ~ v m ~ ~ ~ Q
o~ ti iixrn~x rn`~
~o c c
~c~c~

_,

~ _
10
7 pp
r
~
m~ rn
~x ~ r~~y~~~
V
1 W
0 ~
0 y
y
rnZo `~rn
~ ~~~x i
~
n
B aT N 1 W ~ x~rn g
C
~gg88r°nr°rn°m°~
rn 1 ~ ~ u n a n u u u u u n u `~
~
p ° rnrn cncnti~
~~~~~x
m E D CN 1 ~_ -
C) .a w w a, w
;p N a~~~~~~~a
p
~i O~l
.
~
~~~~~~i~
rn
B
O -c c~ -c c~ -¢ n
~ ~ ~y~~H~~ti~
~ m ~
mco~n~R'x~c~in ~~
~ 1
+o
~zg~~~rn~
°~
x
~
~ ~~
1+ s3 as
y
i
~?
m
~ mn 1
n u u u u u u u u ~ ~
o 1
1
~
~~~ n ~
N ~'
''c~
c~3 I 1 ~~
a ° o ~~~~ti~N~~ ~ ~ ~ O
m n
~ ° ND R
\ ~ a° R°
rn A o
LB ~
'
m JS NC DES l
q ER J I ~~~ O

0

~

I
~~~ n
~~"• H

~<
~
I ~ n can

0

I b
~ cn

~

ro d I
I
Q~ ~
V
~~ ~zo
s"z
~
~>
~
~ zd~ ~ x p ~ 1 ~~ S-ri ~ i
.-~o ~~x® 1 ~ z ~

~ -a ~ >~ ~~
~~ ~r

\ ~ y
0
V

~' ,
3/13/2007
R:\Roodwoy\ProJ\B4112_Rdy_tsh.dgn
Ko & Associates. P.C.
C011tTRACT: ~ TIF PROJECT: 8-4112

~
~
O
~
N
N ^
N MJ
N ~
O DD
O y ~
,
\
~
,~ m ~ o Z
, ,~
m

m

N 'O

N
~ ~
/~
y O

D
~ N fTl

-1 '9
z m a`
V
~ :
~

~
m

~
u

~

~ v1
Y _ .i cn cn
~ D z ~ q ~, ~,~~ '0
L' /
------

c

$
c y
o 2
~ c
o
z
g~ ~, r, ' O~ ~
~ ~ ~~ P. ~.
~ n
~ zz N

g g
=
D ~m
m
~
~Z
~
~
~~
~
~
~
~
N
d b °mc~n
~~ ~
m o to N~ ~~

~ ~
O a
o
a
II II II II II II ~ ~
~'
,Z ~
~ H
T
-~
Q Z~

•
$ `

.,\
~
~

~
`c

O _
c w N c cwi, ~ r
n a Ill
z~
~ D
r ~ ~
^~
1, J
~ f~ G
~
~• -/1' I°
- O~ y
O~

~
~
y
~'~
, ~ --
• s
Z cub ~ -
~
c7 +
O

~
~
~ _
..
.\

o
~ bd
~ ~ 90% PLANS

~
e
~
~
~
~ 1
y~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
o
Z y
t'~ ~
~ yy
~
b ~ °~ "C O

y n y
Q
N `
N N 1~
"AVi R+
i~1

II II II

o
o
~ M~Dy
~ ~
~ ,_ J
~ x
O
r ba ~
~
VJ
~b
~o
~ ~
D ~ ~ n~
C
~ ' ~ O
D
~, ~ '~

a ~°
0 ~
~
,~
J,
~
~ ~
~ b
~
~
cn b

O '°
~
N
b ~
s ~
. n ii'
ii
.. ~

'y Od ,.

~ ~

~ ~
.. O p
o. ~ p R° /% ~ ~
,~~ ~ ~
~
O ~1,
~
~
~
'D ~ ~
~
~ V ~
r
i °°'
~
~ OC
n ~ Z m
~ 1 b
~
D ~

_ ~ ~'°
~ y

y
~ ~
~ ,
o~
m ~ .F. b
m ,°o O
~~~ ~ n ~
c ~ ~ y ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ a o
y N ~ ~
o ~
~ x ~, ° n ~~~ ~ a
O V V
IJ -+
,

y ~
m
m
~ ~.b ~d
S~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~
J
'' ° ~
~ ~ g ~d N N "' ~
'C x
~ O ~j
S !y ~
O
~ M
S ~ ~G
~1
(
~~ ~ h
ro ~
m
~y ~ ~ ~~
~

L,
T T N N p T ~ ~ ~ = N v A N ~ f7 T N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ T 'O T ~ T T 'O T 70 A -1 A N
N a a 9 ~,• O c~~ n T^ ~. m~ 0 3 m~ o '0 3 0 ° o o~ 'o °°~ ~!
N m ~ ~ o o c c O '~ ~° . ~ ~ c ~ 3 p m m ~ ~. ~ ~ .~ m ~ ~ ~ _ m 'o C ~
~ S o ~• ~ '° m 'c o Q, h ~' ' `° -o ~^ a n. ~ ~ $~ T ~ ~ c o o > > ' ~ 'm m
t/1
o H ~ ~ ~ ~ '~' ~ m m ~ o. ma ~• ~ c $ 3 ~ ~ W
° o ~ ~~ ~ ~ W T o 3
o ~' o ~ c o~~' m o'
°- ~ O C -~ n O 7
n
v G c ° '° 1b,
n D d G N
S v ° ' O
~~ b
C
''~ ~~III~ i ~
e ~ I i i ~+~, ~ ~ k .o ~o o a c e x ®Bo qo
N~~~~ I I. ! ~ II
, , ,,, ,,,, , ,,,
W o ~ o ~° o 0 o O O O O O O O O ,~ ~ ,
T p ~ m ~c o ° ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 0 0 > ~ o o ~ o ~ o ~ o o 'p o ~ ~ ~ eo ~ p ~ S ~! a
~' y w N A ~ .« A m Cry ^+ (') "o Z°. Z°. ° 4.
~ 2 ~ ~ ~o '~ A o O m ~ H H c ~ v 'v ~ ~ ,°~ A o ~ zo ~ zo zo is ~ c ~ o ~ ~ O
~ O 3 °- ~ m a G1 c ~ ~ m ~ o ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ o o ~ ~ 3 3 0 0 ~ R1 0. ~ v rc
t ~ G ~ ~ ? ; ~ O ~ C ° ~ O d ~ O ~. ~. O ~ O IC
~ c o ~ ~' ~ ~ 3 ~ c v v A W ~ ~ o ~ ~° ~ S r. ~ ',a'C
m O A =~ ~ n ~ r 7
T .~ `, c W fO 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ m
jCCj ° 2 ~o
N N ; ' ~ S
m
'0 ~ ~ W W ~
'7
b , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
p: III,
9 O >~ ~ ~ ~ +~ A I ~ a ~ m m .. DO ~~~
op. ~ I I
p~ ~ ~~~II I } ~~
p 7o p 7a p 70 -~ ~ -i ~ v p 70 ~v -o ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ p 'n ~ _ ~ m ao
O
co' ° rc' ° rn' ° v v v v -o '~ ~ ~. o ~ ~ ~ f f ~ ~ v '~ ~ ~ 3 0 a ~ a a
o~= m a m m a o ~' o ~' '" ~ ~~ a~~ a O m ~c O
~ Z. ° ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~- S S imp ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, N ?? o o. A ~o so ~ ~o
~C O.0- O. ry~ ~ m 7 7 ~ 7 a ~ O ~ ~ m O ~ ~ O ~ m ~ 1° °
O ° 'O
? co ~cpo pmp co ~ m m r .a m ~~+ m ~ ~ o, ~ O ~ ~ ~ W ~ o °~ > > ^
O W a 0 ° 'O S S~ m ° O m "w C~ ~' ~ O m 'n x ~ a ~ O ,J
~t -i 1 1 ~ S ~' S ~ y' -v ~ ~ ~ C W m ~ ~ G A o O
_tt v' ~ m ~ W e O o ~ m y o a m ~ m ~ ° ~ W ~ ~ _ o0 11~~~
W W ~ 'm0 ~ 'm0 ~ W ~ O O ~ _ -y O O S~ n O O N
S S T ~ m G T ° Ip O S - = X
'+ ~ 'O O ~ O ~ 'o O m ~ ~ O 1Y ~
~' n m c m c n- m ° ~ o_ ~
° A ~ A o- m _v
~_ m ~ =~ m o m ~ a
O ~ N .r ~ m
N V1 C °..
`~ ~ I D
I i ~ v
I I I I I I I
I I I I .I I s
I ~ I I I I ~--~
~ ~
a o ~ ~ ~ C C C C C H ~ m ~ ~ o o Z Fr m ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ` ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
m ~c' m' ~ -o to ~ O m
-~ r -v ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ _~
> > ~ > > > e ~ o o Z ° a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° a ~ ~ _°. I~ a m m - Mpg = <~
-~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ rt N N ~ N O O m ~ m A ~ ~ a a ~ `C~ Qi
m
~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m0 N N ~ ~ ~ ~ N c a ~ a a ° ~ ° a m o
O N G
SC SC Sc
o n g v, -: C N T a ~~ o. v ~ ~ S
n m m ~ t0 ~' N O N ~ ' 4' 4' 4' m in O' ~ '~ W
O' O N ~ ~ O O '~ ~ N ~ A ~ ~ 'n ?~ ~ S
a m ~ o ~ oo e~ ~ W °- ~ ~ ° T ~ c m ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ o 0
~ .,3 `~ N r k O O_ 3° 7 C O 7 r O ~ ~ A O ~ ~ m
0 0 0 9 3 e~ o rt ~° ° g m O v c~ 2 C: ~ f=
o_ m ~
C - o ,, ~ mN o v i m m ~~~
r ~ H n f7 m
~ ~ C ~ ~ C H
° m ~ ~ C
m • m m m
N ~
° C H
a m C
~*
i
~ I I I
I I I
rn g I ~ ~ I I I I I ~ I
O yc 8 a~~® o ~• ~ a~ a O® ~ i~ ®O a a ~ a®®©GC ~ ~ b® 0
n
O
z
m
Z
O
z
D
r
5
z
rn
rn
N
3
O
r
N
J
C
II
~+
~~
~'
I~
®®
®~
H1
~o
O
0
~0'

.,

i i
.. ..
.~
,~~,zoo,
:\ oedway\Pro~\84112_Rdy_typ.dgn
6/2/99
m
P ~ ~
_

z
O nny
V N

-
i F
+ + F
m ~ ~

v o m
C O
D 4O
i ~ O Z
m

O
m N
DD
fJl
N
~ •O
v ~
S
m ~
O
D
a ~
m ~ ~

~n
+
~
m
~
w
m p
w C
S

m
a
~ AO

m O

Z
O

L
7
~~
O
0
-1 m °o
- b
v
w

~ V
O

H
N
N N
~ ~ Z
m N
~
~
C
D
(~
~
Z
a~

C r ~
i N
~ ~~
Z •O ~
N ~~
y rn y
m ~ g ~ ~ y w
m ~
~ ° ~ _w _~, v

Z a g
~
~ z
~
~, o
,

-~
o

m
w O ~

r. m
Z

3'~' 3'-T VI'

~
~ ~~
p (~°
f
~~ C
9 ~ ~•

•C
~
s
'

~
6v.
0
~~~ ~
Q
N ~~
c a
~~ ,~
~
00 n
Z
~o

0 o Z"

V W C~
b
8
~ ~i W
• ~ ~ N
~~

~,r
y ~ ~
~
a
~ ~ v m
N m
~ v
N v
.+ v
W v
N n
~
m m timDV Dv G~O-IV 1~ mDV rD~ D~

a D
a ~ xmla
D o -/a
o am<a
mvvo <a
vo m-ia
o D-1a
< 0 -1a
0
-~ w z~D9 Dv D1m~ my vDV mD9 D~
j x H sz• z• 1x
a- M• sz• a=•
N _•
~ ~ ~ ~nD<
m<D DD
<v +<
-~mD +D
my OD<
m<D DD
<~ DD
<v
m < :Gma my -~o• a ~ ama my my
m 71 a S O• Oa a• a~ts as
7) < ZZOO mX Zm• O X ZpG mX mX
r mv m V mm m m
= ~
~^ orr
m
••~ A AvD
ar -~-~ D
-/N 9
Da•~ aN a
+

y z y
1m~
a
D
D
m D
r~ D
a~
= ~ xa
mD -1
mN [
iD
zm
Zy D~
z -
I
wmy 1
m e .i
m .9
D w
w
o~ ov G
O D~ DD ov OD oD D
r 2mS TS mri<S
2 <w
m71 2712
O D 71w
v mw
v
C
i O D
-1+r D
Ar T
mD
-1 ar ax -1+r +x +S m
v +1 w1 xrDi
w DD
mr +-i
1o wD
mr mD
mr
3
a
< rA
m n m
o D
<mo m-~ o 0 1 1 m
m wro ro
z m o
aaz
ao ro
mmz r
mo r
mc~
Z
s
m mmz
wa m
me7 wDt1 DO Xm0 wo w0 ~
Z
ti -1' a
S m 9
m -la
Z m m 12
m A A• a
m m Z
O 2
A
D711 T1 O 1 a m71 -1 71a 7)a
m N
zmm
a mm
a tom
T om
T1 Gmm
a mm
a-1 m
a-1 (7
A m m _
C m m ?
w D
0
w w D
G
w + Z N ~w
o w
O m
O '
m
11
1 fl
f wAT w2 a
m C C v
<O <[f -1rs rT <n <T <m C
Goo 00 Smm ma 2Gm GD OD
7 r
m• c
v a c
a DmG
z• wi
m G• o l7
m l
m m
=mm m N7)-DI v•G-1 ~mc io 0
a• - ~mm mD 1aa o 0
7°+<
a i mo wm :m cDiw m
v
w
aom 77
m r+OC
z. a On
o
o< xm m
D'vm m G<T <9 'mO '<O 701ti y
miN a v•° ~m im v ~
a O ~
im
p• m m
as -1m
Ow w
m w
w
a D m N
D D

o
N c
~
~
p
C`~ ~
D~~ ±
~i
n N
r
il
a~
~m
~
s ~^^~ N

O
O
N

=7~
~
vn
~ ~
~
LS y
~pm
~~~ ~ • ~ 1
~
1
S•.
~ ' ~ C
~
°_~
O ~
,b, t\ N
'\~,4\
\y~
\~~
~~ vim'
\ ~ _ 4~Iv
\~
\~
\~
\~
\
\\~
~~ ;~
~~ i
~~
1~
1~
1~
~~
~ GG
86
1
I~
~ ~ s
~~3Q3 0
~'~
y
~ ~
~~ SS
~~Sd

ii
ii
i -
~
i~
~ ~
i
'
1

~ - o0

O Z
~

~ ~ ~--~ ae,ss•
5~'6 7
S
~ O
a~~
A~
it ~r

rn M N
3
1
~
_
4
V7
r_,r
it
it
r-~r

m

~ •

N M
rn
~r it
2
~•~~ •.
Sgh~h37
i
N .~
9 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~
--'"-fir.-____ --___ ~'z"~,.,
~````\
~~ ~
8~~ \~~~~
~~~ ~
£~ ~~ Q +
r ^` N dl ~~ k ~
~\ ~~ Q s i ~
_ /\/? ~ ~
~~ • • / /
.. ~ ~ ""a_
~~~~~`\` r\~ro ~~` •• .. ~ Af
~ ~ ~ ~:~
~~` ., ..
\\``\\\ ~~ A~

_ ,` ,
-_ ~
.; .
- ,.
` II~
~~~ ~~~ ~ ~
'. y.
V
~ ~~ ~ ~
ffl +e~ ~
~~~
~_: ~
~' 1
J~
Nr~~ ~1 ~__
~7 ~~ ~ e
a
N ~
J~~1 m
Ca„~,~m
JD ;
~m+ W
r m
•-'~
u
~ /i
~~
~~
+ ~j ~,a
~ ~ v ~_
11
r rN~ ~ ~ O \ .' 9n
~~ S N Z \ ~ O
~~ D ~: ~ ~~
~ ~ r o o ~
~ oZ
N <
~~~~ O ~ W
a. ~
\~ ~ ) .' w
.- mNr
•' y = /
//
a
// ~ ~~
,~ ~ ~ ~, ~
~m ~ ~/ ~ ~
/ i~-.
'~ ~/ /j
l~
v

J=,
~ •J
~~
~~
~~
^
~~ m Q~
~ Z c?j
~o v
~~ o ~~
myna
N ~
0
o~
~ N
O ~
O
"~~°[
fi

~ ~~
w

O V
U
ti
¢ Y
~~~¢~ m ~
~"L'S g ~ 4

t ~{ ~p
m~-i~OD~
nr~Nn~
k ~~~~~~ ~
~? ~
rn m
a ~
rn
NAD 8395

b ~

~
o
A
S~
~ ~
m~
~ ~
.~
~
~
~ Z ~ N ~
o
~
~~
~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~+ +~~
~~ ~
~ ~~ 0 *$ m
R .. /ps
.~
8\
~S

~. ~.
..
1_05.dgn
~'

Forsyth County
SR 1631
Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek
:Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1631(2)
State Project No. «'BS 33467,.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4112
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRAi~tSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
A?~TD
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRA'~ISPORTATION
i
i
i
~ _.
i ''
i
i
i
AP.PROV; :D:
DATE ~ Gregory J. Tho e, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Deveiopinent and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
7~/ It ~ _
ATE John F. Sullivan III, P.-'
;~ ~' Y Division Administrator, FHWA

Forsyth County
SR 1631
Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1631(2)
State Project No. WBS 33467.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4112
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 2005
_ _ - Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Q~c..
L. J. ard, P.E.
Project Manager
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
~ _ w ~~ ~~
"~ ~' Karen B. Tay] , P.E.
Project Development Engineer
r
i
oooa~~e`~M CA~Q~~ i~~,,,
~a~ qr.
SE a~L
0 4661 ~ s
.~ o
°~Ba~ ~F~a..,o.o• aeo00,eo
~Y 1. ~`~ o

' PROJECT COMMITMENTS
_ _ Forsyth County
SR 1631
Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1631(2)
State Project No. WBS 33467.1.1
T.LP. No. B-4112
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 Protection of Surface Waters,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following
special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit:
The length of the approaches in the final design should be limited as much as possible to prevent
any right of way acquisition of the Speas property located southeast of Bridge No. 30. While not
d signated as a historic property, it does hold local historic significance. A design exception
may be necessary.
Construction Office, Division 9:
The County Schools Transportation Director requests a designated turn around for school buses
on both sides of the bridge during road closure. The location of the tum around areas will be
determined during final design through coordination between NCDOT Roadway Design,
Division 9 Construction Engineers, and the local School Officials. The turn around areas will be
included in the final design plans. Forsyth County Fire Department, Emergency Medical
' Services, and Sheriff's Office should be notified prior to road closure.
' Categorical Exclusion
May 2005
Green Sheet
Sheet 1 of 1

Forsyth County
SR 1631
_ _ Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project No.'BR~STP-1631(2)
State Project No. WBS 33467.1.1
- T.I.P. No. B-4112
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 30 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure lA. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 26.7 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. E7OSTING CONDITIONS
SR 1631 (Mizpah Church Road) crosses over Muddy Creek about 1.1 miles west of its junction
with SR 4002, north of V~%inston-Salem. Development in the immediate area is mainly
residential. A pond is located next to the bridge in-the southeast quadrant. There aze two houses
on the south side of SR 1631 east of Bridge No. 30. Adjacent to the two houses, on the north
side of SR 1631, there are several barns. Two fields are located west of the bridge. The field on
the north side of the road has several barns in the southwest corner of the field. The enhance to a
private driveway is located adjacent to this field approximately 450 feet from the west end of the
bridge. The field on the south side of the road has a house in the southwest corner, and the
driveway for this house is approximately 400 feet from the end of the bridge (see Figures 4 and
5). SR 1631 is classified as a Rural Local Road in the Statewide Functional Classification
System.
SR 1631 has a current pavement width of 17 feet with 6-foot grass shoulders in the azea of the
- bridge. The roadway approaches are short tangents and on downgrades toward the bridge. About
200 feet from the east end of the bridge, the road curves to the south making sight distance poor
in this direction. The western approach is a longer tangent than the eastern approach and it
- . curves to the north about 750 feet from the west end of the bridge.
The estimated annual daily traffic (ADT) for 2005 on SR 1631 at Muddy Creek is 1,500 vehicles
per day (vpd), and for the design year 2025, the estimated ADT is 2,400 vpd. The volumes
include an estimated 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 percent dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.

Bridge No. ~30, as shown in Figures 2A and 2B, has an overall length of 81 feet and a clear deck
width of 19.1 feet. The existing -two-lane bridge has a timber deck on I-beams supported by
timber caps and piles. The structure was constructed in 1961. The current posted weight limit is
14 tons for single unit vehicles and 17 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. The bridge has
a sufficiency rating of 26.7 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure and roadway
approaches. Bridge No. 30 has abed-to-crown distance of approximately 16 feet.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1999 to
March 31, 2002.
There are several utilities located throughout the project area near the bridge and include the
following:
• a Duke Power aerial transmission line along the south side of SR 1631 that also crosses
over SR 1631 east and west of the bridge as well as Muddy Creek; and,
• Alltel aerial and underground telephone cables along the south side of SR 1631 crossing
over the road east of the bridge and continuing aerially over Muddy Creek.
In addition to these utilities, the City of Winston-Salem has both water and sanitary sewer mains
along the proposed bridge replacement project. A 36-inch .sanitary sewer interceptor runs
parallel along the west side of Muddy Creek and through a 72-inch tunnel liner under SR 1631.
An 8-inch ductile iron water main parallels SR 1631 on the north side and crosses under Muddy
Creek and over the 36-inch sanitary sewer interceptor.
Eight school buses cross over the bridge totaling 16 times per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 30 with a new bridge approximately 110 feet long with
a clear roadway width of 30 feet. The length and width of the new bridge will be determined
during final design. New approaches to the bridge will provide 12-foot travel lanes in each
direction with 8-foot shoulders. The proposed cross sections are shown in Figures 3A and 3B.
The design speed will be 50 mph.
B. Detailed Study Alternates
Two alternatives were studied for the replacement of Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek. See
Figures 4 and 5 for depictions of each alternative.
Alternate 1 replaces Bridge No. 30 at its existing location by closing SR 1631 and maintaining
traffic with anoff--site detour. The off-site detour recommended by NCDOT Division Nine

utilizes SR 1611 (Bethania Road), SR 1898 (Griffin Road), SR 1632 (Shore Road) and SR 4002
(Bethania-Rural Hall Road) (see Figure 6). The structures along the detour route have posted
weight limits that are equal to or higher than those for Bridge No. 30. The detour is about 7.6
miles in length and the posted speed limit on the detour route is 55 mph.
Alternate 2 replaces the existing structure at its existing location and maintains traffic with a
temporary structure and detour on the north side of SR 1631.
After further study, Alternate 2 is not considered feasible because of impacts associated with the
use of an on-site detour and temporary structure. Environmentally, on-site detours and
temporary structures require disturbing vegetation, stream banks, and wetlands in addition to
those areas already being disturbed by the replacement of the existing bridge. The demolition of
the detour/temporary structure and the required re-vegetation adds additional cost to the project.
In addition, according to a planner from the Forsyth County and Winston-Salem City-County
Planning Board (CCPB), there are plans fora 76-home residential development on a 40+ -acre
tract of land northeast and adjacent to Bridge No. 30. .The entrance to this development is
proposed to be approximately 140-160 feet east of Muddy Creek. The additional right-of--way
that will be required for Alternate 2 may impact the proposed site plan for this development.
Furthermore, there is not much support for Alternate 2 from federal, state, and local agencies
(see the Appendix for comments).
Alternates Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also .considered but this alternate would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable altemate due to the traffic service
provided by SR 1631.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of Bridge No. 30 is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. The
existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient.
Preferred Alternate
Alternate 1, replacing Bridge No. 30 at its existing location by closing SR 1631 and maintaining
traffic with anoff--site detour, is the preferred alternate. Alternate 1 was selected because it is
more economical, has less environmental and development impacts, and has more support from
federal, state, and local agencies than Alternate 2.
The new structure will be 110 feet long with a clear roadway width of 30 feet. New approaches
to the bridge will provide 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders. During final design, the
.. approach on the eastern end of the bridge should be limited in order to prevent any right of way
acquisition of the Speas property located southeast of Bridge No. 30. While not designated as a
historic property, it does hold local historic significance. A design exception for the proposed
typical section will be required to eliminate impacts to this property.
The design speed for the replacement bridge will be 50 mph; however, design exceptions for
both the horizontal and vertical alignments will be necessary. A design exception for the
3

horizontal alignment with a 35 mph design speed will be necessary because the proposed
alignment will be tying into an existing horizontal curve. The design exception for the vertical
curve with design speeds of 39 mph and 42 mph is required because maintaining a 50 mph
design speed will necessitate a longer vertical curve'and'raising the grade considerably. A longer _
vertical curve and grade change will impact a larger amount of residential property and will
increase the estimated cost of this alternate.
In accordance with the NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Off-site Detours for Bridge ~
Replacement Projects (April 2004), the average delay per motorist using the proposed detour for
Alternate 1 is estimated to range from 10-15 minutes for a construction period of 12 months,
which falls under the Evaluation (E) range of the Guidelines (see Figure 6 for the proposed
detour route). The Evaluation (E) range suggests an on-site detour is justifiable from a traffic
.operations standpoint but must be weighed with other project factors to determine if it is
appropriate:
Coordination with local agencies indicates that anoff--site detour would not cause undue
hardship ~to the local community and is their preferred alternative with the exception of Winston-
Salem/Forsyth County School officials. School officials prefer Alternate 2, citing the number of
trips its buses make over Bridge No. 30 per day (16). However, additional documentation from
school officials requests designated turn around areas for school buses on both sides of the
bridge during construction if Alternate 1 is chosen as the preferred alternative. The location of
the turn around areas will be determined during final design through coordination between
NCDOT Roadway Design, Division 9 Construction Engineers, and the local School Officials.
The turn around areas will be included in the final design plans.
Through the Winston-Salem Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the offices of Forsyth
County Fire Department, Forsyth County Emergency Medical Services, and Forsyth County
Sheriff's Office were asked to submit continents on how this project may affect their operations.
Fire and medical officials expressed concern that a closure of the bridge during construction
could negatively impact response times, and no comments were received from the sheriff's
office. WSDOT personnel requests these agencies be notified prior to the closing of Bridge No.
30 so that alternative emergency routes may be identified. In a subsequent letter, NCDOT
informed WSDOT that Altemate 1 is the preliminary recommendation and requested WSDOT
contact county fire, medical, and sheriff offices to inform -them of the preliminary
recommendation. Furthermore, NCDOT informed WSDOT that they will proceed with this
recommendation unless WSDOT or any of the other organizations notifies NCDOT that a bridge
closure will present a significant problem for their operations. No further response was received
from these agencies. _
The estimated cost. for the recommended proposed improvement is $ 856,100. The current
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement "
Program, is $ 55,000 for right-of--way and $550,000 for construction. ~
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements
4

IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternates studied, based on 2004 prices, are shown in the following
table:
Alternate 1
Off-site Detour Alternate 2
On-site Detour
Structure Removal $ 12,800.00 $ 12,800.00
.Structure $ 340,560.00 $ 340,560.00
Roadway Approaches $ 153,400.00 $ 153,400.00
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 122,240.00 $ 122,240.00
Engineering and Contingencies $ 96,000.00 $ 96,000.00
Temporary Detour ~ N/A $ 525,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 725,000.00 $1,250,000.00
Right-of-Way/Const. Ease./tJtil. $ 131,100.00 $ 153,600.00
TOTAL $ 856,100.00 $1,403,600.00
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 percent is included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 percent for engineering and
contingencies.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology _
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (IJSGS) topographic mapping (Rural Hall, N.C.
II (1994) 7:5-minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NW17 mapping (Rural Hall, N.C. (1994) 7.5-minute quadrangle), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS
1976), WRC proposed Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats (WRC 1998), and
recent aerial photography.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
-- 1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (IJSACE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas
were characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979)
and/or the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands (1996). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were
determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985,
5

Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information ~ -'
for area. streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 2002, DWQ 2004a-c).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data. _ _
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Forsyth
County (February 18, 2003 FWS list) is considered in this report. NHP records documenting the
presence of federally or state listed species were consulted on April 17, 2004 before commencing
field investigations. In addition, Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats proposed by
the WRC (December 11, 1998 listing) were consulted to determine the presence of Proposed
Critical Habitats for aquatic species.
The project study area (Figure 7) was walked and visually surveyed for significant features.
StudyArea is about 300 feet in width (centered on the existing roadway) and 1800 feet in length,
encompassing 11.8 acres. Potential impacts of construction will be limited to cut-fill boundaries
for each alternate. Special concerns evaluated in the field include: 1) potential protected species
habitat; and 2) wetlands and water quality protection of Muddy Creek.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina. This ecoregion is characterized by dissected irregular
plains, some hills, linear ndges, and isolated monadnocks; and low to moderate gradient streams
with mostly boulder and cobble substrates (Griffith et al. 2002). The project study .area is
located within a moderately sloping floodplai~, valley. Elevations within the project study area
range from a high of approximately 880 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), at the
eastern end of the project study area, to a low of approximately 805 feet NGVD within the
stream channel (Rural Hall, N.C. (1994) 7.5-minute quadrangle). Land uses within and adjacent
to the project study area consist of woodlands, agricultural and residential- lots, utility line
corridors, and roadside shoulders.
Based on soil mapping for Forsyth County (SCS 1976); the project study area is underlain by six
soil series: Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), Congaree complex (Typic
Udifluvents), Hiwassee loams (Typic Rhodudults), Madison fine sandy and clay loams (Typic
Hapludults), Pacolet clay loam (Typic Hapludults) and Wehadkee soils (Typic Fluvaquents).
Chewacla, Congaree, and Wehadkee soils occur adjacent to the stream, and the remainder are '
found on the upland slopes. Wehadkee soils are considered hydric in Forsyth County (NRCS
1997), and underlie approximately 2.1 acres, or 18 percent of the project study area. -
The Chewacla series (0 to 2 percent slopes) consists of poorly drained soil in floodplains that
was formed in alluvium. This soil tends to be flooded frequently for brief periods in winter and
occasionally for brief periods during the growing season. Permeability and available water
capacity are both moderate. Depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet, and the seasonal high water
table occurs at approximately 1.5 feet for two to six months annually.
6 ~

I The Congaree series (0 to 2 percent slopes) consists ofwell-drained soils in floodplains that were
_ formed in recent alluvium. These soils tend to be flooded frequently ~ for brief periods.
Permeability and available water capacity are both moderate. Depth to bedrock is greater than 5
(- feet, and the seasonal high water table occurs at approximately 6 feet.
The Hiwassee series (2 to 10 percent slopes) consists of well-drained soil on upland side slopes
and broad upland ridges. Permeability and available water capacity are both moderate. Due to
the slope, erosion is a severe hazard when the soil surface is bare and unprotected. Depth to
bedrock and the seasonal high water table occur at a depth greater than 5 feet.
The Madison series (6 to 15 percent .slopes) consisting of fine sandy loam is well-drained and
found on upper side slopes in uplands. Permeability and available water capacity are both
moderate. Due to the slope, erosion is a severe hazard when the soil surface is bare and
unprotected. Depth to bedrock ranges from 3 to greater than 5 feet and the seasonal high water
table occurs at a depth of greater than five feet.
The Pacdlet series (15 to 45 percent slopes) consists of well-drained clay loam on lower upland
side slopes. Permeability is slow, and available water capacity is moderate. Due to the slope,
erosion is a severe hazard where the surface is bare and unprotected. Depth to bedrock and the
seasonal high water table occur at a depth greater than 4 feet.
The Weliadkee series (0 to 2 percent slopes) consists of deep, poorly drained, moderately
. permeable soils that formed in recent alluvium. These soils are found in depressions on
floodplains that tend to be flooded frequently for brief periods of time. Permeability is moderate
and available water capacity is high. Depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet, and the seasonal
high water table occurs at or near the surface during wet periods.
1. Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-07-04 of the Yadkin River Basin (DWQ
2002). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040101 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region
(Seaber et al. 1987). The structure targeted for replacement spans Muddy Creek. The portion of
Muddy Creek that lies within the project study area has been assigned Stream Index Number
(SIN) 12-94-(0.5) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (DWQ 2004a).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
_, The project study area contains a small pond and two streams: Muddy Creek and an unnamed
tributary (UT) to Muddy Creek. Muddy Creek generally flows southward through the western
half of the project .study area. The UT is located in the southeastern quadrant formed by the
intersection of Mizpah Church Road and Muddy Creek. The UT flows generally northwest for
` approximately 400 feet before turning west and flowing out of the project study area. The pond
is located in the southeastern quadrant formed by Muddy Creek and Mizpah Church Road. The
pond extends to within approximately 30 feet from each, with approximately 0.3 acre lying
within the project study area.
7

n
~±
Muddy Creek flows southward through the project study area as awell-defined, third-order,
perennial stream with moderate flow over a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate (containing some
silt). At Bridge No. 30, Muddy Creek is approximately 25 feet wide. The banks of Muddy
Creek are approximately 4 feet high and are steeply sloping. During field investigations, the _
water level appeared low and ranged to approximately 2 feet deep. Water clarity was good, with
visibility to the substrate, and flow velocity was moderate. No persistent emergent aquatic
vegetation was observed within the stream. Muddy Creek may provide good aquatic habitat for
mussels and benthic macroinvertebrates due to the observation of little siltation within the stream
and the channel substrate composition. Opportunities for habitat within Muddy Creek include
overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
The UT enters the project study area as swell-defined, first-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a fine sand and silt substrate. The banks of the UT range up to 2 feet high
and are steeply sloping. During field investigations, the water level appeared low and ranged to
approximately one foot in depth. Water clarity was good, with visibility to the substrate, and
flow-velocity was moderate. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the
stream. Opportunities for habitat within the UT include overhanging trees, undercut banks,
fallen logs, and leaf packs.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies '
according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the
N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired
waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality staridards including
designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40
CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants,
pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The impairment could be from point sources,
nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state
lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines
available in the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams
attaining only Partially Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the N.C.
2004 Section 303(d) list. Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C.
2004 Section 303(d) list, according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required
for the stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North
Carolina has developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative
value and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. The reach of Muddy Creek between
Mill Creek #3 and SR 2995 (Loop Road) is on the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list due to impaired
biological integrity (DWQ 2004c). This 15.2-mile reach of Muddy Creek lies approximately 3.0
miles downstream of the project study area. The reach of Muddy Creek within the project study .-
area is not listed on any section of the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list (DWQ 2004c). ,
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage
Classification of C has been assigned to this reach of Muddy Creek and its unnamed tributaries.
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and
secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. No designated
a ~

High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I),
Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the
project study area (DWQ 2002).
_ The DWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water uali mana ement for the 17 ~v
q ty g n er
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study azea is summarized in the
Yadkin River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2002). The reach of Muddy Creek within
the project study area is currently listed by DWQ as Supporting its designated uses. No benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur within one mile of the project study area (DWQ
2002).
Sub-basin 03-07-04 of the Yadkin River Basin supports 36 permitted, point source discharges
with a total dischazge of over 77.0 million gallons per day. .Five of the permitted discharges are
classified as mayor dischargers, discharging 75.3 million gallons per day. The 31 remaining
permitted dischargers are minor, with four having no limits set on discharges (DWQ 2004b).
One discharger, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (permit number 005093) discharges into
Barker's Creek (SIN 12-94-1), which joins Parker's Creek (SIN 12-94-1-1) before coming to a
confluence with Muddy Creek approximately 2.2 miles upstream from the project study az~a.
' The RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company is located approximately 3.5 miles upstream from the
project study area, and is listed as a minor discharger with no limit set on discharges (DWQ
2004b). Both Barker's Creek and Parker's Creek have been assigned a Best Usage Classification
of C, and neither appears on any section of the N.C. 2004 303d list (DWQ 2004c). Major non-
point sources of pollution within the Yadkin Basin include runoff from construction activities,
agriculture, timber harvesting, hydrologic modification, failing septic systems, roads, parking
lots, and roof tops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-
point source discharges (DWQ 2002).
The WRC has developed a Significant Aquatic Endan ered S ecies Habitat database to enhance
g P
planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by WRC as being critical due to the presence of
Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
occurs within the project study area. The nearest Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitat within Yadkin River Basin occurs approximately 24.5 miles to the northwest in an
unnamed tributary to Snow Creek in sub-basin 03-07-02 (DWQ 2002) (WRC 1998).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
~ Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
' - streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossin
g and increased erosion
in the project study area.
' • Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
i 9

• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal. - _
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and _
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Muddy Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting
from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion
contxol measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of
Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The existing two-lane bridge has a timber deck on I-beams supported by timber caps, piles, and
bulkheads. The structure is expected to be removed without dropping components into Muddy
Creek.
C. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area: -
disturbed/maintained land, and hardwood forest. Plant communities were delineated to
determine the approximate area and location of each (Figure 7). These communities are
described below in order of their dominance within the project study area.
a) Disturbed/maintained land
Approximately 7.9 acres (67 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by
disturbed/maintained land. This community includes roadside shoulders, agricultural fields,
utility line corridors, and residential lot. Along roadside shoulders and agricultural land margins,
10

grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation. Representative species include fescue (Festuca sp.),
' Carolina cranesbill (Geranium car•olinianum), violets (Viola sp.), white clover (Trifolium
repens), and wild onion (Allium canadense).
. - Along woodland edges and within the utility line comdors, the sapling layer is sparse and
consists of scattered individuals of sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac~ua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Ater rubrum). Vines include Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and kudzu (Pueraria
lobata). Shrubs present include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and bamboo (Phyllostachys
aurea). Representative herbs consist of dandelion (Taraxacum off cinale), vetch (Vicia sp.), and
_ goldenrod (Solidago sp.).
A wet area dominated by vines and herbs is located within disturbed/maintained ]and just south
of Mizpah Church Road approximately 450 feet east of Muddy Creek (Figure 7). This low,
moist area supports hydrophytic species such as soft rush (Juncus effusus), jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.).
b) Hardwood Forest
Approximately 3.2 acres (27 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by hardwood
forest. This community occurs on floodplains, floodplain slopes, and uplands in the project
study area. This community consists of a mature forest characterized by a closed canopy with a
relatively open understory. .
In the floodplain of Muddy Creek, this community supports a canopy of sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), white ash (Fraxinus americans), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and tulip poplar.
Sapling and shrub layers include canopy species as well as box elder (Ater negundo), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), bamboo,
oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and multiflora rose. Vines within this community
are dominated by grapevine (Vitis sp.), Japanese honeysuckle and Virginia creeper. The
herbaceous layer is vegetated by species such as smartweed (Polygonum sp.), jewelweed,
common blue violets (Viola sororia), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), Joe-pye weed
(Eupatorium fzstulosum), and green-headed coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata).
Moving out of the floodplain onto the floodplain slopes and uplands, the canopy is made up of
' red maple, sweetgum, sycamore, black walnut, and tulip poplar. The subcanopy/shrub layers
include saplings of canopy species, ironwood, and multiflora rosa. Vines within this community
are dominated by common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, and Virginia
'- creeper. Groundcover along uplands and floodplain slopes includes Christmas fern (Polystichum
achrostichoides), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and mayapple (Peltatum podophyllum).
2. Wildlife
Wildlife directly observed in a plant community or determined to be present through evidence
(tracks, scat, burrows, etc.) during field investigations are indicated with an asterisk (*). In
addition, approximately 0.7 acre (6 percent) of the project study .area is covered by the
impermeable surface of Mizpah Church Road.
11

I~
u
a) Disturbed/maintained land
Open areas within the project study area provide a specialized habitat for herbivore, seed-eater,
and insectivore foraging, but little cover from predation. Wildlife which may occur within the _
open portion of the project study area include herbivores and seed-eaters such as mourning
dove* (Zenaida macroura), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus); insectivores such as American robin*
(Turdus migratorius), chimney swift* (Chaetura pelagica), least shrew (Cryptotis parva),
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus),
southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), and northern cricket frog (Acris
crepitans); omnivores such as eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina); predators of small
mammals, birds, and herptiles such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and black racer
(Coluber constrictor); and scavengers such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
These ecotones provide both shelter and foraging potential for a wide range of wildlife. Species
typically present within adjacent open areas may utilize this area for food, cover, protection from
predators, and nesting. Other wildlife species which may occur along shrubby areas and along
forest/grassland ecotones include herbivores such as eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus); insectivores
such as red bat (Lasiurus borealis); omnivores such as northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos) and brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum); and predators of small birds, mammals, and
herptiles such as eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
b) Hardwood Forest
The stratification and abundance of food and cover within this community may result in a wide
• diversity of forest interior species. Wildlife which may be expected to occur. within the
hardwood forest include herbivores and seed-eaters such as indigo bunting* (Passerina cyanea),
northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern chipmunk, golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nuttalli), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and white-tailed deer; insectivores such as red-
eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), tufted titmouse*
(Baeolophus bicolor), eastern phoebe* (Sayornis phoebe), blue-gray gnatcatcher* (Polioptila
caerulea), song sparrow* (Melospiza melodia), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), golden-
crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), American toad (Bufo americanus), and
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), and gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor); omnivores such as
raccoon (Procyon lotor) and eastern box turtle; and predators such as barred owl (Strix varia),
southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). __
Many of these wildlife species are adaptable and can eat a wide variety. of plant and animal
material when the preferred food is absent. Many of these species can be found within disturbed ~-
areas, brushy edges of the forest, within heavy underbrush, or amongst shrubby plants. '
Migration between communities of the project study area maybe frequent based on the needs of
each species for food, cover, protection from predators, and nesting.
12 '

3. Aquatic Communities
- ~ The project study area includes two perennial streams bounded by natural vegetation, and a small
pond. .These water resources are expected to provide diverse habitats (riffle-pool complexes,
_ _ undercut banks, rock and organic debris, fallen logs, and overhanging branches) for fish,
wildlife, and benthic populations. Limited investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic
herptiles. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the project
study area vicinity include the insectivorous green frog (Rana clamitans) and two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata); and the omnivorous eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus
odoratus).
No sampling was undertaken in Muddy Creek to determine fishery potential and no fish species
were observed during the field survey, but the observance of belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
alcyon), indicates the presence of fish in Muddy Creek. Fish that may be present in this reach of
Muddy Creek include smaller fish species such as margined madtom (Noturus insignis), rosyside
dace (Clinostomus funduloides), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius).
4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Permanent and temporary impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Permanent impacts
are considered to be those impacts that occur within proposed cut-fill limits. Temporary impacts
are considered to be those impacts, which occur within the cut-fill footprint associated with the
temporary detour of Alternative 2, but outside the cut-fill footprint of the permanent impacts
associated with Alternative 1. Plant communities within the project study area were delineated
to determine the approximate area and location of each (Figure 7). A summary of plant
community areas and the potential impacts to each is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Plant Communities Within Cut/Fill Areas of Respective Alternatives
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Plant Community Permanent Permanent Temporary= Total
Maintained/Disturbed Land
Hardwood Forest 0.97
0.16 0.97
0.16 0.3
0.15 1.27
0.31
Total 1.13 1.13 0.45 1.58
Areas are given in acres.
Projected permanent impacts to natural plant communities resulting from bridge replacements
-- are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments. Little area of natural plant community is expected to be permanently impacted by the
- proposed project. Temporary impacts present the greater amount of impact to natural
communities, and although these impacts are considered to be short-term, re-growth of this
community to pre-project stand age and ecological function will require several decades.
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory
wildlife movement patterns.
13

No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat exists within or near the project study area.
Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement
will be minimized through stringent erosion control measures.
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated to be avoided by bridging the
stream system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
D. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). The
National Wetlands Inventory (NWl~ system for classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats
was used to determine the type of each jurisdictional area present (Cowazdin et al. 1979).
Section 404 jurisdictional areas are depicted by Figure 7.
Muddy Creek exhibits characteristics of a well-defined, third-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate (containing some silt). This stream
contains several point bars composed of sand and gravel and vegetated by species such as
jewelweed. Muddy Creek can be classified as riverine, upper perennial with an unconsolidated
bottom composed primarily of gravel and sand (R3UB1) (Figure 7, Muddy Creek). The UT can
be classified as a well-defined, first-order, riverine, lower perennial stream with an
unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand and silt (R2UB2) (Figure 7, UT). The small
pond occupies approximately 0.3 acre within the project study area and may be classified as
palustrine, with an unconsolidated shore composed primarily of silt and clay; and lying within a
basin excavated by man (PUS3x) (Figure 7, Pond).
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). The project study azea contains one vegetated
wetland azea (Figure 7, Wetland) located just south of Mizpah Church Road approximately 450
feet east of Muddy Creek. This low, moist area supports hydrophytic species such as soft rush,
jewelweed, and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). This area may be defined as a palustrine, shrub-scrub,
broad leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded wetland (PSS 1 C). Soils exhibit hydric chromas,
while hydrology indicators are inundation, surface flow, and oxidized rhizospheres. The
surrounding area is in an early stage of succession following cleazcut logging, and is dominated
by kudzu. This system would be considered a "riverine" wetland by DWQ, based upon its
location within the floodplain of the UT.
Both alternates contain an identical replacement in-place component, while Alternate 2 also
contains a temporary on-site detour component. No permanent or temporary impacts are
expected to affect the wetland azea, the UT, or the small pond. However, bridge supports maybe
installed into Muddy Creek.
14

The existing bridge is to be removed without dropping components into Muddy Creek.
- Therefore, no potential fill into waters of the United States is anticipated. NCDOT will
coordinate with various resource agencies during ,projject planning to ensure that all concerns
_ - regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
2. Permits
Impacts to vegetated wetlands are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project. However,
bridge supports may be installed into Muddy Creek. Therefore, construction activities may
require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting water
quality and public water resources.
This project has been processed as a Categorical Exclusion {CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP)
23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U.S.
expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403). If temporary structures are necessary for construction
activities, access fills, or dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 1 ~,
2002) permit and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366) will be
required. Impacts to vegetated wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078)
and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWPs
23, 33, and 3 will not suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach
improvements may qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington
USACE District. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP
031 (GC 3404). Notification to the Wilmington USACE District office is required if this general
permit is utilized.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity
of waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
__ to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
15

Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to•reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths, _ -
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface ^
waters.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until antici ated im acts to waters of the S
P P
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), DWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 1.0 acre of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream
impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092 (January .15, 2002), the USACE
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and
value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of
appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable mmimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should ,
be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due
to the potentially limited nature of the project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to mimmize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated
with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian '
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and DWQ.
E. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such
listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species" __
is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the '
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Three federally protected species are listed for Forsyth County (February 18, 2003 FWS list): '
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine
micranthera), and bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The red-cockaded woodpecker and
small-anthered bittercress are Endangered, while the bog turtle is Threatened due to Similarity of '
Appearance. NHP files list no documentation of Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed species
within 2.0 miles of the project study area (NHP file review conducted April 17, 2004).
16 '

Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This small woodpecker (7 to 8.~ inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches,
and ablack-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye,
but the cockades maybe absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of
mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P.
palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond {P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest
cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 60 years that have
been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are
referred to as clusters. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance,
resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active
nest trees. Primary nest sites for red-cockaded woodpeckers include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of
open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 yeazs of age or older (Henry 1989). Pine flatwoods
or pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural or prescribed fires
serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory
may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project study area does not provide suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, and no
individuals were observed during the site visit. Based on habitat requirements, NHP
documentation, and professional judgment, this project will not affect red-cockaded woodpecker.
Cardamine micranthera (Small-anthered bittercress)
Endangered
Family: Brassicaceae
Date Listed: September 21, 1989
1 Small-anthered bittercress is a low, erect, biennial or perennial herb with simple, slender stems.
The plant has crenate, lobed basal ]eaves 0.3 to 0.7 inch in length, and unlobed, crenate stem
L leaves that are slightly shorter. It flowers in bracteate racemes with small flowers having white
petals to 0.1 inch long. Blooming season is April through May. Typical habitat is stream banks
and low, moist woods (Murdock 1991).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for small-anthered bittercress exists in the project study area. This habitat occurs
along the banks of Muddy Creek and along the smaller tributary stream within the project study
area. However, a systematic, plant-by-plant survey conducted on May 19, 2004 failed to identify
I any individuals of small-anthered bittercress. In addition, there are no known populations within
one mile of the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
l
17

Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
' Threatened due to similarity of appearance _
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: May 1, 1997
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches. This
otherwise darkly colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange or
yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al. 1980). The bog turtle has declined
drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat alteration.
As a result, the FWS officially proposed in the January 29, 1997 .Federal Register (62 FR 4229)
to list bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range, and within the southern
portion of its range, which includes North Carolina. The bog turtle was proposed for listing as
threatened due to similarity of appearance (T S/A) to the northern population. The listing would ~•
allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise lawful
activity. The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in
association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms
(Palmer' and Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in
the Mountains and western Piedmont.
Suitable habitat does not exist within the project study area, no individuals were observed, and
NHP files list no documentation for bog turtle within 2.0 miles of the project study area. The
bog turtle is listed as T(S/A) due to its similarity of appearance to another rare species listed for
protection. T (S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion
for this species is not required. ~
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 18, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of .species designated as "Federal ~
Species of Concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed
in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which '
there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. NHP f les list no documentation for FSC species
within 2.0 miles of the project study area. ~ ~
3. State-Protected Species
One FSC species is listed for Forsyth County: the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), which
has a state status of Endangered. Brook floater habitat includes rapids or riffles on rock and _
gravel substrates in small streams. While the reach of Muddy Creek within the project study
area does provide suitable habitat for brook floater, the UT does not.
18

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 of 36 CFR Part X00. 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
In a memorandum dated: March 10, 2004, the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) stated
that they were aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project. However, in
a letter dated: March 24, 2004, the historic preservation planner from Forsyth County identified
two historic properties within the vicinity of the project. NCDOT architectural historians were
notified and a survey was conducted on December 10, 2004 that conf rmed that neither of the
two houses were eligible for the National Register, nor were they locally designated as historic
sites. A concurrence form was signed on April ~, 2005. Therefore, there are no eligible
properties within the Area of Potential Effect. (APE). Copies of all correspondence are included
in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
A memorandum from the HPO dated March 10, 2004 states that they are aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project. Accordingly, NCDOT archaeologist did not
initiate a survey for the project. A copy of the memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by. replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
I ~ The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle
route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
19

There is the potential one residential relocation will be required as a result of the proposed ,
project. However, efforts should be made (through design exceptions) during design to eliminate _ _
the need for this residential relocation. No business relocatees are anticipated.
-
~
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to -
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
' ,
ect is excluded from the Farmland Protection Polic Act FPPA since the
The ro osed ro
P P P J Y ( )
project is located within the urban area of Winston-Salem (7 CFR Part 658).
'
There are no ublicl owned arks recreational facilities or wildlife and waterfowl refu es of
P Y p g
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
'
" eutral" ro'ect so it is not re u'red to be included in the re 'oval
The protect is an air quality n p t q i gi
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. If vegetation or wood
debris is disposed of by burning, it 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 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental
Policy Act. The bridge replacement project will not increase or decrease traffic volumes. The
noise levels will increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990.C1ean Air Act Amendments and
the National Environmental Policy Act} and no additional reports are required.
The results from apre-scoping geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation performed by
the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit showed that no underground storage tank sites or
hazardous waste sites or apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. The
geotechnical pre-scoping report is included in the appendix. _ _.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental '
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A "start of study" letter was distributed to local officials and agencies requesting information and
concerns relative to the proposed study alternates. Their responses are included in the Appendix.
^
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement '
program was initiated.
20 '

Imo. AGEl~TCY COORDINATION
_ - Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
' _ Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
US Fish and Wildlife Service*
State Clearinghouse
I NC Department of Cultural Resources*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC Division of Water Quality*
I County Manager, Forsyth County
Chairman, Forsyth County Commissioners
Director, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County City-County Planning Board*
Department of Transportation, City of Winston-Salem*
Transportation Planner, Winston-Salem MPO
Superintendent, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Public Schools*
( Forsyth County Emergency Management Services
` Sheriff, Forsyth County
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written/oral comments were received. Scoping
comments and corresponding responses are given below. Copies of the comments received are
in the Appendix.
~ United States Deuartment of Interior - Fish_and Wildlife Service
' Comment: "...we recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any suitable
habitat in the project areas for these species [listed on the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants or Federal Species of Concern] prior to any further planning or
I on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur".
Response: A survey of the project area concluded this project will not adversely affect any
M threatened or endangered species or any federal species of concern.
Comment: "[Fish and Wildlife Service -Asheville Field Office officials] recommend spanning
structures, preferably bridges, in all cases".
Response: Bridge No. 30 will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 110 feet long with a
. _ maximum clear roadway width of 30 feet. The number of spans will be determined during final
design.
I Comment: "...off-site detours, which would reduce stream-bank disturbance, are preferable to
temporary on-site crossings".
Response: Alternate 1, replacing Bridge 1~TO. 30 at its existing location by closing SR 1631 and
maintaining traffic with an off site detour, is the preferred alternate.
21

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "Impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources should be minimized. Standard
requirements and BMP's should apply". ~~~~
Response: In order to minimize impacts to water resources,,,NCDOT BMP's for the Protection
of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
Forsyth County and Winston-Salem City-County Planning Board
Comment: "Any work in the [project] area should be done in a manner to preserve [local
historic resources]".
Response: During final design, the approach on the eastern end of the bridge should be limited
in order to prevent any right of way acquisition of the locally historic property located southeast
of Bridge No. 30.
Comment: "Given the environmental obstacles, the surrounding historic properties, and the
small amount of traffic using the road, the `replace at existing location maintaining traffic with a
temporary structure and detour on the north side' should be eliminated from consideration as an
alternative".
Response: Alternate 1, replacing Bridge No. 30 at its existing location by closing SR 1631 and
maintaining traffic with anoff--site detour, is the preferred alternate.
Comment: "...City-County Planning Board staff would request that the work needed to either
repair or replace the bridge be completed in a timely manner and that any off-site detours that are
needed be used for the absolute minimum amount possible".
Response: Construction time will be limited to a reasonable amount of time.
Winston-Salem Deuartment of Transportation
Comment: "Input from [the county school transportation director, sheriff's department, county
fire department, and emergency medical services) should be considered prior to construction".
Response: These agencies will be notified prior to closure of SR 1631.
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
Comment (dated 3/12/04): "We have several buses that use [SR 1631] daily and would
appreciate it if provisions could be made during this project to allow an on-site detour rather than
disrupting our traffic pattern".
Response: Alternate 1, replacing Bridge No. 30 at its existing location by closing SR 1631 and
maintaining traffic with an off-site detour, is the preferred alternate. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth
County Schools Transportation Director will be notified prior to construction.
22

~ I ~
Comment (dated 3/24/03): "A few buses cannot be rerouted without utilizing a complete detour
to service homes on both sides of the closure. This will require a designated tum around on both
' sides of the bridge, large enough to accommodate a,scl~ool bus".
. - Response: The request for designated school bus turn grounds has been included in this
document.
23

REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North "
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. - _
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish. and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEN). 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Yadkin River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004a. Basinwide Information Management System (BINS)
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html). North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004b. List of Active Permits (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/BIMS 031604.x1s [April 8, 2004]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004c. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List '
-Draft (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdUGeneral_303d.htm [April 28,
2004] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. _
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary table, and photographs).
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for
the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp. __
Kartesz J. 1998. A S on ized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States Puerto
Yn ym ,
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
24

LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
_ - Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
_ Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
- of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Murdock, N. and A. Weakley. 1991. Recovery Plan for Small-anthered Bittercress (Cardamine
micranthera Rollins). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeastern Region.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Forsyth County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Mariual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hiil, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and I~'atural Resources. Raleigh. 325
PP
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp (online). Available: http://www.water.us~s. ov/
GIS/huc name.txt [March 29, 2004]. U.S. Geological Survey.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1976. Soil Survey of Forsyth County, North Carolina, USDA
National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting
habitat requirements. R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and Management of the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
2~

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (online). Available:
http://www.nwi.fws.~ov [March 29, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Forsyth County Endangered Species, Threatened
Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: http://nc-
es.fws.sov/es/cntylist/ForsYth.html [March 29, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.. 255 pp.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1998. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
26

~ ~
Figures
I

e i r
a a !~
a
a -. i I '
16
,~:
1898
1631
16~
625
611
1898 sz -
1632
Y ~
mm
1631 m 1632
t
ree
4002
X4002
BRIDGE NO. 30
s~
K ~ N ea emp •S al
orbus {° '
F ~s
1~ RleNtow
adki vlue Enon ~ ~ ~
11,~~
ienM,
Is 421 ._.~~~ ,;,~: '
~ t ~~
Courtney
-- _'' - gl{ '' ~
~~ w:~.
emmort iW;,~,
601 ® pnf' nr~:..ood`,.:. - ~--
erk
~~ 158 Areedu ti52 Mltlwi
A N
A ~ IV ~S vent E ~ ~ Welcome
e ~ . Y Wn 6 Th ;ms
o ~ a mstzer u ie
1611
.I C M
• `~ NOATS QAROLIIHA DBPARTD~NT ~ TRANSPORTATION
AeieE De~epmaaE .>ed Ea~ireimeaf~l 11aal~dr Bzuc~t
i~
... .
BRIDGE N0. 30
SR 16310VER MUDDY CREEK
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-4112
VICINITY MAP
0 os
cRaP~ac sca~E (MILESI FIGURE IA

~ ~ i
SOP NORTH X40
~~~ `~ T.I.P. B-4112
Bridge No. 30 Over Muddy Creek
o
-~, ,r On SR 1631-Forsyth County, N.C.
BEM OF TRANS~p
Quad. Map: Rural Hall
FIGURE 1B
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Developme~zt and Environmental Analysis Branch

t

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
;r~r ~ 1 ° PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
~'E^'TpF7RAN5fp~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE N0.30
ON SR 1631 OVER MUDDY CREEK
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-4112
FIGURE 2A
LOOHING EAST ACROSS BRIDGE
LOOKING WEST ACROSS BRIDGE

r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE N0.30
ON SR 1631 OVER MUDDY CREEK
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-4112
FIGURE 2B
STRUCTURE PROFILE, LOOKING NORTH & UPSTREAM
STRUCTURE PROFILE, LOOKING SOUTH & DOWNSTREAM

~' PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 30 ON SR 1631
OVER MUDDY CREEK
FORSYTH COUNTY
' 8-4112
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
_ POSTED SPEED: 45 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 1,500
2025 ADT = 2,400
TTST = I%
DUAL = 2%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 65%
DESIGN SPEED: 50 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE:6°50'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 8%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 96 Kcrest = 84
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 8.0 ft TURF TOTAL (II.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 12.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 30.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 110.0 ft
I
8' MIN. 8' 12' ~ 12' ~ 8'
12' DES. GRADE
i POINT
oa .oz _ .oz _ .oa
r /J/FJ/ 2;~ A.~ ~-
I 2'/
/~ /fs
` ~' I i' WITH GUARDRAIL
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
I
NOTE:
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN
`EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED.
30'
3' 12' ~ 12' 3'
GRADE
i POINT
.02 .oz
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
FIGURE 3 A
PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
APPROVED BY: DATE:

PROPOSED DETOUR CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.30 ON SR 1631
OVER MUDDY CREEK
FORSYTH COUNTY
_ B-4112
_ FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 45 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 1,500
2025 ADT = 2,400
TTST = I%
DUAL = 2%
DHV = 10%
DIR = 65%
DESIGN SPEED: 35 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE: 16°20'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 12%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 49 Kcrest = 29
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 4.0 fit TOTAL (7.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 10.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 26.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 120.0 ft
4' 4' 10' ~ 10' ~ 4'
GRADE
i ~ POINT
.02
2;~
~ 7' WITH GUARDRAIL
DETOUR APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
26'
DETOUR BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
3' 10' ~ 10' 3'
GRADE
i POINT
~ .az
.02 .oz ~
.02
FIGURE 3 B
NOTE: KO & ASSOC. 02-04-04
A VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: DATE:
EXCEPTION MAY BE REQUIRED. APPROVED BY: DATE:

632
1631
` 17~
1625,
~ 1611
,.~ ~ ~ ~ , ._, .a<
67 1611
K ae
adki rule
_ 16
JC
--~Arcstlla ~~ ,~, Mltlwa
E' "'
~tlvanc _ . .Welcome
y kin ihama
nauei o. Qe. `. 8 9U5
631
4002
4002 BRIDGE NO. 3
C M
NoRTa cAltorn~A DBPAaT>-iBNT OF TRANSPORTATION
PreiecE De.slepaeaE aad Ea~iawnmsaEal AnJsd~ Be~aefl
BRIDGE N0. 30
SR 16310VER MUDDY CREEK
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-4112
DETOUR MAP
0 o.s
I GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) ~ FIGURE 6

LVV V CVV YVtJ VVV VVV I GGL
LY
~I E
S
wr 5t2afOa
B-41 ~ 2
Bridge No. 30
h~iizpah Church
Road Over
(buddy Creek
Legend:
Pro~ectSt~OyRrea
ergge Ho.3o
6 R 16 31
- IA~dOyCreek
®ur
® Po~G
wetfaid
®HardgooG Forest
0¢t~uaht.La~o
Figure 7
P~,roje~t study
Area.
.:.:-F
;_..,
Ecb~cienr_e
Gvr~,orvtion
f101 kr~rcsBh:eI,BJ! 1G1.
Pilelph, MO Zr®~
~h: 919~3e3t
isc: 9198aF3518

Appendix

United States Department of the Interior .~"°;~~`~
_ ~ ~~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 9, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
~ ~``~ ~ s... .~
t~.,
S~r
+;~ ~
-,_ - Q
>,- ~ ~
rah V~~l~ ~~QQ ~5-`,.
Y~'.~~~, lViyf E #~I? 1''~A~~~
Subject: Scoping Comments for Five Bridge Replacement Proposals, Stokes, Davidson, Forsyth,
and Davie Counties, North Carolina
We have reviewed the subject bridge replacement proposals and providethe following comments
in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e),
and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Given the early stages of development for these projects, our comments aze limited primarily to
the known locations of listed species and federal species of concern. When the categorical
exclusions are prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects, we
can offer more substantive comments.
Enclosed is a species list for the four counties included in this package. This list provides the
names of species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as well
as federal species of concern. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We aze including these species in our response
to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are
found in the vicinity of your projects: Our records indicate the following:
I Stokes County - B-4281. Bridge No. 60 on NC 8 and 89 over the Dan River (our
Log No. 4-2-04-122) -Our records for Stokes County indicate known locations of
the federally endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) in the project
area. It is likely that James spinymussel individuals would'be affected by this
project; if that is the case, formal consultation will be required. In addition, there
are occurrences of the federally endangered small-anthered bittercress
~ (Cardamine micrantherea) near the project azea.

1
Davidson County - B-4100, Bridge No. 142 on SR 1741, and B-4101, Bridge
No.141 over Abbotts Creek (our Log Nos. 4-2-04-123, 4-2-04-124).
Forsyth.County - B-4112, Bridge No. 30 on SR 1631 over Muddy Creek (our
Log No. 4-2-04-125).
Davie County - B-4104. Bridge No. 21 on NC 801 over Carter Creek (our Log
No. 4-2-04-128).
Our records for these counties and project areas indicate no known locations of listed species in
the project areas. However, we recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any
suitable habitat in the project areas for these species prior to any further planning or
on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace the existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, ~in all cases. In addition, off-site detours,
which would reduce stream-bank disturbance, are preferable to temporary on-site crossings. We
look forward to reviewing the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, pleasecontact 'Ms. Mazella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference the log numbers assigned with our comments for each project as shown above
Sincerely, -~-
~ ~~~
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls
of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
_ _ SPECIES OF CONCERN, DAVIDSON, DAME,
FORSYTH, AND STOKES COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
' This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, and Stokes Counties, of North Carolina's federally listed and
proposed~endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete
list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The
information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated or
proposed.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent
counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle __ Clemmys muhlenber~ii T(S/A)'
Carolina darter Etheostoma Collis Collis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Astergeorgianus C1
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
DAME COUNTY
Vertebrates
Robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum FSC
Vascular Plants
'' Creamy tick-trefoil Desmodium ochroleucum FSC*
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC*
Michaux's sumac
- Rhos michauxii Endangered
RSYTH COUNTY
FO
Vertebrates
' Bog turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii
T(S/A)'
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered****
November 12, 2003 Page 1 of 2

1
CONIlKON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAA~ STATUS '
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
STOKES COUNTY
Vertebrates
t7rangefin madtom Noturus gilberti FSC
Rustyside sucker Thoburnia hamiltoni FSC
Invertebrates
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC.
James spinymussel Pleurobema collina Endangered
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
KEY:
Status
__. Endangered Definition
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
Cl A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to

FSC support listing.
A Federal species of concern-a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )-a species that is
thrcatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These-species aze not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record -the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record -the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidenta]/migrant record -the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record -obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
November 12, 2003 Page 2 oft

,~
~ ~ ~
'f ' ~ ~~ ~
.., : . ~ ~ ~.-.~ ~ rn .- ern .
_ is yt " _ `!i~Y
'"1'' V~' ~~ l r ~Y~. / V
~.• ,.
o,. _..
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fu11R•ood, Executive Director
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator ~'G~ ~,,~,r,~.
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: August 10, 2004
SUBJECT: ~ Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed replacement of Bridge No. 30 on SR 1631
over Muddy Creek, Forsyth County. TIP No. B-4112.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staffbiologists have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope 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 cleazances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-172]
7"eleohone: (9191 733-3633 exc. 281 • Faa: (9191 715-7643

B-4112, 1
Bridge No. 30, SR ] 631 2 t~
Muddy Creek, Forsyth Co. August 10, 2004 '
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 be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary -
structuresthe 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 cleaz 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, Mr. Logan Williams with the
NCDOT -ONE 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 aze used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be ,
maintained regulazly, especially following rainfall events.
12. ~ Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work azea.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Hea a ui ment should be o erated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
~'3' q P P
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood' of introducing other pollutants , _
into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should
be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when ,
construction is completed.

.
B-4112, Bridge No. 30, SR 1631 3
Muddy Creek, Forsyth Co. August 10, 2004
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
_ ' prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials. ~ '''
' 17. If culvert installation is being considered, conduct subsurface investigations prior to
structure design to determine design options and constraints and to ensure that wildlife
passage issues are addressed.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural~thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other
than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain
bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the
upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be
filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious or mosquito breeding conditions.
Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or
notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This
should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by
maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish
and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide a
continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain
dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Y Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must 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.
-. 4. Riprap should 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 professionally designed, sized, and installed. `
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
I 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

B-4112, Bridge No. 30, SR 1631 4
Muddy Creek, Forsyth Co. August 10, 2004 '
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed
was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may `
be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
;a ~ t~G~
1. B~21, Forsyth Co., Bridge No. 30 over Muddy Creek on SR 1631. Muddy Creek is Class
C waters. No special concerns are indicated at this time. Impacts to aquatic and terrestrial ,
resources should be minimized. Standard requirements and BMP's should apply.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from '
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation ,
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
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 this project.
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ

1

0
~_
~',

'' ~ ~O~ QG
~ ~
~_ ~
~ ~
i
1... , I~-(~ ,,J ~ - MtchaeJ t. hasley, GOVCrnor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
March
MEMORANDUM

TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director ~ rQPR ~ ~~(```'
2"° ; x
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch G~'0 DlViSION ~
,., y ' f r . „ ~~ oc HIGF1bYAYS ~~ ~cQ:`
FROM: Robert Ridings, Env. Tech., DWQ 401 Unit j`~~/~ 'jh~Nr~~ ANa~.-5~5~
THROUGH: John Hennessy, Supervisor, DWQ 401 Transportation Unit~J~~
O~
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects:rB-4281,x-4112,'-4252,
yB-4254;8-4100,`$-4101,`x-4243,''-4244; ~-424~dB-4104,~B-4129 ~B-4130;~B-4131.
In reply to your correspondence dated February 10, 2004 (received February 18, 2004) to Cynthia Van der Wiele,
in which you requested comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following
comments:
I. General Comments Re~ardin~ Bride Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace the
bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed using Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require w'6rk 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.
I
_ 4. .Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should 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. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is mostly
made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very .,
soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete or cement will change the
pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7. 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 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 re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh. NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone). 919-733-6893 (fax), (httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Servicc #i: 1-877-623-6748
1~1Ct~~~~ft .

8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the '
bridge.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to,,,protect water resources must be implemented prior
to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events. _
..
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent sedimentation
of water resources.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation in flowing
water.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should
be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
II. General Comments if Re~lacin~ the Bride with a Culvert
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for. aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth). If
multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream
bankfull or floodplain bench elevation. (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end to restrict
or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious
or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low
flows to accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched ,~
baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life
passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) byY'iiaintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide
a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. - 'If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during normal
flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid channel
realignment. Widening the stream channel must 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. - ~ _
4. Riprap should 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 professionally designed, i
sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure. If road
closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the -'
need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should '
be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously
wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation
for the subject project or other projects in the watershed. '

~ ~ s
III. Proiect-Snecifc Comments
B-4281, Bridge 60, Dan River, Stokes County
Dan River is classified as C Trout and is in the Roanoke River Basin. A moratorium prohibiting in-stream we
and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protect the
egg and fry stages of trout. DWQ would prefer this~bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs
(particularly for sediment and erosion control} to be maximized.
B-4112, Bride 30, Muddy Creek, Forsyth County
Muddy Creek is classified as C and is in the Yadkin River Basin. DWQ has no special concerns with this proj
Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
B-4252, Brides 67 and 95, Little Beaver and BiQ Beaver Creeks, Rockingham County
Little Beaver and Big Beaver Creeks are both classified as C and are in the Roanoke River Basin. DWQ has n
special concerns with this project.
B-4254, Bride 89, Little Troublesome Creek, Rockingham County
Little Troublesome Creek is listed as C NSW and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water.
NCDOT shall maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Critical
Area of the Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4100 and B-4101, Brumes 142 and 141, Abbotts Creek, Davidson County
Abbotts Creek is listed as WS-III water supply stream and is in the Yadkin River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to nunimize storm water runoff any
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2$ .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).
B-4243, Bride 71, Hasketts Creek, Randolph County
Hasketts Creek' is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT shall
maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of the
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4244, Bride I40, Gabriels Creek, Randolph County
Gabriels Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. DWQ has no special concems for this projec
~B-4246, Brume 228, Richland Creek, Randolph County .
Richland Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT shall
maximize the use of Best.Management Practices for-all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of the
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4104, Bride 21, Carter Creek, Davie County
Carter Creek is listed as WS-N and is in the Yadkin River Basin. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer
requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use c
BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B :0216(3)(b)(i)(F~ and (G).

0

B-4129, Bridge 226, Little Alamance Creek, Guilford County - -
Little Alamance Creek is listed as WS-N NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in W S waters in addition to therequirements to minimize storm water runoff a
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). Since the project is located within
the Critical Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for this project b
on traffic count, percent truck traffic or proxinty to industries transporting hazardous materials. The proje
shall incorporate the requirements for WS-N Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .
(i.e., stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
B-4130, Brudge 228, Alamance Creek, Guilford County
Alamance Creek is listed as WS-N NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin_ There aze 30-foot vegetated
buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maxi
use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F~ and (G). Since the project is located within the Cri
Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for.this project based on traffic
count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project shall
incorporate the requirements for WS-N Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0215
stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
B-4131, Brul~e 11, Little Alamance Creek, Guilford County '
Little Alamance Creek is listed as WS-N NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). Since the project is located wit
the Critical Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for this protect b~.
on traffic count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project
shall incorporate the requirements for WS-N Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B
(i.e., stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
~.~ 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 anc
:designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional. information, pleas
contact Robert Ridings at [phone] or Cynthia Van der Wiele at [phone].
cc: USACE Raleigh Field Office ~ ~,
File Copy

s
0

• {
e" ST"'F o
~y ~~
North Carolina Department of. Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
~~GELV~1j~
~A~ 16 2004
o,
~ ~ DiV1810N C1F ~Q
~;p /~ HtGMNAYS ~Q~
~?
c,: ~5
Division o d~E~¢51pQt~
David L. S. Br .~frbdrl~ ~`
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
- r ~:
FROM: David Brook~.~ ,~ ~'L~~~ „~ `~~-~---
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 30 on SR 1631 over l~'Iuddy Creek, B-4112, Forsyth County,
ER04-0498
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 2004, concerning the above project.
VJe have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be8ffected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
Location
ADM1N15TRA770N 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
r..-n~rnr •'*'tnwi G1 [ 1.I Ginnnt Ct Ralr~oh TJ(~
www.h po.d cr.state.nc.us
Mailing Address 7'elephonelFax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27b99-4617 [phone] •733-8653
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 (9] 9) 733-6547 •715-4801

• ~ r
Federal Aid #: BR2r1631(2)
TIP # : B-4112
•+ County: Forsyth
- CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
- Project Description:
On Apri15, 2005, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
^ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other ,
Reviewed the subject project at
^ Scoping meeting
[~ Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
^ Other
All parties present agreed
^ There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
C ~ 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.
® There are properties over fifty yeazs old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as (List below) are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them aze necessary.
S~ras '~{7lIMe~ csM.cR-. ~E-b u ~ ~ cR ~ n ~ s
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
l upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
[~ There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach arty notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
~~~ ~
Representative, NC OT
'~ 5 ~ S
Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
e K F ~
~~ y/
~~~ ~ :~
Representative, HPO Date
y S"
' State Historic Preservation Officer Da e
off'

1 . Y
City County
annin
• FOR51'fH COUN"[l' K~~
u'INSTON-1ALEM. iJ
NURTH GUIULINA
March 25, 2004
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attn: Ms. Karen Taylor, PE -Project Development Engineer
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
1D0 E. FIRST ST. F0. BOX 2511 ;4/IPdSTal~S;.~L~V': ~J.~. "'i02
336.727.2087 fax [phone] u3 ° plani;ingl~%~cirv~~r.~:s.o;t;
Re: Bridge No. 30 on SR 1631 (Mi2:pah Church Road) over Muddy Creek (TIP # B-4112)
Dear Ms. Taylor:
The City-County Planning Board (CCPB) of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County has received your
correspondence requesting input on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed bridge
replacement project for Bridge No. 30 on SR 1631 (Mizpah Church Road) (TIP # B-4112). The City-
County Planning Board staff provides support to WSDO'p-ten transportation projects in such areas as
environmental impact, historic preservation, and long-range planning.
Although obviously needed to complete the overall study of alternatives, the "Do Nothing" alternative can
be easily eliminated. In order to continue providing multiple routes between destinations and to facilitate
the existing and future uses along Mi2pah Church Road, the bridge will be needed. By "doing nothing"
the bridge would eventually fail and would prohibit easy access for the property owners along Mizpah
Church Road and the users of the surrounding road network.
Environmentally, there is a significant~amount of floodway and floodway fringe area along Muddy Creek,
as well as several wetland areas, both north and south of Mizpah Church Road in the vicinity of the
existing bridge. Additionally, there are some considerable slope issues along Mi2pah Church Road in the
area surrounding the bridge. Given these environmental constraints, an on-site, temporary bridge would be
a difficult proposition.
' Beyond environmental considerations, there are his#orical properties that may also limit an on-site,
temporary bridge. Per a memo from Ms. LeAnn Pegram, Historic Resources Coordinator for the City-
County Planning Board staff (see attached), there are two (2) historic properties within one-half (1/2) mile
_ of the existing bridge. The Daniel Speas House (Inventory #605) is located adjacent to the existing bridge,
located on the southeast bank of Muddy Creek directly south of Mi2:pah Church Road. A late-19~' century
house (Inventory #675) lies on the northern side of Mizpah Church Road on the west side of Muddy
Creek, approximately one-half (1/2) mile west of the existing bridge. Any work in the area should be done
in a manner to preserve these historic resources.
In examining the 2001 ADT maps for the area, Mizpah Church Road does not carry a lot of traffic

[ / 1
(between 680 and 1400 ADT). Additionally, there has not been a significant amount of development in
the surrounding area since 2001 that would cause a `spike' in expected traffic along the road.. Given the
environmental obstacles, the surrounding historic properties, and the small amount of traffic using the
road, the "replace at existing location maintaining traffic with a temporary structure and detour on the
north side" should be eliminated from consideration as an alternative.
The preferred alternatives, given the issues raised above, would be either to "rehabilitate the existing
structure" or to "replace at existing location by closing the existing roadway and maintaining traffic with
an off-site detour". Under either of these alternatives, City-County Planning Board staff would request that
the work needed to either repair or replace the bridge be completed in a timely manner and that any off-site
detours that are needed be used for the absolute minimum amount possible.
)n closing, the City-County Planning Board appreciates the opportunity to comment on this very important
project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]. For
historic preservation questions, please contact LeAnn Pegram, Project Planner, at the same telephone
number.
Sincerely,
i
Chris Murphy, AICP
Principal Planner
xc: Village of Tobaccoville Administrator
WSDOT

2

r +
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Murphy
From: ~ LeAnn Pegram
Date: March 24, 2004
RE: MIZPAH CHURCH ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE IMPACTS
According to Forsyth County's historic survey files, the following two properties
are located in the proximity of the aforementioned project:
Daniel Speas House (Inventory #605)
One of the finest remaining stone chimneys in Forsyth County stands on this log
house said to have been built by Daniel Speas. According to family members,
Specs probably built the house in the early 19~' century, but it was enlarged with
a flame addition that appears to date from the late 19~' century. The brick stack
of the stone chimney has been replaced, but from the shoulders down to the
ground, the chimney is a masterpiece of tight-fitting stone masonry laid without
mortar.
House (Inventory #675)
I This property is identified as a late-19~' century I~house. It is a 2-story, 3-bay
structure that has been altered with siding. The house features a stone
foundation and a brick, common-bond chimney with stepped shoulders. There is
a front hipped-roof porch with turned post supports. Addi#ionally, there is a frame
barn and a log outbuilding on the property.
I~
Please let me know if you have questions.
Attachments

t
° ~:,~ =

r r
I
i..
26
28
:.w•" -w~-~s .. 'r- ~a.4c.- ...cwrj.,e:i ~ .=.~. ~ :s„'~-':.~;~;1.;~ J V
r
~~~' ~
~ 4 ~'-R
1 _ „L
1 ~,~~
=L.
,~ . ~ ~ :~ - 1 ... - h
~~~~~x~
26 - Petree-Spainhour Mouse, King Vicinity
The provenance of this important 19th cen-
tury house is unclear, but according to the
owner i[ probably was built by a member of
the Petree family and was subsequently owned
by the Spainhours. The house was built in
two parts--one brick-Hogged and one log. The
one-story log house may have been built in
L.he early 19th century; probably around [he
mid-19th century the house was raised [o two
stories and enlarged with a brick-Hogged addi-
tion. A [hree~bay facade was created which
features a federal-style five-paneled`ront
door and a four-light transom. A log rear ell
of unknown date stands behind the brick-Hogged
part of the building.
27 - Nathaniel Petree House, Winston-Salem
Vicinity
According to local tradition, this one-story
tog house was built by Nathaniel Petree (ca.
1860-1936). It has been heavily altered, but
unusual mantels with paneled friezes and pul-
vinated shelves remain intact. Also on [he
property stand a log barn and other outbuild-
ings which probably date from [he lace 19th
Century.

.. y°" 31
28 - Edwin f. Shore House, Rural Hall Vicinity
This two-story, two-bay log house is thought
to nave been built by the Shore family. It
stood close to Nuddy Cr.cek but was moved uo
the hill to its present location by Edwin F.
Shore in the late 19th or early 20th century.
The house probably dates from the mid-19th
century. Greek Revival style two-paneled doors
appear on the two-story log house and its pro-
jecting front addition. A log barn and log
shed survive on the property. The house and
outbuildings remain in the Shore family.
29 - Slate-Oillon House, Germantan Vicinity
Local tradition maintains that [his log and
frame structure has served as a church, a
school and a private residence. It appears
that the log' half of the house was construc-
ted in the mid-19th century, and it features
a partial stone chimney. The frame half of
[he structure probably was added in the late
19th or early 20th century. A log smokehouse
stands behind the property.
aniel Speas House, Rural Hall Vicinity
One of the finest remaining stone chimneys in
Forsyth County stands on this log house said
to have been built by Daniel Speas. Accord-
ing to family members, Speas probably built
the house in [he early 19th century, but it
was enlarged with a frame addition which
appears to date from the late 19th century.
The brick stack of [he stone chimney has been
replaced, but from the shoulders down to the
ground the chimney is a masterpiece of tight-
fitting stone masonry laid without mortar.
The house remains in the Speas Family.
jl - Jessie 0. Speas House, Tobaccoville
Vicinity
The Jessie D. Speas House is a typical, late
19th century farmhouse in Forsyth County.
It is a one-story, three-bay house with ex-
terior end brick chimneys and Greek Revival-
style details. Successive generations of the
Speas family have altered and expanded [he
house.

- ,
~,1.
}} ~. tj;%.::.,~'' ±:1:;~ xl- ~r~~R?-~ ~ '1 (.a .4 A'Y ~~° ~`~ia.' `~ P•.1~`K4,. ~~ ~ S •"
a~ . . ' :*, .
~~~/^ L

a t ~ ~ 0 DESCAIP770N ~~.. ~-~:. d ~ ~r ra .r ' ~ _
~ . ~t~ ~ ' . ~ a S~G~F~r_

. `
, CONOETION ~ ~ CNE CR ONlj ~'. ~ ~~~
,_
~CN~tCR.OME • .
'
~ . -
-ERt00 ~ ' '
_11 aem
_pERbO~A~Ep
' ~aolrAaf~a
•
- _pooe ~~ -ttllco _b-OVEp' pAn _MiIM><ta C ~-r--

--11!oo-uN 1a
DESCRIlE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL pF KNOMrM) -M~pKJII A--EARANCE _!wo.l--- ,_~~~~.

.. _1~00I~N _C
._ .. -
_. _ _1/00 _C
'- __
_ S-ECKIC DATES y
l~
'~~
`' -- J_,~
l~ ~
I
rii
l~ --^
r
~j~
U
I1:~
_,,~.~
r/, Jt' a~
~~: ~ S '
~~~~
/~
.'
R A ~
•l_.~ V
_ f'a ^'k y.r-t~
,,
f ~ `:^~.: .a.. ,~
4~-
J..r ~~ X~'- ` ~
._11,5 i ~` ~
•~
_; ~Tvlt-•r- ~ -~~':i.c.~.- ;~i.~lc.as..~~(~t~ Ct.Qc:or.,c.a.u~-L
~~
I t~'~.'' ~`~.
I __~i :'°: 'r r '
_. .. ~
~_i
f
i y.,
~. - .

r r r
i..
March 26, 2004
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development And Environmental Analysis
Attention: Ms. Karen Taylor, P.E., Project Development Engineering
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Forsyth County B-4112; Bridge No. 30 on SR 1631 over Muddy Creek
Dear Ms. Taylor
Department of
Transportation
Ciry of Winston-Salem
P.O. Box 2511
Winsmn-Salem, NC 27102
'lel 336.727.2707
Fax [phone]
www. ciryo fws.o rg/do c/
The Winston-Salem Department of Transportation has received your letter in reference to
the request for input on evaluating the potential community and environmental impacts of
the rehabilitation of B-4112, Bridge No. 30 on' SR 1631 (Mizpah Church Road) over
Muddy Creek.
In reviewing the alternatives listed for this project we recommend that the "Do Nothing"
alternative.~ot be considered. The bridge must be rehabilitated or replaced in order to
maintain the existing level of accessibility for the property owners in the vicinity. Also,
according to the letter dated March 25, 2004 provided by the City-County Planning
Board (CCPB) there are two historic properties within %2 mile of the existing bridge. We
agree with the CCPB in order to preserve these structures, the alternative that suggests to
"Replace at existing location maintaining traffic with a temporary structure and detour on
north side" should not be considered as an alternative.
The two remaining alternatives, "Rehabilitate the Existing Structure" and "Replace at
existing location by closing the existing roadway and maintaining traffic with anoff--site
detour" are both viable options. We believe that if the structure were replaced at its
existing location utilizing an off-site detour route, closing the road to through traffic
would assist with minimizing construction time; hence minimizing the length of time the
road needs to be closed. It has been evaluated that there are options available for access
onto both ends of Mizpah Church Road without excessively inconviencing the property
owners.
The County Fire Department and the Emergency Medical Services have been contacted
to determine if closing the road to through traffic would be a problem. It was expressed
by both agencies that the closure could negatively impact response time, which is at times
unavoidable regardless of road closures. The Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools

Transportation Director and the Sheriff s Deparment were also contacted; however, they ~ .
were not able to respond in time for us to make your deadline. Input from these agencies -
should be considered prior to construction. To assist with reducing any impacts, it is
requested that each of these agencies be notified prior to the closing of the road so that '
alternative emergency routes may be identified. There are no permits or other approvals -_
required by the City's Department of Transportation for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the alternatives for this project. Please
continue to keep us informed on the preferred alternative and the progress of this project.
Tf you have any additional questions, contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~~ J~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.t.~-~~~~
Lakesha C. Dunbar =
Civil Engineer -

• t r
- ' Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
4150 Carver Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 • 336/661-4936 • Fax 336!66
Transportation Information Management System Coordinator ~
~.
MEMO
To: Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
From: Don Carter ~
Date: March I2, 2004
~~
~ ~~S ~
a
'!~ ~ 1-
,~. ~c z
~.~~~'~' oe~
v~~'a~
~.:,;., ..... ~ P
Re: Forsyth County Bridge Project B-4112
I am writing on behalf or the Winston-Salem Forsyth County Schools in reference to a
--~ request for information from February 10, 2004. We have several buses that use this road
daily and would appreciate it if provisions could be made during this project to allow an
on-site detour rather than disrupting our traffic pattern. Thank you for your
consideration.
,..

V6~inston-Sa1em/Forsyth County Schools
4150 Carver Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 •336/661-4992 • Fax: [phone]
' Operations Manager for Transportation
a-'+i~a
-.
_~
March 24, 2003 ~ ~,
Davis Moore
NC Depaztment of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Moore:
In reference to the memo dated August 21, 2002 on replacement of Bridge No. 30
on SR 1631 over Muddy Creek in Forsyth County, State Project No. 8.2625901, eight
buses cross over this bridge totaling sixteen times per day. Most crossings could be
rerouted, but would create significant delays and/or additional mileage. A few buses _ .
cannot be rerouted without utilizing a complete detour to service homes on both sides of
the closure. This will require a designated turn azound on both sides of the bridge, large
enough to accommodate a school bus.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Thank you,
Frank gle
Qperations Man ger
'1
FT:ah
_.~

~ r ,~
EIS' RELOCATION REPORT
®E.I.S. ^ CORRIDOR
.'

FRM15-E Revised 09-02
^ DESIGN ,
North Carolina Department of Transportatio
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRA
WBS: 33467.1.1 couNTY Fors h Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. No.: B-4112 F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1631 2).
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridge No. 30 (SR 1631) over Muddy Creek in Forsyth County

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M 15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
SOItP
Residential 1 0 1 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
$USIneSS@S 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM 0 3 0-150 0 o-2oM 0 S o-15o I
' ANSWE R ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M ~ 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 I
Yes No Explain all "YPS" answers. 40-70M U 250-400 p 40-70M 25 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 73 400-60D 1;
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 1 eoo uP 0 10o uP 324 eoo ua gl
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 422 111
X ~ 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project? 3. General businesses are still available in the area due to
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, no business displacees on project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
6. Realtor.com, MLS service, Winston Salem Journal
X 5. Will relocation cause a housirig shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 11. Winston Salem Housing Authority..
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered? 12. Due to a robust real estate market in Winston Salem and
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Forsyth County, there will be adequate DSS housing
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available? Notes: Mark on aria) plans indicate local historic property.
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Property appears to be one tract with two houses located on it.
housing available during relocation period? The local historic house is in need of repair and appears to be
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within vacant.
financial means?
N/A N/A 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? s-9

/ ~I~~~
Date
Right of Way ent Relocation Coordinator Date
Original 8 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File

j ' 21. 38.'2~~4 15:46 hJC DOT PDER ~ 98516846 h~8' X29 ~©`

.+ .
t
STATE OF Nalt`!"H C~-R{3L1~1e~ •
D~p~R':CI~IT' C~F''I~SP+O~:T~i'IZON
i~+tichael P. F..usley Lynco Ti~atc
C~Y£Nf.'0'R SEc.'Rj,'rARY
5~~~~~' ~, ~~~
viF-1VIORANDUM TO~: Mr. Grtsrny 3. 'Ifirnpc,:Ph3~., Director
Praj•ect Develr~Pmont aud. Environsncntni ~1,3u-lysis Branch
AT?EN'Y`IOl~: Karen 8. Taylar, pl~
~'rroj~t~ Develnpiaent Engiut~r:
FROM: ~Jjorogo W. Wa~tiAinaa.PL sj ~,ti~i
5t~te Gooi~l Engiaeor
'TIP 1~(?. B-~] l2
V-~BS 33~67.I.1
__ FEDERALPRcs3Et:."~': .BR~I$31 {~)
COUNTY: Forsyth
DESCRIPTION: Bricigc ~ 30 uver~~ddy ~tcc~.fln 5l~ ib~~1
SUBlBC"1': Gaotechriea3 :Pre=S.ixt~?in~ R:r~psirt
Tf,c Geoteclinical F..agintet3n~:Unit perf~nrmcd a.•(iniited~pce~-saca~p~ng.it~~-e~ggalion ofthe above
refeGence project to provide~an ~~rrty tidrr~ifii~itiani of •~iiy Geofeclii~itcl;~id~d t3eoEn~mn~tal
issues that might iiupt<,ct the Isrojeci's .pl~atiiug, design cir~ conscnrctic~. ~ The follotiving
infarmatiar# SUlnm3~'i265.t3t]7' fu~dirigs. .
G£OE11iVIROi~I1+C %'NTA1, TS~UF3
i..
' ~.
Par,~ase
This rcpart presents the results cif a Gao~nvizonmcntai Lnpac~.~kvaluatoo c~ndssrietl along the
at~ve refcrcnced projet:L The.`triein purp~os~: •of ll~i~~.irtv~esitigiitivr?.i5. Do i±~cntifY F;'aF~~ within
wuuvao ~av
t~C bR~itp~-C~Tawa-aia'~'TSay
G:~OZfignaCK EanC iArt
1 S89 4aA SrtRV+~ ' .
w~,sd ix zr~g-+3aa
~~~~ pqb=+~4"+o6s.
FA?C if$~c ~i23'!
h~~~: wtiNrtit~rx+rsr~rF.nrc.~ts'
tor~ei7ax:
C.E-AUairCFm~ Cowux
- "fJ(TAiJJCF s•4
~~ Nc

11-' 18i2~104 15:46 NC DOT PDEA -~ 98516846 N0.329 l~3
Mr, flnegory J, Tharpe, Piz.i?,
B-~ 11 ~ Gaotechnical Pre-Soaping Cotnmenis.
t Oll 91~
Pttse 2
the gmject study yea that ire ar may be contarninutui.:ard therefore re5vlt in increased project
cots •~d fi~tur,e iiabilitv~if aequired by the Dr:pnrtnient. GeoEnviror~enral impru;ts may include,
buc are Dot limited to, _nctive atxj absnrlDned. undergro~nsd StblAg~ tank LUST} sites, hazdsrlne~
cvastc site, regi,lateci lsndfil)s and unregulttttd donxpsites.
'i'ect~iguesfMethorInlnrlcc B-srd
Tlie Geographical Information System (GIST wss donsu]tcd: to itlenti~y iimO1VD Cf9'V1PG.i17IICnt6IIy
impacting sites lu relation to tl~e. pmjex corridor. ~ GeoEnvira~+a~t~l .Section" pe:satu~~el
condt2cted s field reconnais~.~nce surrey nlbr,~ tRsc~projc~c~corrjrlar on ~arril2G. 200.
Findines
Under~ronnd $:t~arage Tani; IiTST)~ Facilhfcs
Based oh our stvdy,•ther+e are na UST sites itienti~:etl~vvii"1iit~ the pi+c>3rdtiitnits,
~iazar~LCws Waste Sites
Ito Ha~ndous waste Sites were identified Svithisi=ttte project limits.
Land Fills
Vo apparent lantlfl]$ were ideatifieci witrtsib~ thejaraf ect~)imits.
dtber GefllE'.avdramm,enta[ tranferns
Na additional sites were encauntcred witbi.tt this:project3mits:
An~icipateti ,imparts
Wo anticipate na inouetary~ar ~hedt>1iti~ impas[s~r~ltirrg.from~,ctytituiniu~tcd pmpca~tic~ within
the prflject liiDOits.
"i71e GeoEnviranatcntai-St~tion observed 1f~p.~tltltionitil cantpm~natcd prgpcrti~ during the ncld
re~connaiss~nce attd rc~aiory SgLpcies' racarde search...~l~se ri~otc that ciiscq,rcry of additiana~
sues nnt~ rerordecl by fCgU' latQr3- abenL•les uvd not YCS~YIa~I~ .di~s5et~y~ble dwiAg the ~pr+ojESCt

+ N0.329 D~34
y r ^--f-
11-•18i28~4 15:46 NC DOT PDEA -~ 9851684
Nlr. Gregary J. 'I~zoipc, Ph.D.
B-~] l~ Geniec}utlical Pre-Scoping.Comuaents
10/I910~
,,,~
Page 3
` :cconnaissance may aecur. The G~Envirmr~m~niul ~ecti~tin should be notified. immediately a$~r
disivvay of such sites so tliei: potemti.~l srn~cE{sj may be assessed.
' If there are at~y rJacseioris regarding these of oll~er GeoEnviron3nen~1 ~iss~acs oh t3ie project. plea4e
crotitacx Cyrus Porker, LG ttE (~J9}~2SO~~R3.
GEO'I'l~CriNICAL 1S~UES
Tec3~niques and Merhodolo~cs
i he geoteo}uzirx~l invcsti~tian consist~ct nfa s~eeta~ui~iss~cc aad oms~Sisndard Pent~[ration Tcst
I tsn~ring. 'lie boritls u~ conducted in Ihs narth~stem q'iisdrunt, ~ii~`tlu~~s}ioulder of ltic rxistitmg
road.
l; in~ings
The test boring round about to Feet of clayey ropd~vuy fill ., fi fc~gf~alitrvial.sand, and l4 feet. of
:+esidual soil. The rest@uai soil vvas very stil3'.it~ hard~micaceo>3s~sili .a~~ ~±h,~ngrd ebruptiy to hard
f rock a~ a depth of 38 ft~t below the cb9lar elevation The.collnr -vas t-~eui 16 .fect.abvvc the
stre<unbed elcv~,iitm.
Ther~c is a pond in the southeast {do~vnstrcam ieft~ qua~rarit~
I r~tici}~atcd ImpACts
No sigaiuc~nt gevteclrxiit;sl irrtp~ts were noted.,tt.voidin,~ tht. pond. is preferable. End brn! piles
I and intrrior drilled Shall found~tiors are mast li;keiy.
I If LtterC arc iilty+quesEians regarding these:G•eotecl~iiral ~catxuncnts;~~ieas~:.r~niaei Clans 1.iitlz,
L.G., or Sohn Pilipcl~uk, L.G.., P:Ew at (70~)»tl$S=Z~.
I = N~VWICF~1'/C,t3.~;;(dlnn
I~