20140764 Ver 1_Application_20140723

I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT McCRORY
GOVERNOR
July 23, 2014
NC Division of Water Resources
Winston -Salem Regional Office
Attn: Mr. Dave Wanucha
585 Waughtown St.
Winston - Salem, NC 27107
Attention: Mr. Dave Wanucha
4
OFh ti''cs
r'V9 �9 �D
s�gp�`�pG �� O
ANOTHONY J. TATA
SECRETARY
20 1 40 7 0 4
Subject: Notification for the replacement of Bridge #229 over North Prong Stinking Quarter
Creek on SR 3188 (Shatterly Road) in Guilford County. VMS # 45353.1.30
Dear Ms. Homewood,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is scheduled to replace Bridge 4229 with a new bridge
at the same location. I have included the Attachments G & L with a project description and a set of the
project plans. A stormwater management plan is also attached. Please review this project for compliance
by your Division.
We plan to begin construction as soon as possible. If further information is required, please contact Jerry
Parker at (336) 256 -2063. Your early review and consideration will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
J Mills, P.E.
on 'Engineer, Division 7
Enclosures
cc: Dave Bailey, USACE
Tim Powers, NCDOT
Barry Harrington, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
Jeremy Warren, NCDOT
Darrell Ferguson, District 2 Engineer, NCDOT
File Copy
P. Q. Box 14996, GREENSBORO, NC 27415 -4996
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

NCDE —R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Pat McCrory Tom Reeder John Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
Attachment L: Low Impact Bridge Replacement Process
Low Impact Bridge Project No.: B -NIA County Guilford
Bridge No.400229 over North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek WBS Element
Number 45353.1.30
This project is subject to the Low Impact Bridge Process as agreed to on October 6,
2009. This project meets the documentation requirements and approval procedures
under NEPA, as defined by FHWA, for Low Impact Bridge Replacements. This project
meets the standards of NCDOT's Minimum Criteria Rules.
Date: July 23, 2014
Applicant Name: NCDOT
Applicant Address: 1584 Yancevville Street
Greensboro, NC 27415
Primary Contact for Project: Jerry A. Parker
Phone No.: 336- 256 -2063
Is this an after - the -fact application: Yes X No
River Basin: Cape Fear /Jordan Lake Watershed
Stream Classification: 16-19-8-1: WS -V: NSW: 03 -06 -03
Regulatory Authorization Options for this Activity
Federal: USACE Nationwide General Permit 3 — Maintenance
State: General Water Quality Certification #3687 and /or Buffer Authorization
Local: None
Project Description — The project consists of replacing Bridge #229 over North Prong Stinking
Quarter Creek on SR 3188 (Shatterly Road) and improving roadway approaches. The existing
30' L X 40'W single -span bridge with timber deck on I -beams supported by timber caps on piles
encased in concrete and timber bulkheads is structurally deficient and will be replaced with a
new 90'L X 28'W, single span box beam bridge at the same location. An off -site detour will be
utilized during construction. While there are wetlands immediately adjacent to the bridge, the
project will not impact them. There are no stream impacts. The roadway alignment was shifted
to the north and uses 2:1 fill slopes to avoid the existing wetlands and the UT that parallels SR
3188 within the State right -of -way. The project drainage system also consists of grated inlets
and pipe outfalls that drain to existing roadside ditches and swales or dissipator pads that outlet
Transportation Permit8ng Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Location: 512 N Salisbury St., Raleigh, North Carolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internal: http : / /portal.nodenr.org /webtwq
An Equal Opportunlly 1 Affirmative Action Employer
One
NorthCarolina
Naturally

at non erosive velocities prior to the riparian buffer. Proposed Riparian Buffer impacts include
2,649 square feet in Zone 1 and 1,333 square feet in Zone 2 to accommodate the wider span
bridge and the necessary fill slopes. It should be noted that there is a buffered, intermittent
stream channel that parallels the existing roadway. The project proposes no impacts to this
adjacent channel or its associated riparian area. A review was conducted for the presence of
Bald Eagle and small whorled pogonla, the only federally listed protected species for Guilford
County. An assessment within the review area showed no habitat and review of NCNHP
mapping showed no known occurrences of either species.
Signature: /
Print Nam • M• ���`
Title: VI 3-1 04.) Ehl

Attachment G: Low/Minimal Impact
Bridge Project Data Sheet
I
MP NO
BD-5107AC
2
IWBS Element No.
45353.1.30
3
!County
Guilford
4
Bridge Number
400229
5
!Description
Bridge No. 229 over North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek
on SR 3118 (Shatter) y Road)
6
1 Basin
iclassi cation
Stream !SIN
'rType
Size
-Cape Fear._,
WS V; NSW
I
16-19-8-1
Perennial
20-30 ft. wide; 24 ft. deep
10
Existing Structure !Size
1Suff. Rating
Timber Deck on I-Beams
12
Single Span Bridge: I (4140'8"
13
40.19
14
—
is
Proposed Structure ize
is
Single Span 33" Box Beam
1 @-90' w/ 4' Caps
Stream !USACE (LF)
fNCDWQ Impacts LF
a
--1-6
17
i 0
18
USACE Impacts (AC)
Wetlands !,Non 404 Impacts (AC)
ICAIVIA Impacts (SF)
0
19
0
20
0
21
NC DWQ Buffers Impacts (SF)
3982 sq. ft.
22
Buffer Applicaton Required (YIN)
Yes
23
State Stormwater Permit Required (YIN)
No
24
�Habltat
ME :Species Present
!Bio Conclusion
None
25
None
26
N/A
27
koratorium iType
Dates
None
281
None
29
Trout Waters L-T-U—t�pqc—fes Present
ITrout Conditions (YIN)
!WRC Reviewer
No
No
30
31
No
32
r
N/A
33
CAMAIAECs
No
34
Essential Fish! Habitat
None
361
Nay.10paning
No
361
USCG Ipermlf
No
37
Historic! Properties
No
38
Archaeological I Resources
No
39
Tribal I ands
No
40
4(f) Resources
No
41
6 LWCF] 'Resources
No
42
Wild and I Scenic River
No
43
Federal !Lands
No
44
TVA; Area
No
45
FEMA[Buyout
NIA
46
FEMA !Flood Study
Yes (MOA Coordination)
47
USTs ' Haz Mats
No
48
iRelocatees
None
4
Location FLAT
�-LONG
35.97725
50
79.54231
51
Project Comments
Cape Fear River Basin drains to Jordan Lake, so Jordan Lake Watershed buffer
rules apply.
4)
Completed by: I ,
Date:
27_ i L/
ILead
!Divi on nvironmental
Date:
wcer

pe ,
,� •_ , wC^t i 1r'F 4 .,,�„ -- v'Yr. ...� f'e'^' T ie�i 'x :i <-,` "• 2' , t'^v . q
T mss; ;*� � F --% �'- e.'x_,, � •, _, °� �, ; it r %° i 5'•,_T:"_•Y-
y 4t � - -" [ -- - .w, -'. mss.. r � _ -_ `•' `�.,✓' "
rim
y; ,'_" _ + "'" _ _ �; • +'',x'.=;,rtr _ .Y� -" Y '.,'4' _ - `St'S:'e,"r�..��•hu�,' } F b,.�',,,
;,Ai,' '��'. -_ .�.- -.1 :gw.a,>:- ,.°�''"' -'.r '' ,- - � _ +�s, ^t'is .:;,z�'F','.:,`,L `��+ >'''+.rv•s.;.:�''
„ '• ,k;. `-' - ffd•- a., -''�, _ g {.te :'= `t.`.' ,f,.., �_ %.i zi�i:r.$•a'.�s'w• _ ''+i:.;;;,; "u�; p,,,
_ _ b �I` - :'X'�qr':_•,....�' __ j �Y':: ijY''�` -� ;b "s• '.J - 't�J�" „-b; i;4., '%,�”- _
- - ^� P� - "�:'r.'3,`iv `95: _ ilyl:'tA^%''' - •5.•r3!.y'� -.^' -
:sk:- y Area
�i�- -cr^,.'S -mow+[` - -�, 3 -" __.:_�,3- ._�'�'L ^Yr y~a�� -•_` - 'r..3�•Mb,- c.�if`r�`,F yrNnD �f-", ri -, ;rs'
. '�
- - "�: K; ,ri: k '^.}}- :'s"�;xyr i<y.•• r: - : rT 41 '• W: i tv r:'r . -_ - ,'l:i r- ';=u -- :? F,;,i:�.,e,,,ti. . .
"x',/J ^ :r";.•• ''i4,. ,t - � .RI - g ,^a'•'si,: -r i
rytk:.
" r -
f - -
••ccam� �'P'' ^a - -
X
-- - "kty; _ �y.= .r�.>i+k` `i.�.r - "��'F ' -'�•r� .'t'r.Y�>;xi.° _ '' "Gy:'� -._ - "- - - - `S.F{ ;`ir�=
•n.",. -; .. 3 ..%:�'' Vii; '�' < -`''- .1��.__
y;!r
•,s � „iii':" =pia,';._ „. _ r £-4'Y`°? •
:.> y4; _ - air,
Chi;`!. *,ti",`'- «J- �fs;,eir�w r }., �� *:�::::` i, - "'fi %r,..�'zt� =L'' q,.,.r, ;�'5,,.. .�,d >.j ".�•:�=,:
a . �..� •. - - �` - �, t'`:rw°'4 -... - s: � -r_ _ ).'aft,': °' : + >- i?, =�. =k-
-
R ;?c
A4 "" 41""
r,.r':J'V^•,' " "^'��_ 7` ' .1 ,' .'�� Fi 1r''t'� {,y °T' °',�•.
.. -(
rw1. ^•,rc,'t ,�. /,
F" - - y - _ ':�` - `.tjar 7 5>� iEiT, °�,i•�'.. s, }f l:
_ _ ...r •�.�; .J' �'; ° °,1,:_':�_ _ - •� .� - - -.�_r: ..ass V..'" _ -
' _ �,,` -.�,,�.,''•',5. j r ',.t ' - � _ _ _ _,r`y'c'ykc^� -,''• : e1.3 r" "l, .^'�; r'. i f : -
_ - _at,- _ __ _ x: � ";'� R a, a. h.`�:.; �wKi�`'�t°a'., =u� ` .;��ti ��'" 't- �u;`"':�� c°�.. ✓' «:'±' - '.x! ^> � - - .'t�'i � - -
___ :3. - %'e;. =_ - * ,{ - - -' •,Y ->:•�° '_gi. � ` +, _ J +2}x�` ti'vn " {�n:- c:.-:M' L_. -:fi.� jrf •:'•`;. ":3.
_ ��"'a = »`'% ..sk . *.s-r =.' `:�"',°- ;�.i', a�.y,. � ,.i`�'- !_+,I.J`.:. • -,y{y; - ..1� v ,R " t�' i .�!
=
R °� �' _" '`"4,: •.:i'. =; °� x�4 " ;.'y ",:• `_'' x7 «'.i 3 - - =`ti- . , f. •: "M . -+✓', s v �y,.�'
i2Lae,
;�.• .yfrr,; <`j,. °v'�"`'t.;;'•d /, "`�,': `�``:.� .;3..• "�^- ':;':c�',!"_tr £ �` •
°�� ` r' _ y ..1 'tpac.^'tFr,. •- " -- _ y >x
I.4.Y
_ L
j, l,.:X :_ '"�'�I.
- - '`s`�,:�__ ,`?y., .'. t- `S tl-t: ?%r'1 =F - "_ ._r "'.',c:"•,u..: a:, ;. _- ;:',rya °. -
-°,, }:''}Yn4•.,
v'?..
'.. ;, ", t S „`- 0r.•s' a• .r,:r'
_ � ,,..;{ :,.r•"-a ; v,.y:.",yci” >„ ,.t,.a; ! r�'�'"? ~mot `
y:s.,ee;;,,,+« %+,..:., - r. r•i'" - - _ cam," -;'-� .. ., Y?.k;, ' e S"-'' �_,I „? ,,,`,33� � ^:',�1, �,,f
- '•_ ,. ;;a,p` x^,..a_`._ - ��;'�w � _^�=' J- [ ?e,'`'- � kr..";'� a: _ - : ",:'r>r +d �t,� • _ `C �,'.y�
IV
-
~'-' -„=
4.� _ �,. ;;;C,- _ YKtci�i” ,7J'/ �:! _ �I ...x -; i•.;,� I' .,�,.:9 '•.^ Fa�s$ e:,g�
f -
SITE LOCATION
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Project No. BD 5107AC FIGURE
Feet Bridge No. 229 over North Prong
1 inch = 2,000 feet Stinking Quarter Creek on SR 3118 I Guilford County, NC
Source. Sing Maps Aerial, Microsoft copyright 2011

Bridge No. 229 on SR 3118 (Shatterly Road) (TIP No. BD - 5107AC)
Looking east across wetland. 10/31/2013

Ln
O
(n
-O
r
C
c4
O
Y
rn
L
c
P•
_
v
c
m
c
w
w
M
co
M
U
U
Q
a�
tM
M
°�
s
m
a�
a
-o
LL L
a)
C
O
c
U)
�
'>
_0
U
C
C
X
N
N
L
O
U
N
Q
`
N
cu
En
N
p
Q
O
C
N
CO
a'
Y
J
'
D-
cu
cu
O
U
cu
N
O
"0
d
N
L
to
_
O
to
E
-•
U)
L
L
U
(n
Z
N
O
L
M
c
t`
c
O
-O
N
t�
U)
O
N
d
cu
�
d 00
Q
c
=
D
Y
L
7
U
Q
`°
c
`
i Q
cn
c
m
>
m
a
m
a
a a
E
o
cn
a
a
a
r
Q
E
H :° H
cm Z
o
+p
c
. «
V
V
Q
Ci
U)
=
—
o
C7
v
c
16
m
w
1°
E
°'
(D
C6
`°
Y
c
O
011
d
c W
o
p
p
`
a
U
Z
z
c
;
D
a
a
Q
()
c a Q
c
co
Q
c
3
m E 3 Z
E
y
c
�
E
m
p
o
CN
_
M
2
-
c
o
m o
N cn W
00
N
O
Q
U
o
a
L
o
N
3
E
� '
m
U
m
Z
cc
u
_
O Of 2
O
V
O
O
L
J
m
N
N
-a
N
2
3
m
3
a�
>
n
o
a
U O
C�
a
m
y
n
°'
cn
rn
O
�
QI
=
T>1
N
O
N
cu
(i
m
f0
C
O
U
to
. N
O
N
CD
0
C
2
U
L_
N
U
O
L
41
cq
N
(n
3
N
m
_
N
cn
M
r'
jj
O
C
O
C
�'
N
7
N
O
O
N
'O
m
O
C
N
U
Q
U
ca
Z
y
0
n
o
o
'O
15
E
o
U)
ro
-12
LL
y
CL
o
N
a
m
a)
N
E
p
Z3
m
m
m
cn
p
O
V)
-0
a)
o-
c
CL
m
X
1°
o
aci
o
°c
co
m
C7
U
c
>
a
cn
o
2
a)
c i
o
d
m
E
°f
M
•c
�
CL
c
w
°
o
c
o
m
is
M
M
2
r
Q
v
o
N
Q
0U1
C
O
O
d
U)
cE
C
H
p
Q
y
a
O'
m
V
R
"
0
d
a
a
d
m
a
o
o
0)
Qi
lE
a
d
v
`
a
O
v
C
H
O
O
H
O
CL
O
v
=
C
c
C
a
O)
y
d
L
a)
t0
d
O
R
C
++
D
O
K
C
••
>
(.i
�•
R
•
p
.
O
T
y
J
E
.O
H
I-
C
-
O
c
d
a
O
a
o
c
O
m
p
U
O
J
V
IM"r
a
N
cc
m51 a
r-
c
ad
`
ON
°V
Q
m
0<w)CD
U
o`
Qa5
aUOUWaz
7
CE

C
k
.
0
� a
�
9)
§
'\
>
E
§ 0
,
�
®
■
{
■
U
_
.
�
2
it
�e
p
c
z
Cl)
CL
\
/
�\
§�
§ 0 LU (
E
2
E
E
`
%Iw
22
2
°
>
2
E
CD ■z
$.E�
\
■
f
-&
)r
.
CL
§
)
/k
\\
2 t a
\
k
°
)
o
c
LU
.2
®
§
j
cc
v
£
2
r
m
'
2
tt
§ %
.
\
±
�
a
■
�
.
7 E
[
.
\
ƒ
§
z
f
&
�5
k
/
\
z
{)�
§
4�
`
>�
LL-
2

LO
A,\
.
0
1
n.
�
a.
.
c
o
/
.
k
>
/
c
,
\
'
.
a
«
§
z
�
f E�
) /�
°c
o��
@
%
2
©
E
,
E�
/
CL
o U) LLJ
%
/
@ 2 7
■
U
�
/ k
F-
,
$
z
-
AD
CD
k
§
z
1
§
}
$
E
7
E
�
J
.
�
2
—
a \
o
2
�
D

. \
_0
\A
-
© —
\
»
0
\
_
S,
\
\
IL
\
§
E
f
.\
>
\
\
k
k
R
Q
-
�
\
LA
2
.
%
a
%
ƒ
=
fz
\
E�
§ ƒ�
f
(t
.
,
�
/
% w
®
�
� o
3
E
E
cc
@
CL
� �LU
)
2 2§
\
0 Co
,
J
2 m
z
CL
.
E
0
�
2
�
\
j
0
\(
o
e
)�\
�
�
�

«\
®
2 ,%
,
=f
k§ \\m%2
w�
- - - --
7$q§2[2
k-33M2g
«qR ƒ5\
LO
\
�¢ -
(D te a =
)-D
E .S0
°
� 2)
/`
IL
ee�t=
c
ƒ}7CU §e{
-0.0
'/
E -0
!4420&
] --
\- Ko
= =cam.
o 0 cu
a) (U E a)
7e�m §0�
oZn -c as
e @ @ 8 5 � E
t ®±m&f&2
co '0
Efaal•'m
E2 @%
\S0q& -2,
2 -0
3' .2 0 �
E2CL\�2f\
$ m = ! or - e
m °cp£ - %E
%
e ® \L2 fito $
e =��$ ƒ�
z
2
2®e% Ema
«
3wE�_o E
/
ee�
27�
§�
®
=82Gk
-0
/�
k���
r-0o
/ \° \§ .
o
E
21 Ek3: 7 \
2§
«
§£k�2$2Ec
,
$3z
E�
0}og22_
a
=uo(U -0
& _ _ ® - o
0
0 - % %%&
§ �§
§2
co
®Ca j -/j
«7®32e5�%
o
¥°f`�
®za
u o
e
eQa)a) 0
mn° - oe-
m
0) + C CL M
cn� m
@78=
0
@�f@
z
=«mC± §c2
§ -eon=
\)2/27/
#a\@ a) \)
/%\ /¥
§ ±
f
o$r
g = -0
_
a
» °G�7m%C
a) a�a --
20.0
0k[
°�-f�
�ea2�,0
°«2'4\ #-0
I\ = ==«'-
$m /%o�.EE
m- 5 =a -£E
!) o e - o o
.2
`
a) E
/ E - = e
c �
�$ /«e E§
�&E_
f�Ea)0"L)
.
3f]f ?! /=
»jc= /72E
/aSk%
r
C,}
$t£
a) �22�;x tr:
0 $
j,(U
\)®
a®G }>/{\
E�
2$ = =cc
:}
(u :E¥=cm®
44 `
J
CL ate££
\2q
;
=gy=
2 m
) 2
0 m0U)ca
cu Lnco $ &
«*o���.
/77&§&§/

i��
iii
:,
�;,,
I.
,
��;����
■
1
111111
I
:.
����
��i
�
�
�
�
�
��
���
.
�,

4S
ago,,
40^
Ai-
Qr
rs
4It
AIL

Iw
Wa
••�y� � toy'' _ _ ;r.-;-..
�� �� ^� � Yj ��1 �,�•' , V tit - «�•{
' - 1� * `�-sS � �f ~� ~ � -r1 \ �� a �+' ..!•_- 7_� �' /r
j �,• a ^, ��, X1.7`' 'Mrt 1
ice+ � - �./� ^•��•'f� /.� ��•�1�., r ��, L�� .
^� �• a �.,�..r._�_.' , — r
Map Location Soils Map
NC North DOT Bridge 229 over I
Prong GUILFORD ALAMANCE Shatterly Road, Liberty, NC
Stinking Quarter -- I
Guilford County
Guilford County Soil Sheet --
D• April CHATHAM 2,000 feet

PKWA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Programs
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder John E. Skvada, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 2, 2014
Robert Lepsic
Arcadis
801 Corporate Center Dr, Suite 300
Raleigh NC 27607
Subject: NCDOT BD -5107 AC, Bridge No. 229 on SR3118, Guilford County
North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek [Cape Fear Basin, CPF03, 16- 19 -8 -1, WS -V, NSW]
On -Site Determination for Applicability to the, Jordan, Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0267)
On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0506(h))
Dear Mr. Lepsic
On December 17, 2013, at your request and in your attendance, Sue Homewood NC Division of Water
Resource ( NCDWR) staff, conducted an on -site determination to review drainage features located in the
vicinity of Bridge #229 on SR3118 in Guilford County for applicability to the Jordan River buffer Rules
and for applicability to the mitigation rules (15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)). The drainage features are
approximated on the attached map initialed and dated January 2, 2014.
NCDWR has determined that the stream feature labeled as "sa" on the attached map is perennial within
the project area and the stream feature labeled as "sb" on the attached map is intermittent within the
project area. Please note that no other features at the site were evaluated or please note that other sites
identified in the jurisdiction verification request package but not reviewed on site by NCDWR will be
considered accurate as presented. Also, this letter only addresses applicability to the Jordan Buffer Rules
at the site specifically marked on the attached map and does not apply to reaches of the channel [or
drainage feature] further downstream from the NCDOT project area, or to any other drainage features in
the vicinity.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and the buffer rules and does not
approve any activity within the buffer, Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State. Any impacts
to wetlands, streams and buffers must comply with the Jordan Buffer Rules, 404/401 regulations, water
supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B .0216), and any other required federal, state and local regulations.
Please be aware that even if no direct impacts are proposed to the protected buffers, sheet flow of all new
stormwater runoff as per 15A NCAC 2B . 0267 is required.
The owner (or future owners) or permittee should notify NCDWR (and other relevant agencies) of this
determination in any future correspondences concerning this property and/or project. This on -site
determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Ralegh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919 - 807 -63001 FAX: [phone]
Internet www.ncwatemuality.ora
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by NCDWR or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a
determination by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the
Director in writing c/o Amy Chapman, NCDWR Wetlands /401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699 -1650.
Individuals that dispute a determination by NCDWR or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a
surface water from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You may obtain the petition
form from the office of Administrative hearings. You must file the petition with the office of
Administrative Hearings within sixty (60) days of receipt of this notice and the date the affected party
(including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. A petition is considered
filed when it is received in the office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office
of Administrative Hearings accepts filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:OOam and
5:OOpm, except for official state holidays. The original and one (1) copy of the petition must be filed with
the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The petition may be faxed- provided the original and one copy of the document is received by the Office
of Administrative Hearings within five (5) business days following the faxed transmission.
The mailing address for the Office of Administrative Hearings is:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -6714
Telephone: (919)- 431 -3000, Facsimile: (919)- 431 -3100
A copy of the petition must also be served on DENR as follows:
Mr. Lacy Presnell, General Counsel
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Sue Homewood at 336-
771 -4964 or sue.homewood @ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
DWR Winston -Salem Regional Office
Attachments: Topo Map
Arcadis provided stream/wetland map
cc: Eric Alsmeyer US Army Corps of Engineers — Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (e -copy only)
WSRO NCDWR Regional Office
NCDWR Wetlands 401 Transportation permitting Unit File Copy

,-i 1 1 7_._! 14

ARCADIS
Infrastructure, environment, buildings
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
_ ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
North Carolina 27607
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.arGadis- us.com
Subject:
Request for a Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the United States within the TRANSPORTATION
project study area — BD- 5107AC, Bridge No. 229 over North Prong Stinking Quarter
Creek on SR 3118 (Shatterly Road), Guilford County, NC.
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer
Attached is a revised request for Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the United Date: December 30, 2013
States at the subject site. The revisions are based on our on -site field meeting on
December 17, 2013. The revisions include eliminating a portion of WA and SB and
updating the SB stream forms. contact:
Robert Lepsic
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by phone or by
Phone:
email. Thank you. 919.854.1282
Sincerely, Email:
robert.lepsic @arcadis-
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc. us.com
Imagine the result
Our ref:
NC612002.6229
Robert Lepsic
Senior Scientist
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
Copies:
Jerry Parker, NCDOT
NC Engineering License # C -1869
Tim Jordan, HMM
NC Surveying License # C -1869
Sue Homewood, NCDWR
File
Imagine the result

Jill' --Ogg* -ti -'r.' �•
•- r 1 f
tt to 1=4
alz 'a
Q6 J
Study Area ="
oo
SITE LOCATION
N 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Project No. BD5107AC FIGURE
Feet Bridge No. 229 over North Prong
Stinking Quarter Creek on SR 3118
1 inch = 2,000 feet Guilford County, NC
Source: Bing Maps Aerial, Microsoft copyright 2011

r
,
i.
-' �
�
✓,
r�
•
`,�
��
-�+
t
e
i
t�
�.i:
-' �
,�
e
i
t�
�.i:

'00W ilk
T -
m
MR-0-21
1a 560-18
Wa- 9
sb-03
,wa-01
C Sai
sa -05
sb-031 sa-06
ME
V
t.
jt
sa -05
sb-031 sa-06
ME

r y
fa
f Ai
-��L� � {� ..� �. �- � ^+.- .� .; rc-:.." �!" z-L� yr►
Wk

Bridge No. 229 On SR 3118 Replacement (BD 5107AC)
SB looking east 10/31/2013
WA looking east 10/31/2013

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Site is located on North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek ( NPSQC)
in Guilford County. NPSQC (SA) is a perennial stream. UT to NPSQC (SB) is intermittent and WA is a wetland directly abutting SB. SB
and WA are located adjacent to SR 3118 and within a maintianed powerline right of way. NPSQC flows directly into the Haw River
approximately 2 miles to the north.
State:NC County/parish/borough: Guilford City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.9775° N, Long. - 79.5426° E.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17S
Name of nearest waterbody: North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Haw River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Haw River Subbasin 03030002
Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc... ) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION I1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 800 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.07 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):'
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
'Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
'For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: >10.0 square miles
Drainage area: >10.0 square miles
Average annual rainfall: 43.6 inches
Average annual snowfall: 7.6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 10-15 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1(or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.

Identify flow route to TNW5: North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek (SA) flows into Stinking Quarter Creek then Big
Alamance Creek then into the Haw River (TNW). The UT to North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek (SB) flow into North
Prong Stinking Quarter Creek and follows the same route to the Haw River.
Tributary stream order, if known: SA is third order. SB is zero order.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that annlv):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man- altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: SA 20 -30 feet. SB 1 -2 feet
Average depth: SA 2 -4 feet. SB 1 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type /% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: The stream banks of SA are low and well
protected by vegetation. They are stable and no erosion was observed in the study area. SB stream banks are low and stable.
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain: SA has a well developed riffle /pool sequence. It has long cobble
dominated riffles and deep pools with some woody debris. SB is a sand silt bed riffle dominated stream with no pools.
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): Both streams 2 -5 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: SA is perennial. SB is intermittent.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics: Both stream have well developed bed and banks. SB classified
as intermittent many due to the lack of alluvial features.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
❑ shelving
❑
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
❑ sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings /characteristics ❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: flow was clear in both streams.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Portions of SA riparian corridor are narrow due to hayfield and
pasture. SB riparian corridor is narrow due to SR 3118 (Shatterly Road) which parallels the stream. SB and WA are located in a
maintained powerline right of way. The riparian corridor is dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: SB has an abuting herbaceous headwater wetland (WA).
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.07 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Headwater wetland (WA) located on a zero order stream (SB).
Wetland quality. Explain: Quality is low. WA scored 27 on the NCDWQ wetland rating worksheet.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain: WA abutts SB and SB is an intermittent stream.
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics: Flow is contained within the stream channel and floodplain. Wetland is located within the floodplain.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
® Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Connected by surface flow when flowing. Also connect by SB
flood flows when SB overflows its banks.
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 10-15 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2 -year or less floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: SA and SB flows were clear.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Herbaceous vegetation. Located within a maintained powerline
right of way.
® Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain: Dominated by herbaceous. Located within a maintained powerline right of way.
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and /or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: WA directly abutts SB. Any over bank flow flows into WA. The high watertable associated with SB influences
WA.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: NPSQC (SA) is a perennial stream and flows into the Haw River approximately 10 miles to the east hvia
a system of RPW. SA scored 38.5 on the NCDWQ stream identification form. SB is intermittent. It scored 22.5 on the
NCDWQ stream identification form.
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (fl).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year - round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: .
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: There is no berm along SB. The wetland continues across SB.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.07 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.0 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) :lo
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands:
acres.
NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑
Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers,
❑
Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑
Other non - wetland waters:
❑
Wetlands: acres.
streams): linear feet width (ft).
acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24000 Reidsville.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Guilford County Soil Survey 1997.
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Bing Aerial 2011.
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs 10/31/2013.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Bridge No. 229 on SR 3118 Replacement (BD 5107AC) City /County: Guilford County Sampling Date: 31 Oct, 2013
Applicant /Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: WA -01 wet
Investigator(s): R. Lepsic Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0 -3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.9765 Long: -75.5431 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Floodplain adjacent to SB. Located parallel to SR 3118 and within a maintained powerline right of way
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
✓ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) ✓
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0.2
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Standing water in areas immediately adjacent to SB.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20'x 20' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20'x 20' )
1 Sambucus nigra
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20'x 20' )
1 Persicaria sagittata
2. Solidage sp.
3 Persicaria pensylvanica
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20'x 20' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: WA -01 wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0% =Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
5 Y FACU
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
- 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5 °% ° = Total Cover
-
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
80 Y OBL
-
5 N
5 N FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
90% = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
0% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Maintained powerline right of way. No canopy species.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -01 wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -1 10 YR 3/3 100
silt clay many fine roots
1 -6 10 YR 5/2 60
5 YR 4/6 40 D PL
clay many medium prominent
I
6 -12+ 10 YR 5/1 70
5 YR 4/4 40 D PL
many medium prominent
i
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (All 0) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Bridge No. 229 on SR 3118 Replacement (BD 5107AC) City /County: Guilford County Sampling Date: 31 Oct, 2013
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: WA -01 up
Investigator(s): R. Lepsic Section, Township, Range:
Landform ( hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): 0 -3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.9765 Long: -75.5431 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Hillslope up gradient (northerly) of WA.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (610)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -01 up
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Wooded area upslope of WA. Located between WA and pasture
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'x 30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Juglans nigra
40
Y FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2 Morus rubra
10
Y FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
50%
=Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30'x 30'
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1 Alnus serrulata
20
Y OBL
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
-
3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
10.
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20%
= Total Cover
-
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' x 30' )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Microstegium vinemeum
80
Y FAC
-
2 Solidage sp.
20
Y
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
100%
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'x 30' )
height.
1 Vitis rotundafolia
20
Y FAC
2 Toxicodendron radicans
5
Y FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
✓
g
Present? Yes No
25%
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Wooded area upslope of WA. Located between WA and pasture
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -01 up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -1 10 YR 3/3 100
clay many fine roots
1 -12+ 10 YR 4/6 100
clay
'T e: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicators not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Oriains v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cir a -one -
IL
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2: 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
2
._ 3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
._ 3
3, In- channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0 1
0.5
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ^` )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5�
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5 '
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3,,
C. Biology Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
t 3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
- 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
'0 `
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
.0.5
- ,
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes: -
Sketch:
- v-
41

USACE AID#
D WQ #.
Site # (indicate on attached map)l
IM -AQP
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation:
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's n
4. Time of evaluation
6. River basin:
> r�
8. Stream order: �>
10. Count} :
12. Subdivision name (if any)
Longitude (ex. - 77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /G1S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streatn(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any)
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES; NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
% Forested
22. Bankfull width:
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6-/ Comments:
1_
Evaluator's Signature rL oo Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
fjy �
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
U — 4
0 — 5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges =max Dints)
0 -5
0 -4
0-4
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 - 4
0-4
;
(no discharge = 0, springs, seeps wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
U— 4
0— �
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
I
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; fre uent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 — 4
0 — 2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0 — 4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0, little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &; banks = max points)
l 3
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
U --
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
(no visible roots = 0: dense roots throw hout = max quints)
] 5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle -pool /ripple -pool complexes
0 -3
0-5
0 -6
-- >
(no riffles, , ripples or pools = 0: well-developed = max points)
l
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max)
LO
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
U - 5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0— 4
0— 4
0— 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
t00
100
l00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
fjy �

�8 j
NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Oriqins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: / 1 ,
itg' Prq)egTS H F
�• ✓ 1, --
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:/�
Longitude: - �5
0
c ! -_
2
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other C/ rti �v: //c
Stream is at least intermittent , V
if >_ 19 or perennial if ;� 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = / `i )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
< Yes = 3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
" 1
2
3
T Recent alluvial deposits
0
,�_`1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
.y
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
`;:
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Ao = 0
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = �, -6-_ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
C-AC-1
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
< Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
,'�
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
7
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 - Other = 0'
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
-
41

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: i'''' 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: i 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: !�
9. Length of reach evaluated: ,t 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): L r- Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): =
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 'y �
17. Identify an}, special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES'. NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential
'" e`%o Forested
1 /
22. Bankfull width:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_% Commercial _% Industrial 1� % Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (>10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature i /', Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.

ST
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
.I,
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
�J
i
#
CHARACTERISTICS
S
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
(no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-11
(no buffer = 0. contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0- 4
U(no
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0_}
0— 4
0— 2
j
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
.{
a
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
r'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0. natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
l l
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 — S
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
>+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points
„E",,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
0.4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
\
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
1_
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber productionL
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
v -s
o -a
0-5
� -
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
5
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
U -
0-6
— %�-
d
I
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
,
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
'
19
Substrate embeddedness
ILIA *
0-4
0 — 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
nce of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
ce = 0; common, numerous types =max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
ce = 0; common, numerous ty es = max points)
��
Presence of fish
Len
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
ce = 0; common numerous types =max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
ence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
n first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
�J
i

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name Nearest Road
County Wetland area acres Wetland width
Name of evaluator
Wetland location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other:
Soil series:
predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
predominantly mineral - non -sandy
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
_ Pocosin
Bog forest
Date
Adjacent land use
(within '/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
Y forested/natural vegetation %
agriculture, urban/suburban %
impervious surface %
Dominant vegetation
(1)
(2) '
(3)
feet
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog /fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina bay
Other:
The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
R
Water storage
x 4.00 =
0
A
Bank/ShoreIine stabilization
x 4.00 =
0
Wetland
T
Pollutant removal
xk x 5.00 =
rating
I
Wildlife habitat
x 2.00 =
0
`�
N
Aquatic life value
x 4.00 =
0
G
Recreation/Education
.� x 1.00 =
0
**Add I
point if insensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint source disturbance within 1/2 inile upstream, upslope, or radius

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0015
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
o� ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
f ~ PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM
# v This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not .
or Y P P J
z valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BD- 5107AC
WBS No: 45353.1.30
F.A. No: BRZ- 3118(1)
Federal Permit Required?
County: Guilford
Document: Not Listed
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
❑ Yes ❑ No Permit Type: To be determined
Project Description: NCDOT's Division 7 proposes to replace Bridge No. 229 on SR 3118 (Shatterly
Road) over the North Prong of Stinking Quarter Creek in Guilford County. Bridge No. 229 was built in
1957, and is considered to be functionally obsolete. There may be minor ditch -line impacts. An off -site
detour is to be used during construction. The proposed project measures approximately 638 feet (0.121
mile) long by a proposed ROW width of 100 feet. Based on these measurements, the Area of Potential
Effects (APE) measures approximately 63,800 square feet or about 1.46 acres, inclusive of the existing
roadway and structure.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (7VCD07) Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:
® There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area of
potential effects.
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources considered
eligible for the National Register.
❑ All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and GS 121 -12(a) has been completed for this project.
® There are no National Register Eligible or Listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present or
affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
RECOMMENDATION
An archaeological investigation of Bridge No. 229 on SR 3118 (Shatterly Road) over the North Prong of
Stinking Quarter Creek in Guilford County was conducted in September 2013, by New South Associates,
Inc. (NewSouth). Shawn Patch, Principal Investigator for NewSouth, prepared the following summary
(see below). During the course of the survey, no archaeological sites were identified within the current
project's APE. No further archaeological investigations are required for this bridge replacement project.
I concur with this recommendation since the proposed bridge replacement will not impact significant
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
13 -07 -0015
archaeological resources. A finding of "no historic properties" is considered appropriate in association
with this bridge replacement project. Should the description of this project or design plans change prior
to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s)
Signed:
NCDOT ARCHAE d
❑ Previous Survey Info
IST
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
® Photos E] Correspondence
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
September 24, 2013
Date
"The project's Area of Potential Effects (APE) along SR 3118 (Shatterly Road) at Bridge No. 229 over
the North Prong of Stinking Quarter Creek Guilford County was subjected to an intensive archaeological
survey (Figure 1). In September 2013, New South Associates, Inc. completed shovel testing within the
project APE at 30 meter intervals to survey for potential archaeological resources. The purpose of the
fieldwork was to investigate the possibility of unknown archaeological resources that might be impacted
by the proposed undertaking. The APE for this study measured approximately 638 feet (192.33 m) long
by 100 feet wide and is 1.46 acre in size. The APE is characterized by gently sloping uplands, drained by
the creek below (Photo 1). Soils within the APE consist of Mecklenburg sandy clay loam with 6 -10%
slopes, eroded (MhC2), Chewacla sandy loam (Ch), and Iredell fine sandy loam with 04% slopes (IrB)
(USDA Soil Survey 2013).
A map review and site files search was conducted by Mr. Paul Mohler of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeologist, at the Office of State Archaeology, on August 1, 2013. This
search found that a comprehensive archaeological survey has never been conducted at this location and no
archaeological sites have been recorded within a one -half (1/2) mile of the proposed project. Mohler also
reviewed digital copies of HPO's maps (Kimesville Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service
(http: / /gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) on Monday, August 19, 2013. There are no known historic architectural
resources located within the project area that may have intact archaeological deposits within the footprint
of the proposed project. A review of historic maps found two structures on either side of the bridge on the
northwest side of Shatterly Road on a 1938 state highway map that could have some archaeological
remains within the APE.
The intensive archaeological survey excavated a total of 13 shovel tests at 30 meter intervals (98.43 feet)
along two transects, one located on either side of the existing road within the APE (Figure 3). All shovel
tests measured at least 30 centimeter (12 inch) diameter and were excavated to at least 10 centimeters (4
inches) into sterile subsoil. All excavated soils and sediments were screened through mesh screen (0.64
centimeter, 0.25 inch) and all shovel tests were backfilled. A visual inspection of the surface was also
done in conjunction with subsurface testing. A typical soil profile was 0 to 10 centimeters of brown
(7.5YR5/4) silt loam (Stratum I) with 11 centimeter of light brown (7.5YR6/4) silt subsoil. The subsoil
contained a high density of gravel and stream loams. No archaeological remains were identified in the
APE through either surface survey or shovel testing.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 1007 Programmatic Agreement.
2of3

Project Tracking No.:
113-07-0015
Based on the shovel testing results, no further archaeological investigations are required for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 3118 in Guilford County. The proposed improvements will not impact any
significant archaeological resources."
Photo 1: View of Bridge No. 229, looking northeast.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 3

u
x z'_
LA
sso
4.
• Q
321� - • 1 - fi
ee
�tsrt ,
— — ... APE - T
r
• Ile SR 3118
i
T
.yam"' • -
to - � .. � . _ ' 1,� • 1 � �� J' - - - 7 ,f
r / <, r /
1
APE (Bridge No 229)
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
0 100 200 400 Meters
Source: 2010 Kimesville 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle

I"W
f
V
f
a
v
L

Project Tracking No.
13 -07 -0015
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' '' This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not t 4E I
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the ;.
...:..:®
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. 4
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BD- 5107AC
WBS No: 45353.1.30
F.A. No: BRZ- 3118(1)
Federal Permit Required?
County: Guilford
Document: Not Listed
Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
❑ Yes ❑ No Permit Type: To Be Determined
Project Description: NCDOT's Division 7 proposes to replace Bridge No. 229 on SR 3118 (Shatterly
Road) over the North Prong of Stinking Quarter Creek in Guilford County. Bridge No. 229 was built in
1957, and is considered to be functionally obsolete. There may be minor ditch -line impacts. An off -site
detour is to be used during construction. The proposed project measures approximately 638 feet (0.121
mile) long by a proposed ROW width of 100 feet. Based on these measurements, the Area of Potential
Effects (APE) measures approximately 63,800 square feet or about 1.46 acres, inclusive of the existing
roadway and structure.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEYREQUIRED
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
A map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Thursday,
August 1, 2013. A comprehensive archaeological survey at this particular bridge location has never been
conducted, and no archaeological sites have been recorded within one -half (1/2) mile of the proposed
project. Digital copies of HPO's maps (Kimesville Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service
(http: / /gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Monday, August 19, 2013. There are no known
historic architectural resources located within the project area that may have intact archaeological
deposits within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps
(NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and historic orthophotography were utilized and inspected
to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the
project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive -type
disturbances within and surrounding the archaeological APE.
This is a Federally - funded project that may or may not require a Federal permit and permanent or
temporary easements. Whether a Federal permit will be required was not conveyed with the information
provided for the project. Existing ROW along SR 3118 (Shatterly Road) appears to measure
approximately 60 feet; therefore, there may be impacts up to 20 feet beyond the existing ROW along the
project corridor. From an environmental perspective, the APE consists of gently sloping uplands, drained
by the North Prong of Stinking Quarter Creek, and is composed of Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 -10%
slopes, eroded (MhC2), Chewacla sandy loam (Ch), and Iredell fine sandy loam, 04% slopes (IrB).
Despite the presence of eroded soils to the south and west and poorly drained soils along the drainage
itself, the eastern half of the APE consists of moderately well drained soils on a relatively level land
surface overlooking the North Prong of Stinking Quarter Creek, thus the potential for intact
archaeological deposits exists. It is this level landform that should be the focus of any archaeological
investigations within the project corridor. Based on the information provided, an archaeological survey is
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transponation Projects as Qualified in the 1007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 2

Project Tracking No.
13 -07 -0015
recommended for the proposed project. A visual inspection of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) should
be conducted first, followed then by systematic archaeological excavations within areas of moderate to
high archaeological probability. Should the description of this project change or design plans be made
available prior to construction, additional consultation regarding archaeology will be required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST — SURVEYREQUIRED
NCDOT ARCHADQ16GIST
August 19, 2013
Date
PROPOSED FIELDWORK COMPLETION DATE February 19, 2014
NN
J
r
Figure 1: Kimesville, NC (USGS 1970 [PR 1982]).
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED " form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 2

IF

V
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
13 -07 -0015
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
t" NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
if 11
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
BD- 5107AC
County:
Guilford
WBS No.:
45353.1.30
Document
Type.-
Fed Aid No:
BRZ- 3118(1)
Funding:
❑ State X Federal
Federal
X Yes No
Permit
Stated as "not yet known" in
Permit(s):
Type (s):
review request, so assume
Federal
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 229 on SR 3118 (Shatterly Road) over Stinking
Quarter Creek (off -site detour planned).
giiMMARV OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions: HPOWeb reviewed on 20 August 2013
and yielded no NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Guilford County
current GIS mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicated an APE of woodland and
cultivated fields with several late- twentieth- and early - twenty- first - century resources (viewed 20 August
2013). Constructed in 1957, Bridge No. 229 is a 41- foot -long, single -span, steel, stringer /multi -beam
bridge and is not eligible for the National Register according to the NCDOT Historic Bridge Survey as it is
not historically, architecturally, or technologically significant. Google Maps "Street View" confirmed the
absence of critical historic structures and landscapes in the APE (viewed 20 August 2013).
No architectural survey is required for the project as currently defined.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area: APE extends 300 feet from each end of the existing bridge (NE -SW) and 100 feet to either side of
the SR 3118 (Shatterly Road) centerline (SE -NW) to encompass proposed construction activities.
Comprehensive historic architectural survey of Guilford County (1995 -6) and county GIS /tax materials
and other visuals illustrate the absence of significant architectural resources. No National Register - listed
or - eligible properties are located within the APE.
Should any design elements of the project change, including improvements along the off -site
detour route, please notify NCDOT Historic Architecture
as additional review may be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Historic Architecture and landscapes NO SUR 47:Y R601111UiD form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.

BD-5107AC Bridge No. 229 Guilford County
WBS No. 45353.1.30
NCDOT — Historic Architecture
August 2013
Tracking No. 13-07-0015
70
S rhIIFCh $1
87
S*dafla
WhItsett
Groh am
C4
.0 Rd
q-6
.
Ala
U
40
E
% 111-3.
62
ro
GUILFORD
Z f
ALAMANCE
62
Bridge No. 229
1
N
Nrbl
ullan
�a,
2/ .....
cs
R"I"1001P 1
11 .. -- I
Q/,., 14,J
-P
Snow
Camp
rat
RAN60LPH�,,,
1004
BD-5107AC Bridge No. 229 Guilford County
WBS No. 45353.1.30
NCDOT — Historic Architecture
August 2013
Tracking No. 13-07-0015

N m 'O'N `H0131VU
II - 0OH13W SAVMHDIH 30 NOISIAIG
O 1 NOIlVIUOdSNVUi 30 'ld3a
o ° ONIUV313 :i0 aOH13W VNI108VO H18ON
N 1 a03 ONIMVaa aaVONV1S HSII9N3 F7- L 30 3lV1S
I �
m
z Im
C1 w n> 1 r I
mcnm �0 0�� zo
y �,0 U) r- _v xm ma
m xD mmo m m�
-4 Hm ox ��m N Im r, m
Zo C�-+ NN I rn Dr
O __l Hz Or-i 1 zm
x0 mD -Am I
r. m 00 <m r
O anw T O OU) I m �o Ire
V >* 0=1 mo I I
R1 m-1 D D� m
x wz w
D� -nm m )
n z0 �� mm D D
M m -< __q R
A x �_ *x I m
- Dm rT
00 U) --A rm '
C)
OD x CU r I
Z zm 0cn m>
R1 x� z� Omz z \ )�
m m z z cn w
° Im
O c� IO
c °rxn �D or, �,l I� �I
2
cl
70 -G .. m m
cn - m 0 m r-i I D
r-i 2 0 1 U r m .D.
Z 0 m v m
(p mm rx 00� Im I czi
U) D 0 1 2 I
�o D mm �Z d
j• C m
m x- I
' C'f m I �
N p�
O T O z m OI
03 z � I
O
0 m cnx I I
Z m m m
m i r O o� ) I
z H ��
cn �' ( /
m T O z
D
z o
z
a
m > om
m r m I
o z D0
H =7 H
HZ
z z
o m
x
V '
I r
/ m m
m I �-r
O r
cn,
o U)
— r v I �
m y m
M �r m 0 cr- -� r O m I
Nm o to m D�,y N m I
z D 0� r C-)
o r m r
Z D D m< >
m O { z° D
7. H H m o' chi H m �
I mV
D m O, .i <Hs
ZO � Z o Dr Z O v
z z mho 0
D z W� 00m z °Z •• I
z`"o ' \
W C9 O ; G m
x 0 r \ o Im
> o Im
z z -_i z 1 m
En
... r 1 H m\ I
\ I
I I
• �) � im I
I
N = ENGLISH STANDARD DRAWING FOR ' "'� STATE OF
METHOD OF CLEARING NORTH CAROLINA
O j DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
C o METHOD - II DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
N RALEIGH, N.C.

519,2014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
R: \Hydraulics \PERMITS Environmental\ Drawings \BD- 5107AC_hyd_prm_wet_tsh.dgn
CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: BD-5107AC
c
z+
r
�
y�
2�AOAr4
AAa¢g
ON x}tl
r4
rF
.n
>.
~
Z
0
N� ^
m
° 0
c
W
<
I
o
b
r�
m
r)
m
m
O
Z
Z (/7
O
0�b
i
= i•i
A
m
0
�
D
0
0 -v
0
`m
n
Cl
�
n
'y
Z
II II
II
r
=
14
.�
a
Zn
oZ
m
0 /
� m
r-
I
0 m
D
m
° 0
r �
�
z° nu'i N4
y nNNG�I
r =
_
m
m
�Z
3 '" N
Z (/7
m
m
0�b
i
= i•i
A
m
0
�
D
0
0 -v
0
`m
n
Cl
�
n
'y
Z
II II
II
0 0 0
O :74 A
3
m
m m m
(/7 m
N
N
zl
b
O
n O
Z b
a
a
!;1
�y
�
I
v
�
° 0
7 V1V0o
x
D D
z° nu'i N4
y nNNG�I
D V)
z Z
n
m
r7'I
�Z
3 '" N
o S
m
m
0�b
m
m
�y
N
V n
z 0
0 =
y b�
° 0
7 V1V0o
x
D D
z° nu'i N4
y nNNG�I
D V)
z Z
n
z
r7'I
� 0
3 '" N
o S
z
0�b
� 0
N
r
E g
I° z
nz°
d
O
<
W,
m
3
�A
zZ'p;a
0
N
fn
a
a �
b
b�
e �
b
M
O
n`
y
0 =_
a
o
p V �
S �
y g
�a
a
M
Z O
a
b
a
b
n
z
z
v,=3 m
Vf
M O Z Q
;a N = Z
m
m 00
m
< Z x
D D
0 m
� r-a
O cn Z -i
Z `" � O
° >Z
n
c
m
I D
V1
°gym
Do O � n
� go
O i
0
i� II
CID
rt
�Z f 42
CD
�I
--
Y� o rn
� o
I� r
/R
0 I rn
r20
r2
���iP
Z-o \ \\
�0
T
146
1?O
lj
1� o
V n
z 0
0 =
A
° 0
7 V1V0o
x
D D
z° nu'i N4
y nNNG�I
D V)
z Z
z 3 -, :o
z
r7'I
� 0
3 '" N
o S
°
0�b
� 0
N
r
E g
v,=3 m
Vf
M O Z Q
;a N = Z
m
m 00
m
< Z x
D D
0 m
� r-a
O cn Z -i
Z `" � O
° >Z
n
c
m
I D
V1
°gym
Do O � n
� go
O i
0
i� II
CID
rt
�Z f 42
CD
�I
--
Y� o rn
� o
I� r
/R
0 I rn
r20
r2
���iP
Z-o \ \\
�0
T
146
1?O
lj
0
C n
'1
�I�
Z
W
Z
v
IV
m rJ
m 10
Z Q
O m
v
1� o
V n
z 0
0 =
C
° 0
D
D D
^
l J
D V)
z Z
m
z
r7'I
� 0
yb O
z
7o
®
oz O
's
d
N
r
m
m
I° z
nz°
d
O
<
• xc
n >
O x� Z
Zn
oZ
0 •
0 /
r
W
7y0�
0z�
O
Qm
O
•
n
O
GUILFORD COUNTY
�
ALAMANCE COUNTY
kk
�
�
C
m
I
0
9
rvW
moo°
Lh
T
N M
�D
ie Cl
0
C n
'1
�I�
Z
W
Z
v
IV
m rJ
m 10
Z Q
O m
v
o z
V n
z 0
0 =
C
° 0
D
D D
^
l J
D V)
z Z
m
z
r7'I
� 0
3 n O
-� Z
D m
m
n
2
m
m
rn
O
D
N
-'3
m
(n
x x ZO
D
c7
Z
D
D D
z
ro
p i
m m
r7'I
D X
yb O
z
7o
v m
oz O
's
d
N
r
m
m
I° z
nz°
d
3 n O
-� Z
D m
m
n
2
m
m
rn
O
D
N
�0 8r
aM ay
8� c`0
°xvZi xz
rn
ZU�
-'3
m
(n
x x ZO
C
c7
l
�v
�Rx�Vo
z
ro
p i
m�
yb O
o �
o
oz O
's
d
N
r
z
G
I° z
nz°
d
° z
n >
O x� Z
r
W
7y0�
0z�
O
O
�0 8r
aM ay
8� c`0
°xvZi xz
rn
ZU�
O � �
y �
C
�a
l
e�
O � �
y �
l
N
U1
` ,
O � �
y �
N
U1
` ,
N
r
W
O
0
O1
�
9
T

5192014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
•
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■��i■
■111
■■
'
� �;,r ����' •
■
■
■
■
■
■��
■���■
■111
■■
'� ■tar
J
Emir
r
1■■■■■■■■■
'aw
IN
■
700000
law
MOM
R' .
■
■■
■Ili
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
©=
��
■
■
■■
I'.�1
■lid
■I
■
■
■
■
■■
- 1
■
■
■■
111
■`J
■
■
■
■
■■
..
■
■
■
■
■
■
■1�■■1��11111
■■
..
■
■
■
■
■
■
■11
■�1■
■1111
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■.�
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
.''` ICI
■■■
■
■■
1
■■■■■■
1■■■■■■
f.
.
1■■■■■■
1■■■■■■
f
1■■■■
■■
_ _ _ _
•
1
��-------
!
1■■■■■■
J■■■■
_
■■
131
1111111
•
_
- -

599,2014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
R: \Hvdraulics \PERMRS EnAronmental \Drawings \BD- 5107AC hvd arm wet osh 4a.dan
W
CD
n — WLB — —
v :5E K— �\ I
m_ TIT -
� x
�I
Do
0 ca
ca 60.001 c—
Ii ni m
I x 0 0
V' O I
= i � O C\
I I =rn O�
I cn I
c
I 11 Z
I
I
I �
I
I
rn `S
co i
I 5 � I
I
�crm D C
co i i 7v
V) Z I , � �-, Z � y
M M
CD
I I 12/ m
BST
Ln , -
n
T
n
N Z _< o
M08
m Z o II
m I p
0� O
O(",-a
N
< n
+ I =
H
m O
N
H cn ; � � 13
I
Ln
It
N I
I
I
+48
I
z °
A9
Nm wm p
m l;I "A C d (7 m Y m m > 0 9
zn
to ^' z O ' b6 $�r• 1. pz c
bGd ` b o A
O� O AOx 5ti O (p �� �z �r Z o n
Z "d ►!-j� C C7 'td . .1. n n �' M.
0d�rn r 4 0 w ;€ wo
yy
z
p
(Z z rp Z YC
cn
by O
z

5192014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
•
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
`
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■��i
■■
111
■■
■■■■■■RI■EWI■■
SA■■
■■a
,.
■■■■■■R1■■■11111111-0■■
■■■■■■11■■■11m1mH■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
°�
■
■■ii
■
■■■
iJ
■■ro■■
■■ImaI■■■
■
■■
■■MME
■■LJ■■■■
■■
■■111PAI■■■■■■■■■■
ME
!■'
■m
? ■■FAME■■■■
I
���ir
■��'
'
`�i
■
■
■
■
■
■■
ail
!Lail
III
■■
■
■��
JSan�►
■
■��,_
IMAM
©
_�
■
■
■■
■ilia
■i:�
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■��
■
■1��111111
■■
..
■
■
■
■
■
■
■�It��i■
■ill■
�:.,�
■
■
■
■
■
■
■11
■�1■
■111■
,—,
■■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■
I�
..,
■
■
■
■
■
■■
■■■■■■■■
�■■■■■■■■,■■■■■■
1
1
\ 1■■■■■■
1
1■■■■■■
1
` r
1■■■■■■
J
MEME
■OEM
■■
--------
.o - —

519/1014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
W
O
n
D Ul
m
li O
W
O
2
O
N
W
O
rn
�ZZ
m
� M M
::�-v
\\ C
\r I \
UD
I,
60 00' \
N % N `.
r I I \ ^
X \Q
I
' I jj�
co I C
I i 1
�I 1
I �
I �
4 I j
y
co
0 v I
n
�h z BST
cj
I
I- - - - - --
Gu
r ; I
m .In
r
n 1
1
1 I
I'.
I I
1
I
I
I
CZ
a
•
11
.,
..
11
�, '
I
.1
i�
m
D
1
•
i�
taf
I
1
_
�T
I
I
�h z BST
cj
I
I- - - - - --
Gu
r ; I
m .In
r
n 1
.-
O
v
0
X
X
rn
n
rn
D
rn
X
3v
n
N
r
�f.
,-
•
.,
..
�, '
•
.1
• • .
•
i�
taf
CA
�T
l�m
!�
..
L
ate,
.-
O
v
0
X
X
rn
n
rn
D
rn
X
3v
n
N
r
�f.

5/19/1014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
R: \Hydraulics \PERMITS Environmental \Drawings \BD- 5107AC hyd_prm_buRer tsh.dgn
CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: BD-5107odC
-10
309 M
Ul O N
m � Z O
y
m N = Z
r
- z < Z O x 0
m s D D N n
rO
yuA �7 O N z
Z tn D O
irLON�� r Z
n
c
<
< v b o
0 II
C
r m o ^� cn
Lri
O N �J
D DZ II
r b
r a
N
M a
rn
t` O
N2
n
� o0
O rn M Q)
D C) 0 $~
r 2 2 O I r
M to O
—I Q D
X
E �
i co
rn O A r
�
O 5 f� r oo m
Cl X A y I Gm�
i I z
O ° �F I �
N
M 10
a
O
V A I r O
r
3 3 4� _
M — m
O
/a I Z
N 4/ el C\ ..\ Z
b
by ^ a A m I 4\ yo9> t` m D D
y �° x o I I OG�A 1 0 Z C
D D
M
M
o c 7C
aiJ) I _
x IC QQ D
rn
CFl co), \ \
c \Z� \ 0 Q
�� P] D
b
Vf -Mo W z
(Q z tv
co
£ 'S �1 z �i' �,
� o p "o sz z
n >vuoo o Q en 8� VD
aX o
O` 9; ro M O 'rl 40 z t"
3 N U= tt. tog g z m ! t?7 g ��
N_? O Q7 Cz� cn
rA o Q z
z
7� O
Z
�
tr
®
W
U $
r
� O
<
Zn
gz
� �
n
0
x
D
•
T
I
N
GULLFORD COUNIY�
�
ALtFAMANCF. COUNTY
O
r •� pp
o
f:
� y
9
Z
�
tr
W
U $
r
W
O
0
x
o
9
T

5192014
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
R \Hv,I— ira \PFRMITS Fnvirn — tel \13 —i—o RD- 5107AC hvd o m buffer osh 4.d
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
•
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■��i■
■111
■■
� ��;
■■
I ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
:.:
�■
MIN
ou
i■■7■■■■■■
r: R I
■
i
1,
..
\\
" \ j
�.
A■
■■■■■■
mkmh
Woo
.
��
■■��,
III
1
■
■
■
■��
� �';ii!;i'♦
Ii�
awl...'_
"\
\'I'�
■
■
■
■
■
■I��I
.
■i1�i
■�11■il
■
■
■
■
■
■`J
NONE
111■■■■■■
■
■0
!!I
■
■
■■MI
S■E1■■■■■■
T
e
■
■
■
■
■I11■I■
■I■■■■■■
HI■■■■■h,
MNiffiI
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■1'l■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
1■■■■■■
I■■■■■■■■■
`
■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■■
:ryr
■■■
■■■
■1!■■1ma1■■■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■1V■
■11111101
■■
NOON
■
■
■.1
��
1
■■'
��,
■■
NOON
■
■
■■I
■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
' 1�
■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■
■■■■■■
1■■■■■■
I
IMEMNE
I
1■■■■■■
I..
\ .•`•.
1
1■■■■■■
MEMMEM
i

5,19/2014
R: H� roulics \PERMITS Env
CA
C)
D
r-
m
H 0
CA
0
0
N
W
0
m
N�Z
�Z�
m
rn �
--I
c -T,
Alza,
i
/ 8
1
r o
�z
c� I
I �
0n �\
�
i
i
i
i
i
i
W
un
I �
h m
D
r D D
r
O r r r
r O m
D v � �2 A r1
Wm Ow OO ON � Oa ill
A- pm py iim ZD Zy Z
p3 n03 v- mZ mZ
mD av Am p� N
v� OD ON mn n,C ccl Go
WC
N t/I --I (no O m O m
O Z N `T -T
Z zN Om N V� A
m _.O O
.) Z Z
m
m
N J
W �
N �
+� N
L �
T- I
- M
i
Z <iJ
= o
m� Ilo
�
Z O D
l = T � '
� -u Q O "6 N
tz
m
rn N
I
13
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
o �
14
\�S
co
70
p
0
m
W
C
n
m
0
n
-v
m
✓'
GA.
�I
5 -
c -T,
Alza,
i
/ 8
1
r o
�z
c� I
I �
0n �\
�
i
i
i
i
i
i
W
un
I �
h m
D
r D D
r
O r r r
r O m
D v � �2 A r1
Wm Ow OO ON � Oa ill
A- pm py iim ZD Zy Z
p3 n03 v- mZ mZ
mD av Am p� N
v� OD ON mn n,C ccl Go
WC
N t/I --I (no O m O m
O Z N `T -T
Z zN Om N V� A
m _.O O
.) Z Z
m
m
N J
W �
N �
+� N
L �
T- I
- M
i
Z <iJ
= o
m� Ilo
�
Z O D
l = T � '
� -u Q O "6 N
tz
m
rn N
I
13
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
o �
14
\�S
co
70
p
0
m
W
C
n
m
0
n
-v
m
✓'
GA.
�I
W �
N �
+� N
L �
T- I
- M
i
Z <iJ
= o
m� Ilo
�
Z O D
l = T � '
� -u Q O "6 N
tz
m
rn N
I
13
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
o �
14
\�S
co
70
p
0
m
W
C
n
m
0
n
-v
m
✓'
GA.
�I
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
o �
14
\�S
co
70
p
0
m
W
C
n
m
0
n
-v
m
✓'
GA.
�I

5119/201
ICA ENGINEERING, INC.
•
■■
■■■■■■■■■
■
■■
•
■■ME■■■■■■■■■■■■
•
..
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
R
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
••
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
..
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
'
■■■■■■E■NNI■
■1111■■
■
■
■
■
■
■��
■�i�l■
■111
■■
^, �I ■�
= �:
■■■
■■Nl■■■I
PIRM1■■
Ai
■■
i■■
■■IcaI■■■■■■
■■■■■
■■LU■■■■■■
■■
IF
■■■■■■■
■
■■
■E
n■■■■■■■■
o
MEN
'�l��'
■
=','�
■tom
■
■
■
■
■■
; i��s;'
1■!!
�mill
]I■irii■■■■■■
- � I� `
■
■`!��I
--
■■■■"==
i
11INTIMM■■■■IKE
:Y ,
-
11u]
31111W■■■■■■M�
`.
■
■■L#iAUMSE■■■■■■■
■■■■
I11■■■■■■
■
■■
-
I!I■
■
■
■�,�
■�'1
■
■
■
■
■■
1
■N■LVINIMMi■■■■■■
■
■
■
■
■
■11
■
■1��11111
■■
..
' - . .
■
■
■
■
■
■
■11
■Ai■
■1111
■■
■■■■■■■NEWI■
■1111■■
■■■■■■■R■■■■■■■■
' --
■EMOMMEMS■■■■■■■
r
7■■■■■■
1
1■■■■■■
-
1
IMMEEME
4
T.
1
10■■■■■
1
1■■■■■■
- - -
1
1■■■■■■
_ 1
- -1

519/1014
R: \Hydraulics \PERMITS Env
LA
M-10
V)
C-)
D Ul
r
m
H O
W
O
O
N
W
O
rn
NZZ
q T
rn<X
J�v
128
Cb
C -
' � I
Il � Do \\
I
n
t X
rn ZZ
0
1 � 1
0
i
I I
D
D
o r
_ o rn^^
> i :E
G ODD p� r O� OA_ ill
E53: pm W �m mD mD Z
mD n� 7 m p� NZ -Z v
M�
On CA m� oT oT
r-4 NN Zm N `M �T
H C N V A X
m GAO O
N z m
m
N J
T
;c`.
�o
I
I
I -
I
I
V1 `
W
T
T
rn
X
V
n
CIS
rn
i
It
t�--4
(AM
M !o n ma m� ' P
QQyy o
n
`,m� o
N� nZ O z
s N
Z ZC =
R f904 m n(1
n y O
•
r
Ul Z<0
• -
a,.
•
• .
•
iii
cas
..pair
' •
°is
ni
F�
III
••
•
128
Cb
C -
' � I
Il � Do \\
I
n
t X
rn ZZ
0
1 � 1
0
i
I I
D
D
o r
_ o rn^^
> i :E
G ODD p� r O� OA_ ill
E53: pm W �m mD mD Z
mD n� 7 m p� NZ -Z v
M�
On CA m� oT oT
r-4 NN Zm N `M �T
H C N V A X
m GAO O
N z m
m
N J
T
;c`.
�o
I
I
I -
I
I
V1 `
W
T
T
rn
X
V
n
CIS
rn
i
It
t�--4
(AM
M !o n ma m� ' P
QQyy o
n
`,m� o
N� nZ O z
s N
Z ZC =
R f904 m n(1
n y O

m
I�
i II
H / \
N
L Zg
n
m
C7 D_
Fz
F
�y
Y �
N
-4 W
\yt
�ji
TZ�
v
C-
` J
T�
W
O
(I
\O
V
` J
7 /
J/ / rnrnN-i
/yl�mm
Lmpoh0
BST I c, --,DO
'<O -m
_ —� C)Z>
O;v O
m� z
rnmn
V N y
- +4s IoW
-o
62 7
✓S Te
NT
2
+62
� � m
fA T
r r,
Or
v
m
0
/5+00
J0
r ^I
v )
D
03
U1
C-)
'I
C)
O
cn
O
M
n
m
cn
r
H
m
(n
>
m
D
C7
m
H
r
r
m
H
D
N
Fff z
D
�
H
D
O
A
z
m
m
O
m
O
m
x
m
D
co
H
r
H
N
m
m
X
C)
D
T.
Z
m
^
Z
I}
m
�V
D
r
/5+00
J0
r ^I
v )
D
03
U1
C-)
'I
C)