19930369 Ver 1_Complete File_19930407

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NCRTH CARCLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
April 28, 1993

Action ID. 199301980 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
ATTN: Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference is made to your letter of April 5, 1993, concerning the
discharge of fill material into Forbush Creek in association with replacement
of Bridge 0185 (T.I.P. No. B-2182) located on SR 1605, north of west of Enon,
Yadkin County, North Carolina. In that letter you informed us that the
project is being processed as a "Categorical Exclusion" and that you intend to
proceed under Nationwide Permit authorization in accordance with 33 CFR 330
Appendix A (B-23) issued November 23, 1991.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
We concur with your determination that the proposal can be processed as a
"Categorical Exclusion," and that the work is authorized by the above
nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
enclosed conditions. This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management at [phone] regarding a State Water Quality certification.
4 --%
-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. John Thcmas, Raleign 7_,3_:.
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
mfr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
q3&0 `l
i 'U
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
y ,.a STAR' o
N d u" ? ui
.,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 5, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
WETLANDS GROUP M`?
Subject: Yadkin County, SR 1605, Bridge No. 185 over Forbush
Creek, State Project No. 8.2770301, Federal Aid
No. BRZ-1605(1), T.I.P. Number B-2182.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
T
Q
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-9770.
Sincerely,
C B. - Quinn
Assistant Ma ger
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
VMr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
-4i ? - p
Yadkin County
SR 1605
Bridge No. 185 over Forbush Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1605(1)
State Project No. 8.2770301
T.I.P. No. B-2182
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
/Z-
ATE J Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/f 9
3
l ? 24L???
DATE Nichqti6 L. Graf, P.E.
f°2 Division Administrator, FHWA
4 /

Yadkin County
SR 1605
Bridge No. 185 over Forbush Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1605(1)
State Project No. 8.2770301
T.I.P. No. B-2182
CATEGORICAL D(CLUSION
August, 1992
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
?„taftt„?t
,". ,7 sue, ^. Si tt 11 .r.e, 0'.
41
Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
For North Carolina Department of Transport ti
M aa?L' a???
L G Grimes, .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Q-./ - r! .
J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager
14
Yadkin County
SR 1605
Bridge No. 185 over Forbush Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1605(1)
State Project No. 8.2770301
T.I.P. No. B-2182
Bridge No. 185 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion'.
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 185 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be
replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 28 feet and length of 220 feet.
The structure will provide a 22 foot travelway and three foot shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure should be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 22 foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $624,500. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $551,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1605 is classified as a rural minor collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. The paved secondary road serves a rural area of
Yadkin County near the Yadkin River and US 421 (see Figure 1). The land use is
predominately woodland and cultivated fields in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 1605 has an 18 feet wide pavement with seven foot shoulders (see Figure
2). The approach roadway is flat near the bridge with the western approach sloping toward
the bridge about 200 feet back. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a 6°00'
curve approximately 250 feet from the bridge to the west, and a 9°00' curve about 730 feet to
the east. The roadway is situated about 27 feet above the creek bed.
The traffic volume is projected to be 1100 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) by 1995 and 1900 VPD by
the year 2015. The volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TEST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted; therefore, it is assumed to be 55 mph.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1923. The superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete deck girders, and the substructure consists of reinforced concrete end bents and
piers. There are no existing utilities attached to the bridge structure.
The overall length of the bridge is 213 feet. Clear roadway width is 20.0 feet. The bridge
does not have a posted weight limit.
Bridge No. 185 has a sufficiency rating of 25.6, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from January 1, 1989
to December 31, 1991.
Two school buses cross the bridge twice a day. School activity buses cross the bridge daily
a varied number of times.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternative alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment
would result in excessive cost and undesirable environmental consequences.
The 'do-nothing' alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1605.
The alternative of providing on-site detours is not reasonable due to excessive cost and low
traffic volumes.
The Division Office concurs with closure of the bridge and that traffic can be detoured along
existing roads during construction (see Figure 1).
The Yadkin County School Transportation Supervisor has no objections if Bridge No. 185 is
closed during the construction period.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Structural Removal $ 21,300
Structure 369,600
Roadway Approaches 39,700
Miscellaneous & Mobilization 89,400
Engineering & Contingencies 80,000
ROW/Construction Easements/Utilities 24,500
TOTAL $624,500
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 185 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure having a length of
approximately 220 feet as shown in Figure 2. Minimum approach work will be required to tie
the proposed improvements to the existing roadway. Traffic should be detoured on existing
roads during the approximate nine month construction period as shown in Figure 1. The
Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternate.
A 22 foot pavement with 6 foot graded shoulders will be provided on the approaches. A 28
foot clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the
current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 22 foot travelway with 3 foot shoulders
across the structure. The design speed is 60 MPH.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 220 feet. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Environmental scientists visited the project site on May 11, 1992 to verify documented
information and gather field data for a thorough assessment of the potential impacts of the
proposed bridge replacement. The site was visited several days after heavy rains in the
region but during otherwise excellent conditions.
From the east, the existing bridge crosses Forbush Creek at S 78 degrees E, about a right
angle with the creek, forming 4 quadrants. While the northwest quadrant is forested, this is a
small patch amid an otherwise tilled landscape. It and the forest fringe along the creek and
roadsides provide some cover and extensive edge habitat but only for species adapted to
fragmented conditions. Interior forest species are unlikely to exist at this location. The
vegetation within 10 or 15 feet of the current bridge is periodically controlled by cutting. A
mud bar about 10 feet wide occurs in the creek along the eastern bank.
3
This investigation examined the vegetation and associated wildlife habitats surrounding the
highway bridge on SR 1605 spanning Forbush Creek in Yadkin County, NC, in order to (1)
search for protected plants, and evidence of habitation by protected animals; (2) identify
unique or prime-quality communities, (3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitat;
(4) identify wetlands, and (5) provide information to minimize any adverse environmental
effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 300 feet. Plot center was located at the
middle of the existing highway bridge. Plant communities within this plot were delineated from
aerial photographs and ground-checked on site. Woody community types follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990). Within each community, a list of member plant species and general site
description was developed on-site. Dominance (percent foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or
communities was determined by ocular estimation, but dominance (ff/acre) of woody layers or
communities was determined by the variable-plot-method (Husch, Miller, and Beers 1972).
For communities dominated by trees, tree age, diameter at breast height (dbh), and total
height were measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from increment borings; dbh
and height were measured using (d-tape) dendrometers and (Abney level) hypsometers,
respectively (Wilson 1976).
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was gathered on-site through observation of all
available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, and typical wildlife
communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was given to
features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, or deserving
special concern.
Aquatic system features were noted at three locations on the site: at the bridge and 100 ft
upstream and downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality
was reviewed. Wetland determinations followed procedures described by the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987).
Ground distance was determined either by estimation on the ground or by measurement on
aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were developed from
on-site reconnaissance.
Plant Communities
Biotic Communities
One plant community occurs within the project area, the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest. Forbush Creek contains neither floating- nor rooted-aquatic plants in the project area,
and no aquatic plant community is recognized. Compared to community groupings of the
Society of American Foresters (1967), the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is most
similar to Type 87, Sweetgum-Yellow-poplar.
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest occurs along Piedmont drainages, where the
floodplain is too small and too poorly developed to form levees, sloughs, and ridges. This
community therefore contains a mixture of bottomland and mesic species. In the northwestern
quadrant, selective cutting of trees has reduced stand quality, by removing better-quality trees,
4
and by damaging the residual vegetation when large trees were felled. In addition, most of
the tree tops and limbs were left where they fell, creating a thick tangle.
The upper canopy of this community contains sweetgum (Uguidambar styraciflua),
yellow-poplar (Lidodendron tulipifera), white ash (Fraxinus amedcana), red maple Acer
rubrum , river birch (Betula nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), willow oak Quercus
hellos , northern red oak (Quercus rubra), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and black cherry
(Prunus serotina). The largest trees are about 80 feet tall, 16 inches dbh, and 45 years old.
The lower canopy contains flowering dogwood (Comus florida), American hombeam
(Carpinus caroliniana), and redbud (Cercis canadensis). Basal area for all canopy species
equals 120 ft2/acre; boxelder provides the most of any single species, about 50 fe/acre;
sugarberry ranks second with 20 ftz/acre, and river birch and black walnut tie for third, each
with 10 ft2/ac. The remaining area, 30 ft2/acre, is more-or-less equally shared among the
remaining species.
The shrub layer contains privet (Ligustrum sinense), silky dogwood (Comus amomum),
American hazel (Corylus amedcana), common blackberry (Rubus argutus), and possumhaw
(Viburnum prunifolium). Privet dominates the shrub layer, providing about 40 percent of the
foliar cover. The ground layer contains common blue violet (Viola papilionacea), false
Solomon's-seal (Smilacina racemosa), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), smartweed
(Polygonum sp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), greenbrier Smilax sp.),
Solomon's-seal (Polygonatum biflorum), leather flower (Clematis vioma), wild yam Dioscorea
villosa , small-flowered buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus), summer grape (Vitis aestivalis),
cleavers (Galium aparine), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), five-fingers Potentilla
simplex , moonseed (Menispermum canadense), and cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata).
Japanese honeysuckle and giant cane dominate the ground layer, each providing about 30
percent foliar cover. The remaining 40 percent is more-or-less shared equally among the
other ground-layer species. In addition, fall panic grass Panicum sp.) forms large colonies,
near the creek bank, and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) dominate areas where selective cutting has occurred.
Interestingly, two colonies of the infrequently occurring green dragon (Arisaema dracontium)
were observed. The ground layer contains an interesting mixture of mesic forest wildflowers,
such as mayapple, Solomon's-seal, and green dragon, and weedy plants, such as cleavers
and giant ragweed. This mixing undoubtedly results because mesic wildflowers have survived
from times before the area was selectively cut, and because weedy plants have invaded after
cutting.
The mud bar occurring within the river is sparsely covered with small black willow Salix
ni ra , boxelder (Acer negundo), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), common blackberry
(Rubus argutus), and smartweed (Polygonum punctatum). This mud bar is periodically
flooded, a circumstance that removes all leaf litter and limits vegetation development. This
dynamic system changes size and location, depending upon the changing balance between
low-water deposition and flood-water scouring. Owing to this instability, this mud bar is
considered part of the bank-to-bank wetland.
5
Wildlife (General)
The forest habitat at this site is greatly limited by adjacent agricultural fields which encroach
on all sides. While the northwest quadrant is forested, this is a small patch amid an otherwise
tilled landscape. It and the forest fringe along the creek and roadsides provide some cover
and extensive edge habitat but only for species adapted to fragmented conditions. Interior
forest species are unlikely to exist at this location.
The evidence on site suggests that the riparian zone provides a corridor for wildlife migration
and a foraging area, as abundant raccoon (Procyon lotor and whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) tracks gave evidence of nocturnal activity. Other small mammal species will also
be found here.
As we approached the bridge, an adult little Blue Heron E retta caerules flew from the
creekbank north of the bridge. Later, tracks of both adult and immature herons were
observed in mudflats along the creek south of the bridge. Swallows Hirundo rustica were
found nesting under the bridge, and a variety of woodland and grassland songbird calls were
heard during the visit.
In general, the limited habitat appears conducive to a range of typical Piedmont species but
none of those species requiring special concern.
Physical Resources
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on biotite gneiss and shist, metamorphic rocks of the
Chauga Belt in the inner Piedmont physiographic region (Brown 1985). Soils within the
project area are mapped Mixed Alluvial Land along the west bank, and Chewacla silt loam
along the east bank (Curie 1962). Mixed Alluvial Land is similar to, but better drained, than
Wedhadkee loam, and it typically consists of 18 to 36 inches of alluvium, deposited over
gravel. Chewacla silt loams are friable soils formed on first bottoms.
Although width of the bottomland formed by Forbush Creek typically varies between 2000 and
3000 feet, the bottomland in the project area is narrower, only about 700 feet, largely because
the road to the west of the bridge follows the crest of a small ridge.
Water
Forbush Creek arises in northern Yadkin County and flows southeasterly until it joins the
Yadkin River in two channels. The main channel is located about 1100 feet north of US 421,
and the secondary channel joins the Yadkin River about 50 feet north of US 421. The Yadkin
and Uwharrie Rivers join to form the Pee Dee River.
The water quality classification of Forbush Creek is 'C,' (NCDEM 1991 b) and no BMAN sites
are located on Forbush Creek or in the vicinity (NCDEM 1989, 1991 a). Stream characteristics
observed on site are shown in Table 1.
6
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Forbush Creek Crossing.
Observation Point Upstream (100 ft) Existing Dovmstream (100 ft)
Substrate Sand/Mud
Current Flow Strong
Stream Gradient Small Falls Shallow Flat
Channel Width ft 35.0 35.0 35.0
Bank Height ft 2.0 Slopes to 10.0 2.0
Water Depth ft .5-1.5 but evidence of brief flooding to 5.0 above normal.
Water Color Clear over shallows to turbid in pools but clearing.
Water Odor None
A uatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Ve etation Hardwood: sycamore, cottonwood willow. Cane along banks.
Wetlands Bank to Bank
The creek is wide and shallow, with pools and ripples in the streambed, a small falls
upstream, and a quieter pool downstream. Water quality appears to be good under normal
conditions and the fact that it attracts a fair amount of foraging wildlife, as discussed in the
wildlife.section, suggests that benthic macroinvertebrates are productive. Thus, the system
appears relatively healthy.
Evidence on site indicates that water level in Forbush Creek may rise considerably after heavy
rain. Site reconnaissance occurred several days after the Forbush Creek drainage system
received between three and four inches of rainfall, and evidence from leaf debris caught in
trees indicated that water level under the bridge had risen about five feet.
One small drainage ditch constructed to improve drainage of the surrounding agricultural
fields enters Forbush Creek about 20 feet north (upstream) of the current bridge: The water in
this ditch was running clear, but mudflats at its confluence with Forbush Creek suggest that
soil erosion from neighboring fields occurs. Other similar drainage ditches have been
constructed along Forbush Creek, but they all lie outside the project area.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Other than the channel itself, no jurisdictional wetland occurs on this site. Serious local
flooding occurs, as shown in Table 1, but it appears to be short duration, episodic flooding
from heavy rainfall, as had preceded our visit.
Rapid water level fluctuations are possibly a relatively recent phenomenon, beginning roughly
30 to 50 years ago, perhaps owing to the loss of forest cover and the construction of drainage
ditches. Nevertheless, water level at the time of examination was normal, about two feet
below the creek bank. Water fluctuations along the creek appear to be brief, lasting only one
7
to three days, and the bottomland in the vicinity of the bridge is sufficiently well-drained so
that wetlands are limited to the creek channel itself.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Listed Species:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated there are no federally listed species for Yadkin
County.
All plants encountered during the field reconnaissance are common species, except for green
dragon (Arisaema dracontium). Although infrequently-occurring, green dragon is not currently
listed on either the List of North Carolina's endangered, threatened and candidate plant
species nor on the Natural Heritage Program Watch List. No adverse impact to plant
populations is anticipated from this project, since adequate populations exist outside the
project area.
State Listed Species:
According to Steve Hull of the NC Natural Heritage Program, for this vicinity no records exist
of any species listed by the state of North Carolina as threatened, endangered or deserving
special concern. During the field investigation, no threatened and/or endangered plants were
observed. All plants encountered during the field reconnaissance are common species,
except for green dragon (Arisaema dracontium). Although infrequently-occurring, green
dragon is not currently listed on either the List of North Carolina's endangered, threatened and
candidate plant species nor on the Natural Heritage Program Watch last. No adverse impact
to plant populations is anticipated from this project, since adequate populations exist outside
the project area. No evidence of any wildlife species listed in North Carolina was observed on
site, and no reason to suspect the occurrence of such species was discovered.
Impacts
The proposed project will replace an existing bridge with a slightly wider structure at the same
location. Since the preferred alternative is road closure with an off-site detour, minimal
change in vegetative cover will be required. At most 20 feet of forest cover will be removed
from along current forest edges to accommodate the wider new bridge. The maximum loss of
8
forest cover will be a long rectangular section, measuring about 20 x 500 feet or 0.2 acre. All
of this removal will come from the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community. Within
Yadkin County as a whole, bottomland forests currently occupy 7,298 acres, the least area of
any forest community. Bottomland forests comprise 8 percent of the total forest cover within
the county, and 3 percent of the entire county (Brown 1991). Although permanent forest
losses needed for this project are taken from the least common forest community, these
losses are extremely small. They nevertheless contribute to regional forest losses, which
between 1984 and 1991 were somewhat less than 1 percent for the North Carolina Piedmont
(Brown 1991).
The proposed project's minimal effect on plant communities also suggests negligible effect on
wildlife. Further fragmentation of habitat will not occur, and subtle alteration brought about by
widening the bridge structure will not impact the prevailing conditions for wildlife using the
area.
Accelerated soil erosion is always a concern when constructing bridges. Erosion contributes
to soil loss, but equally importantly, erosion sediments are deposited downstream. In
sufficient quantities, these deposits clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic organisms,
especially bottom-dwelling and bottom-reproducing species. Given the degree to which
agricultural erosion and resultant sedimentation are occurring in the vicinity, the construction
of this bridge is unlikely to contribute a substantial increase in the amount of silt to the
system. But soil erosion during construction is largely avoidable, and appropriate measures,
consistent with current Best Management Practices, will be taken to control erosion during
construction.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat. Although the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
occupies the least area in Yadkin County, it cannot be considered unique, since it occurs on
7,298 acres in Yadkin County and 124,739 acres in the Piedmont of North Carolina. In
addition, this community has been adversely impacted by selective logging within the project
area. Selective logging has reduced species richness, stand quality, and introduced weedy
plants in canopy openings. Thus, the forest of the project area cannot be considered
prime-quality.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into Waters of the United States.'
Since the subject project is classified as a categorical exclusion and since less than one acre
of wetlands will be impacted by the project, it is likely that this project will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded"
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
9
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented. -
Literature Cited
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Brown, M. J. 1991. Forest Statistics for the Piedmont of North Carolina, 1990. USDA For. Serv.
Res. Bull. SE-117. Pp. 53.
Curle, L. D. 1962. Soil Survey of Yadkin County, North Carolina. Soil Conserv. Serv., U. S.
Dept. Agric., Washington, DC. Pp. 74, maps.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration. The Ronald Press
Company, NY. Pp. 410.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.,
Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Division of Environmental Management, NC Dept. of Environ.,
Health, and Nat. Res. Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and Rec., N. C. Dept.
of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. Pp. 325.
Society of American Foresters. 1967. Forest Cover Types of North America (Exclusive of
Mexico). Soc. of Amer. For., Washington, DC. Pp. 67.
Wilson, R. L 1976. Elementary Forest Surveying and Mapping. State Univ. Book Stores,
Inc.,Corvallis. Pp. 183.
10
Zimmerman, J. L 1976. Soil Survey of Forsyth County. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Dept.
of Agric., Washington, DC. Pp. 65, maps.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion' due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human
or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The only property
in the APE over fifty years old was the bridge itself, built in 1923. The bridge is one of
approximately 505 extant pre-1943 state maintained bridges of the same type (concrete tee
beam). As such, it does not possess the historic or architectural significance necessary for
National Register eligibility.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register within the
APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the archaeological aspects of the project
and determined that an intensive survey will not be required.
Since the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
11
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The ambient
air quality for Yadkin County has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply
to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Yadkin County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of a potentially greater magnitude. The alignment of the project is
perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
12

1
9 1573 1569 1566
.
99
V 2 15
_
1600
c-? ,? 1572
1 ? 1549 .
1567
6 ?\ ^
s 1568 Enon & 1.8
A 1601 1569 b 1605
1602 1605 ' 1715
1605
i , O 9 160
=
.4 I.1 A 1714_

1 1705
ee
` y
l
,¢ 1570
J,' , Forbush 1625
1754 1617 ?`• 1605
.2.1 I Ch. I 1606 1571 /
4
16 b
3 N e z 1570 ,b // "
LA 2.5 Gt? ?_
?
¢Q. 1711 l a 1712
'd
G{ \ f
1570

1710 1001•
1713 .r

' ?O 1747
4
,
?G
1746 h h
I
Huntsville
1730 p .6

1. 10
1729 1748 .3
J+ 1756 1755"
\
G.. ? /
716

BRIDGE WO. 185
TO WINSTON-SALEM
y
36°05'

i •
i •
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
YIOIITU CAROLINA DIIrA3TIUM OF
3? TUANO?OIITOTION
DIVIOI019 OF MQUWOTO
!L®I UMG AND =VIAOIfI1IIIi AL
DBOITCH
a
BRIDGE NO. 185
YADKIN COUNTY
B-2182
592 Q m, I- FIG. 1

BRIDGE NO. 185
YADKIN COUNTY
B-2182
LOOIONG EAST
LOOICING WEST
SIDE VIEW
\ ZONE A-?-,

\\ ZONE X
ZONE X
a'
T?VN 8 I \
11
YADICIN COUNTY /An
P i .J
N

---- 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
N
B-2182
BRIDGE NO. 185

1
J
ENON
ZONE X
I'
t 7,

FIGURE 4
7nrjs: x r...
.': Si'o•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
?4
O
?Z Jul 201992
Z 'DIV/S/0
N
OF ?C?
?9FSE.4R?
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
Replace Bridge No. 185 on SR 1605 over Forbush Creek,
Yadkin County, B-2182, ER 92-8547
In terms of historic architectural structures, we feel that the one structure over
fifty years of age in the area of potential effect--Bridge No. 185--is not eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places since it is a typical example of a
commonplace type of concrete bridge found throughout the state.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
July 16, 1992
CWr4Z:
t. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. Box 250
JAMES MARTIN North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR September 8, 1992
THOMAS J. HARRELSON WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY
PROJECT: 8.2770301 B-2182 STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1605(1)
COUNTY: Yadkin
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 185 over Forbush Creek on
SR 1605
SUBJECT: Concurrence in Project Concept
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, PE
Manager - Planning & Environmental
/y0% o.?
FROM: W. E. Hoke, PE
Division Engineer - Division 11
Keith Lewis of DSA Design Group has requested Division
furnish you with a letter of concurrence with the closing of
SR 1605 during replacement of the bridge, Project B-2182, and
detouring traffic "along existing roads during
construction..." Pleased be advised that this alternate,
as recommended by DSA Group, appears to be satisfactory.
REP/bp
6 .. C'. -I n... .,.. ,0 n..,._,...,.... -- ._.