19940146 Ver 1_Complete File_19940218

? r
SUTE o
e SEA1Z
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 4()l ISSUE D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 {
4
February 15, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
a' ?n

District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Forsyth County, Bridge No. 105 on SR 1122 over
Little Creek, State Project No. 8.2622301, Federal
Aid No. BRZ-1122(1), T.I.P. Number B-2557.
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 request' g an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a ionw e Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A B-23) ssued November
22-,--1991, by the Corps of Engineers. he ovisions 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.
9
a .
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
uinn
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. 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. D. B. Waters, Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Forsyth County, Bridge No.105
on SR 1122 over Little Creek
State Project No. 8.2622301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1122(1)
T.I.P. Project B-2557
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
c q q4- A? lI ?
a e Franklinick, . E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
#Dte94f,f - zelgz. oe
Nichol a . Graf , P. E.
Divisi Administrator, FHWA
A V
Forsyth County, Bridge No.105
on SR 1122 over Little Creek
State Project No. 8.2622301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1122(1)
T.I.P. Project B-2557
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
.A !?_ z X;? /I -
Samuel E. Keith Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
4?.W_ - -
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Unit Head
.,,OH CA4,0? _Pn
[SS ON.,
01 • :ate ,.
SEA!
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager S 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch ?`•.;`iy???EE4,????
. D '

Forsyth County, Bridge No.105
on SR 1122 over Little Creek
State Project No. 8.2622301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1122(1)
T.I.P. Project B-2557
Bridge No. 105 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure I. No significant
adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has been
classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 105 will be replaced along the existing roadway alignment
with a triple 12-foot by 10-foot precast reinforced concrete box culvert
as shown by Alternate 1A (See Figure 2). This alternative will retain the
existing roadway alignment and only requires minimum approach work to tie
the proposed culvert to the existing approaches.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during the two month
construction period.
The subject project is estimated to cost $ 240,500 including $ 32,500
for right of way acquisition and $ 208,000 for construction.
The Transportation Improvement Program (1994-2000) estimated cost of
$ 399,000 includes $54,000 for right of way acquisition, $325,000 for
construction and $ 20,000 spent in previous years.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are required for this project. The Forsyth County School
System prefers that traffic be detoured during the summer months to
minimize conflicts with school bus operations.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located within the corporate limits of Winston-Salem
(See Figure 1). Development in the area is predominantly residential.
SR 1122 (Somerset Drive) is classified as an urban local route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System and is not part of the Federal
Aid System.
In the vicinity of the subject bridge, SR 1122 has an 18-foot
pavement width and a shoulder width that varies from four to eight feet.
The existing bridge is located in a sag vertical curve. There is a 12
2
degree horizontal curve on the west approach and a 2 degree horizontal
curve on the east approach. The structure is elevated 13 feet above the
creek bed.
The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 35 mph.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1966. The
superstructure consists of a one-span timber deck on I-Beams. The
substructure is composed of timber piles and caps with timber bulkhead
type abutments.
The overall length is 51 feet with a clear roadway width of 25.4
feet. The posted weight limit is 14 tons.
Bridge No. 105 has a sufficiency rating of 4.0 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure. This sufficiency rating is below the minimum
criteria of 50.0 required for replacement with Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement funds.
The City of Winston-Salem has proposed a greenway along Little Creek
as a part of the planning document, Vision 2005: A Comprehensive Plan for
Forsyth County. Vision 2005 identifies Little Creek Trail as a phase III
greenway project. According to the City of Winston-Salem, little progress
has been made constructing trails identified as Phase I projects. For
this reason, city planning officials do not anticipate construction of the
Little Creek Trail in the near future. The future greenway will
eventually extend along Little Creek between the Muddy Creek Greenway and
Salem Woods Park. No right of way or easements have been acquired for the
Little Creek Greenway, and funding for the project has not been included
in Winston-Salem's 1993-1999 Capital Improvement Program. No special
provisions for the greenway are proposed with this project.
No utilities are attached to the existing structure. Other utilities
in the area include aerial power and telephone lines located along both
sides of the road. There are also gas and water lines on the upstream
side of the bridge. The project may involve relocating some utilities,
but the severity of the utility conflicts is considered to be low.
The current traffic volume of 3,400 vehicles per day (vpd) is
expected to increase to approximately 10,000 vpd by the year 2015. The
projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
3 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The existing speed limit is 35 miles
per hour (mph).
One accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 105 during
the period from December 1988 to November 1991.
Ten school buses cross the bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES

Four alternative alignments were studied for replacing Bridge
No. 105. The design speed for each alternative is 40 miles per hour (mph).

Alternate 1 involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment with a triple 12-foot by 10-foot cast-in-place reinforced
concrete box culvert. The road will be closed for approximately five
months, and traffic will be maintained on existing local roads as shown in
Figure 1. This alternative retains the existing roadway alignment. This
alternative was not recommended due to the length of time Somerset Road
would need to be closed for construction.
Alternate 1A (Recommended) involves replacing the bridge along the
existing roadway alignment with a triple 12-foot by 10-foot precast
concrete box culvert. The road will be closed for approximately two
months, and traffic will be maintained on existing local roads as shown in
Figure 1. This alternative retains the existing roadway alignment. This
alternative is recommended due to the combination of low cost and short
construction period.
Alternate 2 is identical to Alternate 1 except traffic will be
maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure (three 72 inch
corrugated metal pipes) located immediately north of the existing
structure. Alternative 2 is not recommended due to the higher costs
associated with the detour.
Alternate 3 involves replacing Bridge No. 105 immediately south of
the existing structure with a triple 12-foot by 10-foot cast-in-place
reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained by staging
construction so that no detour will be necessary. This alternative
improves the horizontal alignment, but was not recommended due to high
costs.
In addition to the studied alternative alignments, consideration was
given to the "do-nothing" and the "rehabilitation" alternatives.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually require closing the
bridge. Closure is not feasible due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1122.
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.
4
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:

(Recommended)
Alt. 1 Alt. 1A Alt. 2 Alt. 3
Structure $ 105,600 $ 123,600 $ 105,600 $ 105,600
Roadway Approaches 49,600 49,600 42,700 168,600
Detour Structures & - - 83,900 -
Approaches
Structure Removal 7,800 7,800 7,800 7,800
Engineering &
Contingencies (15 %) 25,000 27,000 36,000 42,000
Right of Way &
Utilities 32,500 32,500 54,000 112,500
Totals $ 220,500 $ 240,500 $ 330,000 $ 436,500
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured along
existing secondary roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
Approximately 2.8 miles of additional travel will be necessary for the
average vehicle affected by road closure.
A road-user analysis, based on a five month construction period as
required by Alternate 1, indicates the cost of additional travel to be
approximately $ 256,500. The estimated cost of providing an on-site
detour is $ 99,815 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 2.6. Replacing
Bridge No. 105 with a precast box culvert as required by the recommended
alternative, Alternate 1A, reduces the road closure time to two months.
The road user cost for this alternative is $ 102,600, resulting in a
benefit-cost ratio of 1.0. This indicates that by reducing the amount of
time required to detour traffic from five months to two months, the
resultant road user costs are approximately equal to the cost of providing
an on-site detour. Therefore, an on-site detour is not justified since a
suitable detour route is available. Existing roadways and bridges are
adequate to accommodate detoured traffic during the construction period.
The Forsyth County School System has no objections to Bridge No. 105
being closed to traffic during construction. They prefer that traffic be
detoured during summer months to minimize conflicts with school bus
operation.

5
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 105 should be replaced in its present location with a
precast reinforced concrete box culvert. According to a preliminary
hydraulics study, a triple 12-foot by 10-foot reinforced concrete box
culvert will accommodate the flow of Little Creek at this location. The
structure dimensions may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows of Little Creek as determined by further hydraulic
studies.
The recommended improvements will include approximately 80 feet of
improved roadway on each approach. A 24-foot pavement with 8 to 11-foot
usable shoulders will be provided on the approaches. The elevation of the
new structure is approximately the same as the elevation of the existing
bridge.
The City of Winston-Salem has plans for future greenway along Little
Creek. No right of way or easements have been acquired for the Little
Creek Trail, and funding has not been included in Winston-Salem's
1993-1999 Capital Improvement Program. No accommodations for pedestrian
traffic or bicycles through the proposed culvert are recommended as a part
of this project.
VIII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed bridge replacement project is not expected to have an
adverse impact on the human or natural environment.
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 the anticipation of no adverse
environmental impacts.
A. Social Environment
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition, if any, will be minimal. No relocatees are
anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The
project is not expected to affect social, economic, or religious
opportunities in the area.
B. Land Use
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.
C. Cultural Resources
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
6
with Section 106, codified at 36
if a federally-funded, licensed,
property listed on or eligible
Places, the Advisory Council on
opportunity to comment.
CRF Part 800. Section 106 requires that
or permitted project has an effect on a
for the National Register of Historic
Historic Preservation be given an
1. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed
project 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. The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (See SHPO
letter dated 4-14-92). No further compliance with Section 106 is
required.
2. Architectural Resources
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential
effect (APE) were provided by NCDOT and reviewed with the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO is aware of no National
Register-listed resources in the APE and no historic structures are
reported to be found in the APE (See SHPO letter dated 4-14-92).
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the
National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106
is required.
D. Ecological Resources
1. Plant Communities
A narrow strip of man dominated pasture is located to the east
of the existing structure on the northern side of the road. The
majority of the area involved in this project is described as a
Bottomland Hardwood plant community. These communities are described
in detail in the following sections.
Bottomland Hardwood
One Bottomland Hardwood plant community is located adjacent to
the banks of Little Creek. Dominant species include black willow
( uercus p hellos), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple
(Acer rubrum), box elder (Acer negundo), mimosa (Albizia
juilbrissin), tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). The ground cover consists of grape (Vitus sP.),
trumpet creeper (Cam sus radicans) and japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica).
Replacing the structure and constructing an on-site detour
(Alternates 2 and 3), will involve clearing of the Bottomland
Hardwood community. Replacing the structure without constructing a
detour (Alternates 1 and 1A) will result in minimal impacts to the
Bottomland Hardwood community because additional right of way and
construction easements are not proposed (see Table 1 for acreages).
7
Man Dominated Pasture
The pasture community is persistently maintained by mowing or
grazing activities, and is entirely dominated by various species of
fescue, Festuca sue.
Construction of a temporary detour to the north of the existing
structure (Alternate 2) will impact the man dominated pasture
community.
Anticipated impacts for each alternative are summarized in
Table 1. Calculations are based on 60 feet of right of way unless
additional right of way or construction easements have been proposed,
pertaining to a specific alternative.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE
(ACRES)
PLANT COMMUNITY
BOTTOMLAND
HARDWOOD
MAN-DOMINATED
PASTURE
ALTERNATE
1 1A 2 3
0.28 0.28 0.39 1.59
0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00
TOTALS 0.28 0.28 0.77 1.59
2. Wildlife Communities
Based on actual habitat loss, project construction will
primarily impact terrestrial wildlife. However, there will be
minimal impacts to the aquatic community if best management
procedures for sedimentation and erosion control are followed.
The following inventory of fauna is merely a sample of organisms
which are likely to occur in the project vicinity, and was derived by
evaluating ranges and available habitat, or actual observations
and/or signs of the organisms. Species actually observed are denoted
by (*).
Amphibians likely to occur in the project area include pickeral
frog (Rana palustris)*, bull frog (Rana catesbeian), spring peeper
(Hyla cruicefer), Fowlers Toad (Bufo woodhouseeri)*, American toad
(Bufo americanus), Red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens), and northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus).
8
Reptiles common in the project vicinity are five lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rat snake
(Elaphae obsoleta), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina)*, painted turtle
(Chrysemysp'cta) and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
Birds likely to occur in the project vicinity include blue jay
(Cyanocitla cristata)*, northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*
rock dove (Columbia livia)*, American crow (Corvus brach_yrhynchos)*,
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis)*, Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludouicanus )*, common yellow throat (Geothlypis trichas), tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) and wood
duck (Aix sponsa).
Mammals such as raccoon (Procyon lotor)*, muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis )*, eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatus) and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), are
likely in bitants of the project area.
Fish species likely to occur in Little Creek include common
game-fish members of the family centrachidae, which includes
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and numerous species of
sunfish (Lepomis sp.). Carp (C rinus carpio), marginated madtom
(Noturus insignis), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis) and red
shinner (Notropis lutensis) are other species also likely to occur in
Little creek. Numerous crayfish (Proccambarus sp.)*, were also
observed in the creek waters.
Impacts to wildlife are directly related to destruction or
clearing of the plant communities and impacts to water resources.
The Bottomland Hardwood and pasture plant communities serve as
shelter, nesting and foraging habitats for numerous species of birds,
mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Disturbance of these habitats will
result in a reduction and displacement of species within the project
boundaries. However, due to the limited scope of this project,
reduction and displacement of these species will be minimal.
Project construction may impact the aquatic environment of
Little Creek by disturbing existing benthic habitat and temporarily
increasing sediment load. Strict enforcement of sedimentation
control measures and best management practices (BMPs) will be
observed.
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders
and macro and micro algae, are particularly sensitive to construction
activities such as dredging, filling, and slope stabilization. These
construction activities may physically disturb the attachment
substrate, resulting in loss of sessile benthic forms. Effects of
siltation are: reduction of light penetration which is essential for
photosynthetic species, clogging of feeding apparati in filter
feeders, and burial of deposit feeders. These species are often
9
primary or secondary producers in the food chain, therefore impacts
to these organisms may directly affect organisms higher in the food
chain. Such organisms include fish, aquatic amphibians and reptiles,
and terrestrial birds and mammals, which depend on the aquatic
community as a food source. Mobile aquatic organisms are generally
not directly as sensitive to siltation, however gills of fish,
crustacean and larval amphibian and insect forms can become clogged
and dysfunctional as a result of increased sediment load.
Many terrestrial mammals and birds
kingfishers are dependent on the aquatic
source of their food supply, therefore
environment can have direct impacts to the
well.
E. Protected Species
such as raccoons and
environment for a large
impacts to the aquatic
terrestrial environment as
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to have
a detrimental impact to the survival and well being of any species
classified as federally protected, is subject to review by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended. Endangered species receive additional protection under
separate state statutes. In North Carolina, protection of plant species
falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and Animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of July 12, 1993, the
USFWS lists the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the
small-anthered bittercress (Cardimine micranthera) for Forsyth
County. No suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker exists
within the project boundaries. There is suitable habitat for the
small-anthered bittercress in the project area. A plant-to-plant
survey was conducted along the banks of Little Creek on May 10, 1993,
and the plant species was not found. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the proposed bridge replacement will not impact the species.
Brief descriptions and habitat requirements for these two species are
provided below.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey
to southern Florida, west to eastern Texas and inland in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. It is now found only in
coastal states of the historic range with the exception of
southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. The decline of the RCW
is a direct result of a decline in habitat, old longleaf Pine (Pinus
palustris) stands, which were historically harvested for turpentine
10
and lumber. In North Carolina moderate populations are found in the
sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in
the piedmont and northern coastal plain are considered to be relics
of former populations.
The RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small
red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back is black
and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside is white
with streaked flanks. A large white cheek patch is present
surrounded by the black cap, nape and throat.
The RCW has very specific nesting and foraging habitats.
Nesting habitat requires pine (primarily longleaf pine), or
pine-hardwood (over 50 percent pine) stands over 60 years in age,
which lack an understory and are contiguous to and within 0.5 mile of
suitable foraging habitat. These woodpeckers nest exclusively in
living trees, which are usually infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Suitable foraging habitat is defined as pine or
pine-hardwood stands over 30 years in age, which have minimal
understory and are contiguous to and within 0.5 mile of suitable
nesting habitat.
No suitable nesting or foraging habitat exists within the
project vicinity, therefore project construction will not impact the
red-cockaded woodpecker.
Cardamine micranthera (Small-anthered bittercress) E
Family: Brassicaceae
Date Listed: 9/21/89
The small-anthered bittercress is an extremely rare perennial
herb endemic to a few small streams and seepages of the Dan River
drainage basin, in Forsyth and Stokes counties. The one population
known historically from Forsyth County was destroyed in 1960 when the
site was converted into a cow pasture. It is necessary to continue
to list this species in Forsyth County, because in Stokes County
where the species was also considered to be extirpated, a population
was found in 1985, nearly 30 years after the species had last been
seen. The possibility exists that there may still be populations in
Forsyth County.
The small-anthered bittercress is an erect, slender herb of the
mustard family, with a simple or branched stem 2 to 4 decimeters
tall. The basal leaves are crenate, 1 to 5 centimeters long and 0.5
to 2 centimeters wide. The stem leaves are alternate and mostly
unlobed, 1 to 1.5 centimeters long, crenate and cuneate. Flowering
and fruiting occur in late April to early May. The flowers,
subtended by leafy bracts, have four white petals, six stamens and
small, round anthers. Fruits are slender siliques, 0.8 to 1.2
centimeters long and 1 millimeter in diameter.
Suitable habitat is described as fully to partially shaded
streambanks, seepages, wet rock, crevices and sandbars, along small
streams. The project area provides suitable habitat for this
species.

11
A plant-to-plant survey was conducted along the banks of Little
Creek on May 10, 1993, and the plant species was not found.
Therefore it can be concluded that the proposed bridge replacement
will not impact the species.
As of July 12, 1993, the USFWS lists the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenberqii) for Forsyth County, with a category 2 classification.
Although at the present time this species is not offered federal
protection, it is a strong candidate for protection in the future.
This species is mentioned here for information purposes and future
reference if the species becomes Federally protected.
Marginally suitable habitat for this species occurs in the
project-area. This species inhabits bogs marshes and wet grass
fields, or pastures. The pasture community located in the project
vicinity may be wet during certain times of the year. Because
suitable habitat for this species may exist only for a short period
of time, it is unlikely that this species occurs in the project area.
A specific search for the bog turtle was not conducted.
2. State Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), are given protection by the
State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is listed for Forsyth
County and has a status of Threatened (T). A search through the NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data base was conducted, and neither
this species nor any other state protected species is reported to
occur in the project area.
F. Water Quality
This bridge replacement project spans Little Creek, a shallow (3 to 6
feet), narrow (5 to 8 feet), slow flowing creek within the mid-region of
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage basin. This stream flows north to south
from its source in Winston-Salem into Muddy Creek approximately 1.5 miles
south of the project crossing.
The best Usage Classification of Little Creek is Class C, as assigned
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR), 1991. Class C designates waters suitable for secondary
recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
agriculture.
There are no locations immediately upstream or downstream of the
project that were sampled by the Benthic Macroinvertabrate Ambient Network
(BMAN). BMAN assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
Macroinvertabrate organisms. The species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality.
12
The Environmental Health and Natural Resources (EHNR) section of the
DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report lists
Sara Lee Knit Products (non contact cooling water and boiler blowdown) and
Baileys Mobile Home Park (mobile home parks discharges) as sources of
discharge into Little Creek near the project area.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource
Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted by this project, nor are these
resources located within one mile of the project area.
Potential impacts to Little Creek include increased sedimentation
from construction related erosion and increased turbidity from disturbance
of creek bottom sediments. These effects, though temporary, can have long
term impacts on the aquatic environment, which include changes in
community composition because many of these organisms are slow to recover
or repopulate an area. Strict erosion and sedimentation control measures
will be enforced during construction of this project.
G. Floodplain Involvement
The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in
Figure 4. Forsyth County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The floodplain in this area of the crossing is mostly
rural and partly wooded. Replacement of the existing bridge will not have
an adverse effect on the floodplain.
H. Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters are included under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance
with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344).
The waters of Little Creek are classified as surface waters, and are
offered protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C.
1344). No jurisdictional wetlands occur in the project vicinity.
I. Topography, Geology, and Soils
The project is located in southwest Winston-Salem near Atwood.
Forsyth County is contained within the Piedmont physiographic province in
north-central North Carolina. The topography of the area is characterized
as gently sloping with fairly broad ridges.
There are four major soil systems within the Piedmont soil region,
which are determined by the major kinds of bedrock. The bedrock types
include: 1) the felsic crystalline terrains, 2) the Carolina Slate belt,
3) the Triassic basins and 4) the mixed mafic and felsic rock. Forsyth
County lies in the mixed mafic and felsic rock system, which is a complex
association of granites, diorites, gabbros, and other rocks.
Chewacla loam (Fine-loamy, mixed thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts)
is predominate in the study area. These soils are relatively poorly
drained, low in natural fertility and organic content, and are frequently
flooded for brief periods of time. These soils are generally non-hydric
but may have some inclusions of the hydric soil, Wehadkee.

13
J. Contaminated Properties
An examination of the records at the DEHNR, Division of Solid Waste
Management indicates that no hazardous material sites are located within
the project area.
K. Air Quality & Noise Impacts
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. Forsyth County has recently been designated as a
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (03). However, the
current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures (TCM) for Forsyth County. The
Winston-Salem Greater Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to be in
conformity with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Interim
Conformity Guidance dated June 7, 1991 on the dates of November 15, 1991
and September 30, 1992. There have been no significant changes in the
project's design concept and scope, as used in the TIP conformity
analysis.
The alternative that produced the "worst case" scenario was used to
determine traffic noise impacts. Due to the location of the receptors
along the project, no receptors were determined to approach or exceed the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria. Hence, the traffic noise and air quality
impacts from the proposed project will not be significant.
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, Part 772 (highway traffic noise) and Part 770 (air
quality) and no additional reports are required.
L. Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5
(A) 23 is likely to be required. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole,
or in part, by another Federal agency or department. That agency or
department has determined that the activity is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it will neither individually or
cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is also required, prior to
issue of the nationwide permit. Final permit decisions lie with the Army
Corps of Engineers.
14
M. Mitigation

The subject project as recommended does not require the taking of any
jurisdictional wetlands. The project is anticipated to be permitted under
the provisions of a nationwide permit. Therefore, no mitigation is
required.
N. Farmland
The project has been coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service
and is exempt from the Farmland Policy Act.
IX. Conclusions
On the basis of the above environmental evaluation, it is concluded
that no adverse environmental effects will result from the implementation
of the subject project.
EK/plr
FIGURES
?IJ
1.08 0 17
3661
t lout
Lei
17171
76m
.53
3r.sely_a
3560
.07 ,17' 1'10 .78
3657 3657 '. .17
79
1797
-? 9 ]5:1 ? 0? 19 n 11]?
791 10 350. 17x5 'OS 1] ].•
S a
1991 .'. .08 11 00'5 5 _I i!.!^
1 ?o x]510/? 1146 f::::...
08 .0
I / J509 p 1]a? n ?"???J? / - ?? 1747 07
16
< y) 17ac _ ?. I?a! ? --/ 1711
}0
1214
36x1 0 tr
]Sea 1891 364] /1/\ m \
rv o 7J _ ti
1137 I '.)0 p1:; n
1135 3614
7 3640_ ]6?0
a 40 ? ise ,oe to7
.04 3i57_4 17 y 1177
0 358{ P 3598 .7 t?:?
`?- 3590 zl o:.
3559
764) .19??•,
u n- h c:} ;.':;yam
40
n>fG
P .e7 J,
,
Iil)
II ?Illy? /
I ?.4L d
1 I
i
,?
y zil , ,77
;' I ? ? / 1199 Iles
1797
11]6
i

17]7 .09
]IA1
1735 717
17]6 - .08 ,0g
.09 L9 Dy
]148

N
0
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1122, REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 105
OVER LITTLE CREEK
FORSYTH COUNTY
T. 1. P. B-2557
FIG. 1
BRIDGE NO. 105
F4 RSYTH COUNTY
B-2557
SIDE
VIEW

WEST'
NPPROACH
EAST
APPROACH
FIGURE 3
Flo 0 00 ? ? 0 0 0,? Ofl?p
O y? a d
o -? Q oco' °oo
0
? o 0 0 0 0 ,.. .?.
03 10
o ? cm; a o O
p °o ?o? ? 0 p 0 ??
OO D. ? ° o??.o?oQ o.00 024
? oO ? ? I : o ?o o ? : ? 00
? o 0 1
?? p? ? o o =0 ?= o°? ?o
? O ? ? cl I o o.• 4 0° ?Q o
? ?po0 ? ?.. ? :..'O -0-.. ?o . J?.... O- 4-
C?l a- . ?
00 ?[10? ?a ? ?
O ? O?` O \ oa o. ° o ZONE B o
00 ? Op.\ ? °° ? .
C] 007- 00 00
0
° o e'??a f 00 O ?. o.
4 - . ?.
? 100-Year Floodplain a o
now
a ? ? ? ? ? ? a??oo ??
? ? ? ? C7; ? ? ? ?.?
ZONE A3 3
1/5/84
?s ?. Q ? ? O ?
F6RMBROOK
? ? ?? r
ONE B -
I _

ZONE B
C3 ?-
o a p p o t4 I `0
°° '° O O ? ??1 moo
-?
3?j o Bridge No. 105•. ZONE C
P, p ° 0 0 0 0 °
O p ? m ? i
c o c o ) 6 _-1
O
0
C13
s -?
0 ?o _ o
0 oQa Fqs? \ \ '
ZONE A3 / ? o ?.
=sa__, 1/5/84 f
"" 0
100 Year Floodplain ?qa ° ?. i.? ?o
i aC, :i U°/
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX
>-u w.rSTATEw
V
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 14, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
;',,. .I ?
APR 2t` f9Qg
Division of Archives an History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Replace Bridge No. 105 over Muddy River and
approaches on SR 1122, Forsyth County, B-2557,
8.2622301, BRZ-1 122(1), ER 92-7893
Dear Mr. Graf:
On April 1, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on
historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with
our recommendations. 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, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic
structures located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that
no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how
NCDOT addressed our concerns.
The above 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.
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
April 14, 1992, Page 2
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.
7Zcerely4)
David Brook
44-6
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: ?[.. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
City-County Planning Board
of Forsyth County and
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Post Office Box 2511
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
919 727.2087
a xF>R f °? ?vt rant`
July 28, 1993
Eddie Keith
NCDOT
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-3141
Dear Mr. Keith:
As you discussed with Margaret Bessette on the telephone, Vision
2005, Forsyth County's Comprehensive Plan recommends a greenway
along Little Creek. This greenway would run from Silas Creek
south to Muddy Creek. The Little Creek Greenway Trail would
include the crossing at Somerset Drive where NCDOT is planning a
culvert/bridge replacement.
Vision 2005 identifies the Little Creek Trail as a Phase III
greenway project. Since we have not made substantial progress on
constructing trails identified as Phase I projects, it is
unlikely that construction of the Little Creek Trail would occur
anytime in the near future. No detailed planning work has been
done for the Little Creek Trail and funding has not been included
in Winston-Salem's 1993-1999 Capital Improvement Program. We do
have a practice of obtaining greenway easements when property is
rezoned or subdivided for all trails identified in Vision 2005,
including the Little Creek Greenway.
We would appreciate NCDOTis providing for safe pedestrian access
through the planned culverL'/bridqe of Little Creek at Somerset
Drive for 'Lhe future greenway trail. However, the City is not in
a position to assist with funding for any additional costs, nor
would we insist that NCDOT provide the access given the extended
timeframe for construction of the Little Creek Greenway Trail.
If you have any questions, please contact Margaret Bessette or
Judv Hurt on our staff.
Sincerely,
,T aines E . Y r- brough, J . , CP
Director o Plan,linq