19930368 Ver 1_Complete File_19930505

M DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY` %l ,?; (?• i j
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
f{1? tii v P.C. SCX 1090 J '
SvILMINGTGN, NCRTH CARCLINA 9402-1890
i I,?TC,'i,'p ° •
IN REPLY REFER TO April 26, 1993 ySECT1
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301979 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 Muddy Creek in association with replacement of
Bridge No. 97 (T.I.P. No. B-2556) located on SR 1001, north of Clemmons,
Forsyth 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.

-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Jehn Thcmas, Ralaig _
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
'k- 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
,
a... t ?.? y J ,I
IvETLAUDS GROUP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1711TEE,' nvr,l?i
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ??--
JAMES Q. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. 80X25201. 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:
Subject: Forsyth County, SR 1001, Bridge No. 97 over Muddy
Creek, State Project No. 8.2622601, Federal Aid No.
BRZ-1001(7), T.I.P. Number B-2556.
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.

If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-9770.
Sincerely,
B. `Quinn
Assistant Ma_
nagger
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: M Mr.
John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
?/r. 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

b a
Forsyth County
SR 1001
Bridge No. 97 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1001(7)
State Project No. 8.2622601
T.I.P. No. B-2556
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
l i? 93
DATE NL. . Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Z/3
ATE Nichola . Graf, P.E.
Divisi Administrator, FHWA

Forsyth County
SR 1001
Bridge No. 97 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1001(7)
State Project No. 8.2622601
T.I.P. No. B-2556
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 1992
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
c C e-<??G1
Keith D. Lewis, P.E. r c E • ?r
Project Manager - Transportation
w
L4 '2-
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
6? &?6 U2???
L it Grimes, .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager

Forsyth County
SR 1001
Bridge No. 97 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1001(7)
State Project No. 8.2622601
T.I.P. No. B-2556
Bridge No. 97 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. 97 will be replaced by phased construction as shown in Figure 2. It will be
replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 52 feet and a length of 230 feet.
The structure will provide a 48 foot travelway and two foot shoulders/gutters on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade
at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to sections varying from a 24 foot pavement to a 52 foot
face to face curb and gutter section throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the first phase and then
on a portion of the replacement structure while the construction is completed.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,475,000. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $605,000. The project
cost increased because the recommended replacement bridge is a four-lane structure versus
the original two-lane structure.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1001 (Country Club Road) is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. Country Club Road is a major thoroughfare as stated on the
Winston Salem/Forsyth County Thoroughfare Plan adopted on December 11, 1987 by NCDOT.
This minor arterial serves a suburban area of Winston-Salem in Forsyth County (see Figure 1).
The land use is wooded with apartments on both sides of the east approach. One alternate
- _`
being considered for the proposed Northern Beltway crosses SR 1001 northwest of the bridge
with an interchange.
Near the bridge, SR 1001 has a 1 a foot pavement width with four to six foot shoulders (see
Figure 2). The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge on both sides. The
horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a 3°00' curve approximately 150 feet from
the bridge to the west and the east approach is tangent for about 1250 feet. The roadway is
situated about 36 feet above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 7200 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1995 and 14300 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 45 MPH.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1948. The superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete deck on I-beams, and the substructure consists of a reinforced concrete
cap on timber piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 217 feet. Clear roadway width is 23.8 feet. The posted
weight limit is 22 tons for all vehicles.
Bridge No. 97 has a sufficiency rating of 17.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported on the west approach to the bridge during the period from
January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991. This accident was a head-on collision with one
fatality, and was attributed to operator error.
Four school buses cross the bridge twice a day.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 97. Each alternate consists of a bridge
230 feet long with a clear roadway width of 52 feet. This structure width will accommodate a
48 foot travelway with two foot shoulders/gutters. The approach roadway should consist of a
48 foot travelway with two foot six inch concrete curb and gutter.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate 1: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment. A temporary
on-site detour will be provided on the southwest side of the existing structure during phase 1,
the construction of the section along the existing alignment. The curb and gutter on the
proposed bridge will align with the existing curb and gutter on the southeast approach. This
combination of an on-site detour and phased construction maintains the proposed centerline
closer to the existing alignment and keeps the detour approximately 23 feet closer in and
away from the apartments. As a result, impacts are kept to a minimum and costs are reduced
from a typical on-site detour construction. The temporary detour will be 130 feet in length and
a minimum of 33 feet from the existing structure. A design speed of 40 MPH minimum will be
provided.
2

Alternate 2: (Recommended) will involve replacing the bridge by phased construction. The
centerline will be shifted slightly to the southwest. The traffic will continue to use the existing
bridge while the first half of the structure is built. Traffic will then be shifted to the new bridge,
with two lanes operational, while the construction for the four lane bridge is completed.
The 'do-nothing' alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1001.
The Division Office recommends widening of the bridge to accommodate a minimum of four
lanes with the bridge constructed in phases. Traffic could then be maintained without an on-
site detour structure.
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.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternate 1
Structure Removal 26,000
Structure 650,000
Roadway Approaches 143,300
Detour Structures and Approaches 93,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 187,000
Engineering and Contingencies 150,000
Right of Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 290,000
TOTAL $1,540,000
Recommended
Alternate 2
26,000
650,000
143,300
165,700
165,000
325,000
$1,475,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 97 will be replaced by a new structure approximately 230 feet in length, phase
constructed with a centerline shift of approximately 20 feet to the southwest. Improvements to
the existing approaches will be necessary on each end of the bridge. The Division Engineer
concurs with this recommended alternate.
A 48 foot pavement with two foot six inch curb and gutter will be provided on most of the
approach work. On the southeast approach the 52 foot face to face curb and gutter section
should be constructed to the apartment drive, approximately 300 feet from the bridge, with a
right turn only lane drop and then tie to the existing curb and gutter. On the northwest
approach the 52 foot F-F section should be constructed a minimum distance of 50 feet and
then tapered to a 24 foot pavement width and continue until it ties to the existing pavement
approximately 800 feet from the bridge. A 52 foot clear roadway width is recommended on
the replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will
provide a 48 foot travelway with two foot shoulders/gutters across the structure. The design
speed is 50 MPH.
3

Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the now structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 230 feet. It is anticipated that the elevation of the now 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.
The City of Winston-Salem has in their short range plan, recommended a greenway to be
constructed under the bridge. The length of the bridge will be adequate for the greenway to
parallel the creek.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Biologists visited the project site on 11 May 1992 to verify documented information and gather
data to complete a thorough assessment of potential impacts incurred by the bridge
replacement proposal.
From the northwest, the existing bridge crosses Muddy Creek at N 42' W, about a right angle
with the creek, forming four quadrants. The land surrounding the bridge in the northern and
western quadrants is mostly forested, except for the roadsides and a sewerline right-of-way.
This recently-constructed right-of-way, varying between 40 and 120 feet wide, lacks all tree
cover. It approximately parallels Muddy Creek throughout the project area, leaving a strip of
natural vegetation between 20 and 50 feet wide along the creek. The construction access
road is still evident and still occasionally used, probably by unauthorized off-road vehicles.
Close to the bridge, the southern and eastern quadrants are forested, but they are adjacent
multi-family housing units upslope from the project area.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 250 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 (ft2/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 close 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
4

was reviewed. Wetland determinations followed procedures described in the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Envir. 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.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three natural plant communities occur within the study area; Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and Right-of-Way. Muddy Creek contains neither
floating-nor rooted-aquatic plants in the project area, and no aquatic 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, and the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest is similar to Type 56,
Northern Red Oak-Mockemut Hickory-Sweetgum.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest occurs
adjacent Muddy Creek. It originally occurred in areas now occupied by the sewerline
right-of-way, and these areas would naturally revert to Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest,
if disturbance were removed. This community has been very heavily impacted by recent
sewerline construction, which (in addition to converting forest to Right-of-Way) damaged trees
along the current forest edge through impact with equipment, and spread fill material in the
forest understory adjacent the right-of-way. These activities have reduced the quality of the
residual stand, and more importantly, reduced species richness by smothering much of the
forest understory.
The upper canopy contains a large mixture of mesic-site hardwoods: sweetgum (Liquidambar
s raciflua , yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple
(Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), sycamore Platanus
occidentalis), bittemut hickory (Carya cordiformis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and black locust Robinia
pseudoacacia). The largest trees are about 80 feet tall, 16 inches dbh, and 45 years old.
Many individuals have broken limbs, broken tops, and scarred bark-damage sustained during
construction. The lower canopy contains flowering dogwood (Comus florida), American
hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and red mulberry (Mores rubra). Basal area for all canopy
species equals 120 fe/acre; boxelder provides the most of any single species, about 40
fe/acre; sycamore ranks second with 20 fe/acre, and river birch ranks third with 15 ft2/ac. The
remaining area, 45 fe/acre, is more-or-less equally shared among the remaining species.
The shrub layer contains privet (Ligustrum sinense), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and
possumhaw (Viburnum prunifolium). Privet dominates the shrub layer, providing about 50
percent of the foliar cover. The ground layer contains common blue violet iota
papilionacea), false Solomon's-seal (Smilacina racemosa), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens
ca ensis , smartweed (Polygonum sp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), poison-ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), wingstem erbesina
occidentalis), greenbrier Smilax sp.), cleavers (Galium aparine), giant cane (Arundinaria
5

i antea , Solomon's-seal (Polvgonatum biflorum), leather flower (Clematis vioma), ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), and common grapefern
(Botrychium dissectum). Japanese honeysuckle dominates the foliar cover of the ground
layer, providing about 60 percent. The remaining 40 percent is more-or-less shared equally
among the remaining ground-layer species. The ground layer contains an interesting
mixture of mesic forest wildflowers, such as mayapple, Solomon's-seal, and false
Solomon's-seal, and weedy roadside plants, such as cleavers and wingstem. This mixing
undoubtedly results because some mesic wildflowers have survived from pre-construction
times, while some weedy plants have invaded after construction.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest occurs in the northern and
western quadrants, upslope from the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. The upper
canopy contain yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Ouercus rubra), white ash (Fraxinus americana),
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa). Further upslope, at
the outer limit of the project area, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) occurs. Total basal area
averages 140 ft2/acre. Yellow-poplar provides 50 ft2/ac; northern red oak and beech each
provide 20 ft2/acre; white ash provides 15 ft2/acre, and pignut and mockernut hickories
together provide 10 fe/acre. The remaining 25 fe/acre is more-or-less equally shared by the
other canopy species. The largest trees are yellow-poplar, measuring 60 feet tall, 14 inches
dbh, and 40 years old. The understory contains several decayed shortleaf pine and eastern
redcedar stumps, indicating the stand was selectively logged by high-grading. Growth
patterns observed on increment cores while determining ages, suggest this logging occurred
about 17 years ago.
The lower canopy contains winged elm (Ulmus alata), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and American hornbeam
(Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub layer includes strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus),
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), and
possumhaw (Viburnum prunifolium). The ground layer contains muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia),
coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinguefolia), bedstraw (Galium pilosum), false Solomon's-
seal (Smilacina racemosa), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), partridgeberry
(Mitchella repens), Solomon's-seal (Polvgonatum biflorum), bellwort (Uvularia perfoliata),
lyre-leaved sage (Salvia lyrata), and avens (Geum canadense). Foliar cover of the ground
layer averages about 10 percent with Japanese honeysuckle providing about one-half of the
cover and the other woody vines providing another one-quarter. The remaining one-quarter is
more-or-less spread equally among the other ground-layer species.
Right-of-Way. The Right-of-Way community occurs in the recently constructed sewerline.
Bare soil still covers about five percent of the area. Some plants were probably planted by
seed following construction, and others are volunteers. The Right-of-Way community contains
several grass species, orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), bluegrass, (Poa pratensis), fescue
(Festuca elatior), and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and many forb species, red
clover (Trifolium pratense), sheep-sorrel (Rumex acetosella), Venus' looking-glass (Specularia
erfoliata , sericea (Lespedeza cuneata), sedge Carex sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens),
vetch (Vicia caroliniana), dog fennel (Anthemis cotula), common ragweed Ambrosia
artemisiifolia), common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), lyre-leaved sage (Salvia lyrata),
and henbit (Lamium amplexicaule). In addition, rush (Juncus effusus) grows in ruts in the
6

access road under the bridge, and a population of common blackberry (Rubus arqutus)
occurs about 100 feet east of the bridge. Grasses dominate the foliar cover, providing 80
percent, while the forbs listed above more-or-less equally share the remaining 20 percent.
Wildlife (General)
Typical of frequently disturbed habitats in the north-central North Carolina Piedmont region,
this site appears to harbor no exceptional wildlife species. The forested habitat is highly
fragmented immediately surrounding the bridge and adjacent the creek in both directions.
Contiguous forest cover dominates to the north and west of the bridge but is separated from
the creekside forest fringe by the cleared sewedine corridor. Beyond a fringe of hardwood
forest along the creek, quadrants to the east and south are dominated by residential
development. Edge effects of habitat interspersion therefore control wildlife species
composition in the area immediately surrounding the bridge.
Swallows Hirundo rustica are nesting under the bridge, and numerous songbirds-e.g., Wood
Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina -were either seen or heard in the vicinity. Common crows
Corvus brachyrhnycos) and related species were in evidence.
Small mammals are likely to frequent the area, especially those with nocturnal foraging habits,
and it almost certain that deer visit the open meadow area along the sewerline corridor.
However, the road's elevation above the floodplain and stream channel probably precludes a
deer hazard for vehicle traffic, since the deer have easy access through the valley under the
high bridge.
Tadpoles were observed in pools formed in vehicle ruts under the bridge, and a Northern
Cricket Frog ! c cre itans was observed in the grass near these pools. Along the edge of
the woods to the north a Broadhead Skink Eumeces latices was observed. This skink is
common throughout North Carolina (Conant 1975).
Physical Resounms
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on biotite gneiss and shist, metamorphic rocks of the
Charlotte and Milton Belts of the Piedmont physiographic region (Brown 1985). All soils within
the project area are mapped Congaree complex, well-drained floodplain soils (Zimmerman
1976).
Water
Muddy Creek is a tributary of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River system. Muddy Creek arises in
northwestern Forsyth County, flows southerly into Davidson County, and then enters the
Yadkin River. The Yadkin and Uwharrie Rivers join to form the Pee Dee River. Although
width of the bottomland typically formed by Muddy Creek in Forsyth County varies between
500 and 2300 feet, the creek in the project area passes through a small saddle between
adjacent ridges, and the bottomland is narrower, only about 250 feet.
7
I
Muddy Creek's waters are designated Class C north of the Davidson County line. At two
BMAN monitoring sites downstream the ratings determined are Good and Fair, respectively,
above and below a Westinghouse discharge point (NCDEM 1989, 1991 b).
The site was visited four days after heavy rains had occurred in the region. As Table 1
shows, the water in Muddy Creek was somewhat turbid, carrying silt, but it was clear enough
that the creek bottom could be seen in shallow spots.
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Muddy Creek Crossing.
Observation Point Upstream (100 ft) Existing Downstream (1 ft)
Substrate Mud with sandbar in laces.
Current Flow Slow Slow/ placid Moderate
Channel Width ft 40.0 48.0 48.0
Bank Hei ht ft 8.0 8.0 8.0
Water Depth ft 2.0 2.0 2.0
Water Color Turbid brown with silt but transparent in shallows.
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None in evidence at this time.
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwood: sycamore, river birch etc. along creek banks
Wetlands Bank to bank
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
No wetland characteristics were observed here. Since water level of Muddy Creek is about
5-8 feet below the general topography, and since all soils are well-drained, wetlands are
limited to the creek channel itself. The height of the stream banks appears to constrain all but
the very highest stormflows.
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.
8
Federally Listed Species:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the federally listed species shown in Table 2.
Habitat requirements and available records concerning these species have been reviewed,
and conditions at the bridge site have been examined in light of species requirements. More
specifically, following Table 2, the investigators have evaluated whether habitat exists in the
project impact area for federally-listed species in this county and, if existing, whether habitat is
being used by the species.
Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Forsyth County.
Species Status* Distribution
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E Eastern NC
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) E Northern Piedmont
*E= endangered, T= threatened; CH= critical habitat determined; P= proposed, SA=status duo to
similarity of appearance to another species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpecker nesting colonies usually occur in mature pine (preferably
Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where pines dominate the
surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. 'Suitable habitat consists of pine or
pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older.' Although some
colonies may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred,
this situation is relatively rare.
The description of plant communities above should make it obvious that suitable habitat does
not occur in the project area. No colonies were observed on the site, and no impacts to the
red-cockaded woodpecker will occur as a result of the proposed project.
Small-anthem Bittenxess (Cardamine micranthera)
Bitter cress, generally grows on stream bank seeps, sand and gravel bars, edges of streams,
and wet woods. Silt loam and gravelly silt loam entisols are common host soils on
streambanks. Bitter cress usually grows in shade under a hardwood canopy. Common
associate species include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), yellow-poplar (Uriodendron
tuli ifera , birch Betula spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), musciewood Car inus caroliniana ,
azalea (Rhododendron nudiflorum , mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia , sedge Carex spp.),
touch-me-not (Impatiens sp.), soft rush Juncus effusus , poison hemlock Cicuta maculata ,
and bluets (Houstonia caerulea . On sand and gravel bars, bitter cress may occur alone or
with other Cardamine. Suitable habitat for bitter cress exists within the project area, but we did
not observe it. This is not surprising since Cardamine micranthera has not been observed in
Forsyth County in 20 years.
9
State Listed Species:
Records of the NC Natural Heritage Program do not indicate any occurrence of state listed
threatened, endangered, or special concern species, and no evidence was found on site to
suggest their occurrence.
Impacts
The proposed project will replace an existing bridge with a wider structure at the same
location. The site was examined assuming two alternatives would be considered: an
on-site detour or phased construction. The replacement structure would potentially be four-
lanes wide, in contrast to the current two-lane span.
Since the preferred alternative is phased construction, about 20 feet of forest cover will be
removed from along the current forest edge to provide space for the shifted and widened
approaches and the new bridge. The maximum loss of forest cover will be a long rectangular
section, measuring about 20 x 500 feet or 0.2 acre.
Most of this removal will come from the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. Within
Forsyth County as a whole, the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest currently occupies
7,215 acres, 6 percent of the total forest area and 3 percent of the entire county (Brown 1991).
[The Oak-Hickory dominated communities rank first, covering 58,372 acres (Brown 1991)].
The permanent forest losses needed for this project are taken from the least common forest
community, but these losses are extremely small and temporary. They nevertheless contribute
to regional forest losses, which between 1984 and 1991 were less than 1 percent for the
Piedmont of North Carolina (Brown 1991).
Disturbance to existing wildlife habitat will be negligible. While the widening will impact the
riparian zone during construction, no wetland impacts will occur. Given the already disturbed
conditions at this site, all species currently frequenting the area will likely continue to use it
during and after construction.
Protected Species. No adverse impact to plant populations is anticipated from this project,
since adequate populations exist outside the project area. No animal species listed have
been identified in the vicinity, and examination on site leads to a conclusion that no listed
species will be impacted.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat. Although the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
occupies the least area in Forsyth County, it cannot be considered unique, since it occurs on
7,215 acres in Forsyth County and 209,132 acres in the Piedmont of North Carolina.
Furthermore, all communities within the project area have already been adversely impacted by
human activities.
Continuity and size of the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest has been reduced by
sewerline construction. The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest has been selectively logged by
high-grading. These impacts have lowered stand quality and species richness. The
right-of-way community is dominated by weedy exotics, especially grasses. Thus, none of
these communities are prime quality.
10
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 U.S. Army 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.
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, M. J. 1991. Forest Statistics for the Piedmont of North Carolina, 1990. U.S.D.A., For.
Serv. Res. Bull. SE-117. Pp. 53.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern/central North
America.Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston. 429 pp.
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 macro i nverte brate 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. 1991a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroi nverte b rate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water (Dual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
11
NCDEM. 1991b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, North Carolina.
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.
Zimmerman, J. L. 1976. Soil Survey of Forsyth County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation
Service, U. S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, DC. Pp. 65, maps.
Vlll. 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 an 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.
12
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The bridge, built
in 1948, and a modem townhouse development are the only structures located within the
APE.
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 Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition
and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed project
will impact farmland soils and if necessary, to complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating. The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to the SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.66 acres of soils defined as prime
and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 180,116
acres of prime or important soils found in Forsyth County. The impact rating determined
through completion of Form AD-1006 indicates that the site's assessment and relative value
score is 54 out of a possible 260. A higher score would indicate that mitigation should be
considered.
It can be concluded that the project's impact on farmland, as defined by the SCS, is minimal
and therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. Forsyth
County has recently been designated as a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide and
ozone. However, the current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures for Forsyth County. Therefore, the project is considered to be
in conformance to the SIP.
The project consists of a minor shift in the alignment and widening of the immediate
approaches. This will move the road closer to some receptors but farther away from others.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. Three receptors
were analyzed. The closest units in each of three townhouse/apartment buildings were
analyzed for a change in predicted noise levels for the year 2015 due to the proposed
realignment for SR 1001 at the bridge. The predicted noise levels of the three receptors range
from -1 to +1 dBA difference in the No-Build and the proposed alternate. Two of the three
receptors exceed the noise abatement criteria for both the no-build and the build conditions.
Due to the insignificant impacts from traffic noise from the proposed project, noise abatement
is not recommended.
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
13
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Forsyth 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 about the same 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.
14
Well"
1539 /X///,,/ 1314
13.17
,.
03 .23
`s EXT./
59 -)-
5 .30 FAU 1001
?jR •36
1103
.16
.15 / o 'j??? •'
3665 j,
L1
I 3662
00 .07
o
N .02 Q'b 3678 . ::
/ 6
366a 3677 08.03
3552 3553 O? 3663 ors - 3676• c? 10
c o 3551 .19 0
3551 .07 .07 .IQv / 369
3552 0 3649
o 3591%?i.
3516 1146 q3 ?j
05 '7 1152 ?? Y2 3592

iccovr? - •
•- ............
1'
./ y SSIIUI
I
tanltyvil
t tt %
t" Go
Iss I•
?
Be Mnu f, 66 711 q
N arta.n
F S. ? Fi li
1t?nn Pta 1 S
'+ t' S 1
LaWsr'le J4
Sal m* x`

y
- ? 31
an
?
Idr'saale1emmons .. ^r+
1569
02
1321 CZ
BRIDGE NO. 97
.19
FAU 1001
ryq ,?
1150 1150 p ?2•,..
1149 ?• ` 24
j5 1 48
NOUTD: CAUOLINA DUPAATMUNT OF
TRAIIOPOILTATIOIf
DIVISION OF InGIr 7ATO
PLAIfMIIG AND MIIVIDOD'I U=AL
DILANCH
a
BRIDGE NO. 97
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-2556
5/92 Q M, I. FIG. 1
? ? I,
BRIDGE NO. 97
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-2556
LOOIaNG EAST
LOOICING WEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
A.? 4--V 7
FORSYTH COUNTY
xt 1,
El
P IV
Ile
'? `...... '' ? ?:'' ? .. •?.r1?, ?.?,.1,?,?„? ; !"`: y ..`?.:?.r .. \ vim, r,?..-?,.,•
%
?• /?/i nr
77
01
B-2556 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
BRIDGE NO. 97
/? ` `,/` . _. _.. .. .. j ?_?_ ? , ?'?•/..•r. 1, ? ? ,'? ??hj/'r?• ???.1j..? ` ?? -?., ? .?? °-."
MATCH Tj SHEET 94
FIGURE 4
Q0
STA 7Z.
4
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Mr. Keith D. Lewis,
DSA Design Group
5511 Capital Center
Suite P-100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Lewis:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Division Nine
2125 Cloverdale Avenue
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
July 20, 1992
P. E.
Drive
Jul. ..
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Per your request, we have reviewed the documents on bridge
replacement projects B-2556 and B-2559. We concur with the
alternatives and recommended improvements.
Very ru yours,
?y 0.
Douglas B. Waters
Division Engineer
DBW/KLS:hr
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

t'ho.
Q -
Syr'. -3?
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:
d
JU1 '01992
?/V/Slp OF
U' GNWq
YS ?
?RFSEARVXel
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,
L, David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
too
Replace Bridge No. 97 on SR 1001 over Muddy Creek,
Forsyth County, B-2556, ER 92-8529
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.
July 16, 1992

A_
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date Lama Evajwnon rleou.st
PART I I To 7e cornorerao by =ever i/ Age:tcyl t
( ? Iu ; C7 2
Name Ot ?roieCT Feoeraj Agency Involvea
Proootra L2no Use Counrv Ana State
PART II (TO be completed by SCSI Date Rea nt Recevey`Bv'SCS
Z wbw
Does trla site contain prime, unioua. statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acrrs Impcea Average Farm s:a•
fJf no. the FPPA does nor apply - do nor corrrplere additional parts of this form). 631- ? 'a b A/ I (e-i
Major Croats) Fartrsaoa• Lana In Govt. Junsaiaron Amount Of Fertrrana As Oet?ned 7n PPA
C-0 (t IJ Aces. t 43 ,66 3 S % to $ t s I A=cs: t$ p o b lot 4
naarne Ot Lana Evatuauon System Urea Marne Of Coat Site A- Mont System Date no Evaluation Returnee By SCS
E?o?e S t? ?. I At D I?l LE GJ 0 Ict2--
on.rn.t,. ;.t. acne
PART I I I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site a Site C Site 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly I G.?s' 1 •?
8. Total Acres To Be Converted Indireetfv
C. Total Acres in Site ?•? l-?
PART IV (To be completrd by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland I I d i
B Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland ?t?lo
C Percentage Of Farmland In Countv Or Local GovL Unit To Be Converted I I t Cb
O Percentage Of Farmland in Govt jursdicrion Wilt Sa rw Or Nigher Relative Value I I („ to. 41
PART V (To be completed by SCSJ Land Evaluations Ccitzrion
r Relarive ValuoOf Farmland To BeComertcd(So/eofOra IOOPo(ntsl I I
3-t• ag I
I
PART VI (To be complered by Federal AgancyJ
Ste Aapesam•nt Cnt•na /Thaw cnrov-i& are eralainad in 7 CFR 6W.5111) maximum I
Points I I I
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use I 00 I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed I ( I C
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government I
S. Oirmnea From Urban Builtuo Area I -
8. Distancx To Urban Suooort Services I -
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Avcraga r'o S
13. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland `S
S. Availability Of Farm Suooort Servic = I 1
10. On-Farm Investments = I O
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Sucoorr Servic::s
12. Comoatibiii Witm Existing Agricultural Use I?
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 lb
PART VII (To be completed by Federal AgencyJ I ( I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr VI I 100 ?' e1
Total Site Assessment (From Parr V1 above ora loo/
sire assessmenr) 160 I
TOTAL POINTS (Toral of above T linesl I 260 I I ?3.?q
..Y n Wr. Y_
Site Salected: I Data Of Sislecrion YCZ ? No ?
Re"an For Setection:
G.?S U c re 514 e nJC? Shc;?r..j
Winston- Salem/Forsyth County Schools
4150 Carver Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 - [phone]
Operations Manager for Transportation
April 3, 1992
Mr. Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
DSA Design Group
5511 Capital Center Drive, Suite P-100
Raleigh, N.C. 27606
Dear Mr. Lewis:
1 ?1 -7
1992 :?.
DWDEAISIGH GROUP
This is in response to your inquiry about the proposed
replacement of two bridges in Fors th County and how replacewent
would impact our school system.
Bridge #97 on SR 1001 over Muddy Creek (NC DOT TIP # B-2556)
is located on a school bus route with four buses making a total of
eight crossings per day. Bridge #102 on SR 1891 over Muddy Creek
is also located on a school bus route with five buses making ten
crossings per day. Needless to say, the best time of year for
construction that would impact us less would be June through mid-
August. Detours can cause schedule problems for us unless it's a
simple off-site "drive around" type of detour.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project and
respectfully request that we be informed as to decisions which may
be made concerning these two bridges.
If I can assist you further, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jeff Laws
Operations Manager
JL/j s