19930370 Ver 1_Complete File_19930505

4 %
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 26, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301978 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. 102 (T.I.P. No. B-2559) located on S.R. 1891, 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 (NWP).
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
NWP provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed
1 ? Y
-2-
ditions. This NWP 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.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field
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
..Mr. 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

JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
April 5, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
i
..s
is SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Subject: Forsyth County, SR 1891, Bridge No. 102 over Muddy
Creek, State Project No. 8.2622701, Federal Aid No.
BRM-5931(1), T.I.P. Number B-2559.
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.

s` t S
{
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Tq?
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-9770.
Sincerely,
B. n
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
V 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
e4 a
APPROVED:
;_ 93
D
3 ?
ATE p 0 Q

Forsyth County
SR 1891
Bridge No. 102 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRM-5931(1)
State Project No. 8.2622701
T.I.P. No. B-2559
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Division Administrator, FHWA
'4 at, Forsyth County

SR 1891
Bridge No. 102 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRM-5931(1)
State Project No. 8.2622701
T.I.P. No. B-2559
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 1992
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
lf?tlt:,it!t tefy,
Keith D. Lewis, P.E. -
Project Manager - Transportation
f? p
?t?f tttt?? Z
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
C5/) Adul aft4"Y?
L a' rimes, E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
/A_.Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager

Forsyth County
SR 1891
Bridge No. 102 over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRM-5931(1)
State Project No. 8.2622701
T.I.P. No. B-2559
Bridge No. 102 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. 102 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It should be
replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 30 feet and length of 200 feet.
The structure will provide a 24 foot travelway and three foot shoulders 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 a 24 foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be maintained during construction on a temporary detour structure that should be
built parallel to the existing bridge.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $708,900. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $548,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1891 (Peace Haven Road) is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. Peace Haven Road is designated as a minor thoroughfare
in the Winston Salem/Forsyth County Thoroughfare Plan adopted on December 11, 1987 by
NCDOT. This minor arterial serves a suburban area of Clemmons in Forsyth County (see
Figure 1). The land use is predominately woodland and grass fields in the immediate vicinity
of the bridge.
r
Near the bridge, SR 1891 has a 18 foot pavement with four 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 9°00' curve approximately 630 feet from the bridge to the west
and a 1°30' curve approximately 350 feet to the east. The roadway is situated about 29 feet
above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 6900 vehicles per day (VPD) for 1995 and 12500 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The speed limit is 55 MPH.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1950. The superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete deck on I-beams, and the substructure consists of a reinforced concrete
cap and timber piles end bent, a reinforced concrete spill thru end bent, and reinforced
concrete post and beam internal bents.
The overall length of the bridge is 190 feet. Clear roadway width is 20.1 feet. The posted
weight limit is 15 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for TTST's.
Bridge No. 102 has a sufficiency rating of 28.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure.
A utility structure crossing Muddy Creek is located approximately 25 feet south from the
existing bridge. On the north side of the bridge a gaging station stands approximately five
feet from the bridge. Use of the gaging station was discontinued in 1970.
Five accidents were reported on Bridge No. 102 during the period from January 1, 1989 to
December 31, 1991.
Five school buses cross the bridge twice a day.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 102. Each alternate consists of a
bridge 200 feet long with a clear roadway width of 30 feet. This structure width will
accommodate a 24 foot travelway with three foot shoulders. The approach roadway will
consist of a 24 foot travelway with eight foot usable shoulders.
A third alternate was originally considered for realigning the road and replacing the bridge on
the south side of the existing bridge. This alternate was not considered feasible due to the
existing utility structure located in that area.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate 1: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment. Traffic will be
detoured during construction along existing roads as shown in Figure 1.
Alternate 2: (Recommended) involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during construction on the north side
2
of the existing structure. The temporary structure will be 110 feet in length and a minimum of
35 feet from the existing structure. A design speed of 50 will be provided on the detour.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1891.
The Division Office recommends that traffic be maintained with an on-site detour structure
instead of closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes on SR 1891.
The Forsyth County School Transportation Supervisor has stated that off-site detours could
cause scheduling problems because of longer routes if the bridge is closed during the
construction period.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternate 1
Structural Removal $ 19,000
Structure 295,000
Roadway Approaches 33,250
Detour Structure and Approaches -
Miscellaneous & Mobilization 72,750
Engineering & Contingencies 55,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 35,900
TOTAL $ 510,900
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Recommended
Alternate 2
$ 19,000
295,000
33,250
140,950
86,800
75,000
58,900
$ 708,900
Bridge No. 102 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure having a length of
approximately 200 feet. Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for
a distance of about 250 feet on each side of the bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with
this recommended alternate.
A 24 foot pavement with eight foot usable shoulders will be provided on the approaches. A
30 foot clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with
the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. Even though SR 1891 is classified as an urban arterial, it
functions as a collector. Therefore; criteria for a collector route was used for the bridge
replacement. This will provide a 24 foot travelway with three foot shoulders across the
structure. The design speed is 60 MPH.
Approximately 1.3 miles of additional travel would be necessary for the average vehicle
affected by a road closure. A Road-User Analysis, based on a 15-month construction period,
3
indicates the cost of additional travel would be approximately $1,190,000. The estimated cost
of maintaining traffic is $198,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 6.01, which indicates that
maintenance of traffic is justifiable.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 200 feet. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
The City of Winston-Salem has in their long 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
A Biologist visited the project site on May 11, 1992 to verify documented information and
gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts incurred by a proposed
bridge replacement.
The existing bridge crosses Muddy Creek at about a right angle with the creek, forming four
quadrants. Land immediately surrounding the bridge in the southern and western quadrants
is forested, except for the roadsides and a sewerline right-of-way. This recently cleared
right-of-way, varying between 50 and 90 feet wide, lacks all tree cover. It approximately
parallels Muddy Creek throughout the project area, leaving only a strip of natural vegetation
between 15 to 40 feet wide along the creek. The construction access road is still evident and
still occasionally used, probably by unauthorized off-road vehicles. In addition, utility lines
paralleling SR 1891 were recently replaced. These new lines cross Muddy Creek on a
separate steel lattice bridge, located 20 feet downstream of the highway bridge.
The northern and eastern quadrants contain agricultural cropland, except for an
irregularly-shaped strip of natural vegetation, varying between 30 and 90 feet wide adjacent to
Muddy Creek. In the northern quadrant, a small ditch, located about 100 feet north of SR
1891, drains the agricultural field; it enters Muddy Creek about 180 feet upstream of the
current bridge.
This investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to (1)
search for State & Federally protected plants and animal species; (2) identify unique or
prime-quality communities; (3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; (4)
identify wetlands; and (5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental
effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 300 feet. Plot center was located at the
middle of the existing highway bridge. Plant communities within this plot were delineated from
aerial photographs and ground-checked on site. Woody community types follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990). Within each community, a list of member plant species and general site
4
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 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 special concern.
Aquatic system features were noted at three locations on the site: at the bridge and 100 ft
upstream and downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality
was reviewed. Wetland determinations followed procedures described by the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987).
Ground distance was determined either by estimation on the ground or by measurement on
aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were developed from
on-site reconnaissance.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two natural plant communities occur within the study area, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest and Right-of-Way. Agricultural land in the northern quadrant is regularly plowed for row
crops, while the land in the eastern quadrant is pasture, mostly fescue (Festuca elatior),
bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) with scattered trees,
eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bitternut hickory
(Carva cordiformis), and winged elm (Ulmus alata). Agricultural land is regularly managed,
and natural processes do not dominate. Therefore, it is not considered further in this section.
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.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is the
only forest community within the project area. It originally occurred in areas now occupied by
the sewerline right-of-way and agricultural fields, and both of 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 to the
right-of-way. In addition, waterline construction activities spread gravel in the forest
understory adjacent to the existing bridge. Some of this gravel has been washed farther
downslope by heavy runoff. These activities have reduced the quality of the residual stand,
5
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), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), black
walnut (Juglans nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii). 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 (Morus rubra).
Basal area for all canopy species equals 120 fe/acre; sweetgum provides the most of any
single species, about 30 ft2/acre, and yellow-poplar ranks second with 20 ft2/acre. The
remaining area, 70 ft2/acre, is more-or-less equally shared among the remaining species listed
above.
The shrub layer contains privet (Ligustrum sinense), silky dogwood (Comus amomum),
possumhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), American hazel (Corylus americana), multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora), and common blackberry (Rubus argutus). Multiflora rose and common
blackberry are not typical of shady forest understories, but the patchwork arrangement of this
stand allows more light to reach the forest floor. Privet dominates the shrub layer, providing
about 50 percent of the foliar cover. The ground layer contains common blue violet iola
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
i antea , Solomon's-seal (Polygonatum biflorum), leather flower (Clematis viorna), ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), and common grapefern
(Botrychium dissectum). 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.
Right-of-Way. The Right-of-Way community occurs in the recently constructed sewedine.
Bare soil still covers about 5 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), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), 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), lamb's-quarters (Chenopodium album), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule),
and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Grasses dominate the foliar cover, providing 80
percent, while forbs more-or-less equally share the remaining 20 percent.
6
Wildlife (General)
On this site the Piedmont/low mountain alluvial hardwood forest provides minimal habitat for
typical upland wildlife species, chiefly small mammals and songbirds, none of which are
especially dependent upon the habitat features proximal to this bridge. On three quadrants
around the bridge only a small fringe of this habitat remains due to disturbances of varied
types. About 250 feet south of the bridge, a 58 acre trailer park has completely eliminated
natural habitat. Pasture east and a tilled field north of the bridge provide habitat for early
successional species, and in both cases some edge effect will be beneficial to wildlife, but
residential development beyond these areas limits the natural territory available. Only on the
west of the bridge is forest habitat contiguous with the sewerline and, even there, the forest is
fragmented by past disturbances and residential sites. Clearly, species accommodated to
human disturbance, such as Robins (Turdis migratorius) and Mockingbirds are the most likely
to be found in the vicinity.
The forested creek banks and parallel undeveloped corridor allow wildlife passage through
the area, but the riparian zone is relatively narrow, so a fully developed bottomland habitat has
not occurred. Raccoon (Procyon lotor and wading bird tracks were observed in the mud flats
on the east side of the creek, and other typical foraging and transitory species are expected to
frequent the area. The most interesting observation during the site examination was a dozen
or so Yellow Swallowtail butterflies that appeared to be congregating in a mating ritual on the
mud flat on the creek's west bank.
American shad LIM sapidisima) or Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) are the fish
species most likely to inhabit Muddy Creek. One dessicated but otherwise intact specimen
was observed stranded on the creek bank downstream of the bridge. No other aquatic
species were observed due to the water's turbulence.
Overall, the quality of wildlife habitat at this site is best characterized as degraded, a clear
result of past agricultural and more recent development pressure.
Phvsical Resources
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on granitic rock, intruded at least 265 million years ago into
the Raleigh Belt of the Piedmont physiographic region (Brown 1985). All soils north of Muddy
Creek are mapped Chewacla loam, soils flooded for very brief periods, generally in winter
(Zimmerman 1976). Soils south along Muddy Creek are mapped Pacolet fine sandy loam,
well- drained soils of lower side slopes. Since water level of Muddy Creek is about five feet
below the general topography, all soils are well-drained, and wetlands are limited to the creek
itself.
Water
Muddy Creek is a tributary of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River system. The creek arises in
northwestern Forsyth County, flows southerly into Davidson County, and eventually enters the
Yadkin River. The Yadkin and Uwharrie Rivers later join to form the Pee Dee River. Although
width of the bottomland typically formed by Muddy Creek in Forsyth County varies between
7
500 and 2300 feet, the creek in the project area passes through a small saddle between
adjacent ridges. At this point the bottomland is much narrower, only about 100 feet.
Muddy Creek's waters are designated Class C north of the Davidson County line (NCDEM
1989b). At two BMAN monitoring sites downstream along Muddy Creek, ratings assigned
above and below a Westinghouse discharge point are Good and Fair, respectively (NCDEM
1989a, 1991). This fact suggests that water quality on this particular site may be considered
good, but the site visit occurred several days after heavy rains in the region, so evidence of
high stormflows was observed. The water's turbidity and other characteristics reflected the
obvious effects of recent high stormflows and siltation from upstream (Table 1).
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Muddy Creek Crossing.
Observation Point Upstream (100 ft) Existing Downstream (100 ft)
Substrate Boulders Boulders/mud Boulders/mud
Current Flow Strong
Channel Width ft 35.0 35.0 35.0
Bank Hei ht ft 5.5 6.0 5.0
Water Depth ft 2.0 1.5 2.0

Water Color --
Turbid
Turbid
r
Turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwood fringe: s camore river birch on channel bank.
Wetlands Bank to Bank
At all three points where observations shown in Table 1 were made, small falls occur and
create slackwater, which will lead to some settling of the silt loading the stream. However, the
general gradient of the stream is steep enough to carry the bulk of sediments farther along
below this point. The rather steep banks on either side of the creek are apparently high
enough to contain storm surges and preclude overland flooding at this location, so wetland
characteristics are not in evidence.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Other than the actual stream channel, no jurisdictional wetland occurs on the site. Since
water level of Muddy Creek is about five feet below the general creekside topography, all soils
are well-drained. Neither evidence of wetland hydrology nor hydric plants were observed in
the areas adjacent Muddy Creek, and Pacolet is not listed among the hydric soils.
8
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Listed Species:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the federally listed species shown in Table 2.
Habitat requirements and available records concerning all of 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
due 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.
9
Small-anthered bitters Tess (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 (Liriodendron
tuli ifera , birch Betula spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), musclewood 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.
State Listed Species:
According to Steve Hull of the NC Natural Heritage Program, for this vicinity no records exist
of any species listed by the state of North Carolina as threatened, endangered or
special concern. During the field investigation, no threatened, endangered, or special
concern plants were observed. All plants encountered are common species. No adverse
impact to plant populations is anticipated from this project, since adequate populations exist
outside the project area. No evidence of any wildlife species protected in North Carolina was
observed on site, and no reason to suspect the occurrence of such species was discovered.
Impacts
The proposed project will replace an existing bridge with a wider two-lane structure at the
same location. The project was visited assuming several alternatives were under
consideration: road closure, on-site detour, and phased construction. A road closure was
considered unlikely.
The preferred alternative is an on-site detour, therefore about 10 feet of forest cover will be
removed from along the existing forest edge on the west side of the bridge. The maximum
loss of forest cover will be a long rectangular section, measuring 10 x 500 feet or 0.1 acre.
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). [Oak-Hickory dominated communities rank first, covering 58,372 acres (Brown
1991)]. The 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).
Habitat loss associated with the project will be minimal and essentially inconsequential. As
noted above, the forest cover removed is fringe separating the existing right of way from
already disturbed habitats on either side of the road corridor. The temporary detour structure
will be removed following project completion, allowing reversion to pre-project conditions. The
improved approaches and new bridge will only encroach on a portion of the natural vegetation
and, following construction activities, forest will recover the site. The sloping area under the
10
bridge is now and will be eventually recovered by brushy or weedy vegetation. No wildlife
species should be permanently dislocated from the site.
Accelerated soil erosion is always a concern when constructing around streams. Erosion
contributes to soil loss, but equally importantly, erosion sediments are deposited downstream.
In sufficient quantities, these deposits clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic
organisms, especially bottom-dwelling and bottom-reproducing species. But soil erosion from
construction projects is largely avoidable, and appropriate measures, consistent with current
Best Management Practices, will be taken to control erosion during the term of the project.
Aquatic conditions observed during this investigation reveal that sediment loads are already
high during storm flows as a result of upstream inputs, so proper precautions taken during the
proposed project should incur minimal adverse effects on the biotic productivity of Muddy
Creek.
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. In
addition, this community has been heavily impacted by sewer and waterline construction.
These impacts have lowered stand quality and species richness. The Right-of-Way
community is dominated by weedy exotics, especially grasses. Thus, neither community is
prime-quality.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the 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.
11
Literature Cited
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Brown, M. J. 1991. Forest Statistics for the Piedmont of North Carolina, 1990. USDA For. Serv.
Res. Bull. SE-117. Pp. 53.
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. 1989a. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.,
Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1989b. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to Waters of The
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. NC Dept. Natrl. Res. and Comm. Dev. , Division of Environmental
Management, Raleigh.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
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. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Dept.
of Agric., Washington, DC. Pp. 65, maps.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion' due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
12
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.
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The bridge, built
in 1950, and a portion of a trailer park are the only properties 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 0.43 acres of soils defined as prime
and statewide or local 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
46 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.
13
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
and air quality will be Insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
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
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE -----
NORTH CAAOLUFA DnPARTIZZMT OF
TILANDPOBTATION
DIVIDION OF UIOIIAATO
PLAIt UNG AID MlIV1310N DIFTAL
DIIAITCII
d
BRIDGE NO. 102
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-2559
5/92 Q ml. 1 /2 FIG. 1
BRIDGE NO. 102
FORSYTH COUNTY
B-2559
LOOICING EAST
LOOIQNG WEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3

???-.. i .. t, =•. -. --:: - _ FORSYTH COUNTY
;` , ''1,? ?b _r '..,'•a•y ??,?• _ O ,•\ ? Vim.. :? .:... ? a _
B-2559 s ..
BRIDGE NO. 102
1 ;; ._? ? i/ ?/; ?,/' %= '?,: w ? ? ,?j'`• 'MUDDY C R E?Eif4 ?- ?•\ ,??
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN i`
.'_? _ r' `\, ?4.?? "r'`!' ?'?.- /
. ^fw ??. ^ MW 3,` 11 •? I'll ? { .. , ..... ?. ,_ ',?,/?.-4
• ' ^ 1r.r '''? ter:.:( '
' i ?. „ it { ? ' t ' % ...
MATCH TO SHEET 117
FIGURE 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
JE 2 2 1V92
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,
Douglas B. Waters
Division Engineer
DBW/KLS:hr
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Q,
s . lr=... S
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:
Q
y JUL zo 1992
DI VAS/Or OF ?
v
`CP /GHwAyS
SE.4RG?A
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, \
/David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
Replace Bridge No. 102 on SR 1891 over Muddy Creek,
Forsyth County, B-2559, ER 92-8540
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
99?0 Winston- Salem/Forsyth County Schools
4150 Carver Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 - [phone]
%
Operations Manager for Transportation 7.LQES1GtN1
Apri l 3, 1992 - 71992
Mr. Keith D. Lewis, P.E. GROUP 1
Project Manager - Transportation ALEIGH NC
DSA Design Group
5511 Capital Center Drive, Suite P-100
Raleigh, N.C. 27606
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This is in response to your inquiry about the proposed
replacement of 'two bridges in Forsyth county and how replacement
would impact our school system.
Bridge 097 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
14-
U.S. Department of Agrlcuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I fro tae cotnoter ea by Zece: J/ Agenrvl (pate at t tang ?3 /wCu1 .2- oust
Name Of Prolect - Feoersl Agencv Irnelvea
Proooteo uno Use - I Caunty AM Starr
1?il 9-?cZ?-rim ,?_-r•? ? N?-flQot?-? ? ?o'•?..L??+r?E-S I ?='Z2S?'?-?- C? +JG
PART II fro be camorered by SCS) Oats Requcts Re
`T1°o?iy 5
(. 4 ck 7-
l? G
Does the site contain prime, unioue, statewide or loci important farmland? Ycs No Acrn Imgt Awa;a Fsum Sus
fif no. me FPPA does nor aoo/v - do not complere additional parts of Mis farm). ? ? t z (1-1
Mato, Croats) a uno in GwL Junsaxt?an a? ArMunt Or Fst•tnt&m U OennQ In PPA
Cow Acts: ? S 6 6 3 -a % % I Acr«: t
Nanw Or Lana Evuuauon System Usw I reams Of Locos Site AaEurtont Srstsm I Oatn "no Ran&nv J By SGS
E- c E I o Z t c,v
vurrn>•r.v? S.re ann?
'AK 1 111 ( 10 Of COmp/ertO 0Y re0CM1 Agency/
Site A
Site ©
site C
Site O
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Oirectiv
13. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acm In Site I D o_ ?S
'ART IV fTo be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation lnfcm%stion
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland I I
8. Total Acres Statewide And Local Imoortant Farmland I I ?r4•?
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Cornermd 1 I 4. O O?
0. Pismatrtsge Of Femusno in Gwt. Ansdicnon When SatrOr Nignar Roatne Valve I I fn? , a I
'ART V (To be complered by SCSI Land Evaluation Critcnon
Relative Value Of Farmland To BeConvartrsdMal&ofOto 100PoinW I
( 25. ? I
ART V1 fTo be comofercd by Federal Agency) I Wasl I
its Assionment Ctitans fTh`a art><rra s,v ssstlrrnoOln 7 C)rg 6SL51b) Point= I I
1. Area In Nonurban Use I /? I I
2 Perimeter In Nonurban Use I !? - I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Govert>rtsent I ? C 1
S. Distance From Urban Builtuo Area I - I I -
6. Disanca To Urban Suooort Servicas I
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Comoamd To Avaup
I
r I
B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 1 ?S I C
9. Availability Of Fenn Suooort Services I -
10. On-Farm Investments t:
11. Effects Of Conversion On Form Suction Servica y"
12 Comostibili Witr1 Existing Acricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS lea ?;-
4RT V11 (To be completed by Ftrcarvi Agcr=cy)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part VJ I 100
Tool Site Assassmont / rom Parr V1 aoove or a local
srnr assl4menrl
TOTAL POINTS O bra/ of above ? lined 280 ??

M Selecud:
I Oats Of Selection I W= A Lot Site Ax;==11r= U =l
Yca ? No ?
man For Setealon: