19970133 Ver 1_Complete File_19970214

4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31. 1997
U.S. Ar.ml Corps of Engineers
Rel-11-11atorv Field Office
65 12 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Raleiuh. NC 27609
ATTN: Nlr. Michael Smith
Chief. Northern Section
Dear Sir:

,;; 1, lti N
SUBJECT: Forsyth Count.', Replacement of Bridge No. 79 over South Fork Creel: on
SR 2700. TIP No. 13-2970. State Project No. 8.2623501. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-2700(1).
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 (13-23) issued December 13. 1996.
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project. `
We anticipate that 101 General Water Quality Certitication No. -)745 (Cate?oorical
LxclUSlon) Will apply to this project, and are providing one copy o the CE document to
the North Carolina Dep? rtment of Environment. Health and Natural Resources. Division
of Water Quality. for their review.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. B. Walters, Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Y. Baldwin, Planning & Environmental

Forsyth County
Bridge No. 79 on SR 2700 (Willard Road)
over South Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2700(1)
State Project 8.2623501
T.I.P. No. B-2970
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE pe Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Forsyth County
Bridge No. 79 on SR 2700 (Willard Road)
over South Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2700(1)
State Project 8.2623501
T.I.P. No. B-2970
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 1996
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
9lI
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date
Project Manager
I I It It"",
•???N CAR01 ''
?'•.••' ESSIp?q°••. q
10
SEAL
14509 =
'ells S HO "'V
" M
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., U it ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. al in
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Forsyth County
Bridge No. 79 on SR 2700 (Willard Road)
over South Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2700(1)
State Project 8.2623501
T.I.P. No. B-2970
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Construction of SR 2700 (Willard Road) will not begin until construction at NC 109 and
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) is complete.
Forsyth County
Bridge No. 79 on SR 2700 (Willard Road)
over South Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2700(1)
State Project 8.2623501
T.I.P. No. B-2970
Bridge No. 79 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 79 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a quadruple 4.0-meter (13-
foot) wide by 3.4-meter (11-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. This structure will
be of sufficient length to accommodate the approach roadway which will consist of a 7.2-
meter (24-foot) pavement width and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side throughout
the project limits.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location. The horizontal curve south of the structure will be flattened
slightly to improve the alignment of the roadway.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width to provide
two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side throughout
the project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 1) will be used to maintain traffic during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $825,200. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $355,000 ($325,000 -
construction; $30,000 - right-of-way).
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on the Forsyth County Line, approximately 4.4 kilometers (2.7
miles) south of Winston-Salem, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural farmland
and woodlands in nature.
SR 2700 (Willard Road) is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated
bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2700 has a 5.5-meter (18-foot) pavement width with 1.8-
meter (6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat
through the project area. The existing bridge is located on tangent which extends
approximately 230 meters (750 feet) north from the structure, and the south approach is
on a mild curve which becomes tangent approximately 45 meters (150 feet) south of the
bridge. The roadway is situated approximately 4.2 meters (14 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 1,200 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to
2,100 VPD by the year 2020. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-
trailer (TTST) and 1% dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit; however,
a 64 kilometers per hour (40 miles per hour) curve exists south of the site. The speed
limit is assumed to be the statutory speed limit of 88 kilometers per hour (55 miles per
hour) in the project area.
Bridge No. 79 is a four-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel girders. The
substructure consists of mass concrete abutments and interior bents with timber caps and
piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1959.
The overall length of the structure is 30.8 meters (101 feet). The clear roadway width is
5.8 meters (19 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 10.9 metric tons (12 tons)
for single vehicles and 17.2 metric tons (19 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 79 has a sufficiency rating of 19.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, high tension power
lines cross the roadway diagonally approximately 13.7 meters (45 feet) south of the
bridge. An aerial telephone line runs along the west side of the roadway approaches and
at the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There have been no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 79 during the period
from April, 1992 to April, 1995.
Twelve school buses cross the bridge daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 79 were studied. Each alternative consists of a
quadruple 4.0-meter (13-foot) wide by 3.4-meter (11-foot) high reinforced concrete box
culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate the approach roadway
which will consist of a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width and 2.4-meter (8-foot)
shoulders on each side throughout the project limits. Typical sections of the approach
roadway are included as Figure 4.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for
approximately 200 meters (660 feet) south and 190 meters (620 feet) north of the
proposed structure. The horizontal curve south of the structure will be flattened slightly
to improve the alignment of the roadway. A temporary off-site detour will be provided
during the construction period. The off-site detour will be 4.9 kilometers (3 miles) in
length (see Figure 1). The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (62
miles per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it utilizes existing secondary
roads for the detour rather than necessitating the construction of an on-site detour. It is,
therefore, less costly to construct and has less impact on the ecosystem in the vicinity of
the site as compared to the additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment within the
study corridor upstream (east) of the existing structure. Improvements to the alignment
on the approaches include approximately 460 meters (1,500 feet) of new roadway
construction. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction period
by utilizing the existing structure and approaches. The temporary detour will be removed
once traffic is routed over the replacement structure and approaches. The design speed of
this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour). This alternative is not
recommended because it would introduce a curve on the north approach and would
involve 365 meters (1,200 feet) of new approach roadway.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2700.
The NCDOT Division 9 Engineer concurs that an off-site detour will be the best
alternative during bridge replacement.
The Forsyth County School Transportation Director indicates that maintenance of traffic
off-site during the construction period is acceptable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Structure $322,700.00 $322,700.00
Roadway Approaches $363,950.00 $528,950.00
Detour Structure and Approaches NA NA
Structural Removal $13,350.00 $13,350.00
Engineering and Contingencies $100,000.00 $135,000.00
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities $25,200.00 $44,250.00
TOTAL $825,200.00 $1,044,250.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 79 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2, with a quadruple 4.0-meter (13-foot) wide by 3.4-meter (11-foot) high
reinforced concrete box culvert. Improvements to the existing approaches will be
necessary for a distance of about 200 meters (660 feet) south and 190 meters (620 feet)
north of the proposed structure. This will include flattening the horizontal curve south of
the structure slightly to improve the alignment of the roadway. The Division Engineer
concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side will
be provided throughout the length of the project in accordance with the current NCDOT
Policy (see Figure 4). SR 2700 is classified as a rural local; therefore, criteria for a rural
local was used for the bridge replacement. The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour
(62 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off site is acceptable because of
low traffic volumes using SR 2700 and the short length, 4.9 kilometers (3 miles), of
additional travel required along existing secondary roads (see Figure 1). Additionally,
wetlands would be impacted by the construction of a temporary on-site detour.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to be a
quadruple 4.0-meter (13-foot) wide by 3.4-meter (11-foot) high reinforced concrete box
culvert. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
structure. The final design of the culvert will be such that the backwater elevation will
not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits. The dimensions of the new
structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 2, 1996 to verify documented information and
gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by
a proposed bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to
1) search for State and 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.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-
dominated and successional mixed hardwood forest. Specific communities exhibited
slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils,
topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Successional Mixed Hardwood Forest:
This forested community occurs in the northeast quadrant and in a narrow strip along the
banks of the stream. The dominant canopy trees include American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The understory consists of
dogwood (Corpus jlorida), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The shrub layer includes privet (Ligustrum
sinense), and the herbaceous layer includes blackberry (Rubus sp.) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders, the field around the Sunset
Hills Community Center, the field in the northwest quadrant, and the transmission line
easement. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained
areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders, transmission line easement,
and fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum ofcinale), dead nettle (Lamium purpureum), narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia
angustifolia), cranesbill (Geranium maculatum), yellow jasmine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), and mustard (Brassica spp. ).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside man-dominated and forested areas. The
forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby
the project area. The forested areas adjacent to South Fork Creek and associated ecotones
serve as valuable habitat, providing all the necessary components (food, water, protective
cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although only a Northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis) and an American robin (Turdus migratorius) were observed
during the site visit, several species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and the Northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos) are typical to these disturbed habitats.
Although not observed during the site visit, animals previously listed may also be found
in the mixed hardwood forest community along with the raccoon (Procyon lotor), Gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), American toad
(Bufo Americanus), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), red-winged
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
Aquatic:
South Fork Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for
recreational fishing. Although none were observed during the site visit, animals such as
the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) are typical of these communities. Typically,
macroinvertebrates such as the mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and
caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae would be found within snag habitats along the creek banks
and within riffle areas. The macroinvertebrate fauna within the channel may be
dominated by midges (Chironomid larvae) and segmented worms (Oligochaetes).
During the site visit, no invertebrates were observed. No fish sampling data has been
reported for South Fork Creek.
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes
6
along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 237.7 meters (780.0
feet).
According to the Soil Survey of Forsyth County, this portion of Forsyth County contains
soils from the Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree association which are characterized as
being somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained soils found on flood plains subject to
overflow. This map unit was confirmed in the field. The soils in the project area are
mapped as Chewacla loam, Pacolet fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, and Pacolet
fine sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes. Chewacla loam is a somewhat poorly drained
soil on flood plains. Pacolet fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, is a well drained
soil on uplands. Pacolet fine sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes, is a well drained soil
found on upland terrain on lower side slopes.
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses South Fork Creek and lies within the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage basin.
South Fork Creek is a perennial tributary within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. The
creek flows west through the proposed project area with a width of 8.2 meters (27.0 feet)
at Bridge No. 79. The depth of the creek was approximately 0.2 to 0.5 meter (0.5 to 1.5
feet) on the day of the investigation. The creek has a Class C rating from the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating the creek's
suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, agriculture and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Forsyth County
(1984) indicates the project area lies in Zone A3, which is within the 100-year flood
boundary where base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have been determined.
The NCDEM Classification Index number for South Fork Creek is 12-94-13.
The NCDEM has no macroinvertebrate sampling data from South Fork Creek. Benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been
developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic
sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different
ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina.
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another
method to determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The scores derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody
and may not necessarily directly correlate to water quality. The NCIBI is not applicable
to high elevation trout streams, lakes or estuaries. No NCIBI data is available for South
7
Fork Creek. No waters classified by the NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located
within the project vicinity.
The Forsyth County Watershed Map at the Forsyth County Planning Department
indicates the project area is not within a protected watershed.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of South Fork Creek observed in the vicinity
of the proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Characteristic Description
Substrate Sand and silt
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width 8.2 meters (27.0 feet)
Water Depth 0.2 meters (0.5 to 1.5 feet)
Water Color Slightly turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
djacent Vegetation American sycamore and green ash
L±
tlands None
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACOE).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as South Fork Creek has well defined
banks within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in
the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACOE. Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of jurisdictional surface water
impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 79.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists three federally protected species for Forsyth County as of August 23, 1996. These
species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR FORSYTH COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina
(Common Name) Status
Picoides borealis* E
(red-cockaded woodpecker)
Cardamine micranthera E
(small-anthered bittercress)
Sisyrinchium dichotomum** E
(white irisette)
* Indicates Historic - obscure & incidental record..
* * Denotes Obscure record (the date and/or location of the species
observation is uncertain).
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship
to the proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
V The red-cockaded woodpecker has a black and white cross-barred back, black head and
neck, and white cheeks. The small red cockades on each side of the head are present in
males but absent in females. The overall length of the red-cockaded woodpecker is 220
millimeters (9 inches) on average and wing span approximately 122 millimeters (5
inches). The white eggs are laid from mid-April to early-June, in a clutch of two to five,
and are incubated for approximately 10 days by both the male and the female. The red-
cockaded woodpecker is found in open stands of mature (80 years and older) long-leaf
pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus elliotii), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), or shortleaf
pine (Pinus echinata) with sparse hardwood subcanopies. Most red-cockaded
9
woodpeckers maintain year-round territories near their nesting trees. The woodpeckers
drill small holes in the bark of the pine tree's trunk, and the exuding resin is believed to
repel predators.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the red-cockaded woodpecker as the project
area does not contain mature stands of the previously listed pine species. A search of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded occurrences of
this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that construction of the
proposed project will not impact the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera)
Status: E
Family: Brassicaceae
Listed: 9/21/89
Flowers Present: April - May
The small-anthered bittercress is an erect perennial herb with fibrous roots and one
simple or branched stem(s) growing 20 to 40 centimeters (7.9 to 15.7 inches) tall. The
leaves are 1 to 5 centimeters (0.4 to 2.0 inches) long, 0.5 to 2.0 centimeters (0.2 to 0.8
inch) wide, scalloped, with one pair of small lateral lobes or leaflets. The stem leaves are
alternate and mostly unlobed, 1 to 1.5 centimeters (0.4 to 0.6 inch) long, scalloped and
wedge shaped. The flowers have 4 white petals, six stamens, and small round anthers.
The small-anthered bittercress is found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars,
along stream banks, and in wet woods near streams. The habitats occupied by this
species are all fully to partially shaded by trees and shrubs typical of moist soils of the
upper piedmont.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat exists in the project study area for the small-anthered bittercress. Following
inspection of herbarium specimens and field guide photographs of small-anthered
bittercress, the stream banks were visually searched for the presence of this species. The
search was performed on May 2, 1996, during the reported flowering season. No
individuals of this species were observed in or adjacent to the study area during the site 10
visit. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
construction of the proposed project will not impact the small-anthered bittercress.
White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum)
Status: E
Family: Iridaceae
Listed: 9/26/91
Flowers Present: May - July
10
The white irisette is a perennial herb which grows in a dichotomously - branching pattern,
reaching heights of approximately 11 to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches). The leaves are
pale to bluish green and the small white flowers bloom from late May through July in
clusters of four to six at the ends of winged stems. The white irisette occurs on rich, basic
soils probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows in clearings and the edges of upland
woods where the canopy is thin and often where down-slope runoff has removed much of
the deep litter layer ordinarily present at these sites. According to the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program,. the one reported occurrence of the species in Forsyth County
was never confirmed and is considered dubious.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the white irisette. A search of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded occurrences of this
species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that construction of the proposed
project will not impact the white irisette.
Federal Species of Concern:
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are
defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing. Table 3 includes the FSC species
listed for Forsyth County and its state classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
FORSYTH COUNTY
Scientific Name North Suitable
(Common Name) Carolina Habitat
Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii
(bog turtle) T No
NC Status: T denotes Threatened.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979
(G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no
known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) or
the project site.
Impacts
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which
the construction activity occurs.
Of the three community types in the project area, the man-dominated community will
receive the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Table 4 details the anticipated
impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 4
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL
AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES IN HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 79 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative 1 0.27 (0.67) 0.04 (0.10) 0.01 (0.02) 0.32 (0.79)
Alternative 2 0.53(l.32) L 0.23 (0.58) 0.01 (0.03) 0.78 (1.93)
NOTES: Imnacts are based on 24.4 -meter (RO-font) Rioht-of-Wav limit-,
a
The aquatic community in the study area exists within South Fork Creek. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03
acre) of stream bottom. The new replacement structure construction and approach work
will likely increase sediment loads in the creek in the short term. Construction related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important
part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
use of best management practices and the utilization of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
Permanent impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of a culvert or
supporting structures in the creek channel. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
(Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help
decrease erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways.
12
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 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 N. C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also 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. However, a final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE. 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.
VII. 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 lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
13
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 expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
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 Title 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 project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), depicted in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible
properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to
architectural resources, is required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated June 19, 1996 (see
Appendix), recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project". Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the
project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The
Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local
importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct
conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
14
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 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR),
Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) 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 5. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
15

,u 4 '.? ^ my 71lZ .,o ]N9/i aa??/ •?A Z
707 <: os
`itia•A oO 1 ?/ 771 // :?+ 70
_.o I
Cbo? i ?a 72L1 / 79Y.4
o
?•?`)? PAP 7711. 7lS.t /
.53 VJ.1
201
\Y 1. 311 UK A224 AM
? 1.09 77x7 .I7
' 'l?lr`11 c 7 ? ? JII
AM zM .07 A24L 412?
- 4? 11117 .10 / u
7995 ?. ?? 7Zl3
???, •% SU7 ?M
.i ., •. 1255 u 7792 L
alit Ink
an
/
21
/
7159-
7N
J.
7197
Hall 10
F
it
1Po
B-2970
)B?1
rl8elan' , - -
tewisv4 ile'99 5 \ , ' 3 ' ° LEGEND
_ 6
al I 31 1 2 311 66 Studied Detour Route
elelemm _
S FIGURE 1
® North Caroline Department Of
Transportation
Planning 6 Environmental Branch
FORSYTH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 79 ON SR 2700
OVER SOUTH FORK CREEK
B-2970
kilometers 3 Y kilometers 6
0 mlln 2.0 mllee
4.0
Forsyth County
Bridge No. 79 On SR 2700
Over South Fork Creek
B-2970
SIDE VIEW
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3
u
a
.. a
?
u
a q
E' vai a
U
CS
A z
oz
x w

E b
M R q
° w U O p 0
G4
OD 4: N 00 w ? .0 rn
x :- CV

a E-

z
E- M
x
w a a cn
a0 W 0
M
zI,a ?• A a
a 9
® as o
E
N ? M G p

O O
W
N N v?
UZ U
Z ((A

- 0
99
0

U U
3
c
o ?

E E
10 4: E
n
N
M
G J O
O
u p
U

Z
F a °g
g
p
M N
°
W

u 2
Q
a S

E
E r' N
'° a a.° O
5
Z

;IIl
47 i
C3 11,t P,
`ZONE A3±
a. 1/5/84
I
ar Pos / J .D R M SS-11
aFc =
South Fork Muddr Creek
ZONE C
ZONE B,
;ZONE B
?.,9° ZONE B
ZONE B
r?o 00
BRIDGE NO. 79
RM SS=10 rn RM SS-1 1
ZONE B.
ZONE B '
ZONE A4
`•
?,\\\ I ?`\ 1/5/84
t
ZONE B
ZONE A4--•-
A4 /5/94 \\ o ?\
84
1
----------- -----------
- .------•----------- -----.- \
i
I
?I
6- L--?j North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning 6 Environmental Branch
FORSYTH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 79 ON SR 2700
OVER SOUTH FORK CREEK
B-2970
FIGURE 5
5rATt
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook i0 t.{.C.
6,??
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 79 on SR 2700 over South Fork Creek,
Forsyth County, B-2970, ER 96-9091
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
GEI V\
JUN 2 1 1996
U'
24C> Aj
? ?'?1?'lhUivPri•y?•?`?:
Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1996, concerning the above project.
On June 5, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to view the project aerial
photograph. Based upon our review of the aerial, it appears that there are no
structures over fifty years of age within the project's area of potential effect. We,
therefore, 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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Federal Aid # lb"- - "--l" ,' / TIP # 1.i • S1 7a County l ov-2:/ 14
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description I P<rACE P,?1DCF, t.1o. 7? onl Gifz 2700 0VE.9. 5bur14 Fvr_.
f??tc. ? t3 RI DFr FRoU (? X
On JuNa S 11101(, representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
_ A scoping meeting
?_ Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifth' years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Sisncd:
l
Repres , t DOT Date
w ,for the Division Ad t rator, or other Federal Agency Date
I 1
Representative, SHPO D to
Statc Historic Preservation Officcr ate
Ira survey report is prepared, a filial copy of this form and the attached list %%ill he included.

3 - z9 "7 o
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
4150 Carver Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 • 910/661-4992 • FAX [phone]
Operations Manager for Transportadon
April 23, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Division of Highways
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Ref: NC DOT Bridge Replacement Project: Bridge on SR 2700 over South Fork Creek,
Forsyth County; T.I.P. No. B-2970.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in reply to a letter dated April 1, 1996, to Dr. Donald Martin Jr. in
reference to evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the above bridge
replacement project. As far as school transportation in concerned, we have a total of
twelve (12) school bus crossings of this structure each school day. Provided travel service
is maintained during construction we would not anticipate any disruption to school bus
service.
Thank you for including us in your evaluation process.
Sincerely,

Jeff J. Laws, Operations Manager

V
G ?n
`PR26\99b
a
.y -
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PETER S. BRUNSTETTER
Chairman
GERALD H. LONG
Vice Chairman
DEBRA CONRAD-SHRADER
RICHARD V. LINVILLE
EARLINE W. PARMON
DAVID R. PLYLER
MAZIE S. WOODRUFF
,I-- i
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
April 22, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
apa2??99h
Re: NCDOT Bridge Replacement: Environmental Evaluation of
Bridge on Willard Road, SR 2700, over South Fork Creek;
Tip # B-2970
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
1. Is the project consistent with the County's long range planning goals?
The project appears to be consistent with the long range planning goals
in Vision 2005, A Comprehensive Plan for Forsyth County, NC. This
project is located in Growth Management Area (GMA) 4B, long range
growth area. GMA 4B promotes planned and orderly development
based on an adequate transportation system being in place. This
supports the rehabilitation of the bridge over South Fork Creek.
2. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this
project?
Staff is not aware of any interest in this project.
-5 = za70
GRAHAM W. PERVIER
County Manager
A. EDWARD JONES
Deputy County Manager
RONALD GRAHAM
Assistant County Manager
JANE F. COLE
Clerk to the Board/
Assistant to the Manager
I ve-
0010 G 40
C,
Hail of Justice, Room 700 0 Winston-Salem, NC 27101 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone] y?r
Mr. Vick
April 22, 1996
Page Two
3. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project?
This bridge is located within the designated 100-year Floodplain.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge would be permitted. Relocation,
especially to the west would greatly affect the 100-year Floodplain and
would require the submittal of a "No Rise Certification" to determine
the effects the new construction would have on flood elevations.
4. Are there any sensitive properties (parks, public lands, playgrounds,
etc) in close proximity to the proposed bridge crossing?
There are no sensitive public properties in close proximity to the
project.
5. Are there any proposed commercial or residential developments within
the project area?
Residential development along Willard Road is stable and in excellent
condition. If this bridge is to be relocated, staff feels that possibly two
residential structures would be affected. Also affected by this project
would be Hillside Community Center, a private neighborhood
community center with outdoor facilities including a pool and ball field.
Staff feels the Hillside Community Center might be negatively affected
if the bridge is relocated.
6. Are tax maps available for the area surrounding the proposed project?
Also, are County topographic maps available in the vicinity of the
project?
Yes, I have enclosed a copy of Forsyth County topographic, aerial,
zoning and FEMA maps. Tax lot and block information is contained
on the zoning maps.
Mr. Vick
April 22, 1996
Page Three
7. Are regulatory floodway and 100-year floodplain maps available for
the project area?
See No. 6.
8. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local emergency
routes such as fire, rescue, etc?
Triangle Fire Department serves this area. Currently, the construction
at NC 109 and Union Cross Road has detoured emergency services to
Willard Road. Captain Byrum has asked that construction on the
bridge project at Willard Road not begin until construction at NC 109
and Union Cross Road is complete. Captain Byrum believes that
closing Willard road in the area of construction would be permissible,
since it would only require a minimal detour on their part to service the
area South of the project.
9. Is there a Land Use Plan or Master Plan available for Forsyth County?
Yes: Vision 2005, A Comprehensive Plan for Forsyth County, NC.
10. What are the existing and future zoning classifications in the area
surrounding the proposed project?
See No. 6. The zoning maps recently adopted and effective January 1,
1995, show current zoning. Future rezonings of individual parcels may
be requested by individuals.
11. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the project
planning process?
There are some Duke Power utilities that would need relocating if the
bridge is relocated.
Mr. Vick
April 22, 1996
Page Four
Please contact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Pervier
jr4aham
ounty Manager
GP/vm
Enclosures
e-s13o
8- z5z? a
State of North Carolina zt,_ 0 9
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management ?"?-`aL $
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor 8 - 7-11 .12.
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C)F:= "N F:::1t0 13' 2-1) ?O
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director V5 - .Z? 89
P-3?3
April 19, 1996 -3a z2
MEMORANDUM oq.,l
To: Stacy Baldwin
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone] Bj
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper ? 4,e
rji? -(-:S i-.i(:),?. ! r I1L or ,1e .+.m-rif1-,r
1
ISH -AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Paleigh Fiela Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. Vonn Carolina :27636-3726
In Reply Refer T.c:
FWS/AES/RANC
April 10, 1996
2 -5;??i?
P - Z(po°t j_ fir
]E?-Z`1'70
C' C L l v`

Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201 - '>,r- -
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-2580, 2590, 2609,
2859, 2868, 2942, 2970, 2989, 3003, 3022, 3044)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of April 1, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as initial =aping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in
their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of eleven bridges in various Piedmont North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following' recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
Ak
1. a C .c.3.. _=F' 12" _ +r1 Se anc! -,eE - Z-r _-e cicc_ng
r:oje•?t'?Y nci?:roe `arr.= u -il!-ry;
disr_uss _on 3f t ha
?.. ?fin aria).vsis of tha alternatives to tae proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to.
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Chatham, Forsyth, Hoke, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland, and Stokes counties. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental *impacts):
?1. A specific description of the proposed action.to•be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat: _
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,

?, a and c"mu1,tive eff=c*_s
-
ar :a s
interrelated actions are those t:.•>.t are part of a larger act_,.on an
larger action for rheir ji;stification;
d?peno on the acts of -uture State and private activities (not
d' u ederal agency involvement, that will ba considered as
requiring ee P
r'
part of future Section 7 consultation);
Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
5
r in which the action ma
6. A description may affect an listed
habitat including project proposals to
species or of manner
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
?' ro ect is
not Based on evaluation criteria, a determination tof whether the hreatened and endangered
likely to adversely affect or may affect _
species. the Candidate species are those plant and ie ll species for
and thr atsc to their rsurvival
i es Act
t reatened under the r Endangered
under Specthe ESA,
to sufficient propose them as information on endangeredr orbiolog
Although candidate species receive no statutory
(ESA). confer with the Service on actions
roy
Federal agencies are required to informally
species
Spexistenceecieos of of these concern species Incorlude that thosmayde support a
likely to jeopardize the continued existence
or modify proposed critical
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information
listing proposal or species which do not warrant rotection listing under at the the ESA, presbutentcould
Species of Concern receive no statutory pion
Forma information
bpuacey
laces ional become candidates in the fuuendangeredt°r threatened ientific
protection of the ESA, and necessitates prudent
corridor is they are
if avail its able status indicating
aC• to Therefore, candidate isp would be unknown.
for the the species project under the full species or their
to avoid any adverse imp
habitat. The North Carolina Ntate a rote titage ion. Program should be contacted or
information on species under S p project. Please
reciates the opportunity to comment on this pro je , including
The Service app made in the planning p
continue to advise us of the progress acts of this project.
your official determination of the imp
Sincerely yours,
HefI----
?Yohn ld supervisor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
i
FWS/R4/I(Doak/KHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96.SCP
-Djt 2.9 7o
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Forsyth County
Birds
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E"
Plants
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) - E"
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Re iie
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) - C2
"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
o?QZ ; . :.. yM
s
? a
MggCH 9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 15, 1996

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
3-2-970
?2-9 89
3- zs-e p
3-300 3
3.259 t)
B-Zbbg
\ NJ E
44U
`?
'Do
?/?1`'G & Ey??1C?
Subject: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Forsyth, Iredell, Mecklenburg, and
Stokes Counties, North Carolina
A copy of your letter of April 1, 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office. We handle project reviews and requests
of this nature for the western part of the state, including the above-mentioned counties.
Our Raleigh Field Office will provide scoping comments for the projects in Chatham,
Randolph, Richmond, and Scotland Counties. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information you provided, the following bridges will be replaced: Bridge
Number 79 on SR 2700 over South Fork Creek (Forsyth County); Bridge Number 178 on
SR 1907 over Morrison Creek and Bridge Number 27 on SR 2342 over an unnamed creek
(Iredell County); Bridge Number 91 on SR 2417 over the West Branch of the Rocky River
and Bridge Number 108 on US 29/NC 49 over the Southern Railroad (Mecklenburg
County); and Bridge Number 127 on SR 1673 over Snow Creek (Stokes County).
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts the proposed bridge
replacement projects could have on federally listed species and on Federal species of
concern and (2) the potential impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project
areas.
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should evaluate
possible impacts to the following federally listed species and/or Federal species of concern
(these include aquatic animal species known from a particular stream system for one of the
proposed bridge projects and plant species that may occur along the banks of
streams/rivers):
FORSYTH COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenberaii) (Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams.
IREDELL COUNTY
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenberaii) (Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams.
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat acidic soils.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (Endangered) - This plant species is
generally found in woodland borders, especially along roadsides or banks that are
mown or bush-hogged regularly. It also occurs in gladelike openings in woods.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) (Endangered) - This plant species grows in sandy or
rocky open woods associated with basic soils.
Georgia aster (Aster georS anus) (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
dry open woods along roadsides, woodland borders, old fields, and pastures.
Heller's trefoil (Lotus elleri) (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat acidic soils.
STOKES COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Orangefin madtom (NOturuS lg berti) (Federal species of concern) - This fish species
occurs in montane warm-water streams; juveniles and adults inhabit swift riffle
areas. Ideal habitat for this species consists of streams with low silt levels, relatively
high local gradient, and predominantly small cobble substrate.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) (Federal species of concern) - This species is
generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project impact areas should
be addressed in any environmental document prepared for these projects. Please note that
the legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative
with regard to federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the
Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. Also, please note that Federal
species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered
or threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to give you advance
notification and to request your assistance in protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the proposed projects
should address the following issues: (1) an evaluation of the various bridge replacement
alternatives and structures (e.g., replacement at the existing location versus upstream or
downstream of the existing structure); (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
sedimentation during construction; and (3) any measures that will be implemented to
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g., protecting riparian vegetation whenever
possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you
keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In any future correspondence
concerning them, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-061.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole t
Field Supervisor
-D -2
Fj 2 a nG a, o')
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Z? rr
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
3 t"Z ?p Cs 50'
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 r2.5-1 4Z -°"°--ATfENT ON OF May 9, 1996 " 2-9 REPLY TO -7 1--) 20
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
cEI
O
MAY 1 6 1996
Z
DIVISION OF
¢ HIGHWAYS P112i
ORONNfE?S?
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1996 subject: "Request for Comments
for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Piedmont North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E..
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Nortnside, North Carolina 27564-0713

May 9, 1996
Page 1 of 3

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
These bridges are located within counties or communities which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs), it appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved.
(Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm
27 SR 2342 Iredell Trib-Third Ck Approx 5/80
91 SR 2417 Mecklenburg W.Br. Rocky R Detail 2/93
31 NC 73 Richmond Buffalo Ck Approx 9/89
359 SR 2911 Randolph Richland Ck. Approx 7/81
127 SR 1673 Stokes Snow Ck. Approx 9/88
147 SR 1953 Chatham Rocky River Approx 7/91
79 SR 2700 Forsyth S Fork Muddy Ck Detail 1/84
178 SR 1907 Iredell Morrison Ck. Detail 9/79
108 US 29 Mecklenburg None-No FI Haz - - 2/82 **
52 SR 1406 Randolph Uharrie R. Approx 7/81
34, SR 1404 Scotland Lumber R. Approx 12/88
' 34 SR 1104 Hoke Lumber R Approx 3/89
* within city of Statesville jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
** within city of Charlotte jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways". In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.

May 9, 1996
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean. Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris. •
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categorical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.

May 9, 1996
Page 3 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
M
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Stokes County
Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Randolph and Chatham
Counties
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Forsyth=.County
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Mecklenburg County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Iredell County
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Scotland/Hoke, (Regulatory Branch
Action ID # 199603287) and Richmond Counties (ID # 199603286)

Z01
STATE OF NORTH CA.ROLTJA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. OFFICE OF BICYCLE & GARLAND B. GARKM JR.
GOVERNOR PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 30,1996
14
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Pl g d Environmental Branch
FROM: C Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 79 on SR 2700 over South Fork Creek,
Forsyth County, T1P No. B-2970
This memorandum is in response to your request for comments on the above project.
There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this project. This
section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated bicycle
route. At present we have no indication that there is an unusual number of bicyclists on this
roadway.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact us
regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/pp
JUN 0 4 1996
V1S1
??? 1GHW NSF
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
y
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
'ART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Date Of Lana Evaiuanon aeouest
--
Name Of Project
BR 2700, Forsyth County, 08/22/96
Federal A encv Invo
TIP B-2970 FH4?A
ivea
Proposed Land Use
Highway, Two Lanes County And State
Forsyth
County, TIP
B-2970, NC
'ART I I (To be completed by SCSI I Date
cjue?t - Received
?
7
I r
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?
yes No Acres Irrigated Average rarm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ? E ?"',
Major Crop(s)
w Cpv V\ Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
A
S(
6
' Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
cres: I
b %
e 63
8t Acres: %(Df4,4
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used r`

r o? s?? C,? , ?.t- Name Of Local Site Assessment System

/ll2?1 C
I Date Land Evaluation Returned y SCS
91 ? l ? r t o r
'ART I I I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternat ve Site Rating

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site A
0 Site 8
1
2 Sire C Site D
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 ,
0
C. Total Acres In Site 0 1 . 2
'ART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland fl
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 10
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100Points) t po

C)
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Maximum I
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points I
1
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use I I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government I I I
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area i
6. Distance To Urban Support Services i I
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland i i
y. Availability Of Farm Suooort Services j
10. On-Farm Investments I I i
1 1 . Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services I I
12. Compatibility With Exis•ing Agricultural Use I I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
'ART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
i
Ceiative Value Of Farmland (prom Parr V) 100
oral Site Assessment (From P,3r; VI above or ,t local
s- -e assessmenrl 160
OTAL POINTS (coral of aoove 2lines) 260
•Vas A Local S.[: -?s; eS ;: "•?nf Usea7
Site Seiected. Date Of Sejec• on Ves No ?
ae3son =or 5eiec: on ----- ---- ---- --- --- - -