20021423 Ver 1_Complete File_20020906

STAre
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT) R. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 8, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM:
John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 2037, Rockingham County, Replacement o
over Carroll Creek, State Project 8..
n
p 'I
BRZ-2037(1), B-3232 r"°°$" ?S
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was 1'141h the TravsFq
on April 2, 1998.
The following people were in attendance
Tania Sanders
Kathryn M. Vollers
Dan Duffield
Debbie Bevin
Ray McIntyre
Lannette Cook
Enrico Roque
Dewayne Sykes
Greg Brew
Ray Moore
Ron Allen
Sid Autry
John Williams
Traffic Engineering/TC
Traffic Control
Hydraulics
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Program Development
Program Development
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Roadway Design
Location Surveys
Planning & Environmental
The following are scoping meeting comments:
E. NoRm TOLSON
SECRETARY
o.255
--- _2C
Bell of Division of Water Quality stated that the waters are designated
Class C.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO indicated that there are no architectural or archaeological
interests in the area and therefore surveys are not recommended. However, because of
the age of the bridge, she suggested that a concurrence form should be signed at the next
SHPO meeting agreeing that the bridge is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing bridge on the same
location with a 3 @ 3.7 x 3.0 meter (12 x 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert. It is
noted that approximately 15 meters (50 feet) of channel widening will be required up and
downstream of the new structure.
0
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission called in comments requested
that we minimize construction to the south to the extent possible. He requested standard
erosion control measures and that modifed streambanks be revegetated rather than using
rip rap.
Mike Cowan, the Division 7 Construction Engineer, called in comments stating
that the bridge should be replaced on existing location with traffic detoured on secondary
roads during construction. He further pointed out the presence of a waste water treatment
facility on the back side of the convenience store.and suggested this would be a very good
reason to widen to the other side.
Traffic on the road is currently 800 vehciles per day projected to be 1600 vehicles
per day in the year 2020. Traffic engineering reports one recorded accident in the past
three years. The accident did not result from the bridge or its alignment.
The new bridge should be 8.6 meters (28 feet) wide including two 3.3-meter
(11-foot) lanes and 1-meter (3-foot) offsets.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
Only one alternate was considered for this project; replace in place-road closure for the
following reasons:
The detour is short: Approximately 1.5 miles
Traffic is moderate: 800 vehciles per day
Existing alignment is good
Realignment or an onsite detour would cause impacts to either the convenice stor
or the golf course.

\ 2^31
i N`, \F, c^88
-C,12 Q
u S
\`? i L G/Y3 ?) C ?' e Y\ C Lalle? ' 4ze1? 2c59
- Bridge No. 255 J

?n r
ti 2 89 ?a p7. ?2C90 9a?
c 2CS0 i 1985

- r 2091 .
cc 2089
0
2077 /

Icy
20 20

CC J?
LS

21-'73 . '-= Y V a
.i
EIS
29

1097 / 2. I`. via i
- ;
11
NOR711 CygO
q North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
9 P
Planning & Environmental Branch
OF'M_.
Rockingham County
Replace Bridge No. 255 on SR 2037
Over Wolf Island Creek
B-3232
Figure One
N
B-3232
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
State Project No. 8.2510701 Right of Way 7-00
Federal Project No. BRZ-2037(1) Construction Let 7-01
Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 255 on SR 2037 over Wolf Island Creek
in Rockingham County, B-3232.
Will there be Special Funding Participation by a Municipality, Developers, or Others?
YES NO x
EXISTING LENGTH 36.0 METERS; WIDTH 5.6 METERS
STRUCTURE 194: 118 FEET 18.4 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 35,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 385,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Arterial

,
,
\, ?.
f
`_

.?
,?

`i ,
\ -,

_ _..
;. _ , ,\

;.; ,

It
t
?y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 29, 2002
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele
Regulatory Specialist

021423
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 255 on SR 2037 over Carroll Creek in Rockingham County,
Division 7. Federal Project No. BRZ-2037(1), State Project No.
8.2510701, T.I.P. No. B-3232.
Dear Madam:
Please find enclosed three copies of the PCE form and Natural Resources Technical Report for
the above referenced project, along with a project site map, permit drawings, and roadway design
plan sheets. Bridge No. 255 will be replaced on existing location with a three-barrel reinforced
concrete box culvert. During construction traffic will be detoured along existing area roads.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
One perennial stream, Carroll Creek (DWQ Index No. 22-48-1) Class C, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Construction of the proposed culvert will result in permanent impacts of 63.0
linear feet (0.01 ac fill in surface water). These impacts are depicted in the attached drawings.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted as a result of proposed project.
Bridge No. 255 is 130.0 ft long and its superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete deck
on I-beams. During demolition there is the potential for temporary fill of approximately 17.5 yd3.
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed. Therefore the
bridge will be removed without debris dropping into waters of the U. S. The removal of the bents
will not result in fill but will result in disturbance of the stream at its edges. Conditions in the
stream will raise sediment concerns, and, therefore, a turbidity curtain is recommended.
r r
lVVJ
it ? 111777
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC
9
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 07, 2002, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service lists two federally protected species for Rockingham County, the James
spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Biological
Conclusions of "No Effect" have been rendered for both of these species. See the attached survey
report memos, dated February 07, 2002 and August 6, 2002.
SUMMARY
Proposed project acies are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT
requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages
2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate a 401 General Certification number 3361 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
V. Charles Burton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
VCB/hwm
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Len Smith. Division 7 DEO
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer

?s.. STwtrd?
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 7, 2002
Memorandum To:
Attention:
From:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
John Williams, Project Manager
Bridge Replacement Unit
Heather Montegue, Permit Specialist
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Tim Savidge, Area Division Environmental Coordinator
Subject: Freshwater mussel survey report of Carrol Creek for proposed
replacement of bridge #255 on SR 2037, Rockingham County; TIP
#B-3232.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 255 over Carrol
Creek in Rockingham County. The federally endangered James spinymussel is known to
inhabit the Dan River in Stokes County and the Mayo River in Rockingham County.
The apparent range (@ 30 river-miles) of the spinymussel in the Dan River
extends from the North Carolina/Virginia border near the first bridge crossing in North
Carolina (Flippin Rd, SR 1416) in northwest Stokes County down to the town of
Danbury in central Stokes County. The spinymussel has not been found in the Dan River
in Rockingham County. The species has been found in the Mayo River in northwest
Rockingham County, near the NC/VA border. More surveys are needed to determine the
ran ge of this species in the Mayo River.
NCWRC Survey of Carrol Creek
The subject project is located on Carrol Creek, which flows into Wolf Island
Creek approximately 0.25 miles downstream. The confluence of Wolf Island Creek and
the Dan River is approximately 60 miles downstream from Danbury (furthermost
downstream extent of the spinymussel in the Dan River). North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) Biologists Judith Johnson and David Robinson
visited the project site on June 20, 2001. Surveys for mussels were conducted from
approximately 400 meters downstream to 200 meters upstream of the project crossing. A
visual survey of the creek was conducted by wading in the water and looking for mussels
using a batiscope. Crayfish and several fish species were observed, no mussels were
found at the survey location. Habitat was reported to be poor with unstable banks, narrow
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
riparian buffers along the highway and golf course. Discarded tires and other refuse was
found in the stream. A total of 1.66 man-hours were spent conducting the survey.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the spinymussel does not occur in the
project area. The spinymussel has not been found in the stretch of the Dan River
downstream of the project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not
impact this species.
cc: Bill Goodwin, P.E., Unit Head '
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 6, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Protected Species Re-Survey for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 255 over Carroll Creek on SR 2037,
Rockingham County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
2037(1), State Project No. 8.2510701; TIP No. B-3232.
ATTENTION: John Williams, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
This memo serves to document a protected species survey for TIP project No. B-3232.
On July 31, 2002; NCDOT biologist Heather Montague and Alexis Baker surveyed the
project area for the presence of smooth coneflower (Echinacea laeWgata). A plant by
plant survey was conducted in all areas along the project alignment containing potential
habitat for this species and no specimens were found. Additionally, a review of the
Natural Heritage Program database (last updated on May 5, 2002) revealed no
occurrences of smooth coneflower within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area.
Therefore, the biological conclusion of `No Effect' remains valid for smooth coneflower.
Bill Goodwin, P.E., Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
Heather W. Montague, Environmental Specialist 90
Office of the Natural Environment
LYrmo TiPPETr
SECRETARY
cc: File: B-3232
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AW ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX [phone]
WESSITE. WWW.N000T.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION Su UNNG
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

( ??? x1ll 2Ix6
\A x123,
J 11]'?
`'- 220x xlt?
770]
0
2113 ;!'.? •B
C ?? 2x17 )11) ? •
211e \ 6
S %T CC
x1:0
-? 1 C Iv.e Store' ?teplleossroam
s+ xoxa`•`-- ry/ Crds
.6
\ 2030 2713 1911.
1913 2027 1
Ls
I9 1
'x x 1M1 1950 ;,. 1916 191
' 193 1916 f
1913
e
\\ v toga'' .a ,¢taa
19.3
?? LJ 's F• ?0r9a. Hill
f
Horris s
t??i rr
2,299 9° iv_et
Iv
?I
192s
23
6x N
nix
i1-
?nn r i. ?..
i z is ti? ?tra ?
r23ee ?sl / (' --y' ? ? loo.
?.?. x311
I Xt h
¢3 63 23n ? }
Dad I 87 `y\0. ' ?t '? 26.2 2s11
•ta ?..?
i I= r-M s i taex ? F 158
x96
NCDO T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
171 C I N I T?Y .l? ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
`? PROJECT: 8.2510701 (B-3232)
MAPS REPLACE BRIDGE 4255 ®VER
CARROLL CREEK ON SR 2037
SHEET 1 OF 5 6 // 6 / 02
1929
lvxo
NORTH CAROLINA
I
WETLAND LEGEND
-1dLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WL
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
WL
DENOTE L IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
- - -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB-. EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* * DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
-> FLOW DIRECTION
TB
?_-_- TOP OF BANK
---- WE EDGE OF WATER
- - C- -PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---? WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
12"-48"
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
-r^? - - _ WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD

RIP RAP
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
O OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
? PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (
S
L
)
GRASS SWALE
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGlHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2510701 (B-3232)
REPLACE BRIDGE 4255 OVER
CARROLL CREEK ON SR 2037
SHEET ?.. OF 5 6 // 6 / 02 II
w ?r
F- I I``' .r
m o
0
00+1// 1
I f
? I

I
I \ ?r? ?? ?w
Ul)
I w
I
I I
I Iz
I la
IJ
I0
I l0 z
13 I I'? Lli
I I I 0
I I I ?
?yI I i ?
II I I O
II I I Li-
I ?
I ?
0
wZ ww>- L
ON ?, ?0?'?? N I
zo
N I
0
J co
I
J y.
Q ? 1
- ? y I
IIt
?a O? I I

\ OP+0/

\ /
Cl)
zzu

\ \\
-Go

I V)

w W
I Q JQ
L u

I I
I 7/oS zoo ?w
Q o
o
I o CO
I
I Q
I
11 HI
11 \ ,?

In
w
w
w

PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
OTIS T. GREEN 132 GREEN FEE DRIVE
REIDSVILLE, N.C. 27320
ROBERT JESSIE 2161 NC 14
REIDSVILLE, N.C. 27320
JOHN D. LOVE 731 MADISON STREET
OIL COMPANY,INC. REIDSVILLE, N.C. 27320
MARY W. DURHAM 191 WILSON RD.
REIDSVILLE, N.C. 27320

CD 0

cr)

Z
o
M CO

z O
M
m
0
N O o
Z 2 o
Q
LL
1- O = N

Y ~ O
U
O ~
w
U a w
Z CO

L16 c ,? O o

IL Z

co

rl?
co

P T

? ?
c
y
?
O
?
0
U)
Z

c c ?
F_ N tcv
nE
a .
U E
W
a

O O
H 0
t
G CO
H
W

Q o 0

? m c ca
w 5° .v

0 0
? m

? .o 0 0
V) '
O
C
?
f0
L ? w t
v
V a?iUg
Q ?

W o y O Q

Z W ?-?
J ?

H
W

c ?
N
16
c
=
.
U

m a ?
E
??
? o
N
fA M
X
?

O
O
'"(p
C J CO
..
.
O
r
w_ O
fq Z
? Q
H
O

U
p ZO Z co LL
H
i
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3232
State Project No. 8.2510701
Federal Project No. BRZ-2037(1)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 255 on SR 2037 over Carroll Creek
in Rockingham County. The bridge is to be replaced on the existing location with
a three-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (each barrel 12x12 feet (3.70.0
meters). The cross section of the new roadway will include two 11-foot (3.3-
meter) lanes and 6-foot (1.8 meter) shoulders. Traffic will be detoured as shown
in Figure 1.
B. Purpose and Need:
It is programmed in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project due to deteriorating structural integrity and a
deficient cross section. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 33.3 out of 100 and
is posted 17 tons for single vehicles and 21 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
5•a
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
2
7
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 525,000
Right of Way $ 43,000
Total $ 568,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 800 vpd Year 2025 - 1600 vpd
TTST - 1% Dual -2%
Design Speed: 50 mph (80 kph)
Design Exception: A design exception will be required for design speed due to
vertical curvature. To correct the vertical curvature would require substantial
topographic changes effecting NC 14, a local golf course, and a local convenience
store.
Accident History: In a sampling of a recent three year period, one accident was
reported. The accident involved a car hitting a pedestrian. There is not enough
information to determine if the accident resulted from the bridge or its
approaches.
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Detour: Given the distribution of residences and their likely origin and
destination along SR 2037, most vehicles currently using the bridge will travel an
additional 0.75 miles per trip.
School Busses: There are four school bus crossings per day over the bridge. The
School Bus Transportation Director of Rockingham County has indicated that the
detour will create temporary inconveniences but will not impose a major burden.
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP): The convenience store on the
northwest quadrant of the project has a WWTP located in back of the building.
Impacts to this facility will be avoided by design and construction.
Wolf Island Golf Course: This golf course is located on the southeast quadrant
of the bridge. The project will have minimal effects on the course and it's
facilities.
Division Office Comments: The Division concurs with the proposed
recommendation.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 255 is 39.6 m (130.0 ft) long. The
superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. Primarily
the deck over the water will contribute to the temporary fill resulting from bridge
demolition debris. The removal of the bents will not result in fill but will result in
disturbance of the stream at its edges. The temporary fill will amount to
approximately 13.4 cubic meters (17.5 cubic yards). Conditions in the stream
will raise sediment concerns, and, therefore, a turbidity curtain is recommended.
3
t
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? x
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? x
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? x
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
x
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
x
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? _
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? x
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? x
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ?
resources? x
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
x
Y
4

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

-
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan.
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? x
5
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? x
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ?
x
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history? x
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? x
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? x
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? x
F. Additional Documentation Reauired for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
lion regarding all unfavorable responses in art shoul, e provided
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
6
t
R
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No
Project Description:
B-3232
8.2510701
BRZ-2037(1)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 255 on SR 2037 over Carroll Creek
in Rockingham County. The bridge is to be replaced on the existing location with
a three-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (each barrel 12x12 feet (3.70.0
meters). The cross section of the new roadway will include two 11-foot (3.3-
meter) lanes and 6-foot (1.8 meter) shoulders. Traffic will be detoured as shown
on Figure 1.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
G r 1?.?
9-4-00
Date Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
8-,03-60 W4 K-+_ n/; a-
Date Project 'Planning Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
g-03-(190
Date
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
N/A
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7
e
.t
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3232, Rockingham County
-Bn age No. 233 on 'K 2U:37
Over Carroll Creek
Federal Project BRZ-2037(1)
State Project 8.2510701
Resident Engineer
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented on `
this project. Turbidity curtains will be required for any work in the water which would
create siltation. This includes removal of old piers as well as any demolition activities
which would drop components of the bridge into the water creating siltation. It is also to
be incorporated on any other project activity which would disturb stream sediment.
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) - This facility is located at the back of the
convenience store on the northwest quadrant of the bridge. This facility will be avoided
by both design and construction.
Structure Design
Best Management-Practices for3ridge Demolition & Removal will be :implemented on
this project.
Roadside Environmental
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented on
this project. Turbidity curtains will be squired for any work in the water which would
create siltation. This includes removal of old piers as well as any demolition activities
which would drop components of the .bridge into the water creating siltation. It is also to
be incorporated on any other project activity which would disturb stream sediment.
Roadway Design
Waste Water' Treatment Plant (WWTP) - This facility is located at the back of the
convenience store on the northwest quadrant of the bridge. This.facility will be avoided
by both design and construction.

dx SUT£
.w oa
S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 6, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 255 on SR 2037 over Wolf Island Creek,
Rockingham County, B-3232, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-2037(1), State Project 8.2510701, ER 98-
- 8626
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
iWE4
i;. A
On April 2, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, Bridge 255 is the only structure over
fifty years old within the project area. We recommend that an architectural
historian with NCDOT evaluate the bridge for National Register eligibility and report
the findings to us. No additional historic architectural survey is recommended for
this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
log East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
April 6, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?w
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: "l. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Federal Aid # BRZ-2037(1) TIP # B-3232 County:, Rockingham
1
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 255 on SR 2037 over Wolf Island Creek
On April 16, 1998, 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
M Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
M Other
All parties present agreed
r-1 there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as Bridge #255 is considered not eligible for the National Register and no
further evaluation of it is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects. .
Signed:
4. 1z..-)b
??A
FHWdC: for the
Representative,
Administrator, or other Federal Agency

Date
L:J/
State Historic Preservation
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
I
---
-`? srzs
?\ 2 31
r.
_OQ2 ?' ! '• L.LJ
Bridge No. 255 ` -
i
i
2089 07.0°200-
2090 -- r - 1985
2091
`?== 2089 j
2pr Q
14?c
?0 20 j .2m
?' t 996 . ?a t s
'Se' -E 4 -
Fs tudied Detour Route -t- 0 0- "WN - :
•'?' 1007, : a0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
4
?y TRANSPORTATION
?1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
4 zr
10 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
`1f boa ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 255 ON $R 2037
OVER CARROLL CREEK
B-3232
Scale 1:1250 Figure Two
N
y , r ..f
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 255 ON SR 2037 OVER CARROLL CREEK
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3232
State Project No. 8.2510701
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 98-LM-12
LandMark Design Group Project Number 1960024-212.00
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attn: Phil Harris
Issued: May 2000
LANDMARK
Engineers . Planners . Surveyors Landscape Architects . Environmental Consultants
5544 Greenwich Road, Suite 200, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [phone] FAX: [phone] [e-mail]
,- 1
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ..............................................................................................................................2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................................................3
2.1 SOILS ...............................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ......................................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ........................................................................................................................................3
2.2.3 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................................................5
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Basic Mesic Forest ..................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.2 Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest ..............................................................................................:............................6
3.1.3 Early Successional Field .........................................................................................................................................6
3.1.4 Maintained Yard .....................................................................................................................................................8
3.1.5 Golf Course .............................................................................................................................................................8
3.1.6 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside ..............................................................................................................................8
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................................................................7
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ...................................................................._........................................................7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...........................................................................................................................................9
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................................................................. ..9
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .................................................................................................. ..9
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......................................................................................................................... ..9
4.1.3 Permits ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1.4.2 Minimization ................................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................................................................... 11
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 13
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Bridge No. 255 Project Area Map (Topographic Quadrangle)
Figure 2. Impacted Biotic Communities (Aerial Photograph)
6.2 RESOURCE AGENCY LETTERS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES .................................................... 8
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
May 2000
Page ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is situated in eastern Rockingham County (Figure
1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 255 on SR 2037, over Carroll Creek in
place with a three-barrel (12 by 10 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCB;Q. Traffic will be
detoured offsite during construction (Figures 2 and 3).
The existing right-of-way width is 12.2 in (40.0 f3). The proposed right-of-way width is 24.4 in (80.0
f1).. Project length is approximately 140.2 in (460.0 ft).
Bridge No. 255 is 39.6 in (130.0 f1) long. The superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete deck
on I-beams. Primarily the deck over the water will contribute to the temporary fill resulting from
bridge demolition debris. The removal of the bents will not result in fill but will result in disturbance
of the stream at its edges. The temporary fill will amount to approximately 13.4 cubic meters (17.5
cubic yards). Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns, and, therefore, a turbidity curtain
is recommended.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various natural resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to identify and estimate the
probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures that will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map for
Rockingham County (Southeast Eden, 1971), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory Map (Southeast Eden, 1995), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly the
Soil Conservation Service) soil maps, and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1" = 100').
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR 1996). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected species and species of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of
rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by LandMark Design Group
environmental scientists Mary-Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith on 29 March 2000. Plant
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 1
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), and identification of characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed using guidance provided by N.C.
Division of Water Quality ((DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM)), Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding (Environmental Lab 1997).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Mary-Margaret McKinney, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., May 1996 to Present
Education: MS Forestry, Minor in Ecology,
North Carolina State University, 1996
BS Botany, North Carolina State University, 1994
Certifications: Registered Forester (NC Board of Registration for Foresters)
- Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists)
Experience: Research Assistant, North Carolina State University,
Department of Forestry, June. 1994 to April 1996,
Plant Identification Specialist,
North Carolina State University Herbarium
Expertise: Wetland mitigation, NEPA documentation, plant community
ecology
2) Investigator: Wendee B. Smith, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist,
N.C. Department of Transportation/ Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, May 1999 to August 1999
Forestry Technician, N.C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the
area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented
by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that. occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and availability of
water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this
section of Rockingham County is characterized by gently rolling hills. Topography in the project area
is relatively flat. Project elevation is approximately 195.1 in (640.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Two soil phases occur within project study area: Chewacla loam and Iredell fine sandy loam. They are
as follows:
• Chewacla loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs in nearly level or slightly concave
areas parallel to the major streams on flood plains. Permeability is moderate and the seasonal high
water table is located between 0.2 to 0.5 in (0.5 to 1.5 ft) below the surface. Limitations of this soil
include frequent flooding and wetness.
• Iredell fine sandy loam with 8 to 15 percent slopes is a moderately well drained or somewhat poorly
drained soil that occurs on convex slopes or narrow side slopes. Permeability is slow, runoff is
rapid, and the perched high water table is located at 0.3 to 0.6 in (1.0 to 2.0 ft) below the surface
during wet periods. Limitations of this soil include wetness, slow permeability, high shrink-swell
potential, and slope.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the
project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to
major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to
surface water resources and minimization methods are also discussed.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Carroll Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed project.
Carroll Creek is located in sub-basin 03-02-03 of the Roanoke River Basin. Carroll Creek has its
confluence with the Wolf Island Creek approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi stream channel distance)
downstream of Bridge No. 255. The average baseflow width is approximately 3.7 to 4.6 in (12.0 to
15.0 ft). The average depth is approximately 0.2 in (0.5 ft). Carroll Creek's substrate is composed of
sand and silt.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NC Division of Water Quality. The
classification of Carroll Creek (DEM Index No. 22-48-1) is C (NCDWQ 1996). Class C uses include
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Secondary
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 3
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
There is not a BMAN station located on Carroll Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study
area.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six months to a year;
therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different
taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant
organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are
reflections of long-term water quality conditions.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register for
a permit. There is a point source discharger located on Carroll Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)
upstream of the project study area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost
always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge
replacement on a new location usually results in more severe impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of
24.4 m (80.0 ft), anticipated impacts to Carroll Creek will be 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Project impacts, both
aquatic and terrestrial total 0.32 ha (0.80 ac). The area of aquatic and terrestrial environments impacted
is 0.07 ha (0.17 ac) and 0.25 ha (0.63 ac) respectively. Usually, project construction does not require
the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal,
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 4
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas, and/or
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. The
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include,
but are not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface
water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora within these
ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980) and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Six distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Basic Mesic Forest,
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, Early successional field, maintained yard, golf course and
maintained/disturbed roadside. Community boundaries within the study area are well defined without a
significant transition zone between them. Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will
exploit both communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
May 2000
Page 5
3.1.1 Basic Mesic Forest
The Basic Mesic Forest is present along the Carroll Creek corridor, northeast of Bridge No. 255. The
transition from Basic Mesic Forest to maintained/disturbed community is abrupt due to road shoulder
maintenance activities.
The canopy of the Basic Mesic Forest is composed of red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern redbud (Cercis
canadensis), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The
shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees as well as flowering dogwood (Corpus florida),
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Herbs within the alluvial forest
include Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) and violet (Viola spp). The vine layer of this
community is comprised of greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Wildlife species associated with the Basic Mesic Forest include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
and raccoon (Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer will use this forest community for cover and will
forage on-wigs and leaves as well as mast.
Avian species utilizing the Basic Mesic Forest include: turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), and yellow-throated vireo
(Vireo flavifrons).
3.1.2 Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
The early successional field is the riparian area present along the Carroll Creek corridor. It is
comprised of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), hobblebush (Viburnum
spp.), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Wildlife and avian species utilizing the
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest includes those same faunal species that occupy the surrounding Basic
Mesic Forest.
3.1.3 Early Successional Field
The early successional field is present south of Bridge No. 255 and west of the Carroll Creek corridor.
The transition from the abandoned field to maintained/disturbed community is abrupt due to road
shoulder maintenance activities. This community is composed of broom sedge (Andropogon sp.),
robin's plantain (Erigeron pulchellus) and dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Wildlife and avian
species utilizing the early successional fields includes those same species that occupy the surrounding
Basic Mesic Forest.
3.1.4 Maintained Yard
The maintained yard is located next to the convenience store and is northwest of Bridge No. 255,
adjacent to SR 2037. Flora within this periodically maintained community includes wood sorrel
(Oxalis dillenii), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Carolina -cranium (Geranium
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 6
carolinianum), chickweed (Stellaria media), wild onion (Allium vineale), fescue (Festuca sp.),
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and field pansy (Viola rafinesquii).
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by forested and open areas and represents
only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the Basic Mesic
Forest and open areas.
3.1.5 Golf Course
A portion of maintained rough at the abutting golf course is located south of Bridge No. 255 and east of
Carroll Creek, and is composed almost entirely of grass. This community is close in proximity to the
extensive Basic Mesic Forest community; therefore, faunal species frequenting the golf course
community will be largely those species inhabiting the forest.
3.1.6 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside Community
The maintained/disturbed community includes road shoulders along SR 2037 that are present along the
entire length of the project area. Flora within this periodically maintained community is the same as
that found in the Basic Mesic Forest.
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by forested and open areas and represents
only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the Basic Mesic
Forest and open areas.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Carroll Creek will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
aquatic communities. Sparse patches of submersed or emergent aquatic vegetation were observed
within this section of Carroll Creek. Vegetation along the bank of Carroll Creek is typical of the
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest. It is comprised of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder
(Acer negundo), hobblebush (Viburnum spp.), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Fish species likely to occur in Carroll Creek include green sunfish* (Lepomis cyanellus), creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), bluegill (L. macrochirus) and yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis).
Invertebrates that would be present include various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayfly
(Ephemeroptera), crayfish (Decapoda), dragonflies (Odonata) and damselflies (Odonata).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potentia to impact biological
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 7
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present
within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way width
of 24.4 in (80.0 ft). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated impacts from the pronosed nroiect to biotic communitieq_
COMMUNITY Alternate 1
Basic Mesic Forest 0.03 (0.08)
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest 0.08 (0.19)
Early Successional Field 0.01 (0.04)
Well Maintained Yard 0.01 (0.02)
Golf Course 0.04 (0.09)
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside 0.08 (0.21)
Total 0.25 (0.63)
Note: Values cited are m hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 255 and its associated improvements will reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of
this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream channelization,
scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work will affect water quality
and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from
these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and scouring of
the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or
feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and
amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 8
Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation
carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more
direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues-
"waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States," as defined
in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3,
are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344).
4,1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands are not present within the project area.
Carroll Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of all surface waters in the
project area are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW width of 24.4 in
(80.0 ft). The impacts to Carroll Creek will consist of a 24.4 in (80.0 ft) wide, 4.6 in (15.0 ft) long
crossing for an area of 0.01 ha (0.03 ac). Usually, project construction does not require the entire
ROW; therefore, actual surface water impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies charged with protecting the water quality of public water resources
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 9 .
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to "waters of the
United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or part by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act
• 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
• that 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.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "waters of
the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "waters of the
United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree
of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall
project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint
of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "waters of the United States"
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 10
f
crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-
establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of
"in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of "waters of the United States." Such
actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever
practicable. Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 13 March 2000, the FWS lists
only one federally protected species for Rockingham County: the smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata), Endangered. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for this
species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts follows.
Echinacea Iaevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991
Flowers Present: June - early July
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or branched rhizomes. This herb has a
smooth stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest, and these leaves are smooth to slightly
rough, tapered to the base and elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short or no
petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color and solitary.
The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic and four-angled.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page I1
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar barrens,
roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil
derived from calcareous parent material. North Carolina populations are found in soils derived from
Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant sunlight and little
competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Suitable habitat in the form of roadside communities does exist within the project study area, however
surveys for this species could not be conducted during the initial site visit due to the time of year. It is
recommended that a plant-by-plant survey be scheduled sometime between late May and July, the
flowering period. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats, on 27 March 2000 revealed no record of the presence of smooth coneflower within the project
vicinity.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection 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. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be
included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under
consideration for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition,
organisms, which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state protection
under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
There is one -Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Rockingham County: Carolina birdfoot-
trefoil (Lotus helleri)_. A survey for this species was not conducted during the site visit, nor was it
observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 27 March 2000
revealed no federal species of concern within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) project study area.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 12
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEM. 1996. Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams: Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Tenn Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. March 2000 Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Biological Conservation Database.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Palmer, Willliam M. and Alvin L. Braswell, 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrate of the United States, 3`d. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 13
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA. 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 14
=NT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 2:4tPfVl; rAut ?oi?y
1, vt
42
?? • d n? ?? X11 ?i?.??-? m= ?. / `? t/1
v .?I ?y?J ?•° f•G Leo ?r l f\ •, ?-
?
• ' ?? . SC3-/ `? ?liQ°?0 '6?e?a r ? ??/a`„ ??` ?• 1 `? `?'Z?/' mom'- )y
C?l
'Ic
a •? ? -??? 700 ???'?• ?$/. ~ L ?? ??^?I?S?S ?t?° Z .. '?+.
_? ?/?'; ?? ?j ( I _J•• + ` ?r/ ,?q o '° tic\??"- ',t
LLLJ ?//JJJ ??? ??? 1 N /` f , -?`.. J??,? j ? f ? rr? /° ?\
C-7 rd
.,?\ Gam`?-• `/ ?• ti i ? - "/ ?? ? ?`'• r
Ile,
Z:z
Cc,

0

°

,

c _

06

-NT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 2:45PM;
TAn o
A+ Z
1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
9ctty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 6, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 255 on SR 2037 over Wolf Island Creek,
Rockingham County, B-3232, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-2037(1), State Project 8.2510701, ER 98-
8626
Dear Mr. Graf:
PAGE 17/59
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Chow, Director
VE0
? 1?J98 Z
<
A
?? r1??ib O
On April 2, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological area surveys and resources and along
aerial pho photographs at the meeting. provided project photographs
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
in terms of historic architectural resources, Bridge 255 is the only structure over
fifty years old within the project area. We recommend that an architectural
historian with NCDOT evaluate the bridge for National Register eligibility and report
the findings to us. No additional historic architectural survey is recommended for
this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this
onmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
Exclusion or Environmental
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
ino Fast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Csrollna 27601.2507 ?]??
!T BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 2:46PM; PAGE 18/59
Nicholas L. Graf
April 6, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
w
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: '. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
"NT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 2:46PM;
Tip # B-323? Counry: Rockingham
F'ecfernf .-tic! # BRZ-_037(1)
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR POPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
TIRE NATIONAL
project Description: Replace Bridge No
On April 16, 1998, representatives of the
255 on SR 2037 over wolf Island Creek
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
C] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
? Other
reviewed the subject project at
[) Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
g there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as Bridge 9255 is considered not eligible for the National Register and no
further evaluation of it is necessary.
® them are no National Register-listed properties within the'proieet's area of potential effects.
Signed:
4• it. .°)t>
DOT
FHwil for the Divisi
Representative,
Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Dace
• ?J O
Date
State Historic ['rescrvntion O er
PAGE 19/59

tome and the atiachcd lint. aill be included.
If sutv2g fcpOrt is prig rei1 n linal cep> of this

R \\oro63232.tsh
PROJECTO* 8.2510 701 B-3232
2 p Z d ro? '
N H ra , o ?O cn
+ + ?
mO
DO tv
Nrr
u N zz z W?
v
<-iv?ow .ern V,x
11 1 fl if 111 1*6 v o o° o w
C
eR ?R De o w
rQ N
m m R?' A
rn \F\ v ?
m \ \ \\lye
14
IJ fOd (J ( \ \ \ \ O O
14
14
O O O rl ? \^?, d
o ' PARR
in ai C4, tj
?, oFE n c \ ?' ? a
14
CA x
a r ?'
W ?b $ rrn
0 o`b?? ;'ap N N V?
O ? p o b
r h
tv
rn y ? O
? y
b? O
ct
464 Ez
b
1.0
1.0
ON p
x°x
iLLL
Z
?

?zq

m

m
a
s
? a
?

s p
4° a
N
?

m

pT-ltlf.-`QT 6/15/99
JOE1t?e bf32'rd? _ s
n%
v?
?o
b
k==4?
hh ? ?
y ?®
z
z
n
m
z
0
N
x
T?
nz
0

N N T N N N G M N
?- p 0 S 'O fA O
° °- °. v = o ° 3. ° ¢ °c
° o o p 3 eo 73 3 C-4 0
0.0 3 O ° y
S ?1
coo
O Q O y G rt ? ^TJ,
=X C 3 ?;b
O n y?y d rt
0 o C ° ? O
n Y
Id ,
U j
-0 -0 -0 T 7 5 "'°
0 to o
m o o ( cyam? 0 0 3 z°• 3 '
3 3 3 ? R rt n
? -OaO+? ?' 7
?. O
3 ?' 7 n A 7 3
02 2
0 0 ?; O A o m. 7 7 7 O+
rn m 0 20 O m O
o m m o ?` ?• ?. °
3 3 N 3` s fl s°
0 0 CA m -0
rt ?' 3 ? O O o
M 'a
3 a a
0 o r Q a
o.
?, m m A IDI D
VEC m T < p y n O O C O O 6
e?
r y O N .Z -{I O 0 r 3 1
O 7 ?'
7
?.
O
N
O
O
O S
0 1
'
47
° x•
$
° o
0
3
0
n - ffi 0
a- 0
O
rt
o C
IMP
o
S
O
c
s _
o
0
3 x ' « o 0
u f
1

00
3 .?

rt
n
i
rn
< C O O O O O O O C t0
o c v? v`` p 'g v v v a- o
3 C C S S 0 0 O O y ^'
ga
d° ?' O O O IraO?
O n O_ 7 2 o V
C 7p o T o a a
0 -n -n
'p 7 A 77p C..
O o O
7?1 b
L I I ?
f I I
L I I
r ? IT I? I ?
I ? ? I
N O Ott o Q. 00 '.OC fl
S ' ' ` m 3 o O O O W W p O O
O
p D O O a m O w .3i W A O
S N S 7 ' S m a C O O 1
0 0 0 < o. o -e
m s o 0 W m o m
0 0 ? o o -D -o
O O O O O
.
(3)E3B mo®oo®I o Boo®cs?E3 13 + o-
a 8 m
o _;
O Z
Q.

0 a 40

o C. Cl

,
Re

n
O m 7 m
7
a
c x
? o
m =
y

' ,
1-4
I I f n
I ? ? II
? ? II
I
m -o -v 7 7 9 n n N m c O 7o O 7v C D O O N p 7o p m W p M
o ° 0 0 o O O Oy 3 S o O n q n O q 0 0 h a
0
a ' n v° v v"? s -T S c s °" 4447777 ."? eo' o m' $ ' $ ° ' c
7 7 O 3 O O O o _ O o Z r N O °_ O 3 d m 2 °- m O_ 7 a- to 7 °. go °
fo m ffi' r Z - 4 '4 ° 3 2: r ~' O o ` ° ° o m ° o °
m rn °' 3 O O p 1? 3 3 3 p• Q O O °- rt 0 O °. Ort °' ON O_ O N m
Z o 0 o °
a o 0 3 > >> r o o ?! c _ i 0 -n O. C I O_ m a- o o C O 9L n(D Ct
° ° o O 3 3 3 ? m QO ff?? o O
O m 7 °L ' O O o o O O to p S. p. ?' 444777 O O 0 r r O O -. r
m m d 0 -?. S 3 °- C p 'g a 0 y q A p O r- 7 7 0 `Z y r 3
CL °. to O rn 3 n m '?8- o n 0 0 0 O
c 8-
° 3 °- ° 0 n ?_ '_ m 3 A n W y C N
c fl ? X y ? o 0 o O sr- m i77 T O C
c a o in o A i.-
CL c
a Ao C in rt in o
° b
oOn ?• ? Q .•rnf. y `? 7
b in C
I I I ?, N I ; O I I I I i
it iil ? II ? Illli? ?I?II?IIiI!1
I
N 9 rt
n N C
S m p
3
°
3 n
m c
v 40
0 0
rt
ro
ro
l0?
t9 If
y;
_
S
O CC =
C V! N

m
?
s
O °-
°o en
? o ?

to O

m
S
A c O

r I 0
?l a
of .
I
0 Q
=
S -4
a a
rt n u w w
C X M.
O -V
< 0
C
Q M A
O C
rt a- n
Q =
°
° o
O
rt

O

0 Q'
2.
O_ . n to

a c o
0-
-0 2

o .
cn
C

N
c
O
O • :L °
?- a '
70
A n
A
s $
?
C f $
a o
7
o O N
c
n

a

N N N p n 'O N n
A S O
° ° m
0 N
c.
3
3 °= 0 3 0
a - o
°- S m
c
p C
0 Q
? C w
to
O
°
O
- o
?
y o
b

VJ p

Cl

*000 I li
L IJ
L I
n
O
Z
m
z
1
0
Z
D
r
N
3?
W
0
r
N
rl"
0
n
h

f
cn
C
m
II
N
C
00
N
C
23
A
m
C
r
z
m
m
X
con
I?
k?
?1
rj?
I.
z
C
rn
C

C
r

--I
C

3 r

Q

N

N -0 O
1070
Z D
m
m
0

3
n
N
I
6
l
?

n l
-? - r
C7 N (") ? D W O
D S N° w (7 g v, o
r ? ? D ? m
fz
m M r
I
O p
u, z I
Z D N 3
CD z
O m m p I
e e
N O
-. m
cn ?
O
r-
z -?
m =
Cf)
z
O
m
D
m
3
m
z
--i
m
v
G7
m
r
O
0
m
v cn
A
3 D
m
?o z
3 r -
m
(n
- (n
Y)
O
g
Z
3 O
m
FF)
I ?
m
CN I
3
3
IV W N
D mD O? 0 -4 -0
w
°
z
0

0
x cn x o
O7 -v o
° 0
OD m
oD
o z x m< a ?"< na a
r
m C1 D r v ° D
? x v
0 ° --1
m ?v o a
no -n
0
0
m
m mm
v v x my m

?

N x

x
x
m r Z 2 m Z 2 D m m

W -+

a
r
a m

3

a
D m

'<
3
3
M '

3
3
= j x -< x M
N a D

v z
z 0 x °z

o z C
°
° n
m co
' N z
n z
n
m m ' o?
z "'
a r, co
a a
m r, c c
m C m ? m m m

m
0 r)
m C
m -?
=m C 0c D

m a 4
Z m a
m m
C
a m m 3 -a C
W c
N
z m W 3-< m m

m
z m -4 -4
m
O
m 3
ao N
o
o -
m j
m
Z
D 01 :
-0
O W 0
r m o
O
x D .o
m
Nz
-4 fn
o VI
W
N

m m z z 4 -
z n D a z m
m m m z
V a < a c
3 M, m m m r
m m 3D,
M 21
C')
m
z m I. m m

m m x
? o o
m -4
m m
x T

• F
a N
I
O
-n
O
-n
to (? m
J
V
?
m 7r to
N
N
m F
v -V to to
°
m
:1)
m
m
3 N Y) 70 7D
o v
m
m
m
m
m
m
m Imo -4 -4
m m

'- m
3
m
co .3
m 3
v
-a
? O
m
v

x
O
m
o ?
-I D
r' c
N r,i
? '-'
r

N m

N
r
I ?I

y

r
?b

C
(A
r

?
o
D I g ' m p

C
O
o r- n? ny Pn I

O p O
i
r L
p
y
o o 0 t/1
n 3
m fA
(A Zp I O rn r
1
O CA) 2 g
D rv r -0
n ri >-c
l y r r
c/r Z
Z O
N co
? O
O cn j
G
n D D O
+cmj Op ?O ,l
o? +y
$ 0Ln
0
m
?

C> m z
m c'
z

_y
Z
OO
,
? ~? q?M?r?w 6/IS/99
JOElheas Af
nn
=O
A'
a
Z
col
C
y ?®
try
0
T
z
A
T
Z
m
z
O
I, 4 /
O,y
C °jrCH
?Si 'S° col V,
0
ap
p ? fk/s/
mbN ? m
? ? ; f

V DNC
N 31-0
J
2
J4a
U
r
8

.o
X94
fXl$71 R/W

r
n
a
°U4Ab \\ \ ` \ \ \
? ?14
3
?Fp \
o
\
14SO m \ H\ 41o
F
N?
0
o a?$$s so,, r1i?L,
re.lsc s.. F .
ROl1 CRE ??•
o Ow
N r> S .
O
O1 ?
e 1-
/? 'o aDfA??W
N O
3
pm
0
SAS
'I ON?
_ J
omm GZt
/ V
O
K
N
D
O
O?
0
-1
0
N
D
O
I
r
I
w
3 \
- - V
Q fl \ ?,.'Jp'L
??Q i3nvas a iros gv
Q
xm® Q
$? r
0mZ N Q
N mawZ ? N Q V/ ?
N " viO?r? ? ? Q fl
?l 944'p8 ww004
,? ?c/.L0.99 S ONOO
yA
Do
Fm __
,o
O?
C c
?
fl r
D
Z -I
o 70p
+Dm
W
3 +r?
o o OD >
NNr-
n m
? m?:2 D
WQO 00?Q n
11 1. 11 =
(OLIO N

9?9 O .n
m=
0
0
O
o?
v ?
so rn
z
1
Z
i
OOm
b
O '1^
Io
I? I
0
v
oy
?o
l
37
oZ ? ? c ? p
0 9 \ Fgo F \\ /9 ?i'FST\ \? FS
8 \
b \ EO awP
s
In
\? \\
(Qy '?' o Dz ..,
n
m n
I •? ? _ V K ylpz
$ a ?? ?mo?
1 m Ky /
n N w?t SN %/JD.1 Dn ``%
gi b o+z? m zo
9 yNgaaa ?c?O+z? oN
F ?? N
m?
"I 1 ?X GMs.. -o

r
F
O
N
f? r 1
Q2
y
y ilo
O
zW
o`
o?z
DJ o
NBC
s
i
Wro
+
rlJ0 'v
v=c'`
1- 011
0 ? s?B°9k
T rn
2tA
L,
J pr
rft
m ccC??
a Q
NO 2 ~ n
O
Oy
? O W
F ? lO
O
n
M b7 ? -
e o?
to t'
>z z
y?zzx???c?yd t7
Fy?c;?°ozaz?> Y
r: d ?pppY?ppY11111 ptl ?tl C?7
CN ??y,yOH?C
yd?z?dr7dzo ?ea (")
xa°g? >S b
y yA ? ? z
d 0 y

G

aoEme..
O N 0 0 0- 1 0 , A a lO ? N l l**?l I rl) I R

O
..........................
.......................... ...............
...............
?...` ..
..
"t .......
.......
om

..

:At
zz

:: :Z.4...

. .
.. ..... ...

.. ...... ........

I

O di
N
-Q
v?
00
O
?
rn
oo
O
N
?A
rn
oo
?
0
N ? p
?T'RO!

i