19950985 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970127

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

,MA

DEHNR

December 12, 1997
Yadkin County
DWQProject #950985
TIP No. B-2181
COE ID. No. 199505677
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Mr. Frank Vick
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201

Dear Mr. Vick:

You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
replace bridge 54 over the Yadkin River, as you described in your application dated November
14, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.

This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be
required to send us a new application. If total wetland flUs for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.

1. DOT shall follow guidance provided by DWQ in our 27 May 1997 letter for lilinimizing
damage to aquatic resources until a flnal policy is developed in conjunction with DOT.

If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Offlce of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certiflcation and its conditions are flnal and binding unless you ask for a hearing.

This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.

Attachment

in~~E1

cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineer~
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Offlce
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files

950985.ltr

Division of Water Quality . Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer' 50% recycled/1 0% post consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201

GARlAND B. GARRElT JR.
SECRETARY

November 14, 1997

US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Branch Chief

Dear Sir:

Subject:

Yadkin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 54 over the Yadkin River on
US 601, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-601(2), State Aid Project
No. 8.1770501, T.I.P. No. B-2181, Action I.D. 199505677.

The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the
subject project on September 29, 1995. These permits expired on January 21, 1997. The
replacement of Bridge No. 54 over the Yadkin River on US 601 is not scheduled to be let
to construction until September 1998. Consequently, the Department of Transportation
(DOT) needs to renew authorization for this work.

Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the Categorical Exclusion in a letter dated September 1, 1995. Bridge No.
54 will be replaced on a new alignment 15 meters (50 feet) east of the existing bridge and
will be 225 meters (738 ft) long. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on jurisdictional
wetland communities. A Programmatic Section 4(t) Evaluation was performed and
approved in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5(e)(4).

The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in
Yadkin County under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water
Quality Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested.

*

-~--

2

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at 733-7844 Ext. 307.

~~ 2f1

H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

HFV /pct

cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P .E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William 1. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P .E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John L. Williams, P.E., P & E Project Planning

,

JAMES B. HUNT, JR,
GOVrRNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1'.0. (\OX 25201, RAlEIGH. N,C 27611-S201

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SIClUTAllY

November 28, 1994

4>t'Q;
4~~ ~ 0 ~'to
,~ '~
~( ~
ore,
~

MEMORANDUM TO:

Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor

John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer

Replacement of Bridge No. 54 on US 601 over Yadkin River,
Yadkin-Surry C~unty, B-2181 State Project 8.1770501,
F. A. Project BRSTP-601(2)

FROM:

SUBJECT:

This is a correction to the meeting minutes sent on November 18, 1994.
The aerial is labeled correctly. The alternates were listed incorrectly.
The list below is as it should be and corresponds to the aerial you already
have. I apologize for the error and any inconvenience it has caused.

A list of alternatives to be studied, with associated preliminary
construction costs, are as follows:

Alternate 1 - Replace the existing bridge with a bridge in place. An onsite
detour would be built just to the west of the existing
alignment to maintain traffic during construction.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE - $ 4,400,000

Alternate 2 - Build a new bridge on an alignment just to the east of the
existing bridge. This would utilize the existing bridge to
maintain traffic until construction is complete.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE - $ 3,200,000

Alternate 3 - Build a new bridge on an improved horizontal alignment further
east of the bridge than alternate 2. This likewise would
utilize the existing bridge to maintain traffic until
construction is complete.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE - $ 3,450,000

Alternate 4 - Build on an alignment just to the west of the existing bridge.
This would utilize the existing bridge to maintain traffic
until construction is complete.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE - $ 3,350,000

(i)

,:)
N. c. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP

~

- RE". NO. OR 1t00M, 8L.DG.

TO' \....
ll~ . ~ r. L (3.8\111\'11.)
:":OM I ~ ~
\ nhln In. :I~\\~
~ __ --0 ACTION

o NOTII "'ND ~II.IE
o NOTII "'ND RIITURN TO Mil

o RIITURN WITH MORII DIIT""".

o NOTII ...ND BillE Mil ....OUT THI.

o ....11....11 ",N.WIIR
MY .IGN...TURII
o ..RII.....RII RE....Y ~OR
o T...KII .......RO..R....TIl ...CTION

J;t"4-
.~~i ..... .'..-:

o "IIR 9UR CONVER....TION

o "IIR YOUR RIIQUII.T

o ~OR YOUR .......ROV......
o ~OR YOUR IN~ORM...T.ON

o ~oR YOUR COMMIINT.

o .,GN...TURII
o INVII.TIG...TII "'ND RII"O~

COMMENTS:

--

.-' '~'i'I

.'

Rl"CE1ViiJ

NOV 2 J 19',14
f.'IVVIHOflf 1"
'f~TAl >".
:s....;t Iii" , ,
, ,- '.' H..;,'~

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1'.0, BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201

JAMES B. HUNT. JR,
GOVIRNOR

MEMORANDUM TO:

R, SAMUEL HUNT III
SIU\lTARY

November 18, 1994

Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor

John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer

Replacement of Bridge No. 54 on US 601 over Yadkin River,
Yadkin-Surry County, B-2181 State Project 8.1770501,
F. A. Project BRSTP-601(2)

A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the field on
June 15, 1994 at 9:30 A.M.

FROM:

SUBJECT:

The following people were in attendance:

Beth Vanderburg
John Frye
Quang Nguyen
John R. Pearce
Zi gri da Smith
David Scheffel
Randy Nance
Jerry Snead
Danny Rogers
Don Sellers
John Wi 11 i ams

Traffic Control
Structure Design
Structure Design
Location & Surveys
Design Services
Design Services
Location & Surveys
Hydraulics
Program Development
Right of Way
Planning and Environmental

Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.

Robin Stancil of the SHPO commented that the bridge may be potentially
historic. She requested more information on this bridge and others like it
in the state. Robin also suggested that a comprehensive archaeological
survey be conducted because of the high probability of archaeological
deposits along the river banks.

An area on the southeast quadrant of the existing bridge has been
identified as leased parkland associated with the Yadkin River Trail and is
delineated on the attached figure. It has been determined by FHWA that this
is not a section 4(f) property. However, efforts should be made to restore
or relocate any facilities (ie. picnic benches, canoe launches, etc.)
affected by this project.

(i)

TRANSPORT ATtON
C nEP ARTMENT of
N. .
O/l.T"

'11.&
o ...OT& /1....0 II&TUII'" TO ",&
o ...OT& /1....0 tI ",011& O.T/l.II..
o II&TUII'" WIT ",& /1..011' ,tlI.
"'0'& /1....0 .&.
o /I.....W&II _.../I.,UII&
O 1'1.&/1..& 011 ",,, .1..
111.1'1.'1 ,
O 1'11.1'/1.11& .,. /l.C,IO'"
I'1I0l'1I1~
o ,/1.1(& /1.1'

co",,,,SfolT.'

TT"'- S'-IP
TR"NSMI

-:rOI CwA\"mh
~(. ~L.r _-

,."otA.

.

'I&II./l.TIO'"
OUII co"
o 1'&11 II&QU&.'
o 1'&11 'IOU" /1.1'1',,0"'/1.\.0
o '011 'IOU" ,0"",/l.TIO'"
oU" I'"
O '0"" ulol&"".
U" cO~
o ,011 '10
o .IO.../l.TU"& 0 11&1'011'
o ,....,&.'IO/l.T& /I....

~".

November 18, 1994
Page 2

Eric Ga1amb of Department of Environmental Management (OEM) stated that
these are Class C waters. He pointed out that further downstream the waters
have a WS classification. Because of this, he requested stringent soil and
erosion control.

Stephanie Goudreau of North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission wrote
in with the following comments:

1) Disturbance to riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum
during bridge replacement. Native trees, shrubs, and grasses
should be planted in disturbed areas to replace those removed by
construction.

2) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact water entering or flowing in the Yadkin River. This will
reduce the likelihood of fish kills associated with bridge
construction.

3) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented where soil
is disturbed and maintained until project completion.

4) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare soil as soon as
construction is complete. Permanent vegetation in these same areas
should be planted within 15 days of project completion to provide
long term erosion control.

5) This is a trout county, however the Yadkin River does not support
trout in the project area. Any comments on permit applications
will reflect this.

The existing roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 MPH; therefore, a
design speed of 60 MPH should be provided for this project if possible.

The Hydraulics Unit recommends that this bridge be replaced with a
bridge 225 meters (740 feet) long just downstream (east) of the existing
structure. It is also recommended that the vertical alignment of the
proposed structure be improved by raising the existing bridge grade.

A list of alternatives to be studied, with associated preliminary
construction costs, are as follows:

Alternate 1 - Build on an alignment just to the west of the existing bridge.
This would utilize the existing bridge to maintain traffic
until construction is complete. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE -
$ 3,350,000

Alternate 2 - Replace the existing bridge with a bridge in place. An onsite
detour would be built just to the west of the existing
alignment to maintain traffic during construction.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE - $ 4,400,000

November 18, 1994
Page 3

Alternate 3 - Build a new bridge on an alignment just to the east of the
existing bridge. This would utilize the existing bridge to
maintain traffic until construction is complete.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE - $ 3,200,000

Alternate 4 - Build a new bridge on an improved horizontal alignment further
east of the bridge than alternate 3. This likewise would
utilize the existing bridge to maintain traffic until
construction is complete. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE - $ 3,450,000

."

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
REVISED VERSION

TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F.A. PROJECT

B-2181 DIVISION
8.1770501 COUNTY
BRSTP-601~ ROUTE

11
Yadk1n
US 601

TRAFFIC: CURRENT 2900 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 4000 VPD
TTST 2 % DT 4 %

PREFERRED METHOD OF REPLACEMENT: RELOCATION
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS, OR
OTHERS? YES NO X

=============================================================================

EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 220.4 METERS; WIDTH 9.9 METERS
724.0 FEET 32.5 FEET

PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 225.0 METERS; WIDTH 12 METERS
740.0 FEET 40 FEET

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESENT TIP COST ESTIMATE

TIP CONSTRUCTION COST............................. $ 2,005,000
+
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST............................. $ 36,000

TIP TOTAL COST................................l 2,041,000

CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE

CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES)..................... $ 3,200,000

RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION)................... $ 36,000

...

TOTAL COST.......................................$ 3,236,000

,'J I

@

f

'/
_/

a:O
Woe(
>0
Oa:
.-..J N
C/)O-
WlOoe(
_C/)a:
1-::>>-
ZZ..J C/l
50~ E ~
.::t: E
Uo:i>
>-l()z'-
a: _co
a: .~.- (0
OON
::>Zoe(' .-
~w>-m
z<.:}olJ C/l
-Oa: E ~
~ii:W .::t:
Om> E
oe( -
>-wa:
Uz
:552 0 0
c..O
woe(
a:>-

,-
.....:~ N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP 5 -10 -qLt...
mR. ~tL Co~LAtv\.B REP", NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. k
lkM- \)'r. \\~L- ~
FROM: RII", NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
SY\~ \~lL..\...\~tV\S ~+f:
ACTION
0 NOTE AND "11..1: 0 PER OUR CONVlERaATION
0 NOTE AN 0 RETURN TO ME 0 PER YOUR REQUEST
0 RETURN WITH MORE DETAIL. 0 FOR YOUR A~PROVAL.
0 NOn AND SEE ME ABOUT TH'. 0 II'OR YOUR INII'ORMA.TION
0 PLEASE AHaWER 0 FOR YOUR COMMENTS
0 ~RIlPARII RE"LV ,.OR MY SIGNATURE 0 SIGNATURE
0 TAK. "",.ROP-RIATE ACTION 0 INV.STIGATII AND RIIPORT
COMMENTS:
-
ill ffi @ ffi n W r>
MAy,3~
.
WETLANDS GROUP
WATER- QUALITY SECTION.

JAMES B, HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

May 10, 1994

MEMORANDUM TO:

Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor

FROM:

H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

SUBJECT:

Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 54 on US 601 on
the Yadkin-Surry County Border over the Yadkin River,
B-2181

Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for June 15, 1994 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.

Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.

JW/plr

YJ~(IM ~-

(

(2 -- (tQ3)

Attachment

G)

.. -.-......

..

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

DATE

05-09-94

REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN

TIP PROJECT B-2181

STATE PROJECT 8.1770501

F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-601(2)

DIVISION 11

COUNTY

Yadkin-Surry Border

ROUTE

US-601

PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 54 on US 601 over the
Yadkin River on the Yadkin-Surry County
Border.

METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER

WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X

IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT:

( $ )

, (%)

.

...

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3400
TTST %

VPD; DESIGN YEAR
DT %

6100

VPD

TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:

EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 220.7 METERS; WIDTH 9.9 METERS
724 FEET 32.5 FEET

PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
CULVERT - X METERS
X FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES

METERS
FEET

METERS
FEET

CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES). ........... .... ..... $

RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQU I SIT I ON) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $

FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS.................................. $

TOT AL COST....................................... $

------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

TIP CONSTRUCTION COST............ ... ...... ... ........ $ 2,005,000
+
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST................................ $ 36 , 000

SUB TOTAL....................................... $ 2, 0 4 1 , 0 0 0
+
PRIOR YEARS COST................................ $

TIP TOTAL COST... ...................... ..........$ 2,041,000

f\)

";i,"".

r'

USGS Quadrangle
Copeland

.
~., .~
~~"""";'~

'\C
(1
I
I

...-) ,......
('I \, I L.,
. ."f" )
; , -j, f-'

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r.o. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N,C. 27611-5201

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

September 1, 1995

RECEIVED

SEP , , 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
r"'r,l' 'rro~

Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
WilmiQgton Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Yadkin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 54 over Yadkin River and
Yadkin Valley Railroad ori- US 601, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-601(2),
State Project 8.1770501, T.I.P. No. B-2181.

Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 54 will be replaced on a new 790-meter
(2600-ft) alignment 15 meters (50-feet) away from and running parallel to the
existing bridge on the east side. The new bridge will be 225 meters
(738-feet) long. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on
any jurisdictional wetland communities. A Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation was performed and approved in accordance with 36 CFR Part
800.5(e)(4).

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 Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.

I'L~ ,;nt.lC.lpate UldL ,tOl \,(:,H'd, LCIl.1 .11 dl.1UII :I.'U, //,{;) \' i.r;'''yOl' ICdl
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
)p';ource:, Commie,sian (NCHfW),/il1 he r'equ'irr.d i'li :0 autnc';l.ation hy {hf'
~H'pS ::J[ Ulglnc('r:.. dy COi'Y uf hi; iLll'') ;,i.) , (.,,1 hlllefl~\ h'COOT hereby
requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to
the Corps of Engineers.

G)

.. .'

September 1, 1995
Page 2

~s.

If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.

~x P

H. F~n Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

HFV/rfm

cc: W/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
,Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator

- ~.-.- -........ .

'""" ,

~...-

Yadkin County
Bridge No. 54 on US 601
Over Yadkin River and Yadkin Valley Railroad
Federal Project BRSTP-601(2)
State Project 8.1770501
TIP # B-2181

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO YADKIN RIVER STATE PARK

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

APPROVED:

7.Z~.<JS_~ ~~ ~ ~_
Date-'t-H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
p~ W1d E~--rJ,":Ch
';a~q5 4~:;::; #u__ - .~. ..-

Division Administrator, FHW A

Yadkin County
Bridge No. 54 on US 601
Over Yadkin River and Yadkin Valley Railroad
Federal Project BRSTP-601(2)
State Project 8.1770501
TIP # B-2181

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
FOR IMP ACTS TO Y ADKIN RIVER ST ATE PARK

July, 1995

Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:

(\.7JI-% /i I "'^ JJ. \~('.ll'JW>
~ate JO~~
Project Planning Engineer

~t!Sw.~;fu;;- Ellu-flm_ .. _. ...

Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

7-2~r5~~~ ~
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

","",,,,,,,
,"'\ ~ C A I?O """
........ ~ .....J.. '( IA.',
$~~ ...;,,\~S;)/".b.'~'O:-
.: ...,~ 4p'('e.. ~
€ f SEAL \ ~
- . . -
: t 6976 ; :
~ \ f =
~ ("": ... ... '" i
".. ~ ..fIt~ I N ~ ~,.... ~ $
" ;/A, .l'....'" <:.~ r ......
',,'Y V 00,- ..,'"
" . r" ".
1#"".....",,",

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITTMENTS
FOR B-2181

1. NCDOT will move any existing facilities associated with Crutchfield Recreational Park
(ie. hand pump, picnic tables, parking facility, etc.) affected by the project to a new
location east of the existing facilities within the boundaries ofthe existing park prior to
construction of the new bridge.

2. NCDOT will reconstruct the path and stairways providing access to the river (for
canoes, rafts, etc.) if the existing steps associated with the Yadkin River State Park (see
Figure 5) are affected by construction of the recommended alternate. If relocation is
required the new location should lie along the border between Crutchfield Recreational
Park and Yadkin River State Park. The new location will offer access similar to the
existing launch site.

3. NCDOT will maintain access to both the Yadkin River State Park and Crutchfield
Recreational Park during construction.

4. Before construction begins, the division engineer will insure that "Bridge Construction
Ahead" signs are placed on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge.

5. NCDOT willl keep the Yadkin River channel open to boating traffic during
construction. Efforts to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible shall be made.

6. NCDOT will minimize the number of piers in the channel. The spans on the new bridge
will be at least as wide as the spans on the current bridge.

7. If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come to within I meter (3 feet) of the
water's surface, NCDOT will install fins to indicate the presence ofthe footings in
order to protect boats and the footings.

8. NCDOT will implement Best Mangement Practices with Sedimentation Control
Guidelines strictly enforced.

9. Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water entering
or flowing in the Yadkin River.

10. Disturbance to riparian vegetation will be kept to a minimum during bridge replacement.

11. Temporary ground cover will be placed on bare soil as soon as construction is complete
in a given area. Permanent vegetation in these same areas will be planted within 15 days
of project completion to provide long term erosion control.

12. All standard procedures and measures will be implemented (where the above
commitments do not supersede) to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.

13. NCDOT will apply for a North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification prior to issue of the Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #23.

14. Yadkin and Surry Counties are designated as trout water counties and as such NCDOT
has coordinated with The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC).
NCWRC has reviewed the project and has stated that the Yadkin River does not
support trout in the project area and therefore no special provisions are necessary for
this reason.

Yadkin County
Bridge No. 54 on US 601
Over Yadkin River and Yadkin Valley Railroad
Federal Project BRSTP-601(2)
State Project 8.1770501
TIP # B-2181

Bridge No. 54 is located on the Yadkin-Surry County border on US 601 crossing
over the Yadkin River and the Yadkin Valley Railroad. It is programmed in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project
is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.

I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT

The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing replacement of
Bridge No. 54 on a new alignment 790 meters (2600 feet) long. The new bridge will be
225 meters (740 feet) long and to the east of the existing structure as described by
Alternate 1 (see Figure 2).

The proposed bridge will have a clear width of 12 meters (40 feet) including two
3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2A-meter (8-foot) offsets. The approaches will have two
3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes. The approaches will also include 0.6-meter (2-foot) paved
shoulders with an additionall.8-meter (6-foot) grassed shoulders for "cut" areas and 2.4-
meter (8-foot) grassed shoulder for "fill" areas. The design speed is 100 km/h (60 mph).
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.

The estimated cost of the project is $ 3,273,000. The estimated cost shown in the
1996-2002 TIP is $ 3,273,000.

II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

NCDOT will move any existing facilities associated with Crutchfield Recreational
Park (ie. hand pump, picnic tables, parking facility, etc.) affected by the project to a new
location east of the existing facilities within the boundaries of the existing park prior to
construction of the new bridge.

NCDOT will reconstruct the path and stairways providing access to the river (for
canoes, rafts, etc.) if the existing steps associated with the Yadkin River State Park (see
Figure 5) are affected by construction of the recommended alternate. Ifrelocation is
required the new location should lie along the border between Crutchfield Recreational Park
and Yadkin River State Park. The new location will offer access similar to the existing
launch site.

NCDOT will maintain access to both the Yadkin River State Park and Crutchfield
Recreational Park during construction.

Before construction begins, the division engineer will insure that "Bridge
Construction Ahead" signs are placed on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge.

NCDOT willl keep the Yadkin River channel open to boating traffic during
construction. Efforts to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible shall be made.

NCDOT will minimize the number of piers in the channel. The spans on the new
bridge will be at least as wide as the spans on the current bridge.

If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come to within one meter (three
feet) of the water's surface, NCDOT will install fins to indicate the presence of the
footings in order to protect boats and the footings.

NCDOT will implement Best Mangement Practices with Sedimentation Control
Guidelines strictly enforced.

Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water
entering or flowing in the Yadkin River.

Disturbance to riparian vegetation will be kept to a minimum during bridge
replacement.

Temporary ground cover will be placed on bare soil as soon as construction is
complete in a given area. Permanent vegetation in these same areas will be planted within
15 days of project completion to provide long term erosion control.

All standard procedures and measures will be implemented (where the above
commitments do not supersede) to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.

NCDOT will apply for a North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification prior to issue ofthe Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit #23.

Yadkin and Surry Counties are designated as trout water counties and as such
NCDOT has coordinated with The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC). NCWRC has reviewed the project and has stated that the Yadkin River does
not support trout in the project area and therefore no special provisions are necessary for
this reason.

III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS

NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions.

IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS

US 601 is classified as a Minor Arterial Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It serves 2900 vehicles per day. US 601 is oriented in a north-south
direction.

The existing bridge was completed in 1940. It is 220 meters (724 feet) long
consisting of ten spans. There are approximately 12 meters (40 feet) of vertical clearance
between the bridge deck and streambed. The deck is 9.9 meters (32.5 feet) wide with 7.9
meters (25.9 feet) of clear deck width. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.

2

to

According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating ofthe bridge
is 46.5 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is not posted. The structure has ten
years of estimated remaining life.

The horizontal alignment is straight on the south approach and curved on the north
approach. The bridge is in a vertical sag. The pavement to the north and south of the
bridge is 6.0 meters (20 feet) wide. Shoulder widths on the north and south ends of the
bridge average 1.2 meters (4 feet).

Traffic volume is presently 2900 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 6000 VPD
for the year 2017. Truck percentages are 2 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4 %
dual-tired (DUAL) vehicles. The Design Hourly Volume (DHV) is 10 % and the
Directional Split (DIR) is 60 %. The speed limit on this segment of road is 90 kilometers
per hour (55 miles per hour).

Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that two accidents have
taken place inside the limits of the project area within the last three years. One accident
was due to alcohol use. The second was due to a vehicle pulling out of the 601 Package
Store where the vehicle was struck by a southbound car.

There are utilities in the area of this project. Duke Power has a three phase
electrical service along the west side ofthe existing structure. Centel Telephone has an
aerial cable along the west side of the existing bridge which transitions to underground
cable on the north and south approaches. The underground cable continues parallel on the
west side.

There are seven properties in the project area (see Figure 2) which have been
considered for various impacts during the planning process. The first two properties are
fields on the southeast and soutwest quadrants of the existing bridge. The third property is
the Yadkin Valley Railroad running parallel to the Yadkin River on the north bank. The
fourth property is the 601 Package Store on the northwest quadrant of the bridge. The fifth
property is P.S.C Inc. on the northeast quadrant of the project. The sixth and seventh
properties are described in the next two paragraphs.

The sixth property is the Crutchfield Recreational Park on the southeast quadrant of
the bridge (see Figure 2). This park acts as a Shore Access to the Yadkin River providing
parking, a hand pump for water, and a few picnic tables. The FHW A does not consider
this park to be a 4(f) property. This is due to the fact that the property is available for
public use only under a 25 year renewable lease with a cancellation clause of 30 days notice
which does not meet the perpetuity requirements of Section 4(f). Yadkin County
Recreation Department manages this property and has stated that they do not object to the
existing facilities (ie. parking, water pump, and picnic tables) being moved within the park
so long as access to them is maintained throughout construction.

The Yadkin River is part ofthe State Park System and therefore is subject to the
protection of Section 4(f). There is a path and stairways leading down to the shoreline of
the Yadkin River (see Figure 5) at the edge of Crutchfield Recreational Park. The stairways
are considered to be part of the Yadkin River State Park. The launching area is only
accessible to small hand-carried boats such as canoes or rafts.

There are no school busses crossings over the studied bridge.

3

V. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

Six alternatives are discussed in this document. The proposed bridge in each of the
four "build" alternates would have two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot)
offsets. The elevation of the proposed bridge will be approximately 2 meters (5-6 feet)
higher than the existing bridge. The new vertical clearance will be in excess ofthe 7 meters
(23 feet) required for the railroad passing under the bridge. The approaches would also
have two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes. Each alternate would also include 0.6-meter (2-foot)
paved shoulders with an additionall.8-meter (6-foot) grass shoulder for "cut" areas and
2.4-meter (8-foot) grass shoulder for "fill" areas. The alternates are as described in the
following paragraphs. Due to the large volume of traffic and lack ofa reasonable detour,
traffic would be maintained onsite for all four replacement alternates. Each alternate has a
design speed of 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).

Alternate I (recommended) is a 790-meter (2600-foot) alignment approximately 15
meters (50 feet) away from and running parallel to the existing bridge on the east side (see
Figure 2). It will replace the existing bridge with a new 225-meter (738-foot) long bridge.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. This alternate
would improve the existing curvature and preserve a large portion of an existing park as
shown in Figure 2.

Alternate 2 is a 760-meter (2500- foot) alignment approximately 15 meters (50
feet) away from and running parallel to the existing bridge on the west side (see Figure 2).
It replaces the existing bridge with a new 220-meter (720-foot) long bridge. Traffic would
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. This alternate would avoid the
small park on the east side of the bridge.

Alternate 3 is a 945-meter (3100-foot) alignment approximately 40 meters (130
feet) away from and running parallel to the existing bridge on the east side (see Figure 2).
It replaces the existing bridge with a new 242-meter (794-foot) long bridge. Traffic would
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. This alternate would do the most
to improve upon the existing curvature. However, it would also do the most damage to the
park by consuming a large portion of the available land.

Alternate 4 would replace the existing bridge at the existing location. Traffic would
be maintained with an onsite detour to the west of the existing bridge. The onsite detour
follows approximately the same alignment as Alternate 2 (see Figure 2). This alternate
would fully preserve the park in its present condition but would be costly as shown in the
costs estimates (Section 6 ofthis document). Alternate 4 would make no improvement on
the existing curvature.

The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road
as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Closing the bridge would also result in
cutting off the shore access to the Yadkin River from Crutchfield Recreational Park on the
south shore.

The rehabilitation altenate is neither practical nor economical.

4

.

VI. ESTIMATED COST
TABLE 1

COMPONENT ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE
1 2 3 4
RECOMMENDED
Mobilization 467,000 483,000 498,000 639,000
& Miscellaneous
Bridge 1,598,000 1,723,000 1,719,000 1,563,000
Bridge Removal 107,000 107,000 107,000 107,000
Roadway 626,000 588,000 665,000 800,000
& Approaches
Temporary N/A N/A N/A 730,000
Bridge
Engineering 402,000 449,000 461,000 561,000
& Contingencies
Total 3,200,000 3,350,000 3,450,000 4,400,000
Construction
Right of Way 73,000 265,000 63,000 245,000
Total Cost 3,273,000 3,615,000 3,513,000 4,645,000

VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR

Traffic volume is presently 2900 vehicles a day and there is no viable detour.
Therefore traffic must be maintained onsite during construction. The division engineer
concurs with this position.

5

VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

Bridge No. 54 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 on a new 790-meter
(2600-foot) alignment approximately 15 meters (50 feet) away from and running parallel to
the existing bridge on the east side (see Figure 2). The new bridge will be 225 meters (738
feet) long. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.

The design speed is 100 kmIh (60 mph). The proposed bridge will have two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) offsets. The approaches will have two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) lanes. Each alternate will also include 0.6-meter (2-foot) paved shoulders
with an additional1.8-meter (6-foot) grass shoulder for "cut" areas and 2.4-meter (8-foot)
grass shoulder for "fill" areas. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.

Alternate 1 was chosen because it effectively replaces the existing bridge while
improving upon the existing alignment at less cost and impact than any other alternate.
Alternate 3 was the next most economical option and improves the curveature more than
Alternate 1 but does not improve the design speed (100 kmIh, 60 mph). Alternate 3 also
takes more property from Crutchfield Recreation Park than Alternate 1. Alternates 2 and 4
were more costly and not as effective as Alternate 1.

IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL

This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.

This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.

This project will have low utility impacts.

This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of
the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.

The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation.
No change in land use is expected to result from construction ofthis project.

There are no hazardous waste impacts.

No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.

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.

6

.

B. AIR AND NOISE

The project area is within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Yadkin County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures. NCDOT
and the FHW A do not anticipate that it will create any adverse effect on the air quality of
this attainment area.

The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation
by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. This project requires no
additional air quality reports.

The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, will not have
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.

C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS

In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFP A) of 1981, the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that
the following approximate acreage of prime farmland soils will be affected by each
alternate:

Alternate 1 - 0.76 hectares (2.00 acres)
Alternate 2 - 0.74 hectares (1.95 acres)
Alternate 3 - 1.21 hectares (3.20 acres)
Alternate 4 - 0.00 hectares (0.00 acres)

On a scale of 0 to 100 points the SCS indicates that the relative value ofthe
farmland soils which may be converted by the alternatives are as follows:

Alternate 1 - 56.0
Alternate 2 - 56.0
Alternate 3 - 57.0
Alternate 4 - 0.0

Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating Form (AD-1 006) indicates a total site assessment score of 43 out of a possible 160
for all three alternatives. Total Score reflects the summation of the relative farmland value
and the total site assessment score. The Total Score for the alternatives are as follows:

Alternate 1 - 80.9
Alternate 2 - 81.1
Alternate 3 - 79.8
Alternate 4 - 0.0

None ofthese scores exceeds the threshold of 160 total points, therefore
consideration of other alternatives is not required.

7

D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) has indicated that they "are aware
of no historic structures within the area of potential effect." There are two structures over
50 years of age; Bridge No. 54 and House No.1 (see Figure 2). Neither are considered to
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see Attachement No.2). DCR
therefore recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted.

The Office of State Archeology has commented that an inspection of proposed
bridge replacement area was conducted while in the general vicinity. It is unlikely that
National Register-eligible archaeological resources will be affected by the proposed
replacement and they recommend no archaeological investigation.

E. NATURAL SYSTEM

PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The
availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.

Water Resources

Project B-2181 is located within the Yadkin River Basin. The Yadkin River
originates in Watagua County south of Boone and flows eastward through two counties
before reaching the Yadkin-Surry County border. From this location, the Yadkin River
proceeds along the north and east boundaries ofYadkin County. The Yadkin River then
meanders southward to converge with the Pee Dee River near the Tuckertown Reservoir
System in Davidson and Stanly Counties and ultimately empties into the Atlantic Ocean in
South Carolina. The proposed project is approximately 14.4 kilometers (9.0 miles) east of
the northwest boundary, separating Yadkin and Surry Counties.

At the B-2181 project site, three perennial streams exist: Yadkin River and two
unnamed tributaries (Figure 2). These two unnamed tributaries are located in the northwest
and northeast quadrants and flow southward parallel to US 601 where they converge with
the Yadkin River. Information regarding characteristics of water resources is shown in
Table 2.

8

I

..

TABLE 2.

CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER RESOURCES
ASSOCIA TED WITH PROJECT B-2181

Characteristics Yadkin River UT#1 UT#2
(NW quad) (NE quad)
Substrate B/CIP/Sa/Si Sa/Si B/CIP/Sa/Si
Current medium slow medium
Stream Gradient flat flat flat
Channel Width 53.4 m 1.5 m 1.8 m
(175.0 ft) (5.0 ft) (6.0 ft)
Channel Depth > 1.2 m 10.2 cm 15.2 cm
(>4.0 ft) (4.0 in) (6.0 in)
Water Color clear clear clear
Aquatic Vegetation none none none

NOTES: Observations were averaged along 30.5 m (100.0 ft) upstream and downstream
at each crossing;
UT: refers to wmamed tributary ofYadkin River;
Substrate: B=boulder, C= Cobblestone, P=Pebble, Sa=Sand, Si=Silt.

Best Usage Classification

Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). Yadkin River is designated as "Class C". This
classification denotes waters suitable for secondary uses such as aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.

Neither High Quality Waters (HQw), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the study
area for the project.

Water Quality

The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macro invertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN information is available for Yadkin
River at or near the proposed project.

Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are pennitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a pennit. The NPDES lists four discharges within 16.0 kilometers
(10.0 miles) ofthe proposed project. All four are located upstream from the project site.
Two discharges are from sand dredging operations along the Yadkin River and the other
two are classified as non-contact cooling water and condensate, boiler blowdown and
domestic. These two occur on unnamed tributaries emptying into the Yadkin River.

9

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 new location usually results in more severe
impacts. Impacts expected with the B-2181 project will be associated with new location.
However, impacts will be both temporary and permanent depending upon the alternative
chosen.

Alternative 4 (replacement of existing structure at same location with temporary
detour) is the most favorable, biologically speaking. Impacts to water resources may result
in sedimentation and turbidity from project construction. Permanent impacts expected with
a temporary detour as well as construction on new location include increased
channelization, scouring of the streambed, soil compaction and vegetation removal thus,
allowing lateral flows to enhance sedimentation if control measures are not used properly.

Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control Guidelines should be strictly enforced during the construction stage
of the project.

Soils and Topography

The Hayesville-Cecil-Halewood Association dominates the study area. This soil
association occurs along moderately deep, well drained, medium textured soils over gneiss
and shist, on narrow sloping ridges and steep slopes. Three soil mapping units are found
within the project vicinity: Buncombe Sand; Buncombe Loamy Sand and Congaree Fine
Sandy Loam. Directly adjacent to the Yadkin River, mixed alluvial soils dominate the area.
These soils consist of areas of unconsolidated alluvium recently deposited by the river. They
are found on narrow terraces adjacent to the river. These soils are subject to frequent
overflow and soil colors are light brown.

Yadkin and Surry Counties lie in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The
geology ofthe project site exhibits metamorphic rocks including gneiss, schist and
amphibolite ofthe Inner Piedmont, Milton belt and Raleigh belt. The topography consists
of steep side slopes leading to narrow valleys containing drainage patterns of a dendritic
subtype.

BIOTIC RESOURCES

This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities
that occur on the project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting these
communities as a result of the proposed actions.

All species are cited with their common names accompanied by their scientific
names. Subsequent references to the same species will include common names only.
Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with an asterisk (*).

Terrestrial Communities

Three distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: (1)
alluvial forest; (2) mixed pine/hardwood forest and (3) maintained communities. Many

10

faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of the three terrestrial
communities discussed.

Alluvial Forest

The alluvial forest is found along floodplain ridges, terraces and active levees
adjacent to a river channel. The hydrology reflects intermittent flooding only during
extremely wet periods. Alluvial forests are believed to form a stable climax forest, having a
stable un-even aged canopy composed primarily of bottomland hardwood trees.

The canopy and understory is dominated mainly by green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). Other species found amidst the canopy and understory include various
bottomland trees such as river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Privet (Ligustrum sinense), a species that has been
introduced, is found commonly throughout the shrub layer. Vines such as Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera iaponica), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), wild grape (Vitis spp.) and
poison- ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are prevelent only sporadically throughout this
community. Common herbaceous vegetation includes river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium),
Christmas fern (Polystichium acrostichoides), panic grass (Microstigeum virmineum),
beggar ticks (Bidens spp.), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), wild onion (Allium
canadense), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica) and fescue (Festuca spp.).

Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest includes species associated with
ecosystems that are temporarily flooded during periods of heavy precipitation and runoff. A
few of the species that may be found in this community include spotted salamander
(Ambystoma maculatum), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata), spring salamander (Gyrinophilus prophyriticus) and spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer) which forage on small arthropods, insects and worms. The gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus*), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) and swamp sparrow (Melospiza
georgiana) also may be observed in this community. Dominant predators ofthis community
include the barred owl (Stm varia) and red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), which prey
on small rodents, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest

The mixed pinelhardwood forest is found along upland flats, ridges and
occassionally well-drained small stream bottoms throughout the project area. Canopy
species include Virgina pine (Pinus virginiana), white pine (P. strobus), shortleafpine (P.
echinata), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickory (~spp.), black walnut
(Juglans nigra) and white oak (Quercus alba). Understory components are dogwood
(Cornus florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), umbrella tree (Magnolia tripetala), red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), holly (Hex opaca) and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum).
Shrub and vine species include privet, blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), Japanese honeysuckle,
sumac (Rhus spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.) and greenbrier. The herbaceous layer is
composed of grapefern (Botrychium spp.) and Christmas fern.

The mixed pinelhardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of fauna. Such species
include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus),
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) and American toad (Bufo americanus). Gray fox
(!lrocyon cinereoargenteus) and black racer (Coluber constrictor) serve predator roles by
feeding on numerous small reptiles, rodents and amphibians.

11

The presence of vegetative stratification provides habitat for avian species such as
the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis*), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) and downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens*).

Maintained Communities

Maintained communities include all communities that are disturbed periodically by
man. Two types ofthese communities are present at the proposed project: roadside and
agricultural.

The roadside community is dominated by saplings, vines and small herbs that are
regularly controlled by mowing. It occurs along the edges between existing pavement and
forested or open areas. Woody species found along the B-2181 project site include pine
and hardwood seedlings, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black cherry, privet, kudzu
(Pueraria lobata) and Japanese honeysuckle. Herbaceous components include
thoroughwort (Eupatorium spp.), aster (Aster spp.), fescue, barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crusgalli), blackberry, pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), greenbrier, ragweed
(Ambrosia spp.), foxtail grass (Setaria spp.) and lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.).

The agricultural community is found throughout the study area of the proposed
project. Remnant com (Zea mays) stalks reveal dominance ofthis community during the
spring, summer and fall. Fescue and bennuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) are present in the
winter months, mainly to prevent soil erosion.

This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of faunal species related to
open settings. Species such as the northern cardinal, mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura*),
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor*), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis*), ruby-crowned
kinglet (Regulus calendula*) and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) are found throughout
this community. The eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and woodchuck
(Marmota monax) may also find foraging opportunities and shelter in this community.
Major predators include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
and black racer.

Aquatic Communities

Two aquatic community types, piedmont river and small piedmont perennial stream,
will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical and chemical characteristics ofthe water
body dictate faunal composition ofthe aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities and vice versa.

The piedmont river community exists along the Yadkin River. It differs from the
small piedmont perennial stream in size and diversity of organisms. Many species of fish,
freshwater mussels, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds utilize the piedmont river
community. Grazers likely to be present in the Yadkin River are gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum), spottail shiner iliotropis hudsonius), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides) and thicklip chub (Hybopsis labrosa). These prey fish feed on algae and
detritus while providing forage opportunities for predator fish such as bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).

Species likely found within the small piedmont perennial stream are highback chub
(Hybopsis hypsinotus), rosyside dace, bluehead chub iliocomis leptocephalus), fantail
darter (Etheostoma flabellare) common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and creek chub (Semotilus

12

atromaculatus). These fish also provide forage opportunities for redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), bluegill and largemouth bass.

Middens of asian clams (Corbicula fluminea*) are commonly found along the
streambanks of both communities. Other species may include eastern newt
iliotophthalmus viridescens), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana) and green frog (R. clamitans) which forage on insects, crayfish, invertebrates
and sometimes small vertebrates.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts

Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described (habitat reduction, faunal displacement, etc.). Any construction-related activities
in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in tenns of area impacted and
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.

Calculated impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance
of each community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of24.4 m (80.0 ft). Usually,
project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may
be considerably less.

TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

Option
ALT 1
ALT2
ALT3
ALT4

AF
0.1 (0.3)
0.1 (0.3)
0.2 (0.6)
0.1 (0.3)

MPH
0.7 (1.7)
0.6 (1.4)
0.6 (1.4)
0.6 (1.4)

MC
0.3 (0.6)
0.3 (0.6)
0.7 (1.7)
0.3 (0.6)

TOTAL
1.1 (2.6)
1.0 (2.3)
1.5 (3.7)
1.0 (2.3)

NOTES: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
AF= Alluvial Forest, MPH= Mixed PinelHardwood
MC= Maintained Communities

Permanent impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented, relatively little impact will occur to
species that live along the edges and open areas. However, ground dwellers and slow
moving organisms will decrease in numbers. Mobile species will be permanently displaced.
Increased predation may occur as a result of habitat reduction.

Permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities will occur from increased
sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic
organisms inhibiting their abilities to feed and obtain oxygen. Less mobile organisms such
as many ofthe filter feeders may also be covered by this sedimentation, preventing their
feeding. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of
fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of dissolved
oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light penetration from removal of
stream side vegetation may also increase biological oxygen demand (BOD). Warmer water
contains less oxygen thus, reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen concentrations.

13

SPECIAL TOPICS

This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
sensitive issues-- Waters ofthe United States and rare and protected species.

Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics

Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 ofthe 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
ofthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344).

Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters

Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by any
alternate as a result of construction. However, impacts will occur to surface waters.

Anticipated Permit Requirements

Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of the COE. A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23 will authorize impacts to natural resources
concerned with the proposed project. This permit authorizes:

(1) activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or
in part, by another federal agency or department, and;

(2) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation that the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on
the the human environment, and;

(3) the office ofthe chief of engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with the
determination.

A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC # 2745) is also required
for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a certification is required.
Certifications are administered through the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR).

Surry County is listed as a county containing Mountain Trout Waters (MTW). No
discharge activities will be authorized in designated MTW counties without a letter of
approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and written concurrence
from the Wilmington District Engineer.

14

Mitigation

Nationwide pennits usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MaE) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A)
and the COE. However, final pennit/mitigation decisions will be made by the CaE.

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 man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as ammended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely impact a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.

Federally-Protected Species

Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as ammended. As of
March 28, 1995 the FWS lists two federally-protected species for Surry County: peregrine
falcon (Falco peregrinus) and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). No species are
listed for Yadkin County.

Falco DerelZrinus (Peregrine falcon) ENDANGERED
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 3/20/84
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Brunswick, Burke, Carteret, Dare, Hyde, Jackson,
Madison, New Hanover, Rutherford, Surry, Transylvania, Wilkes,
Yancey.

The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back and its underside is lighter,
barred and spotted. It is most easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that
extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet.

The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with
high cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff
ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on
skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.

Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including
mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey
is medium sized birds such as pigeons.

No breeding/nesting habitat exists for the peregrine falcon at the project site.
However, foraging habitat exists within the open agricultural fields in all four quadrants of
the project. No impacts to the peregrine falcon will occur as a result of project
construction.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:

NO EFFECT

15

Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) THREATENED
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Surry.

Surveys for small whorled po gonia were conducted on June 21, 1995 by Logan
Williams and Chris Murray. Small-whorled po gonia is a perennial orchid having long
pubescent roots and a hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green,
elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at
the end ofthe stem. Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.

The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-
coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers
acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or
high sapling density.

Habitat for the small-whorled pogonia was found in the vicinity of the proposed
project. Small whorled pogonia was not found after a plant by plant survey ofthe entire
project area. Therefore, no effects to this species will result from the proposed
construction.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

Federal Candidate and State Protected Species

There are two federal candidate (C2) species listed for Surry County. No species
are listed for Yadkin County. Federal Candidate species 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. C2
species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient
data currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered
or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species 1993 are afforded state protection under th State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.

Table 3 lists federal candidate species, the species' state status (if afforded state
protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.

TABLE 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATEIN.C. PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR SURRY COUNTY

Bog turtle
Brook floater

NC
Status
T
T

Suitable
Habitat
N
y

Scientific
Name
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Alasmidonta varicosa

Common Name

16

.

Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
Rare Species and Unique Habitats reveals records of the brook floater in the Fisher River.
Fisher River converges with the Yadkin River approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles)
downstream of the proposed project.

17

x. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4lF)

18

.

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALL Y -AIDED lllGHW A Y PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES

F. A. Project BRSTP-601(2)

State Project 8.1770501

T. I. P. No. B-2181

Description:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing replacement of
Bridge No. 54 on a new location to the east of the existing structure with a new 225-
meter (740-foot) bridge as described by Alternate 1 (see Figure 2) of the Categorical
Exclusion document.

Yes No

1.

Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on
essentially the same location?

xO

2.

Is the project on new location?
Elaboration on Question 2
The project is adjacent to the existing bridge as described in Alternate 1.

Ox

3.

Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located
adjacent to the existing highway?

xO

19

4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(t) land, in whole or D
in part, for its intended purpose? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(t) site Maximum to be acquired
less than I 0 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-l 00 acres ............ I acre
greater than 100 acres ............ I percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(t) D
land impair the use of such land for its X
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(t) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and D
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(t) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(t)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise D
encumbered with a Federal interest X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate D
Federal Agency object to the land X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of D
an EIS? X

20

.

.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT

The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:

1. Do-nothing.

Does the "do nothing" alternative:

(a) correct capacity deficiencies?

or (b) correct existing safety hazards?

or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?

and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or
impacts of extraordinary measure?

2. Improvement ofthe highway without using
the adiacent public park. recreational
land. or wildlife waterfowl refuge.

(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic
management measures been evaluated?

(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)

@ substantial adverse community impact

or @Dsubstantial increased costs

or ~que engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems

or @ substantial ~o~ial, environmental,
or econOmIC unpacts

or @ a project which does not meet the need

and@ impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude

21

Yes No

~O

Ox
Ox
Ox
~O

xO

xO

3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land. or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a
localized "run around. ")

(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)

(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems

or ~ substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts

or @ a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties

and ~such impacts, costs, or
~ difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude

.

Yes No

xO

22

.

MINIMIZATION OF HARM

Yes No

1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm.

~D

2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:

(circle those which are appropriate)

o

Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.

Replacement offacilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.

@

o
@

Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.

Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(t) property.

Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4( t) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.

Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.

e.

cv

23

..

"

3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:

a. Before construction begins, the Division Engineer will insure that "Bridge
Construction Ahead" signs are placed on the upstream and downstream sides of
the bridge.

b. The Yadkin River channel will be kept open to boating traffic during construction.
Efforts to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible shall be made.

c. NCDOT and FHW A will minimize the nwnber of piers in the channel. The spans
on the new bridge will be at least as wide as the spans on the current bridge.

d. If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come to within one meter (three
feet) ofthe water's surface, NCDOT will install fins to indicate the presence of the
footings in order to protect boats and the footings.

e. NCDOT will reconstruct the path and stairways providing access to the river (for
canoes, rafts, etc.) if the existing steps associated with the Yadkin River State Park
(see Figure 5) are affected by construction ofthe recommended alternate. The
construction of this access will to take place prior to closing the access to the
existing one.

Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.

24

.

..

COORDINATION

The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):

a. Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land (See Attachment 3)

b. LocaVStatelFederal Agencies

NCDOT on behalf ofFHW A has coordinated with the State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Divison of Parks
and Recreation and pepared the list of mitigation measures listed in
Section 3 of this 4(f) statement.

c. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits) N/A

d. DOl, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved N/A

SUMMARY AND APPROVAL

The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.

All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.

The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.

All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.

Approved:

'-./ ^ ' ..fl / () III
7-2.6-95 ~ ~ V l ~
Date Ils!t:Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
. NCDOT

7-~a~:9f> tvisi~r. Q /L

25

, .

.

FIGURES

@
. / .. "/ ,
I
.I:l I
...
... 1:1 ~
0 f -
,/ ... = ~;~
1:1 3 1::1
,/ 4i .~
~ ~
1:1 I
4i
l'I a ~~~
=- 1:1 N =
! .~ O~i:Il: ..; N
l'I 1:1 uo~
~.s ~ > z - j
e"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
c:l1::~
Q 1:1 ~g~=
.I:l =-..
1:: ~ 1:1 zga~ ",I =
~fj - = "':1 ...:
E-i:l.o ~~>
~Ui:ll:
>~~ ]1 4i
==
~ a

~
~
~
~
~
~