20010736 Ver 1_Complete File_20010515

d d SEAR u
yro„
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVF.RNOR
May 8, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDo TIPPE,rr
SECRETARY
0 1®130
Subject: Surry County, Bridge No. 138 over Bull Creek on SR 2041, TIP No. 13-
3249, State Project No. 8.2741501, Federal Aid No. BRZ-2041(1).
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning documents (i.e.,
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form and Natural Resources Technical
Report), permit drawings (sheets 1 to 8 of 8), and Stream Restoration Plan for the subject
project. This project consists of a bridge replacement on new location to the north on
improved alignment, with traffic being detoured onto other local roads during
construction. The existing cross section of the bridge is a two lane shoulder section. The
proposed cross section of the replacement bridge is a two lane shoulder section
measuring 6.6 m (22 ft) in width. The existing bridge is composed of steel truss with a
wood floor. Therefore, there will be no bridge demolition fill associated with this
project. This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions
beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters
and Bridge Demolition. No wetlands will be disturbed by the project.
To construct the proposed center pier, a temporary causeway must be employed.
The amount of temporary fill in surface waters will be approximately 0.013 ha (0.032 ac).
The fill will be composed of Class II Rip Rap (1.5:1).
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR Section 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under two
Nationwide Permits in accordance with 61 FR 65874 issued December 13, 1996 by the
Corps of Engineers (COE). The provisions of 61 FR 65874 and 33 CFR Section 330.4
will be followed in the construction of the project.
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: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
The NCDOT requests that you review this work for authorization under
Nationwide Permit No. 23 and Nationwide Permit No. 33. It is anticipated that 401
General Certification No. 3107 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) and General
Certification No. 3114 (Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering) will apply to
this project, and the attached information is being provided to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality, for their review. The NCDOT asks that the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) provide comments to the COE for this permit application.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Tim
Bassette at [phone] ext. 305.
Sincerely,
."X/06" C-P (1444. vz?
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Carl McCann, P.E., Division 1 I Engineer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., PD&EA
Stream Restoration Plan for B-3249
Temporary Impacts: Temporary rock causeways will be required for drilled shafts in
order to facilitate the construction of the interior bents. The causeways will consist of
plain class II rip rap with a layer of smaller washed stone. The causeways will be for the
bent construction only and will not extend across the entire stream.
Restoration Plan: No permanent fill will result from the subject activity. The materials
used as temporary Fill in the construction of the causeways will be removed. The
temporary fill areas will be graded back to the original contours. Elevations and contours
in the vicinity of the proposed causeways are available from the field survey notes.
Schedule: Bull Run Creek does not support trout. An in-stream moratorium is not
specified. Please be advised that this information is based on the current letting schedule
and an approximation only of the required construction times. The project schedule
currently calls for a August 21, 2001 let date with an availability date of October 1, 2001
It is assumed that the contractor will begin construction on the causeways at that time.
The causeways should be removed soon after the bents are constructed.
Removal and Disposal: After such time as the temporary rock causeways are no longer
needed, they will be removed by the contractor using excavating equipment. All
materials placed in the stream by the contractor will be removed. The class II rip rap that
is removed may be used on end slopes where Class II rip rap is required at the discretion
of the Engineer. All other materials removed by the contractor will be disposed of at an
off site upland location.
2104 Ash Hill
s 2043 Z
2038
2019 ?)o
_ `r " ? EN
C?
BRDG N0.138 _O
?1-
2039 ??.
1.a
2041 ^ 2 \
. J
? l
"BEGIN
- - - - ??
21 3 I ? \
815 ?Z 52 \ C-
PILOT M UNTAIN
2 \
r? - POP. 1,229
204 _ ? f 'F'
`j Crr
I
2018g n r y
2097
RNER ?\ ^ 2055)
i, 2087 ?` ?\ 1 2056 _4_s N
209 PILOT MTN."
118 ' ° 5 '\ELEV. 2,440
cr „?
3 '.]R7
poll
Tool
Um w
At S R ay Y' s f
VICINITY MAPS
(NOT TO SCALE)
I
1 `. VIll(j,I .
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SURRY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 138 OVER
BULL RUN CREEK AND
APPROACHES ON SR 2041
STATE PROJECT #8.2741501 B-3249
SIMET I OF
LEGEND
--WLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
CL
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
< FLOW DIRECTION
-B_ TOP OF BANK
---WE --- EDGE OF WATER
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
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -E- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--A
?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -fL-- - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
------- WATER SURFACE
X x x x x +_ TvF STAKES
O BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
----- PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
300mm-1200mm
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 1350mm PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
9 RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE 1
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
L • i-d ADO c o To
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SURRY COUN7T
BRIDGE NO. 138 OVER
B ULL R UN CREEK A AD
APPROACHES ON SR 2041
STATE PROJECT #8.2741501 B-3249
SHEET 2 OF
?r
f
or,
E`?I
41
r ? r • ? ?? • ? n.Yp al O
• ? • •{ .y,A +a • d ` ? ? ?,t? ? . .•? 94•x, 4? r • 1 ? V
!? jam' ;• ,i- • .? ?" ?':- y

t

«w °
k
L
LLJ LL
4. ? ? .n • ? mil. Y,
,Y!f,?" { $ , ^? ,rte *?7" ? •.? ' ?? v 1,: :?p A+i W 7, :: J J
•?cY `• . N
a+
th.
?(L7?` r `p i M>Y
. 644,6104
ii?-. Ile
• ? (,7 •• ,l. v ?J
' is W ''?• ? ? ? "thy, .-?:
4bA
• ? • J'?.a•'?n, a r, •+ si•r a
ran •? T,i . Z ?;1? We. •s .r: Ar'.r4f• r •-'cY y a ?,
• TT 4
4ri
N, a4? + 1/ b•d -?,? • x ' ?r?r4,? a r,?
T hut/( ,.?
r _ 1 S 1 +
volt
40
'). ?'?is ? ,/y?i ?? I -,. fav ??, •1?•,Qr°???lyrr•??1?,J1
J 7•a" •' 1 a h• "'y +.. r' • :w p r+ ra., . r4' o s y a R a?r. J
?e
Q ? o
ti
M Q NO
? M
rw?U ay

W
F
f? E-1
Y/ J O
`1 Q
111 ?
\\ ? \\ \
\\ A ?--_
\ ca 1
1 ? \
I \
R /CK D
l
\ I
1 1
I 1
I I

a?
A ?yU
a
i
?N
o ?o
?R
O ?O
o ?
??o a
a
U
N
O
F
(? O
?I
co co ti n n
N N N N N
O
T

I O O ?i Q
LO ? ' ?y V
? \ T
O
W+
.r ?
O ct ~

m O
(n \\ °2S

? r N

3 (D ' O
U)

Or
W J
?
`\ J

Cr) N
r
T CO)
Qo?
- ?\ O
Z Q
U
O
W>
? N J
W ,Y1A/ A
L

EN
Ea Y
U Z
cc T
T
T

,
.
E >- In +
?bW
\ 2: a
LO m. ¢ YON r: Z
? ° N o
(n
w U) U) *-
OOQJ cn
0 cr U) 3
CLO
C-) UJ Z
i ------- Ii
m
(n
m
M
J

O
I co
•\•
O
M??
/ c
.1 N?R ?
1 J e

0
M
W o
O C
J + ?
Q
O OLL > T
r A

PL
1 J c O .
- '
)
JOI-'LLQ QO ? O
_j L.L 4 mLu<x 3W
W ¢ +
p
I F->
Lij ?-+0
?(n
(nom
=
U
O
W
T
u cr- O J
W ?i :z
>- If- v
o
a - U
wcJn

QJyJC.D o
WUm
mJ +
O
ca Z PJ,? WQLL (nQ
OOQLLCr- QJO W=
a_ZM W tea. WO
x p- 0I- a_ a. U h O
WWLLZZ TWO UQ
F-CDOQW OCmF- QZ +
O
r
n

N N N N
W
z
O
w
O
O
Ln
Qy rq', a
N
IT M
O ? It
1.?
ti %Q
t
C-14,?
QW
o¢
xxcc
W F--
Q
cn Z 3
W '-'
~ J
O J
Z
W LL
O
W
a
U
U
N
r'
N
O
IT O tG N (9
O O (7) O) co
?•1
I- (D CD co (o
N N N a cm N qo 0
?Z O
`-, 00 d' O M Q M x? w
0
LO C) col
Jw T A o ?,
a
o Cl)
_J COD
?a y
E '? - LL1 ?I
q
tv)
z? w
o
u
N? O Qo O I U r
-C(j 0 jo o,
00
N
,o- I:s r
I? .I
' N CD
? II
13 I +
2 , C0 t?
O II N ( *'
V ' II T
?z o, CY
,+..
0o ? , T ?
E O OO / N
0,0,-- O O/1 +
2: O
o _Q- r
NIW + U
w 09.0
Z 3 = E b
M co
O -01) r -
z
CL ? H 0
)[ ,J,w3 mW T W
?Z LL?? ¢ T
Q _I „ of
~ LO tz m .?`. I x
Q W C= ?.. E
F- = U CL LU +
-,
CC <1: T N O
¢¢ °L, Q
ULd w?? CLOV
I-Co? ¢a?
d'
T O
d O <C N 00 r O
• • T
C) oo
to (D
N N 04 N N E NO
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
I MAXINE T. BRYANT
ADDRESSES
230 BRYANT MILL RD
ARARAT, NORTH CAROLINA 27007
2 CURTIS VENABLE AND WIFE
ADELINE B.VENABLE
218 BRYANT MILL RD
ARARAT, NORTH CAROLINA 27007
No C.D. Oo T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SURRY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 138 OVER
BULL RUN CREEK AND
APPROACHES ON SR 2041
STATE PROJECT #8.2741501 B-3249
SEEU .I OF
SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES
? Av5eWA-l / 'Rou Fl'k-,i-
SuR FACE AREA BELOW ON cJ
M
A ?ZA5-r = 5 6. 8 z
/ z
A WEST 7• 9 ??
V OL(A(nr 78ELOW 04(,J
o.013 K9
VEAST = (2'100t4) +%z (1.6) (2.1 ) = ,ZS,5- M3
2.5z) (<q) +% (Z.5,2) - 37.3 m3
V wESr =
VO t.um e or CAu5ewA /

VEA5T - (2.91)(7+4)+ %z_ 34-.7 w,3
WIT - (3.z8) I..$) + %z (?'6) (3.28 = 48 3 m3
83.2 m3
-T'ONACE OF CaLOE WAY
V EAST = 3q. 3 ( I.'3MT0Ns/m31 M-roz
V WEST = Q $'' C 1, 6 3" T."IA ? = 79' 1 M -r0?,1 .
tRIPR,gf
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SURRY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 138 OVER
BULL RUN CREEK AAD
APPROACHES ON SR 2041
STATE PROJECT # LZ741501 B-3249
SHEET Y' OF
CI)
z
F-
U)
X Z
W W
W
a_ LL
-i <E
zz of
?W
Lo >LLJ
ZW UO
Q?- xX
m0 Wm
wa
0
ono
?U
. 0 ?
Vol
6 n
A
N
0
M O i
i
I
a?
ai
81
3M
?M ow
3CL
WH , o

Q H Q
U
Ne U) N EW
UQ
crU q. (n
N0
y. o
?
a
3 a.
W
?
0
O
O
Q ?
UZJ k?
OCLQ
Zd.V
_
W ~
Q
Xo
?„
x
o F,..
t
W LL
W
a-
o
J
z
z
Z O
Y (,
Z w
Q F--
W 0-
A D 83

-1c, ?e -e?
/C
1v /t6
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
A. Project Description:
B-3249
8.2741501
BRZ-2041(1)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 138 on SR 2041, over Bull Run Creek,
in Surry County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location
with a new bridge approximately 40 meters (131 feet) in length and 6.6
meters (22 feet) in width. The bridge will have a 5.4 meter (18 foot)
travelway and 0.6 meter (2 foot) offsets on each side.
The new approach roadway will have a travelway of at least 5.4
meters 0 8 feet) width, with shoulders of at least 0.6 meters (2 feet) width
in cuts. The new approach travelway will be variably increased to 8.3 m (27
feet) where curve widening is required. Shoulder width will be increased to
1.2 m (4 feet) in fills, and to 2.2 m (7 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
During construction, traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 138 has a sufficiency rating of only 27.9 out of 100. The
bridge is posted at 12 tons for all vehicles. The bridge has an estimated
remaining life of only 5 years. For these reasons, Bridge No. 138 requires
replacement.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
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
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.
2
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.
D. Special Project Information
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $700,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 72,000
Total Project Cost $772,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 100 VPD
Year 2025 - 200 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The new approach roadway will have a travelway of at least 5.4
meters (18 feet) width, with shoulders of at least 0.6 meters (2 feet) width
in cuts. The new approach travelway will be variably increased to 8.3 m (27
feet) where curve widening is required. Shoulder width will be increased to
1.2 m (4 feet) in fills, and to 2.2 m (7 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
The approach roadway speed is presently limited by horizontal curves
on both sides of the bridge. The new bridge and approaches will be skewed
so as to improve the alignment as much as practical, but design speed will
still remain low. The design speed for the proposed project will be 30 km/h
(20 MPH). A design exception will be required. NCDOT believes that such a
design speed is suitable for local conditions.
Functional Classification:
SR 2041 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division 11 Engineer supports road closure and replacement at
the existing location.
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 any habitat where federally
ered or threatened species may occur?
n
d
li
t
d
F-1 X
g
en
a
s
e
(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) acre and have all practicable measures
4
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X ?
(5) Will the project require 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
Resource Waters (ORW) 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? ? X
(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

(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 ? X
low-income population?
5
(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? 1 _X
F
(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) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? F X
(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 ? X
important to history or pre-history?
(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 ? X
of 1965, as amended?
6
(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 Wild and Scenic Rivers? ? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
None.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
Project Description:
B-3249
8.2741501
BRZ-2041(1)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 138 on SR 2041, over Bull Run Creek,
in Surry County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location
with a new bridge approximately 40 meters (131 feet) in length and 6.6
meters (22 feet) in width. The bridge will have a 5.4 meter (18 foot)
travelway and 0.6 meter (2 foot) offsets on each side.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
3-7-1a0 oa-/?Ic
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
?1
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8

2030 b
\
2027
? 2 . 9 F1,,1
o

1
5 C Arw
f
1.0
???!
+ 1 .
S 2121 / ?' 21,
?019 , 2031 V) RAILWAY
p

. S 10\
2112 1^ v
, 2104 2-°5
1 1.0 g 21C
1
/Creek' Ash H71 2023 ti c022
S \ v
y 2032 .2 5 2043 1
2025
10C /Q 0 2031 2033 1 n 2038 9
.6- ). 2019` 1.0
2°34
{I 8 2?L ( ,\
7 1 J '?: 2Q'214
Creek
1003 T, 1 1 2 ` v
II 261`/ L- r "? r 2042 \ 262
2123 2093 2039 '
2207 035
.7 t rD 2132 rv / Q /' 1 /• 2 Ir
PS ` 9
2033 •
2037 2090 2036
?-X9 w?111e? Z % 2040 . '?' /• 4 2 20?
"• /
1.3 .9 to
2105
A 2208 20- 2 , I[1
'8 5

3
A
2037 S 204 _ .
. ON
1.2
.4 .3 FAS .2 -
FAS N LMI • ?` i
Cron 2088 ?h l • _
fo
01 ?, 101 20(/
222@ •9 r ? •,
AlL
Studied Detour Route
/. / Low t 'OUn ?''I
Low
sy 1 • 9 E9 ,?
PmeTos t' annailo,
w
Bottom @idQe t we
` Whita • I
Lane Plains }L* •
S U 1 R 1 R 6 r
` Mountain 7 nt Oil
a'nurhton Pail, Dobson?
ZeDhn + 601 6 r e,.rM.5
State 6 t Level Cros>P,nnsd
• ton
Koa Siloam
` 6 1 Knoll l o•?e G:
urc '
Crutch t.?„o n,ror..
WRR¦ r
a ' ocMtord / •
/a ]
• I?
., 2118 4 1.0
Cr.
2086 '
6 .5 2084,1 2057
l ° 2063
\ t 2080
In
d' North Carolina
= Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
SURRY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 138 ON SR 2011
OVER BULL RUN CREEK
B-3249
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program P
DATE: May 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for bridge rep'acement project B-3249, Bridge No. 138 on SR
2041 over Bull Run Creek, Surry County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
above referenced project.
At this time we have not identified any special concerns regarding this project. Although
Surry County is designated a trout county by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Bull Run Creek
does not support trout. Our comments on the 404 permit application will reflect this fact.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-
2982.
OF TR""
RTES 0?
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
August 16, 1999
IN REPLY REFER TO
HO-NC
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Subject: Replace Bridge No. 138 on SR 2041 over Bull Run Creek, Surry County,
Federal Aid No. BRZ-2041(1), State Project No. 8.2741501
Dear Mr. Brook:
Enclosed is the July 29, 1999-letter from Mr. William Gilmore on the subject project. In
his letter Mr. Gilmore explains, that as requested in your May 15, 1999-letter, an
NCDOT staff architectural historian surveyed the area of potential effect (APE) for this
project. Your letter also requested that any surviving architectural components of the
former mill complex should be evaluated.
Based on NCDOT Survey of the APE, there were no surviving architectural components
of the former mill complex. In addition, your office has previously stated that the subject
bridge is an example of the relatively common Pratt pony truss bridge, and lacks special
historic significance. Therefore, we have determined that there are no architectural
historical properties within the APE listed or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. Please review the attached information and indicate if you
concur in our determination.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Felix Davila of our office at 856-4350,
ext. 106.
Sincerely yours,
?VY G
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: William Gilmore, P.E., NCDOH

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 8, 1999
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation--
FROM: David Brook, Deputy ) ?/
State Historic Preservatio?OfFfcr t/ `JZ
RE: Archaeological Study, Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 138, Surry County, TIP No. B-3249
Federal Aid No. BRZ-2041(I), ER 98-8644 & ER 00-7169
Thank you for your letter of July 19, 1999, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Lee
Tippett concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion D:
31SR161**(Bryant Mill)
This site is also located outside the area of potential effect for the bridge replacement project.
We concur with Mr. Tippett's recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project as currently proposed.
The sketch map of the mill site included in the report (Figure 4) did not contain a scale and the
site form submitted with the report did not include a copy of a USGS map indicating the
boundaries of the site. Questions concerning the size and boundaries of the site can be resolved
if you will forward a copy of the' appropriate section of the Siloam USGS quadrangle map
indicating the location and boundaries of site 31SR161 **. We will attach the map to the site
form.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFT Part 800.
104 East Joncs Strcct - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 q1
William D. Gilmore, ER 98-8644 ER 00-7169
September 8, 1999
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.
cc: Graf, FHWA
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Lee Tippett, NCDOT

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 15, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 138 on SR 2041 over Bull Run Creek,
Surry County, B-3249, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
2041(1), State Project 8.274150 1, ER 98-8644
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
0c
00
Q`
1995 z
G?.V iSlO+ F
y
Hi1G W •'S
On April 29, 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 #138, a Pratt pony truss bridge
built in 1916, should be evaluated for National Register eligibility. In addition, any
surviving architectural component of the former mill complex should be evaluated.
There are no recorded archaeological sites near the existing bridge, but the USGS
map indicates the location of a dam and what appears to have been a mill in the
vicinity of the bridge. We recommend an archaeological survey of the area and
evaluation of the mill and dam if they are to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement.
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.
r7a
Nicholas L. Graf
May 15, 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.
Sipcerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ". F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
PROJECT COMMITMENYS:
B-3249. Surry County
Bridge No. 138, on SR 2041
Over Bull Run Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2041(1)
State Project 8.2741501
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Bridge Maintenance Unit, Project
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch (Permits and Historic Architecture),
Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge is composed of steel and timber
components, with concrete abutments. There is no asphalt on the bridge, and the
concrete abutments are out of the stream. Therefore, the bridge will be removed
without dropping any component into Waters of the U.S. during construction
activities. During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal will be followed.
Bridge Disposal: The existing 1918 steel truss bridge is not eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. However, two parties have expressed interest
in accepting ownership of the bridge, and adapting it to recreational use.
Arrangements have not been finalized at this time. NCDOT will discuss
details and responsibilities with the parties and obtain an agreement with the most
qualified party. An important factor is the need to reach an agreement to remove
the existing bridge in a timely manner for construction of the new bridge. NCDOT
will retain ownership of the existing bridge until the disposal agreement is
complete.
Categorical Exclusion Document Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
March, 2000
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 138 on SR 2041
Over Bull Creek in Surry County
TIP No. B-3249
State Project 8.2741501
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2041(1)
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3249
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
Tim Bassette, Environmental Specialist
12 April 1999
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................1
1.1 Definitions ........................................................................... ..1
1.2 Project Description ................................................................ ..1
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................ ..2
1.4 Qualifications of Primary Investigator ........................................ ..2
2.0 Physical Resources ........................................................................ ..3
2.1 Area and Regional Characteristics .............................................3
2.2 Water Resources .................................................................. ..4
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Physical Characteristics ................ ..4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ........................................... ..4
2.2.3 Public Mountain Trout Waters ...................................... ..5
2.2.4 Water Quality ........................................................... ..5
2.2.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ..... .. 5
2.2.4.2 North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity ............ ..6
2.2.4.3 Fish Tissue Analysis .................................... ..7
2.2.4.4 Point Source Dischargers .............................. ..8
2.2.4.5 Non-Point Source Dischargers ........................ ..8
2.2.4.6 Aquatic Toxicology Monitoring ........................ ..9
2.2.4.7 Water Quality Survey ................................... ..9
2.2.5 Summary of Anticipated Water Resource Impacts ........... ..9
3.0 Biotic Resources ............................................................................ 10
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ......................................................... 11
3.1.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest .......................... 11
3.1.2 Power Line Easement ................................................ 12
3.1.3 Maintained Yard ........................................................ 12
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife .................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Lepidopterans .......................................................... 12
3.2.2 Amphibians .............................................................. 13
3.2.3 Reptiles .................................................................. 13
3.2.4 Birds ....................................................................... 13
3.2.5 Mammals ................................................................ 14
3.3 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife ............................................. 14
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts ........................ 15
3.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................... 15
3.4.2 Aquatic Impacts ........................................................ 16
4.0 Jurisd ictional Topics ........................................................................ 17
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................................................... 17
4.2 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .......................... 18
4.3 Permits ............................................................................... 19
4.4 Mitigation ............................................................................. 19
4.4.1 Avoidance ............................................................... 20
4.4.2 Minimization ............................................................. 20
4.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ............................................ 21
4.5 Rare and Protected Species .................................................... 21
4.5.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................21
4.5.2 Federal Species of Concern ........................................24
5.0 References ...................................................................................26
6.0 Appendix ......................................................................................29
Figure 1 - Surry County and Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Bridge No. 138 Project Area Map
Tables
1 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ......................................15
2 - Federally-Protected Species for Surry County .......................................22
3 - Federal Species of Concern for Surry County ........................................25
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
report inventories the natural resources that occur within the proposed right-of-
way boundaries and describes the potential impacts of the proposed project.
The document provides an assessment of the nature and severity of probable
impacts to these natural resources, along with recommendations for measures
that minimize resource impacts.
Areas of particular environmental concern that potentially affects the
selection of a preferred alignment or necessitates changes in design criteria are
also discussed. Such environmental concerns should be addressed during the
preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses
contained in this report are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary
project boundaries and design. Additional field investigations may be necessary
if design parameters and criteria change.
1.1 Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms define the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by
proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. An
area extending 1.6 km (1.0 mi) on all sides of the project area is defined as the
"project vicinity." "Project region" defines an area represented by a 7.5-minute
USGS quadrangle map (i.e., 163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mi)), with the project area
occupying the project region's central position.
1.2 Project Description
The proposed project is situated in east-central Surry County, and calls for
the replacement of Bridge No. 138 on State Route (SR) 2041 over Bull Creek
(Figure 1). The existing 18 m (58 ft) long, two-lane shoulder section bridge
consists of a one lane pratt pony truss, and was built in 1916. The right-of-way
along Bridge No. 138 measures an estimated 18 m (60 ft).
The NCDOT considers two alternatives for the project (Figure 2). Both
alternatives incorporate a proposed right-of-way of 18 m (60 ft). Alternate 1
requires replacing the existing bridge in-place with a new, two lane shoulder
section bridge. Traffic will be detoured onto other local roads during
construction. Under Alternate 1, project length of the new bridge is
approximately 39.6 m (130 ft). Alternate 2 involves replacing Bridge No. 138
with a permanent on-site bridge built on improved alignment and new location to
the north. Under Alternate 2, project length of the new bridge is approximately
2
94.5 m (310 ft). Traffic will be detoured onto other local roads during
construction. Once the bridge on new location is completed, the NCDOT will
tear down and remove the original Bridge No. 138.
1.3 Methodology
Published information regarding the project area was consulted prior to a
field visit. Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study
area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Siloam, North
Carolina) and NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200). Water
resource information was obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) publications, the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), and from the DWQ per the North Carolina Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
list of protected species and species of concern from 15 January 1999 and the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database maps of rare species and
unique habitats provided information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species in the study area.
After reviewing the published information, NCDOT environmental
specialists Tim Bassette and Chris Murray conducted general field surveys along
the proposed alignment on 13 January 1999. The environmental specialists
identified and recorded the physical characteristics of water resources within the
project area. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified
and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks,
and burrows). The field investigators also conducted cursory surveys of aquatic
organisms and tactile searches of benthic organisms. The organisms were
released once identified in the field.
1.4 Qualifications of Primary Investigator
Investigator: Tim Bassette, Environmental Specialist, NCDOT.
Education: - BA, Biology and Environmental Studies, Alfred University, 1991.
- MS in Environmental Science, School of Public & Environmental
Affairs, Indiana University, 1996.
Experience: - Organic Laboratory Technician, Nov. 1991-Aug. 1993 and Wet
Chemist, May 1994-Aug. 1994, Recra Environmental, Inc.
- Environmental Scientist, Environmental Audits, Inc., May 1995-
Dec. 1995.
- Environmental Regulatory Consultant for USEPA's RCRA,
Superfund, and EPCRA Hotline, Booz•Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Feb.
1997-Aug. 1998.
- Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, Sept. 1998-present.
Expertise: Environmental assessments, regulations, and permits; water
quality.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources occurring within the study area are discussed
below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site
topography significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction,
along with other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased
potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbances resulting
from construction activities can potentially alter the flow and quality of water
resources, thereby limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics
and water availability directly influence the composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in biotic communities.
2.1 Area and Regional Characteristics
According to a January 1999 phone conservation with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service in Surry County, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has not completed a soil survey document for Surry County, North
Carolina. Therefore, soil resource information on the project is unavailable at
this time.
Surry County lies within the Inner Piedmont physiographic region of North
Carolina (Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
1985). Moderately steep wooded ravines characterize the topography of the
project vicinity. The project area is situated along a narrow, steep flood plain
associated with Bull Creek.
The project area's elevation ranges from 274-280 m (900-919 ft) above
mean sea level (msl) along the western portion of the project to 280-286 m (920-
939 ft) above msl along the eastern portion of the project. Bull Creek, situated
near the center of the project area, is 268-274 m (880-899 ft) above msl (USGS
quadrangle map (Siloam, North Carolina, 1970).
Core samples taken throughout the project area did not exhibit hydric
conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low areas of the flood plain. Therefore,
hydric soil indicators, as defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual, were not observed within the project area.
4
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information about the water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information includes physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects, along with their
relationships to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to these
water bodies are also discussed as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Physical Characteristics
Bull Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by
the proposed project (Figure 1). The river is located in sub-basin 030703 of the
Yadkin - Pee Dee River Basin. Bull Creek is a tributary to Ararat River, and has
its confluence with the river approximately 2.07 km (1.28 mi) linear stream
channel distance downstream of Bridge No. 138.
Bull Creek's bank at Bridge No. 138 measures approximately 11 m (36 ft)
wide and 6.1 m (20 ft) deep. The stream bed at the same location measures
approximately 11 m (36 ft) wide and 0.2-0.6 m (0.5-2.0 ft) deep. The river's
substrate, which was devoid of algae, consisted of silt, sand, and boulders. Silt
and sand were prevalent along the creek's edges. Numerous boulders
measuring several feet in length and several inches in width also dotted the
creek. Many of the boulders protruded out of the water and were aligned
perpendicularly toward the direction of stream flow. Water within Bull Creek was
murky at the time of the survey. Streambank erosion and/or surface water runoff
from adjacent uplands may contribute to the creek's high turbidity.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
The DWQ categorizes streams according to a best usage classification.
Bull Creek [index no. 12-72-15] falls under Class C (NCDENR, DWQ, Water
Quality Section, Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North
Carolina, Yadkin - Pee Dee River Basin; 1 September 1998 Internet update).
Class C designates waters protected for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation (e.g., wading, boating), and agriculture.
There are no restrictions on watershed development activities within Class C
designated streams (NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Surface
Freshwater Classifications Used in North Carolina; 15 October 1997 Internet
update).
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), Trout Waters
(Tr), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within the project vicinity
(NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Water Quality Stream Classifications
for Streams in North Carolina, Yadkin - Pee Dee River Basin; 1 September 1998
Internet update).
2.2.3 Public Mountain Trout Waters
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) administers
a state fishery management classification in order to provide public access to
fishing on private and public lands. Mountain waters that support brook, brown,
and rainbow trout and are open to public fishing are designated and managed as
public mountain trout waters by the NCWRC. Unlike DWQ's Trout Waters (Tr)
classification, which protects water quality, the NCWRC's Public Mountain Trout
Waters classification regulates fishing activities (NCWRC, 1998-1999 North
Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting, & Trapping Regulations Digest, Mountain
Trout; undated Internet update).
Public Mountain Trout Waters are classified for management purposes
under Hatchery Supported Waters or Wild Trout Waters. Hatchery Supported
Waters are periodically stocked with trout in order to sustain fishing. Wild Trout
Waters are high quality waters that sustain trout populations through natural
reproduction. In order to meet specific management objectives, the NCWRC
categorizes some Hatchery Supported Waters or Wild Trout Waters as Special
Regulated Trout Waters. Special Regulated Trout Waters are further classified
into the following categories: Catch and Release/Artificial Lures Only, Catch and
Release/Artificial Flies Only, Wild Trout/Natural Bait, and Delayed Harvest
Waters (NCWRC, 1998-1999 North Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting, & Trapping
Regulations Digest, Mountain Trout; undated Internet update).
Surry County contains NCWRC designated Public Mountain Trout Waters.
However, Bull Creek is not included within this classification. No other streams
located within the project vicinity are designated under Public Mountain Trout
Waters (NCWRC, 1998-1999 North Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting, & Trapping
Regulations Digest, Mountain Trout and Special Regulated Trout Waters;
undated Internet updates).
2.2.4 Water Quality
The DWQ initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management
for the 17 river basins within the state of North Carolina. In order to accomplish
this goal, the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical data for basinwide
assessments and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
2.2.4.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The DWQ initiates a basinwide approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for more
6
intensive sampling of biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in
basinwide assessment and planning. Likewise, specific river basins are
intensively sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates. The macro invertebrates are
a good indicator of water quality because of their sensitivity to subtle
environmental changes, mobility (as compared to fish), diversity, and relatively
long life cycle. The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms
help to assess the health of streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed
every five years to detect changes in water quality and facilitate the NPDES
permit review (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997).
The Benthic Macroi nverteb rate Ambient Network (BMAN) monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic
macro i nve rteb rates organisms that are sensitive to water quality conditions. The
samples are evaluated on the number of intolerant taxa groups (i.e.,
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT)) present and a taxa richness
value, or EPT S. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that
summarizes tolerance data for all species of each collection. The taxa richness
and biotic index values are given equal weight in final site classification. Both
values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution. The values poorly
measure the effects of physical water pollutants such as sediment (NCDEHNR-
DEM, 1997).
According to the Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document,
Yadkin River Basin (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997), BMAN monitoring sites are not
located within the project vicinity.
2.2.4.2 North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for
assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of
its fish community. The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors
influencing aquatic faunal communities. The index incorporates information
about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish abundance,
and fish condition (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997).
The assessment of biological integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the
cumulative assessment of 12 parameters (metrics). The values provided by the
metrics are converted into scores on a 1, 3, or 5 scale. A score of 5 represents
conditions expected for undisturbed streams in the specific river basin or
ecoregion, while a score of 1 indicates that the conditions vary greatly from those
expected in an undisturbed stream of the region. The scores are summed to
attain the overall NCIBI score. The NCIBI score is then assigned an integrity
class, which ranges from No Fish to Excellent (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997).
7
According to the Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document,
Yadkin River Basin (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997), NCIBI fish community monitoring
sites are not located within the project vicinity.
2.2.4.3 Fish Tissue Analysis
Heavy metals, pesticides, and complex organic compounds released into
the environment often contaminate aquatic resources. Once in a body of water,
the contaminants often come into contact with an organism and undergo
disposition (i.e., absorption, distribution, biotransformation, and excretion).
During the process of disposition, xenobiotics may bioaccumulate in fish and
shellfish plasma proteins, liver, bones, excretory system, or adipose tissue.
Consequently, fish tissue monitoring plays an important role in determining the
water quality of a particular watershed. Fish tissue analyses help determine
human, fish, and wildlife concerns, and identifies the presence and
concentrations of specific contaminants within the ecosystem (Amdur, et al.,
1993).
When evaluating fish tissue analyses, the DWQ compares toxicological
results with Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommended screening values, and
various toxicological criteria from the North Carolina Health Department (NCHD).
The FDA developed action levels help to protect humans from the chronic effects
of toxic substances consumed in food. The action levels employ a "safe level"
approach to fish tissue consumption for mercury and the following organic
compounds: aldrin; dieldrin; endrin; o,p and p,p DDD; o,p and p,p DDE; o,p and
p,p DDT; PCB-1254; and the cis- and trans- isomers of chlordane. The USEPA,
in conjunction with the guidance document entitled Fish Sampling and Analysis:
Volume 1 (USEPA, 1993), uses risk assessment to adopt recommended
screening values for target analytes. Target analytes with EPA recommended
screening values include organic compounds such as chlorpyrifos, total
chlordane, total DDT, endrin, lindane, mirex, total PCBs, and toxaphene. Three
metals, cadmium, mercury, and selenium, are also included as target analytes.
The DWQ compares fish tissue results with a target analyte's recommended
screening value in order to determine if additional site specific monitoring is
required. Finally, the NCHD's toxicological criteria are used to issue fish
consumption advisories for the state of North Carolina. The NCHD adopted fish
tissue consumption advisories for the following contaminants: selenium, total
DDT, total chlordane, and dioxins (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997).
According to the Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document,
Yadkin River Basin (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997), fish tissue monitoring sites are not
located within the project vicinity.
8
2.2.4.4 Point Source Dischargers
Any person discharging pollutants from a point source directly into waters
of the United States must obtain an NPDES permit. Point sources originate
from discrete conveyances such as pipes or man made ditches. The USEPA
considers point sources to include direct industrial discharge and municipal
wastewater. Point source pollutants include human wastes, toxic chemicals and
metals, fecal coliform, oil and grease, pesticides, and food wastes (USEPA
Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, NPDES Permit Program; 10
December 1998 Internet update). The DWQ administers the State of North
Carolina's NPDES program. The most current DWQ NPDES report (1998) and
DWQ data obtained through the NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis both list one facility that holds an NPDES Permit within the project
vicinity. The facility, Pilot Mountain Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), holds
NPDES Permit No. N00026646. Approximately 1.5 million gallons of effluent per
day are discharged by the WWTP into Ararat River near its confluence with Bull
Run Creek. This major municipal permit was issued on 2 March 1998 and
expires on 30 June 1999 (DWQ, 1998).
2.2.4.5 Non-Point Source Dischargers
Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source
(NPS) pollution comes from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt
runoff moves over the earth's surface, natural and man-made pollutants are
picked up, carried, and ultimately deposited into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal
waters, and groundwater. Non-point source pollution includes fertilizers,
herbicides, and insecticides from farms and residential areas; hydrocarbons and
chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; sediments from construction
sites, land clearing, and eroding streambanks; salt from irrigation activities; acid
drainage from abandoned mines; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal
wastes, and faulty septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. The effects of
NPS pollutants on water resources vary, and in many instances, may not be
known. These pollutants generally have harmful effects on drinking water
supplies, recreation, wildlife, and fisheries (USEPA Office of Water, Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program, What is Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution? -
Questions and Answers; 30 December 1997 Internet update).
The NCDOT field investigators conducted a visual observation of any
potential NPS discharges located within or near the project area. Atmospheric
deposition; streambank erosion; fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from
nearby farms and residential areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from
nearby driveways were identified as potential sources of NPS pollution near the
project area. The field investigators did not observe any construction or land
clearing activities near the project area.
2.2.4.6 Aquatic Toxicology Monitoring
Acute and/or chronic toxicity tests are used to determine the toxicity of
discharges to sensitive aquatic species such as the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas) and water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia). These tests also help evaluate
stream water quality relative to other stream sites or point source discharges.
Administrative letters or NPDES permits often require facilities to monitor whole
effluent toxicity. The DWQ's Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory may also conduct
these tests on certain facilities. The Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory maintains a
compliance summary for all facilities required to perform tests and provides
regional offices and DWQ administration with monthly updates on monitoring
information (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997).
According to the Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document,
Yadkin River Basin (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997), one aquatic toxicology monitoring
site is located within the project vicinity. The monitoring site, Pilot Mountain
WWTP, monitors effluent toxicity as required under its NPDES Permit No.
NC0026646. The WWTP, which discharges its effluent into Ararat River near its
confluence with Bull Run Creek, documented toxicity tests at least every
January, April, July, and October from 1993 - 1996. Pilot Mountain WWTP
passed two of its three last documented
in July, August, and October 1996.
2.2.4.7 Water Quality Survey
pass/fail chronic toxicity tests conducted
Water quality simulation models are often used to predict water body
responses to different wasteloads. The models help determine effluent limits
under NPDES permits. Historical data and in-stream water quality surveys are
often required to calibrate and verify the water quality models. Water quality
surveys are performed on water bodies below existing or proposed wastewater
dischargers. The surveys usually consist of a time-of-travel dye study, flow
measurements, physical and chemical samples, long-term biochemical oxygen
demand (BODIt) analysis, water body channel geometry, and effluent
characterization analysis (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997).
According to the Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document,
Yadkin River Basin (NCDEHNR-DEM, 1997), water quality survey sites are not
located within the project vicinity.
2.2.5 Summary of Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from
activities associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts
include clearing and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-
stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and
10
pavement installation. The aforementioned construction activities are likely to
result in the following surface water impacts:
• Erosion within the project area, which ultimately leads to increased
downstream sedimentation and siltation.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions
to surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading via runoff from exposed construction areas.
• Increased toxic chemical concentrations from highway runoff,
construction, and chemical releases.
• Increased potential for hydrocarbon and other toxic chemical releases
occurring from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and surface and
ground water drainage pattern changes.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project
area, the NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the project's construction phase.
Guidelines for BMPs include minimizing built upon areas and diverting
stormwater away from surface water supplies. In addition to the BMPs,
revegetating stream banks after grading and limiting in-stream activities further
reduce water resource impacts.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources incorporate aquatic and terrestrial communities with
associated wildlife. This section describes biotic communities encountered in the
project area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within these
systems. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of the topography, soils, hydrologic influences, and
past and present land uses. 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.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each plant and animal and species described. Plant taxonomy
generally follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al.
(1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), Rohde, et al. (1994), and
Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism include the
common name only. An asterisk (*) denotes fauna observed during the site visit.
Published range distributions and habitat analyses are used in estimating fauna
likely to occur within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest, power line easement, and
maintained yard comprise the terrestrial communities within the project area.
The project area contains no jurisdictional wetlands. Community boundaries
within the project area are well defined without a significant ecotone situated
between them. However, many of the flora and fauna described within a specific
biotic community will utilize resources from different communities. For example,
faunal species likely to occur within the project area may exploit all of the project
area's communities for shelter, foraging opportunities, or movement corridors.
3.1.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
In general, Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forests contain various alluvial
soils and are typically located at stream and river floodplains in which separate
fluvial landforms and associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish.
These forests are found in the Piedmont and lower elevation mountain valleys.
The community may grade into various mesic, dry-mesic, or dry upland forests,
or to cliff communities (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Except for a 50.2 mZ (540 ft2) section that sits along the south side of SR
2041, the project's Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest extends along the
northern side of SR 2041. The forest comprises most of the north-central,
northwestern, and western portions of the project area. Bull Creek flows
northwest to southeast through the alluvial forest, and splits the community into
two sections along the northern side of SR 2041. Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 will
permanently impact this terrestrial community.
Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red maple (Acerrubrum), white oak
(Quercus alba), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), river birch (Betula nigra),
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (C. glabra), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), American beech (Fagaceae grandifolia), and tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera) comprise the alluvial forest's canopy. Understory
species include ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca),
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Shrubs
within the forest include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), strawberry bush
(Euonymus americanus), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), spotted
wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), and fescue grasses (Festuca spp.) comprise
the herbaceous layer. The vine layer consists of poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
12
3.1.2 Power Line Easement
A power line easement is situated along the southern side of SR 2041.
Bull Creek flows northwest to southeast through this community, splitting the
easement into two sections. Alternate 1 will permanently impact this community.
Alternate 2 will permanently and temporarily impact the power line easement.
Virginia pine, ironwood, sassafras, and sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum) comprise the power line easement's open canopy and understory.
Poison ivy, Chinese privet, Christmas fern, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), mountain laurel, and great rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum)
comprise the shrub layer. Poison ivy, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and grape
vine (Vitis spp.) encompass the vine layer. The herbaceous layer consists of
fescue grasses, broom sedge, Chinese privet, poison ivy, woolly mullein
(Verbascum thapsus), manna grasses (Glyceria spp.), and strawberry (Fragaria
virginiana).
3.1.3 Maintained Yard
A maintained yard, situated along both sides of SR 2041, comprises the
eastern section of the project area. Alternate 2 will permanently impact this
community. Fescue grasses, willow oak (Quercus phellos), red oak (Q. rubra),
American holly, and flowering dogwood comprise the floral species within this
terrestrial community. In order to maintain the yard's appearance, fertilizer
and/or herbicide applications may occur in this terrestrial community.
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Several species of wildlife inhabit or are likely to inhabit the project area.
The following sections list many of these wildlife species.
3.2.1 Lepidopterans
Members of the order Lepidoptera include insects such as moths,
skippers, and butterflies. Larval species of Lepidoptera that may be found in the
project area include Satyrs (family Satyridae), spicebush swallowtail (Papilio
troilus), Abbot's sphinx (Shecondia abbotti), promethea moth (Callosamia
promethea), and imperial moth (Eccles imperialis). The larvae of Satyrs inhabit
grassy areas, and feed at night in fields. Spicebush swallowtail larvae feed on
spicebush and sassafras. Moist and mesic early to mid-successional woods
comprise the spicebush swallowtail's habitat. The larvae of Abbot's sphinx utilize
grape leaves for food, and reside in alluvial and mesic forests. Promethea moth
larvae eat tulip tree, sassafras, and cherry trees, and inhabit alluvial woodlands.
The larvae of imperial moth feed on oak, maple, pine, sweet gum, sycamore, and
sassafras trees, and reside in varied wooded habitats (Godfrey, 1997).
13
3.2.2 Amphibians
A variety of amphibian species are likely to occur within the project area's
one aquatic and three terrestrial communities. Salamanders commonly found in
the communities include the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), mole salamander (A. tapoideum), northern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), seal salamander (D. monticola),
blackbelly salamander (D. quadramaculatus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata), three-lined salamander (E. guttolineata), spring salamander
(Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), and red
salamander (Pseudotriton ruber). Frogs and toads inhabiting the project area
may include the American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (B.
woodhousei), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), spring peeper (H. crucifer),
upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green
frog (R. clamitans), pickerel frog (R. palustris), and wood frog (R. sylvatica)
(Martof, et al., 1980).
3.2.3 Reptiles
Numerous reptiles, including turtles, lizards, and snakes, may inhabit the
project area. Turtle species inhabiting the project area may include the snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undalatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (E. laticeps),
and ground skink (Scincella lateralis) comprise the four lizards that may inhabit
the project area's communities. Finally, several snake species may be found in
the project area, including the worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), black racer
(Coluber constrictor), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), corn snake (Elaphe
guttata), eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), mole kingsnake (L.
calligaster), eastern kingsnake (L. getulus), northern water snake (Neridia
sipedon), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), queen snake (Regina
septemvittata), redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata), brown snake (S.
dekayi), southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla coronata), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae), copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) (Martof, et al.,
1980).
3.2.4 Birds
Several bird species are likely to inhabit the project area's communities.
The bird species include the Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), American
redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), northern cardinal*
(Cardinalis cardinalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), house
14
wren (Troglodytes aedon), Carolina wren (Thryothorus lidovicianus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), and common
grackle (Quisca/us quiscula) (Peterson, 1980).
3.2.5 Mammals
Mammalian species that may inhabit the communities within the project
area include bats, moles and shrews, rodents, and carnivores. The silver-haired
bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), red
bat (Lasiurus borealis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fucus), evening bat (Nycticeius
humeralis), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and Keen's myotis (M. keenh) are
seven bat species that may occur in the project area. Moles and shrews likely to
occur within the project's ecological communities include the southeastern shrew
(Sorex longirostris), northern short-tailed shrew (Blaring brevicauda), least shrew
(Cryptotis parva), and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus). Several rodents may
inhabit the terrestrial and aquatic communities, including the eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), beaver (Castor
canadensis), white-footed mouse* (Peromyscus leucopus), hispid cotton rat
(Sigmoden hispidus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), house mouse (Mus
musculus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithridintomys humulis), meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodland vole (M. pinetorum), pine vole (M.
pinetorum), black rat (Rattus rattus), and meadow jumping mouse (Zapus
hudsonius). Raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), red
fox (Vulpes fulva), gray fox (Urocyon conereoargenteus), mink (Mustela vison),
bobcat (Fells rufus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis elongata) are
carnivores likely to inhabit the project area. Other mammals that may inhabit the
project area include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
(Webster, et al., 1985 and Lee, et al., 1982).
3.3 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife
One aquatic community, Bull Creek, will be impacted by the proposed
project. Bull Creek flows northwest to southeast through the project area.
Physical characteristics of the water body and conditions of the water resource
influence floral and faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities.
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various fish
species. Shiner species that may inhabit these waters include redlip shiner
(Notropis chalybaeus), greenfin shiner (N. chloristius), fieryblack shiner (N.
pyrrhomelas), and spottail shiner (N. hudsonius). Fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabellare), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and Piedmont darter
15
(Percina crassa) are three darter species that may inhabit the waters of the
project area. Other fish species potentially inhabiting the project area include
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), margined madtom (Noturus insignis),
highback chub (Hybopsis hypsinotus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum),
suckermouth redhorse (M. pappillosum), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), brown bullhead
(Ictalurus nebulosus), flat bullhead (l. Platycephalus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) (Menhenick, 1991).
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
aforementioned biotic resources. 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 terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. This section also discusses temporary and
permanent impacts.
3.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Project construction will permanently and/or temporarily impact the project
area's terrestrial communities due to clearing and paving activities. Table 1
summarizes the project's estimated permanent and temporary impact areas.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived from
the project lengths described in Section 1.2 along with the proposed right-of-way
width of 18 m (60 ft). However, project construction often does not require the
entire right-of-way. Consequently, actual terrestrial community impacts may be
considerably less than the impacts in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Permanent Permanent Temporary
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 2
Piedmont/Low Mountain 0.03 (0.07) 0.07 (0.18) ----
Alluvial Forest
Power Line Easement 0.03 (0.06) 0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.06)
Maintained Yard ---- 0.03 (0.08) ----
Totals 0.05 (0.14) 0.11 (0.28) 0.02 (0.06)
Notes: - Impact values cited in hectares (acres).
- Hectare and acre values for a specific community impact may not
equate due to rounding of significant figures.
16
- Total impacts may not equate to the combined individual community
impacts due to rounding of significant figures.
- Dashed line (--- ) means that a community is not impacted.
Replacing Bridge No. 138, as proposed under Alternate 1, will result in
permanent (i.e., irreversible) ecological impacts to the Piedmont/low mountain
alluvial forest and power line easement. Replacing the bridge under Alternate 2
will result in permanent impacts to all three terrestrial communities and
temporary impacts to the power line easement. Once construction of the new
bridge is completed, the existing bridge will be removed. Removing the existing
bridge will result in temporary impacts because the area impacted by the existing
bridge will be restored back to its original condition once construction of the new
bridge is completed.
Permanent terrestrial impacts associated with Alternate 1 total 0.05 ha
(0.14 ac). Alternate 2 will result in 0.11 ha (0.28 ac) of permanent impacts and
0.02 ha (0.06 ac) of temporary impacts to the project area's three terrestrial
communities. Alternate 2 permanently impacts considerably more terrestrial
area than Alternate 1 because the second alternate will be constructed on new
location. Consequently, Alternate 1 is the least environmentally damaging
alternative.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for various types of wildlife. Replacing Bridge No.
138 will reduce habitat for many faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal
numbers. Reduced habitat will also displace some wildlife further away from the
road. However, impacts to fauna are anticipated to be minimal because of the
project's limited size and scope. Unpaved areas modified by construction will
become road shoulders containing early successional habitat for certain wildlife.
Furthermore, animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will
repopulate areas suitable for those species.
3.4.2 Aquatic impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to minute changes in their
environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation, and
erosion from construction related work activities affect water quality and biotic
resources. Bridge construction activities will result in short and long term
environmental impacts at the project area and well downstream of the project.
Reducing riparian canopy removal, limiting in-stream construction, revegetating
exposed soil immediately following grading activities, and strictly adhering to
BMPs can minimize impacts to aquatic communities.
Bridge construction activities include channeling and scouring a stream's
substrate and placing fill material along the project site. These activities often
17
impact aquatic systems by enhancing the likelihood of siltation, erosion, and
sedimentation. Disturbances to the substrate produce silt, which clogs the gills
and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (e.g., sessile filter-feeders and
deposit-feeders), fish, and amphibians. Excessive amounts of silt or sediment
caused by erosion can also bury benthic organisms, thereby stressing the
organisms or eliminating them from their natural habitat. Once distressed or
eliminated, benthic species take a long time to recover or repopulate an aquatic
system. Suspended silt or sediment particles also magnify a water column's
turbidity levels. High water turbidity reduces the amount of sunlight reaching
aquatic plants requiring photosynthesis and restricts a mobile organism's ability
to locate food. Finally, suspended soil, chemical contaminants, and other
materials often deposit downstream of the project area, forming sandbars and
debris piles that alter water flow and the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation along the construction site also
impacts the aquatic system. Removing streamside vegetation increases direct
sunlight penetration, which ultimately elevates water temperatures within the
stream. An increase in stream water temperatures often stresses or reduces the
population of aquatic organisms.
In addition to environmental impacts within the project area, bridge
construction proposed under Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 might also impact
aquatic communities downstream of the project area, including Ararat River and
other sections of Bull Creek. Downstream aquatic impacts are difficult to
quantify, and depend on numerous factors, including construction techniques,
mitigation efforts, weather conditions, and terrestrial and aquatic communities
present.
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
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United
States include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and
wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b).
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Any
18
action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into waters of the United
states falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory
provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.2 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
The NCDOT field investigators examined potential jurisdictional wetland
communities pursuant to the 1987 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual. The manual is a technical guideline for wetlands, and not a
classification system. According to the manual, an area is considered a wetland
if three parameters, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrologic
characteristics, concurrently exist. Based upon the results of the field
investigation, the project area contains no jurisdictional wetlands.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) utilizes the non-jurisdictional FWS
classification system developed by Cowardin, et al., (1979) to map wetlands,
deepwater aquatic habitats, and other special aquatic sites. The NWI mapped
the portion of Bull Creek situated within the project area as a FWS classified
deepwater aquatic habitat. According to the NWI maps, this deepwater aquatic
habitat is classified as a R3UBH system, and stretches from the project area to
Bull Creek's confluence with Ararat River, approximately 2,067 m (6,780 ft) linear
stream channel distance downstream of Bridge No. 138. Deepwater habitats
characterized as R3UBH consist of a riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded system (DWQ data per the North Carolina Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis and Cowardin, et al., 1979).
Bull Creek is considered a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404
of the CWA. Bridge construction may result in jurisdictional impacts to the
project area's aquatic community. Under Alternate 1, 18 linear m (60 linear ft) of
Bull Creek falls within the right-of-way of the proposed bridge. Under Alternate
2, 18 linear m (60 linear ft) of Bull Creek falls within the right-of-way of the
proposed bridge on new alignment. An additional 7.6 linear m (25 linear ft) of
Bull Creek falls within the right-of-way of existing Bridge No. 138. The existing
bridge's 25 linear ft of impacts under Alternate 2 are temporary because the
bridge will be demolished and the stream's banks and substrate around the
bridge will be restored back to their original conditions once new Bridge No. 138
is completed. Estimated jurisdictional stream impacts are derived from the
project lengths described in Section 1.2, along with the proposed right-of-way
width of 18 m (60 ft). However, project construction often does not require the
entire right-of-way. Consequently, actual jurisdictional stream impacts may be
considerably less than the impacts presented above.
19
4.3 Permits
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. The
USACE, which administers the permit program under CWA §404, established
nationwide permits for minor activities, specialized activities, and activities
regulated by other authorities. A nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule. In
other words, compliance with the NWP rules satisfies the statutory provisions
under Section 404 of the CWA (Strand, 1997).
Nationwide Permit No. 23, entitled Approved Categorical Exclusions,
covers certain activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or
financed, in whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department.
Nationwide Permit No. 23 applies when another Federal agency or department
determines that their activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The activity, work, or discharge becomes categorically
excluded when its actions neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Also, the Office of the Chief of Engineers
must receive notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concur with the categorical exclusion determination (61
FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996). The project's impacts on the waters of
the United States will likely require a NWP 23.
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine whether activities
permitted by the federal government comply with state water quality standards.
The DWQ may require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills
or substantially modifies waters or wetlands. North Carolina developed General
Certifications (GCs) that satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the Corps of
Engineers' NWPs (NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Wetlands Water
Quality Certification; undated Internet site). Water Quality Certification No. 3107,
which corresponds to NWP 23, will likely be required for the project's impacts to
wetlands and waters.
4.4 Mitigation
The USACE adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a mitigation policy that attempts to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States, especially
wetlands. According to the CEQ, mitigation includes avoiding impacts,
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR §1508.20). The USACE also embraces the
concept of sequencing, which instructs the regulated community to sequentially
consider each component of wetlands mitigation. Finally, mitigation policy
incorporates a goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values.
20
4.4.1 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 USEPA and the USACE,
"appropriate and practicable" measures that offset unavoidable impacts 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. The construction of Bridge No. 138 will result in some unavoidable
surface water impacts. However, selecting Alternate 1 will avoid constructing a
permanent bridge on new location. Constructing Bridge No. 138 on new
location, as proposed under Alternate 2, will result in more permanent terrestrial
impacts when compared to Alternate 1. Consequently, the first alternative
reduces unnecessary sedimentation by minimizing disturbances within the
stream's substrate and clearing activities within the project area's three terrestrial
communities.
4.4.2 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 by reducing median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes,
and/or road shoulder widths. Other ways to minimize the project's impacts on
the waters of the United States include strictly enforcing sedimentation control
BMPs during the entire life of the project, reducing clear and grub activities,
reducing/eliminating direct discharge into streams, reducing runoff velocity, re-
establishing vegetation on exposed areas, judiciously applying pesticides and
herbicides, minimizing in-stream activities, and controlling litter and debris.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project
area, the NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the project's construction phase.
Furthermore, aquatic and terrestrial communities temporarily impacted by
Alternate 2 will be restored and revegetated back to their original conditions once
Bridge No. 138 is constructed. For example, existing Bridge No. 138 will be
removed once the NCDOT completes construction of the proposed new bridge
under Alternate 2. The portion of SR 2041 that sits south of existing Bridge No.
138 may also be restored and revegetated under Alternate 2, thereby restoring
some of the project area's terrestrial communities.
21
4.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
In most situations, the NCDOT must avoid and minimize to the maximum
extent possible all unavoidable adverse impacts to the waters of the United
States before considering compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation
includes restoring, creating, and/or enhancing waters of the United States. The
NCDOT should make every effort to conduct mitigation activities in areas
adjacent or contiguous to the discharge site. The USACE usually requires
compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under CWA §404 if unavoidable
impacts to waters of the United States total more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetlands or 152.4 linear m (500 linear ft) of perennial and intermittent streams.
The DWQ may require compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under a
CWA §401 permit if unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States total
more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands and/or 45.7 linear m (150 linear ft) of
perennial streams. Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from
the DWQ before the regulatory agency issues a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. The USACE determines final permit and mitigation decisions under
Section 404 of the CWA.
Compensatory wetland or stream mitigation will probably not be required
for the project. Estimated unavoidable stream impacts under Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2 fall below compensatory mitigation levels required by the regulatory
agencies. Compensatory mitigation for wetlands will not be required because
jurisdictional wetlands do not exist within the project area. The regulatory
agencies will ultimately provide final permit and mitigation decisions for the
project.
4.5 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 co-exist with human
activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected be subject to review by the FWS. Other
species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.5.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the 1973 ESA, as
amended. As of 15 January 1999, the FWS lists three federally-protected
species for Surry County. Table 2 outlines the three species. A brief description
of the species' characteristics and habitats follows the table.

Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Surry County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum E
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Note for federally-protected species:
"T(S/A) denotes Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is defined
as a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare
species. Even though these species are listed for their protection, they are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to consultation under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) §7.
"E" denotes Endangered, and is defined as a taxon "in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "
"T" denotes Threatened, and is defined as a taxon "likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "
Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
Animal Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: 01 May 1997
Threatened Due to Similarity
of Appearance
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3
to 4 in) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright
orange or yellow blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily
identifiable characteristic. The bog turtle inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and
marshes in the mountains and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or
debris when disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, ,
amphibians and seeds. In June or July, three to five eggs are laid in a shallow
nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in about 55 days.
The proposed project will not impact the bog turtle because its habitat
does not exist within the project area. Also, a review of the NHP database maps
of rare species and unique habitats on 10 December 1998 revealed no records
of the bog turtle within the project vicinity.
The bog turtle is listed as T(S/A). This designation is due to the bog
turtle's similarity of appearance to another rare species currently listed for
protection. Species designated under T(S/A) are not subject to Section 7
consultation. Therefore, a biological conclusion for this species is not required.
23
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) Endangered
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 20 March 1984
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 falcon 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
A review of the NHP database maps of rare species and unique habitats
on 10 December 1998 revealed no records of the peregrine falcon within the
project vicinity. The proposed project will not impact the peregrine falcon
because its habitat does not exist within the project area.
Isotria medeoloides (Small-whorled pogonia) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: 10 September 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small-whorled pogonia 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 of the 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
A review of the NHP database maps of rare species and unique habitats
on 10 December 1998 revealed no records of the small-whorled pogonia within
24
the project vicinity. The proposed project will not impact the small-whorled
pogonia because its habitat does not exist within the project area.
4.5.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection
under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Sections 7
and 9, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened (T) or
Endangered (E). Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly candidate
species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient
information to support a listing of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT). Organisms listed as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP's List of Rare
Plants of North Carolina and List of Rare Animals of North Carolina are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The NHP also tracks and lists
Significantly Rare (SR) species as FSC. North Carolina provides no legal state
protection for species classified under Significantly Rare (Amoroso, 1997 and
LeGrand, et al., 1997).
The NHP's North Carolina Plant Watch List and North Carolina Animal
Watch List supplement the Lists of Rare Plants and Animals of North Carolina.
Species listed under the Plant and Animal Watch Lists are still considered FSC,
even though current information does not justify placement on the main FSC list
as Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, or Significantly Rare. The Plant
Watch List includes plant species that are rare or otherwise threatened with
serious decline. Floral species placed on the Watch List fall into one of seven
watch categories (W1-W7). The Animal Watch List includes animal species that
are rare or uncommon, not well-studied, or otherwise threatened with serious
decline. Faunal species placed on the Watch List fall into one of five watch
categories (W1-W5). The NHP maintains paper files of these plant and animal
species, but does not include them in its map and computer files (Amoroso, 1997
and LeGrand, et al., 1997).
Table 3 lists the FSC, including species on the Plant and Animal Watch
Lists, along with the species state status or watch category, and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the project area. As of 15 January 1999, the
FWS lists one FSC for Surry County. This species list is provided for
informational purposes only. The status of these species may be upgraded in
the future.
25
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Surry County
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa T Yes
Note for animal species:
Threatened (T) denotes any native or once-native species of wild animal which
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a
threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
The brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), a bivalve mollusk, may inhabit
the project area. The mollusk resides in freshwater Piedmont systems and along
the Blue Ridge escarpment of the Catawba River system (LeGrand, et al., 1997).
A review of the NHP database maps of rare species and unique habitats on 10
December 1998 revealed no records of the brook floater within the project
vicinity.
26
5.0 REFERENCES
Amdur, Mary O, John Doull, and Curtis D. Klaassen. 1993. Casarett and Doull's
Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
Health Professions Division. New York, NY.
Amoroso, Jame L. 1997. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, Lewis M., of al., 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
DWQ. 1998. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits.
DWQ water quality data obtained through the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual," Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Godfrey, Michael A. 1997. Field Guide to the Piedmont. Chapel Hill, NC, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of
North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, NC, North Carolina Museum of Natural
History.
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.
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, North Carolina, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC.,
Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1997. "Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Support
Document, Yadkin River Basin". Raleigh.
27
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The Division
of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Water Quality Stream Classifications for
Streams in North Carolina, Yadkin - Pee Dee River Basin; 1 September 1998
Internet update; (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/hydro/yadkin.htm1).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The Division
of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Wetlands Water Quality Certification;
undated Internet site; (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlandc.html).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The Division
of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Surface Freshwater Classifications
Used in North Carolina; 15 October 1997 Internet update;
(http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/wswp/hiquaIty.htm1).
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1998-1999 North Carolina Inland
Fishing, Hunting, & Trapping Regulations Digest, Mountain Trout; undated
Internet update;
(http://www.state. nc. us/Wild life/LawEnforcement/d igest/mountaintrout. htm)
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1998-1999 North Carolina Inland
Fishing, Hunting, & Trapping Regulations Digest, Mountain Trout, Special
Regulated Trout Waters; undated Internet update;
(http://www.state.nc. us/Wildlife/LawEnforcement/digest/specialtrout.htm)
Page, Lawrence M. and Brooks M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater
Fishes (North America, North of Mexico). New York, NY, Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Peterson, Roger Tory. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds, 4th Edition. New York,
NY, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC, 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.
Strand, Margaret N. 1997. Wetlands Deskbook, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.,
Environmental Law Institute.
28
USEPA Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, What is
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution? - Questions and Answers; 30 December 1997
Internet update; (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/qa.html).
USEPA Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, NPDES Permit
Program; 10 December 1998 Internet update;
(http://www.epa.gov/owm/npdes.htm).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 15 January 1999. Endangered, Threatened, and
Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina: Updated
County Species List. Asheville, NC, Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville, North
Carolina Field Office.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Siloam, North Carolina).
1970.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, NC, The University of North Carolina Press.
29
6.0 APPENDIX
Figure 1 - Surry County and Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Bridge No. 138 Project Area Map
t a
?. .?
2030 227 \
2
?
' 1 A oi 9 FA 5
2 2025 tar

?G4 •
1 S I 1- 2121 / a 1.0
?S 1 -1 2(
'019 , 2031 RAILWAY

S
S ? 4 v

1
0
I
0 2112 w v
2104 , 2095 .
8 ?1(

- - Creek `?'?' , Ash li'i11 2023 ti 22

2032
y
2 -?

6 - S 2043

°
, 2025
100 ;6 ?a 0 2031 2033 1.a 2038
)( 2019 ` 1 .0 \
2034
.7 2034 1 1. 4 `; 8 2041
q Cry
1003-W, 1 1 ?r v 3
2123 - r 268
2093
6 14
8 2039
co
?/
.
.
2227 1035 7
J. B
' J - - 2044
•'
> t IQ 2132 iv i /
a ? • 2 9
i 2033
203' / ?erS?J 2036 ---7
4
2209 wt{ttld / " 1 .2 2040 /? 2 204 `??
' /
5 2105 2946
2208 .8 2038 Z i to
2037 '
3 S 2045 -

41
6 AC 1.2 1

: / 7

RNER `

-
2
3 .
FAS
.4
FAS V IMI
Crust 2088 •
6 101 240

Bolton
Lane S U
` Mountain
e'-hton P ark
\I/ ZePhyt
a State-
Ron
fi 1
In
-7*
We
I
CrutCRllt,
\.?GG WRR?
? WRRocktor r
/
I /
2118 Q 1.0
C#'n Cr.
2086
2058
6 .5 2084 1 2057
0 2083
2080
4North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
,, w?. , Planning & Environmental Branch
SURRY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 138 ON SR 2041
OVER BULL RUN CREEK
B-3249
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
a 1 _ 1. Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
M'
ry
D
I+
(D
I
D
CI)
CD

D
m
1
1'H
N

C' p ?!rop . ?i?
O

rp
rD
m o
I'D
=era
? Q o n
,

f7 00 ^O* ?? 5 m

m 0' d
to
to a
O
y to

ri-

it,

7 R,. ?' ? ii111 ?? ? •4