19970132 Ver 1_Complete File_19970214

x r
??,. STAT£
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETf JR.
Gowp,NoR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY-
.
January 31, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Raleigh. NC 27609
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief. Northern Section
Dear Sir:
701
Ice
1%
1
z
SUBJECT: Orange County. Replacement of Bridge No. 14 over Tributary of Eno
Creek on SR 1352. TIP No. B-3010. State Project No. 8.2500901. Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1352(3).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a,
"Categorical Exclusion' in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996,
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Ca gorical
Exclusion) will apply,tothis project, and are providing one copy ' e CE document to
the North Carolina Depalrtment of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality. for their review.
0
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely
L4
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric'Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Ms. Aileen S. Mayhew, Planning & Environmental
'e?
Orange County
Bridge No. 14 on SR 1352
Over Prong of Eno Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1352(3)
State Project 8.2500901
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-3010
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date 4;r H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date icholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Orange County
Bridge No. 14 on SR 1352
Over Prong of Eno Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1352(3)
State Project 8.2500901
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-3010
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 1996
Documentation Prepared in the
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Cti? ?. -?ot.,Y?nr
Aileen S. Mayhew
Project Planning Engineer
J e A. Hunkins, 131 . E.
JPlanning Engineer, Unit Head
'ect
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
0 r Mot,'
?
?SS10?,9
SE AL
1$496
•,,,,fF A. 1iUN?.
?/23 ?fG
2
Orange County
Bridge No. 14 on SR 1352
Over Prong of Eno Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1352(3)
State Project 8.2500901
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-3010
Bridge No. 14 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are
anticipated. The project has been classified as a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited
scope and insignificant environmental consequences. Right-of-way acquisition and
construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998, respectively.
I. SUMMARY QE RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 14 should be replaced on new alignment approximately 20 meters
(66 feet) north (upstream) of its present location as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. A
replacement structure consisting of a triple-barrel 3.0 meters by 3.0 meters (10 feet by
10 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) is recommended.
Approximately 381 m (1250 ft) of new roadway will be needed to accommodate
replacement of the bridge on new alignment. The new alignment will reduce the sharp
curvature of the existing roadway. The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) pavement with 2.4-meter (8-foot) graded shoulders. The grade of the new
roadway will be approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) higher than the existing grade.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during the construction period.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 584,500. The estimated cost of
the project, as shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is
$ 294,000.
II. SUMMARY QE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of wetlands will be
disrupted by implementation of this project.
High Quality Waters Best Management Practices for protection of surface waters
will be strictly enforced to ensure the biological integrity of the water bodies impacted by
this project. Measures will be taken to reduce the amount of probable increased
concentrations of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream coming from
construction related machinery and road paving activities.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Since the subject project is
classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
Tree protection measures will be implemented for the trees within the eligible
boundaries at the top of the slope at the back of the ditch of the historic property, the John
Pymn Dark House. The tree protection measures will include fencing around the trees,
root protection, and the area will be off limits to the contractor.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1352 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
The project is located in a predominantly rural part of Orange County, although
development in the immediate project area along SR 1352 consists of some residential
uses but no major developments.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1352 has a 6.1-meter (20-foot) pavement with
1.2-meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders (see Figure 3A). Vertical alignment is relatively
poor in the project area.
Horizontal alignment is relatively poor in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
The sight distance from the west approach is very poor due to the steep vertical grade and
low elevation of the bridge. There is a relatively sharp horizontal curve on the west
approach which becomes tangent approximately 46 m (150 ft) west of the bridge. The
east approach also has a sharp horizontal curve which becomes tangent approximately
61 m (200 ft) east of the bridge.
The current traffic volume of 1,000 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to
increase to 2,100 VPD by the year 2020. The projected volume includes 1% truck-trailer
semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DTT). The design hourly volume
(DHV) for the projected volume is 10% and the directional distribution (DIR) is 60%.
The speed limit on SR 1352 is 90 km/h (55 mph) (statutory).
4
The existing bridge (see Figure 3B) was originally constructed in 1953. The
structure consists of a timber deck on steel girders and timber joists supported by vertical
concrete abutments.
There are aerial power and telephone lines along the north side of the bridge and
approaches. There is an historic property approximately 150 m (500 ft) east of the bridge
on the south side of SR 1352.
The overall length of the bridge is 11 m (36 ft) and provides a clear roadway
width of 6.1 m (20 ft). The posted load limit is 8 metric tons (9 tons) for single vehicles
and 11 metric tons (12 tons) for trucks with trailers. A narrow bridge sign is posted on
the west approach of the bridge.
Bridge No. 14 has a sufficiency rating of 14.2 compared to a rating of 100 for a
new structure.
Seven accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 14 for the period from
January, 1992 to December, 1994.
Eight school buses travel across the studied bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 14 were studied. Each alternate involves a
new replacement structure which consists of a triple-barrel 3.0 m by 3.0 m (10 ft by 10 ft)
reinforced concrete box culvert. The two alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate ]. - This alternate involves replacement of the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment. The elevation of the roadway would remain approximately the same
as the existing elevation. Approximately 137 m (450 ft) of approach roadway
would be required. A design speed of approximately 100 km/h (60 mph) would
be provided. If a lower design speed is utilized, a design exception would be
required. SR 1352 would be closed during construction and traffic is to be
detoured along existing area roads, as shown in Figure 1.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - This alternate replaces the existing bridge on new
alignment approximately 20 m (66 ft) north (upstream) of its present location.
The elevation of the roadway on new alignment would be raised approximately
0.9 in (3 ft) from the existing elevation. Construction of approximately 381 m
(1250 ft) of new approach roadway would be required to improve the horizontal
and vertical alignments. SR 1383 would be extended to the relocated SR 1352 to
form a T-intersection. A design speed of about 100 km/h (60 mph) would be
provided. If a lower design speed is utilized, a design exception would be
5
required. Under this replacement scheme, the existing structure would be used to
maintain traffic during the construction period.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge.
This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by SR 1352.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated cost of the alternatives studied are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure $ 196,200 $ 196,200
Roadway Approaches 98,800 253,800
Structure Removal 7,000 7,000
Engineering & 48,000 68,000
Contingencies
Right-of-Way, 33,500 59,500
Utilities
Total $ 383,500 $ 584,500
VI. DISCUSSION QE RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 14 should be replaced approximately 20 m (66 ft) north (upstream) of
its present location, as shown by Recommended Alternate 2 in Figure 2. Traffic is to be
maintained on the existing bridge during the construction period.
The relocation of the bridge will require construction of about 381 m (1250 ft) of
new roadway. The recommended typical section consists of a 7.2-meter (24-foot)
travelway with 2.4-meter (8-foot) graded shoulders. A design speed of 100 km/h
(60 mph) will be provided. If a lower design speed is utilized, a design exception will be
required.
6
The replacement structure, as recommended by the Hydraulics Unit, is a triple-
barrel 3.0 m by 3.0 in (10 ft by 10 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. Minor channel
widening for approximately 15 m (49 ft) upstream and downstream will be necessary to
accommodate the proposed culvert. The structure dimensions may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies. The grade of the roadway will be raised approximately 0.9 in (3 ft) from the
existing elevation. The replacement structure will be of sufficient size to accommodate
the recommended 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement and 2.4-meter (8-foot) minimum
shoulders.
Alternate 2 is preferred over Alternate 1 because Alternate 2 will provide an
improvement in the alignment of the roadway and, therefore, provide a safer travelway;
the majority of the reported accidents were caused by the poor alignment of the roadway.
Alternate 1 would impact the historic property on the southeast quadrant of the project
and would result in Section 4(f) involvement; Alternate 2 avoids this Section 4(f)
property.
The division engineer concurs with the recommendation of Alternate 2. The
Orange County Transportation Director prefers that traffic be maintained on-site during
construction.
VII. MAINTENANCE QE TRAFFIC
The division engineer concurs that Alternate 2 should be constructed and that
traffic should be maintained on-site during the construction period.
Under studied Alternate 1, a nine-month road closure period would be anticipated.
A users analysis was performed using the detour route shown in Figure 1. A road
user analysis (based on 1,100 VPD at the time of construction and an average of
6.6 kilometers (4.1 miles) of indirectional travel) indicates the cost of additional travel
would be approximately $ 365,000 during the nine-month construction period. A benefit
of the Recommended Alternate 2 is the maintenance of traffic which results in a savings
of $ 365,000 in road user costs to motorists during the construction period.
The Orange County Transportation Director indicates road closure of SR 1352 is
tolerable. However, it is preferred that the existing bridge be used to maintain traffic and
the new roadway be constructed on new alignment.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
7
The project is considered to be a federal "categorical exclusion" due to its limited
scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment with the use of current North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of
the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an
effect on a property listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given the opportunity to
comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect (APE) were
provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and reviewed with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO concurs that there is one historic
structure, the John Pymn Dark House, within the APE which is eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places. The NCDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) have determined that the proposed project will not have an
effect on the John Pymn Dark House property provided the tree protection measures are
implemented for the trees within the eligible boundaries at the top of the slope at the back
of the ditch of the historic property. The tree protection measures will include fencing
around the trees, root protection, and the area will be off limits to the contractor. The
SHPO concurs with this determination. The Liner House, located near the western
terminus of the project, is the only other structure in the APE over 50 years old; however,
this structure is an undistinguished example of a common house type. Correspondence
from the SHPO is included as Attachments 1, 2, and I
An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement project to
locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or
8
destroyed. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were discovered. The results of
the archaeological survey indicate the project is unlikely to encounter any archaeological
sites that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO
concurs that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
Correspondence from the SHPO regarding the archaeological aspects of the project is
included as Attachment 4.
Coordination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service) indicates that approximately 0.9 hectare (2.2 acres) of prime
farmland soils would be affected by the implementation of Alternate 2, as shown in
Attachment 5. The soils affected in the proposed alternate are of medium relative value
of farmland within the county, and on a scale of 100 points were rated 66. The site
assessment criteria rating for the proposed alternate was calculated to be one hundred and
three (103) points on a scale of 260. According to Farmland Protection Policy Final
Rule, a total conversion impact point score of 160 is the threshold at which consideration
of other alternatives should occur. Therefore, the impact of the project to prime farmland
soils will not be mitigated.
The proposed project occurs in a rural area of Orange County, approximately
6.4 km (4.0 mi) north of Hillsborough, North Carolina. Land-use in the project area
includes disturbed and forested areas. Disturbed areas are along roadside and bridge
margins, a powerline right-of-way (ROW), and residential and agricultural land along the
existing road. Forested areas include the riparian and upland areas adjacent to the bridge.
Orange County is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Topography is characterized by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid
drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from approximately 189 m
(620 ft) along the creek bottom to 195 m (640 ft) along the forested upland areas.
Orange County is underlain by the Carolina Slate Belt and Triassic Basin
Systems. The Carolina Slate Belt system underlays the immediate project area. The
major rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt are volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs, breccias
and flows. Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous
masses ofa single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Georgeville silt loam (6 to 10 percent slope)
and Chewacla loam. Georgeville silt loam is a well-drained soil found on narrow side
slopes in the uplands. Chewacla loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil found on long,
flat areas parallel to streams on the floodplain. Chewacla loam have mapped units with
inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots.
Three distinct community types will be impacted by construction of the proposed
project. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas are discussed
in each community description; however, many species are adapted to the entire range of
9
habitats found along the project alignment and may not be mentioned in each community
description. Animals that were visually observed, or which identifying signs (tracks,
scat, calls) were observed, during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text.
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Piedmont Subtype community type is the
predominate forested habitat in the project area, occurring on the rolling upland hills and
the slopes grading downward to the Eno Creek near Bridge No. 14. The canopy is
composed of northern red oak (Ouercus rubm), southern red oak (Ouercus falcata),
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Atr rubrum) and hickory (Carva
spp.). Shortleaf pine (Pi= echinata) was found along the forest edge adjacent to the
existing road. Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus redbud (C=is
canadensis), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum) and
flowering dogwood (CD= florida). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of hickory,
red mulberry (Morns rubra), raspberry ubus spp.) and viburnum (Viburnum dent
atum).
The herb/vine layer is composed of five-fingers (Potentilla canadensis), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Christmas fern
olystichum acrostichoides) and trumpet creeper (Cpsis radicans).
Virginia opossum (Dide phis virginiana)*, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),
raccoon (Procyon 1QIQr)*, pine warbler (Dendroica sinus), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), yellow-throated warbler : endroica dominica) and Kentucky warbler
(Qporornis formosa) are representative species in this habitat. Evidence of gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis)* was common in the mixed hardwood forest.
The only wetland plant community at the project site, Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest, lies adjacent to Eno Creek. The stream-side canopy is composed of
riverbirch (B=la nigm), sycamore , latanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar
s miflua) and bitternut hickory (C ya cordiformis). Hickory, red maple and black
locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) are understory species. The shrub/sapling layer includes
raspberry and red maple. The herb/vine layer is composed of grape (Vitis spp.), beggar's
tick (S;oreopsis spp.), trumpet creeper (Camnsis radican s) and cross vine (Anisostichus
cca=ol=). Rush (Juncos spp.) and sedge (Carex spp.) are found in the margins of the
creek channel.
This community consists of stream-side forested habitats. Mammals likely to be
found in the alluvial forest include gray squirrel*, raccoon* and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginiam). Other animals likely to be found in the alluvial forest
community include southern leopard frog ($= sphenocephala)*, yellow-bellied slider
(Cb s?emys scripts) and brown water snake erodia taxispilota).
The disturbed community is along roadside and bridge margins, a powerline
ROW, and residential and agricultural land along the existing road. The disturbed
roadside and bridge margins are mower maintained. The agricultural land includes cow
pasture, cultivated crops and fallow lands. Manicured lawns are found in the eastern and
western quadrants of the project. Corn (&a m=) is cultivated in a small field in the
10
western quadrant of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive vines,
grasses and herbs including: fescue grass (Festuca spp.), Japanese honeysuckle ( is
jonica), crabgras s ( i i ' spp.), grape, clover (Trifolium spp.), plantain (Planing
spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), multifloral rose (Rosa multiflora), chicory (Cichorium
in ,bus), cocklebur Canthium strumarium var. glabratum), pokeweed (Phvtolacca
americana), oxeye (Heliopsis helianthoides) and aster (Aster spp.). The shrub/sapling
layer is composed of raspberry and red maple. Red maple forms a canopy in the
residential lawn.
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and are capable
of surviving on a variety of forage resources ranging from vegetation (flowers, stems,
leaves, roots, seeds and fruits) to animal matter (living and dead). Mice (Reromyscus
spp.)*, gray squirrel, Virginia opossum, northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)*,
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)*, cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), brown headed
cowbird (:olotluIs ) and common crow (Corvus brachyr chos)* are examples of
species found in these disturbed habitats.
The aquatic community is associated with the main channel of the Eno Creek.
The creek is bordered by an alluvial forest along both sides of the creek channel. Natural
vegetation is found along the creek where it has not been cleared as has occurred along
the maintained areas adjacent to the existing bridge.
Eno Creek at the bridge crossing is a small creek and supports aquatic
invertebrates and species of small fish. Fish species which may occur in the Eno Creek
near the project crossing include shiners otropis spp.), mosquito fish (fambusia
affinis) and creek chub (SemQIiju atrmaculatus). Aquatic invertebrates observed
included water striders (Gerris spp.)*. Cows were observed downstream of the project
impact area near the creek behind a fence. Also, a cow fence was found 50 feet north of
the existing bridge spanning the creek main channel.
Eno Creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat
for amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt otophthalmus viridescens),
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus ha=), snapping turtle (Chd dy_ra_ =U&ntina)
and the northern water snake (Nerodia;pedon). Southern leopard frogs (R=
aphenocephala)* were observed along the creek bank. A cursory survey for mussels
along the banks of the creek revealed no specimens.
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are being addressed
separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
communities, particularly in locations exhibiting moderate to steep slopes can result in
the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is
important to understand that construction impacts may not be isolated to the communities
in which the construction occurs.
11
Impacts on terrestrial communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each
system present in the study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived
using the entire proposed right-of-way. Project construction often does not require the
entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts may be less. The project area consists of
a combination of rural countryside and forested areas. Clearing and conversion of tracts
of land for roadway and bridge uses has eliminated cover and protection for many
indigenous wildlife species near the project area. Even so, remaining natural plant
communities in the area adjacent to Eno Creek and associated ecotones, do serve as
valuable habitat. The forest bordering Eno Creek has all the necessary components (food,
water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant
or animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include roadside and forested
areas. The roadside area is utilized by opportunistic plant species, such as Japanese
honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes, that can recover
quickly from construction impacts. The forest areas bordering Eno Creek will receive
disturbances next to the existing bridge area. Alternate 2 will result in a greater loss of
terrestrial plant and animal habitat because of the necessity for greater land clearance to
position the new alignment north of the existing bridge. These areas should continue to
provide adequate habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds. The following table
summarizes potential terrestrial community impacts which could result from the proposed
bridge replacement.
Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
(hectares/acres)
Community Type
Roadside Upland Alluvial
Community Forest Forest Totals
Alternate 1 0.15/0.37 0.07/0.17 0.004/0.01 0.22/0.55
Alternate 2 0.57/1.40 0.10/0.24 0.01/0.03 0.68/1.67
Note: Impacts based on 80 foot Right-of-Way
Erosion and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to aquatic ecosystems.
Strict adherence to High Quality Waters Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
protection of surface waters will be implemented to ensure the biological integrity of the
water bodies impacted by this project. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic
invertebrates) both at the project site as well as downstream reaches. Increased sediment
loads and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of
12
light penetration in the water column and reduction in the waters oxygen carrying
capacity.
Bridge No. 14 crosses Eno Creek approximately 6.4 km (4.0 mi) downstream of
its origin in northern Orange County. Eno Creek is part of the Neuse River Basin and
flows south for 0.4 km (0.25 mi) into Orange Lake, which is part of the City of
Hillsborough's water supply system. Orange Lake discharges south at the East Fork
which empties into the Eno River approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi) south of the lake dam.
The stream was approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) in width below the existing bridge
during the time of a site visit by the NCDOT staff biologist. The depth varied from
approximately 30 cm (1 foot) to 76 cm (2.5 feet). Its flow was slow below the bridge.
The water was turbid. The substrate was clay and mud below the existing bridge.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin (NCDNRCD 1993). East Fork is Class WS-II NSW, indicating waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds, and a
supplemental classification for nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on
nutrient inputs.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report lists one discharger (Geophex, LTD / Phelps Store)
within four miles upstream of the proposed crossing. As mentioned above, waters within
the proposed project area are designated as WS-II waters.
Eno Creek lies in a proposed North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
critical habitat for the Eno River and its tributaries. Five State listed mussel species
[yellow lampmussel (Lamp s& carioca), squawfoot (, trophitus undulatus), Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), green floater (Lzai" subyiridis), and triangle floater
(Alasmidonta undulata)] are known within the critical habitat area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term
trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms are sensitive to very subtile changes in water
quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa richness (the number of different
types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species. Water quality
degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. The Eno River at the
SR 1336 bridge crossing, approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi) downstream of the project
bridge, was sampled (July 1991) by BMAN and given a bioclassification rating of Good.
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
13
Engineers (COE). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project construction.
Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous
wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) with recommended
Alternate 2.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987
"US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual." For an area to be
considered a "wetland," the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of -
hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3)
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5 percent or greater
duration) of the growing season. Wetland field indicators present included: hydrophytic
plants and low-chroma color soils.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. High Quality Waters
Best Management Practices will also be implemented.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened
(T) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979,
1982, and 1988 Amendments). The following federally protected species are listed as of
August 23, 1996, for Orange County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Federally Listed Species for Orange County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Isotri a medeoloides small-whorled pogonia T
Note: "E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
A brief description of these species characteristics and habitat requirements is
provided below, along with the biological conclusion which addresses the potential
impacts to these species from the proposed project.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was listed on October 13, 1970.
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the
14
southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 cm (7.1 to 7.9 in) long with a wing span ranging
from 35 to 38 cm (13.8 to 15 in). The adult red-cockaded woodpecker's (RCW) plumage
is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the
male. The back is black and white with horizontal stripes, and the breast and underside
are white with streaked flanks. There is a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape and throat. RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pi= palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand must contain at least 50% pine. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are over
60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
area of the RCW can be as large as 202 ha (500 ac), and this acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites. These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities
are located in colonies from 3.6 to 30 m (12 to 100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1
to 15.2 m (30 to 50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap
that surrounds the tree, which is referred to as "candle-sticking." This is arguably used as
a defense against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one
breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The eggs are laid in April, May and
June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share
in raising the young. RCW's feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
subject project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no
impact on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The Endangered smooth coneflower chinacea laevigata) was listed on October
8, 1992. Smooth coneflower is currently known from Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Georgia. The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens,
roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs and powerline ROW's, usually on magnesium-
and calcium-rich soils associated with gabbro in North Carolina. Optimal sites are
characterized by abundant sunlight and little competition in the herb layer. The smooth
coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 1.5 m (4.9 ft) tall from a
vertical root stock. The stems are smooth with few leaves. The rays of the flower are
light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and the flower heads are usually solitary.
Flowering occurs from May through July. The disturbed roadside margins, powerline
right-of-way and old field along the project offers suitable habitat for this species.
Surveys along these habitats were conducted on July 19, 1995, during its flowering
season. No plants were observed. A review of N.C. Natural Heritage Program data
revealed no records of this species in the project study area. It can be concluded that
construction of this project will not impact this species.
The Endangered Michaux's sumac (Ehm michauxii) was listed on September 28,
1989. Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower
piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have
been reported in North Carolina. This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is
dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows
15
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other
species such as Japanese honeysuckle. Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent
rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 in (0.7 to 3.3 ft) in height. The narrowly winged
or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are
each 4 to 9 cm (1.6 to 3.5 in) long, 2 to 5 cm (0.8 to 2 in) wide, acute and acuminate. It
bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white
in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a red
densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 nun (0.20 to 0.24 in) across. The disturbed
roadside margins, powerline right-of-way and old field along the project offers suitable
habitat for this species. Surveys along these habitats were conducted on July 19, 1995.
No plants were observed. A review of N.C. Natural Heritage Program data revealed no
records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that
construction of this project will not impact this species.
The Threatened small-whorled pogonia (jsotria medeoloides) was listed on
September 10, 1982. Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long hairy
roots and a hollow stem. Stems terminate is 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 herblayer. It prefers acidic soils. Flowering is
inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density
and usually occurs from mid May to mid June. Suitable habitat exists along the project
for this species. A plant by plant survey was conducted on August 2, 1996 by the
NCDOT staff biologist. There is some second growth forest with patches of open canopy
in the project area. However, no specimens of small-whorled pogonia were found. A
review of N.C. Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not
impact this species.
There are a total of eight federal species of concern (FSC) listed for Orange
County (see table below). FSC are defined as species which may or may not be listed in
the future (formerly C2 candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for
which there is insufficient information to support listing). FSC are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. The
North Carolina status of these FSC is also listed in the table below. Plants or animals
with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture, respectively. Species with state designations of Candidate (C), Significantly
Rare (SR) and Watch List (W) are not protected under state laws, but there is evidence of
16
declining populations. These species are mentioned here for information purposes in the
event that they become protected in the future.
Federal Species of Concern Listed for Orange County
Scientific Name
Fusconaia masoni
Toxolasma 1 is
a
Plagio chila columbian
Monotropsis odorata
?iagyclops jeanneli palgi
Lampsilis cariosa
Lasmigona subvirdis
Juglans cinerea
N. C. Suitable
Common Name Status Habitat
Atlantic pigtoe T Yes
Savannah lilliput T Yes
A liverwort C No
Sweet pinesap C Yes
Carolina well diacyclops SR ?
Yellow lampmussel T ?
Green floater E ?
Butternut W ?
Note: Species represented in bold are protected by state law.
"?" denotes that species not evaluated.
No federally protected species were located in the subject project study area.
Therefore, no impacts to federally protected species will result from project construction.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program has a record for sweet pinesap approximately three-
quarters of a mile from the subject project study area. Sweet pinesap was not observed in
the subject project study area.
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. In accordance with provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit will be required from
the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23.
This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency
and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final permit
decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the COE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Because this project lies
17
within a proposed N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Critical Habitat Area for
mussels, use of High Quality Water erosion control measures in addition to Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of surface waters, will be strictly
enforced at this crossing to ensure these populations receive no adverse impacts. In
addition, erosion and sedimentation control standards in sensitive watersheds as
designated by DEM in T15A:04B.0024 will be applied in Eno Creek for this project.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements. The new culverts will maintain the present flow to protect stream
integrity. Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by
providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of ditching wherever possible.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained, and since little, if any, excavation will be
needed, groundwater resources should not be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Orange County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Section 40 CFR part 51 of
the standards is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment
area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have a significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
Orange County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
This site is in a designated flood hazard zone and is included in the detailed flood study,
having an established floodplain and floodway with corresponding water surface
elevations. The established limits of the 100-year floodplain and floodway in the vicinity
of the project are shown in Figure 4. There are no buildings in the vicinity with floor
elevation below the 100-year flood level. The backwater from the proposed culvert will
not have any adverse effect on the existing floodplain and floodway nor on the associated
flood hazard.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
ASM/asm

61 1''K!,
, . 41 - 1501. 1 i 1504 apel till .. N
' O. 1503 o - 512 15
1368
\
?y .,
uN?w
.9. 15
A $ ry 1
1368 1361 502 577 15
1371 !? 1511
1
: •ir 1501 157 .
M
r
6

•o
1371
ti? FPS
.p .9
1356 . 1506
1510
y 5 ' 1361 10
1504
y Carr •4
0• )
0 1355 1508 509
?
1358
.
P
.8
'6 IT . P
.1 :

1370 p
IP 0,
t u?
1.5
1357 O .i • 1506
6 1508
1363 8 1.9
i 1361 b 1354 1546 N

McDade
•s
V. 1362 •3

q 1359
! a
1353
1507 X545

9 1591
S
1361
9
Eno Ch.
M 1545 b
1 1004
•
13d
1357 .7 g 1507
1341 352 it ,1547
.9 1350 J 1004 ,4
1343 Cedar ? 1352 1001
.?
c o,
1 Grove _ o,
1004 BRIDGE NO. M 15
a
1349 1383 .
Mt. Zion-
1351 ° T
LAKE
1001
•? N ORANGE
s 9 ?6 1323 -

,5 f 1343
r 1004
CID !3
D5
1336
h ,8 ?•' ;',Fairfield 1336
• •9 Ch.
2 1339 1338 .S
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
mw 1w mw mw mw mw -
Kennedy
a 1585
L .1 •I
7 1335 1584
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIBONIMENTAL
BRANCH
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 14
ON SR 1352 OVER
PRONG OF ENO CREEK
TIP ID NO. B-3010
0 KILOMETERS 0.8 0 MILE 0.5 FIG. 1
L
N

01 -
all
r

i ?
??Aggy'p ? ?..
?4 q
B-3010
ORANGE COUNT'
LOOKING EAST ON
SR 1352 TOWARD
BRIDGE NO. 14
LOOKING WEST ON
SR 1352 TOWARD
x?
BRIDGE NO. 14
mir't; -A
Jim
FIEF( RE 3
ua ?? a
*` t t
B-3010
ORANGE COUNTY
SIDE VIEW OF
BRIDGE NO. 14
??d J fZF3k3

n

LIMIT OF
'STUDY
d

O
u
_ u
East Fork Eno River

--% N
O
rr
1 ?.

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
'I
? II
RM17X
1

U
11
11
II
II
II
II
11
11
11
II
I I
II
If
it
11
11
11
?I
I I
II` _
1 I I 1352. 1l
LIMIT OF ¦ \\
1 s PROJECT SITE
DETAILED Z` NllF13873 STUDY RM
LIMIT OF
)ETAILED
STUDY i a
FIGURE 4
?s Tf?IT?? s?

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 20, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1352 over Eno
Creek, Orange County, B-3010, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1352(3), State Project 8.2500901,
ER 96-8155
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1E 1
FEB 2 2 1996
S
E)IvtSIGN OF
HIGHWAY
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1996, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Liner House (OR 826). This bungalow is an undistinguished example of a
common house type.
We do not concur with the report's finding that the following property is not eligible
for the National Register:
John Pymn Dark House (OR 839). This house appears to be an intact
example of an important turn-of-the-century Orange County house type, and
we believe it is eligible under Criterion C for architecture. Please provide us
with additional information about the house's six-acre tract so that
appropriate boundaries can be determined for the property.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 ATTACHMENT 1
Nicholas L. Graf
February 20, 1996, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
v
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: . F. Vick
B. Church
Orange County Historic Preservation Commission
e,,. Sr?dFo
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 25, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #14 on SR 1352 over Eno Creek, Orange
County, B-3010, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1352(3), State Project 8.2500901, ER 96-8155
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
`JUN 2 7 1996
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1996, forwarding additional information
concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the proposed boundaries for the John Pymn Dark House and
believe they are appropriate for the National Register-eligible property.
We found the verbal boundary justification and graphics to be very useful in our
review. We hope similar graphics will be provided in future cases when historic
boundaries are especially difficult to determine.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Si erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: All. F. Vick
B. Church
Orange County Historic Preservation Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ATTACHMENT 2
Federal Aid R t3?? 13 2 TIP it t, -3oto County 0 RA,14C-
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
¢EPI.AGE bVADFE tJo- 14 VW SfL ?'??,2 oVE2 F-Wo Caxsey-
On representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FH VA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SI-20)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the ;`iational Resister-listed property within the project's
area of potential erect ands listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area or potential eriect and listed on the reverse.
there is an erect on the National Resister listed property/ properties within the
project's area ofpotentiai effect. The property-properties and the a sect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an erect on the National Register-eligible property/propertdes within the
project's area of potential a ect. The property/properties and erect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Siened:.

T k?f L?- 1 / t ?t IRL
the Divi 'on
Historic Architectural Resources Section
administrator, or other Federal Agency
Representative, /SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Date
S'

(over)
Daie
ATTACHMENT 3
Federal Aid -rur $7(L.? i . TIP 9 1?, • 3°1o County
ow?.aCrE
?rooerties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
?National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
P7?.AW VA r-w- tAotusE C D??
?OC.?wtw?l- .jilt iNfi?.Jr, Net cN?/?,ravlr+latih?I lAk4wbil-w<e.1F- ?r i?a.??lew+c.,?- }pew
rrvl x--iovt WitAt.Kem, G V- T? ?Y"* w4k"A 144, t 3-k, ?-µK?Y?K o4- tue, 6 r
0V ?f Mo rt, Fb lUv L.^ati 0( h+(/ Gu" . Ae'PGr pgfGK ? GovtSri?{- ..??14?
J
1JN-PO iL {1n&' row.?wiLwtc.?l- uL4%"l- ?av ?9'ftzd.
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe a erect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FH`VA SHPOG 310

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
. April 4, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge 14 on SR 1352 over Eno
Creek, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1352(3), State
Project 8.2500901, TIP B-3010, Orange
County, ER 96-8498
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
??.?' E Y0
= APR f 1996

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1996, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Megan O'Connell of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
Although we did not recommend an archaeological survey for this bridge
replacement project, the report appears to meet our guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior. The survey located no archaeological resources within the
area of potential effect and we do not recommend any additional investigation for
this project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to'Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sir L erely,
. i, ,
Al w
I A')
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIw?
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
M. O'Connell
ATTACHMENT 4
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 'tDv
r. •r_ i_.....wniwtr+hv Xe__-r.-J ga'fC// I _. sr,.....Iw?r/.ie. /'i L. /n
Nsrrr? t1 t ?re,?e /7 ?? ? Q / I ?m :.cy
Praoaz,a l?.e+a ttss• ?N?E ????
?Ierrr SCr! G
.RT it lrc Cacrr... by .rc:32
Oasz c:: Sittt =n=in Fnrne. utncua. rr?„ ?naa cr I 'dam "` c:;is fcrsrrJ.
llf /ro; :cFt?fi dcar aar zi ra1v -dQ'aar rmrztKa I to Gam
S== cfmw&i
__ Fjaess..a 3v Sts
5 U?? W
Yc pia
v C 1 tC
Mnor C:aciu L CO s. ar L? scs.za?rrnnc s,acsess
._.",?..? svsserrt LL-_. ssa
v ..,i , 11
: %T III Ma be crr.Flers-d by Fr.+--
;._ Teci Aer Tc Ea C :rner:-?
E. TC=l Ae-- Ta at Ccnver:e= lac'irt r'v I
C. i ctai Ac= Ir. Siva I
:,RT IV r, -C at c.:-c1+r= ?by Sri L3sst= =rsiuzzan It:fr.^.•.sdcrs
cra! Aca i:rir..= Atsd Utsic__ Far?iassc+
Far-iars?
= Teaf Ae= SGt"ice :-•nd !r-i tr..CCr?'^t
C_ Pe-?ssc? Gt Fae--tend jr, Cs?rsr? Gr t.:a=i Gave Ur:ir Te ee
O. ??*C:st =:'? C' Fsrri.e+e trt Girt ?'rss=iC-sc YfC ?'n? Gt FFigis.r f[auti?• Vslu I
d Ezfc:aZ_r. G - ca
AT V ?a r•: ?.r.Alat'~ by S%?i Ly lac/:Qta lcd Fc.,r=.
• Falzdre Vaiua Of Far--iar.dTc Ea Carvar'?
F---j
vi l i c c= glar'-r b'/ •9?
....: C:aria (i hm r;sris lrr cctym?d in T G=r?
a Irt Ycrs:.?acs Use
t/ I
a I

a
Z F_.^r er" In Ncm.,r am Use I i I I I
A _r_nt G f Si ra Eeir.; Farr. ec I
I I i
s, F-? cn I'-CVtC~ Ev smtz And Lc=i G we-rr..r---
I I I ? I I
_..; ur :r: Suiic:= Aces
I I I I
Gismo-^_ i s l;r_an Succat; S:svi?
I I I
c, ,.iz E Uc%it C_car_ Ta Aver-.;:;z

- .G ._ I I
I I I
O

tr c aazcr. CE :tcr.: ,r-ac:a Far-:-rd I I I
t 3 1
S Avaiiaciiir: CE Fars' Succzr' =ice I I ( p I I
I
SQ. On-=sr- Ir.'rest-ert? I
E f GE Ccr?ar_icn Ccs Far- Sucrar: S:rric ( I
Z I I
i 0 I
.
t
Wig t.:SS'nc ?,C•G(Z.^+i t;sa ( I
TAL _, : c r•.acr..tii VT r'C I
f I
I
. ,- ,._ r.._..1..-? t•v F_:--ml Ags:c/1 I
Raii?re Vaiua Cf Far.-iar d fF --T Fv- VI
Tca: Si r_ fFrm Far: '/r aecva C. a
I TC0
1Eu I
f G6
37
?r r er n:• - _ ri er_I of J1Tava :lied I CE'
a Ssiac=?:
FISiCR rOf Sf7?•3R:
FRFItItTIUD Sitliv 1t?irL, t--•s,.,iY?:
Ca:= C` S&j===cn
1/05 1 '
Ia G
Y_
A
es . n/G
'.t F•..rrsann x flr
I Z•2 I
I I
I Z.Z I
I
f l? I
1 ?_2 I
ATTACHMENT 5
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP D TE
9S
ZO
/T?OO::^^ 1\ 1 REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM:: REF- NO OR ROOM, BLDG.
?
fff
tF A C
-: ,? NOTE AND. FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
'. ? RETURN WITN'MORE DETAILS ?;FOR: YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS 9-"R YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER EJ FOR YOUR COMMENTS
'.?. PREPARE REPLY FOR, MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
".'COMMENTS:
RECEIVED
APR 2 51995;
ENVIRONMENTAL S
CIENCES
RRA hlrH

??

S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GmmoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 20, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacement of Bridge
No. 14 on SR 1352 over Eno Creek, Orange County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1352(3), State Project
No. 8.2500901, TIP No. B-3010
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A Scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for May 24, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the Scoping sheets, please
call Wayne Fedora, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/plr QNAO`
Attachment
3 4
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3010 DIVISION: SEVEN
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1352(3) COUNTY: ORANGE
STATE PROJECT: 8.2500901 ROUTE: SR 1352
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1352 over Prong of Eno
Creek in Johnston County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Cedar Grove
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 200:000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 15,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ....................................... S 215,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST .................. $ ,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)......... $ ,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE .......................... $ ,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: (S) M
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST % DT %
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: -METER ( -FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS METER ( -FOOT)
SHOULDERS ( . -METER/ -FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 11.0 Meters WIDTH 6.1 Meters
36 Feet 20.1 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH: Meters WIDTH: Meters
Feet Feet
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY:, Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 04/17/95
an
` G II '
1S r
Cache scmeY
Grove m 1
a Efland T E- F...?
i11$borougq
ORANGE? '
Pace
O 3
co
y 150 150 ;; Chapel hill m
? 1 4

ry
1368
O:
1503 `Q 3
512
rs
15
\ wo..m..l
inter
unfnsaty-
-• .9 _
-'ae Is
1 1368
c? 3r 1361 ?N 1502 ti 1577
y?
.4
\
w 15
u?
_ 1371
1

'? 1501
1576 h
0 6
r?
1511
1371 .9
PS 5 1506 10
B
•0 1356 .$ '4 1504 ,
? 1510
y 1361
Carr 4 is .
.4
1355
1508
1509
.
/ 1358 ;0 .S .8 w
'
1370 t C=
vl 1.5
1357 2 1506 1508
1363 8 6
7.9
i
1361 b
1354 N
1546

McDade
?
4
1362
•
9
1 59

! A

1353
9

1507
1
p,
11545

!
591
N
S

1361
Eno Ch
C

1 1004
9 13615 .
_ 1545
1357 .7 3 1507
1341
.9 1350 1004 352 ,1 547
.7
1343
Cedar
1352 ,A
1001
:0
a Grove
a
BRIDGE'

4
,004
83 1
15
1349 13 Mt. Zion
?
1351

?

-?
LAKE
Ch. 1001
ORANGE
s q ?T 1323
? •5 c•
t

1341 '
Kennedy
.5 1343 ry 1332
O ?? ? a 1585
r 1004
_ 1 < 1 • I
?
, 1.7 1335
1584
CO 1 3
34
.9 v 1405
! h 1336 1.1 8
43 h .g r' Fairfield 1336
•9 Ch.
1342 1339 1338 .8
banon ?•
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 14
ON SR 1352 OVER
PRONG OF ENO CREEK
T.I.P. NO. B-3010 FIG. 1
0 meters 30.5 0 feet 100
X I
V n
c-. Y 700
i' ? II J
wa• `.yam- ?
\Mci)ade\ 717 • - n. if \.\ W 2
. x 725 j/, -\ ,ry (L?,?J?- -- - ° 1 = '? .'/ / •?\ ° `nom I 70L?p
O \AycockSch'?., \ - i ? ??-- ?? ?G ._ -
--'Water'VO rte' 1 ?-`' ?o '? . _ = j '?--?• . -?
Tank \ ? / J': -
650
t _
es Chapel C/ ?\ r ' ~
v 40
r xl a \ ?J . Grove o?= r' i/
sch
\ - 1 = \`"1 \ 6x9.' \ ! ,\•. ?"'?" i • 7\
\\ 4005
n \ (rte 1 m /
65
drr.?k?: ,??? `' ' ?,? s° ? / Q I ? / ; I• /' `689 ?? i 650
11
??,( r, 't ?' 1 • - 1.11\ /
'Y?'(a`-'?II 700 ( ,?' ?/?,•/? \\ ?• ? .?_/"
+1v II 700\
:Greve `"i?\i 1 ' /? ?? !
650 a ° •\
?
4004
?< • , ?: ?? IH It 689
-Ij it
o 110,
?_? ?? 70 ley O 11 '
?? 1 0 i \\ O?•?y\ 0 O \ 11 u• 99
•
6?ss \?? ?`' aria i f O V _ `? 4003
• I ? ? `•
t' op lr ?U
S
\?O\ O \,r \ \ s
ro
? 4002
i • ?? o
700
up,
Ile,
4001
O ?? J lot
(c.? ? ?- si I? ?V? j 'gin: \ I/ /^ =??
67
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO:
)te an?h REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
11,E-1 M.
FROM:
I REF. NO.. OR ROOM, BLDG.
o
A J
ACTION
NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? Fy+c. YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY: FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
REcav'sD

319Y5
EN VtRpiv
u?,vr
C
/?NCF?
Gy
E %
d,4 STATE 4
m uh
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
June 29, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Wayne Fedora, P. E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 14 over
Prong on Eno Creek over Sr 1352, Orange County, B-3010
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on May
24, 1995 to initiate the subject project. Attached is a list of those
attending.
The participants discussed two methods of replacement: Alternate #1 -
Replace at existing location with road closure. Traffic will be maintained
on the existing roads as shown in Figure 1. Alternate #2 - place new
structure to the North of the existing bridge with new alignment. The
replacement structure will be a three-barrel box culvert. The dimensions
of the barrels will be 3.7 m X 3.0 m (12 ft X 10 ft).
The estimated construction cost for Alternate #1 will be $350,000 and
for Alternate #2 the estimated cost will be $525,000. The Roadway Design
Engineer proposes to raise the grade on SR 1352.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends an
archaeological survey if a new alignment is to be used. A historic
architectural survey will be needed to see if the Darke House and an
existing outbuilding is in the area of potential effect.
The Division of Environmental Management classifies Eno Creek as --II
watershed with nutrient sensitive waters. Eno Creek requires high quality
erosion control measures.
The Division Seven Construction Engineer has indicated a preference
for maintaining traffic on the existing bridge and constructing the new
structure to the north of the existing alignment.
NO,
June 29, 1995
Page 2
There are currently eight school bus crossings at the bridge each
school day. The Transportation Director for Orange County prefers
maintaining traffic on SR 1352.
The current project schedule includes right-of-way beginning April
1997, and Letting is scheduled for April 1998.
WF/wp
Attachments
Scoping Meeting Attendance Sheet
for B-3010 Orange County
Name Department
Wayne Fedora Planning & Environmental
Greg Blakeney Planning & Environmental (T.E.A.)
Wanda James Traffic Control
Mack Bailey Structure Design
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Ray Moore Structure Design
Don Sellens Right-of-Way
LeRoy Smith Roadway Design
Derek Bradner Location & Surveys
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAT
-
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
.
TO, - REF. NO. OR:ROOM, BLDG.
Sit G ?,Nt
F OM': REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-
ACTION -
? NOTE AND FILE _ ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TOME ?PERYOUR REQUEST
? RETURN. WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
':.?-: PLEASE ANSWER. ,. .? FOR YOUR. COMMENTS
-? PREPARE REPLY FOR -MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
: :f
i d
?TydiW. STA7pq
r? nn ?r
ww
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
July 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Wayne Fedora, P. E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 14 over
Prong on Eno Creek over SR 1352, Orange County, B-3010
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on May
24, 1995 to initiate the subject project. Attached is a list of those
attending.
The participants discussed two methods of replacement: Alternate #1 -
Replace at existing location with road closure. Traffic will be maintained
on the existing roads as shown in Figure 1. Alternate #2 - place new
structure to the north of the existing bridge with new alignment. The
replacement structure will be a three-barrel box culvert. The dimensions
of the barrels will be 3.7 m X 3.0 m (12 ft X 10 ft).
The estimated construction cost for Alternate #1 is $350,000 and for
Alternate #2 the estimated cost is $525,000. The Roadway Design Engineer
proposes to raise the grade on SR 1352.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends an
archaeological survey if a new alignment is to be used. A historic
architectural survey will be needed to see if the Darke House and an
existing outbuilding is in the area of potential effect.
The Division of Environmental Management classifies Eno Creek as WS-II
nutrient sensitive waters. Eno Creek requires High Quality Waters erosion
control measures.
The Division Seven Engineer has indicated a preference for maintaining
traffic on the existing bridge and constructing the new structure to the
north of the existing alignment.
204?i
July 5, 1995
Page 2
There are currently eight school bus crossings at the bridge each
school day. The Transportation Director for Orange County prefers
maintaining traffic on SR 1352.
The current project schedule includes right-of-way beginning April
1997, and Letting is scheduled for April 1998.
WF/wp
Attachments
w
Scoping Meeting Attendance Sheet
for B-3010 Orange County
Name Department
Wayne Fedora Planning & Environmental
Greg Blakeney Planning & Environmental (T.E.A.)
Wanda James Traffic Control
Mack Bailey Structure Design
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Ray Moore Structure Design
Don Sellens Right-of-Way
LeRoy Smith Roadway Design
Derek Bradner Location & Surveys

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3010
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1352(3)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2500901
DIVISION: SEVEN
COUNTY: ORANGE
ROUTE: SR 1352
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1352 over Prong
of Eno Creek in Orange County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Cedar Grove
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................. $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST..... $ _15,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................•. $
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 215,000
Alternate #1:
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ............... $ 350,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)...... $ 15,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE ....................... $ 365,000
Alternate #2:
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ............... $ 525,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)...... $ 15,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE ....................... $ 540,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , (%)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1000 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 2100 VPD
TTST 1% DT 2%
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
7.2-METER (24-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS 1.8-METER (6-FOOT)
SHOULDERS (2.7-METER/9-FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 11.0 Meters WIDTH 6.1 Meters
36.0 Feet 20.1 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: A THREE-BARRELL CULVERT @ 3.6 METERS x
3.0 METERS (12 FT. x 10 FT.)
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 06/28/95
r I ?
)) ? 'u arr 6 I
86 Ca 11
\ Cetlar y
l
• r . isborongtj
O RA Yr 1501 Cfiape! fill
1504 iv
? r J
Citrborek: - i

h
a
1503 '0 , s
512 15
1368 ?
m tner uiws/rvf3 '?
\ • .9
y ?N 1
00
p 1 368

1 c? s 1361
.4

Y * 1502 \ 1577
w

15
Lp 1371 43
1576 Cl) 15
tl 371 ,Q 1501 p 10
y??, FPSS -R •9 1356 1506 1510
? 1504
1361
Y Carr 4 4

cl- J
p 1508 1509
` p
1355 c, b

/
1358 8
emu, O b s •6
1370 t n 1.5
;D 1357 2 1506 1508
86
1363 CO 7.9
1361 b 1354 1546 N
C;

I
McDade

1.4 1 362
9 1359 4 1353 1507 1545

!
v' 1591 5 S'
. 1 2
y
1361 Eno Ch ,
°' 1545 b
1004 9 .
1360
1357
- .7 3 1507
1341 h - 352 ?r
,1547
.9 1350 7 1004 4
1'1
1343 Cedar 1352 1001
-„
Grove o,
1004 BRIDGE NO. 14

1383 15
Mt
Zi
-`?
1349 .
on
1351 ° LAKE Ch. 1001
N ORANGE f

s
?} 1323

a _
1341 Kennedy
5 1343 1332
1585
v
U
1004 1.0 l • I
ri• 1 .7 1335 1584
CID I?
1= <c?
1405 s NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
•9 TRANSPORTATION
h 1 r DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1336 1.1 S PLANNING AND EIvvrR0N-MENTAL
43
Cl)
Fairfield 1336
'
BRAINCH
h 8 ,
9 Ch. BRIDGE NO. 14
1342 1339 1338 a ON SR 1352 OVER
banon 1117 PRONG OF ENO CREEK
T.I.P. \O. B-3010 FIG. i

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

ISL AL
IML I
AIL
nk 19L AM
- 0 meters 30.5 0 feet 00
w M w 1w low
r
I I I I I

700
`McDade - 14- 7,II 2 It Q h
Aycoc
O 1 vv (? 8 ?'
t,?`s'°'
Tank
c
Fs Chapel
10
Grovel=
/ j%x721 sCh
// rJ' \ 1oO I ?? \ ?,.?? =J679 N -? % 700 4005
j, z1
it -BM
• /i ;t ^- ??? ?, J //(f t l \ `\ so J" 1 / l? -? ?I 1 689 6,5/0?-.?-
a
/ \
i ` \ n 679 /
i. ? _'\ ' ? I .? _? l? ? ?C5&"/ ? Q °I?`•j "t \J "? i\ \\ 6?50 a
I.6 689 - -
J`\ lJl / p ` 0
?r? _ „ ?1??I V s9
P-2 I
10,
1 1 O r o -' ?`\'
A.
4
003
3?\ 655 '? I I .\?
J, jII ?l i J v ?`?V \:?1 \ \\? ?- ?r ` !` (D?f-?M LZr'on -- m
0Fd no Cem" _ -
` 00
(0 86 :E
?? 6,q ??:•? ??• X705
f?/ 4002
7VvN
ter,-?--
??I 1 \` i' ? ? i"?•? \ / ????f ?.' I ???\ '- ? t?? •?/?/ ? --. ?.-??.??/ 1, !? co/.
?J \' ?° ????? "% % \I ?' I( ?? ,1i \\ ???\?,? \ / / 4001
??'` ? "?\-? ?..? • ?,,-/ Cem ?1? Y! ;? .` ???; `??%J1_ ?\\?I, ??• ? 6? ?? ? ?? `\_-;- ?.
•. ?? ,?., I v ????
700