19950887 Ver 1_Complete File_19950822

„aSUTFo
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
November 10, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps
Wilmington Field
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North
Dear Sir:
of Engineers
Office
Carolina 28402-1890
RECEIVED
NOV 1 71995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
-,1
Subject: Franklin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 37 over Sandy Creek on
North Carolina 58, Federal Aid Project No. BRST-58(1), State Aid
Project No. 8.1360601, T.I.P. No. B-2135
On August 21, 1995 the North Carolina Department of Transportation
distributed a Categorical Exclusion document for the above referenced project
proposing to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
Appendix A (B-23). On September 18, 1995 the Corps of Engineers verified the
issue of NWP 23 (Corps of Engineers Action I. D. 199505099). The CE document
identified that the new bridge will be a three-span bridge with the middle
span spanning the entire stream. The document should have stated that the
new bridge will be a three-span bridge with the middle span spanning most of
the stream. It is not anticipated that project impacts will be affected.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141, Ext. 314.
Sincere Y.
. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P. E., Division 5 Engineer
Ms. Michelle James, P. E., Planning & Environmental Project Engineer

14-..
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
,r. STAiF°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 21, 1995
Regulatory Branch -
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
qsS?7
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
+F
i
AUG 2 21?c
4011sSuEr)

SUBJECT: Franklin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 37 over Sandy Creek on
NC 58, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-58(1), State Project 8.1360601,
T.I.P. No. B-2135.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 37 will be replaced in its existing
location and will be replaced with a 40 meter (131 ft.) bridge that has a 9.1
meter (30 ft.) width. During construction, traffic will be detoured onto
existing area roads. Construction of the proposed project will have no
impacts on any jurisdictional wetland communities.
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 proposed to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reviewed the project and
provided comments in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act). FWS believes the project is
not likely to adversely affect the Federally-endangered Tar Spinymussel and
that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied. The
Environmental commitments approved by the FWS will be adhered to and are
described in the enclosed report.
9
August 21, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincerely,
in Vick, E., Manager
Planning anmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins,-P. E., Hydraulics Unit.
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure;Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
Ms. L. K. Mike Gantt, USFWS
A

C`
4
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No. _
Federal-Aid Project
B-2135
8.1360601
No. BRSTP-58(1)
A. Pro.iect Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN FRANKLIN
COUNTY OVER SANDY CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 37 DN NC 58 WILL BE
REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A 40 METER (131-
FOOT) BRIDGE THAT HAS A 9.1 METER (30-FOOT) WIDTH. THE
STRUCTURE WILL PROVIDE A 7.2 METER (24-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
WITH A 1.0 METER (3-FOOT) OFFSET ON EACH SIDE. TRAFFIC
WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 37 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING OF
53.0 OUT OF 100 AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 5 YEARS.
THE BRIDGE IS NOT POSTED. BECAUSE OF THE DETERIORATED
CONDITION, BRIDGE NO. 37 SHOULD BE REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following 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

1
y
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
3. 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
Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
2

4
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:
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
WETLANDS WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED BY THE PROJECT.
A HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF THE PROJECT AREA WAS
RECOMMENDED TO EVALUATE ANY PROPERTIES OVER FIFTY YEARS
OF AGE IN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE). THE APE
FOR HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES WAS REVIEWED IN THE
FIELD BY AN NCDOT STAFF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN. BRIDGE
NO. 37, BUILT IN 1920, IS THE ONLY PROPERTY OVER FIFTY
YEARS OF AGE LOCATED WITHIN THE APE. ON MARCH 9, 1995
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE MET
WITH NCDOT AND CONCURRED WITH THE DETERMINATION THAT THE
BRIDGE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION WAS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
THIS PROJECT.
ESTIMATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION - $ 450,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY - $ 24,000
TOTAL $ 474,000
3

ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
1995 - 700 VPD TTST - 1 %
2017 - 1200 VPD DUAL - 3 %
THE DESIGN SPEED IS APPROXIMATELY 100 KM/H (60 MPH).
NC 58 IS CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR COLLECTOR.
THERE ARE FOUR SCHOOL BUS CROSSINGS DAILY.
THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND RECOMMENDS THE DETOUR SHOWN IN
FIGURE 1.
SHORTER DETOUR ROUTES WILL NOT BE DESIGNATED DUE TO
WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS; HOWEVER, LOCAL TRAFFIC WILL UTILIZE
THE SHORTER ROUTES IN MOST CASES.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact F-1 X
on any unique or important natural resource.
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened ?X
species may occur?
(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 X
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
4
4
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
-
underground storage tanks (UST's) or F
1 X
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be a X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification F-1 X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
5

(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds F-1 X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
6

4
CULTURAL RESOURCES
YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ? X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
RESPONSE TO QUESTION #22
AS OF MARCH 28, 1995 THE USFWS LISTS THREE FEDERALLY
PROTECTED SPECIES FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY: THE DWARF WEDGE
MUSSEL (Alasmidonta heterodon), THE TAR SPINY MUSSEL
(Elliptio steinstansana) AND THE MICHAUX'S SUMAC (Rhus
michauxii).
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT THE DWARF
WEDGE MUSSEL OR MICHAUX'S SUMAC.
ON DECEMBER 7, 1994 NCDOT CONDUCTED A SECTION 7 INFORMAL
CONSULTATION AT THE BRIDGE SITE TO DISCUSS PROVISIONS FOR
PROTECTING THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED TAR SPINY MUSSEL.
TO MINIMIZE ANY POSSIBLE IMPACTS TO TAR SPINY MUSSEL, THE
FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS WILL BE ADHERED TO:
1. The new bridge will be a three-span bridge with the
7

middle span spanning the entire stream.
2. The pier that is in the water will be removed by use
of a sheet pile cofferdam. The water will not be
pumped back into the stream.
3. Drilled piers will be constructed on the stream.bank
from the existing approach roadway.
4. Fill behind existing abutments will be removed.
Rip-rap will be placed on exposed face. Old
abutments will be removed down to the new rip-rap.
5. Modification of stream flow will be avoided.
6. All disturbed areas will be revegetated.
Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides will be used
carefully and as little as possible.
7. Storm-water runoff will not be channeled
directly into the stream.
8. A final survey for the Tar Spiny mussels will be
conducted before construction begins. If the survey
reveals the presence of any Federally-endangered Tar
Spiny mussels, the Federal Highway Administration
will need to initiate formal consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act. The decision to
relocate Federally-endangered mussels will be
considered during the formal consultation process
and will be dependent on specific biological factors
relative to the geographic area of impact and the
species in question.
9. The Fish and Wildlife Service will be sent a copy of
the plans before construction begins.
10. No work will be allowed in the stream from 15
December to 15 March.
11. The contractor will notify NCWRC, USFWS, and the
NCDOT Environmental Unit, in writing, of the
construction begin date.
12. Removal of the old deck will be from the top, and
residue from sawing will not be allowed to go into
the stream.
13. High Quality Water Best Management Practices will be
implemented.
8
4
G . C.17- 8p,mLal
TIP Project No. _-B-21135-
State Project No. 8.1360601
Federal-Aid Project No. _BRSTP-58(1)
Pro:iect Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN FRANKLIN
COUNTY OVER SANDY CREEK. -BRIDGE NO. 37 ON NC 58 WILL BE
REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A 40 METER
(131-FOOT) BRIDGE THAT HAS A 9.1 METER (30-FOOT) WIDTH.
THE STRUCTURE WILL PROVIDE A 7.2 METER (24-FOOT)
TRAVELWAY WITH A 1.0 METER (3-FOOT) OFFSET ON EACH SIDE.
TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
4 - Z --95- o<' W_az?
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
q -2444 A R_ al_o7?L
Date Wayn Elliott
Project Planning Unit Head
?' ZD - 9s
Date Mic ele Ja 81
Project P1 inning Engineer
Date Nicholas L. Graf, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9

?son ?A
9 Ingleside Centerv I 'Wood
I 3 /
1 s - 1
F ¢ L I N
owaw
int N g ?t Sbl 9 56
6 cyt B /
"Ile a Justice ?
1 Youngsville 401 39
1 5 10 l0 A b
2 ew Ha a Sw
Bu n
\ \J y `
He 6
• ? Pe ices
r

J- !4!2 1? 117E !fi!
'Y 1421

?
I 1,_4A,

\
Uff- Il
? r 2

1s?
„a
Q l
, JlOZ

2.0 im
N OOVNTY

,
,?. ,? ?N ,N 'Out4v . .1%
`11
F
-1 Ila
Gu
kn C.
p
.3 -d
IDA MIA .0 1 1544

F Z Wt

s .,. fAS 1.0 ' Weed

.
.9
1.0 f
•
Ira _
'- 1.!!Q
- LOI ?ilaVelE _ .
W. 135 _ 191 If 149 /
N9

1!i! JM

?
BRIDGE NO. ? ><
w
.1 .6
W1

r' -
1?4m&
.
141 '
J!]4. \ ? Ci., \'
1!22:0 n 1.2 t- 57
n ? / L421

H
It.
U 14A
•fi
J

J=
HAL
ISM
n i
1 ? White Level 1"9 o
1!?i

JO4 .
H 1483
Jd2C
a -lass
1? u
1aL .e L
r
m - JJ4K
C1
Lk}. E!.)?. / 1,? J
' !321
/2dd 4¢
V 4 N

SgY2- 1.7 :tom q'; •:
Y? 5
_/
( s

10-02
Iadv
19_4

tr

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TA 14"
AL TRANSPORTATION
stawow
1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o b
j 100 Ovewodo
1ffi
1
4 .6 .0 1.0 fps 'a' 41 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.a .
/o fAS
i,;
; A "
BRANCH
NC 58, FRANKLIN COUNTY
- - BRIDGE NO. 37
CREEK
OVER SANDY
STUDIED DETOUR B-2135

ROUTE
0 miles 2
FIG. 1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
17 October 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head -
Bridge Unit
FROM: Phillip Todd, Environmental Biologist l?
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Investigation of Natural Resources for
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 37 over
Sandy Creek on NC 58, Franklin County; TIP
No. B-2135; State Project No. 8.1360601;
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-58(1).
ATTENTION: Michele James, Project Manager
The following memorandum is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE).
Included is the checklist for the PCE of the proposed project
and elaborated information concerning water resources, biotic
communities, federally-protected species and wetlands and
permits.
The proposed project involves Bridge No. 37 over Sandy
Creek on NC 58. This bridge will be replaced on existing
location with road closure. The proposed action occurs in
Franklin County approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of
Centerville.
WATER RESOURCES
The proposed action involves bridge replacement over
Sandy Creek. The Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) assigns streams a best usage.classification. DEM has
designated Sandy Creek a classification of Class C NSW; Class
C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture; NSW refers to waters which require limitations
on nutrient inputs. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area.

2
WETLANDS and PERMITS
No impacts to wetlands are anticipated from construction
of the proposed project. No permits are required under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Final decisions rest
with the Corps of Engineers.
PROTECTED SPECIES
As of 15 September 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) lists the following federally-protected species for
Franklin County (Table 1). A brief description of each
species characteristics and habitat follows.
- Table 3. - Federally-Protected Species
for Franklin County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON, NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Elliutio steinstansana Tar River spiny mussel E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed a recorded occurrence
of federally-protected species in or near the project study
area.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer
shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found in the Neuse River Basin and in the Tar__ _
River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural,
domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable
silt free streambed with well oxygenated-water to survive.
m
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT-
The area of Sandy Creek crossed by the subject project
is not known to support the dwarf wedge mussel. The proposed
project is not likely to impact the dwarf wedge mussel.
• r
13
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
The Tar River spiny mussel is endemic to the Tar River
drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope
in Nash County. Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can
be found in streams of the Tar River Drainage Basin and of
the Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom of these
streams is composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand.
The water needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to
rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as an
intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spiny mussel is..a very small mussel. -This
mussel is named for its-spines which project perpendicularly
from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12
spines can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in
texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white
(posterior).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The area of Sandy Creek crossed by the subject project
falls within a Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) Proposed
Critical Habitat area for aquatic species, including the Tar
River spiny mussel. In addition, a review of the data base
of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) rare species and
unique habitats revealed the occurrence of the Tar River
spiny mussel downstream of the subject project. Guidelines
and environmental commitments needed to be formulated in
order to resolve the potential of adversely impacting the Tar
River spiny mussel. These guidlines and environmental
commitments should be formulated by the staff biologist and
project manager.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous
shrub. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges
- are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac
are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from
August to September on female plants, are a red densely
short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods.
Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy
loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it
can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well
with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which
it is often associated.
?r
4
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area contains habitat for Michaux's sumac.
Plant-by-plant surveys were performed by NCDOT biologists
Phillip Todd and Tim Savidge on 07 October 1994. Road
shoulders and slopes were surveyed; no populations of
Michaux's sumac occur. No adverse impacts to Michaux's
sumac will result from construction of this project.
A review of the data base of the N.C. NHP rare species
and unique habitats revealed records of North Carolina rare
and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
Three candidate 2 (C2) species are present in the study area.
C2 species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable_to
extinction although no sufficient data currently exist to
warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened., Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare
Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under
the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Atlantic pi.gtoe
(Fusconaia masoni) and yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
are mussel species listed as C2 and found within the study
area. These species have a N.C. status of Threatened. Other
mussel rare species known to occur here include triangle
floater (Alasmidonta undulata), squawfoot (Strophitus
undulates) and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta). Eastern
lampmussel, triangle floater and squafoot are listed as State
Threatened species. Notched rainbow is listed as a State
Significantly Rare (SR) species. A site survey for mussels
by NCDOT biologists confirmed the occurrence of yellow
lampmussel, Atlantic pigtoe, squawfoot and notched rainbow in
the study area.
c: V. Charles Bruton,
M. Randall Turner,
File: B-2135
Ph. D.
Environmental Supervisor
,.
CC-
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type--I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact
on any unique or important natural resource?

(2) Does the project involve habitat where__
federally listed endangered or threatened
,-6species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary a
wetland taking less than one-third
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will * the pro jec-t require the use of
U. S. Forest Service lands?
.z
t
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
IS) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ° U
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
r

PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(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)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?

(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be I 1 ?i
required? tL_..--1t
(13) Will the project result in the modification
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? y.
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ?
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of Q
. any family or business? z
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(13) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
o_

Date:. 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provide&-below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
(CJ^?t?-?.S'i,?s
L ACS-sA-n C S
.
FL
A
. z:

:United States Department of -the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 9, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO BoX 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
SUBJECT: #37 Bridge Replacement Project over
Franklin County, NC; TIP#,<B-2135
Dear Mr. Vick:
??
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
ar s
4
Sandy Creek on NC58,
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed a memorandum
from Michele James of your staff dated February 20, 1995 regarding
the above-referenced proposed bridge replacement over Sandy Creek,
Franklin County, North Carolina. Our comments are provided in,
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
We appreciate your efforts to minimize any possible impacts to the
Federally-endangered Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) that is known to occur in areas of Sandy Creek in
Franklin County. We recommend revision to commitment #8 as
follows:
8. A final survey for the Tar Spinymussel will be conducted before
construction begins. If the survey reveals the presence of any
Federally-endangered Tar spinymussels, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA) will need to initiate formal consultation with
the service in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. 'The decision to relocate Federally-endangered mussels will be
considered during the formal consultation process and will be
dependent on specific biological factors relative to the geographic
area of impact and the species in question.
Based on adherence to all the commitments in your letter, including
our revised commitment #8, the Service believes that this project
is not likely to adversely affect the Tar spinymussel.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7

consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a new species listed or critical habitat
determined they may be affected by the identified action.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Candace Martino at 919-856-4520 (ext. 30). Thank you for your
continued cooperation with our agency.
sincerely,
L. K. Mike Gantt ti
Supervisor

0

%Art
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Nicholas Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA `
ATTENTION: Dave Unkefer
FROM: Michele L. James_
Planning and Enviro mental Branch
SUBJECT: Field Inspection for Federally Endangered Tar River Spiny
Mussel; Bridge No. 37 over Sandy Creek on NC 58; Franklin
County; Federal Aid Project BRSTP-58(1); B-2135
On December 7, 1994 NCDOT conducted a field inspection to discuss
provisions for protecting the Federally Endangered Tar River spiny mussel. A
list of the attendees is attached. NCDOT project engineer Michele James
began the meeting with an introduction and biologist Tim Savidge elaborated
on the spiny mussel and the project area habitat. A known population exists
within one-tenth mile downstream of the project area.
Mr. Jim Wilder of the NCDOT Construction Unit began discussion of
provisions to protect the Tar River spiny mussel. Several options to replace
the bridge were discussed. It was decided that further consultation with
other units within DOT was necessary before a final decision could be made.
Since the meeting, the following provisions were agreed upon:
1. The new bridge will be a three-span bridge-with the middle span
" spanning most of the stream.
2. The existing pier that is in the water will be removed by use of a
sheet pile cofferdam. The water will not be pumped back into the
...stream. _
3. Drilled piers will be constructed in the stream near water edges
from the existing approach roadway.
4. Fill behind existing abutments will be removed. Rip-rap will be
placed on exposed face. Old abutments will be removed down to the
new rip-rap.
e
January 30, 1995
?. Page 2- -
5. Modification of stream-flow will be avoided.
6. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. Fertilizers, herbicides,
and pesticides will be used carefully and as little as possible.
7. Storm-water runoff will not be directed directly into the stream.
Deck drains will be located over the stone rip rap.
8. A final survey for Tar Spiny mussel will be conducted before
construction begins. If the surveyor locates one or two mussels,
they may be relocated. If the surveyor locates more than two, a
Biological Conclusion of "May Effect" and Formal Consultation with
the USFWS will be required - in either case a Section 10
(Endangered Species Act) relocation permit will be necessary to
relocate mussels).
9. The Fish and Wildlife Service will be sent a copy of the plans
before.construction begins.
10. No work will be allowed in the stream from.15 December to 15 March.
11. The contractor will notify NCWRC, USFWS, and the NCDOT
Environmental Unit, in writing, of the construction begin date.
12. Removal of the old deck will be from the top, and residue from
sawing will not be allowed to go into the stream.
13. High Quality Water Best Management Practices will be implemented.
MJ/plr
cc: Ms. Candace Martino, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. David Cox, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Alderman, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Jim Wilder, P. E., State Bridge Construction Engineer
Mr. Jimmy Lynch, P. E., State Traffic Engineer
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Archie Hankins, Jr., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnicai Unit
Mr. Randy Turner, Environmental Unit
M Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Unit
Mr. Buddy Gregg, P. E., Division 5 Construction Engineer
.r'
January 30, 199b
Page 3
B-2135 Field Inspection for the Tar River Spiny Mussel
NAME
Jim Wilder
Mike Robinson
Leon Oliver
Candace Martino
Ray Moore
Tony Davis
Buddy Gregg
Kenneth Pace
David Unkefer
John-Alderman
Abdul Rahmani
Tim Savidge
Phillip Todd
Michele James-

0
Construction Unit
Construction Unit
Roadway Design
USFWS
Structure Design
Structure Design
NCDOT - Division 5
Roadside Environmental
FHWA
NCWRC
Hydraulics
P & E
P & E
P&E`

tiW
•f?

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
1?? g
TOO.}}'/?? REF. 110* 0. ROOM. L.G.
7 FROM•
l REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
e tut PS
IC ? E
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE - ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR 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 ? INVESTIGATES AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
9w
APR 2 5 1994
a
-
'WETLANDS GR-,6
WATER OUALITY SEMI iON
r -

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
April 20, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
D.EM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 37 on NC 58 over Sandy Creek,
Franklin County, State Project 8.1360601, F.A. Project
BRSTP-58(1); B-2135
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held on February 23, 1994
at 9:30 A.M. in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following were in attendance:
Danny Rogers Program Development
Jerry Snead Hydraulics Unit
LeRoy Smith Roadway Design
Leon Oliver Roadway Design
Robin Stancil SHPO
Eric Galamb Division of Environmental Management
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
Ramesh Fafasia Structure Design
Joel Howerton Traffic Control
Don Sellers Right of Way
Michele James Planning and Environmental
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
Based on available information, it appears the subject bridge should be
replaced in its existing location. During construction, traffic would be
detoured along existing area roads.
An estimated cost for the preferred alternative is $476,000. The
estimated cost contained in the TIP is $581,000.
The alternatives to be studied are as follows:
Alternative 1 - Replace the bridge in the existing location with a
28' x 131' bridge. Traffic would be detoured along
existing secondary roads during construction.
?1%
r
April 20, 1994
Page 2
Alternate 1A -
A 7 1_____ 1_ A
Identical to Alternate 1 except that traffic would
be maintained on-site with a temporary detour (98'
bridge) that would be built on the west side.
Relocate permanent structure to the east. Maintain
traffic on the existing bridge during construction.
The Division recommends road closure.
Sidney Autry did not locate any utilities that would have a significant
impact on constructing the project.
There is a USGS vertical control mark on top of the handrail at the
northwest corner of the bridge.
Robin Stancil of SHPO recommended an architectural survey.
Eric Galamb of the Division of Environmental Management suggested Type A
sediment control measures be used during construction.
MLJ/wp
Attachments

BRIDGE
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
DATE
REVISION DATE --A--1-8=-q.4
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING _-
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROTECT
F _ A _ PROJECT -_ BRS -P-56._(.1-__--
_-_---
DIVISION
COUNTY -- ---Fx'?J.I - -
ROUTE --
:PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACEBBRIIDGE#OVERFSANDYICREEKN`rY
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE x
2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3_ RELOCATION -
4 _ OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT : ($) (7.) --
? r
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC- CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST _- I --% DT __-3 X
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 2-6 METERS, WIDTH _ 5_.5_- METERS
FEET ---17-9- FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 4Q_ METERS; WIDTH 5 METERS
51.2 FEET ?8 FEET
OR
CULVERT - METERS
FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH --aU METERS; WIDTH METERS
9$_. 4. 1
FEET .-24--- J. E
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETER S
s INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- $ 450,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION)___________________ $ 26.000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS__________________________________ $
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- $ 476,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 555,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST-------------------------------- $ 26,000
SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- $ 581,000
PRIOR YEARS COST-------------------------------- $
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- $ 581,000

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USGS QUAD SHEET: CENTERVILLE, #1075
PREPARED BY: MICHELE JAMES
DATE: 4-18-94

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
I t^ el
TO: -
- REF. NO. OR R OM, BLDG.
F?
ris G?fldmb - I N
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mchelt, lamles 7+- E:
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR 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:

p C?C??OdC? ??.
s
FAN .1 1994
WETLANDS GROUP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WATER -QUALITY SEGT;ON
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 37 on
NC 58 over Sandy Creek, Franklin County, B-2135 \
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the ?
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of N
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 February 23, 1994 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 Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MJ/plr
Attachment
na ? 1.
• 2 s??P
rs
Zx
C 4oWt kti? 1q2-0
J r V ??
i
7F -
/v
`1
"r
0
3 ? ?p 7
44 .
1?/
M(, 1
V
F
BRID(4E
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 1-R4
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT .-.___B_21,9
STATE PROJECT
F _ A . PROJECT -___-B.RSTP_5£i-?
DIVISION 5
COUNTY Franklin.--- ------_____-
ROUTE
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: ?EPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC: 58, BRIDGE #37. FRANKLIN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER SANDY CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3 _ RELOCATION _--
4 _ OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
a
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT : (%)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET DATA: -1-11.754

REVISION DATE'
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING; --
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT _____B=21.35
STATE PROJECT
F _ A _ PROJECT ----_--B;f2ST;?
DIVISION ----- - -... -5------- -
COUNTY _'rn'..
ROUTE
PURPOSE OF PROJECT ; C& PI.ACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT_ NC: 58, BRIDGE #37. FRANKLIN CUC)N'.l:'Y
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER SANDY CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT=
1_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3- RELOCATION
4 _ OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT
r
1
BRIDGE
PROJE'(.;T SCOPINGI SHEET
TRAFFIC= CURRENT ----_'7Ea0.. --- VPD; DESIGN YEAR .--1200 VPD
TTS`I" _ DT - -- 3- -
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH ,--25-.6 METERS; WII)TH ..._.5..5. METERS
FRET ---17__9 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METER: ; WIDTH METERS
_ FEET FEET
OR
CULVERT - METERS
FEET
DETOUR STRUC`T'URE
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEE`"
R
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
I.NCRES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- s
RIG11T OF WAY COST (.INCI DING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) --_------- s
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS ----------------------------------- $
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------$
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ------------------- ? 555,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ------------------------------ 26.000
SUB TOTAL ---------------------------------------aos,vvv
PRIOR YEARS COST --------------------------
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------s 551,000

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USGS QUAD SHEET: CENTERVILLE, #1070
PREPARED BY: MICHELE JAMES
DATE: 1-12-94
d166??s Ck o„
O5 lfc

CO

sA ??ia
--4* 17-- 1(ml)