19960642 Ver 1_Complete File_19960703

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
'. TO: ` REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?nl
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
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
? PREPAREREPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?'INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
iLEJ
p ? "p
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 19, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Michael Smith
Assistant Chief
?t?
o 2:
E. NORRRS TOLSON
SECRETARY
t
1 ? to ? ???, t P 4
Subject: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 352 over Buffalo Creek on
SR 1506; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1506(1); State Project
No. 8.2710701; TIP No. B-3109; COE ID 199820471 (Reissue of Action
ID 199602387); DWQ # 960601.
Dear Sir:
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a Clean Water Act §404
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP No. 23), or Categorical Exclusion (CE), for the subject
project on July 9, 1996, and reissued a NWP No. 23 for the same property on February 4,
1998. The reissued permit expires on February 4, 2000. The replacement of Bridge No.
352 over Buffalo Creek on SR 1506 is not scheduled to be let to construction until
December 21, 1999. Consequently, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) needs to renew authorization for this work.
The NCDOT received authorization under Section 404 NWP No. 6 and the
corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) to perform foundation investigations for the new bridge.
Bridge No. 352 will be constructed on approximately the same alignment, along
with associated approach improvements. Consequently, the March 1996 CE document
remains valid in terms of land use, architectural, archaeological, noise and air, and natural
resource impacts associated with the in-place replacement of Bridge No. 352. Fill in

jurisdictional wetlands will not exceed 0.33 ac (0.1 ha). Buffalo Creek does not support
trout, and is not designated as a Wild Public Mountain Trout Water by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Bridge construction will still be
accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
The scope of the project has changed, however, since reissuing the project's NWP
No. 23 on July 9, 1996. The temporary detour bridge proposed in the March 1996 CE
document will no longer be constructed. Owners of a failed septic field situated on the
southwest quadrant of Bridge No. 352 constructed a new septic field between their
building and the existing bridge. The new septic field lies under the location of the
temporary on-site detour originally proposed in the March 1996 CE document. In order
to avoid taking the property and rendering the new septic field in-operable, the NCDOT
proposed in the enclosed October 1998 Addendum to the CE document a new temporary
detour. A modified railroad corridor along the community's east end will comprise the
new detour. The NCDOT will utilize some of the wider areas of the railroad corridor to
construct several vehicular passing zones. The NCDOT proposes to install guardrails
along the south side of the detour and cover the railroad bed with gravel.
The abandoned railroad corridor lies parallel to Buffalo Creek and crosses an
unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek near the southern end of the detour. The DWQ best
usage classification for the unnamed tributary is the same classification, Class C Trout
Waters, as the stream it flows into. This detour will not impact Buffalo Creek or the
slopes above the creek. According to a March 19, 1999 discussion with NCDOT
Hydraulics, the culvert at the tributary to Buffalo Creek will not be extended. The
NCDOT will strictly adhere to the recommendations set forth in Guidelines for
Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North
Carolina (Joint Agency Committee, 1997). In addition to streams, the new proposed
detour will not impact any jurisdictional wetlands. Finally, NCDOT biologists surveyed
the railroad corridor for the five federally-protected species listed under Ashe County.
The federally-protected species include spreading avens (Geum radiatum), Roan
Mountain bluet (Houstonia montana), Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri), Virginia
spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), and rock gnome lichen (Gymonderma lineare). Results of
the survey revealed no federally-protected species situated within the railroad corridor.
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were provided for the five species within the new
temporary detour corridor. Please see the enclosed July 1998 Addendum to the Natural
Resources Technical Report for additional natural resource information on the new
temporary detour.
The NCDOT requests that the USACE reauthorize this bridge replacement project
in Ashe County under a Section 404 NWP No. 23. The NCDOT also requests that the
DWQ reauthorize this project under a Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Tim Bassette at [phone], extension 305.
Sincerely,
r,
z -7
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
HFV/pct
cc w/encl.: Mr. John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Joe Mickey, WRC, State Road
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W.E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer

A
Ashe County
Bridge No. 352 on SR 1506
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1506(1)
State Project 8.2710701
B-3109
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRNASPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
10--30 98 v? _y, i-"'?
Dat?;rWilliam D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date cholas Graf, P. L
Division Administrator, FHWA
.

Ashe County
Bridge No. 352 on SR 1506
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1506(1)
State Project 8.2710701
B-3109
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October, 1998
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
10 5D 4 A, J- ? 1),
? '
Date o 41i lliams
Project Planning Engineer
to-30-98 Wa-fhQ ,67141?-
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
/°'3°-q? r q/. . N'icac??`
CARO
? aFESS/p y,9 ':
t
SEAL •
022552
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E. Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
t
Ashe County
Bridge No. 352 on SR 1506
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1506(1)
State Project 8.2710701
B-3109
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project-was approved on March 19, 1996.
The document recommended replacement of Bridge NO. 352 with a new bridge at the
existing location. Traffic was to be maintained on a temporary one-lane bridge to the
south during construction.
II. DISCUSSION
Since the time of the original planning document, changes in the field have
occurred. An old septic field associated with the building on the southwest quadrant of
the bridge is no longer functioning and the owners have built a new septic field between
their building and the existing bridge. The new septic field lies under the proposed
location of the temporary onsite detour as well as the fill from the wider approaches on
the new bridge. The new septic field would be rendered in-operable and likely require the
taking of the property including the building since there is not another location for a
septic field on the property.
NCDOT has pursued another alternate to avoid permanent impacts to the
property. There is an old railroad bed (no longer in use) on the east end (see Figure 2) of
the community sometimes used as a route to haul in single-wide mobile homes. NCDOT
determined that with some modification, the corridor could be used as a detour route.
The majority of the corridor will support only one lane of traffic. Therefore, NCDOT
will utilize some of the wider areas of the corridor to construct several passing zones so
oncoming cars will be able to safely pass one another. In addition, guardrail will be
installed along the south side of the detour and the roadbed will be covered with gravel.
Both the Division Engineer and the Roadway Design Unit concur in the use of this
roadbed as a temporary detour.
As proposed in the original document, Bridge No. 352 will be replaced on the
existing location with a new bridge approximately 60 meters (200 feet) long at
approximately the same elevation. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters
(100 feet) from either end of the bridge. The design speed for the project will be 50 km/h
(30 mph). A design exception will be required due to design speed.
The cost of the project is $988,000 with $750,000 in construction costs and
$138,000 in Right of Way Costs.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The original environmental document remains valid in regard to impacts such as
land use, architectural, archaeological, and noise and air issues. An NCDOT biologist
returned to the site to survey the corridor. Virginia spiriea was of particular concern
because the habitat was present. In conducting the survey, the biologist determined that
there would be no effect on this species.
Other natural resources impacts will be limited since the vast majority of
construction is expected to take place within the bounds of the existing "clear cut"
corridor.
V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On December 11, 1997, a public meeting was held to discuss the various alternate
concepts under consideration. Of all the concepts considered, the alternate proposed in
this document was the only concept with no public opposition.
VI. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITTMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23 will likely be applicable to this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification must be obtained.
While Ashe County is designated as a "trout county," Buffalo Creek does not
support trout. Therefore no specific measures to protect trout will be required.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
The temporary bridge and alignment will be removed and restored to the original
contours.
....... ...... .
Disturbance to riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum during bridge
replacement. Native trees, shrubs, and grasses will be planted in disturbed areas to
replace those removed by construction.
Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream
water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry.
Consideration will be given to limiting all in-stream activities to the summer
months to reduce potential erosion.

0
I
I
I
•
I
•
I
•
•
•
I
I
I
/
14 1t rass
Stu( its ret t?(
A E
C

Lan nt rui
$ ptr Scot
Warren 'r tf
s
snland, 5
? It,
6
Ch
"
t
I Creston
SmetliDOrt
r
,¦ law
tA' West lttttrson
221 Sr n .s Ind
s tndata
? SaId.nn Sort
t t e r
? s
lot tAMwd

1 • 1
L a

aama
-11
' 1351
• 1502
I
1504
' ,2
1503
?a
?a 1502
194 ,
A
a2 1674
150J l
FAS .10
88 •?
?S` • \
• 1507 ,80
C/e\ ) tJp 1507
\010 /I /I
\6 1672
F
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASBE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 352 ON SR 1506
OVER BUFFALO CREEK
B-3109
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
x. ;
6 ' n

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
u. JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON.. -
GOVEILNOR SECRETARY
28 July 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Dale Suiter, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit e ?(*?
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Natural Resources Technical
Report for the proposed replacement of Bridge Nc.
352 on SR 1506 over Buffalo Creek, Ashe County.
TiP No. B-3109; State Project No. 8.2710701;
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1506(1).
ATTENTION: John Williams, P.E., Project Manager
Project Planning Unit
REFERENCE: 1.) Natural Resources Technical Report for the
subject project by Michael Baranski, September 15,
1995.
Since the original referenced Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
for the subject project was completed, an on-site detour has been added to the
project limits. This addendum addresses the natural resources that will be
impacted by this detour which involves routing traffic along an abandoned
railroad bed south of bridge number 352. This area was visited by NCDOT
biologists Dale W. Suiter and Jim Hauser on 24 June 1998. A description of this
portion of the project study area follows.
The abandoned railroad corridor proposed for use as an on-site detour
lies parallel to Buffalo Creek (DWQ Index No. 10-2-20), the same stream that the
subject bridge crosses. This stream has a Best Usage Classification of C Tr. '
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Tr (Trout water) is a supplemental
water classification assigned to waters suitable for natural trout propagation and
the maintenance of stocked trout. The abandoned railroad corridor also crosses
a tributary to Buffalo Creek near the southern end of the detour. Since this
stream does not have a Best Usage Classification, it receives the same
classification as the stream it flows into, C Tr.
According to current design plans, the use of this detour will not impact
Buffalo Creek or the slopes above it, however it may be necessary to extend the
culvert at the tributary to Buffalo Creek. The recommendations set forth in
"Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing
Trout Waters in North Carolina" (Joint Agency Committee 1997) should be strictly
adhered to during the construction of this project to minimize impacts to these
two streams. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by this detour.
Vegetation along the old railroad bed includes a variety of species
common to the adjacent forests as well as nonnative weedy species, a result of
areas opened to sunlight. Widening the existing railroad bed will likely impact
woody species such as buckeye (Aesculus octandra), black locust (Robinia
pseudo-acacia), black oak (Quen:us nigra), .witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), ninebark
(Physiocarpus opulifolius), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), wild hydrangea
(Hydrangea arborescens) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Herbaceous
species within this part of the project limits include: thimbleweed (Anemone
virginiana), red clover (Trifolium pratense), violets (Viola spp.), wingstem
(Verbesina altemifolia), Venus looking-glass (Triodanus perfoliata), ctearweed
(Pilea pumila), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), touch me not (Impatiens
sp.), golden ragwort (Senecio aureus), bouncing bet (Saponaria offrcinalis) and
Solomon's seal (Polygonum biflorum), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum) and yarrow (Achillea millefolium).
Five federally protected species are listed for Ashe County by the
USFWS: spreading avens (Geum radiatum), Roan Mountain bluet (Houstonia
montana), Heller's blazing star (Liatris hellen), Virginia spiraea (Spiraea
virginiana) and rock gnome lichen (Gymnodenma lineare). These species were
described in the referenced NRTR. The abandoned railroad corridor area was
surveyed for these species and none were located. The NC NHP database of
rare species and unique communities does not indicate any populations of those
species within the project study area. The original biological conclusions of No
Effect remain valid.
Please contact me at [phone] ext. 303 if you have any questions
regarding this alternative.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
vf ile: B-3109

n M'ST?Aif'o,
3 ?,C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
March 19, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh. NC 27615
ATTN: Ms. Jean Manuele
Regulatory Project Manager
Dear Ms. Manuele:
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 111, On SR 1107. Over New Hope Creek, Durham
County, TIP No. B-2963; USACE ID No. 199708086.
The construction of this project was authorized under Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP
23), Action ID. 199708086, by letter dated 21 August 1997. The Nationwide authorization for
this project will expire on'21 August 1999. This project is scheduled to be let in December 1999.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the NW 23 dated 21 August 1997. Since the submission
,of the original permit application, project design has been modified. Project design now consists
of elevating the existing road bed to reduce flooding of the roadway. Under current design,
potential wetland impacts will affect three wetland areas for a total fill in wetlands of 0.67 acres.
The previous design called for 0.27 acres of wetland impacts. Plans for the current design are
attached.
Attached are conditions from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to mitigate
for impacts on WRC Gamelands. The March 1997 letter addresses impacts associated with the
original design and the March 1998 letter addresses impacts associated with the modified design.
Please attach these letters as conditions to the NWP 23.
As of 15 January 1999, the US Fish and Wildlife Service FWS) lists three federally
protected species for Durham County: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The FWS has not
listed any additional species for Durham County since submission of the Natural Resources
Technical Report (NCDOT, 23 September 1996) for the project. All three federally protected

species received biological conclusions of No Effect in the Natural Resources Technical Report.
These biological conclusions remain valid.
The NCDOT requests the renewal of this permit in accordance with the issued NWP 23.
A copy of this letter is being provided to the NCDWQ for their review. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. Bruce Ellis at [phone].
Sincerely,
v'=AI,-ZL I-0,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Branch Manager
Planning Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. W. S. Varnedoe, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
VICINITY MAP
na??
itneY 'ia?r?o???
Unrrercil
. _ Luke
Scale of Miles
0 S 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometers
N
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHW.?YS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2352201 (B-2965)
BRIDGE \ 0. 11'1 OVER
NEW HOPE CREEK
I SHEET _ 1 OF S
>? - `, W
2 Nv"? F LL I '7 y ^ =
o? 1 1 I G~• v ? ^_ V I
6.'?k'4 -? it .tyr ` I z e?i 1
d ?, ? ? • ' ? ? I Z Nre
W .,, ' e 1
• WN rl-r??l??; k
Ir
o. ??L I
f_- - -
I?
6r o^? / ? (3. ?? I
' i
I a I?? ?;i
W NQ m- li ,j-- W N?yrv
1 N ? ?
no I 3c p - I C
m NNN I C PH
III F W m L•' .
? C ?N- I N CL 0
I ?N I O I ?r Uq
i _
1 IQ Q
7
? ( ? I I I I ``'? ?I
`O ? T 11 I 1 ?? ?{
? •4 I ?
1 I i
l1

? N
N
N
a
m
Cp
`O
I I I"' am 9 Z ?? "'? ?
I I N 2 O F ? v ? 1-p A
I ? ? = rJ C7 WI
I ~ r ? ?? pq
I m I I M? L a N z MI
Id ya I Imo, ? ? ? ? ?,
f? dll I I N?-so ? r??
dd I z
I? I I ? ?I
Ig 14 I ? ?
o
I
I
c• as u`? I i m
V R N_ \ _ Q i
00
? L ZO I k ??
O 3 M
W J
p v I? J ? ?
? Nn
NQ T?
N f
LQ ?4 N7. c _ 1I.
N I 2 I ?
\? I i i ? I I
QZ 07 ?? I
?
N

N
mNN<
N O N
O Cj
?3

Q
?I i
t
Q
? L
W
. 4 N
O
''1 N a

I
I V °
® ? .I
I
I I
? ma ? o
?
?
?
M J
LL ? I
yl I
I I N ? C]
<a °{
Q <
7
N
v u¢ 7
T 0

J
-
h
I
I
I
I

' N
I? o
I
W
N
O N
0

'

?\ I

I

I

I
?
? ?
Imo"

.?
0 m ?
a Y { I I? .

N =
00
4}
? ?
yl
I I
?= \
IW ??
7 9Z
N 0
I'
I
I _
I I m
?`

m= s=

I I

? I

I I 0o
00
I I al ??
? I N
u

a m
I ?I - 1
c_
`
W

? ow
00
U??3
OZ
WO
o ,J?`'? J
r.
I =J

35'26'1 10

;
I ?
I i
- iP
I
' I
I ?
i
T
z
Li.
W
F
O
z
0

I
I
i O
1-6
I
T
/i o
?. o}
W (? / v
OO
LUD
3y ? p
? O
i
? I
0
? o
,j
I O
i\ O
i° \ N
o=
o
I ?
I O
?O
00
L M N
N N N N
Z
O
U Q
W Q
x

9
a! `? P7

q3
? E-
z ? w
a

c- I
> ?^
?r

z

z
I
;
I:
s

N
L
Z - I

W
3 '
Z
J
J '
lL I

U)
U L
W U
v
v

om
v r
? U
C
d
C
LL
w U

Q
a

LL
N
w co
E
c m
?
Q E
F-

W
y N
LL co
C
O U
y

?
C O
- ? U
Z M
LL . r
a -

CD - N W N

O
O

C 'C y O
O O
c O
c

O
? ? t U
m
a"iUg

O)
°? o aNi
U y U

2r U c N

?
a a
c m
v
v
(n 0 5 N
U
z W c
g

W LL m N
c
a
w
U
N
? C
rn v
N m
?
O
C C N O
C
7
CO
A W O 0 0 O
=
11 j N
>
m
3
U .?

O ?
m J
? J J

C 00
M 6
1 8
C
O
O N + +
M
O M
O
11 S O) CN
N F- U) I-
N J N N
O
J
i!) Z O

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo ' for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 111 replacement in Durham County, North Carolina. TIP No. B-2986.`
We have reviewed the additional information provided by NCDOT and feel that the
additional area required for the bridge replacement will not adversely impact the Gamelands
provided the measures outlined in our letter of 21 March 1997 are followed.
Our only additional request would be that NCDOT maintain the- connection to our gated
access road to the east of the existing bridge. If the gate is to be moved NCDOT should contact
NCWRC to coordinate the relocation. If the grade of SR 1107 is raised at the entrances of our
access roads, the slopes on our access roads must be reworked to allow for vehicular access. The
entrances to both access roads should be regraveled following construction.
NCDOT should use Best Management Practices to control sediment at this site. Again, we
wish to attend the preconstruction meeting for this project to discuss our concerns with NCDOT
construction personnel and the contractor.
If you have any further questions please call me at [phone].
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo for _
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 111 replacement in Durham County, North Carolina. TIP No. B-2986.
We have reviewed the additional information provided by NCDOT and feel that the
additional area required for the bridge replacement will not adversely impact the Gamelands
provided the measures outlined in our letter of 21 March 1997 are followed.
Our only additional request would be that NCDOT maintain the connection to our gated
access road to the east of the existing bridge. If the gate is to be moved NCDOT should contact
NCWRC to coordinate the relocation. If the grade of SR 1107 is raised at the entrances of our
access roads, the slopes on our access rcads must be reworked to allow ;r vehicular access. The
entrances to both access roads should be regraveled following construction.
NCDOT should use Best Management Practices to control sediment at this site. Again, we
wish to attend the preconstruction meeting for this project to discuss our concerns with NCDOT
construction personnel and the contractor.
If you have any further questions please call me at [phone].
y I-561TEo
` 1y
X01 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 2, 1996
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
RECEIVED 9 6 06 411
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
JUL 0 3 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith .?
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Ashe County - Replacement of Bridge No. 352 on SR 1506 over Buffalo
Creek; T.I.P. No. B-3109; State Project No. 8.2710701
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the existing
structure with a new br' approximately the same alignment, along with associated
approach impr jissNovember will be maintained on a temporary bridge along the
southern sid oge throughout construction. This project is being
processed s a, sion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). We expect
to proceed 'th r a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330
Appendix A 22, 1991, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed
in the construction of this project.
Fill in jurisdictional wetlands will not exceed 0.1 hectare (0.33 acre). Buffalo
Creek does not support trout, and is not designated as a Wild Public Mountain Trout
Water by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Construction shall be accomplished
so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
1n accordance with current procedures for projects located in the designated trout
counties, the concurrence of WRC must be obtained prior to construction. By copy of
this letter, we hereby request that WRC review the proposed project and provide any
comments they find necessary. A copy of the CE document is included for the WRC
review. Please note the special construction conditions included in the Summary of
Environmental Commitments.
Ant
Z
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at
[phone], Ext. 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
Attachment
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
Mr. John Dorney, DEM, Water Quality Section
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, Planning & Environmental
Ashe County
Bridge No. 352 on SR 1506
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1506(1)
State Project 8.2710701
TIP # B-3109
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3-19--?,l, ?..: V.
Date rH. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
3-jq.-`C-
Date cholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Ashe County
Bridge No. 352 on SR 1506
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1506(1)
State Project 8.2710701
TIP # B-3109
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March, 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
-5-1A w"iWa.
Date John [L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
way h ?771:0 C A Date Wayne lliott •......, ??,'',
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head z?•`?O??.Qr0EE5S/pHqi. ,.?y •,??
Q
i SEAL -
6916 '
V. 1%
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager ,--&'6%461N
?R?-????•``
V, P ?.
Planning and Environmental Branch "4488811
Ashe County
Bridge No. 352 on SR 1506
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1506(1)
State Project 8.2710701
TIP # B-3109
Bridge No. 352 ( a pony truss bridge not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places) is located in the community of Warrensville in Ashe County on SR 1506
crossing over Buffalo Creek. It is programmed in the 1996-2002 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the
Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical
Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 352 will be replaced on approximately the same alignment with a new
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary alignment with a temporary bridge
along the southern side of the existing bridge during construction.
The temporary bridge will be a one lane structure 4.8 meters (16 feet) wide
including one 3.6-meter (12-foot) lane and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The approaches
will include a 3.6-meter (12-foot) lane and 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders.
The new bridge will be 60 meters (200 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. It
will include two 3.0=meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. In addition, the
bridge will include a 1.5- meter (5-foot) wide sidewalk with a 1.1-meter (3.5-foot)
handrail on the north side of the bridge. The approaches will include two 3.0-meter (10-
foot) lanes and 2.2-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The
grassed shoulder will taper down to 1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required.
Upon completion of the approach work, a footpath like the one currently in use will be
restored along the north side of the road. The elevation of the new bridge and approaches
will be approximately the same as the current alignment. Approach work will extend
approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from either end of the new bridge. Based on
preliminary design work, the design speed is expected to be approximately 50 km/h (30
mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 785,000 including $ 728,000 in construction
costs and $ 57,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1996-2002 TIP
is $ 600,000.
H. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit 9 23 will likely be applicable to this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification must be obtained.
While Ashe County is designated as a "trout county," Buffalo Creek does not
support trout. Therefore no specific measures to protect trout will be required.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
The temporary bridge and alignment will be removed and restored to the original
contours.
Disturbance to riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum during bridge
replacement. Native trees, shrubs, and grasses will be planted in disturbed areas to replace
those removed by construction.
Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream
water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry.
Consideration will be given to limiting all instream activities to the summer months
to reduce potential erosion.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT anticipates that a design exception will be required due to design speed.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1506 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It carries 175 vehicles per day (vpd) and is projected at 225 vpd for
the year 2020. There is no posted speed limit.. The road serves a small community
accessible only by this bridge or one other private bridge (See Figure 2). The community
is composed of mostly residences with a few small businesses. Presently there is an effort
on the part of the county to set up a small health clinic in one of the houses.
The existing pony truss bridge was probably completed in the 1920's. The
structure has been rehabilitated as recently as 1955. It is 56.4 meters (185 feet) long.
There are approximately 5.1 meters (17 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck
and streambed. The bridge has 3.3 meters (10.9 feet) of roadway width. There is one
lane of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge
is 4 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 8 tons for single vehicles and
posted 11 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The structure has less than 5 years of
estimated remaining life.
The horizontal and vertical alignment are both fair relative to other alignments in
the area. The pavement width on the approaches to the bridge is 3.0 meters (10 feet).
Shoulders on both approaches to the bridge are approximately 1.0 meters (3 feet) wide.
2
Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have
been reported within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
There are no school bus crossings over the studied bridge.
There are aerial telephone and electrical services along SR 1502 that will likely be
impacted by this project. There are no other known utilites near the project.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There is one "build" option considered in this document as follows.
Bridge No. 352 will be replaced on approximately the same alignment with
a new bridge. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary alignment with a
temporary bridge along the southern side of the existing bridge during
construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge continues to deteriorate.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
COMPONENT COST
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Temporary Detour
Engineering & Contingencies $ 321,000
$ 23,000
$ 131,000
$ 150,000
$ 103,000

Total Construction $ 728,000
Right of Way $ 57,000
Total Cost $ 785,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 352 will be replaced on approximately the same alignment with a new
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary alignment with a temporary bridge
along the southern side of the existing bridge during construction.
The temporary bridge will be a one lane structure 4.8 meters (16 feet) wide
including one 3.6-meter (12-foot) lane and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The approaches
will include a 3.6-meter (12-foot) lane and 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders.
The new bridge will be 60 meters (200 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. It
will include two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. In addition, the
bridge will include a 1.5- meter (5-foot) wide sidewalk with a 1.1-meter (3.5-foot)
handrail on the north side of the bridge. The approaches will include two 3.0-meter (10-
foot) lanes and 2.2-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The
grassed shoulder will taper down to 1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required.
Upon completion of the approach work, a footpath like the one currently in use will be
restored along the north side of the road. The elevation of the new bridge and approaches
will be approximately the same as the current alignment. Approach work will extend
approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from either end of the new bridge. Based on
preliminary design work, the design speed is expected to be approximately 50 km/h (30
mph).
The bridge to the southwest of Bridge 352 (see Figure 2) is a private bridge and
therefore not available as a detour for traffic. A temporary bridge to the north of the
bridge would require taking the house on the northwest corner of the bridge. Therefore,
traffic will maintained on a temporary one lane bridge to the south of the existing bridge
during construction in order to avoid taking any homes or businesses. Based on
preliminary designs, the project as proposed will have only minor proximity damages
associated with right-of-way. No relocatees are anticipated.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
By implementing the environmental commitments listed in Section H of this
document, in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications, this bridge
replacement should not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation.
No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
4
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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 proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low to moderate.
B. AIR AND NOISE
The project is within the Eastern Mountain Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Ashe County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures.
NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate that it will create any adverse effect on the air
quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation
by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air
Act amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no
additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the U: S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that the
project will not impact prime or important farmland soils.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
NCDOT has evaluated Bridge No. 352 (a pony truss bridge) and determined that it
is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. There are many houses in the
area over 50 years of age. However, all have been significantly altered over time and do
not retain the historical qualities required to be considered eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. Within the project area of potential effect there are no
archaeological properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the project and concurs with
these evaluations (see attachment)..
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Geology
The project area lies within the Blue Ridge Belt of sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks. The project site is in a zone of amphibolite, a mafic rock type, but it is in close
contact with a small area of meta-ultramafic rock.
Physiography and Soils
The project region in Ashe County is located in the Mountain physiographic region
in northwestern North Carolina. The landscape is hilly to mountainous. The highest
elevation in the project vicinity is about 1374 meters (4508 feet). The elevation at the
level of Buffalo Creek is about 817 meters (2680 feet).
Drainage patterns are dendritic in the project region. Floodplains are narrow and
not well-developed. Small floodplains are infrequent along the major streams.
The soils of the project vicinity are in the Evard-Ashe association. These are
well-drained and somewhat excessively well-drained soils of moderately steep to very
steep slopes at intermediate elevations. Subsoils are loamy.
The soils of the project area are all Toxoway loam. This is a nearly level, poorly to
very poorly drained soil along major streams. The seasonal high water table is at or near
the surface for a significant period during the growing season. The high water table is
from November-April, and the soil is subject to frequent flooding for brief periods during
November-March.
The well drained Tusquitee loam forms on colluvium and occurs in drainageways
and coves and on foot slopes. The slope is 8-15%. Such soils are just outside the project
area on the west side.
The Toxaway series is listed as a hydric soil or with hydric soils as major
components. The Tusquitee loam may have hydric soil or wet spot inclusions in seeps.
Waters Resources
All of Ashe County is drained by the New River and its tributaries. The project
area is on Buffalo Creek, a tributary of North Fork New River. The North Fork joins the
South Fork to form the New River approximately 33 kilometers (21 miles) downstream of
the project area. Buffalo Creek is a large tributary stream entering the North Fork about
1.0 kilometer (0.6 miles) north of the project area. There is one small unnamed tributary
of Buffalo Creek within the project area. Buffalo Creek meanders through the community
6
of Warrensville. The stream parallels NC 194/88 for a considerable distance before it
turns sharply north in Warrensville toward the North Fork.
Stream Characteristics
Buffalo Creek is a typical mid-elevation moderate-size mountain stream. The
stream channel varies from 6.1-9.1 meters (20-30 feet) in width in the project area. The
banks are 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4 feet) in height in most places, but there is a sand and cobble
beach on the south side of the bridge. The stream almost completely fills the channel.
Water depth is less than 0.3 meters (I foot) in most places, but some deep holes are
present around the bridge. Bedrock is the primary substrate beneath the bridge, but
boulder, cobble, gravel, and silt substrates are mostly present elsewhere. Silt and
blue-green algae scums cover most of the rock. Some natural debris is present in the
stream, and the stream has a clean appearance overall with only minor amounts of trash.
The banks are mostly open, but there are a few well-developed thickets in places. Some
riffles are present about 37 meters (120 feet) to the east. Flow was relatively slow except
for the riffle areas and shallows; and water was clear at the time of the site visit. Sand
piles deposited by overwash currents occur in places on top of the banks. It appears that
sand is routinely dug and removed from the area by local residents.
Fish (1968) classifies Buffalo Creek in his "brook trout" ecological category. In
Fish's classification, such a stream is characterized as follows: 2.4-6.1 meters (8-20 feet) in
width, shallow with many pools, clear water, sand to boulder bottoms, minimum flows of
3-10 cubic feet per second, 70 degree summer temperatures. These are high elevation
streams, often with barriers to fish migrations, and the characteristic fish are brook trout
and dace. Further, Fish describes the 12.9 kilometers (8 miles) section of Buffalo Creek
from mouth to origin as having an average width of 7.6 meters (25 feet).
Fish classifies a 51 kilometer (32 mile) section of the North Fork New River from
the confluence with the South Fork to the confluence with Three Top Creek in his
"smallmouth" category. These waters are generally the stream reaches immediately below
trout waters. The smallmouth bass fishing is reported as excellent.
The small perennial stream that enters Buffalo Creek from the west side in the
project area is about 1.2 meters (4 feet) in width and 5-15 centimeters (2-6 inches) in
depth. The substrate is silty and very soft. Rubbish and trash are abundant, the stream
receiving these inputs as it flows through the community from the west. Any impacts to
this stream would likely be only at the mouth.
Best Usage Classification
Buffalo Creek is classified as "C Tr +" from its source to the North Fork New
River (NCDEHNR 1993). Its tributaries receive the same classification. Class "C"
streams are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1994). This is the lowest freshwater

classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum. Trout waters ("Tr")
are "freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout".
The "+" symbol in the classification "identifies waters that are subject to a special
management strategy specified in 15A NCAC 213.0216, the Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) rule, in order to protect downstream waters designated as ORW."
The North Fork New River, from Three Top Creek to the New River, is
designated a "C +" stream. With the exception of Little Buffalo Creek (tributary of
Buffalo Creek) and Hoskins Fork, 1993 studies have suggested that much of the North
Fork sub-basin could qualify for High Quality Water (HQW) designation (NCDEHNR
1994).
Water Quality
Extensive sampling at 70 sites in the period 1983-1993 (many sampled more than
once) consistently indicate clearly high water quality throughout the New River Basin. In
1993, 66% of sampled sites received "Excellent" bioclassifications (NCDEHNR 1994).
This is due to the low level of industrial development and sparse population. Fish tissue
data for a variety of contaminants are all below EPA and FDA limits (NCDEHNR 1994).
Water quality is better in Ashe County than in the Watauga County portion of the
drainage. There are few unique chemical characteristics of the waters of the New River
Basin, but the waters do have slightly higher total nitrogen concentration and higher
maximum pH values than other mountain streams (NCDEHNR 1988).
There are chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical and
physical (AMS or ambient monitoring system) and/or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN)
samplings] available for several stations in or near the project vicinity (NCDEHNR 1994).
The bioclassification for two sites above and below the West Jefferson Waste Water
Treatment Plant (WWTP) on Little Buffalo Creek (off SR 1153) and the upper tributary
of Little Buffalo Creek (above WWTP) have been "Poor" since 1985, due to the WWTP,
urban runoff, and broken sewer mains (NCDEHNR 1994). Little Buffalo Creek enters
Buffalo Creek about 3.0 kilometers (1.9 miles) above the project area. A site on Buffalo
Creek at NC 194/88, below the confluence with Little Buffalo Creek, was rated
"Excellent" in 1993, but "Fair" in 1985 due to a high Biotic Index Value (the impact was
noted in comparison to an upstream site which was "Good"). "Little Buffalo Creek
appears to have recovered sufficiently by the confluence of Buffalo Creek that it does not
degrade Buffalo Creek" (NCDEHNR 1994). The nearest sampling site downstream on
the North Fork (SR 1644) was "Good" in 1989, and "Excellent" in 1990 and 1993. All
but one other site sampled in the North Fork sub-basin in 1993 were rated "Excellent";
one tributary was rated "Good" (NCDEHNR 1994). The excellent ratings are attributed
in part to lower flows in 1993 compared to previous sampling periods; impacts from
nonpoint sources would be reduced under lower runoff conditions.
There are only five dischargers in the New River Basin with a permitted flow equal
to or greater than 0.5-million gallons per day and only 30 known permitted dischargers
8
altogether. The only discharger in the North Fork sub-basin permitted at this level is
Sprague Electric at 0.8 million gallons per day, discharging into the North Fork just north
of the project area. There have been water quality problems at both the Jefferson (South
Fork sub-basin) and West Jefferson (North Fork sub-basin) WWTPs, particularly before
facility upgrades in 1987. The West Jefferson WWTP currently monitors effluent toxicity
as a permit requirement, and the instream waste concentration is 44.92% (NCDEHNR
1994).
There were no support ratings in recently completed assessment of the New River
Basin (NCDEHNR 1994). The previous rating for the North Fork sampling site nearest
the project area was "S" (Supporting its Designating Uses) (NCDEHNR 1992).
Buffalo Creek and Little Buffalo Creek were sampled in 1985 to determine if the
trout classification was being attained. The trout designation was retained because it was
felt that the poor water quality in Little Buffalo Creek was not irreversible (NCDEHNR
1994).
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Water quality data indicate that streams in the project vicinity that could be
impacted by the project are presently in good to excellent condition, and apparently
supporting their designated uses. The designated uses are in the lowest freshwater
classification, with the exception that special trout waters are also present. Construction
impacts could degrade these waters, with sediment loads and other pollutants affecting
water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and
inputs deriving from construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage
and control runoff. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control plan,
provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management measures, and
appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices must be employed
consistently.
Table 2 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts. There is one stream
crossing, the major crossing of Buffalo Creek. The mouth of a very small perennial stream
may receive some minor impact. Significant pollution discharges are possible with
construction of any culverts and the bridge that will cross Buffalo Creek.
There will be some unavoidable impacts to small areas of jurisdictional wetlands in
the project area. Though much of the project area lies in a floodplain, most sites do not
meet the definition of jurisdictional waters (wetlands). There could be potential indirect
impacts to downstream off-site wetlands.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of any stream. Buffalo
Creek can be crossed effectively with an appropriately designed and placed bridge, but
9
careful design will be necessary to minimize stream relocation and prevent discharges into
the stream. Flow within the creek should not be permanently modified because of, or as a
result of, construction. Bridge supports from high ground on the banks must be carefully
constructed and protected to prevent erosion and pollution runoff. Consideration will be
given to limiting all instream activities to the summer months to reduce potential erosion.
There will be some minor unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in
species composition will modify affected stream reaches.
The project will not affect any HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-I (water supplies
in natural watersheds), or WS-H (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds). The project does not lie within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of such resources.
Table 2 Water resources potential impacts and encroachments.
Large stream crossing Buffalo Creek (1)
0.03 hectares (0.07 acre)
Streamside wetlands < 0.1 hectares (<O.1 acre)
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities of the project area are typical of
the Appalachian Ecoregion. No unusual or especially significant elements were located
during the field investigation, as noted below.
Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project R/W. The predominant natural vegetation of the project
area would likely be classified as Montane Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Some remnants of mesic forest communities exist in the project area, but not in the R/W.
Tree species listed below are mostly remnants of the natural community types.
For purposes of discussion and quantification, seven communities and land types
are recognized in the R/W. These are divided into two groups: Natural Communities and
Developed Land Types. These communities and land types are described below, and
acreage estimates for each classification are given in Table 3. The larger portions of the
land impacted under R/W are Early Successional and Ruderal Community and Built-up
Area.
10
Natural Communities
Open Creek Bank. Most of the narrow floodplain near the creek is an open
herbaceous community. It appears that frequent disturbance keeps these areas in an open
condition. Woody plants are scattered infrequently within the herbaceous matrix. There
are some slab-like areas of rock, asphalt, and concrete, mostly just outside of the R/W on
the east side, and some concrete rubble in a pile. Part of this community outside of the
R/W is used as a dump for vegetative debris. There is a narrow rock wall that separates
the open creek bank from most of the more lawn-like areas on higher ground on the north
side. This community type includes the area under the bridge at the points where the
bridge connects to the high ground.
Examples of the more common herbaceous taxa are cut-leaf coneflower, sundrops,
Joe-pye weed, fescue, and lamb's quarter. A large number of other herbs, mostly weedy
species, are present.
The more common woody plants scattered within the community are silky
dogwood, tag alder, shrubby black willow, and sprouts and seedlings of Balm-of-Gilead.
A narrow riparian fringe of mostly herbaceous vegetation is included in this
community. This area adjacent to the stream includes more taxa with hydrophytic
tendencies. Some of the taxa are found in the soil-filled crevices among the rocks along
the stream bank. Examples of species present here include bulrush, flatsedge, and blunt
spikerush. Black rock moss and other mosses are present on the rocks.
Creek Bank Thicket. Thickets are developed in some areas of the R/W and
elsewhere in the project area. Some of the thicket community is under remnants of alluvial
and mesic forest. These include scattered individuals of large sycamore and smaller
individuals of buckeye, black willow, and sugar maple. Most of this latter type is not
found in the R/W.
Stream Community. This is all open surface water. There are no vegetated
areas in the stream.
Developed Land Types
Built-up Area. This type includes buildings; lawns, gardens, and landscaped areas
associated with structures; and a 91 centimeter (36 inch) diameter breast height sycamore
isolated near the existing bridge on the north end. Houses located at the lowest elevations
in the project area are raised 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4 feet) above ground level, thus appearing
to be occasionally subject to flood waters.
Maintained Roadside. Roadside vegetation mostly includes crabgrass, fescue,
sow thistle, hawksbeard, and similar weedy species.
11
Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating the
expected fauna of a given area.
The diversity of habitat types in the project area is low. The primary habitat types
consist of alluvial floodplain communities (mostly with herbaceous and early successional
vegetation) and the stream community. There are no forests included in the project area,
lying as it does in the middle of a small village. Human activity is high in the area. The
mix of residential and successional landscapes in the area is judged to be generally good
for birds. There were no ponds or marshy areas noted in the project vicinity
Because of the overall small acreage involved in the project and the limited
diversity of habitat types, no attempt is made here to delimit habitat groupings of the
terrestrial fauna. Most of the listed species should be expected to be ubiquitous in the
project area. Most of the species listed are characteristic of open and intermediate areas,
which in the project area are the open creek banks, thickets, and the early successional
areas.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians that should be in the project area are
American toad, Fowler's toad, upland chorus frog, spring peeper, and two-lined
salamander. Seal salamanders and red salamanders may be present at the edges of the
stream and in seepages that might exist. Some other species may also be present.
Treefrogs are expected. Ambystomid salamanders are not expected because of the
absence of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the reptiles, examples of those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink, eastern box turtle, and rat snake. Typical reptiles expected in the slightly
wooded areas are redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake. Ribbon snake may
occupy some of the damp areas and stream margins in the floodplain.
Examples of avifauna noted or expected in the project area include mourning dove,
robin, ruby-throated hummingbird, and least flycatcher. Belted kingfisher utilize the
stream. House sparrows were noted in the area.
Suitable habitat occurs in the project area for mammals such as follows:
southeastern shrew, northern short-tailed shrew, and hairy-tailed mole. Gray fox, red fox,
raccoon, and spotted skunk probably utilize the area. Several species usually shunning
open areas, but which could occur in the intermediate areas, include opossum, eastern
chipmunk, golden mouse, and deer mouse. Several kinds of bats, such as little brown
myotis, eastern pipistrelle, and red bat might be expected foraging over the streams and
residential landscapes. Only a few usually exclusively forest species might be present,
12
including woodrat, southern flying squirrel, red squirrel, and gray squirrel. Muskrat and
mink probably utilize the streams in the area. White-tailed deer appear to be absent.
Aquatic Life .
Fish (1968) indicates that brook trout and dace are the characteristic fish of
Buffalo Creek, and he reports the fish catch as follows: 86% trout, 3% sunfish, and 11%
other. Though numerous small "minnows" and a couple of larger fish were observed
during the study, it was not possible to make identifications. There are 20 native fish and
several introduced fish known in the North Carolina portion of the New River Basin, with
four endemic to the upper New River and four others native to the state only in the New
River Basin (NCDEHNR 1994). Fish that might occur in the smaller streams such as
Buffalo Creek would likely be rosyside dace, creek chub, redbreast sunfish, some other
sunfishes, mottled sculpin, rainbow trout, and darters.
As noted previously, the project area is only 1.0 kilometer (0.6 miles) from the
North Fork New River. Gamefish known to occur in the New River include smallmouth
bass and rock bass. Fish (1968) reports that there is exceptional smallmouth bass fishing
at times.
Good turtle habitat is not present, but the snapping turtle is probably present in the
area. Northern water snake and queen snake are the most likely water snakes of the area.
Small numbers of pouch snails were observed in Buffalo Creek. No evidence of
crayfish was noted, though they are almost certainly present. Small numbers of water
boatmen were noted. The presence of moderate numbers of water penny beetle larvae,
caddis fly larvae, and mayfly larvae indicate the high quality of the stream waters.
Terrestrial Systems
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are included in Table 3.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the
precision possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial photographs
onto which the prospective R/Ws were drawn. The existing roadway on the bridge was
not included in the area measurements.
It is noted that there will be no permanent new road or additional bridging in the
project area. The detour areas will be restored to their approximate original contours.
For most of the communities and land types, there would be only temporary loss of
area. The roadside community and parts of the creek bank and successional communities
would be completely destroyed during construction, but these or similar communities
would eventually be re-established naturally after construction. There are no forest
communities that would be impacted. Construction immediately adjacent to the stream
system could produce major impact on that community. Following construction, there
13
should be no total reduction of the total natural habitat in the project area. Depending on
the actual design of the project, there could be permanent loss of some of the built-up
land.
The actual impacts to biotic communities may be less than those indicated in
Table 3 below if some of the R/W is not utilized in construction.
The data in Table 3 suggest only the direct takings of land and community types
due to construction. Other, indirect, effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value
should not change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not
increase because the total amount of roadway will not increase. The riparian zone of
Buffalo Creek is probably an important corridor for animal movement. The existing
roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement, so replacement of this bridge will
not introduce a significantly new factor except during the construction phases of the
project.
Construction damage can be incurred on land outside the R/W and construction
limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and injury, placing of
fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and skinning of trees by
machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be avoided.
Table 3 Area estimates of community and land types impacted under R/W in
hectares (acres).
Open Creek Bank 0.07 (0.17)
Creek Bank Thicket 0.02 (0.05)
Stream Community 0.03 (0.07)
Early Successional and Ruderal 0.09 (0.22)
Built-up Area 0.13 (0.33)
Maintained Roadside 0.01 (0.03)
TOTAL 0.35 (0.87)
Fragmentation of habitat is not an issue here because no new location dividing
larger tracts is involved. There will be no new impacts on the larger species or on those
smaller species that require large tracts of unbroken forested land (such as many
neotropical migrant birds).
Aquatic Systems
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alteration and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced.
Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of
movement for some species.
14
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance
and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively
alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have
negative effects on sessile benthic organisms. Buffalo Creek and possibly the mouth of
one small tributary stream will be impacted in these ways. However, streamside
vegetation will recover after construction, and there should be no permanent loss of this
ecosystem component.
Increased sediment and pollution due to construction activity and runoff pollution
after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water quality.
Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs. Utmost care must be
taken to reduce the effects of these impacts.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge
of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of jurisdictional
wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgment of required
criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of the riverine system in streams are the most important
jurisdictional waters present in the project R/W, to which construction will be limited. It
is determined that the only jurisdictional wetlands are small areas of riparian fringe
wetlands alongside Buffalo Creek which will be crossed with a new bridge by the project.
The other alluvial communities associated with Buffalo Creek in the project area do not
appear to meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, particularly with regard to the type
of vegetation present.
There are some small pocket wetlands west of the project area at the intersection
of NC 88 and NC 194, on both sides of SR 1505. These areas appear to be developed on
Tusquitee soils. The vegetation includes bulrushes, monkeyflower, jewelweed, and
virgin's bower. These wetlands will incur no impacts from this project. Some
jurisdictional wetlands may be present downstream of the bridge site and potentially will
receive inputs from road construction.
In the National Wetlands Inventory system (following Cowardin et al. 1979), all
the streams in the area would be classified R3RB1H (Riverine, Upper Perennial, Rock
Bottom, Permanently Flooded) with some tendency to R3UB1H (Unconsolidated
Bottom). The small fringe wetlands [collectively less than 0.1 hectare (<O.33 acre)] along
Buffalo Creek would be classified PEM1B (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Sand) or
PUS2B (Palustrine, Unconsolidated Shore, Sand, Saturated). It may be impossible to
15
avoid these in project design and construction. A description of apparent or potential
jurisdictional wetland sites is provided in Table 2 on page 10 of this document.
It is difficult to judge the extent of wetland impacts, except for actual takings
under R/W, until the particular design requirements are known for the terrain in question.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. Nationwide Permits
[33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14 and 26)] authorize actions that have no significant environmental
effect, such as when dealing with road crossings of wetlands or waters of small size [<O.1
hectares (0.33 acre), short bridge crossings [<61 meters (<200 feet)], or because of their
location above stream headwaters (1.5 cubic meters per second = 5 cubic feet per second)
or in isolated wetlands or waters. Individual or General Permits are required for situations
where the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not met. This project will impact the
floodplain and riverine system of Buffalo Creek and small areas of fringe wetlands in the
riparian zone.
This project can be authorized under Nationwide Permit No. 14 because the bridge
crossing does not exceed 61 meters (200 feet) in length and less than 0.1 hectare (0.33
acre) of wetlands potentially will be impacted.
Other permits may be necessary. Because the project area lies in a trout county,
discretionary authority by the COE requires that the NCDOT must seek review and
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to
the COE authorizing the project under one or more nationwide permits (pursuant to 33
CFR 330.8)(see attached letter from NCWRC). Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CFR
330.5 (a)(23)] would authorize the project following NCWRC concurrence. This permit
is specifically designed for Categorical Exclusions.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity in
surface waters where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and a
small amount of palustrine wetlands. There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing
Buffalo Creek at this location. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this
document. However, compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. When an
16
Individual Permit is required, all sites have to be accumulated for mitigation purposes.
Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of drainage
culverts and catch basins will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices
will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into streams and
wetlands, and soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and
after construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the
soil will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and borrow locations
should not be placed in wetlands.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports five species with one of these classifications for Ashe County.
The rock gnome lichen ( Gvmnoderma lineare, Endangered ) is found on rock
outcrops and cliff faces, at high elevations or in humid gorges. Such environments
typically occur above 1220 meters (4000 feet) or in deep gorges below 762 meters (2500
feet). Vertical rock faces with seepage water from higher forest soils that flows only at
very wet times appears to be a habitat requirement. The taxon was not located during field
study, and suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Roan Mountain bluet (Hedyotis u urea var. montana, Endangered), a
vascular plant in the Rubiaceae, is found on high elevation rocky summits or on grassy
balds in five mountain counties. There were no bluets found during the field study, and
the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for the Roan Mountain bluet are
not present in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The spreading avens (Geum radiatum, Endangered) is found on high elevation
rocky summits and balds. It has been reported from eight mountain counties. Flowering
is from June to August and fruiting from July to September. No plants of this genus were
located in the study area, and the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for
the spreading avens do not exist in the vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
17
Typical habitats for Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri, Threatened) are high
elevation rocky summits, ledges, and cliffs. No plants of the genus were found during the
study, and the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for this species do not
exist in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Virginia spiraea (Sniraea vir iiniana, Threatened) has been found on riverbanks
in six mountain counties. The streambank and floodplain in the project area were carefully
searched. This easy to identify plant was not found in the study area, nor were any other
spiraeas located. However, suitable habitat does exist in the project area for this species.
Available information did not indicate the existence of any populations in the project
vicinity. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on any federally protected
animal or plant species.
18
•
J
SturHdls
A
I
•
I
•
I
I
•
I
•
I
I
•
I
•
I
•
CrumO?er
Scottville
a \
II
ur.? t
• Laurel Spr1rH 4 ¦
West Jefferson ,p71p1 0
221 s' Pk 4 Ind

endal
ri pri el
? \ Baldwin a G S
? s

r
7 y 091 s
? leetw Idlewil
`• •
• 1
?"tGa
? I

of

? f

J
1351
• 2.08
• 1502
'f 1504
12
1503
40
?a 1502
194 x
o
?2 0D 25 1674
1505 I,
FAS 0 .32
88 04 ___
1506
T '
76,
1507 80
V,eK \ ) ?? 1507
1672
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASBE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 352 ON SR 1506
OVER BUFFALO CREEK
13.3109
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
View of Eastern Approach

View of Western Appraoch
Sidewalk on North Side of Bridge
? Figl.ire 3
View of East End of Bridge
View of North Face of Bridge
View of West End of Bridge
Figtu e 4
Buildin- on Southwest
Corner of Bridge
Home on Northeast
Corner of Bridge
Home on Southeast
Corner of Bridge
Fig eu
ZONE X
i
/ ZONE AE

P z
2674

aJ
2675
?i
RM11
2676 05
9
2677

ZONE X
v \
ZONE AE
PROJECT SITE
RM12
2683 2682
268
RM13

TIP ; Zito Federal Aid # Vy--j-• leio?. County
T
AsHE,
CONCURRENCE FORi1•I
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
1ZEPLAr.6, Wy_i00-E IJo. °51r72 0W 4iZ. lcsoro eJER PJUFPALO GI On ?e?eue.R? S ?1'l?0 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
_v-1 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties ;:resent agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Fr4r 0 _e, # 1 - ?3 are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
2 a 4`
Represen ive DOT Ode
FHwA, the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
2
Representative, HPO at
Z
Slate Historic Preservation Officer Da
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
.SSa F A f <? 4f)y?????
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ??7-
?'4? 22u- ? cfJ???.-
DATE: February 23, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for Bridge #352 over Buffalo Creek along SR 1506, Ashe
County, TIP #B-3109.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the scoping
sheets for the subject project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge #352
with a new bridge on the existing location. Traffic will be maintained over a temporary bridge during
construction. A Categorical Exclusion is being prepared for this project.
Ashe County is a designation "trout county" however, Buffalo Creek does not support trout at the
project location. For your general information, a 6-mile section of Buffalo Creek from the headwaters to
the junction of NC 194-88 and SR 1131 is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water.
This section is well upstream of the project site. Our comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
regarding the upcoming 404 permit application will reflect that the stream does not support trout at the
project site.
In general, biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are pleased with
the commitments outlined in your letter of 22 February 1996 that are presently included in the project
document. We have the following specific comments:
1) The stream name in No. 5 should be changed from Little Silver Creek to Buffalo Creek.
2) The following condition should be added if applicable: "Construction must be accomplished so
that wet concrete does not contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the
stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill."
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
Z-D
?? ` ` I d„a SrATEo
Q
W3
9 11(x`.
N4 ??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 18, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 352 on SR 1506 over Buffalo
Creek, Ashe County, B-3109, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-150611), State Project 8.2710701, ER 96-
8534
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, transmitting the metal truss bridge
evaluation for the above project. We concur that Bridge 352 is not eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
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 rely,
David Brook ,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer C)
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church MR? aQ,, Q)
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?3