19940668 Ver 1_Complete File_19940721

- is M
ea STA7Fv
?O y,,.a ny
9 I-IGL ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
July 13, 1994
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. v. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28492
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cabarrus County - Bridge No. 189 cn SR 1431 over
'addle Creel,,; State Project Number 8.2662001;
is a copy cf 'ne project
_ ?h 1E? su ?l Nl J] pCt . The
_n-races-sec, y e d G? l: ?d.v i!!J 1 1Gi1 a?
"..._.L gcDr-ica? c_us_ iI IL accoraa
Them=or we CC al_--1Clpa_e =cz',: =i _i ,,,_ d_vidua_
? ;.
ii
° r:il it
i? -:ll_t 1:)ut propos to pr^.C@_d 111iCse1 id . ili^I
a cCdai ce t^Iit h 3? c F, `30 -peen i:i `- ) _ _ ?C 1\vVe's11 er
1"19'1 , by t1-- C f - i' s r i
Section? 30. . aliv. 'k pp eI!'1i GL t!i& ti? `g1'.l_. 1O1ti will be
*cllowed in the construction of tire; - _ct
We anticipate that 401 General C
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to
providing one copy of the CE document
Department of Environment, Health and
Division of Environmental Management,
ertlf_cat-on N? ?-115
this project, and are
to the North Carolina
Natural Resources,
for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information; please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Planning and Environmental Branch
Sincerely,
. ??? ?' n, P . E
.
B Assistai `,t Manager,

? , %
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: COE, Asheville Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
B.G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
R.W. Fedora, Sr., Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
Date: 1/94
v
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2520
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1431(1)
State Project No. 8.2662001
A. Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.) NCDOT will be replacing Bridge
No. 189 on SR 1431 over Coddle Creek in Cabarrus Count
(Figure 1). The bridge will be replaced at the existing
location with a bridge approximately 51.8 meters
(170 feet) long. The new bridge will provide a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) wide travelway plus a 0.9-meter (3.0-foot)
offset on each side. SR 1431 will be closed during
construction, and traffic will be maintained on existing
area roads.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 189 has a sufficiency
rating of 21.9 out of 100.0 and an estimated remaining
life of four years. The deck is only 7.6 meters
(25 feet) wide. The Bridge Policy calls for a bridge
9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. The bridge is posted
16.5 metric tons (15 tons) for single vehicles and truck-
tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons, Bridge No. 189
needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
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

Date: 1/94
P
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
2
Date: 1/94

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
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.
1.2. 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: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
The project will not impact wetlands.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Standard
sedimentation and erosion control measures and best
management practices will be used during construction.
A section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required.
3

Date: 1/94
ESTIMATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION - $ 600,000
RIGHT OF WAY - $ 47,000
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
CURRENT - 1800 VPD DESIGN (2016)- 4300
1 % TTST 3 %DUAL
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus 2.4-meter
(8.0-foot) wide shoulders [shoulders will be
3.3 meters (11 feet) if guardrail is necessary]
DESIGN SPEED:
Approximately 80 km/h (50 mph)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION:
Urban Collector
DIVISION COMMENTS:
The division concurs with replacing Bridge No. 187
in the existing location and closing SR 1304 during
construction
?J
4
t
Date: 1/94
4
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in 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
(1)
YES NO
Will the project have a substantial impact ? X
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2)
Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
F? x
F-1 x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary ?
wetland taking less than one-third N/A
(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?
(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 F-1 X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
5
Date: 1/94
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? N/A
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier a X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be F-1 X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts F X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(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 F X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
I

6

Date: 1/94

YES NO
(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 in 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?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the F-1 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 F-1 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 F-1 X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
7
Date: 1/94
d
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.)
8
Date: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2520
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1431(1)
State Project No. 8.2662001
Pro.iect Description:.(List project location and scope.
Attach location map.) NCDOT will be replacing Bridge
No. 189 on SR 1431 over Coddle Creek in Cabarrus County
(Figure 1). The bridge will be replaced at the existing
location with a bridge approximately 51.8 meters
(170 feet) long. The new bridge will provide a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) wide travelway plus a 0.9-meter (3.0-foot)
offset on each side. SR 1431 will be closed during
construction, and traffic will be maintained on existing
area roads.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
_X_ TYPE I I (A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
r Of
Date nS-F?Manager
fl)? Planning & Environmental Branch
/-5,- 7y kle-l h E//,'ChL
Date Proj ct Planning Unit Head
/5)94 (?- °4.
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 189
ON SR 1431 OVER
CODDLE CREEK
T.I.P. NO. B-2520
FIG la
0 kilometers 3.2 0 miles 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
w
_- .C)2a .19 Y4
.
N ......
..
..
` ....
'
,0J ,0 o
15" U 1\ ,05 .62 ?D
OB 1502
ape 's 15?0 POPLAR TENT 1414
07 22 1533 .09
v7 179. (UNINC.)
1.]0
F ?
,
F
2 a 67
r 14 POP. 2,764
\ M1y,
?
/ sq7
o S39
'V 7
IZ
?0
f
j513. Ills
ry p FAU .
.<d
119. \
)J o W

7U
tC
112Q :.
1425 Liu

1122
t,
?42.
10 MU
1420
2a+o use
1317 0 11100 04 ?1 ?701A1]
\1
OJ 1272 i5]:
o?
/ / Ise2 - .Oe 'On
4
A30
I 6.90rfU( FAU B?° 1490
, ?\ ,y ml 09 O? 1
I
-U33
a7
\ \
52
BRIDGE NO. 189
% i \ tAU 1`t
I b? ?? 171 Fi:ii:+
/ I .20
...
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 189
ON SR 1431 OVER
CODDLE CREEK
T.I.P. NO. B-2520 FIG lb
0 kilometers 0.8 0 miles 0.5
I 1 I1 1 1 1
Replacement of Bridge No. 189
On SR 1431
Over Coddle Creek
Carbarrus County
TIP No. B-2520
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1431 (1)
State Project No. 8.2662001
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2520

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
Gary B. Blank, Ph.D., and Richard R. Braham, Ph.D.
Ecological Consultants
June 3, 1994

B-2520 - June 3, 1994
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE). It inventories the current resources within the project area, identifies
environmental issues to be addressed during planning, and recommends means by which impacts
of proposed actions might be minimized.
1.1 Project Description
Project B-2520 proposes to replace the existing structure (Bridge No. 189) over Coddle
?7+ Creek on SR 1431. Built in 1963, the structure is 6.0 in (20 ft) wide with 1.5 in (5 ft) grass
A
shoulders ,) houlders along s othe posed. Two alterr altives are being considered: ft) wide structure
(1) replacement at the having xisting 1.8 in (6
location with road closure, or (2) replacement at the existing location with a temporary on-site
detour either north or south of the existing bridge; a detour bridge would be about 36.6 in (120 ft)
long and entail approximately 61 in (200 ft) of approach pavement at each end.
1.2 Purpose
This document's purpose is to describe extant natural conditions at the SR 1431 crossing
over Coddle Creek and estimate potential impacts to resources. Moreover, recommendations to
minimize impacts are made, with the understanding that proposed actions result from preliminary
design parameters. Thus, alterations in design could necessitate further field investigation.
1.3 Study Area
The study area encompasses the existing bridge, the area both upstream and downstream for
a distance of 30.5 m (100 ft), as well as possible temporary approaches from the east and west
along the existing right-of-way. Bridge No. 189 sits slightly askew from an east-west alignment,
the west end being slightly south of the east end. A utility right-of-way crosses the bridge and
surrounding site from northeast to southwest.
Overall, the surrounding landscape has been substantially disturbed, with considerable
residential building occurring north and west of the bridge. Remnant forest remains along Coddle
Creek on both banks north of the bridge and along the west bank south of the existing bridge.
Farther from the creek, both the northeast and southeast quadrants are fenced for pasture. A dam
exists about 260.0 m (850 ft) due north of the bridge, impounding a small tributary to Coddle
Creek. The B-2520 project site can be located on the Kannapolis USGS Quad Sheet.
1.4 Methodology
. On May 19, 1994 the site was visited to determine natural resource conditions and confirm
published information available (Sources will be cited where applicable in the report). Vegetation
communities were identified according to dominant species types. Dominance of woody
vegetation was determined using the variable-plot method (Dilworth and Bell 1986). Tree heights
were measured using an Abney level hypsometer (Dilworth and Bell 1986). Percent cover of
ground-layer vegetation was ocularly estimated, using cover guides prepared by Belanger and
Anderson (1989). Terrestrial wildlife habitat was examined for signs of use and availability of life
requisites for species typical of the locale. Aquatic conditions were examined immediately beneath
and proximal to the existing bridge at two alternative crossing points. Wetland delineation
followed procedures established by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Environmental Lab 1987).
2.0 Physical Resources
This section describes water and soil resources within the project study area, especially
focusing on water quality documentation, information gathered on-site, and information gathered
from the Carbarrus County Soil Survey (Stephens 1988) and available maps.
B-2520 June 3, 1994
2.1 Water Resources
Coddle Creek arises in Rowan County and flows generally southeast to join the Rocky
River, which eventually empties into the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Project B-2520 is located in
sub-basin 03-07-11 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Above this project, Coddle Creek and its
tributaries drain a watershed of approximately 13,312 ha (33,280 ac or 52 mi2).
Evidence of upstream disturbance cAn be be noted in the prevalent brown color of the water at
SR 1431, even during a time of relatively dry conditions (Table 1). While the source of this
siltation has not been determined, it is known that north of US 73, about 6.8 km (4.22 mi)
upstream, Coddle Creek is being impounded to create a water supply reservoir.
Table 1. Characteristics of Coddle Creek at the B-2520 Project Site.
Location Downstream Bridge Upstream
Substrate Rock, mud, sand Rock, mud, gravel Sand, mud, gravel
Current Moderate Moderate Moderate
Stream Gradient Flat Flat Flat
Channel Width (m) 4.6 7.6
Bank Height (m) 3.5 4.6 3.5
Water depth (m) 0.48 0.60 0.23
Water Color Grey-Brown Grey to Brown Clear to Brown
Water Odor None None None
Aquatic Vegetation None None None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwoods Hardwoods Hardwoods
Wetlands Associated Bank to bank Bank to bank Bank to bank
f 2. 1.1 Water Quality
The segment of Coddle Creek crossed by SR 1431 was designated Class "C" in August of
?
-
`?
1992 (NCDEM 1993).
?' This segment extends to Coddle Creek's confluence with the Rocky River.
` Above the point 6.8 km (4.22 mi) upstream where an impoundment is bei ng created, Coddle
Creek and its several tributaries are classified as WS-II.
The only BMAN monitoring site on Coddle Creek is far upstream, where the rating was
"Good-Fair" in 1985 (NCDEM 1991). The nearest site downstream, actually in the Rocky River
at SR 1132, was also rated "Good-Fair" in 1985.
2.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Road closure and replacement of the structure in place is the preferable alternative, because it
would be the safest in terms of potential impact on the aquatic resource. Minimal grading, no
clearing of forest, and limited construction disturbance would be involved, thus minimizing the
siltation hazard.
If a temporary on-site detour is required, locating it downstream of the existing bridge is
preferred over a location upstream. Less forest would need to be cleared; in fact, such an
alignment could probably use already cleared areas on either creek bank where riprap has been
deposited following recent past disturbance. So long as Best Management Practices are followed
during the proposed action, maintenance of extant water quality and streambed conditions should
be achievable. - -

B-2920 June 3, 1994 4 -
1
2.2 Soils
Project B-2520 occurs in an area "known locally as the'Concord Ring Dike,' [where] the
landscape typically is very broad, nearly level areas and gently sloping to strongly sloping ridges
and side slopes" (Stephens 1988). Broadly, the soil association in this area is Mecklenburg-
Iredell, "nearly level to strongly sloping, well drained and moderately well drained soils that have
clayey subsoil; formed in residuum from diorite, gabbro, and other rocks that are high in content of
ferromagnesian minerals" (Stephens 1988.
The soil within the Coddle Creek floodplain is identified as Chewacla sandy loam, which is
frequently flooded. As noted above (Table 1), however, the channel banks are steep and constrict
flow to a well-defined course. The adjacent soil is shown to be Mecklenburg loam. According to
Stephens (1988), "erosion is a hazard at construction sites if the ground cover is removed" from
Mecklenburg soils.
3.0 Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities occurring
on this site and discusses the potential impacts affecting these communities as a result of proposed
actions.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
A narrow fringe of bottomland hardwood forest varying between 15 m (50 ft) and 30 m (100
ft) wide occurs along Coddle Creek, except for the roadsides that measure about 6 m (20 ft) wide,
and except for the northeastern quadrant, where construction fill has been dumped to within 10 m
(33 ft) of Coddle Creek. In addition, rip-rap has been placed along the southern creek bank.
These activities have considerably degraded the bottomland forest, especially species-richness of
the ground layer. The overstory of bottomland hardwood community is somewhat similar to the
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest community described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) or
the Sycamore--Sweetgum--American Elm community of Eyre (1980), but it contains fewer
species. The ground layer is entirely different, composed not of mesic bottomland wildflowers but
rather weedy, disturbance-tolerant herbs. Roadsides and fill areas support the Roadside
Community, which is dominated by weedy herbs regularly controlled by mowing.
3.1.1 Floral Communities
Dominance of the upper canopy of the bottomland hardwood community is shared by mesic
and wet-mesic species: southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum), red maple (Acer rubrum), river
birch (Betula nig_ra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), boxelder (Acer neg-undo), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American elm (Ulmus
american a , black walnut (Ju lans nigra), and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Basal area of
this upper canopy measures 18 m2/ha (80 ft2/ac), and the tallest trees are about 24 m (80 ft). The
presence of black cherry and white ash indicates well-drained soils.
The lower canopy contains scattered saplings of the more shade tolerant upper canopy
species. In addition, red mulberry (Morus rubra), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
pawpaw (Asimina triloba) are found. Several pawpaw contained immature fruit-an interesting
situation since pawpaw is rarely fertile. Basal area of this sparse subcanopy measures about 3
m2/ha (15 ft2/acre) and the tallest trees are about 6 m (20 ft). The shrub layer contains elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Smooth alder (Alnus serrulata) also occurs but only along the river bank.
Foliar cover of the ground layer averages about 80 percent. The ground layer contains mostly
weedy, disturbance-tolerant species, many of which are exotic to North Carolina. The following
B-2520 June 3, 1994 5 -
vines occur. poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), summer
grape (Vitis aestivalis), and greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox and S. rotundifolia). The following herbs
occur. panic grass Panicum sp.), (Galium pilosum), blue violet (Viola papilionacea), sedge
Carex sp.), uniola grass (Uniola laxa), sweet chervil (Osmorhiza longistylis), ragweed Ambrosia
artemisifolia), Japanese grass (Microstegium virmineum), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum),
ara
jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), woodland knotweed (Toy
virginiana), beggar-lice Bidens sp.), knorweed (Poly og_num sp.), rye grass (Lolium multiflorum),
a
fescue (Festuca elatior), wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), Venus looking-glass (Spgculari
ILerfoliata), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album). In
addition, rye grass El us sp.) has been planted to help stabilize the creek bank.
Disturbance tolerant herbs dominate the Roadside community, hop clover rifolium
cam stye , vetch (Vicia caroliniana), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), tall goldenrod Solida o
altissima , morning-glory I moea sp.), fescue (Festuca elatior), evening-primrose (Oenothera
biennis , buttercup (Ranunculus parviflorus), wild carrot (Daucus carota), fleabane ri eron sp.),
plantain (Plantago lanceolata and P. ru elii , dandelion (Taraxacum officinal e), ox-eye daisy
(Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), panic grass (Panicum sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia),
white clover (Trifolium repgns), horse nettle (Solanum carolinense), wood sorrel (Oxalis dillenii
and rye grass (Lolium multiflorum). In addition, woody species that readily resprout after mowing
occur: common blackberry (Rubus argutus), sweetgum, black cherry, poison-ivy, and greenbrier.
3.2.2 Faunal Communities
The habitat surrounding Bridge No. 189 is fragmented and therefore limited in its ability to
sustain appreciable populations of forest dwelling wildlife. As noted above, soft-mast tree species
are prevalent, and the overall composition and condition of the forest are generally degraded.
Thus, faunal species tolerant of disturbance and nearby human activity are the species most likely
to be found.
Except for raccoon (Procyon lotor and opppossum Didel his vir iniana tracks, relatively
little evidence of terrestrial faunal activity was observed on site. Typical songbird calls were
heard,with Robins urdus migratorius), Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis , Catbirds (Dumetella
carolinensis), Mockingbirds (Mimuspolvglottos), and Bluejays (Cyanocitta cristata being
representative. All of these birds are especially fond of berries and fruits of the trees present.
Grackles uiscalus uiseala , Crows Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Brown-headed cowbirds
(Molothrus ater), and Mourning doves Zenaida macroura dominate the open areas.
The usual small mammal populations are expected to occur, such as Southern Short-tailed
Shrews (Blarina carolinensis), Least Shrews Crvtotis arva and Eastern chipmunks amias
striatus . But neither Gray squirrels Sciurus carolinensis) nor their nests were observed, possibly
because hard mast species are mostly lacking.
Numerous downed logs are available to harbor salamanders, such as the Slimy salamander
(Plethodon lutinosus or the Red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber , both of which are fairly
common. Decadent trees and snags encourage Common flickers (Colaptes auratus , woodpeckers
such as the Red-bellied (Centurus carolinus , and other cavity nesting and foraging species.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
No rooted or free-floating aquatic plants were observed, probably because high silt loads
appear to have a scouring effect in the creek channel. Sediment deposition and shifts in stream
currents can be detrimental to many forms of aquatic life, and this appears to be the effect in
Coddle Creek.
Asiatic Clams (Corbicula flumenea , which tend to be somewhat tolerant of disturbance and
lower water quality, are abundant along this section of Coddle Creek. A great many shells were
observed on mud flats along the east bank north of the bridge, and sampling in the sandy bottom
revealed a wide size range of live specimens. No evidence of protected mollusk species was
B-2520 - June 3, 1994 - 6
observed, and no fish were observed. The Carolina Heelsplitter, once native to this area, is
believed to have been extirpated from Carbarrus County, since it has not been found in 20 years
(see §4.2.1).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Given the generally degraded conditions existing at this site, neither the proposed nor
alternative actions to replace Bridge No. 189 would have appreciable permanent impacts on the
terrestrial and aquatic communities extant. Environmentally, a road closure during construction is
always preferable to erection of a temporary detour. However, of the two detour alignments
considered, the downstream alignment would clearly have the least potential impact because it
would not further reduce the remnant forest adjacent this bridge and because it would utilize
recently disturbed areas of the streambanks.
If an off-site detour is used, then little or no further impact to the flora will occur, since little
or no additional cutting of vegetation will be necessary.
If a temporary on-site detour upstream from the existing bridge is used, then about 0.2 ha
(0.5 ac) of bottomland forest will be cleared and graded to provide approaches to the temporary
bridge. These activities will completely disrupt the affected bottomland hardwood community,
including loss and compaction of topsoil.
A temporary on-site detour downstream from the existing bridge would require clearing less
about 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) of bottomland forest to provide approaches to the temporary bridge.
Trees not cut but adjacent to on-site detours could either be windthrown or decline in vigor,
due to root disturbance and increased solar exposure. However, after construction, affected forest
areas will revert to natural bottomland forest, though younger than adjacent areas. Within 10 to 20
years, the species-richness will recover to pre-construction levels, since all species are weedy and
common. No adverse impact to plant populations is expected from either construction alternative,
since all species observed are common with adequate population levels outside of the impact area..
From an environmental perspective, all proposed alternatives are acceptable, since the bottomland
forest is already significantly degraded.
4.0 Special Topics
4.1 Waters of the US: Jurisdictional Issues
4.1.1 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
No permanent alterations to the channel will occur as a result of this project, and no wetland
exists outside the channel. All possible precautions should be taken to prevent sedimentation as a
result of construction operations, and short-term effects during construction should be carefully
monitored. However, the observed paucity of aquatic diversity at this location suggests that
conditions will change little as a result of bridge construction.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 should be applicable to project
B-2520. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or in part, by another federal agency or department. That agency or department
has determined that the activity is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it will neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. A
North Carolina Department Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401(1665).
Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
B-2520 June 3, 1994 7
m
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
No wetlands will be impacted by project B-2520, and the entire channel is to be spanned by a
new bridge, thus avoiding permanent impacts on waters of the United States.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the case of
state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for example, the
USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any
endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS
has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a
protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise
jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect
certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in decline.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
According to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schwweinitzii) are the only federally protected
species listed for Carbamzs County. Records indicate that no Carolina Heelsplitter specimen has
been reported from Carbarrus County in 20 years. Following is a discussion of these species,
their habitat requirements, and the suitablility of habitat for these species.
The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata belongs to the family Unionidae, or
"freshwater bivalved mollusks, often called naiads" (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). All
mussels are filter feeders, usually burying anterior ends in the substrate and exposing siphons at
the posterior end to filter detritus, bacteria, and small planktonic organisms from the surrounding
water. Naiads have complex reproductive patterns and assorted methods for distributing glochidia
(larval forms), which "may number in the hundreds of thousands" but exist only a few days once
ejected from the female. "Most are parasitic on the gills or fins of certain species of fish, but the
infections are usually light and little harm." Upon reaching adult morphology through
metamorphosis, encysted juveniles rupture their cyst wall and drop to the bottom.
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1992), "little or no information is available
on actual mussel population numbers." Many species occur in a single river system or lake. Some
species exists in both lakes and rivers, though many are restricted to one type of habitat. While
preferred habitat varies with species, "most stream species do best in gravel-sand substrate in good
current.
Potential habitat does exist at the B-2520 project site, but extensive sampling in the
sand-gravel substrate revealed no evidence of a Carolina Heelsplitter population. Numerous
Corbicula specimens were observed at high densities on the mud flats and in the sand-gravel beds
in the channel.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) generally occurs in full sun or light
shade in low-density stands dominated by oaks, pines, and hickories. Chestnut oak ( uercus
rinus , scarlet oak Q. coccinea , black oak Q. velutina , blackjack oak Q. marilandica), post
oak Q. stellata , shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), pignut hickory (Cgaa lg abra), sand hickory (C.
allida , and mockemut hickory (C. tomentosa are typical overstory species, whereas pinelands
threeawn (Aristida stricta), little bluestem (Andropo own scoparius), panic grass Panicum sp.),
blazing star Liatris spp.), goldenrod (Solidaso spp.), aster Aster spp.), bracken fern (Pteridium
a uilinum , and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) are common understory species. These stands are
typically bi-layered, maintained by occasionally surface fires that limit subcanopy and shrub
development. In addition, it may occur on roadsides, where periodic mowing, but not
herbiciding, roughly approximates the open conditions of fire-maintained forests. -
B-2520-- June 3. 1994 !
p cal forest habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower does not occur within the project area,
although mowed roadsides do occur. Biologists from NCDOT surveyed the project area for
Schweinitz's sunflower during the flowering season in October, 1993, but they did not observe it
(see memorandum dated October 6, 1993 in Appendix A). Roadsides and forest edges were
searched again for Schweinitz's sunflower during this field reconnaisance, but it was not seen.
Although the current survey was conducted in late spring, before the flowering season,
Schweinitz's sunflower should have been identifiable if present, due to its characteristic opposite,
sessile-subsessile, somewhat revolute leaves with strigose-tomentose undersides--a character
combination not common among herbaceous plants. Thus, it is demonstrably unlikely that
Schweinitz's sunflower occurs within the project area.
4.2.2 State Protected Species
A review of NC Natural Heritage Program records concerning state-protected species
revealed a past observation of Silphium perfoliatum, with perhaps 30 plants located 0.2 to 0.3 km
(0.1 to 0.2 ml) north of the bridge at SR 1431 over Coddle Creek. The project study area does not
extend this far upstream.
4.2.3 Federal Candidate Species
Three species have been identified as candidates for federal protection. All are under
Category 2 consideration: Pee Dee crayfish ostracod (Dactylothere peedeensis), Heller's trefoil
(Lotus purshianus var. helleri , and Nestronia Nestronia'umbellula . No Nestronia specimen has
been reported from Carbarrus County in 20 years.
4.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No impacts on protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed actions. The
federally-listed protected species in Carbarrus County are absent from the site. A state-listed plant
species occurs in the vicinity but has not been observed where activities related to this bridge
replacement are proposed.
5.0 References
Belanger, R. P. and R. L. Anderson. 1992. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA, Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note SE-352. 4 p.
Dilworth, J. R. and J. F. Bell. 1986. Log Scaling and Timber Cruising. O. S. U. Book Stores,
Inc., Corvallis, OR. 468 p.
Eyre, F. H. 1980. Forest Cover Types. Soc. Amer. For., Washington, DC. 148 p.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC
Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. Division of Environmental Management, NC Department of
Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina; Third Approximation. NC Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. Parks and Recr., NC Dept.
Environ., Health, and Natl. Resour., Raleigh. 325 p.
Stephens, R.B. 1988. Soil survey of Carbarrus County, North Carolina. USDA Soil
Conservation Service. 130 p. with maps.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of the Southeast
United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Division of Endangered
Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1070 pp.
ti
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DAT
3 t8 93
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
Er De-ANA
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Ll Warc\ AET, 9*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 ,
?/
2 "FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
eo`SWE°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATI
JAMES B. HUNT. JP- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 16, 1993
o C M 1_ N
MAR 2 3
1993
WETLAADS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SAM HUNT
SECRETAkY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branc '
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 189 on
SR 1931 over Coddle Creek, Cabarrus County, B-2520
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 22, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Wayne, Fedora, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/plr
C ??SS L l 3
Attachment

BRIDGE'
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 03/i5/93
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT:
B-2520
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION: TEN
COUNTY: CABARRUS
ROUTE: SR 1431
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: SR 1431, BRIDGE #189, CABARRUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER CODDLE CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY I1TUNICIPALITi,
DEVELOPERS, CR CT-HERS? YES NO"
IF YES, BY WHOM: AND WHAT AMOUNT: (N)
? i
e
BRIDGE
PRCJECT SCOPING SLEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST DT
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 151FEET; WIDTH 24 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH
OR
PIPE - SIZE
FEET; WIDTH FEET
FEET; WIDTH FEET
FEET; WIDTH. FEET
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS....... ......................... $
TOTAL COST ................................ 8
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ 8 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 26,000
SUE TOTAL ........................................... 8 401,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... S
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 401.000
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 189
CABARRUS COUNTY
B - 2520
0 miles ? FIG. 1a

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 189
CABARRUS COUNTY
B - 2520
0 miles 1 /2
1 1 FIG. 1b]
r 30
1429
G4\',\7?, 159o IS..
.30\.07 .22 1555 .35 .09 .0 3 1394
0
W
15' 01 156] 2
o i.2@
593_
139. \
yt0
2805

?y
1431 \ I
BRIDGE NO 189
\ 29
13
i
r7
573
y
1se2

1599
s .o
.08 .05
.1A POPLAR TENT
1
(UNINC.)
POP. 2,764
1502 h
10 .79 FAU .12 11
1423
p 1.22
2915
1.2D
144.71 MU.
53
99 - 4 1.59 11
n 3?R •°+ ? 03 1ASe
0 1416 p4 .16 J 1.3
571
O 1170 '
7 1
O
1?1 ,7
F?
G
W?
f
AN 24 MIN,
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 189 on
SR 1431 over Coddle Creek, Cabarrus County, B-2520
A scoping meeting was held on April 22, 1993 initiating the subject
project.
The following is a list of those in attendance:
Betty Yancey
Jerry Snead
Robin Stancil
Ray Moore
Steve Drum
David Cochran
Wayne Fedora
John P. Taylor
Danny Rogers
David B. Foster
Right-of-Way
Hydraulics
DCR-SHPO
Structure Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
Location and Surveys
Program Development
DEHNR
Two alternates were considered for replacement: replace at existing
location with road closure, and replace at existing location with a temporary
on-site detour. The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 170
feet long with a 30-foot wide travelway. A detour bridge would be
approximately 120 feet long and two feet lower than the existing bridge.
A cost estimate is being prepared for each alternate.
In terms of historic architectural resources, there are two properties
over fifty years of age in the project area. The SHPO is recommending NCDOT
architectural historians survey these properties and submit the information
for review. The SHPO is not recommending a survey for archaeological
resources.

May 20, 1993
Page 2
Coddle Creek is classified Class C waters, requiring standard erosion
control measures.
There are no Natural Heritage points in the project area. NCWRC has no
special concerns on this project and concurs with the hydraulics
recommendation.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled for May 1995 and letting is
scheduled for July 1996.
WF/wp
Attachments

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 03/15/93
REVISION DATE: 05/18/93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
PURPOSE:
DESCRIPTION:
B-2520
8.2662001
BRZ-1431(1)
TEN
CABARRUS
SR 1431
REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
SR 1431, BRIDGE *189, CABARRUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER CODDLE 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 X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , M
a
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1,800 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 4,300 VPD
TTST 1% DT 3%
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 151 FEET; WIDTH 24 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 170 FEET; WIDTH 30 FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 120 FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ......................... $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 26,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 401,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 401,000
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 189
CABARRUS COUNTY
B - 2520
F- , I 0 miles ? FIG. 1 a
I V ,
f
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 189
CABARRUS COUNTY
B - 2520
0 miles 1 /2
I FIG. lb
¦ 139.1
1355 49 ?
0 9 1 ?9
555'75 09
> V n2 567
1094
1414
1415 '45 \
` U 1424
1466
1s72
h
6
1 \
FAU Ii]1
3 1
?$i
\C?d l3
131 1 \
BRIDGE NO. 189
1]10 /:ii:y'
'I.I. POPLAR TENT
(UNINC.)
POP. 2,764
OWN
1307
1414
I
.10 FAU .17 17
1123
1422
N 1470
41 453 \7
03 13
Ia58
173
?0 'f1
1472 1521
y I
?la
1490
I
I
i