20040189 Ver 1_Complete File_20040210

®r,09AIr
BILE COPY
01 ISS _ .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPEW
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 9, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 (340189 FEB [ 0 2004
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 (Mineral Springs
Road) over the Henry Fork River, Burke County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1001(20), State Project No. 8.2852101, TIP No.
B-3620.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 292 over the Henry Fork River [DWQ Index # 11-129-1-(12.5)], a Division of Water
Quality Class "C" Waters of the State. The project involves replacing Bridge No. 292 at
its existing location on tangent alignment. During construction, traffic will be maintained
with a 4.3 mile long off-site detour using SR 1786, SR 1795, and SR 1001. The roadway
approach work will extend from approximately 300 feet south to 300 feet north of the
existing bridge.
Please find enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Report for the above
referenced project, PCN, permit drawings, and half-sized plan sheets.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
No permanent impacts to Waters of the United States, in the form of wetlands or surface
waters, are anticipated as a result of project construction.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing bridge no. 292 includes five spans totaling 200 feet 6 inches in length. The
depth from the roadway crown to the streambed is approximately 27 feet. The NCDOT
and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and
removal. Guidelines followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those
implemented for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. The
end bents and interior bents are timber piles with reinforced concrete caps. The
superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete deck on steel 1-beams. The potential
temporary fill resulting from the removal of the concrete deck will be approximately 38
cubic yards. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission comments that bridge
demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning season of May
1 through July 15 to limit direct impacts and prevent off-site sedimentation from
impacting fish eggs and fry.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Bridge No. 292 will be a prestressed concrete girder bridge, requiring no bents in the
water. Construction of the bridge will require the need for a temporary
causeway/workpad.
TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY
The construction of bridge no. 292 will require the use of causeways consisting of 12"
Class I Rip Rap and Class II Rip Rap to provide access to the site by construction
equipment. The resulting temporary surface water fill will be 0.03 ac.
The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the rock causeways, will be
completely removed. The entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the original
contours and elevations after the purpose of the causeway has been served. After the
causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment to remove
all materials. All causeway material will become the property of the contractor. The
contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all
materials off-site.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 29 January 2003,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists six federally protected species for Burke
County.
Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were reached for all listed species as of the last
surveys. But due to the time since the last survey and the potential for habitat, one of the
species will need to be resurveyed. Hexastylis naniflora will be resurveyed before
construction starts and a letter requesting concurrence will be sent to the USFWS.

Federallv-Protected Species for Burke Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald eagle aliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened (proposed for
elistin )
Spreading avens eum radiatum Endangered
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf as lis naniflora Threatened
Mountain olden heather onia montana
' hreatened
mall whorled o onia
l ia medeoloides
t hreatened
eller's blazin st helleri
ia
tr
is Threatened
KEY: Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
• Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns, therefore, a turbidity curtain is
recommended.
• Bridge demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning
season of May 1 through July 15 to limit direct impacts and prevent off-site
sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary causeways will
be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access
and Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
authorizing construction of the causeway. All other aspects of this project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be
authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15,
2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3361 and 3366
will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing
two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.

Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Chris Manley at [phone] or
[e-mail]
Sincerely,
cc:
R4>.R, I? IIL-
w Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillian, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John Sullivan, FHWA
Mr. Ron Watson Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, DEO
Ms. Missy Dickens
Office Use Only: 040189 Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 33, NW23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-766-9794
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page I of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 292 replacement over the Henry Fork River
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3620
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Burke Nearest Town: Icard
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over
Henry Fork River
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 40'30"N, 81 ° 31'30"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): rural
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Henry Fork
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Location of an old bridge needing replacement, used for
transportation across the Henry Fork
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Bridge
Replacement. Cranes, Earth moving equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace bridge no. 292.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
none
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
none
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 8
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:none
2. Individually list wetland impacts below: N/A
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hflo://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: No Wetlands
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Amount of
Impact
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
1 temporary 0.03 ac. Henry Fork River 40 ft. perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mgRguest.com, etc.).
Page 4 of 8
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name Wat)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The vroiect purpose necessitates traversing the Henrv Fork River, therefore. totally avoiding
surface water impacts is impossible. Specific to this project, impacts will be minimized by
replacing the structure at its existing location and maintaining traffic with an offsite detour. This
eliminates the need for tempory on-site detours or new construction upstream or downstream of
the existing bridge.
VIII. Mitigation
Page 5 of 8
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Pen-nits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/strmgide.htm].
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation proposed
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): none
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): none
Page 6 of 8
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): none
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): none
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): none
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Lone 1 extends out 3U feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 8
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
n/a
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No N
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No N
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
SS Id---; ? i L? o
A?plicant/Agent's Signature I ' Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
r'l
Go"
EW-i
Gs ?,:" r
L
1B
%Q.,
ti 1793J?y?' DETOUR ROUTE
-?
\1786
1 G y?
795 \ Farb ware Arm
_ ,- ? 2031 .3
HAN
1 C 1847
r 1788 T C •
? 1738 ?+ ? °1 `1 ,,
0 r? .
-? 1795 1600
-- - ----- L
41 VICINITY MAP
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY BUP" COUNTY
PROJECT: 83852101 (B-3620)
MAPS BRIDGE UM ON SR 1001
OVER HENRY FORK RIVER
SHEET OF 5 07 / 16 /
NORTH CAROLINA
o J ? a ?
-,=J?li i c ? g
Vaj
E-4
?1 I OND O ?d p ? 1
I I co LU / o iV!
o u z °
O
LL
US + O O A 0,
o^ ?W
ma
W
+ +
0% 0%
N
b9i11y ?bp? ??N?H --?
f?
Lu C4
0 'O
j3 +
O N0 OC ^ 1
L m
0 Z
Cl E=,
G G C?
CL.
{y
- - ----------
N L \
-__-___________
Z Z
W W /
?i
m to
0o II
?II
II
04
V)
U N
CPO aU o
0 0,
J o??
?I a M'
a-
a
® } a a
o
V m
a
T w
?I ?
N
O
M
MO L Cl
T v
LO O _a
v
o
N N _
O
< EL
CL cr
I as N I v
se, I 3cr w a to
N I OR LL O
M O
_ N = !-
Cwt I ?1 UN w Q N COD
a ? I
V) -J VQ H V J M
cc
J ?-
co L)
Z U-
? I 30 ?? Q O U
0
w >I J a w o E
w i `L w +
o -J cr w
cr vi o a
a 31
Z'
I
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
RUTH LOWMAN 5671 MINERAL SPRINGS MOUNTIAN RD.
Cro DEAN LOWMAN CONNELLY SPRINGS, NC 28612
RALPH WHITESIDES 5605 MINERAL SPRINGS MOUNTAIN RD.
CONNELLY SPRINGS, NC 28612
r'

z
mEo,
?. O
P g
_
.?
l0 ? N ~
0
N
Q
Z ? p O
?
r
a C
m
¢
cn
c c U
rn L a '- o R? p

a N
?, U t
Oo wN
6
Q 0
E o '-' a
c

Q a ca
w
a a
z
c 0 m o Q v
i
-- U
LL z

Co
=Z

Q O)
N
_
C C O U
L , c m o
D Q)
U
CO)
F-
U
Q m

c0

2 cn
U -=
c
jr° v

?
a m d
x? o
w c
fr p
W
G. Z
Q

O
J
w ii c
EE
D
F- c
W
N
C CC
? fU0
LL >N
p
a

Y

(D O
3
_? w
_
U) 0 Of
m
d
2
w
F-

O J
'

O co
+
0
C
? LL
Y O Q
to Z I -
O

r;.

Burke County
Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 (Mineral Springs Road)
over the Henry Fork River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1001(20)
State Project No. 8.2852101
TIP No. B-3620
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
/Z -14 oZ
DATE
Thorpe; Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
ielopment and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
I Z lS ?oZ -yo-
DATE q.-.-Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
L?
I 44
.P
Burke County
Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 (Mineral Springs Road)
over the Henry Fork River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1001(20)
State Project No. 8.2852101
TIP No. B-3620
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2002
Documentation Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting
Paul R. Koch, PE Date
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
njoe C'. U-Ivk?
John C. Wadsworth, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
r
•
Burke County
Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 (Mineral Springs Road)
over the Henry Fork River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1001(20)
State Project No. 8.2852101
TIP No. B-3620
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the Nationwide Permit No. 3, No. 14, and No. 23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification,
the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
DI llion
Bridge demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning season
of May 1 through July 15 to limit direct impacts and prevent off-site sedimentation from
impacting fish eggs and fry.
Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns, therefore, a turbidity curtain is
recommended.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion
December 2002
Page 1 of 1
Burke County
Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 (Mineral Springs Road)
over the Henry Fork River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1001(20)
State Project No. 8.2852101
TIP No. B-3620
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 292 is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Exhibit 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 292 has a sufficiency rating
of 45 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
and structurally deficient. Replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more
efficient traffic operations.
H. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1001 (Mineral Springs Road) is classified as a rural minor collector. Land immediately
adjacent to the existing bridge is a mix of agricultural fields, scattered commercial
establishments, and houses.
Bridge No. 292 was built in 1949. The structure includes five spans totaling 200 feet 6 inches
(61.1 meters) in length. The end bents and interior bents are timber piles with reinforced
concrete caps. The depth from the stream bed to the roadway crown is approximately 27 feet
(8.2 meters). The posted weight limit is 25 tons for a single vehicle.
The northbound and southbound approaches, both on tangent, consist of two 12-foot (3.6-meter)
lanes with four-foot (1.2-meter) grass shoulders. The existing structure is also on tangent. The
posted speed limit is 55 mph (90 km/h).
The 2001 estimated average daily traffic volume (ADT) is 1,600 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 2,500 vpd by the design year 2025. The
traffic is estimated to include three percent duals and two percent tractor-truck semi-trailers.
This section of SR 1001 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as
needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
There are no utilities carried by the existing structure. There are aerial power lines to the east
and aerial telephone lines to the west of the existing bridge.
There were two accidents reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from October 1,
1996, to November 30, 1999.
Two school buses per day cross this bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes with eight-foot (2.4
meters) unpaved shoulders [11 feet (3.3 meters) where guardrail is required]. See Exhibit 6.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure will have a length of approximately
210 feet (64.0 meters). The proposed structure will provide a 30-foot (9.0 meters) clear roadway
width to allow for two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes and Moot (0.9 meter) shoulders on each
side. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure.
The length and opening size of the bridge may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as determined from a more detailed hydraulic analysis, to be performed during the
final design phase of the project.
B. Build Alternatives
Three (3) build alternatives for replacing the existing bridge are described below:
Alternative A (Preferred), shown in Exhibit 2, replaces the bridge at its existing location on
tangent alignment. During construction, traffic will be maintained with an off-site detour using
SR 1786, SR 1795, and SR 1001 (Exhibit 3). The off-site detour length is approximately 4.3
miles (6.9 kilometers). The roadway approach work will extend from approximately 300 feet
(91.4 meters) south to 300 feet (91.4 meters) north of the existing bridge.
Alternative B, shown in Exhibit 4, replaces the bridge at its existing location on tangent
alignment. During construction, traffic will be maintained with an on-site detour on the west
(upstream) side of the existing bridge. The proposed detour structure is a temporary 100-foot
(30.5 meters) work bridge. The roadway approach work will extend from approximately 300
feet (91.4 meters) south to 300 feet (91.4 meters) north of the existing bridge. Construction of
the detour will extend from approximately 380 feet (115.8 meters) south to 410 feet (125.0
meters) north of the existing bridge.
Alternative C, shown in Exhibit 5, replaces the bridge on new alignment to the west (upstream)
of the existing bridge. Both approaches are on 4-degree, 45-minute curves. During construction,
traffic will be maintained on the existing structure. The roadway approach work will extend from
approximately 630 feet (192.0 meters) south to 650 feet (198.1 meters) north of the existing
bridge.
2

C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the service provided by Bridge Number 292.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A, replacing the bridge at its existing location, was selected as the Preferred
Alternative because the existing alignment is on a long tangent, a good offsite detour is available,
it has the lowest construction cost, and it has the least potential impacts. It was also
recommended because replacement on new-location would introduce unnecessary curves to the
existing straight alignment.
Traffic will be maintained with an approximately 4.3 mile (6.9 kilometers) long off-site detour
using SR 1786, SR 1795, and SR 1001. Other activities to be conducted by the NCDOT Division
Office in the vicinity of Bridge No. 292 will improve the offsite detour. These activities,
scheduled to occur prior to the bridge replacement, include upgrading an existing bridge along
the offsite detour to increase its load capacity, and installing signs to route trucks along NC 18.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs based on current prices are listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost of the project listed in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), is $910,000 including $70,000 for right-of-way and $700,000 for construction.
3
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Valdese
quadrangle map (1993); Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil map of Burke
County (1984); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
Map (Valdese 1994); USFWS list of protected and candidate species (March 7, 2002); North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (May
31, 2002); NCDOT aerial photography of the project area; and North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) water resource data. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the
field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on June 6, 2000. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, nests, and burrows).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using 100-foot (30-meter) right of
way limits (minus the existing right of way), the width and length of the replacement structure,
the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual
construction impacts should be less as the worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project site lies within the western Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography of
the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to steeply sloping banks along
the major streams. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 1,000 to 1,200
feet (305 to 366 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project area is
approximately 1,000 feet (305 meters) above msl.
According to the general soil map for Burke County (Draft), the project area is found within the
Pacolet-Cecil soil association. Soils in this association are generally found on gently sloping to
very steep piedmont upland ridges and side slopes. The soils are described as very deep, well-
drained soils that have clayey subsoils. Burke County does not have a published soil survey,
however, field sheets were available for review. Field conditions generally conform to the soil
survey maps. Soil series found within the project area are described below.
Colvard sandy loam, zero to three percent slopes, occasionally flooded is located adjacent to
Henry Fork River on the north and south sides of the project area. The Colvard series consists of
very deep, well drained soils that formed in loamy alluvium on flood plains. Permeability is
moderately rapid and runoff is slow. Colvard sandy loam has hydric inclusions of Hatboro in
depressions.
4
Unison fine sandy loam, two to eight percent slopes, is located in the southern portion of the
project area adjacent to the Colvard sandy loam. Unison fine sandy loam is very deep and well
drained. This soil occurs on footslopes, alluvial fans, and stream terraces. Permeability is
moderate and runoff is moderate to rapid. Unison soils are not listed as hydric.
Biltmore loamy sand, zero to five percent slopes, occasionally flooded, is located in a small area
on the northern bank of the Henry River in the northeastern portion of the study area. The
Biltmore series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in recent alluvium on flood
plains. Permeability is rapid and surface runoff is slow. Biltmore loamy sand is not listed as
hydric.
Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded, is located in the northwestern end of
the project area adjacent to the Colvard sandy loam. Fairview soils are very deep, well drained
soils that are found on uplands. Surface runoff is medium to rapid and permeability is moderate.
Fairview sandy clay loam is not listed as hydric.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The proposed project falls within the Catawba River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
03-08-35. Waters within the project study area include the Henry Fork River.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The Henry Fork River is a tributary of the Catawba River. It flows east through the proposed
project area with a width of approximately 40 feet (12 meters). The drainage area at Bridge No.
292 is approximately 53.8 square miles (139.3 square kilometers). The flow was slow on the day
of the field investigation. The substrate consisted of fine sand with some cobbles and boulders.
The cobbles and boulders were covered with silt in some locations. The water was slightly turbid
at the time of the site visit. At the time of the site visit, the depth of the water ranged from 0.5 to
4.0 feet (0.15 to 1.2 meters).
Within the project area, Henry Fork River is classified as "C" by the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The
classification date and index number for this portion of the river is 3/1/62, 11-129-1-(12.5).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within one mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project revealed no NPDES permitted dischargers.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project area, runoff from the automotive garage/junk car area
as well as storm water runoff from SR 1001 may cause water quality degradation through the
addition of oil or gas residuals, particulate rubber, or other sources of contamination.
5
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses benthos data
as a tool to monitor water quality as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in
water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this method out several years
ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment sampling protocol. Each river basin in the state
is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling stations has been increased within
each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical, and physical data.
The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality in basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a modification of the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et al. (1986). The
method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure
and health of its fish community. The Index incorporates information about species richness and
composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI summarizes
the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal communities (water quality, energy
source, habitat quality, flow regime, and biotic interactions).
According to the information obtained from the Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
(1999), the DWQ has a sampling station located approximately 3,000 feet (914 meters) upstream
of the project area on the Henry Fork River at NC 18. This station was sampled in April 1988
and received a rating of Excellent.
3. Andelpated Impacts to Water Resources
a) General Impacts - Neither High Quality Waters (HWQ) nor Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) occur within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of the project study area. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) upstream of the project area; however, the project area
does not drain to the watershed containing the ORW.
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures or a culvert
in the creek channel. In the short term, construction of the bridge and approach work will
increase sediment loads. Sediment loading can reduce flow and result in a decrease in oxygen
levels. The removal of trees that provide shade along stream banks could result in an increase in
water temperature and a decrease in oxygen levels as well.
The NCDOT, in cooperation with DWQ has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal best management practices (BMPs) for the protection of
surface waters. The following are methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the project;
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in the creek;
6

placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff and
decrease sediment loadings;
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along the creek.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal - In order to protect the water quality
and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all potential contractors
should follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are
presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge
Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United
States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal". Guidelines
followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structures into waters of the United States should be avoided unless
there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, a worst case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the United
States.
The superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete deck on steel 1-beams. The substructure
is reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The temporary fill resulting from the removal of the
concrete deck will be approximately 38 cubic yards (29 cubic meters). Conditions in the stream
will raise sediment concerns as silt covered some of the cobbles and boulders; therefore, a
turbidity curtain is recommended.
According to comments received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), a moratorium period on bridge demolition or removal is required from May 1
through July 15. Because a moratorium applies, this project falls under Case 2 (allowing no in-
water work during moratorium periods) of the Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a
system used by the NCNB? (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). If a community is modified or
otherwise disturbed such that it does not fit into an NCNHP classification, it is given a name that
best describes current characteristics. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found
in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current information is available. Terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field
7
guides and other documentation (Conant, 1958; Farrand, 1993; Robbins et al., 1966; and
Whitaker, 1980).
1. Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are maintained/disturbed
and mesic mixed hardwood forest communities. Dominant faunal components associated with
these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to
the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but may not be mentioned
separately in each community description.
a) Maintaine"isturbed Community - The maintained/disturbed community includes the
agricultural field in the northeast quadrant, the overgrown fields in the southeast and southwest
quadrants, the residential property in the northwest quadrant, the automotive service station
property (on both sides of SR 1001), and the road shoulders. Many plant species are adapted to
these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. The dominant species within the project area
include fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), wild
onion (Allium cernuum), dandelion (Taraxacum off:cinale), golden rod (Solidago spp.), daisy
fleabane (Erigeron annuus), narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia angustifolia), blackberry (Rubes spp.),
wild carrot (Daucus carota), and plantain (Plantago spp.).
b) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Community - This community is found in fringes along the
maintained/disturbed communities. The canopy layer is dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The understory includes red bud (Cercis
canadensis), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), sourwood (Oxydendmm arboreum), and red
maple. The herbaceous layer is dense and includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
2. Wildlife
The animal species present in the maintained/disturbed communities are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits,
and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although only an American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and Northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos) were observed in the field in these areas, species such as Eastern mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
On the day of the site visit, a song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor),
Eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), and tracks of Virginia opossum were observed in the
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community. Other species which may reside or forage in these
areas include common flicker (Colaptes auratus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis),
Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), American toad (Bufo americanus), Eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina carolina), Northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), and red
fox (Vulpes vulpes).
8
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area includes the Henry Fork River. The river flows east
through the proposed project area with a width of approximately 40 feet (12 meters). The flow
was slow on the day of the field investigation. The substrate consisted of fine sand with some
cobbles -and boulders. Silt covered the cobbles and boulders in a few locations. The water was
slightly turbid at the time of the site visit. The depth of the water ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 feet
(0.15 to 1.2 meters).
Vegetation along the river banks includes sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula
nigra), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), sweetgum, tulip poplar,
poison ivy, greenbrier, and Christmas fern. The banks were well vegetated with no signs of
erosion. The banks were well defined and averaged 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6 meters) in height above
the top of the creek. A muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) was observed on the bank during the field
investigation. Other species such as the river cooter (Chrysemys concinna), Northern water
snake (Natrix sipedon sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and spring salamander
(Cryrinophilus porphyriticus) may also reside or forage within this aquatic community or along
the waters edge.
According to District 7 of the NCWRC, the Henry Fork River can be expected to have
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), and several species
of catfish (Ictalurus spp.). NCWRC stated that no endangered species or species of special
concern are found within the area of the proposed bridge replacement.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Terrestrial Communities - The mesic mixed hardwood forest and the maintained/disturbed
communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. Removal of plants and
other construction related activities would result in the displacement and mortality of faunal
species in residence. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals from
construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions
of these communities. Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way,
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
b) Wetland Communities - No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the study area.
c) Aquatic Communities - The replacement of Bridge No. 292 over Henry Fork River will result
in up to 0.02 acres (0.01 hectares) of aquatic impacts. This figure is obtained by measuring the
width of the bridge over water times the length of the bridge over water.
Activities such as the removal of trees, as well as the construction of the bridge and approach
work will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a decrease in
dissolved oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can also increase the possibility of
9
_.
toxins, such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways. The combination of
these factors can potentially cause the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of
invertebrates which inhabit these areas.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE).
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. No jurisdictional wetlands were
found within the project area
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
The river boundaries were flagged and surveyed by Stantec personnel. Anticipated surface water
impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Up to 30 linear feet (9.1 linear meters) of
jurisdictional surface waters may be impacted by this project.
2. Permits
a) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States". The USACE issues two types of
10
NOTES: • Impacts are based on a 100-foot (30.5-meter) right of way (minus the existing right of
way of SR 1001) for each alternative.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above; calculations were
based on the worst-case scenario.
permits for these activities. A general permit may be issued on a nationwide or regional basis for
a category or categories of activities when: those activities are substantially similar in nature and
cause only minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or when the general permit
would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication or regulatory control exercised by another
federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are
individually and cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular
activity, then an individual permit must be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-
by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a general permit.
Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. This permit authorizes
any activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in
part, by another Federal Agency or department where that agency or department has
determined,... that the activity, work; or discharge is "categorically excluded" from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,...
Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the
particular permit.
b) Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered
through the DWQ, will also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may
result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ,
one condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be
utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in
streams and rivers not designated as trout by DWQ and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
3. Midi a on
Avoidance - The project purpose necessitates traversing the Henry Fork River, therefore, totally
avoiding surface water impacts is impossible.
Minimization - Specific to this project, impacts will be minimized by replacing the structure at its
existing location and maintaining traffic with an offsite detour. This eliminates the need for
temporary on-site detours or new construction upstream or downstream of the existing bridge.
Compensatory Midgadon - Only jurisdictional surface waters will be impacted by the proposed
project. Since the potential impacts are minor, compensatory mitigation is not expected to be
required for this project. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the
USACOE.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due to factors
such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or human related impacts such as
11
destruction of habitat. Rare and protected species listed for Burke County and any likely impacts
to these species as a result of the proposed project construction are discussed in the following
sections.
1. Federallv Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six federally protected species for Burke County as of the March
7, 2002 listing (Table 3).
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BURKE COUNTY
y
_7
??A
rHa7liaeem leucocephalus
ald eagle) T
Geum radiatum
(Spreading avens) T
Hexastylis nanflora

(Dwarf-flowered heardeaf) T
Hudsonia montana
(Mountain golden heather) T
Isotria medeoloides
(Small-whorled pogonia) T
Liatris helleri
(Holler's blazing star) T
NOTES:
T Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) T
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 2/14/78
Adult bald eagles have white heads and tails, a brownish body, and yellow bills, eyes and feet.
The juvenile birds have a dark brown body, tail, and head irregularly blotched with white. The
overall length of the bald eagle ranges from 34 to 43 inches (86 to 110 centimeters), and the
wing span averages approximately 21 inches (53 centimeters). Bald eagles usually lay eggs
between mid-January and mid-March. The bluish-white eggs are laid two to a clutch and
incubation lasts approximately 36 days.
12

The bald eagle forages along the coast, along rivers, and large lakes. Nests are located in the
forks of tall trees and are usually remote from human activity. Nesting sites are usually less
1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) from feeding areas and are located adjacent to a clear flight path and
open view of the surrounding area. The bald eagle typically feeds on fish; however, waterfowl,
muskrats, rabbits, and squirrels are not uncommon items of their diet.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Henry Fork River contains heavily vegetated banks which precludes the open flight path that
is needed by the eagle for foraging. Although tall trees are found in the area, the residential and
commercial development would likely make the area unsuitable for nesting. No nests were
observed within the project study area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Since no habitat exists within the project
study area, it can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the
bald eagle.
Geum radiatum
Family:
Date Listed:
(Spreading avenss)
Rosaceae
April 5, 1990
E
Spreading avens is a perennial herb topped with an indefinite cyme of large, bright, yellow
flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they arise
from horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow 8 to 20 inches (20 to 51 centimeters) tall.
Flowering occurs from June to September, and the fruits are produced from August to October.
Spreading avens inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes which are exposed to
full sun. It is also found in thin, gravelly soils or grassy balds near summit outcrops. The
adjacent spruce/fir forests [generally found above 5,500 feet (1,675 meters) in elevation] are
dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir. The substrate at all the population sites is composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat (high elevation cliffs and outcrops) does not exist in the project study area for this
species; the project area is approximately 1,000 feet (305 meters) above msl, which is well below
the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction
of the proposed project will not impact spreading avens.
Hexastylis naniJlora (Dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
Family: Aristolochiaceae
Date Listed: April 14, 1989
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus
13

Hexastylis. The flowers are less than 0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter) long, and their sepal tubes are
never more than 0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter) wide. Flower color ranges from beige to dark
brown, sometimes it is greenish or purplish. The flowers are jug-shaped and the dark-green
leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, and leathery. Plant stalks are long and thin, originating from
an underground root. Flowering occurs from mid-March to early June.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, in
boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines.
Soil type is the most important habitat requirement. The species needs Pacolet, Madison
gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam to grow and survive. Provided the soil type is
right, the plant can survive in either dry or moderately moist habitat. For maximum flowering,
the plant needs sunlight in early spring. Creekheads where shrubs are rare and bluffs with light
gaps are the habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is
lowest in bluff populations with a lot of shade.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Marginal habitat exits in the project area; however, neither Pacolet, Madison, nor Musella soils
are found in the project area. According to the USFWS Asheville field office, their records for
Burke County indicate a known location of dwarf-flowered heartleaf near the project. A survey
for dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area was conducted on June 6, 2000. No
specimens were found within the project area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
construction of the proposed project will not impact dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Hudsonia montana (Mountain golden heather) T
Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: October 20, 1980
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked
fruit capsules. It usually grows in clumps of 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and
about 6 inches (15 centimeters) high, and sometimes is seen in larger patches of a foot or two
across. This plant has the general feature of a big moss or a low juniper, but their branching is
more open, their leaves are approximately one-quarter of an inch long, and the plant is often
somewhat yellow-green in color (especially in shade). Flowering occurs in early or mid-June.
The flowers are yellow, nearly an inch across, with five blunt-tipped petals.
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and
sand-myrtle dominated heath balds which merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for
some time in the partial shade of pines, but it appears less healthy than in open areas. This plant
is found only in Burke and McDowell counties at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (855 to 1,220
meters).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
14
Potential habitat (exposed quartzite ledges) does not exist in the project study area for this
species; the project area is located at approximately 1,000 feet (305 meters) above msl, which is
well below the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
construction of the proposed project will not impact mountain golden heather.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia) T
Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: October 6, 1994
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem 4 to
10 inches tall terminating in a whorl of 5 to 6 light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat
pointed and measure up to 3.0 by 1.5 inches (7.6 by 3.8 centimeters). One flower (occasionally
two flowers) is produced at the top of the stem. Flowering occurs from mid-May to mid-June,
with the flowers apparently lasting only a few days to a week or so. This plant does not
necessarily flower every year. If pollination occurs, a capsule may be formed which can contain
several thousand minute seeds. No evidence of insect pollination has been observed. This plant
is believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes.
Small whorled pogonia is generally found in open, dry, deciduous woods with acidic soil. If it
occurs in habitat where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density, flowering
appears to be inhibited.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat does not exist in the project study area for this species. The woods within the project
area are not open; the understory is dense with shrubs and herbaceous species. A search of the
NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact small-whorled
pogonia
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) T
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: November 19, 1987
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb with one or more erect or arching stems which arise
from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 16 inches (41 centimeters) in
height and are topped by a showy spike of lavender flowers, 3 to 8 inches (8 to 20 centimeters)
long, which are present from July through September. Fruits are present from September
through October.
Heller's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains where it occurs on high
elevation ledges of rock outcrops and cliffs. It grows in shallow, acidic soils which are exposed
to full sunlight.
15
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat (high elevation rock outcrops or cliffs) is located within the area. A search of
the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity.
It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact Heller's blazing
star.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 includes listed FSC species for Burke County and their state classifications (May 31,
2002).
TABLE 4
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
BURKE COUNTY

Alasmidonta varicosa
T
Yes
(Brook floater)
Cephaloziella obtusilobula * ? W2 No
(A liverwort)
Juglans cinerea ? W5 No
(Butternut)
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
SC
No
(Southern Appalachian woodmt)
Monotropsis odorata
C
No
(Sweet pinesap)
Neotoma magister
SC
No
(Alleghany woodrat)
Ophiogomphus edmundo*
'
SR
Yes
(Edmund
s snaketail dragonfly)
Ophiogomphus howei
SR
Yes
(Pygmy snaketail dragonfly)
Plagiochila sullivandi var. spinigera

(A liverwort) C No
16
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii C No
(A liverwort)
Saxifraga caroliniana
C
No
(Carolina saxifrage)
Speyeria diana SR No
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
NOTES: C Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended)
E Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws)
T Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws)
SC Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws)
SR Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended)
W Watch list (any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the state
but not warranting active monitoring at this time)
' Historic record, the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
(USF WS)
• Listed by the USFWS but not by the NCNHP.
• • Listed by the NCNHP but not by the USFWS.
The NCNHP database shows no recorded occurrences of FSCs within the project area. A
population of Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema), state listed as Significantly Rare, has been
recorded in the project area.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Marginal habitat exits in the project area for dwarf-flowered heartleaf; however, neither Pacolet,
Madison, nor Musella soils (an important habitat requirement) are found in the project area. A
survey for dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area was conducted on June 6, 2000.
No specimens were found within the project area No habitat is present for any other federally
protected species. Habitat is present for several FSCs. According to the NCNHP database, there
have been no reported occurrences of any FSCs.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on January 11, 2000. All
17
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated April 19, 2000, the SHPO concurred
that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included
in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated January 8, 2002, stated that since the proposed project is to
take place in areas where previous ground disturbance has occurred, it is unlikely that
archaeological resources will be affected. Therefore, SHPO recommends that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. A copy of the memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
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 the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
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.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), a moratorium on
bridge demolition and removal is recommended for the period from May 1 through July 15 due
to fish spawning.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and
18
construction projects. No prime unique or locally important farmland will be impacted by the
Preferred Alternative.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Burke County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and -for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
There is one facility with the possibility for underground storage tanks (USTs) present in the
study area. The facility, Lowman's Service Station is an active auto repair shop and former gas
station. The N.C. Division of Waste Management UST section registry shows that 3 USTs were
permanently closed on the site in 1989. The Preferred Alternative avoids this property.
Burke County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown on Exhibits 2, 4, and 5. The
amount of floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of approximately equal magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain
Based on the above statements, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts
will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A Public workshop was held on January 22, 2002 in the Valdese Elementary School Library in
Valdese. The workshop was held in combination with another project (B-3621). Seven citizens
signed the attendance sheet. A newsletter was also mailed two weeks in advance of the
workshop. One written comment, supporting Alternative A (the Preferred Alternative) was
submitted.
19
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agency comments are summarized below. Letters from the commenting agencies are included
in the appendix.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)- USFWS commented that there is a known
location of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naninflora) near the
project area. If the species occurs in the area of the project, additional consultation will be
required. USFWS recommends that temporary fill be minimized, that no heavy equipment
operates in the stream channel, and removal of woody vegetation along the stream banks be
avoided to the extent possible. USFWS also recommends removing any fill in the floodplain
associated with the existing structures to restore the natural floodplain elevation and function.
USFWS recommends that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge and the design should
include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer. Bridge
design should not alter natural stream form or morphology or impede fish passage and piers or
bents should be placed outside the bankfull width. Bridge and approaches should be designed to
avoid damming the channel or floodplain. USFWS recommends erosion and sedimentation
controls to be in place prior to construction. No wet concrete should come into contact with the
stream.
Response: A survey for dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area was
conducted on June 6, 2000. No specimens were found within the project area. A search of
the NCNHP database also showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project
vicinity. This project is not anticipated to effect the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. The existing
structure is being replaced with a bridge and BMPs, included in the Project Commitments,
will be used to minimize erosion and other construction impacts.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRQ - WRC stated that bridge demolition
and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning season of May 1 through July 15.
The WRC commented that heavy equipment should be operated from the bank and kept out of
the channel to minimize both sedimentation and the introduction of pollutants. WRC also stated
that stringent erosion control measures should be used throughout the construction duration.
WRC encourages the use of onsite vegetation and materials for streambank stabilization rather
than nprap and nursery stock.
Response: The moratorium on in-stream work from May 1 to July 15 has been incorporated
in the Project Commitments. The use of BMPs to minimize erosion and other construction
impacts is also included in the project Commitments.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) - NHP recommends the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid
impacts to the Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema), a species considered significantly rare in North
Carolina.
Response: The use of BMPs is included in the Project Commitments.
20
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) - HPO commented that there are no properties of
historic or architectural importance within the project's area of potential effect. However, HPO
recommended that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the project.
Response: In response to an evaluation by NCDOT, the HPO, in a memorandum dated
January 8, 2002, concurred that since the proposed project is to take place in areas where
previous ground disturbance has occurred, it is unlikely that archaeological resources will be
affected. Therefore, HPO recommends that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Burke County Schools - The Burke County school system commented that two buses would be
affected by replacement of Bridge No. 292 and that there would be a minimal impact on routing.
Response: None required.
21
k 'ro4,,Y
k ?f?IF?4
r r{ ? •
t ? 1• .
Y ? Y
1y 4a v

}•,
iw'Y raj ^ ` i
??

w
3r?Q -IJ
?
?

A

fit
SI.

1r
?
` ry
I
? t
!

' North Carolina
Department of Transportation
SR 1001
Replace Brid a Noa 292
over Nervy River
Me Coutrty
North Carona
B-3620
Project Vicinity
Not to Scale Exhibit 1
Scale Exhibit 2
_s

A*A..Wlp "I
1
VW* T&
?. a ?. ,.
w
1AUft ask ? ?. Far K pt ? ,?, .«
a'"u °WFK40,6'A fte"? NON ,'-
O !
4.410
i to
'"? e< 0
tJ????

Legow
wwww Detour Option
' North Carolina
Department of Transportation
r
SR 1001
Replace Bridge N0.292
Note: ?".,,?lrld
Proposed Detour Route during over Burke Henry, construction utilizes Mineral North mkth ?.dlVi River
Springs Mountain Road (SR 1001),
Warlick Chapel Road (SR 1793), B-3620
and Miller Bridge Road (SR 1786)
Distance = 4.3 Miles (6.9 Km) Alternative A Offsite Detour
Not to Scale Exhibit 3

q
ORIGI
OROL

O
GRRIpNA1
WND
se er /o.e r1
CLEAR R OADWAY

4 FT t ) (116 M
(a
(?6 M) (0.9
LANE LANE
GRADE
POINT
of TrItrolins.
ansportation
TYPICAL BRIDGE S CTION
(Proposed)
Design Data
ADT 2001 1600 LOS B
ADT 2003 1700 _ LOS B
ADT 2025 2500 LOS B
DUAL 3X
TTST 2X
DESIGN SPEED 60 mph (100 Km/h)
POSTED SPEED 55 mph (90 Km/h)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Ruro? Minor Collect(
MIN RADIUS (Se = .0e) 1205 (395)
MAX GRADE AX
MIN DES. K FACTORS SAG 136 (45)
CREST 15.(52)
{English (Metric))
'5 FT (Y.4 M) VA7HOUT GR
11 FT (3.3 M) WITH GR
SR 1
Replace k
over Heivy
B e(
North
Not to Scale
No. 292
k River
6 ,
Proposed

P. PO.
, ?A r rt,_
Northbound Approach
a
f p
3 ? r
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Looking West
Replace Bridge Na 292
over Henry fak River
Bike County
North Carolina
Scale ' ! Exhibit 7 I ZI -
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Z illicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 23801
August 9, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
According to your letter of June 7, 2000, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is
proposing 12 bridge replacement projects in Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison
Counties, North Carolina. These are Group XXXII Bridge Replacement Projects, listed as
follows:
Buncombe County
1. B-3614, Replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 over Hominy Creek
2. B-3616, Replace Bridge No. 740 on SR 1319 over Mill Creek
3. B-3619, Replace Bridge No. 56 on SR 3439 over Bill Moore Creek
Burke County
1. B-3620, Replace Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over the Henry Fork River
2. B-3621, Replace Bridge No. 148 on SR 1547 over Micol Creek
3. B-3622, Replace Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 over an unnamed creek
Maywood County
1. B-3470, Replace Bridge No. 163 on US 276 over the Pigeon River overflow
2. B-3656, Replace Bridge No. 419 on US 19-23 over the Pigeon River
3. B-3659, Replace Bridge No. 112 on SR 1147 over Aliens Creek
4. B-3661, Replace Bridge No. 36 on SR 1503 over Crabtree Creek
Jackson County
1. B-3667, Replace Bridge No. 47 on SR 1131 over Trout Creek
Madison County
1. B-3869, Replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 1151 over Big Pine Creek
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed projects and are providing the following comments
in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e). The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or its designated
non-Federal representative under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway
Administration. In addition to general comments applicable to all of the projects, specific
concerns for listed species are provided with the individual bridge description.
Enclosed is a list of species from Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison Counties
that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as species
of Federal concern. Although our records indicate no known locations of these species in the
project areas for Buncombe County projects B-3614, B-3616, and B-3619; Haywood County
projects B-3659 and B-3661; Jackson County project B-3667; and Madison County project
B-3$6, we recommend surveying each of the project area for these species prior to any further
planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts occur to these species.
Our records for Burke County indicate there is a known location of the federally threatened
dwarf flowered headleaf (Hexastylis nan gora) near projects B-3620 and B-3621. If this species
occurs in the area of either of these projects, additional consultation will be required.
Additionally, there is a record for a species of Federal concern--sweet pinesap (Monotropis
odorata)--from a site near project B-3622. The project areas for these bridges should be
surveyed for these species to ensure they are protected from impacts.
Our records for Haywood County indicate that there are known locations for the federally
endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel (Alasmidonta raveneliana) near projects B-3470 and
B-3656. The effects to the Appalachian elktoe must be assessed prior to implementation of these
projects.
Species of Federal concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you advance notification and
to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found in the vicinity of these projects.
The information that accompanied your letter concerning these projects related only to the
removal of the existing bridges. According to this information, there will be temporary fill
associated with several of the projects. We recommend that this fill be minimized, to the extent
possible, and that no heavy equipment be operated in the stream channel. To maintain bank
stability, any cutting or removal of woody vegetation along the stream banks should be avoided
to the maximum extent possible. We also recommend removing any fill in the flood plain
associated with the existing structures in order to restore the natural elevation of the flood plain
and its function. This will minimize the potential for stream-bank and channel scouring that may
occur during storm flows as a result of any constriction of the flood plain or stream channel
associated with the existing structures.
As stated above, the information you provided addressed only the removal of the existing
bridges; no information was provided concerning the types of structures that will replace the
existing bridges or what measures will be implemented to minimize the potential effects
associated with the new structures and their construction. We recommend that the existing
structures be replaced with bridges and that each new bridge design include provisions for the
roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected
stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from the run-off of
storm water and pollutants. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and
stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed outside
the bank-full width of the streams. The bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any
fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the
flood plain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the
approaches in order to restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce
high velocities of flood waters within the affected areas. We recommend that erosion- and
sedimentation-control measures be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet
concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with the stream.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. Please
reference our Log Number 4-2-00-280 in any future correspondence concerning these projects.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Mark Davis, Environmental Compliance Officer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P.Q. Box 37, Sylva, NC 28779
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN BUNCOMBE, BURKE, HAYWOOD,
JACKSON, AND MADISON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison Counties, of North Carolina's federally listed
and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete
list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The
information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbariums, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstreatn aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Bachman's sparrow
Bog turtle
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Heilbender
Cerulean warbler
Eastern cougar
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Spotfin chub
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Gray bat
Eastern small-footed myotis
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Longhead darter
Paddlefish
Southern water shrew
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Aegolius acadicus
Aimophila aestivalis
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Corynorhinus (-Plecotw) rafrnesquu
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Dendroica cerulea
Felis concolor couguar
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Hybopsis monacha
Laaxia curvirostra
Myotis v1sescens
Myods leibi
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Parus atricapillus practicus
FSC
FSC*
T(S1A)'
FSC"
FSC
FSC
Endangered*
Endangered
Threatened*
FSC
Endangered***
FSC
FSC
FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Percina macrocephala FSC*
Polyodon spathula FSC*
Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
Thryomanes beMckit altos FSC*
Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Cambarus reburrus FSC
June 16, 2000 Page I of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFICNAME STATUS
Oyster mussel
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Piratebush
Cain's reedgrass
Glade spurge
Spreading avers
Mountain heartleaf
French Broad heartleaf
Butternut
Gray's lily
Fraser's loosestrife
Sweet pinesap
Pinnate-lobed black-eyed susan
Bunched arrowhead
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Carolina saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Mountain catchfly
Virginia spiraea
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen
BURKE COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered
Phyeoides batesii FgC*
Speyeria Jana FSC*
Abies fraseH FSC
BucVeya distichophylla FSC
Calamagrostis cainii FSC
Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Getim radiatum Endangered
Hexastylis contracta FSC
He:xrxrtylis rhombiformis FSC
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lilium grays FSC
Lysinmchia fraseri FSC*
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Rudbeekia Mlaba var. pinnatoloba FSC
Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered*
Sarracenia, jonesii Endangered*
Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Senecio millefolium FSC
Silene ovata FSC
Spiraea virginiana 't'hreatened
Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
Mountain golden heather, Hudsoni'a montana - The area bounded by the following: on
the west by the 22W contour, on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north
from the intersection of the 2200' contour and the Shortoff Mountain Trail to where it
intersects the 3444' contour at 'The Chimneys"--then follow the 3400' contour north until
it reintersects the Wilderness Boundary--then follow the Wilderness Boundary again
northward until it intersects the 3204' contour extending west from its intersection with the
Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south--at this point the Boundary extends due
east until it intersects the ,2240' contour.
Vertebrates
Bald eagle
Alleghany woodrat
Hahaeetus leucocephalus
Neotoma maguter
Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
FSC
Invertebrates
Brook floater
Edmund's snaketail dragonfly
Alasmidonta varicosa
Ophiogornphus edmundo
FSC
FSC*
June 16, 2000 Page 2 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Pygmy snaketail dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana
Vascular Plants
Spreading avens Geum radiatum
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis nany7ora
Mountain golden heather Hudsonia montana
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides
Butternut Juglans cinerea
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivandi var. spinigera
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivandi var, sullivanta
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea
Eastern cougar Felis coneolor couguar
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus eoloratus
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Southern rock vole
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Alleghany woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Southern water shrew
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Loxia curvirostra
Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Neotoma magister
Parus atricapillus practices
Sorex palustris punctulatus
Sphyrapieus varies appalaeiensis
Sylvilagus obscurus
Thryomanes beMckii altus
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Phyciodes batesii maconensis
Speyeria diana
FSC
FSC
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
FSC
Threatened
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC
FSC
FSC
T(S/A)'
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered*
Endangered
Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC*
FSC
June 16, 2000 Page ,3 of 3
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Piratebush
Mountain bittercress
Manhart's sedge
Tall larkspur
Glade spurge
Smoky Mountain manna grass
Small-whorled pogonia
Butternut
Fraser's loosestrife
Rugel's ragwort
Carolina saxifrage
Mountain catchny
Alabama least trillium
Abies fraseri
Buckleya disticophylla
Cardamine clematitis
Carex manhartii
Delphinium exaltatum
Eupfitorbia p opurea
Glycaeria nubigena
Isotria medeoloides
Juglans cinerea
Lysimachia fraseri
Rugdia nudicaulis
Saxifraga caroliniana
Silent ovata
?Nllium pusillum var.1
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC
FSC
Threatened
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
Gymnoderma lineare
Plagiochila sharpii
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivanta
Sphenolobopsis pearsona
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Green salamander
Hellbender
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Sicklefua redhorse
Indiana bat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Olive darter
Northern pine snake
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Whitewater crayfish ostracod
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Aegolius acadicus
Aneides aeneus
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Loxia curvlrostra
Moxostoma sp.
Myotis sodalis
Pares atricapillus practieus
Percina squamata
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
Sphyrapicus varies appalaciensis
Alasmidonta nweneliana
Cambarus reburrus
Dactyloctythere priwi
Phycoides batesa maconensis
Speyeria dana
Sphyrapicus varies appalaeiensis
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
Endangered
(winter records)
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
June 16, 2000 Page 4 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhariii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Thmatened
Small-whorled pogonia IsoMa medecloides Threatened
Butternut Juglanr cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotmpsls odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga camliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Mountain catchfly Sllene omta FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula FSC*
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
MADISON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Lake sturgeon Aeipenser fulvescens FSC*
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (-Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC*
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha Threatened*
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula FSC
Invertebrates
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered*
Sculpted supercoil Paravitrea ternaria FSC
Vascular Plants
Pimtxbush Buckleya distichophylla FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxrfraga carohniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
June 16, 2000 Page 5 of 6
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of cxmcem -a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
iunfomution to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American aUigator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure: record - One date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incident allmigrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
"***Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Fedeml Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia, south to
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
June 16, 2000 Page 6 of 6
North Carolina WHdhfe Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood. Executive Director
TO: Stacy Harris, P. E., NCDOT
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: roe 1?1?iick?y f2l Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 9, 2000
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) bridge demolition and
removal for three (3) bridges in Burke Co.
1. B-3620, replace bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over Henry Fork River
2. B-3621, replace bridge No. 148 on SR 1547 over Micol Creek
3. B-3622, replace bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 over unnamed creek
This is in response to your request for our input regarding the above referenced bridge
demolition and removal projects. These comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; NC AC
25). The NCDOT proposes to replace an existing bridge with a new curved bridge structure.
The NCDOT is requesting a permit modification for a temporary causeway that will be utilized
for a work pad to drill shafts.
Removal of the existing bridges should be accomplished in a manner that will not impact
waters or fisheries. We do not object to the project providing the following conditions are
implemented:
1. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel
in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
2. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and
maintained until project completion.
Mailin- Address: lli; i?iun u1 Warld i isltcn"ti • 172 I M,ui Sl'rvlCl' l:cntrr • l?.tl: irlt.27699- s? 721
Telephone: '919) 733-3f>3 3 rzt. 211 • !'as: '919)713-7643

ti'd'e encourage NCDOT to utilize onsite vegetation and materials for streambank
stabilization when practicable instead of utilizing riprap and purchasinw- nursery stock.
4. Bridge demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning
season of May 1 through July 15 to limit direct impacts and prevent off site
sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry.
While no mention is made on how the bridges will be replaced, we recommend that the
bridges be replaced with some type of spanning structure rather than a pipe or multi-cell concrete
box culvert.
Please note that on the Project Vicinity map for 5R 1900, the county lines are shown as
Haywood and Buncombe. These county lines should be Burke and Catawba.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early
planning stages. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ron
Linville at 3361769-9453 or Joe Mickey at 336/527-1547,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
&'IVA ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
'."R DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
July 5, 2000
% M E$ B. HUNT JR.
QV> RNOR
MEMORANDUM
ALL. HOLMAN
WCRCTARY
TO: Stacy Hands
R. PNILIr Ky trt CK1ftLL 1f DOT
WECTOR .
FROM: Stephen Hall.
SUBJECT: CATEX -13 Bridge Replacement Projects
REFERENCE: B-3620, B-3613
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for rare aquatic species from the
vicinity of two of the proposed projects:
B.620
A population of Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema), considered significantly rare in North
Carolina, has been recorded right at the bridge crossing on SR 1001.
B-3613
Populations of broadtail madtom (Noturus n. sp. 1), state listed as Special Concern, and
Santee chub (Cypnnella zanenm), coastal populations of which are state listed as Special
Concern, have been recorded at the NC 41 bridge crossing.
In order to avoid impacts to these species, we recommend that all best management
4 practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation be strictly followed. All concrete
used in these projects should be fully cured before allowed to come into contact with the
water.
w
r °- /sph
r rr' y` `a
4 r,ia aptti r ?,
L .. tiP
p 1515 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEION, MORTN CAROLINA 27099-1015
?yrF PNONE 515-73"101 FAX [phone]
Fray '+ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RLCYCL[WiO% PORT-CONSUMER PAPER
Fader-, .4 id BKZ-1001(''0) TIP =B--'.220 C,,urur BurKe
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE 'NATION.AL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Prviect Description: Replace Bridze No. 202 on Sit 1001 over Henn-Fork River
On March 37, 2000. representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation r
other
All parties present agreed
[1 them are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effec.
there are no properties less than fifty y 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 rid. x'292 are considered not eligible for the National
[register and no 6aluation of them is necessary.
L there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:

t
/s?
Date
i
State Historic Preservation Officer

FHWA, for the Division Administrator. or other Federal Agency Dace
r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and Histor;
Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 29, 2001
MEMORANDUM ?.
TO, William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over Henry Fork River, B-3620, Burke County, ER 00-10120
Thank you for your letter of June 7, 2000, concerning the above project. We regret the omission of
comments on archaeological resources in our previous response.
There are no known-recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the project.
Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site fortes,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
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-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
UD:Kgc Location Mailing Address Tekphonaffax
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 «733-865
Restoration 515 N, Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4618 (919) 7334763 •715-4801

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 5, 2001
Mr. David Brook
Deputy SHPO
Historic Preservation Office
Dept. of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-46517
Dear Mr. Brook:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SFCRE`rARY
Subject: Archaeological Study, Replacement of Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over
Henry Fork River, Burke County, State Protect 8.2852101, ER 04.10120,
TIP B-3620
Your letter of October 29, 2001 concerning the above project calls for a comprehensive
survey to identify and evaluate archaeological properties within the project area. At
the time of the original scoping of this project three separate alternatives were under
consideration, two of which involved construction on new location. Now a preferred
alternative has been selected that calls for replacement of the bridge at its existing
location with traffic being maintained with an off-site detour. Current plans call for
no impact outside of the current right of way by construction of the new bridge. A
brief drive-over reconnaissance revealed that the current road lies atop substantial fill
when approaching the bridge. Replacement of the bridge in its existing location will
not impact any new location. It is our belief that further investigation of this project is
not warranted.
A copy of this letter will be sent to the Federal Highway Administration for their
records. Any questions should be directed to Gerold Glover, Ph.D. at [phone],
extension 277.
Sincer y,
Gerold F. Glover, Ph.D.
Archaeology Unit
Enclosures
cc: Emily Lawton, FHwA
MAILSIGf ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC OI PARTMEW OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATWN 81J6A04
PROJECT OmLopww ANo EwmoNwmTAL ANALVSis 1 SOUTM WgLMINGtTON STREET
154 MAIL SVW= CIPMR KSBSITE: WWW DON.DOT STATE, NC. US RALvom NC
RALEK;N NC 476WI54

d?' w
oJ?"
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael E. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
.January 8, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and Histon
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
TO: Gerold F. Glover
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook F LUC, ,'R'J-t'e- k-
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over Henry Fork River, B-3620, Burke County, ER 00-10120
Thank you for forwarding additional information concerning the above project. Since the proposed
development is to take place in areas where previous ground disturbance has occurred, it is unlikely that
archaeological resources will be affected. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
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 8W.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 9111/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
Emily Lawton, FHwA
Administration
Restoration
Survey do Planning
Location
507 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Mailing Address Tetepbone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733.8653
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] *715-4801
`.' Il p l Flo
........ .... .....
r
r," V1
t ? ? :?- rrr777fff ? ? E
Y 44
88 j ?
1AIN -VIVO,, 15,
_ > y
x
tlp ( Y r-
4 4
'"? ? W ASS ? i?
U.
" ?PA
? ? 4 44
_ s
M
cr n ? II tl a IJ ?
C) C4
W
Kt dr I 4,... g.. fv°
a T . k
k ._.._ st mrN i «.«
-M sn
3c 1 ?+ }"j ? t
Ain
fus
?rt
4? ?1
'd.....,
qq?

?i
t

M
Ui
w ?+! 3
Vi
C" lei
3
u) j
,
W fJ u
? ,.,c. 1VJ ? ll
u
3?
t Y, 1
111 p?I? 3'
rD
C
it I COH u,
? r

1 ? 1 !

}
f
$ IU? ?1 tills s if
. I
/??] {py yp? k
it q
1 ! 1
g
16
-jf M
v1 7? V V C x U US w E- I o.
t t t U, I og. U- 1 11 t f f
.'*4
?c a a
?s
R y,
«_ is
ri
tVj
w-
4
w
}
tin

yy?
III
i.
? ??
I
f
I
I
I? ?F1 4w "

? tl
!I f?
i
I1 {?
II
if
M? }
I
f
I
I
I V
I
I
NI
r
f
f
I
f
i.
i
f
(
I
f
I

?w

1

as
C
?
y

w r lh
f e
y.K??[
A115

q
VI ,?1C..t0gC
?W

?p .(
Y
MJ
??
q
N ?F
?Q
?
o
G
p?+
bh
¢
?? p
Y .p
Y 1??CVf
i0 1(/y?
O?W
IL 0. UB
Mf V?I? ??

? ul
"
QYfbbb
i M
lop
' iR
> ?
Y
?
p ? ?1 ?0
/
"`MJ ?yy
m? 4Y •
i6?M
Q "-€ a Er
91

?-
S M
rm
W~
o r
I r
Ti
W
, w
p.. .J }W
LL OC
q

CL

l

E!: D

W

-
S 4
• KdKC
p«
6 b 2

f" K
OO

A
?? OCI$
p {?
K O?-
OW KQ
i{
1t1 O Ms?r

c p
9 R

N ?

tl W
!
yf?yH'
p
W
Q

• p
4X4t

<
?
SSSCCa y
a>
OW. ??uu accl
I ,T

' yK
k
"„st?

?N[[

X y
,?I (
.6
4 !r
g a
? at I DO at aKw w w > ^-
v c0)i 0 04 w w ?-
M r

N
w r
rk
a
W
w
aa.?
it
?I
11
(1

it
N ? ?.. Ti M

Z
0
cv
?
?
N
4
P
? W
` F

f { CN CL
L V
?
e
-
10 4n
44

ci or
44 is
. 1I

i

w ?
J

M
(;
41 .(
??fjjf yq?
1!U ? ypp
C? ? pp
j1
p?ty? d
W
1" ?
trg?Ww of
W w

r
/
f
f ?.
r
r
r t?
r
r
r
r
w
?
?
?
?
?
?
r
r
?u} .. 1,
I crt
1
1
,
4
f Rh
1
#cn
1.
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
i
1
4
I
i
I
t
t
1
i
1
t

c>
rv

4NaSK"
,
. 11
t . ___
;1 , ; ;'I II.
{
t
t
t
i

E
:; ; 'i
t
i
i;;' i1

'

;
t
t

{,
t
_... ......... ..{
.. 1 ,, .. ,, i
f
t
.
..
.
i
ft
i
.? ! 4 1
+..: ....+a
i i 1 r i, 1
E

'

11 . .
.a

1 I

.t f

y.

;
i
-

{ t?
P'"
i ;

?
a 1
.4 .t.4•...
1?
?; l l,;l

.r.,, {.?, r
I 1
1 t,

1

.a... .. r
1 1
l
;

I" .t

,4

+ F,_ , j _

.

.
t

- (

: t
i
;
j ,?

t; t
!t
ilk E f

i

i

f

i

1

1'

I
1'

t
-?

--
-.

-"-
.

..
iti t 'i

ii iii i1
I. t
1
?i;
iI

:t-

1 ,+i

1

..l
?
x !
#

II 1

1
i
jll
E

! t

i
i

?_
'

! 1tt
! :
`
11'
i

t i##
'i
;. e

4

'
_

j E
i '

I

'a

t

!
j
Et

!

I

l(
?
1

1 -
.:..:

1 t_
1
F4

I
:.
.i
i 1,
4 ;{
.
4 .
+ ?,: .I.;
I ( .:
!:?i :1:
i ,,
: .I ,
„
.1 1
?1 -

a

(.

t3 t
,
t
.. t
,
t
_

3,
'
?

f
tt

_
_
j
t

- I
1

s
}
t

I!

"
?

' .
w , 1 .
.
1
r 1
t ,. {
?. .

?

f 2 ;
I 4 i 1- It + ! J.. 1 }.I. :
i
1 {
!
_
.?..
_

?.:.
, ?(1,. ,,
` S?j
V, r-I {1 :?
9?
I ; .
1
r , ; '?? 1
? ?
-9,.?2 (. !.I t1
E

; t1f

It
+ ;:
?,I t:..,..i
} tl
k
i?itl
t: ?I,
t..<

?
?:
, { i' ! , "1
, ?, : t, ,t ;t }
i I It, (: ti
e t;.. a ?;
„? ;?i1
I ,?
?
1. ;
',i tit,
t, EI
f t
?
ll t :
,
` i
E
I ! ti
I ' It,. t
ltt
,
f

11.
, ,
I

.. ?,,} ..
# t, 1, ;;;` jr
.. ..y1
;t 11}
,+ f..
.. 14:
.
.
Il
f
.
.
ft1 ,
.i.
,,1
i?i 11
I,I, !1
i ?
4
,
i;
}
?
I I
1! I
??I
t+
+{
1
t
iIt ?f, _
I _ _ __ _ _
i ?
.......
i t. -, 1 4 l i l.d ,, :
l r it l , j f 141 }
1 ?) t 1,,, a, 1, , ,CI
, ,11 ..1. i,,., I.
.
;:
11 .. ;: , 1..
i
:
. ?.1 f?.. ,
+: ! 1..
}` t

:# t +
'
Ill 1 M ; i?
,1; ti
! t
t
f t
t +
' I
, I!I !+
l
I I'' t1 !
I
t
, 11 ?.
Lt? { It
I
i f l t
t
! i ! f
i 1
.. ' i , . ,
f ;
,,.
ti it `1;
,,
;
,
1
r ,
'1
?
,. . ...

:t
,

! f

?

?j,
+

i
?
?

a

f , ,

:, ,

:
, t .;.
. x ,

}1,4 tle 1: 7141-.1 .,

l

I

? 1 i t

.? 1. j.?i

E

I'll 1 t'
' 11,1

i tt I;

I ,! i .E

_1- Hit, #?

, ?i zi i

- I
'. t.

1 , ,: - .

I 1 .?..1...

..
4
(
i , 1 b .ti

f i, { 1 y?f . :

' . t

{i, ,
t F

1 A fi.1

t 4 i. t.
I

+. 4 .

f !: 1

Ia(r ,. ,

li 1t1
..
a
1
1 h
-
-
„I , ,
t 'i , i; + :I

.
T

.....
, 1Er !(?1 ,
t t ,fi
i
1 .
; } i .i
1 s
f' ?.
I
E 3 { I _.
?
1 1 11 f. . ii 'i ; ..
„ -,. 1. , ,
.4 i + La 1 i ( , -,
1 I i 1 i.
•
L. 4. . L t -Y
,. 1f !. , f 1

1
I
I t
r.
i l i i i
i 1 -
F

4 _
+ i

I
.t,. } ... a ,?. F- -
j a .
...

t +
`. .if,!E:?,?{;
.
. 4
{ 4? MINI ? a: } ? i
i I t `. i 4 • i
I r I
;1t? f' .
I i 1 i t + , I ,
{}t ti. t.i.
tt: 1 .,...
;. , jl 1i i. I.
lE :1 t.:l• "I1 {
„f
..
... 1 , t I{ t i
{J
1

i

.

.

4.? 11
• ?
i
.

1 it. I! E+`
t
I
t
{ it

i

dt

i

i. ,,it .

1
I j, I
+.
, . _ . 11
. .,
...
T ,.
1
1111
i I

;
! i

Y?W

(

.
I
:, -:.. t , ,-,. .. ,J.
I a< I,
1, r !,..
t
I 1,

3
j_
4i. .t_I
ii ;.i
i.,
i.l

A
r
l it. 1. 11111 -, +?
a
I
i
11 ? A 1 11
? f .I 1 {{
tE1i i-)
I{?
:
}
1
? = !I

:i
1
l
+
- `
t
I,
ff
i,.
i" , ti , l
1 . 1 .I F, .I t it
L . ;. i i j. i . t {- e • } t 1 ..1. ! . } . t , 1 ' , t

`}
f try ti '1
: = t

1 i

` i i A

.11
+
;t .
1 1' I' t it, ttt;
t?
1

I

;

!
1

;

=
t
...
i
r . ., 1 . ? , ?
1 ,,t$ t; t
ti,, ,4 f 1
1: .
.
,. t4 , ..i

. .
t
.1 t, I ,11 il t Et
r
l"
4 111
- {'
r filf it; tI1 f t iIE
t
14 1 E t,
1 .e., t. t'
t
_,.
it
}. I
t, , i I
t
t G
F, I
t
' .?
77i 1:.. .., lI" i1 li 11t.{ 4 .?.
+ I
1 I ! . f.I..k
I:
a I
t iI I i t. Ett 1t.'1 t i. i. ,

I
?
i
'
1 ` E I '-i
,. 41 t
;
1.
t ! .. '!'
'
1

.. ?: , .l. V
I

7
1 [,', I;, ` iE;l t
i. ri
" III

"

I I

l
, ,?
: ,
{ s .i
j
r; , t Ei E ! t.. 'IE;
!;'i
i',E

I
t I

li
{4{t
1E;
I

-

t
fi _

I

qli I
ll", .
l _.. _.. 1 !
..,? tt. .
.... •1-::i,t fl, W
:. .
.
+

?
E .!_
.. 6.
t.
k r.

ltft
i
1 !. It

,

i

,
' 4
'i
!_

.,,.

4
,
t
,
i.
f fa ;r?i ti jt i?
t
! ,EE
'I t J! ` 1ttl i?'.E
ti It ;!; t?
t V!fl ; t
r ...
•. " 4t ;it
?
I V
1
1
t _
Li i
E
I'l
1
11
Pk j'`I t H"t
s 1
11' tl i f
I
;I{
fr t
t
1
1( t t
i
t
t t
f
j
?
._ tf
4
-11 - , ,1
+. 11 ,t i
It I ,! l
,
. I ?. _
?
i ,_:.:

4 ?, a a r ,; t. 1i i
-1- I

-1. 1

.
I f
'?
? :I I, I , it ?t ,31
4
?I 7

1
_. 4 t a
4,. ?t _

t
- It 14
?:
1; ?' t# E ;? !t,

?

t
1 ,
' , '.
- .? __. .....].........
., .
_ _., . . x

w
.
+_ ,t.._ .,-

l
.
5 t

i.. ,
1 t ;

. • ,
+ ! (t , i 4,4t
ti,i

t . : I

at
t t ! !

' t all

I
a.l.
I
.. .-1

?-
.,?.
`
}
t

1

it
a.' ill 4 4 ?(..r.
?.. ,+
t .
a I
I .

t I
. y.,-. t A.,..., a., r{ , 1 4'f
1 ' 1 ;
t tf

a
i ?
,i t .. t

I lip

. ll? l

t ti
i at'

E
r..
-111 F
:
?.. _
62 }}4
._
.. .,t?
_.

.
:5

I- i ,lt
t

1?, !
It
,.

j

t

i1

p
' - .

„a ,
-- , 1-
Ie sw

*t : 41,

j.ft 4 t
, .
it: 1 ;; ?f
E i l

till"

. 7

f

';

- 11
.. a

r3 1

4?
? 1
i
i
!
,I' Et t? !
.

11

`i

? ?

a t

t

, t
jii? ? ? ?:: .
;

+
*4 i$
.

, . '
? +•. ., <
. }
i, T.
a
- ! it 4 t t;
` t

1
t
J.4 41S ?'
} l i

( t

, i ,

,
t
` E j.,.

t
D
1 1
.
a A
„a ii
? - t
.. .. .
' 10111 . ,

.,
1
t 3 ii!
1
11111 1*1 ,
1
1
1 't
i ?t 1
r
1
t t1 }t (t t1 ll'
.1
*
! ` t
.I.
t

.. y
r
4
..?
..
.. ? r ..? r ...h
.,.
11
...
11.. , i} l i 1:

_

.. 1
1
1

a
M. }/

??k

-ti

k
.j
11
: 1 1 j
1 I t

' t1.

t
f ft
4
+

t
I

4

f

. +
t i. t

1

4 4 •"

t

'

t
ly
! _

0 . ..
.:. __.:. _ t,. , t.., .,i . is
1,;
11
it
}
..

.
._
t ;
_
t,
t
1
•

r ! t

Hit

I

E

f
t
,4,. t,
i ..

! i

i
.
tE+!
S
;t{i ff i
t
1 1 :1 ; i
1 t
A

?.

..

i
Ili

,S `

1

•
....

- r .`
. ,' I.,.
..,..

, : ? ? i ... .11. -,
,. t
?
1 ....
FF t
If .i
A
a }`

! ,
tI
I
i
I

. tt '
I
1 !i'

? 71
:1, 1

i'
--

W
,.

;,4. 7
..
?? ,
1
.- , i; ; ;• ,tt ftt? t,i
;: 1 I .,_1 1,4 ilia r? E iI

.

,.
I
h r .

t1 fi

"t4!
f1 _

.:,
L-11

, .,

4
!

.i

1

1
„

w

• I. it .3 ) I i , 1

1i t i {

? t f
i
rtf a i it
11
,
I
t "
t
4 is }
r
? I,
i I --
.t l ..},., .

- ,-
-- h M
4 ti
1
' t.

I' t #
t 1

?
t 4
1
I

i
?
?

I t t t

t
t

I

i 1
• •
4,t Z ; i '
?- m ?
+ , 1
t i ! I
}
r
, (

I t.,
4
4 ,a ,
t :
I
.
1
11

i
t
?
t

1
j t
t ,
,I t Ll
E' i 4 t
`
. I

• 1
t
; :#
i

- 't

t
.
t , t
l l 1.

-

?

t

l
.?
?,
d
:.l ? t " {! a l . , ;-
?
- - --- ,
:
t
` f ' ?
?
t
EI
l;il" ' +? O.O. IN
a }
?a
i I ;
I :? 4 t I t.
V t
1: t LI! 4 j::1
I ? .1t ,
1.:i _ ' 4
t. 1 t
i _
...
:
.
:. t .. :1 R
I
A E
f- ---: , . T

!

!1
. `.1. t

t E c 1t

1 -, - It, 4

t

.
`

?
. til. It
!i
- • . .. ,
1i a it ,
I
.
H
i

I !

?

i
r.i

?

i

i
;
I
. ,
i
i
.....
.3., ...1 ..,. 1. _t llti r. Ii { fl

,
I
i
t
1 .I f ,.?
1! '4
?'" t

i'?a ....
1

a

?
_ _ ?

_
T
fi.
t I 1li 1;i it t:+1' t. E 14 I ;1i NR-i ti t: I! 1t
t -Yr
I

<
A tt
t l j i . {{ It t: l 1 1 '
{

{
i t t l ? .> i t
4
a , t - "'t
' -----
,. .? .. a t- !! i ,,
t
-F i
, t I, . 1
f '. .1-
t - ,
1 , ,; - -- , , , N ?
? I

_ . ...
i
t 1
4EI !
'

i.t II
,
a

1 ?
-
f:.i. ..
«. ...<. _
.. - .. t
,....,. i
aid
? -- T
-
t i
i -
f
` I
i t 4 E
+ , ,
, i
i i (, > `.. . i,.. . .a.
. r, ,r it ,.r.
-
$ 4 1 i
f :.ti ,.
1
u
1
ff I i
}i.,;
?
t 1. ..i -
- - - _.

.. t
.
11
f { t
1 t t
.. t ; i 4. .. 1 1c i ,. „
r
'
{
F i
4` + i i
t
,
?
1 i ..
1
1
^i

-
. . ., , ..it

t + I l.ti ?. . t
.
I
t

i
i
i.
t
"
It', - , . „
.
1 i
tl
t
t f
,
';
t.
a
:
.
'
I-

W
f
1

:t
??

?

i

1
. , .; ,
.,
.i.}t 1,1 -
' 1 • + . ; !
..., e+ J ,1, 1 ? :
t i
,
t
i
? i
.
1i., 4 !I
. Ii. !t 1ft
i, 1
" ::? t:
;
t t
t 1
t a
F t ,..
1
t
.. 4
. -
.
N
A
t a.
I i
I7 : b i , , i,, I w
i
t
f 4
;
{
: :
t ,.
t ttI

: I i
it
tE ?
?

f
t ,

i
? ,

,
,
? :, ;
lt I 'j
:z
1
I

;
;
1
;
11
t
t.
;
r 1, 1? . 1,
1,
ti E
t
1

i 1
I
i
' I' ;!I , It I i1
t t 1 ii f 1 „ I
3 4
1-.
t
i
i

r.
...
-
f t
11 $I
i
1 .1,1. .I t t 1
+ 1 t
, t `1 ,1
}
li
l 14 4t;
i 1 11
i. iE i { I=
1
{ I
i i , -
' j

I
,+ 't
,1 1 l
1!
- ,
i {
. 1 I
} l

.
! .
I ;1 ( t. _
'
{
,?. p
'4

t
? i
i t; 1

`
1.?
? .a

,
?

4 !.
E•?t i
;
;,

..

i

'

i ,.

?

.. .I
,
t , e
1.
1 : , Ijal ,. • . .F.
} ti 1 1
1
` Z
:
a 4.:
d i
I
_
. t
' 1:: t , ,
!; tf
, }i l f }
i .
1 ? t
;; ? ?1( ; °? 1
1
t F T t _._:.1
:i; :,tt
i I
I t
11:
I
. t I
i .
t
1
4
il t
iH t II"
is ,

.e..
?..
1. '
T
'
" 2 } ,I

ffi
t
a. I

E

I I

'
t !'

,
(' t
t

l

1
t
iF.

1
t
;

t

! ?i

'
,i
t''
E
i
l
1 ?1 t
I
. I M I t
t
t
.'
?
i
14 !
t
-
; ;f
f? : i
1. i
lt: i _ 1 1 t i? 1 1 1 t :1 , a 4

. .
.

.
t

1 ,.?

<

:

.

-
-
I i. { 1

E

. i

l. !!!

t +

4

a
.
"
,
' ? . -
1i
44 .t
j
111"
- tt1
r;,
,, tf j wa t . t „
'? i,
r
.. ?

a
• ?. -:1
,'
.. - I
?. ;I
t.. t
.. -
-
, , , ,

" I -

?

: : _
A {{ t t ,

1
I ['
I 1 . }

}}}
F
S 1..A_

y

i
t
i. t
4,

I1
1 I
?'

? I I
j . 1.

?
1

:?:
11
1 .
1 Ft

.,
+.:
? •'
- .
- 1

.1 .

.

, - t.,
4
r
.
l

, ??
A i
t

y
4
it
17T

-

i

I
ll.;

t

{

tt

.
,.
_

1
rl
!
1. . 1i ; l:l' a - . ,
t 4 ai 1
`
Et
' )
I }
.. t1 1 '
I
t
.1.4
.
i
.. .. ..,. . ..
, 1M ,.,.....
}
"
t
E
?
{
I -

1

_.

I
..

.
11

::.

:.`

,
t

yt
.I
.. .....

{ r?i
f

i a C

I tEi , i 1

;i

'El } r I }

?.. _t i.

1
I .
i !

?

i

,
, 111.1

4.

1

:'

+
"
-

-

: ,

i ..

-
? .

. _

,.

. _

...

,: ,.
I
:,

. 1.

.._.. i? I

. I:t
. .

.
.
. . ?
t 1G T

.;? 1 r .. .{,. .

}}

}
"4" ' i 1.

! i

.

r
: t
f
1.
.. ..

t
l

f

t

{}y (

}

t

?

¢ :.j.
S

..i.t 4. i+
r

1 1 YI

I

1';' ,

.

? .

-

{
?'`

.
-
ill, ?
c i
;
;i ;
t If:
, { 1, t E ,
1 C t L
,
;I 1 ; 1
4 y

?
Et
'

t
i
,
E- '
1
t t,
itf t..
tI. it t4;
x,. s` t
- ' t t 4 . 4 . "Ill I71 !'•rf ci.
!$

It
`yyyWcaa ?
r / t
..?? ? f 11 rr
a
1.81 '1
l K?t
l
9`
1
r
i
I" `e
?f
' f tti!
Cc ?e
?Z3
a
n
If IMP
Ilk 4
" c
tt ??m
7w '
• !1lff
.... F ? 1_ ._ ? ? f?".'...+M?.?-'? ??? R. 'a1i -ter .?+I? i.
14 f
r t
I
, Vi
. . I
_ t
G'
n
71,
t ? y
3 1? t i t-P t I t, ? , ^- I
f,, .ly s r
l l t t a 1 i ??.
i ::I kiil 7zc
{
?.i.1
r t ,,.
t-ii Il`i:
tri.
l?4? tf t E.?? ; ?"1 i
ri A 4 ? t rf a
I { I ? ..
,t +
1 f4 ' 1
1 y y '.(. .. .. . y. . r
r y y l l t I. S''' it
t r It ?? I. I I R .? I 4
l I F,{ I
?f it. H'+ ,!i. -tIf .tl till!
,t. fi I
I Wit
.l.: 11 1 L f ?pp t r} t r }t
,iE# S ! It 1 ?. f
I 1
.f
f t
"? r t,?f } ? {f j :r
r y
i y 1 l 1 {? 1
?' il' 1? ? t t 1
C rT w r ?'
` I , a a?i x ??+• ?, ?'
41 1
1 L+4,t
ttr
? 1 I l
i F. 4 ii . 1 { l 1 Y'4. rii? t t 4 I . rv 1
4 fill I I!
1141 t,
14, :71:
-7 -7
,
j?
1 1 ;
{ w
4 -
+ li?i + it :I•
y t7
L C rtt.t ? ff.1' ;' 1i1 f.t. ?: xr
77- 7-
1.. ? i a r, y
,
I M
?. 1 i 44
yy
},i 1 t
r. °r
?9
,i{L'C1 Et!t E'?'#37y ?4 --i 1? i 1
t ... 1

? ) ?

t
i ? ?
?]0?
tl ?
/
?? ?

( ? e ? ?? ?
?
? o

? f i
f 11
1I4. f il?i.
ii,i
L. t.i?

?. t .?.. -?
}
`. 'l.l !

/t .1
t7 t iI
t.
i ?}.i{ ! k
i!j i:lt 3i ,
l t.i 1 1
I
in:

[
w
tl
t.
-
p ?'

.:.I Il
.
,...
t!
r
_
; "r ..

_
?py?yyy?? L x
•t ?• N
`
'' i t
?.
f
7-li i
t i t? 1 I
iy
1 I s
!
4?
jW
'

wt1 0 11 pq

1{

w X3 C

1

f ."
V
M
S
!

? ? I 1
i
t1 e
I ..

` 1 i
e
1 i
I.
){

p
?

? ?

{ I

u i`

?k

u `

I, 11
t
4
?` llif
1
I1

a ?
d ?

i
N

ia;
O
1

I ? ?7i
14,11
1

? 1 t 1.1,1

, IT ? 1
t

tl i 1,? 1

j... .f ? ?

a.. lli y i
1 ,

/? u F t 1!, t i' 5... i ?It I t l t i i - f tt 1 i-r _: ?,
,, its p ;? . # 1,;z

z

ar i
?

1

(i k l 1 t I- 1
IIII
1 ? ?' t? {{

4

.

? {? i

{ i t

t

l

r
'?

t

t
!

1

1
4$

1 1 :.

1
r y

\ rp

?_?
N
a
? ? k
l.. rl. F i-. .( }
I

i
1?;t
? r
Y- 77-
1
r
_

4.

? rill
? 3O '? t' i E }w l
I, ,, d -

.i ! e ?11
.
r? f

Ft: F?t-a .i.
I t

i ? I t.

!

1 r
r

? ( •

? ...•
1

Ki? g
m..°,^°w.,» .. ...........c..; ?a
""""--?_ _?,.?••;,:..??
??`°"-``•'??`` 4?r
I ' 1 ; }t? ? ?'?
? ? " ? ` t ' k t t • .-, '{ t it !
! i
,
.
At tlt
t : i ii 1
? L .
..:?
1 ' 1
{ '?
1?Z?
t;a'.?`
1 i
?? 31W,h/ ..?.?
•
w t.. ? t i ? d! a. { y i? 1 t i• 1
A • _ .r.

1 1 1 { j 1 ? i

i EEG
}
t.l. .4.. 1 {.s t _..
r

?
M-
???? jig
??
?.
i j1.1. i I i.?i 4?? ?
? 1 ?t 1
! t:; I
1 f?
i "_
i .• ..
+i --

aj Ft,

1 [

111

+..

!
i ''t
• t? 'rtq ?. ?"
?. ( 2
i 1
1
1
a i + }
X y ?t i 1 ,tt{ t ? , a t ?` t

41
i ,I 1
in
; i
it 10
1011
. .

•
,., •+ -- „?•,, ..... -.," `"`" '°+.` "".. '..` t
L 1 ; ' i i .3 i ..?, ? i, ?.
.,?.
..? i 1
!. , {
1.
? Ali 1 t «
c i
3 - ?
404 •
1i H1 ?.j t
k
V T,
Li m /

?)
I EJ
t t, 1
t.tt. t'(
.i
?.it `
i

i

n ? til ? '•
` i 1 A £? ?, Iii t. t?t

N? ? ? ?. .l .i 1 . ?. ?? J ?? .? i-i? 1 d l S?. .

'
..
fill,
i
r!
f
4^
a ? a
4 t Fi}; '. R'(4A-x ygTY Fr? t :tr c r 1;'. .