20071009 Ver 1_Application_20070625

ya
n'~S~o~
~ ~.a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'T1V~NT OF `I~ZANSPORTATION ~~'?V ~~,~~
MIC~IAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TYPPETT
GOVERNOR $ECQETARY
~~
C
.T-
~.

June 20, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Monte Matthews
NCDOT Coordinator
x fit,:
~~~
/~~~ ~~~
-.~d ~,~,
do "~, L~~
S~N~,s;S:%4 `vOj
~~' ~;. ~,,,y
~~; 4•~•I
071099
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 33 Application and Notice of Use of NW13 for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 70 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1366
in Ashe County. Division 11, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1366(1), State
Project No. 8.2711801, WBS Element 33159.1.1, TIP No. B-3606.
Dear Sir:
Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), Categorical Exclusion (CE), permit
drawings and design plans for the above referenced project. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 81-foot, two-span Bridge No. 70 with a new
130-foot, two-span, pre-stressed concrete box beam bridge that will span Big Horse Creek. The
existing bridge will be replaced in place with minor improvements to the alignment ~as it relates
to the intersection. Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction. The rip rap used to
stabilize the north bank under the new bridge will permanently impact 50 linear feet of Big
Horse Creek. There will also be 0.01 acre of temporary impacts associated with a temporary
workpad for pier construction and <0.01 acre of temporary impacts associated with a temporary
pipe placed in UT1 during construction. There are no jurisdictional wetlands located within the
project area. Per the North Carolina Water Resources Commission (WRC) there is an in-stream
work moratorium from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description:
The water resources impacted for project B-3606 are Big Horse Creek and one unnamed
tributary (UT1). Big Horse Creek is located in the New River Basin (Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) subbasin OS-07-02) and is approximately 30 feet wide and 3 feet deep within the project
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING,
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 24O
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

area: UT1 is approximately 2 feet wide and 9 inches deep. The DWQ Index number for this
section of Big Horse Creek is 10-2-21-(4.5) and the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit is 05050001.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources classifies Big Horse
Creek and UTl as C Tr+. The "+" symbol identifies waters that are subject to a special
management strategy in order to protect downstream waters designated as Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW). In this case, waters from Big Horse Creek ultimately flow into the main stem of
the New River via North Fork New River. The main stem of the New River is an ORW and is
over 20 miles downstream of the project area. There are no High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WSII), ORW or 303(d) streams within one mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts:
There will be 50 linear feet of permanent stream impacts to Big Horse Creek as a result of the
placement of rip rap for stabilization purposes along the north bank. Stabilization on this bank is
necessary following the removal of the temporary work bridge.
Temporary Impacts:
There will be 0.01 acre of temporary impacts associated with a temporary work pad for pier
construction. There will also be 60 feet (<0.01 acre) of temporary impacts due to a 30-inch pipe
that will be placed in UT1 during construction. Both the work pad and pipe will be removed
once construction is complete.
Utility Impacts:
There will be no jurisdictional impacts associated with relocation of utility lines on the project
site. In addition, there will be no relocation of water or sewer lines due to the construction on
this project site.
Schedule:
The project schedule calls for a February 19, 2008 LET date with a date of availability on April
1, 2008 and a review date on January 1, 2008.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing bridge's substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and a reinforced
concrete interior bent. The superstructure consists of anasphalt-wearing surface and a timber
deck on I-beams. The deck of the existing bridge is 16 feet above the stream bed. There is no
anticipated fill associated with the removal of the existing bridge. All components of the bridge
will be removed without dropping any portion into Waters of the United States. All guidelines
for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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. As of May 10, 2007, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists seven federally protected species for Ashe
County (Table 1). Within the project azea, there is habitat present for one species, Virginia
spiraea. The project was last surveyed for Virginia spiraea on June 7, 2007. No individuals were
2

found within the project area. Therefore, this project will have No Effect on Virginia spiraea.
The biological conclusion for the six remaining species is No Effect due to lack of habitat.
Table 1. Federall Protected S ecies for Ashe County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Survey Notes Biological -
Gonclusion
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii T S/A) No Habitat Not Re wired
Heller's blazin star Liatris helleri T No Habitat No Effect
Roan mountain bluet Hedyotis purpurea var.
montana E No Habitat No Effect
Rock ome lichen G mnoderma lineare E No Habitat No Effect
S readin avens Geum radiatum E No Habitat No Effect
Swam ink Helonias bullata T No Habitat No Effect
Vir 'nia s iraea S iraea vir iniana T Habitat Present No Effect
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States." The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable
design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design. The use of best management practices for construction
should reduce impacts to plant communities.
• The new bridge will be longer than the existing bridge, spanning Big Horse Creek.
• Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction. This eliminates the need for a
temporary on-site detour.
• A temporary work pad will be utilized during construction to minimize in-stream activities.
• Water will not be directly discharged into Big Horse Creek via deck drains.
• There is a moratorium on in-stream activities from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg
and fry stages of trout.
In addition, Best Management Practices will be followed as outlined in NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities" and "Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal."
Miti ag tion:
No mitigation is proposed for this project because the 50 feet of bank stabilization will not cause
an adverse effect or loss of waters of the United States.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit:
It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of Big Horse Creek and UT1 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 the temporary
dewatering of Big Horse Creek. NCDOT will make use of a Nationwide Permit 13 for 50 feet of
3

impacts relating to bank stabilization. No written concurrence from the USACE is required for
this use of Nationwide Permit 13.
Section 401 Permit:
We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3626 and 3634 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 Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their records.
This project is located in a trout county, therefore comments from the North Cazolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of
Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers and the
NCDOT within 30 calendaz days of receipt of this application.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Erin Schubert at ekschubertnu,dot.state.nc.us or [phone].
Sincerely,
~,
d Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Mazla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Mazella Buncick, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mazk Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael A. Pettyjohn, P.E. Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Heath Slaughter, Division 11 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Natalie Lockhart, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
4

Off ce Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 ~ G ~ 0 ~ 9
(tt any parucuiar item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. 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 ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 13 and 33
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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, 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: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D. Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:_ [phone]
E-mail Address: ekschubertna,dot.state.nc.us
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 1 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. 70 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1366
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3606
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Ashe Nearest Town: Husk
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36°31'54.93" °N -81°31'46.73" °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: North Fork New River
8. River Basin: New River Basin
(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: 50% wooded, 50% agriculture
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard construction equipment will be used (backhoes, bulldozers, cranes and/or other
heavy machinery
Page 2 of 8

11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to re lap ce a
functionally and structurally obsolete structure (sufficiency rating 28.0 out of 100
improve the alignment of the road at the bridge crossing.
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.N/A
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.
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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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 maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream 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: Permanent: 50 linear feet (<0.01
acre) of impact to Big Horse Creek due to bank stabilization with rip rap Temporary 0 O1
acre of impact due to temporary work pad in Big Horse Creek and 601inear feet (<0 O1 acre
due to temporary 30„ pie in UTI.
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
se arately list im acts due to both structure and floodin .
Wetland Impact
Site Number

(indicate on map)
T e of Im act
yp p Type of Wetland

(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year

Floodplain
( es/no Distance to
Nearest

Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact

(acres)
No Wetlands

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:N/A
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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. To calculate acrea e, multi ly length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres)
Site 1 Big Horse Creek Permanent Perennial 30 ft. 50 <0.01
Site 1 Big Horse Creek Temporary Perennial 30 ft. N/A 0.01
Site 2 i.J'f l Temporary Perennial 2 ft. 60 <0.01

Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 50' <0.01
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dred 'n ,floodin , draina e, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)
No open water
impacts

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01 (temp)
<0.01 ermanent)
Wetland Im act (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01 (temp)
<0.01 ermanent)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 60 (temp)
50 ( ermanent
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. 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.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
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 new bridge will span Big
Horse Creek. Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction thus eliminating the need for
an on-site detour. No deck drains will be used and NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be
followed. A temnorarv work pad will minimize in-stream activities during construction
VIII. Mitigation
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
Page 5 of 8

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
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, 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 NCEEP 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
http://h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetl ands/strmgide.html.
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 is nronosed for this project because the 50 feet of bank stabilization will
not cause an adverse effect or loss of waters of the United States.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Page 6 of 8

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. 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 ^
3. 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 6y 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. T'he 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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", 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.
* I Impact I I Required
Zone ,~,,,.~Ye c e,, Multiplier
1 I I 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 ~ 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 1 SA NCAC ZB .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
Page 7 of 8

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious surfaces will not significantly
increase as a result of this protect. There will be no deck drains installed
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Cleazly 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 6y DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project-(based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact neazby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The new bridge will be constructed in the same location as the old bride on a sli tl~proved
alignment.
XV. 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).
f.

_ ~~~
Applicant/~gent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

Ashe County
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1366 (Stewart Rd./Anderson Hill Rd)
over Horse Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1366(1)
W.B.S. No. 33159.1.1.0
State Project No. 8.2663201
T.I.P. No. B-3606
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
& PROGRAMMATIC 4(~
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
a
^ ~ ~.
DA ~ - Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD,
`` ~° Environmental Management Director, PDEA
D TE ohn F. Sullivan, III, Di ' dministrator
~,~Federal Highway Adminis tion

Ashe County
Bridge~~ No. 70 on SR 1366 (Stewart RdlAnderson Hill Rd)
over Horse Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1366(1)
W.B.S. No. ,33159.1.1.0
State Project No. 8.2711801
T.I.P. No. B-3606
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
& PROGRAMMATIC 4(fl
Documentation Prepazed in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
DATE Natalie Lockhart
Project Development Engineer
~ ~~ ` --
DATE John .Williams, PE, Project Engineer
Bridge Project Development Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Ashe County
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1366
Over Horse Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1366 (1)
State Project No. 8.2711801
W.B.S. No. 33159.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3606
Division 11 Construction -Coordination with Local officials
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) and school transportation time
to prepare for road closure, the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Ashe County EMS
and the Ashe County School Transportation Office, thirty days prior to road closure.
Division 11 Construction -School bus turn around
NCDOT will build a turning place near the northeast end of the bridge to assist school
buses along the detour route.
Division 11 Construction/NEU -Trout moratorium
Due to the classification of Big Horse Creek as a trout stream, a moratorium prohibiting
in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from
October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
Division 11 Construction- Speed Limit
Division 11 will need to post the speed limit at 25 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.
NEU-Bridge Demolition
There is no anticipated fill for the removal of bridge No.70. All components of the
bridge will be removed without dropping any portion into Waters of the United States.
NEU-Minimal Easements
One bar metal rail will be used instead of New Jersey Barrier Rail to minimize impacts
that could effect the Grubb-Combs Farm. Construction for the bridge replacement is
close to the historical property but will have a "No Adverse Effect" to the historical
property.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
February 2006

Ashe County
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1366 (Stewart Rd/Anderson Hill Rd)
over Horse Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1366(1)
W.B.S. No. 33159.1.1.0
State Project No. 8.2711801
T.I.P. No. B-3606
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 70 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible
for the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The location is shown in
Figure 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 Bridge No. 70 has a sufficiency rating of
28.0 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
due to a geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program.
Bridge No. 70 was built in 1963. It is 81 feet long, 12 feet wide and 16 feet over the
streambed. It has aforty-three year old reinforced concrete sub-structure abutments and a
reinforced concrete interior bent. The superstructure consists of anasphalt-wearing surface
and a timber deck on I-beams. Bridge No. 70 is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge No. 70 carries 200 vehicles per day with 400 vehicles per day projected for the year
2030. The substandard deck width is becoming increasingly unacceptable and replacement of
the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located just north of Tuckerdale (Figure 1). The surrounding area is residential
as well as forested.
SR 1366 (Stewart Rd/Anderson Hill Rd) is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and it not a National Highway System Route. This route is
not a designated bicycle route and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists
use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1366 varies in width from 10 to 12-foot pavement with grass
shoulders that vary from 0 to 6-foot. The roadway grade is in a tangent through the project

area. The existing bridge is on a tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 16.0 feet
above the creek bed.
Bridge No. 70 is a two-span structure that consists of a timber floor on I-beams supported by
reinforced concrete abutments and a reinforced concrete interior bent. The existing bridge (see
Figure 3) was constructed in 1963. The overall length of the structure is 81 feet. The clear
roadway width is 12.0 feet. The posted weight linut on this bridge is 20 tons for single
vehicles and 25 tons for TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but there are both aerial power and
telephone lines crossing over Big Horse Creek at the location of the bridge. There is also an
underground fiber-optic cable along the east side of SR 1366 and SR 1362 crossing under the
south approach but not crossing Big Horse Creek. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
The current traffic volume of 200 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 400 VPD
by the year 2030. The projected volume includes one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and two percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the
bridge; therefore the statutory 55 mph speed limit applies. Two school buses cross- the bridge
daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
There were no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 70 during a recent three=year
period.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 130-foot long. The bridge
length is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The
bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two 9-foot lanes with 2-foot offset on the left
side and a 4-foot offset on the right side. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing grade.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 18-foot pavement width to provide two 9-foot
lanes. Five-foot shoulders will be provided on each side; two feet of which will be paved in
accordance with the current NCDOT Design Policy. This roadway will be designed as a rural
local route.

B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
One alternative for replacing Bridge No. 70 was studied in detail and is described below.
Alternate 1(Preferred)
Alternate 1 involves replacement of the structure.with a 130-foot bridge at approximately the
same location with minor improvements to the alignment as it relates to the intersection.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects
considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the average
road user resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would utilize
NC 194, SR 1367 (Big Tree Rd), SR 1362 (Big Horse Creek Road), and back to SR 1366
(Anderson Hill Road). The detour for the average road user would result in 7.5 minutes
additional travel time (3.2 miles additional travel). Up to a ten-month duration of construction
is expected on this project. Based on the guidelines, the criteria above require evaluation of
alternatives including onsite and offsite detours to determine what is appropriate.
In this case, Ashe County Emergency Services has indicated that an offsite detour is
acceptable and would add ten minutes to emergency response time if the road is closed and
traffic rerouted during the construction period. This would not create an unworkable situation
provided emergency services agencies received advanced closure notice. Ashe County School
Transportation Director commented that temporarily closing the road would not present any
problems for school buses. The school buses will need a turning place near the northeast end
of the bridge during construction. NCDOT Division 11 concurs in these recommendations.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1366.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical nor economical.
Staged Construction is not feasible for this bridge because the 12-foot deck width and beam
configuration will not support removal of a portion and maintenance of traffic on the
remaining portion.
Other alternatives were considered but dropped from further study such as new alignment and
onsite detour.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 70 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2.

NCDOT Division 11 concurs with the selection of Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the one alternative are as follows:
Alternative 1
Preferred
Structure $ 401,000
Roadwa A roaches $ 157,000
Structure Removal $ 9,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 131,000
En . & Contin encies $ 102,000
Total Construction Cost $ 800,000
Ri ht-of-wa Costs $ 73,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $ 873.,000
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Physical Characteristics
Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in Hydrologic Unit 05050001,
Sub basin OS-07-02 of the New River Drainage Basin. Two streams were identified in
the project study area. Big Horse Creek and an unnamed tributary (UT) to Big Horse
Creek are perennial streams.
The best usage classification of Big Horse Creek (Index Number 10-2-21-(4.5)) is
Class C Tr (NCDENR-DWQ, 2004). The best usage classification of an unnamed..
tributary is the same as the water body to which it is a tributary.. No water resources
classified as High Quality Waters, Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resource Waters are located within one mile of the project study area.
Biotic Resources
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: `
conifer/hardwood forest and maintained/disturbed land.
4

Jurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Big Horse Creek and UT to Big Horse Creek aze considered jurisdictional surface
waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The field investigation
revealed no jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. Coverage area estimates
are based on the proposed "bubble study" area and are summarized in the following
table.
Anticipated impacts to surface waters.
Surface Water Length of stream in project study area
Big Horse Creek 2,550
UT Big Horse Creek 1,200
Due to the classification of Big Horse Creek as a trout stream, in-stream work and land
disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone will be prohibited during the trout
spawning and season of November 1 through April 15 to protect. the egg and fry stages
of trout.
Permits
In accordance with the Federal Register of January 15, 2002, Part II, Volume. 67,
Number 10, the project will likely require authorization under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions). However, a CWA
Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) may be required, rather than a NWP 23 if impacts
from the proposed project exceed the threshold of 300 feet of stream impacts or one
half of an acre of fill in Waters of the U.S. The USACE determines final permit
requirements, including IP requirements, under the statutory provisions of CWA
Section 404. ff a temporary causeway is needed and is not specified in the Categorical
Exclusion, a Nationwide 33 Permit (Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering) will be necessary for this project. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) No. 3403 corresponds to NWP 23. Written concurrence from the
DWQ will not be required if all General Conditions are met. . ff the project is
authorized under a CWA Section 404 IP, then a CWA Section 401 Major Water
Quality Certification from the DWQ will be required.
Mitigation
According to 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) and 40 CFR 1508.20, mitigation will be required
for stream impacts to jurisdictional streams requiring mitigation when these impacts
aze equal to or greater than 1501ineaz feet per stream. Because the project will not use
the entire "bubble study" area, stream impacts will probably not equal or exceed 150
lineaz feet. Therefore, no mitigation is anticipated.
5

Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under the provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the ESA. As of January 29, 2003 there are seven federally-protected
species listed for Ashe County.
Bog Turtle Biological Conclusion: N/A
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance [T(S/A)].
T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
not required.
Spreading avens Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for this species is at elevations at or above 5,060 ft. The project site is located
at an elevation of approximately 2,800 ft. Therefore, habitat for spreading avens does
not exist in the project area. It can be concluded that the construction of this project
will have no effect on this species.
Swamp pink Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There are no wetlands associated with the project area that could provide suitable
habitat for swamp pink. It can be concluded that the construction of this project will
have no effect on this species.
Roan Mountain bluet Biological Conclusion: No-Effect
Habitat for this species is at elevations at or above 4,600 ft. The -project. site is located
at an elevation of approximately 2,800 ft. Therefore, habitat for Roan Mountain bluet
does not exist in the project area. It can be concluded that the construction of this
project will have no effect on this species.
Heller's blazing star Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Heller's blazing star is found at elevations at or above 3,500 ft. on ledges of rock
outcrops. The project area is located in a valley along a stream crossing at an elevation
around 2,800 ft. Habitat does not exist for Heller's blazing star within the project area.
It can be concluded that the construction of this project will have no effect on this
species.
Virginia spiraea Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat does exist within the project area for Virginia spiraea. Within the project area,
some of the riparian azea azound Big Horse Creek is open on both sides of the creek.
These riparian communities are maintainedldisturbed and have no canopy closure. A
6

systematic survey for this species was conducted on June 24, 2004. No specimens of
Virginia spiraea were observed during this survey. Therefore, this project may affect-
not likely "to adversely affect Virginia spiraea. Concurrence from FWS is required for
this biological conclusions.
Rock gnome lichen Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Rock gnome lichen is found at elevations at or above 5,000 ft on ledges of rock
outcrops. The project area is located in a valley along a stream crossing at an elevation
around 2,800 ft. Habitat does not exist for rock gnome lichen within the project area.
It can be concluded that the construction of this project will have no effect on this
species.
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 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 afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity
to comment on such undertakings.
Historic Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential effects (APE) was conducted by an NCDOT
staff architectural historian in September 2004. On September 27, 2004, a NCDOT
architectural historian and representatives from the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) met to discuss this project and it was decided that report
would be needed to evaluate the. buildings that make up the Grubb-Combs Farm. A
report was prepared by Jennifer Cathey in Apri12005 which stated that the Grubb-
Combs Farm is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The report was
forwarded to HPO for their concurrence and they concurred with the .findings of the
report in a memorandum dated May 16, 2005, a copy of which is located in the
appendix. In a meeting between NCDOT,HPO, and FHV~A on January 10, 2006 it
was determined that the bridge replacement project would have no adverse effect upon
Grubb-Combs Farm if NCDOT agreed tb use aone-bar metal rail on the new bridge.
A copy of the concurrence form signed during the meeting is included in the appendix.

Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. There are
no known azchaeological sites within the proposed project azea, and no azchaeological
investigation needed to be conducted (see letter dated August 12, 2004).
Community Impacts
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 azea.
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.
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 construction
projects. There aze no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in
the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of
farmland acreage within these classifications.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effect on any minority or low-income population.
Noise & Air Quality
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. 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. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports
are required.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.

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 proposed project will require right-of--way acquisition or easement from a property
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. (See Historic
Architecture)
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Ashe County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area
of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is-not anticipated to increase the level or
extent of upstream flood potential.
VIII. COORDINATION & AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, N.C Wildlife Resource Commission, North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office, Ashe County Office of Emergency Management, Ashe County School, Office of
Human Environment, and Office of Natural Environment.
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in standardized
letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure to be a spanning structure.
A moratorium prohibiting in stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer
is recommended from October 15 to April 1 S to protect the egg and fry staged of trout.
Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds. As recommended, Bridge No. 70 will be replaced with a new bridge. The
moratorium and sediment erosion control measures will be followed.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality, the Anmy Corps of Engineers, the Division of Coastal
Management, and N.C. Marine Fisheries had no special concerns fvr this project.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected directly by
this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments have been received to
date.
9

A newsletter has been sent to all those living along SR 1366 on July 19, 2005 describing the
upcoming project and requesting any comments. Two residents replied stating they had no
problems with the bridge replacement.
Based on responses to the newsletter, a Citizen's Informational Workshop was determined
unnecessary.
There is not substantial controversy on social, econonuc, or environmental grounds
concerning the project.
X. PROGRAMMATIC 4(fj
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1366(1)
STATE PROJECT 8.2711801
T. I. P. NO. B-3606
Description: Replacement of Bridge No.70 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1366 in Ashe
County. Bridge No. 70 carries 200 vpd with 400 vpd projected for the future.
Bridge No. 70 was built in 1963. It is ~ 1 feet long, 12 feet wide and 16 feet over
the streambed.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics, ^
safety, and/or physical condition of the x
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location? ^
x
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the ^
existing highway? x
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings, ^ x
structures, or objects?
10

5. Does the project disturb or remove
acchaeological resources which aze
important .to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f)
site considered minor (i.e. no effect,
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"?
^-
-^
^-
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed x ^
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the prepazation
of an EIS? ^ x
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing Yes No
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ^ x
or (b) correct existing safety hazazds? ^ x
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ^ x
and (d) create a cost or impact of ^ x
extraordinary measure?
11

2. Improve the highway without using the
adiacent historic site
. (a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
o (iv) substantial social, environmental,
r economic impacts
or (v) a .project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the historic site.
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
• or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
-^

12

MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the x ^
historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been ^
agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR x
Part 800, by the FHWA, the SHPO,
and as appropriate, the ACHP.
Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
NCDOT has agreed to use the centerline of the road and to use a one baz metal rail instead of
New Jersey Barrier Rail to minimize impacts to the historic site.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation N/A
c. Property owner N/A
d. LocaUState/Federal Agencies- N/A
e. US Coast Guazd not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are. cleazly applicable to
this project. There aze no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved: r ~
Date Manager, Planning & Environ ntal Branch, NCDOT
aD to iv' ion Adirunistrator
~s A
13

XI. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project. The project is therefore considered to
be a federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
14

1402 ' ~ 6
-1 :.a
7 ~a~ 194
~ .1 ~
~ 1_
e 1526 8
r
.p 14
~. 1525 .5
\ ~
~ 1367 ~ ~ 94 elton
1_ 152 5 16x6 ~ 15241-
~ 1_ Cr: °'
uckerdale
~2 1366 Bridge No. 70 1
1381 ~ ~ f 20
.5 ~ ~ 1_ ~
Bethel 3
Christ.
~ ~ ~ ~ Bapt. w
1353 ~ 1x21
i ~
194 '` 1519
n
~o~. ~ 6 1~ ~
t?o c'a
1_ 1324
~, 1522
Lonq Branch •`~ ; ~ ~ 1.4 1_
Miss. Bdpt. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ Studied Detour Route
~~, 1_
LANSING ~ ~ 1_~
fit! ~~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~ TRANSPORTATION
' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
os
AsxE CourrrY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.7O ON SR 1366
OVER HORSE CREEK
B-3606
Figure 1

S'AC'? I,'~'
l" ~A~

a~~.

-,~

'` EST' U

`~°~ ~ STI2T+~ ~ ~,4 5

~T~ _ I.T.

.~1'1J 41 ~d~ 1 ~I ~` ~l
71

T
S' S T~'~':1 .Z

_. ~

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbecl-. Adnnnlstrator
Michael F. Easlev, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
JetTrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 12, 2004
hIEi~IORANDUIVI
Ot~ice of Archive tstorv
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook. Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck ~~q/P2-`~e.~`~~02C ~%
SliBJECT: 2004 Bridge Projects, including B-3492, B-4408, B-4409, B-4410, B-4446,
8-4466, B4469, B-4518, B-4545, B-4573, B-4631, B-4423, B-4424, B-4454,
B-4520, B-4538, B-4540, B-4548, B-4549, B-4567, B-4578, B--1648, B-466.1,
B-4665, B-4504, B-4560, B-4587, B-4618, B-4644, B-=1649, B-4651, B-4658,
B-4671, B-3624, B-3819, B- 39l 1, B-4404, B-4552, B-4613, B-4646, B-4675
B-3169, B-3606, B-3802, B-3~sU3, B-3804, B-4523, B-45?4, B-4525, B-4526,
Multi-count`, ER 04-1280-ER 04-1330
On July 28, 2004, Sarah N[cBride, our preservation specialist for transportation projects, met with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
projects. VG'e reported on our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and
resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project descriptions, area photographs, and
aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we have included our
comments for each bridge project on a spreadsheet attached to this letter. These comments are provided for
each project as proposed.
If an archaeological survey is requested on the spreadsheet, a separate memorandum from the Office of State
Archaeology, explaitung whether a general survey is required or if the survey is predicated upon an off-site
detour or new location, is attached.
Having provided this information, we look Forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our corments.
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.
I.ncation vlaili~ Address Telephone/Fa:
.1UAtIMSTRATION 1117 N. Blaum Slrcet. Raleigh NC J417 Mad ServiceCenteG Raleigh NC ?7G99.gG17 1919)733J7ti3R33-8653
RESTURA"LION i l5 N. Blount Slree4 Raleigh NC J617 Mail tiervice Center. Ralei¢i1 NC ?7099-J617 (9191733-tiid7/715-dR01
SURVEI' & PLANNIN(: il5 N l)lount Slrcet. Raleigh. NC 1ti17 Mad Service Center. Raleigh NC??699..16)7 19191733fiJJ5l715-1$01

Thank you for your cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental re~~ie~v coordinator,~at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the abo~-e referenced tracking number.
PBS:w
Attachments
1 Spreadsheet
16 Memos
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Mary Pope Fury

i~ ~
~~y
~fl~ ~
~+4~-f ;
~y -~
~~
~~
~,~ 1:
i
. -~ ~~
~~~
~~~J
~y .
~~i
~~;~
-I
~~
E.~ 11
~~
~~
~~
~f
~H
~.
~1
~~
~~
~~
~~
~'-1
8!912004
CFY2pp7SHP0

dY O~aARfa
yr
.! ov. ~.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administraror
Michael F. Easley, Governor
7~sbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey). Crow, Deputy Secretary
May 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highway""s~~"" ~~c ~ ~~ ~ _ (,
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck Qqy P~1G~- •~+t~l.'L~L.C~-
SUBJECT: Historic Architectura_l~Resources Survey Report, Replace Bridge No.70 on SR 1366 over Big
Horse Creek, B-3606, Ashe County, ER 041303
Thank you for your letter of April 13, 2005, transmitting the survey report by Jennifer Cathey.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
• Grubbs-Combs Farm, near the intersection of SR 1362 and SR 1366, Tuckerdale vicinity, is eligible for
the National Register under Criteria A and C, as representative of the small-scale agricultural
operations that appeared near Ashe County's railroad station towns. The farm exemplifies a local
economy in transition, as many Ashe families worked concurrently on farms and for the railroad and
its related industries. Further, the farmhouse's rusticated metal siding is a significant architectural
feature that evokes a strong association with railroad-related structures in Ashe County's station towns.
The farm complex includes the house, barn, garage, `Can House," pavilion, well house, root cellar, and
unpaved lane. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as defined aad delineated in the
survey report.
We appreciate this most interesting and well-written survey report
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.
Locadoa Mailing Address Telephone/Fu
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Balogh NC 4617 Mai Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Bount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Ma>7 Service Crntet, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4809
SURVEY do PLANNING 5] 5 N. Alount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/775-4907

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Eazley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mara Pope Fury, NCDOT
Jennifer Cathey, NCDOT

Federal Aid # BR~1366(1) TIP # B-3606 County: Ashe
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 70 on SR 1366 over Big Horse Creek Creek,
Ashe County
On January 10, 2005 representatives of the .
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
^ There aze no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
^ There aze no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
^ There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Representative,
I r- ~~
Date
.~D.
FHWA, fob the Divisio~f Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

' State Historic Preservation Officer i( Date

Ran,
.
„ _ ~~.
~~Q ~ n cvfl)
Dn~~n
PDEA•OFFfC ~: ~:.-ice
' ;~

09/08!9
29-MAR-2007 08x25
r~~hYydraullcs~b360 by prm_tsh.dgn
potklnson AT HY ~154~
~~C011tTRACT: TIP PROJECT: B 3606

C
m ~ o
z
~
Z~ ~ o ~
a~ M O M N
w
c a Q ~ ~ a

F ~ c
~ a
- y m a y~
o
~
~ ~ w
x ~' z o
V~xsEF- ~
o ]'"ax
aWU ~
w ~ ~
~ w
~ ~ c
O~ C ;
o o w h o a
F U
~
~ C
~
N W d ~ ~ ~ O ~ < F' ~ ~
~ ~
'
.
~ w V~ a t _
R
a~ W W o
~
x
A
~
a
o ~

W
U
w _

q °' a m
L >
L ~> N V
~ O o O F
} ~ ~ ~ E ~ pv ~ w
~ ~ m
c
c C N
~ l0 ~ f0 ~
~ O O
O p
f- y
E ~ O N
a g~

_ ~ ~
~ ~
0
0 o

H
~0m~a~`0 0
o 0
o
°o
~
d' U ~ ~
d ~ rn ~ ~
am
o t~m~ o 0 o Y
~~ ~V~ ° z
~U ~ ~ m

a
~ ~ C7
Z
~ j
C f
0 m O O O ~
Z ~pp
~
X
> O O O

g >
W W
W ~,
z
~ ~
a~ =
~_ m ~ o
o 0
o o
c O
~"- °~
3 a

c ~ c
m
m
o
o
o

0 ~-
w
~
~
_
ELL ~
° 0
° O
o ~

d ~ ~

LL
0

~ n
W
d F•
~ ~
~ C7
o a z
o
, m a:
~
~~ cn

n.

_ o
O
O~ J
J ~
J Z

~
~ Q
~
i
J Q
~ ~ ~ O
+ ~
a
N
r
W
H

~
J ~
m ~
~ Z N ~ LL!
~'
~ Z
z
z

~~®~~~ 1l JL ®~~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL N®.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
3
ANGELA B. &
EDDIE D. STANSBERRY
3340 East Little Horse Creek Rd.
Lansing, NC 28643
~°~

i ~ i
OS-APR-200 08~ 3
ri\rpc~d RN~\p'~~sb3606_r dy_tSh.dgn
ssss ME
~CONTRACT.• TIP PROJECT: 8-3606
~~
N
~~
Gy
~~

yZ~
S
'^ Z ~ 5
~ p1 ~ Z

~ Q ~'° ~

m
~ r
~

S y'i
>
8 \
ow /~~ ~;
/ ~ r
~
~
/ / \,
/~

v 1
`~~ Q
0
o
// W
~ „ m
~~ ~_
~I Z

~ ~~
e ~ ~~ ~

1
~, , ~
~ ~ ~' D

~
' '~ -~
rn
~. ~ ~~
~,

~~
~ ' ~
~
~
`

A ~ ~
~ ~~~~
~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ -
,-
~~
' --- \ rn
~
~~ v ~ ~~
~ /
~
~ ~
~
~
V ~~
~ ~~ / s
i / ~ ~

~,\ _ _
i ~~ /
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`
A

v ~\
_ C
A
m :,

~
~/ ~
/
\ +

r ~ ~,
~ ~ '~

N ~\ ~,
~ / ~/
O ~y //
~
i ~•

,,
., m
s ~~ Z

__
.,
~,
, ~ g
,,
~
~ g
b
S~
~r
..
a~
~z
~~
~r
°z
y
,~
,~
,~
,~
~~
_,
,
,,
,
,
,,
,,
,,
- y~
~~
N
D ~ ~~
~ ~~
I

w I
~^~
~~~
+ ~~+
o,
to
V
~~~
~~~
~ ii
ii
m
Z it
ri
o ~~
y
~
D
-i ii
~~
~~
,
m ,~
0
~v
0
m
~°
a

09/08/99
u
O ~
o ~ ~ ~
;G
0
y
~ ~~ ~ ~~
vaw-o ®~
~\ O
b ~~ ~ ~
o
~~ ~ ~~
~x ~~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~
~ o~ ~

$ 0 3
y ~ ~
C
~s
oT
°
0
o.
v
; z
;
e:~
v
~~
~• ~
a
3
e
O Q
. ~ 3 ~
~ Q
7 O ~ h
~'~°
o ~i° ~ ~ C
c• o
I
A
~ I I
LJ
3 c a a 3 ~ c
a
n ~ ~ ~ ~ c~
~ O ~
o a ~
' ; ~ ; ; ~ o
; ;
; ;
; ; ~
; ~
~ ~
' ~ n
v°
; ~
~~. ~ ~~.oNoo
~ ~ ~ 0 /o ~ ~ ~ n \ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ r ~ C
°,. ` ~ O ~ 3
7 ~ Q °~ ~ ~ C < bn 7 C ~ ~ o ~ ~ O ;
e e ~ a >> r_ $ 3 ~5 0 ; s
n a ~ Z ~ ;
n a ~ 7a o ~ ~ ~ c ~ ,
o e ~- ~ ~ ;
~° g 'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7b
~ O
' ; ~7
' ~
' ; ~ ~ ~ ; :C
;
; ; ;
i i ~ ~
I I'
II i I,I
9 F a ° 2 x~ ~O ""+O I I I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~II
° a m o no (~ ° °• 0 3 0~~ 0 0 0 ~` ~~ o 0 0 0 3 0~ o o a o o>>~ v, ~ ~. "'• '
r
a. a. ' ' s "a y ~ y a n Q 3 ~ ~ ~. °a n m y ~. ~ ~ ~ m a n ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ' ~ c 3
o 2~~ ~o ~ A o~ O~ ~' H y c c 0 o s o M A° o Z° '~ ~ n n' c ~'~, ~ ; O
' ~ '~i 3 0• o o°~~ o o a- 0 3 3 0 o n° n n~~~ 0 s~; 0 0
O g $•o Oa_Oc °o_~'~ o~ ~ ~.g•$ s ~'~~~Q,~~~.~.o ~ a ; 0 0
So a ~ a o
o a a p °• ~~ 3 c o o n v~~ as~ss~s~s s~
; Via= ~=~~~,~ ~aa° ~~ ~~~~;~
i i ; ; i i i i ; T ~ i ; . i [~ 4O • ° ff ; ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ; ' i i i i
i i i i i p ; i ; i ; 0 M ° ' ' i ; i ' ' ; i ; i ; i ; ;
; ; ;;
; ,
lal p I r ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ (I ~ ~~ ~ A
lol ~ © ~ ~ p r T ~ ~~ k' I' I ~ ~ ~ m m i ~ D~ ~ 4~~O~C
I I Q ~ ~ ~ i I I I I ~ } ~ 4
IJ I I ~ I I( I I I I ( I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ m O
$ o s s o~ o m
cS CS cS j OA • O ~ O '77
47 ~ 47 S 47 O n~~ s T s
o m$ 4$ e °~ g o o°
~-
0 0$ o n o°~ ~ ~ v o
~ ~ 's ° o ° ~ ; ~ ; ~ '
o A~ A Q. a; ; ~ ~ ;
;
c ~ ~ a °v, s = ~ ; ;
S C ~ A ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
H ~ i i i i ~
i N i C i i i ~
171 i m ; ; ' i ; ' ; ;
v~ ' ;
1 ~~ ®~ a 0 m
i
I i I 1 I
v -v -o -o e a ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m' a 3~ o s s ~$ eo ~~ P
1
~ ~ o n ~' ~ o ~ o ~ •
O ~ S O
c
~ o ; • ~ ~ C ~ .o °
o ~ ~ $ -o o s
o ~ _ o s
; ~ o •
~ °-
o =
o ~ ; o ; ; ; '
s ; ~ ~ ~ ;
; ' ' ; ; ~ ;
m
~ i t r i i i
; ~
~ i 1
i i i i ; ; ;
~ ~ ; ;
i
I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I
I
I
•I®m®o~~-o-•
i
I
I
0 0 ~ o z ~. ~.
c ~ A ~ P ~ o ~° G!
N to v u g ~ ; ~ ~
• ~ °- c
go ~ m o u
O ~` ; ~ a ~
~ n c o ~
' ° ~ ~ °
S ~ ; = S
O ~ S ~
; s ~ n~ A c
; M °' c ~
~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ o~
;; ;;; _, ~
' ' ~ ' ~
; a ~
; '
O° ~ m
; i ~ i
~ fL ;
~ i 1
~ ~ ;
; °
i I 1
i ~ ; i i
I I I
I I fl ~~
o l o I I I ~~
I m ~ ~ ~ r-~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ° ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ c O v v ~ ~ ~ 7
> > ~ ~ ~
3 $ ~ > > > g~ 5~ o o ° ~ O ~ Z Z ~ O ~ S. ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
a' ~. c 'F :~ ~ Ai ~ ° s ~ ~ ~ c c rn sn to c g. ° • ~ ti c '; ~ v
° ~ o ~ 70 ~ ~ ; H °' c a to ~ ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ &v'
° a. C ' ' p c g c ~ c ~ C1 ~ P ~ ~ '1 ~ o ~ ~ S
o O O H ~ ; ~ ~ o° e~° O ~_ S v c ;
~ _ ~+ ~ O , O
~ ~ ~ ~ 7 i i
C ' 1 ' i i ;
; ~ ;
' i i i i ; ; ; O ; i i 17' i i Q' O T i i ~ ;
' '
° ; ;
M ~ I71 ~ i C i i ; ;
m
n I I I I I
O ~ e ~ e o O ~ G ~ ~ ~ O ® i ®o ~ i ®®© G~
_~ i I I $ I I ~ ~ I i
e
I ~ I I I
,a .,~
~~~~~~o
~~a ~ $ s
rL ~ ~ ~ ; s
~ °
s ~ ~ ;
C ~ C
~ ~ ~ ~ ; '
A ~ ; ~ ~
;
N i ~ ~
C i i i i i
; i i i
~ ~ i !
i fll ~ i
.3 ; ;
; i ;
i i i i i
i ~ i i ~ i ~
I
I
> I
~ I ~ ® Q
s` i
n
O
Z
m
Z
O
Z
D
r
5
z
rn
rn
N
r
II ~
o
p~ n
w
~~
Q'!
`~
r
~~
®®
~~
~ ~

_ _____ _ _
i
r:\roedray\pro~\b 3606_r dy_typ.dgn
2007 08:04
wQ~~pro~\63666_rdy_typ.dgn
~~
r:
~<'
~:
~:
~:
O

0 N
a

'
~'° O
O O
N

0

•O
r
v a''
s
a
N ~
rn z° N
V
- - - - - -
- A
~. - -~
O

om _
o
~
~
~
Zx O m .-_
ao
C
`~ ~
~

o z
O N

w
~'
N~
0 a
`~
0
~"~ ~ L ~ n
m m
>
s i1a
a a -
i

~ H
~ O
~ O
v» < O
m>v
x m j=' ~_'

~ >
"~
> vma
> • m~
m o «+ > o
~o v zov ox
-.: s mm m•
D

r ~ <7i >°'
m 1 1
m ~m~ m>
m

~ C
m 1+ s1
v
o 0 ~
c r 0
m ~°s
x ms Z
c
i
m m 07 m
mvi - -a
vmm
s m
v y
_
i~p a a y ~
S
s cs m
zom m

< C

mv0 Op
•°O
r
'aa .,; m
x ~ z o0
• ~m m
a m.
°m~ i~
am om
x~ ~n~
71
C O T
~ O

> >
Z
O
c
z
0
L
T
O
Z
O
m
m
m
z
-~
m
D
O
m
r
O
'O
m
D
9
m
i
i
C
Z
r
m
w
fA
Z
O
z
m
M
O m

l )
ro
m
N O
Jrn
Z
O~
Z "'
Z~
0

~
~~

r
_
N
N
~
p
-~ ~
+ m
+
O ~c~~
~ N
~
p
O ppp
~~O ~
r ~~.
~ Oo
rn ~ ~
L
n 050 m
~
~~
Z ~t
O
o
Z
~a OZ D + $
w
c c~~
~, + ~ Z
O
°
o w -~
0
0
.p

0
-~ ~
a~ ~
m ~

N
m ~
o~

~
O

~ -~
w
a
°'
.~
o ~

~_ ~

0
c
z
v

~nsioNs
R/W REVJS/ON -MARCH 30,2007 - REVJSED DESJGN FOR BETTER ACCESS TO PARCEL 5
\ v '` ~
i~~~ ~ +~
' \ \ ~ I W
\ ~ ~~ I ~
i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ n az~ r '
~~~ ~ y~ ~ ~ z u,c~N L
~ \ i ~ ~ ~\~OQO ~ m ~ y
Q7 ~ O ~ +
S
-{- ~ ~ ~ ~- o O rn
D ~ ~~l-~
~ N ~ W
,~ ~L
0 0 ~ \ n~
~ /~ ~
o ~ ~ \ X
N `z ~o\ / ~ ~ ~ ~
o ~ ~ ` ~ \ //
~~ \w
-~
o ~ ~~
`~ ~ z
~ o
' \rn
z
~,- ~ _
~ ,~, \
T ~ °~ I
o ~ o
~~
~ ~
D
C ~ ~ iff
~ D ~ ~
CD C0 ~ ~ Q
r o
~ ~ ~ ~~
~.

G7 G~ ~?
O C~
O c9 O
W ~/
O --~
D

~\
v
~ ~~ ~ ~~ wP
~a ~~ I ~
~+
R~
~ <. ~ ~~
~~ ~~~
°°
'~ ~~'~•R I ~ Z
~ ~~~~II
7
/ /~
~ ~ 9 / ~~
7 ~ -~ o
N -I ~' ~'~ ~`Q
6' D ~~
t ~ ~
~00~1 m cry
~/ ~ ~ y
Lj00 Nm~O>
000 0 ~ ~tn
o~ ~ ~.~~~
a~
~= `' ~~
~> 00 ~~
~ k ~~~~~~~C~~~y~
0~ ~~\~~\ ~ ~~~
,L
~ ~Zo d~ ~~ '~ '
,Z ~ ~ ~ %
sP ~
~' ~ .~ ~~
~'~ ~ ~ ~ S
~ 4 ~ ¢ ~ ~°
~~ ~ ~ s>
J~~ I
~,~-III Z
i~.l 1 ~
T
!S
}
J
,'
~~-
%~ ,
O~
~ 6
w ~ i ~6
V ~ ~ ~9d~
A
~ ~~
cis
c~
~ ` ~,?
~~
O
\ ~ ~ ~
c~ ~~ ~
~'~ ~~
s~ `~~
~ ~ ~k
X39 ~ ~ ~`~s ~' ~S
C /" / ` ,y ~ 1 O ~ ~/ J
`~jO p~ ~ f~ k~~ ~ R ~~ o
S1~
F 2, S9, 6c~ ~°~ cn oo°oo
~ S2 o M„
9 Sq, b~ ~ ~ ~ o°OO
- `W~ F -S~
. WO D. WA.L.C ~ ~
mr o~
____------ ~ ~8~**
~~
z ~ ~~
m \ \
rn ~ ~
D .~~~ ~ E
z o~~~ 9 ,
Vf o D ' ~ ~ ~.
~, . ~!9
CD Z7 W .D ~ 1
rn ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ _
VJ ~ o \
~ v V ~ 0~
to D . ~ ~ ~ ~~ w ~ ~ ,~~'.
~~ ~ ti No
_D ~ D
,~ -,,z ~ oz ~9R
I ~V~
rn = o ~ ~
I ~ c-~ o
~ ~ ~7 ~ N Qo
~ m o o
{mil ~ O
7-pv ~ ~ ~
r~
O O r- c
D
~ < ~
~j ~ ~ to a
~ r i
I'

S~ QOM ~'~J '
1 / ~ x
_
~ ,~ oz °
~~ ~~>
\ / ^^
V'
v
m
177 v
o

,~
a> D O
o
~
.~ `
~ rn o
~, ~
~

~ w
~
~ ~ -~
~y ~ ~ ~ ~ y
N fv\/ w +
=
~~ b ~ o~an
p+
~
V n
i
S
n~ ~ O
~
..
8 ~ ~ ~ r
~
1
~ ~ ~;
y _1
D~ ;
D C
2 ~~
ti O C~
~; z cn
`" D G~
°
zD
~
o r-
w
~ ~C7
t ~O
~ ~~ S~ n -
O ~ ~Q' ~P ~
e
T'~ ~ u ~

~~ w
_

~ _ ~ aG ~~
~ C ~:
zD
..
I ,
~~
V
`~ O 1 ~~~

T J ~I ^ i,'
w ~ i
A I 1
z,
0 1
~ W I
x ' ~' ~
6
~1 ~ ~1 C
~~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
1 ~
i
ro

~i
~r
~ ~
s
x
~~
zrn
~~
rn
y
i~ I-

xpl.dgn

.,