20050827 Ver 1_Complete File_20060421

,~
N d W Y S1
~- ~
~.~ ~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0~
~~
qp~ O~
2I
~. ,o D
~'o T~TFRQY/ Q6'
Q4,~q~,n,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 'fie
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April l7, 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
~)S ~g27v. ~
Subject: Revised Nationwide 33 Permit Application for the for the replacement of Bridge
No. 81 over Gum Log Creek on SR 1728, Cumberland County. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1728(1), State Project No. 8.2443501,
Division 6, TIP Project No. B-4093, WBS Element 33451.1.1.
Reference: Original Permit Application Submitted on May 9, 2005
The N.C. Department of Transportation originally submitted a permit application for this project
on May 9, 2005. The US Army Corps of Engineers requested an offsite detour. This change has
been made and is included in this revised application. Please find enclosed a copy of the
Categorical Exclusion (CE), CE Addendum, Pre-construction Notification (PCN), permit
drawings, and '/z size plans for the above referenced project. The document states that Bridge No.
81 over Gum Log Creek will be replaced with a new 125-foot long 33-foot wide structure on the
same location. Traffic will use an offsite detour during construction. No permanent impacts will
occur. Proposed temporary impacts to Gum Log Creek consist of 0.02 acre of temporary fill due
to the construction of a temporary work causeway. The temporary work causeway will be
required to remove the existing pier in the stream. After construction is completed, the
temporary work causeway will be removed. The temporary fill will be removed to the natural
grade and the area will be re-vegetated with appropriate plant species.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin (HUC 03030004). The
project will temporarily impact Gum Log Creek. Gum Log Creek is has been assitmed a best
usage classification of C, by the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Gum Long Creek is not
designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a national Wild and Scenic River,
nor is it listed as a 303(d) stream. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]E CAPITOL BOUT EVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN$UILDING, SUITE 24O
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27699
RALeicH NC 27699-1598

~ L
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-I1) waters occur within
3.0 miles of the project study area.
Temporary Impacts: Proposed temporary impacts to Gum Log Creek will total 0.02 acre of
temporary fill.
Permanent Impacts: No permanent impacts will occur. No wetlands occur in the project area.
Utility Impacts: No impacts will occur due to utility relocations.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION:
Bridge No. 81 is composed of a reinforced concrete floor on timber joists on creosote timber
piles encased in concrete. Bridge components are slated to be removed without dropping any
components into Gum Log Creek. However, due to the presence of reinforced concrete in the
superstructure of the bridge and piles, the potential exists for approximately 70 cubic yards of
temporary fill requiring excavation from Gum Log Creek as a result of demolition activities. Best
Management Practices's for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed in addition to Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
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 March 8, 2006 the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) lists seven federally protected species for Cumberland County (Table 1). A survey
for Michaux's sumac was conducted on September l6, 2004 and no specimens were found. A
biological conclusion of No Effect has been reached for all federally protected species.
TAhIP 1 _ Frrlerallv_Prntected ~necies fnr Cumherland County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Analysis Conclusion
American alligator Alligator T(S/A) No N/A
mississippiensis
Red-cockaded Picoides horcalis E No No Effect
woodpecker
Saint Francis' Neonymphcr mitchellii E No No Effect
sat r rancisci _
Pondberry Lindera melissi/olicr E No No Effect
Rough-leaved Lysimachia E No No Effect
loostrife as erulae olio
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect
American Schwalhen crmericana E No No Effect
chaffseed
E-Endangered, T-Threatened
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION:
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to
avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all
remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the

~~
planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the
project design and include:
• Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
• No bents will be placed in the water.
• An offsite detour will be used during construction.
• Replace at existing location.
MITIGATION
Proposed project impacts are temporary, therefore no mitigation is proposed.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests issuance
of a Nationwide Permit 33 to authorize the impacts described above.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3366 will apply to this
project. All general conditions of the Water quality Certifications will be met. No written
concurrence is required. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and
15A NCAC 2B.0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
notification.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Feulner at (919)
715-1488.
Sincerely,
~~-~'. ~ 11--- ~
~,,. Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Mr. 'Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E. Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Mike Penney, PDEA Project Planning Engineer

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No, ~)~D~ ~ ~ ~'
(If any particular 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 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: tg_hor_pe(r,~,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:
Nage 1 of R

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: Replacement of Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4093
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cumberland Nearest Town: Fayetteville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The site is located at the
intersection of Middle Road and Gum Lod Creek on the east side of Fayetteville
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): 34.4432 °N 77.8339 °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Gum Loy Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(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: Residential small buisnesses and forestland
Page 2 of R

l0. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard DOT construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose is to replace the old bridge that is
functionally obsolete.
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.
N/A
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 may be 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: The project impacts are as
follows, 0.02 acre of temporary till in Gum Log Creek
Page 3 of R

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 aratel list im acts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact 't'ype of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year
Floodplain Nearest
Stream Impact
(acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) ( es/no) (linear feet)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
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 ftll 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 len h 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 Gum Log Creek 'I~emporary Perennial 25 53 0.02

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 53 0.02
S. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the tI.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

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

Type of Impact Z~ype of Waterbody

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

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.02
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.02
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
Page 4 of K

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.
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 JustiTication (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
f7nancial 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. Best management Practices for
the protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bride demolition and removal
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
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
Page 5 of R

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/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
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 is proposed due to proposed impacts are temporary
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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
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 envirommental 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 ^
Page 6 of R

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 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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 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.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feed Mitieation
1 I I 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zonc 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 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
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.Approximately the same as current conditions
Page 7 of R

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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules`?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-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 nearby 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:
Replace an existing structure
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).
`~ 11 J
~Applicant/Agent's Signature 'Dane
(Agent s signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

I
i
I
I
09/08/99
C411tT~
N ~ lh INJ~
I O N O0
TT O T O O 1~
to = ~ n
~~ o
! ~ N ~ y~r1
~ O o _ o Rf
I~ ~ _ ~
I ° °0 0
I ~C
~~. gg
~ ~o~<-~o~sw
i ~ ~ II II II II II II ,~
i n u, 4, b
I ncoo w o °o ~ ~
~ ~~~~ ~ ae ~o o
I
i
I
f ~~
~o ~o ~~
~o
~ '11 T
I O
I ~ Z ~~ ~~ rb
~~ ~~~~~
~ `~ $ ~ 'n
~ n ~~ u
I
I O ~ O
I IN p
I OD A A
~ ~ ~ ~
i
i
y
I `o C ~ r 1~
~ Z° ~ OZ N
r
~~' a C
~ QQN ~'C
~ w~ K~ ~y~
~ ~
1
I ~ ~ y ~,
~ ° ~
r r , C7
a
~ a a ` [r1
i rr__
4 v,
~~
~ ~ ~
~'
_~~ ~ ~ ~
I
~~ ~
I
xx
~ ~~ ~~
I
~~
(q ~~
~~
T:
TIP: B-4093

~~

---- _1
-_--,-
~/
~~ ~ ~ ,~
,- /
_~ ~ 7,
~ //<
I //~ ,
~v : ~
~~ ~~~~ I
~~ 'o~ ~
~~ oz i ~ ; -
~~
~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ I -
~o ~~ I
i ?~ ~ ,~ __ __,
m 1 _~~_ ___-.
~ ~ ~ 1 `,
rn p~ ~ T -~^ ~ ~ L
"~
'b ~ L~~ ------•
B ~ij ~
~., ~
~r ~
~~
~ z ''"1 ---~ ~- - "~
~~ ~
~°
°z

~\
~' • ~/
A~
~ ~~
~..+ ~ ; ~,
~- - ~`
~-~1 a _ L _
~~ 9i
~,
,~ ___
___~ ~:I.
ti_ ~

-- "~''° Feer
,~ L~
p oo ~~ ~
~~
_. - . _ ~~-
~,~
r i ~~ ;
m a {
-- y ~ l
R ~{r f ~
t T~
~' ~~ ~ P
+ ~ P __
_`
_~ (, _-
.,
~.
y
~~~
f'I
'~:.
I
i
i
~~
~~
~~
MJ
o
b o
v~
b ~
O
G7
V~
x
n ry
n
I~
b
n
0
z
~~
~~
~~
co n
~ ~
~ ~
o~
~~
g~
PI
F~
~®
~~

~o
-~ w o

m

J

.J .1 f~
(a
N

.i

0

W
J
A
to
u - - -

M
_
~ ~
I~
o~ ~
~ ~ ~

N N 1 ~ N M N N M
y ~.~ ~~
I o I-1-
~` .~'.~
(c~, ' N
~1 -
~~
r M
~--r-
~+
---~
~~
_;~.
I w F--~

1~
N
-~

o ~~;
/ //
l~~
,\
I~
~,
-~/.
2
~ ~ w~ Q
•` \ ~ .~ ~ W
~i
,~
~ IB• PCP ~
a
m
ro~
~ ~ `~ i
~~ 11
/'\ fS
C
~~~~op~,
rqM u w a u~
w
~ ~ A
B ~~~ ~
ti ~
rh
~,;i
O
N
N
iii
r Ps. i ~r r Ps.

~ '
y ~
Y ~
'~ ~ _
l5

~ it

~ j, ~,
1
i
~,~

~ ~
~ a

P
r rs. it ~r r Ps.
N
A
9wa
R'
~i ~ a
i
L
• _ _ .
--~ ~~ "-
~~
~ ~a
$ x-~
15
~~ a
o~ '~.

~W~
~ O E
I ~~
~
J ~
~
A P4
$~
R~
~
D y
g ~
B
b
r a~ ~K m
~~~ ~ ~ ~ W
~~
E z ~
0
ro
~~ ~ ~
~' ~ '`a ~ ~
4~~ ~ ~ A~
~' 9 Q
l
0/17/9Y
~~
~ /0
n \~ ~
~., ~
;,
~~~,
\ ~

PEVISIONS
iR~i>f
J
O
IN
Iw
IA
I v.
A
~ - -
-- --- _
4
J to s
P ~
V
~ -
o
r ~~'
N f~
w F-f
p.
A
{7 P M
~ m~ +
w ~ ~ i~~ ~^ . w O
o a
~ rM
J
Q b+

I°
Ir
~~
i~
r
o
f
J
N
2
\~. ~ C ~ ~.'~-
1 \~~ , \ \
\ IWI . ;, ~~ ~ ~
~\
.\
\ ~\ \
p1\` ~ ~ - .. - ~ 1
\ \ \\111\1 \ 1 / ' \~ ~~ \\ ~ h
\\\!\\
I /,111111 1 / r ,lr~
I \ 11111\r\ 1/ !r ~ / .~/%
/ \ \~~\\\ ~ yl ~ "' J ~ ~0. '//.l lllll\
r i II\\ ~ \IIIf //il 1 III "'" 1
\\ \11'111 II1\ \ J- r7 ~~I
~ ~ ~/ l~11p11-. \~ .~. / r / l \
; 111111 A ~/ / I
~- ~Ilhl/ill ~ r ~ \
I I - j111h1u1 1 ~' \ \~ ~ ~.
' 11 I III I •. \ ~ ~
1 \' - ~ it i~,,\~t I l r ' \ 1~
11\ C\t \\ 1 ,G+ I \\~ \,
1 I \ 1\ \ : \\~\\~ \\J\\ \ ~ ~
\\\\ V~
I I \ \ ~\~~\~ \~\\ \1 .
\~ - \~ \\~~\ 1\\\'. n rl \
\ ~ ~ LIII~~III\ 1 ~ 111
I Y / 11111 11 11 I 111
\ J / ~ ~ I ,,,lr l ; I ,hl ....JJ1111~~~~~~ „I
8/17/99
\ ,/ I
I a I LI \ /Q I
1 ~I I \ \
/~ \
` `6~ \
~~{ ~\ `
\ ~ ~~, '~•
~J ~ ~~~ ~ ~
~\\
~ ~ ~+b
~~~ ~?~ ~
~\
~ \
~~
\ \
ti \ (~
\ \ ~~1\\
+ 1~
\ \'~~
r ~~\k
1 \\ ~ ~ \
~ \
.;, \\ \
\ ~.
~ ~ d° ~ ~
~~ ~\ \ \.
\ ~\ 1
\ ~ ~
.~°~ \
( ~a\ ~
_ F~` 1 \\ \_ `\
\ 1
•
~ c~ j-
~ ~
_ ~~'•
~\~ ~ - _ , \
a ml
~ _
~:
\ \.
~\ \~\~
~ 7~ i I I°I \w ) ga~i~l~° ~°\_~ m ~/ II~ I !I i -~~ l~ °j\
~\ I I I I ~~ 1 1 l ~ In ~ I II / / \~~ \Z i~
I
I
,1 ~ I ~ r III ~ ~ ~ ° ,/ / / - ~~
/ /
w~ /~ / // 11~ ` w°r\ 1 I \ ~ \
I~ i i ~I l'.C, I I / //1 Vii/ / / a/ \ I / ~ ` `/
J . 4, r t ~ / I \\\ Ilu 1 ! / , ! r \
~ II 11\ b l I 11\` y l (/ /! I R' I II I \ I \\ I \\
I
\ I 1, \1 \~ IS` I i 1 / I I 1 ~ \\` M ~I
I I 1 ~ \ ICi~j \ ~ I I I I y~ ~ - ~ cJ
1 ~ 1 I \ \ I 1 i'~(r ~'1 1 1 ~ \ \ ~
\ \ ` I I 1 / 1 ... \ I / i ~i 'I I 111 . / ~iiSAp~rf~Y
_ .. \ I I 1\ \ 1 II I _ I'll I I ' 1n ~ ~ ~ r TM ~ ile i +1I I ^~R
Q I 1 I \\ \ 11 I f l I I I\II :. ~~ ~* 1 i~f ~ ~
/ / 11 1 1 ~ 1 ! \ ;, \\ v ~~~ i3 Ill I 1 I \ \ ~' ~ ~ \A
/ 1/ ~~ I I I I I/ I 1 I La- „~ ~ IJ I I I ~ -
~ _ __ ~ _ _ / I I I I I 1 Y CI ~ . 111 I I
-~I YW M1B "Iry ~ I I I`I / I I - I III I ~1 1 I j~J~ ~'
4 t~ ~ 1 \ I / ! ~ \. 1111 III 1~.~ rn I c~
~~~ ~~I~ ~ i 1111/ ~., ~~ /. _4 II1pI 1il~l ~ ~~ i Y~'m
/ .. \ / i I 1 ~ \ III •~ ~ .. ~../ I i I I ~ III I ~~/
cn i ~ ~ ~1 ~ i \' \ I'f+ A /
~_ I IS l 1 \,, f i 2 I. it ~ I I ~
~ ~~~ / I ~ 1 I ~ / ~ r ' y ~ \ II
~~
' - - K / 2 1 ~.-~ i~

0
N
N
O
O
0

~ ~Si -
-
~\
\ _
~ ~
~ '
i
=
z
~
\\/5 ' H

\
\
r
r
,~
N ~~
I~

I ~ \
1 ~ - `
_~ I /

.s ~+
~~ \
I \
Y' PS. l2' PS.

i/ I I' I I a
~._ _ ~ 1 I ~I I I 11 \\. ~N_
+I I
__\_ / ~ 01 I III ' \ \ vu' \i, ~ ~
~. © I I+9 I I II \ \ ~ ~ ~G ~ I
~ I 11,
~~~ I~ ' \ \
I ~ 8 ~ II II
L I , _ - - ~ ~ j1Y-
.>_ % Q ! fill ro
~ /;r !?~'f \^~ 9 I X111
_ ` 1i ~ ~~'
't ~ I III
11uI ~
l ~ I ~ Illlld ~ ~~
\ C'1 I,r~l~ il~ii 4j ~ ~' ~ a~ Z
O
_ u i i ri

(U E C
_m
. !

I

~

~
O ~
N~ ~ i ~ O
Z ~ ~ _ ~~ ~
~
~ ~ i
~
a
U j I
w v E ~

a
~
Y c
I
I
'

I
w ~ c a~~ ~ ~~ I I I' ~ o

~ L
wU Ea
I
~
i
~!

w
U
~ ~
E~~ ~
o
~
~ i
~ ~
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ! o
~
a ~ i

U a I I
v ~
~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ it g
F- _ ~ ' d ! o
~ U ~ I

N

~ ~
i
~ C ~
g ~U~ ~ I
~ ~
W U
Q c
~ p c
m m v
g

Z
g x
w

~ N
~
d
=
~
~
I S
LL ° ' °

Y
C N - ,

~
N ~ N U ~ S
LL N O O
N 3
a !!
o
a,
~ ~ a
N

~ -- ,
X

N ~
U w
~ O
`n E E
m
F- °'
~

O
~

J
i I
a
~ lL
... ~ i
i
I ~ I
N I ~ Q
(~ Z I ~
I

'~
~-
a

C
N ~ N
0 2
10 N ~ U U
rrT
T -O T O O (~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N ~ C N ~ y
~~
L Cq y
T ~ g g
~Z. gg ~
o ~ N b M
0 Q
0 N < -~ v ~ cNn ~i ~i b
~ II II II II II II
II w w b
A C C o Ln gj p A jJ
F~~~a~~a~$o a x
w M Z
I
c~ ~
-~ ~ ~ ~ po
O~ ~~ ~O N
~ o„ ~
~~ ~~ ~~ b
$~ ~~~~~
w w w (7
II II N '•j
o O o
:~
OD A A
~~
c~
0
~~ ~
O
O M°
'~
y
~ ~~
~ a~ '~
~$~ ~y~
_ ,
n ~
3
~~~
4
P ~ x
~ ~
N
i~
~~
fi
-11;

V _/~Y
~11~
~q
-~e'"
~~
o°~
Wr'u~ ~'/
~9 ~ ~'~
~o ~y.~ u'"'°u"sw
~ ~~7,7 ,.~~,,,j~ ,.. ~~~,
` ~ : qty ~„~R';=`°~
,~ .r'.
~°o °~
~~
~~
C201257
CT B-4093

~- J
`~~,
i
~~,~-=~
TIP: PRO
i
;~ ;
'i '~ 1,
;,
-- ... _._.- ~I II ( ~ Oti
_.__-_.. ,1 i ~ C
,I~ Ilj ~ I r
`~, 1 I'I ' i
ti `I~i ; I~
i
~,. v~ --
~ ~~,,.~ -
v
~ / / 1
1
3
~ ~
i //
r~_
~ -
I ~,\
~ t
~ ~ ~ __ ,~
,~ -4p ~__ . - - ~.
~.i ~f F . \ ~, \..
~( a ~ .~ --
t~ ~m '~
~ ~© QO
~. L
I n
\~ ~
•r

Oo ~
~~ ~I
I
\ A~ I
~ ` ~ I
/~
~ I~
. - ~ ` I
I
~~~
r l
I
1
i~
~~
~~
~ v
~ ~
O j
~~
~x
~o
~ h
O ~
`<
..;

~ ~ I~
~. I
-,
r
~/ J
0
a ~
"~ C
b ~
n
N
Qo
:..
n
~c
of
n
0

®~
~ ~
~~
~~~~~
~~
~~
N N
~~ ~ W ~
r,-

o ~ m
a m ~° ~
m ~ c
~fC ~
000
C
i c ~
-o -n to vi to p T zo ~
O.
a ~' ~ ~
N a 1D pp
~ S N
D
= i
a ' 3 ~ o
v ~ ~ h
I V)
$ ~ ''C
n
vJ
I ~ I
r~
~/ I I
~ I I ~ Q
~, ICI ~ + ~ ~ ! ~ ~'
~ IZI r i m
~ I^I ~ ~
n
O 3 3 A ~ O ~ S ~ m ~ ~~
~ o
~ 3 n
'' ~ m
.o .o ~ o 0 0 ~ a ~ o, ~
v
as~~'~'ooa~~~,o~
~~o~~~ ~ ,.x'23 ~o~
m W O s n ~~~ 0
~ ~ 2 ~ ~
3 6 ~° ~° ~
rt ~ ~ ~ W
O O 7 ~ ~ ~
W
I
rQi ,Pi ~' I ^ IDl~I f~ D
-v m ~ g+ -o -v ~ ~ -o ~ (~ m
c ~
O `~ ~ C n ~ G ~ ~ N N ! O+.
~ ~ W p ~p
t0 ~ C
N ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ f ~
a
p N N

° " ~ ~
a ~ W
3 ~ ~ ~ ~ n
~~° ' ~ - ~
i i ff
O ~ I
n
n

i
O
3
~ !

N
c
m
II
N
C
n
m
m
Z
~_
Z
m
m
7O
~~ I.~ y I I, I ~ I
I
-o D ~ .Z a o~ o ~~ 3 o z~ o~ pn_ g c~ 3 0 ~ 0 0 0 0. o~ 0 0 0
n C O N~ ~~~ ~. ~ i C -i ~ p S p~ 0 S i o~~ 7~~~? O O O i
b ~ ~
cn a $ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ o m ~ ~ c ~ ~ W o p
~ o$~~~ o a -i c a ~ a
~ H ~ ~ ~ o
4 i i ~ ! O_ I I j
3 I
-+' i l I i I i o
W~' ~ ~ '•
~ ~ ~ ~ ~- j I
~, ,,, ., ,
®~O~QO®mO®oo®1svtO~'DO+Q®CSbO~OOOO~f- ~ ~ o- F•
N O ~ ~ tC ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0• ~pO O
7 ~ ~ C. S ~ $ $ A ~ ~ W A Z
mm~O3 A ~ c~~~'~~~o
n c~~ o ~' o! $~ 3~ 3 9' o W ~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 O N ~
d t ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O' 7 ,i ~ j i
i
a
C ~ _, C~ ~ I I i j i
C ' fml~ a I j
I
~. a ~ ~.
~. ' ~ ~
I
I ax
I I I I I I I C I I
m m ~ r ~ g a inx
I I m m w I~
;~ i i I ., I *;I ~ ~ +
.,~
N
N O
o
o a
W

= VI N
p
~OOC ~
c ~
N
~ ~
~ m
c~
2 f0•
W
~
o-

MJ .
y
~ -
\
I ~
,
I
i ~' i ~ I
~ r
~
r I<
m I ~
~ ~ A
~
~
~ I
© ~
I i i ~
~
N ~ ~ i°I ~
I ~ ~
i
I ~ I
8 - A ~
~o ~~
C3 A
~ s `~ C
A ~. ~ ~ Qy
o' I O
~~~,,,,
i
I , I
I I
7

I I I
I I I
I I I
I T I~ I
I I
I I
I I
~ o ~ x ~
B.
o
n
T
~# c•
W

g°
~ g
~
W ~
~
~
~ o_
~,
~
a
n O
'°

~~
I
I
I I~
I LJ
I
Y if
I I o
II ~
II
n i II i
I ~° ~ I
I , II
I ^ JL
mmp 7o p C mD 7Qo mmp 7mmo mp 7o to p ~ mmp 7o to app~p 7QO
A~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ N ^ F A ~ ~ C ~ ~ N ~ 3 In n
o ~~T~~~~- ~~ ~o~~~~~~'~g~
$~ ~ qqII ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~
C ~ ~ ~ a. O Vs -I O S ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ C
y ~ O ~ C O ~ C A !r 7 i ~ ~ N i !:: O
~ ~ n m v p ~ n W o~ to ~~ A o
R c n~ v o ~ n~ ~ H~ ~
f1 ~ Q. W ~ o N C W N
°~ w ~ W o m 0 C v ;, o C
~ (~ T p ~ I m
N C d~ C ... O ~~ ..r
C m
m _.•. ~' V c ~~
I v N >'
i ~ m m
I I. ~ I. iN
I I I I I I ~ b~ ~ A N
C i f ~ I I I I fi
F~ I I I T ~
I
-i e O ~ I ~ I ~ I i 9 ~ I ~ ~ N N1 ~ ~ i
l l l l i ~ l ~ l ~ ~ l ~ I ~
m a g ma 3~ S a
x g ~
O ~~
a' T o
~ g

~
- V ~ `
~
~

a
~
3 ~
n
W
8~~ ~~ ~ ~' " y am
~ ~

O
N ~ $
C i ~ ~ i
~
~ ' g N
C I
~
i i
N
~.
3
7~
~p
O
0
O
Z~
rn ~~
Z ~~
~ ~ ®_
~~
O
Z ®~
r
~~
CJ~ Io-~r-~~++-+
~a
O
r
3 ~ ra•~ ~ W O y S ~ ~ ~ G W
-- ~•
~ ~ I S ~
~ ~~ ~ p
i ' 7 j ! b
'~. i
O i ^
I '' I V J
j
~ ! i
I
~ i I
i ~ I ~
n i I
0
I
x f0 ~O
C7
r
I-I ~I
I I I I
I ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ^I ~ _ I LLLJJJ
I I I I ~\I ~~
I I I I

REVISIONS
~'
0
z
O
C
O
rn
o ~
.,I ~ i
~ ~
rn
~ i
p O I
'o
± 2
~ o
cNn c.,a
0
0
w
b
O
z
'2

0
-rte
m
k
'
a
G7

O
2
O
~•
O?
_ m~
f

/ '~~
L
r C
0
o
~ ~~
m

0
g
O'
II
~
m
O `-~

~~

rn y
?
N
O-
0 o n
N a Z rn
~
~~ L _
o
NI
m o
p o N ~- --

o,
2 p ~~

~~
~~
m
_

~ _- - -
s
~
rn
2

O
c
z
0
k
y
2
G7
C
Z
O
c
m
o ~
z
., n
.~ ~
I
N
n
0 o O
z
~ A
N + ~
~~ y
O~ y
@ 2 C
~~ rn
rn~
m
0
r~
~ c c y N rn W N ~
E t
~ m
`~ m
~ x~~
c~~rn~
~ v~
rn~
~ b=ro$
:mrn~
~~ i~
rn~
~ ~'~~
~rn~
~~
~
~

~

~ =o
~
~o ~ o

~$ ~
o
~
~~~~
o o
~o
tn$ o

r„~°,
~ C

~

m
~
~~~r4,
~~
~m~o
~~
~~~ ~
nl
~ v,c~~i
p
'~
A to y~~=
x

~~
~ stn

rn2 ~b

~? ~

~
??A
2
i~~~
p
~ ~~
rn~
~~ ~
tni~n
?~ ~i~
~ ~i~
~
n
r
iim
dig
ot
~
2
~ ~i~
o
~ ~
rn
xyrn~ ~
~
rn
~ y
~8 S
n~
o
o
..
]
~~in tn ~_~~~ T ~~ O

~m ~~ ~~ i~
w~
b~
imp ~
~~
m m mm
~.

rn
k

i
O
2
O rD~
o~A

~ t
r
°
o
~ ~, , "=
n~

c
m
0

!
~ ~
~
~~
-
g
o y ~ I~
o ~~
0 o N
1
c~
° ~.--
N~~
~g a m ~~
~~
Z
-~
o ,
O
` ,' ~
q ~
N /1 _~
N - - --.___.. __._

o~
°~ 1
m
k
y
2
G~
O
c
z
0
V
D
A
y
z
O
2
O
}__i__
i

rn i
~ ~

~ ' rn
~ ~
o- --

r ~
0 ~--
3 /N.
7I7/A7l
b " p R ~ ; --
nl R
~
~
~ 5
,,, n, O-'-

~ ~
,,r,~ -~--~~ L_
~ z ,
~'h
~l
~
q
g
m m
L C'.," ~,.,.,...
(
' ~ ,~.
x n
~ ~
~LY,.~ m~„~
ur,;,,
t
o ~ "
"`~ ~ u ~
l
p 1
e,
,a
rn `' ~p~..Y
j
2 m ~ ~..:,.-.,~ W. n~
~ ~
n~
er:°..
~
p J.~9 ,~,.~~
lP
.
m ~~~ ~~u`~ ~ j~

'"~
r~
~~~ ~
W
N~

O
r
N
W

r
Cif

V
00

O
.~.~
N ~~°il p
~ t:
V C
~,~ -__
G1
/1/30/04 R/W REVISION: ADDED PROPERTY TIES FROM LOCATION AND SURVEYS
111
~i
w

~~~ PPQ~~~~~~
~~ ~ $$~~~Q~~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ 8
~ ~~~~ a~~
~~~ Z
n
M II 4 N M 1 M Y N M 11 O
C
1
REVISIONS
~f I
r •~ .~'
t - ~ 10
~~
~
`~~ ~ I
jj
~)
'r
_ _ I
;~
., ,
~'~~• ~ . _ f' I
_ ~ ; ~ a
_ _ ~
. f
,
~ ;~
_
` • ~
~
,,,
,
~
0p0p
$
I '

W z ty I
-1
~~ -~,- 1 o
a
I I o ~ Op
`2

OC1
~

-

-
-
-
~.~ ~
~ ~ I (roil
! - +
~ _~~ cn
~ (--1 rv _~
z 'D
~ O
~
~

+ - :
_,, ~ _ w I
i
I
,~, , ~
II ~
I 1
* v,
. ~
rn

g __
,.
;~
~' ~ ~i ~~,

it

tr

~~y~ ~~;~. ~

~ o

~
r wT' ~~ _~I
r _ I ICI
-
! t`
~ i II ui
r
~itil ~

f
_`
{
l
71 ~
I'~
~ l0
w
- - ~ _ ~ ~ 1,
~
~)
~
"~ !
y
~ ~" l -'
~
~In
~ L
r ~
I ~
y
~ ~ o
4 ' ;;~ i
>
r
v

~ ! ;I
I ., ~ s , ~,,i ;

~ ~~
i~ - - - hI 1111 I lid lz; / fl rn~
'
IJ i ~
~
/f ~~ I ~ i~ ~ .. t_
~m - - 1
'
~ /
I ~ ~ 71 E l
- ~
'

~
_ I ~~ I. I
•
~ -
~~

i y
cG I i' I
t~
I' A4i ~ I I' ~
I
~~ ` -

S~ ~~~n
~. .k, ~
-I V `~~ , ~~-F I I ~~~ E i~ i I ~+
m -o
~,.
- .._ NW - ~ _.. y~
I ! n
- + ~T r ! I c; }~
N ~ ~ ~~ q ~ a
.. - ~ ~ oy
Al
• ~ ~:
' s I .,
111• M r i o ~yJ1~I` ~:, r; ~ ~ ~~
_ ~NM~ •- ~! W i1I ~ I ~~ 1
I ~ ~ -~ r
=p1~~ - b ~ I I ~ ;~ m i i~ I I-. - ~~ 1 -c
-- 111 ~ _ - } . ~. 1~1 2 m~1 /,: i i II _.
~ mom f I
~ w - , ~'ll ~ ~ "k ~ ~ f ~~ / ~ ",
a If ~ m w ~ ~. M rnP ~ ~3
N- ~ I ~ a ~., b 1~ I ~ ~m plan
~. r~x ~ ,°" ~ ~~ I' ~ I g ~~ wk
- - - P v - --- I S o c~ c! ~ I, ro~u ..
a~ R~ I
9 1 iA r
.-. ~ C s i ~ , ~- ~ I
~ 1 I ~ j _ ~ ~
mods ~ r ~ / ~ w f `~ ~ ~m
- a ~ ~ o L ~ ~ ~ -, G ~ „-, ~ I ~ ~o ~ ~~
~... I Z
,. ~'•••
,.,
w w n I , ~
a~ c S~ -E - - ~ I ~'~ o
_ ~°• v,~-hops ~ I'. 'r 1 i ~ q °'~
- __
N -°~ R'u°11°°cnnl ''Il ~ ~mi ~ NN 20
_ A~b1~(~'h~wN y 3i 1 ~ ~ ~' i ~I ~ ~ O `"" m
~Q ~l p ~1 s
m
~_
~,
_ A
~ 1
N mm ~ I-•
~ _ iI s
i.:, n't n ' 1 a l I' s
~ a
- - _ - _ .. -
,.
z
i HI HI IN
a ~ Id
2' PS. l2' 12' 2' P_S.
L
1
b
1
,~ m
m `x
mQro+
+
/5 ~ ~ a~
~
m
~ i Iz
~~o
vl z-ir 2 ~r ~~m
~
1 rn ~
pyre
I~i~
C

r Ps.
1 • 0
it
r Ps.
1
7 < ry
i i
~~..`
Wz
. N N. ~ i

j ~
I I

i % I I 1

I vA•~
~I

~" f
`' ~`~ i

o
'
o A

'
•c~

I

~
-
J
i l c ~,
--.- _,
~{
~I :'
s
~" ~ .,

I ~ -
•
_ _.. -__. VmV.~
... _
~ I
~ I
._ ~
.. ~ 1
'
'I ~r

1rp
_.-. x F Y

'i `-~

~ l

~ m
of
~ oil i
~ i I I

--

'
f
L

..
~
~

•~1
r
-1 + ~,
I
+
~
'
f
~
~'
~
t~ ' i V
1 ,~ ~
I ~' ~ i
~N

Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. 8-4093
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved
~~3! 03
Date
13> 03
Dat
~~- ~~9
~ Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
~aI1~J. Voelker
Actin{ Division Administrator,
Federal riighway Administration

Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. B-4093
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
January 2003
Document Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc.
Iona .Hauser
Senior Environmental Planner
David . Wilver, P.E.
Project Manager
for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
eresa Hart, P.E., PM
Consultant Unit Head
.~ z.
n M. Penney, P.E; ^~
Project Planning Engineer

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 Over Gum Log Creek;
Federal Aid Project No.: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project No.: 8.2443501
TIP No.: B-4093
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Special Conditions,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
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:
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase
have been incorporated into the design and were standard commitments. Current
status, changes, or additions to the project commitments as shown in the environmental
document for the project are printed in italic font.
Design ServiceslRoadside Environmental/Division 6 Construction
Ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
This standard will be implemented during construction to the best ability of the
Department in coordination with existing standards and laws.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be placed on/a long the
temporary detour to ensure minimal degradation of Gum Log Creek.
This environmental commitment will be addressed during design and will be
implemented during construction of the project.
Design Services/ Division 6 Construction
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to
the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain all
necessary permits.
This standard will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project.
Division 6 Construction
Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to only what is necessary to perform
the bridge demolition/removal and construction of the replacement structure and what is
permitted. Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
8-4093 Green Sheet Page 1 of 2
Categorical Exclusion
December 30, 2002

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Division 6 Construction
All work shall be preformed during low flow conditions
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
8-4093 Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2
December 30, 2002

Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. B-4093
Bridge No. 81 is included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location of this bridge is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated that Bridge No. 81 has a sufficiency rating
of 49 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.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek in
Cumberland County (See Figure 1). Gum Log Creek is in the Cape Fear River Basin. The area
of the drainage basin for the creek at the subject location is 31 square miles (80 square
kilometers).
The existing Bridge No. 81 consists of six (6) spans of approximately 17 feet (5.3 meters (m))
each. Total length of the existing bridge is 104 feet (31.7 m) with a bed to crown height of 19
feet (5.7 m). Construction consists of concrete deck on timber beams and timber bents with
concrete spread footings and timber abutments. There are two 11 foot travel lanes and a total
of 26 feet (7.9 m) clear roadway width. The existing bridge is in a horizontal tangent and is
skewed 90 degrees to the roadway. Vertical grade on the bridge is relatively flat. The grade of
the north approach falls toward the bridge with the sag located on the south approach
approximately 100 feet (30.5 m) from the bridge. Both approaches are in horizontal tangent
with good sight distances (See Figure 3). The south approach begins to curve approximately
500 feet (152.4 m) from the bridge.
There are no utilities attached to the bridge. Overhead power and telephone line run parallel to
the upstream side of the bridge, and there is a buried waterline upstream of the bridge.

According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance floodwater has been approximately 10 feet (3.0 m)
above normal water surface elevation. Attempts to corroborate this information with local
residents were unsuccessful. There was no debris accumulation or scour was observed. The
channel banks appear to be stable with trees and small bushes. There were no wetlands
observed at the bridge. There are no structures or utilities observed in the floodplain except
those mentioned above. Bridge scour information for the existing bridge is not available, as it
has not been assessed due to insufficient substructure data.
The posted speed limit is 55 MPH. The 2001 average daily traffic volume is 2,800 vehicles per
day (vpd). The projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 5,400 vpd by the year 2025.
Currently 12 school buses (six (6) in AM and six (6) in PM) use this bridge daily.
Six accidents were reported in the vicinity of this bridge during the period from January 1,
1997 to July 31, 2000. None of the accidents resulted in personal injury, however six
involved property damage.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended Bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis in conjunction
with a field reconnaissance of the site, the proposed replacement structure is a bridge
approximately 120 feet (36.6 m) long. The grade of the roadway will be approximately the
same as the existing road. A minimum grade of three tenths (0.3) of a percent should be
maintained to facilitate deck drainage. The length of the proposed bridge and the
recommended roadway elevation may be adjusted (increased or decreased) to
accommodate design floods as determined in the final hydrologic study and hydraulic
design.
B. Build Alternatives (Figure 2)
The alternative for replacing Bridge No. 81 is described below.
Alternate 1 (Preferred) includes replacement of the existing 104 foot (ft) [31.7 meter (m)]
structure with a new structure in the same location as the existing structure. The proposed
structure will consist of two 12 foot travel lanes and two 3 foot shoulders for a total clear
roadway width of 30 feet (9.2 m). The new structure will be approximately 120 ft (36.6 m) in
length and 33 ft (10.1 m) wide. The approach work will extend from approximately 270 ft (82
m) north to approximately 270 ft (82 m) south of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained with a temporary on-site detour located approximately 10 ft (3 m) east of the
existing structure. Approach work for the temporary detour will extend from approximately
480 ft (146 m) north to 4'60 ft (140 m) south of the temporary pipe culvert structure utilizing

three (3) 84 inch corrugated steel pipe. The total project length including the temporary
detour is approximately 1050 ft (320 m).
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternate 2 includes replacement of the existing approximately 104 ft (31.7 m) two lane
bridge with a new two lane structure approximately 20 ft (6 m) upstream of the existing
structure. The new structure will be approximately 120 ft (36 m) in length. The approach
work will extend from approximately 820 ft (250 m) north to approximately 900 ft (274 m)
south of the existing structure. The total project length is approximately 1840 ft (560 m) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
No Action Alternate The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate removal of
the bridge effectively removing the westbound section of HWY 74 from traffic service.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 1 is the preferred alternate. It proposes to replacement of the existing 104 foot (ft)
[31.7 meter (m)] structure with a new structure in the same location as the existing structure.
Alternate 1 was selected because of fewer impacts to streams, better horizontal alignment,
and lower construction costs. NCDOT Division 6 Engineer concurs with the preferred
alternative and on site detour.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1: Estimated Cost
Alternate 1
Preferred Alternate 2
Structure Removal Existin $18,880 $18,880
Structure Pro osed $270,000 $270,000
Detour and A roaches $41,850 $0
Roadwa A roaches $440,100 $509,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $261,170 $272,720
En ineerin and Contin encies $168,000 $178,700
ROW/Const. EasemenUUtilities $58,000 $59,875

Total $1,258,000 $1,309,875
3

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of natural resources in the project
study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) a delineation .of
jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters and preparation of a map depicting the
jurisdictional areas based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data; 2) an assessment of
natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation,
wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 3) an evaluation of
probable impacts resulting from construction and alternatives; and 4) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
The project study area is located on SR 1728 over Gum Log Canal, in Cumberland County,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The bridge is located approximately one tenth (0.1) of a mile (0.2
km) northeast of the intersection SR 1714 and SR 1728. The project study area comprises
an area approximately 2000 ft (610 m) in length and approximately 400 ft (122 m) in width.
The project study area is rural in nature and consists of a mixture of forested areas and
agricultural land
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable United States Geological Survey {USGS) 7.5-minute
quadrangle topographic mapping [Polkton, NC (USGS 1970) and Russellville, NC (USGS
1971)], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping,
the Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina (United States Department of Agriculture
2000) as prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and recent
aerial photography (scale 1:2400) furnished by Wilbur Smith Associates.
Aerial photography served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant
community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field verified.
Plant community descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names generally follow nomenclature found in Radford of al. (1968).
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COf=)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Jurisdictional surface waters
(i.e., streams) were delineated pursuant to current COE and North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) protocol. All jurisdictional areas were located using TrimbleT"' GPS
4

units and the collected data were differentially corrected and plotted to produce working
maps and site plans.
Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was obtained from the Yadkin-Pee
Dee Basinwide Wafer Quality Management Plan (DWQ 1998), and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using
current DWQ protocol. Fish populations were sampled using seine and dip nets. Fisheries
sampling is conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) under North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) Permit # 0616.
Additional resources utilized for this natural systems investigation include the most recent
list (March 7, 2002) of federally Threatened and Endangered species by county published
by FWS. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were also
reviewed on June 4, 2001 and periodically updated to determine if there are any
documented cases of listed species occurring within three (3) miles (mi) [4.8 kilometers
(km)] of the project study area (most recent update February 25, 2002). Habitat used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive
documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992,
Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995).
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level to gently
sloping. Elevations in the project study area range from 75 to 90 ft (23 to 27 m) above mean
sea level (USGS 1997).
The project study area crosses three soil mapping units (USDA 1984). Non-hydric soil
mapping units present within the project study area include the Altavista fine sandy loam
(Aquic Hapludults) and Wickham fine sandy loam (Typic Hapludults). Wickham fine sandy
loam is non-hydric but may contain hydric inclusions of Roanoke soils (Typic Ochraquults)
that are found in depressions. The hydric soil mapping unit in the project study area is
mapped as the Roanoke and Wahee loam (Typic Ochraquults) that are poorly drained soils.
5

C. Water Resources
1. Water Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-06-15 of the Cape Fear River
Basin (DENR 1999) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030004 (USGS 1974). Gum
Log Canal originates approximately one (1) mi (1.6 km) west of the intersection of US
301 and Walker Road and flows southwest to its confluence with Locks Creek,
approximately one tenth (0.1) of a mile (0.2 km) south of the project study area. 'Gum
Log Canal, from its source to Locks Creek, has been assigned Stream Index Number
(SIN) 18-28-1 by the DWQ. An unnamed tributary (UT) flows southwest into Gum Log
Canal and runs parallel to SR 1728. The UT to Gum Log Canal has not been assigned
a separate SIN by the DWG.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based
on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams
in the basin. Gum Log Canal has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C (DEM
1993, DENR 2002a). The C designation indicates waters that support aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact with water on an
infrequent or incidental basis. The UT to Gum Log Canal has not been assigned a
separate Best Usage Classification, and therefore shares the Best Usage Classification
of its receiving waters, C.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-II
Waters occur within three (3) mi (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study
area (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a). Neither Gum Log Canal nor the UT to Gum Log Canal
are designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as a national Wild and
Scenic River.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates permits for
projects involving the construction, alteration, and/or operation of any sewer system,
treatment works or disposal system and certain stormwater runoff which would result in
a discharge into surface waters (DPA 1991). There are three permitted point source
dischargers located downstream of the project study area on the Cape Fear River. They
are listed in Table 2 below (DENR 2002b).
6

Table 2. NPDES Permitted Discharoes.
Permit Facility Receiving Discharge Distance from
Stream (MGD)" Study Area
N00023957 PWC/Fayetteville-Cross Cape Fear River 22 1.3 mi (2.1 km)
Creek WWTP downstream
N00076783 PWC/Fayetteville-Hoffer Cape Fear River Not limited 3.0 mi (4.8 km)
WTP downstream
N00050105 PWC/Fayetteville-Rockfish Cape Fear River 14 3.0 mi (4.8 km)
Creek downstream
"Million Gallons per Day
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in
water quality at monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates
(DEM 1989). This program has been replaced by the benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring program associated with the basinwide assessment for the Cape Fear River
Basin (DENR 1999). DWQ assigns bioclassifications to streams and portions of streams
based on species richness and overall biomass, which are considered reflections of
water quality. The closest benthic monitoring station is located five tenths (0.5) of a mile
(0.8 km) downstream from the project study area at Person Street over the Cape Fear
River. This monitoring station received a bioclassification of Good-Fair in 1993 (DENR
2002c, DENR 1999). There are no benthic monitoring stations located on the UT to
Gum Log Canal.
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of
Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health
of the fish community. Neither Gum Log Canal nor its tributaries have been sampled to
determine a NCIBI score as of the most recent Water Quality Management Plan (DENR
1999).
3. Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Gum Log Canal is not designated as Trout Waters or an Anadromous Fish Spawning
Area. There are no federally Threatened and Endangered species documented within
three (3) mi (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area. It is ESI's
opinion that this project can be classified as a Case 3 by the BMPs for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (NCDOT 1999). Case 3 bridge replacements have no special restrictions
beyond those outlined in the BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999). However, this project may be elevated
to a Case 2 at the discretion of the NCWRC in the event that a moratorium is established
to protect sunfish (Lepomis spp.). Case 2 allows no work at all in the water during the
moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into
nursery areas (NCDOT 1999). If a sunfish moratorium is established, in-stream work
would likely be banned during March 15 through June 30.
7

4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled
Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMfl-BDRs), as well as
guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek resulting from demolition.
The superstructure consists of reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. Although these
components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any components
into Gum Log Canal, the potential exists for temporary fill of up to 35 cubic yards (27
cubic meters).
The substructure consists of three interior bents located within the stream channel.
These bents are creosote timbers with piles encased in concrete. Although these
components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any components
into Gum Log Canal, the potential exists for temporary fill up to 35 cubic yards (27 cubic
meters).
Bridge components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any
bridge components into Gum Log Canal. However, due to the presence of reinforced
concrete in the superstructure of the bridge and piles encased in concrete, the potential
exists for up to approximately 70 cubic yards (54 cubic meters) of temporary fill being
excavated from Gum Log Canal as a result of demolition activities.
During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including erosion
control measures; therefore it is anticipated that removing the existing bents will result in
no impact to surrounding surface waters
After construction activities are completed, abandoned existing approaches associated
with the existing structure should be removed and revegetated in accordance with
NCDOT guidelines.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. BMPs can minimize impacts during construction,
including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures, and
avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas. Additional measures which can be taken
to minimize water quality impacts include avoiding the placement of live concrete directly
into the stream channel and preventing heavy equipment operations from being
conducted in the stream channel.
8

Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or
increased shade due to the construction of the bridges, and changes in stormwater flows
due to changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels,
can be anticipated as a result of this project. However, due to the limited amount of
overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in
nature.
In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to
aquatic resources/organisms. Any specific moratorium dates will be determined by the
NCW RC. No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from
the alternatives being considered. The proposed project calls for reducing the structure
from two spans to a single span structure across Gum Log Canal, which will allow for
continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby protecting
stream integrity.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Existing Vegetation Patterns
Terrestrial distribution and composition of vegetation communities throughout the project
study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past
and present land use practices. When appropriate, the vegetation community names
have been adopted and modified from the NHP classification system (Schafale and
Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local variations within the project
study area. One natural community was identified within the project study area: Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest. In addition to this natural community, there are also areas of
agricultural land and maintained/disturbed land.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest -These forests occur in mesic upland areas protected
from fire. These forests occur primarily on north facing bluffs and ravine slopes, less
commonly on upland flats or islands surrounded by peatland or swamp communities.
The mesic mixed hardwood forest within the project study area is located southwest of
SR 1728 adjacent to Gum Log Canal. The canopy consists American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), white oak (Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar sfyraciflua), water oak
(Quercus nigra), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). The shrub layer consists of flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida) and mountain laurel (Kalmia lafifolia).
Agricultural Land -The agricultural land within the project study area includes such
areas as livestock pasture and plowed fields used for production of crops. The pasture
is currently being used for production of cattle and crop production and occupies most of
9

the project study area north of SR 1728. Vegetation in this pasture is limited to hardy
grasses and weeds such as wild onion (Allium canadense), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), and fescue (Festuca sp.).
Maintained/Disturbed Land -The maintained/disturbed land within the project study area
include residential homes, roadsides, industrial areas, and dirt roads/driveways. The
vegetation within these areas includes ornamentals such as flowering dogwood, river
birch (Betu/a nigra), azalea (Rhododendron spp.), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Herbaceous vegetation is limited to invasive weeds and grasses including broomsedge,
wild onion, rye grass (Lolium sp.), fescue, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
and other maintained grasses.
2. Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Potential impacts to vegetation communities are estimated based on the area of each
community present within the proposed construction limits provided by Wilbur Smith
Associates. A summary of potential vegetation community impacts is presented in Table
3 in acres (ac) and hectares (ha).
Table 3. Potential Impacts to Veaetation Communities.
Potential Impacts
Acres hectares)
VEGETATION Alternative 1 Preferred Alternative 2
COMMUNITY
Impacts Temp.
Construction
I m actsa
Impacts Temp.
Construction
I m actsa
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.60 0.24 0.63 0.26 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.06
A ricultural Land 0.17 0.07 0.38 0.15 1.49 0.60 0.25 0.10
Maintained/Disturbed Land 0.22 0.09 0.90 0.36 0.97 0.39 0.47 0.19
Total: 0.99 0.40 1.91 0.77 2.58 1.04 0.86 0.35
Total For Alternative : 2.90 1.17 3.44 1.39
Temporary construction impacts are based on the pornon of the -mpacts not included in the
construction limits for the permanent structure.
b Totals for vegetation communities do not include the open water area attributed to Gum Log Canal
impervious road surface.
Potential impacts associated with a bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. The
two alternatives presented above minimize potential impacts to the adjacent Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest. Alternative 2 concentrates poten#ial impac#s in the
maintained/disturbed land and has the least amount of potential impacts to Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest. This alternative calls for the replacement of the existing s#ructure,
which will reduce permanent impacts to natural plant communities and limit community
fragmentation. Alternative 1 has the least amount of total potential impacts while
10

minimizing potential impacts to agriculture lands through the reduction in the amount of
roadway approach work required.
3. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Little evidence of wildlife was observed during the field effort. Forests along streams
such as Gum Log Canal provide cover and food and function as a migration corridor
linking areas of more optimal habitats. Other expected wildlife species are those
adapted to ecotones between the maintained roadsides and adjacent natural
communities.
a. Terrestrial
One bird species was observed within the project study area, tufted titmouse (Parus
bicolor). Other species expected to occur within the project study area include such
species as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), white-breasted nuthatch
(Sitta carolinensis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), eastern bluebird
(Sia/ia sialis), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), and common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula).
One mammal was observed within the project study area, gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis). Other species expected to be found in and around the project study
i area include raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected
i to occur within the project study area include eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), ringneck snake (Diadophis punciatus),
and black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Terrestrial amphibian species observed within the project study area include squirrel
treefrog (Hyla squirella) and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). Other species
expected to occur within the project study area include white-spotted slimy
salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and northern cricket frog (Acris crepifans).

b. Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes Gum Log Canal
and its unnamed tributary. Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electro-shocking
and visual observation of stream banks and channel within the project study area
were conducted in Gum Log Canal and the UT to Gum Log Canal to document the
resident aquatic wildlife populations.
Benthic invertebrate organisms collected within the project study area were identified
to at least Order, Family and species, if possible (McCafferty 1998). Gum Log Canal
was sampled and the following organisms were identified including Asiatic clams
(Corbicula fluminea), snails (Gastropoda), fishflies (Megaloptera: Corydalidae),
dragonflies (Odonota: Gomphidae), crayfish (Decapoda), flies (Chironomidae:
Simuliidae, Dixidae), mayflies (Trichoptera: Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae,
Caenidae, Baetidae), stoneflies (Plecoptera), beetles (Coleoptera: Elmidae,
Dryopidae), and caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae, Phryganeidae,
Philopotamidae, and Polycentropodidae).
The UT to Gum Log Canal was sampled and contained the following organisms:
scuds (Amphipoda), sow bugs (Isopoda), snails (Gastropoda), fingernail clams
(Sphaeriidae), caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae), alderflies (Megaloptera:
Sialidae), flies (Diptera: Chironomidae), mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae,
Baetidae), water bugs (Hemiptera: Corixidae, Veliidae), dragonflies and damselflies
(Odonata: Calopterygidae, Protoneuridae, Gomphidae, Libellulidae), and beetles
(Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae, Haliplidae, Chrysomelidae, Elmidae, Curculionidae)
(McCafferty 1998).
Fish species collected from Gum Log Canal include pirate perch (Aphredoderus
sayanus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), and tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmsted~).
The UT to Gum Log Canal was also sampled and contained largemou#h bass
(Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrook~).
No aquatic reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected
to occur within the project study area include brown watersnake (Nerodia taxispilota),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpenfina), banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), and
eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
12

Green frog (Rana clamitans melanota) was the only aquatic amphibian species
observed within the project study area. Other species expected to occur within the
project study area include species such as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), southern
leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
4. Potential Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known animal
populations. Wildlife movement corridors are not expected to be significantly altered by
the proposed project. Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided
by bridging Gum Log Canal to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition,
temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction
are expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute minimum, except
for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs) will be followed to minimize
impacts due to anticipated bridge demolition. BMPs for the protection of surface should
be strictly enforced to reduce impacts.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Gum Log Canal and the UT to Gum Log
Canal are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters in Gum Log Canal
within the project study area exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial,
unconsolidated bottom, cobble-gravel (R2U61) waters (Cowardin et al. 1979). The
waters in the UT to Gum Log Canal within the project study area exhibit characteristics
of riverine, intermittent, unconsolidated bottom, sand bottom (R4U62) waters (Cowardin
et al. 1979).
Gum Log Canal is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
cobble-gravel and sand. The main channel is 25 ft (8 m) wide and an average of five (5)
ft (2 m) deep. A geomorphic characterization of the stream section within the project
study area indicates that Gum Log Canal is a "C" type stream (Rosgen 1996). These
stream types occur in broad, alluvial valleys with terraces and have variable sinuosity.
"C" channels also have well-developed floodplains and point bars in the meander bends.
The "C" designation indicates that the stream is slightly entrenched with well-defined
meandering channels (Rosgen 1996).
13

The UT to Gum Log Canal is approximately three (3) #t (1 m) wide and an average of two
(2) ft (0.6 m) deep. The geomorphic characterization of the tributary indicates that the
tributary is a "G" type stream (Rosgen 1996). These stream types occur in narrow
valleys and are unstable, with grade control problems and high bank erosion rates. The
"G" designation indicates that the stream is an entrenched "gully" with a low width/depth
ratio on moderate gradients (Rosgen 1996).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches [31 centimeters (cm)] the surface
for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on this three
parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands do not occur within the project study area.
2. Potential Impacts to Waters of the United States
Potential impacts to wetlands and open water areas are estimated based on the amount
of each jurisdictional area within the proposed construction limits. Open water areas of
Gum Log Canal (R2U61) are included in this table, although impacts are not expected
due to the use of channel-spanning structures. During Bridge Removal Procedures,
NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including Erosion Control Measures. Therefore it is
anticipated that removing the existing bents will result in no impact to surrounding
surface waters. A summary of potential jurisdictional impacts is presented in Table 4 in
acres and hectares or linear feet and meters, as appropriate.
Tahla d Pntential Imnartc to .luri~c~irtinnal ArPaS_
Potential Wetland Impacts
Acres hectares
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Alternative 1 (Preferred) Alternative 2

Impacts Temporary
Construction
Im acts
Impacts Temporary
Construction
Im actsa
R2UB1 Gum Lo Canal 0.02 0.01 0.63 (0.25 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03
R4UB2 UT Gum Lo Canal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total: 0.02 0.01) 0.63 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03
Total Wetland Im acts: 0.65 0.26) 0.10 0.04
Potential Stream Impacts
Linear feet meters
Gum Lo Canal 40 12 150 46 35 11 125 38
UT Gum Lo Canal 0 0 0 0
Total: 40 12) 150 (46) 35 (11) 125 (38)
Total Stream Impacts: 190 (58 160 (49)
e Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion at the impacts not inc-uaea m me
construction limits for the permanent structure.
14

Both alternatives avoid potential impacts to UT Gum Log Canal. Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 each have the same amount of potential impacts, 0.02 ac (0.01 ha).
Alternative 1 has the largest amount of temporary impacts, 0.63 ac (0.25 ha).
Alternative 2 minimizes temporary impacts for Gum Log Canal to 125 linear ft (38 m).
Both alternatives include use of a channel spanning structure that would avoid impacts
to Gum Log Canal. The current alternatives will result in no wetland impacts associated
with construction.
a. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR
330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact.
DWQ has issued a General 401 Water G~uality Certification for NWP #23. However,
use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will
not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by
the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if
this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be required if temporary structures,
work, and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary for this project and not
covered within the CE.
4. Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance -Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the project
study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The proposed alternative avoids
impacts to wetlands. Wetland and stream impacts are previously discussed in Section
V.E.1.
Minimization -The alternatives presented were developed in part to demonstrate
minimization of stream impacts. Impacts to the stream will be minimized during
demolition by removing bridge components in a manner, which will avoid dropping any
components into the creek channel. Bridge demolition impacts have been previously
discussed in Section V.C.4. Employing 2 to 1 slopes where practicable can further
minimize wetland impacts.
Mitigation -Compensatory mitigation is not anticipated for this project due to the limited
nature of project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to
minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas within the stream channel.
Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by
replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of any temporary fill material
15

within the floodplain upon project completion. Final mitigation requirements rest with the
COE. Mitigation may be required for wetland impacts less than one tenth {0.1) if an acre
(>0.04 ha).
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act {ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are
listed for Cumberland County, see Table 5, US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list
dated March 7, 2002).
Table 5. Federally Protected Species.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
American alligator
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
Saint Francis' satyr
Small-whorled pogonia
Pondberry
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Michaux's sumac
American chaffseed
Alligator mississippiensis
Picoides borealis
Neonympha mitchellii
francisci
Isotria medeoloides
Lindera melissifolia
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Rhus michauxii
Schwalbea americans
T(S/A) N/A
E No Effect
E No Effect
T No Effect
E No Effect
E No Effect
E Not Likely to
Adversely Effect
E No Effect
American alligator -American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in
appearance to other federally listed crocodilians; however, there are no other
crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of
freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large
streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.
Biological Conclusion: Not applicable
NHP records indicate that the American alligator has been documented from the
Cape Fear River two and three tenths (2.3) of a mile (3.7 km) northwest of the
project study area. Potentially suitable habitat for American alligator does exist
within the project study area, however, a biological conclusion is not required since
this species is listed as T (S/A) by FWS.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCVII) -This small woodpecker, seven (7) to eight and
one half (8.5) inches (19.3 to 23.4 cm) long, has a black head, prominent white cheek
lb

patch, and black-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades)
behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980).
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by
loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P. serotina)
pines (Henry 1989). Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than
60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur
in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). Foraging habitat is comprised
of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. Pine flatwoods or
pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as
ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory
may result in abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark
around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance
that allows for easy detection of active nest trees (Henry 1989).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project study area does not contain potentially suitable foraging and/or nesting
habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. No pine-dominated tracts of land exist
within the project study area, which are ideal nesting and foraging communities for
the woodpecker. This project will have no impact on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
A review of NHP records revealed no documentation of this species within three (3)
mi (4.8 km) of the project study area.
Saint Francis' satyr -The Saint Francis' satyr is one of the rarest butterflies in eastern
North America and is known from one locality in North Carolina. The butterfly is fairly
small and dark brown in color. The wingspan ranges from 1.3 to 1.7 inches (3.3 to 4.3
cm) (FWS 1996). The Saint Francis' satyr has conspicuous eyespots on the lower
surfaces of the wings, which are dark maroon-brown in the center surrounded by a
yellow border. The outermost border is dark brown. The habitat required for this species
consists primarily of open wet meadows dominated by wetland graminoids (grasses,
sedges, rushes). Larval host plants are also believed to be graminoids.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No open grass/sedge dominated wetlands occur within the project study area, which
offer ideal habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr. Since no potentially suitable habitat for
the Saint Francis' satyr exists within the project study area, this project will not
impact the species. NHP and FWS records indicate this listed subspecies is known
to occur at only one locality, an artillery range at Fort Bragg.
Small whorled pogonia -The small whorled pogonia is asmall-flowered terrestrial
orchid which grows to about one (1) ft (0.3 m) high. It has a greenish or purplish stem
and a whorl of five drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded and pointed leaves
17

(Radford et al. 1968). The single, nearly stalkless flower is yellowish green, about one
half (0.5) of an inch (1.3 cm) long and is surrounded by three (3) narrow sepals less than
one (1) inch (2.5 cm) long. Flower production is from May to June, followed by an erect
ellipsoidal capsule less than one (1) inch (2.5 cm) long. This species is found on moist
hardwood slopes and along stream bottoms (Radford et al. 1968), usually in association
with white pine (Pinus strobus) (Weakley 1993); it sometimes remains dormant up to 10
years between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977). The small whorled pogonia is
widespread but very local in distribution, inhabiting the Mountains and upper Piedmont
from southern Maine to northern Georgia (Weakley 1993).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No forested areas dominated by white pine are located within the project study area
that would provide potentially suitable habitat for this species. Forested slopes within
the project study area, while hardwood dominated, do not contain the white pine
component that is typically found in association with small whorled pogonia.
Therefore, potentially suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project
study area and this project will not impact this species. A review of NHP records
revealed no documentation of this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project
study area.
Pondberry (southern spicebush) -Pondberry is a deciduous shrub with a limited
distribution occurring in two portions of the southeastern United States, the Mississippi
Valley and the Coastal Plain of the Carolinas (FWS 1993). Within the two portions of its
range, pondberry is known to occupy different habitats. While pondberry is known from
hardwood depressional areas with perched water tables in the Mississippi Valley, in the
Carolinas pondberry occurs along margins of sink holes, ponds, and depressions in
pinelands (FWS 1993). Within North Carolina, potential habitat for pondberry is
described as: 1) shallow ponds with a sandy substrate, especially sites containing the
shrub pondspice (Litsea aestivalis); and 2) Carolina bays containing a combination of
pond cypress (Taxodium ascenders) with loblolly pine and red maple (Acer rubrum)
(Leonard 1995).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat in the form of Carolina bays, sinkholes, or other
seasonally flooded wetlands does not occur in the project study area. A review of
NHP records revealed no documentation of this species within three (3.0) mi (4.8
km) of the project study area. Therefore, construction of the proposed project will not
result in any impacts to this species.
Rough-leaved loosestrife -The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial
that often reaches the height of two (2) ft (0.6 m); its leaves are sessile and entire, in
18

whorls of three (3) to four (4). Five-petaled yellow flowers, approximately one half (0.5)
of an inch (1.3 cm) across, are produced on a loose terminal raceme from late May to
June; seeds are formed by August, but the small, rounded capsules do not dehisce until
October. Preferred habitat of the rough-leaved loosestrife consists of the ecotone
between longleaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where lack of canopy
vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. This species is fire maintained;
suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in our state.
Drainage of habitat may also have adverse effects on the plant (FWS 1994).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for this species in the form of the ecotonal zones between
pocosins and sandhills or isolated openings within pocosin wetlands does not occur
in the project study area. A review of NHP records revealed no documentation of
this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project study area. Therefore,
construction of the proposed project will not result in any impacts to this species.
Mlchaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous
shrub, usually less than two (2) ft (0.6 m) high. The alternate, compound leaves consist
of nine (9) to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be
slightly winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced
during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters
followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac
tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other
disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility rights-of-way. In the
Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or
sandy soil derived from granite; in the sandhills, it prefers loamy swales (Weakley 1993).
Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain
and lower Piedmont.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac exists within the project study area
along roadside margins and other similarly disturbed plant communities. A
systematic survey of all potentially suitable habitat was conducted by ESI biologists
in June 2001 during the flowering season for this species. No individuals of
Michaux's sumac were observed during the survey. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project should not affect Michaux's sumac. A review of NHP records
revealed no documentation of this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project
study area.
American chaffseed - Chaffseed is a perennial root-parasitic herb that stands 12 to 24
inches (31 to 61 cm) tall. The alternately-leaved plant is erect and simple, or branched
19

only at the base. The fleshy leaves are yellow-green or dull green with red undertones,
and become smaller and narrower from the base of the plant to the top (Kral 1983).
Flowers are arranged on a spike-like raceme and bloom from April to June. Chaffseed
occurs in grass/sedge assemblages with moist acidic sandy loams or sandy peat loams.
These assemblages typically exist in moist pine flatwoods, savannas, bog borders, and
open oak woods.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for this species in the form of open, frequently burned
long leaf pine savannas does not occur in the project study area. The shrub layer in
forested areas within the project study area is too dense to provide potentially
suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, construction of the proposed project
should not affect American chaffseed. A review of NHP records revealed no
documentation of this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project study area.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The March 7, 2002 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under
the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso
1999, LeGrand et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for the
following FSC species listed for Cumberland County (Table 6).
THIS SECTION INTENTIONAL LEFT BLANK
~p

Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC).
Common Name Scientific Name Potential State
Habitat Statusa
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis N SC
Southern hognose snake Heterdon simus N SR
(PSC)
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus N SC
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito N SC(PT)
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Y T (PE)
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Y T (PE)
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana N E
Sandhills milkvetch Astraga/us michauxii N T
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula N C-SC
White wicky Ka/mia cuneata N E-SC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae N E-SC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea N E
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis N C
Boykin's lobelia Lobe/ia boykinii N C
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum /axum N T
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata N W 1
Carolina grass-of- parnassia caroliniana N E
Parnassus
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii (=integrifolium var. N W 1
mabryanum)
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides N C
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecrisfata (=Eulophia N E
ecristata)
Sandhills pixie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia N E
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa N T
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra N E
Spring-flowering
goldenrod Solidago verna N T
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii N E
Carolina asphodel Tofie/dia glabra N C
Roughleaf yellow-eyed
rrr~cc Xyris scabrifolia N C
° E - Endangered, T -Threatened, SC -Special Concern, C - Candidate, W -Watch List, P -
Proposed, SR -Significantly Rare.
NHP records indicate that one (1) FSC species has been documented within three (3) mi
(4.8 km) of the project study area. The yellow lampmussel has been documented two
(2) mi (3.2 km) northwest of the project study area in the Cape Fear River. This
occurrence is approximately six (6) river miles (10 km) from the project study area.
?1

3. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 ei seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
In addition to the above referenced FSC which also carries a North Carolina listing, the
eastern coral snake [Micrurus fulvius, SR (PE)] has been documented two and one half
(2.5) mi (4.0 km) northwest of the project study area. Two state protected mussel
species have been found in the Cape Fear River two (2) mi (3.2 km) northwest of the
project study area: pod lance (Elliptio folliculata), and the Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis). The occurrences of these mussel species is approximately six (6) river
miles (10 km) from the project study area.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical 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 projects) on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
In a November 5, 2001 memorandum, see Appendix, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) state "no comment" regarding this project. Afield survey of the
Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on March 19, 2002. The HPO concurred
that there are no eligible structures within the APE on April 12, 2002. A concurrence form
was signed which documents these finding and is found in the appendix.
~~

C. Archaeology
Based on the November 5, 2001 memorandum from the HPO, see attached, denoting "no
comment" regarding this project and a review by NCDOT Archaeological staff it was
determined that the proposed project will not impact any archaeological sites that are
eligible for the NRHP.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacements of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project does not conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from 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 anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of
this project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or the representatives to
consider potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils be all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
~3

This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Any noise levels increases 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 SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 722) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
As Examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department
of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in
the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were taken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the
project development with a scoping letter. Additionally, 67 newsletters detailing the alternatives
considered were mailed to citizens in the vicinity of the project. Newsletters were also mailed to
local officials. Two comments were received from citizens; both supported the bridge
replacement but were concerned right-of-way requirements for the project.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments were received from Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, North
Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, State Historic Preservation Office, anti
local officials. Responses to the project scoping letter were not received from NCDENR
Division of Water Quality.
24

X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pp 321-409 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's
Endangered Species. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg,
Va.
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontidae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 75pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. Water Quality Stream
Classifications Downloaded from http;//h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alphaold/yad. html
on19 February 2002..
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES Permits.
http;//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/download.xls on19 February 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002c. Biological Assessment
Unit. http://www.esb.enr.stae.nc.us/BAUwww/benthosdata.pdf on 19 February 2002..
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Qualityt (DWO). 1998. Yadkin- Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh..
Division of Planning and Assessment (DPA). 1991. North Carolina Environmental Permit
Directory. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.122). U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 28 pp.
?S

Hamel, P.$. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Atlanta, Georgia. 13pp.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. A Status Survey for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
Freshwater Mussel Endemic to the Carolinas. Report prepared for the U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. 51 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh. 90 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
pP•
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
448pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management Practices For
Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Porter, D.M., and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991. Vascular Plants. Pp.51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.),
Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1138 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. flaleigh.
325 pp.
~~

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (CD-ROM).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1983 Polkton National Wetlands Inventory Map
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983 Russellville National Wetlands Inventory Map
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the
Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 28
PP•
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS) 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern, By County, In North Carolina. Asheville, NC. 51 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1970 Polkton Quadrangle.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1971 Russellville Quadrangle.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
27

~~
`~.
;~~,~
d ~ , , ~,,
~~,\
,~ ~~~ GRID Nd. 81
\~I`1~
I
~.1
~~i'i I
I! \
~ ;~ ~; ~.
~`~,~,~
~~j~
a
JLL
~ ~ II
.,,~,
! ~A.~
r ~ a
j~ ~ ~
! '+ ~
;~ 1

..~,
.,~.
.~
06
a~

wM. ~o~ 1!!1
.K
'dN'

leas
~~
,~
~ ~.
~~ ~~.
~~--
w --,
a ~,. i
~-----,
~~ .%
r ~ ',
;~ ~ ~ ~ I
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
i+o~ra cww~w ~w~rimvr ar r~sx~rwrioar
aweorr ar ~u~wn
wioavr osv~,a~wrir wem
urtatatnarrrw~, wxwrtd ~ur~w
BRIDf~B' X0.81
SR 1724 OVER GUM LOG CANAL
CUMBERLelA~ COUNTY
8--1093
VICINITY MAP
FIOURE !

fi,
'i
a

Z r'
F
K a
~ ~ k
~ e
~ ~" a ~
JW W ~ ~ ~ h
A
~O ~ ~ s~ U oy ~,
J ~~~~°~a
.. ~ a ~ ~c
~ ~~s
~a~3
-- . b„
~o
slno ~o~ :.
1N/Od 3JNlH ~ r°
~ O W
o U ~~
S77/d NOd e ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 1Nlod 39N/H / U ~ U
o
ao W ~ O
N ~ 1I `~' a' ~1~ N I1
ti N o f C1 ^+ o f
A
o ~ o
N
°° U
~ ~ M ,r
s-n/~ ~o~ ~ O ~ ~
1N/Od 3~N/H ~ ~ ~+ .,
U ~ U
^' O ti
w a, O
slno ~o~ ~ ~
`o :~ H
o:
W o°o °v N
~ J N H ~ ~
~ ~.
~° ~ v
J N A
ti H ~
~O ~ N N ~ U
N Z
~~ ~ ti ~ a y ~
ti~
~~

APPENDI3C

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
B " Wilmington District
Action ID: 200101375
County: Cumberland
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Requestor: Authorized A ;ent:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager Josh Witherspoon
B Project Development & Environmental Analysis Environmental Services Inc.
1548 Mail Service Center 524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548 Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Size and Location of Project (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): TIP Project No. B-
4093, Bridge No. 81 on SR-1728 over Locks Creek, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination: Onsite field inspection of jurisdictional area.
On October 10, 2001, the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional line as field delineated by the
NCDOT and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project/corridor. The project site was inspected and the
delineated jurisdictional line was found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The field delineated
jurisdictional limits, as shown on the attached plan(s), can be relied on for project planning and impact assessment.
This verification is valid for five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Any placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional limits will require
Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
USC 1344). Any un-authorized placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional
limits would be a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311) and subject to
enforcement action. If you have any questions regarding this verification or the Corps of Engineers'
regulatory program, please contact Mr. Richard K. Spencer at 910-251-4172.
Project Manager Signature
Richard .Spencer
Date October 24, 2001
Expiration Date October 24.2006
Attachments

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ralcigh Ficld O(Fce
Post Ofrice Boz 33726
Raleigh, Notch Carolina 276363726
July 15, 2002
Mr. Mike Penny
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Penny:
This responds to your letter of October 3, 2001, requesting comments on nine bridge replacement
projects. Five of these projects are within the area covered by this office. Our biologist working
on projects of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) at that time, Tom
McCartney, requested survey data on federally protected species from the consultant, Wilbur
Smith Associates. The requested information was supplied to the Service in late March 2002 at
Mr. McCartney's retirement. In the transition to a new NCDOT biologist, the new material was
filed under the assumption that comments had been provided. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) regrets the delay in providing these comments and appreciates your efforts to bring this
oversight to our attention. This report provides scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife, Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section
7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report
also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The bridges scheduled for replacement are:
1. B-3680, Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 15/501 over CSX Railroad;
2. B-3830, Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp;
3. B-4093, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
4. B-4205, Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 over Doomas Creek, and;
5. B-4273, Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 on US 401 over the Lumber River
General Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands
For each project, we recommend the following conservation measures to avoid or minimize
adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical as
outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Areas

' exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region
' should be avoided. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur
outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
2. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along or adjacent to existing, roadways, utility comdors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. At the completion of
construction, the entire detour area, including any previous detours from past construction
activities, should be entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with
appropriate, endemic vegetation, including trees if necessary;
3. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset;
4. In waterways that may serve as travel comdors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning, and sensitive pre-adult
life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 15;
5. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and,
6. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species for which the Service
remains concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the
conservation status of these taxa. Although FSCs receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every
reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
Federally Protected Species
The Natural Resources Technical Reports (NRTR) make determinations that a project will not
affect a particular species, primarily plants, based on surveys in the recent past. If actual
construction is several years away, the Service believes such determinations are premature and
2

that additional surve swill be re uired. It would be more appropriate to note that suitable
Y q
habitat or the actual species was not found during preliminary surveys and such evidence
provides early indications that the project is not likely to adversely affect the species.
Effect determinations for plants based on surveys within the project area may require work at a
particular time of year for accurate identification. The biological conclusions of the NCDOT for
plants should include the time of year that a survey was conducted, the person hours of
surveying, and the approximate size of the area surveyed. Surveys should be done within two or
three years of actual construction for those species inhabiting stable and/or climax communities.
Plant species that utilize disturbed communities, e.g., Michaux sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Cooley's meadowrue (Tllalictrum cooleyi), should be done within two years of actual
construction if vegetation disturbing activities, e.g., regular mowing or timber harvesting, occur
at the project site.
If surveys for a federally protected species should determine that a given project would adversely
affect the species, a biological assessment (BA) may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2)
requirement and in determining whether formal consultation with the Service is necessary.
Please notify this office with the results of the surveys for the listed species that may occur in the
project area. Please include survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the action,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
Project Specific Comments
B-3680 (Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 15/SO1 over CSX Railroad)
The NRTR presents three design alternatives for the bridge replacement that vary in
environmental impacts. Based on Table 2 (p. 8), the Service recommends Alternative 1 since it
is the only alternative that would avoid all impacts to Piedmont alluvial forest and has the least
amount of impacts on mixed mesic hardwood forest. Table 3 shows that impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands for the Alternatives 1-3 are 1.10, 1.44, and 2.85 acres, respectively. However, these
tabular data do not seem to correspond to the photographic presentation of the alternatives.
These figures indicate that Alternative 2 would avoid most wetlands in the project area while
Alternative 1 would cross a wetland just east of US 1. The Service recommends future design
work seek to further minimize impacts to wetlands, especially forested wetlands which provide
valuable wildlife habitat.
The NRTR accurately notes the four federally protected species for Moore County. The report
states that habitat for the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis ntekistocholas), red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) (Picoides borealis), and American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) do not exist in the
project area. Surveys for Michaux sumac (Rhus micl:auxii) did not find the plant. Data on
known locations of these species available to the Service indicate that they have not been found
in the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, current data suggests that the project will not
impact species protected by the ESA.

B-3830 (Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp
The NRTR for these two bridge replacements has not been released and design alternatives are
still under consideration. The major issues for this project include impacts to wetlands, state-
designed Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) that flow into Lake Waccamaw, and the Federally
threatened Waccamaw silverside (WS) (Menidia exteitsa), a small (1.2 to 2.6 inches) fish
endemic to the lake where it occurs in schools near the surface in open water. Furthermore,
critical habitat has been designated for the WS that includes all of the lake up to the mean high
water level that generally includes the lower reaches of stream flowing into the lake up to SR
1947. If a temporary detour bridge is required, this structure should be on the side of the existing
structure away (north) from the lake. Such placement would avoid issues of adverse
modification to critical habitat. Impacts can also be minimized by not installing "weep holes" or
other structures on the bridge that would allow run-off or degrade water quality in the creek or
lake. Overall, water run-off from structures should be minimized or avoided if at all possible.
The NCDOT should use BMPs and effective sediment and erosion control measures to minimize
debris and sediment entering the creek and lake. Finally, potential impacts would be minimized
if construction is performed outside the WS spawning period of March through July.
The wetlands in the project enhance the water quality of Lake Waccamaw and provide high
quality fish and wildlife habitat. Every effort should be made to minimize temporary impacts
and avoid the permanent loss of such areas.
In addition to the WS, the other federally protected species in Columbus County include the
RCW, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). The NCDOT should determine project impacts on these
species through either a thorough comparison of habitat requirements with conditions at the site
or actual field surveys.
The Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehkei), a FSC, has been reported near the project site.
These small fish occur in heavy vegetated shallows of ponds, sloughs, and creeks. This FSC
would benefit from all measures to preserve water quality and prevent the loss of vegetated
wetlands.
B-4093 (Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 [Middle Road] over Gum Log
Canal)
The NRTR states that two alternatives are under consideration for the project. Alternative 1.
would construct the new bridge at the same location and use a temporary detour bridge.
Alternative 2 would construct a new bridge approximately 20 feet upstream of the existing
structure. Both alternatives would have the same permanent impacts, 0.02 acre, on jurisdictional
wetlands. If Altemative 2 is implemented, the NCDOT should discuss the removal of the
existing structure and the restoration of the waterway and associated wetlands at that site.
4

The Service does not concur with the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the small whorled pogonia (Isotria n:edeoloides), a Federally threatened perennial
plant. This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. The
NRTR states that the species is characteristic of moist hardwood slopes and along stream
bottoms "usually" in association with white pine. The Biological Conclusion (p. 14) is based on
the absence of hardwood forests "dominated" by white pine. We do not believe that this plant
requires woodlands with, or dominated by, white pine, but that white pine is often present m the
~ forests containing the plant. The Service recommends that future conclusions be based on field
surveys.
In general, the Service can accept the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the RCW, Saint Francis satyr (Neonympha rnitchellii francisci), pondberry (Lindera
melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife, Michaux's sumac, and American chaffseed. Records
available to the Service indicate that none of the listed species of Cumberland County have been
reported to occur near the project site.
Table 5 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area.. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia n:asoni) and yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa). The Service recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control
be used during all construction to minimize any impacts to these mussel species.
B-4205 (Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 [Lovejoy Road] over Dumas
[Doomas] Creek)
Some documents for the project state that the bridge crosses Doomas Creek while other
documents give the name as Dumas Creek. We will use the latter in our comments and future
planning document should indicate the correct name.
The NRTR considers three alternatives, a new structure immediately downstream (Alternative 1),
anew structure immediately upstream (Alternative 2), and replacement at the existing location
with offsite detours on existing roads (Alternative 3). Table 2 (p. 12) presents impacts to
jurisdictional water and wetlands. While there are only minor differences in impacts to wetlands,
Alternative 1 has much greater permanent impacts to Dumas Creek (232 feet) versus the 32 feet
for both Alternatives 2 and 3. The Service does not support Alternative 1 and would recommend
Alternative 3.
The NRTR presents a biological conclusion for three federally listed animals and two plants. All
conclusions are that the project would have no effects on these species. The conclusions for the
three animals, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocepl:alus), eastern cougar (Fells concolor
couguar), and RCW were based on the absence of suitable habitat or, in the case of the cougar,
the absence of recent evidence that the species exists in the area. The conclusions for the two
plants, Schweintz's sunflower (Helianthus sch-veinitzii) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata) were based on field surveys which appear adequate. Occurrence data presently
available to the Service indicate that the species most likely to occur near the project are
5

Schweintz's sunflower and Carolina creekshell (Villosa vauglta~:iana), a FSC. The NCDOT
should carefully monitor the project area prior to construction to ensure that Schweintz's
sunflower does not colonize the area.
Table 4 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia n:asoni), Brook floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa), Savarutah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), and Carolina creekshell. The Service
recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control be used during all construction to
minimize any impacts to these mussels species.
B-4273 (Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 On US 401 over the Lumber River)
The NRTR considers two alternatives: replacement at a new location, approximately 70 feet
upstream of the existing structure (Alternative 1) and replacement at the same location
(Alternative 2). Table 1 indicates that Alternative 2 would have less impacts on important plant
communities such as cypress-gum swamp and coastal plains bottomland hardwoods. Table 2
shows that Alternative 2 would have less impacts (2.46 acres) on jurisdictional wetlands than
Alternative 1 (4.45 acres). Based on these data, the Service considers Alternative 2 to be the
least damaging to fish and wildlife habitat in the project area.
Table 3 accurately reflects the federally protected species known to occur in Scotland and Hoke
Counties. The determinations that the project would have no effect on four species (RCW, Saint
Francis' satyr, rough-leaved loosestrife, and American chaffseed) based on an absence of suitable
habitat appear accurate. The systematic surveys for two plants with potential habitat, Canby's
dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) and Michaux's sumac, did not find these species and present
sufficient evidence that the species do not occur in the project area in June 2001. Occurrence
data available to the Service indicate that no Federally protected species have been reported in
the project area.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us of the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of these bridge replacements. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, Ext. 27.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Super-visor
6

cc: Ted Bisterfeld, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington NC
I John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
7

Federal Aid # BRZ-1728(1) T1P # B-4093 County: Cumberland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
On 04/12/2002, representatives of the
[~ Noah Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
i~j Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[}/ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
(] Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effecu.
[~/ There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
• is considered not eligible for the National
Registe and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
~/ There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
~ ~~~
~~~~~ ~~~
Representative, NCDOT ,,~ Date
~~ /,~ ~~~
~~ ~~~~
FHWA, for th~ivision Admtntstrator, or other Federal Agency Date
i ~~
Representative, HPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

(~\ j~ ,
r M \ ~ \\!1
1~ ~ \\vt
~ ~~~ ~ -
.a~;~.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
November 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook f ~~ ~ ~ , '~"`
~~$~
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek, B-4093,
Cumberland County, ER OZ-7903
Thank you for your letter of September 26, 2001, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources, which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
~r

Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
Restoration S I S N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
Survey & Planning S l5 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
TelephonelFax
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone].715-4801

e~n~~o
~C~ ~~
~! V. ..
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 19, 2001
Bryan E. Beatty, Secretary
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
1549 Mail Service Center r~ ~ ~ ':r~;;'.
Raliegh, NC 27699-1549 Q'~ ~
Subject: RE: I3rid~e Replacement Projects
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letters dated September 26, 2001 regarding the review of nine bridge replacement
projects. The North Carolina Division of Emergency Management has reviewed the proposed projects
and would like to provide comments to the Department of Transportation.
My staff has reviewed the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for your project areas. The majority of
these projects are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, also know as the 100-year floodplain. Please
ensure that the proposed projects do not cause an increase in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in these
areas and that they comply with Nation Flood Insurance Program guidelines.
Projects Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4009, Bridge No. 33 in Anson County -Zone A
• B-3830, Bridge No. 363 in Columbus County -Zone A
• B-4205, Bridge No. 133 in Montgomery County -Zone A
• B-4273, Bridge No. 37 in Scotland County -Zone A
• B-3908, Bridge No. 246 in Stanly County -Zone A
• B-3909, Bridge No. 99 in Stanly County -Zone A
• B-4276, Bridge No. 33 in Stanly County -Zone AS
Projects Not Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4093, Bridge No. 81 in Cumberland County - Zone B (500-year floodplain)
• B-3680, Bridge No. 2 in Moore County - Zone X (500-year floodplain)
The Division of Emergency Management does not oversee the routing of Emergency Response Units on
a day-to-day basis. However, utilizing off-site detour routes has the potential to increase response times
of these units, especially if alternate routes are not available. Your agency should contact local
emergency management officials or the local representatives responsible for roadways. NCEM would
1830-B Tillery Place.o Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 o Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer

also like to advise that you pay close attention to roadways that have been identified as evacuation routes
and the potential impacts your projects may have on evacuation travel.
If you have any further questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Steve
Garrett at [phone], extension 349.
Si
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
205 West Cabarrus Street v Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 o Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
Gavin Smith, Ph.D.

~..
.•
v
f 1770 ` / ` , ,~ . ~ •#' ~ :.~
7l~ . . ~. • - - 1771 K ~ •t
• t
../~ i t ~.., ..~ . ~ -
'. ~ S ~' .~: Ly ~.,.~., • ~ '~..-~ I4 a 11.! ,. r~ t S T ~~ •ii S :'
f- 1 vr+'LtitN i.a ~ ,:~ ~^ 'ate : (1777 ~'~ +. ~ ,r .. 1 ~.
1 ~~-
• ~ t.^
I -. b M r ~'Yt tt
r' i ` ' f•I
'; ~ ~ ~+ • s rj Y 'i; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ L % 'tip .,i- - t3 •~y.,`. ~ -1
` ~ -717 ~ ti~ r J 11ZS f :f¢ vy\. I ~~.-' fi '~~ '7+tli~ ° A ••~'.' ~ ,~~ + ~•1 i~ ~:2
~ a r ^ ~ ~ rn ti ~µ'~ ~7~~ • '` i ; ~/ I• ~ :~ • • • C•m. `" :..b..a yr,3'7d ..
yy ~. AA .r I.tlb ~_..
~ r d S{i V si O"l? j _~ /i fl f. ~ : 7~ v'~A~~,ii
,c i -. f ~ m y }L a-;~ / • ,•1 / ~M Jr, C ~ •1772 . • Sii + .1• ~ t.
. i ~. i~,3x .~ , L~ *',. ir~ / }qtr,. t f
i ~ ~ i ~.
~•V. ~ ~ ~~ t~ x14 ~ u.. g 5: ,.•••• ~ . ~. {y ~ y'yi~ ~ yr S,rr'`:_. ~ 4 • ~ •. i j ~ •: ~~~,~5
~r III .'~ Fr J , ~ * ~ ~~~~~~ ~£ ~I ~ `• - • Ck"ry~F r~..
/~` .•+ t ~r'~ y;., 1, r,~ •~•,• ~ +~:~ _..
r ,r a 4.~- ? F - •~.5 • a - '.
1 % a . ~ -~ • :: N i ;+~ w~ a ?~`E .rY'c}, `-~
~'
~".`• - 4Vµ t* ,`~ .y Z ~,?; - ~I f l ~ ? ~~ ;~~ ` iY41 ~ .j ~_` ,~
., ~s.
~,
+ i Wit; Y:. y • 131 b
'' ~ ~
.:
~ •
Name: VANDER Location: 17 700748E 3886778 N
Date: 10/10/2001 Caption: Cumberland County, 8-4093
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Bridge no. 81 on SR1728 over Gum Log Canal, L=104ft.
W=27.3ft. yr bunt 1963
ns ~ a a ~ nc.

i~
/i
ZONE C ~~~
/i
/~
/ ~.~v,.
ONE.C yt~=
.~
~~\` ~ -~~
i`
t>r:r- /~
~~ -%'t 1\;~ „`c~ var. ~ i
~~ ,r;~t 91
ii ~ ~~~~~~ a~~~`
f~SW. J'
+~ ~3
~ ~~~ • ~
±ic? 1;. . . Ong
..,. a . ~ o
~.{ °
~6 ~::# ° ' ° 1212
~? ,,. , o
~. •~
,:~ ( ~ ZONE C ~
0
ZONE B O~i '~~~``
5'~ ~ /
G~%~~/
v i P
D
0
0
PRA /~ ~ ~'
S~PeC 4 • \ ~\' ~ / '
°~ ZONE B~
Cem ~:.' 1
i~~~~ ~
i ~
i~
•~
O
\' •o
„.
~~ :.. a
1721 Z O
ZONE B I APPROXIMATE SCALE
1000 0 1000 FEET-
OPT ~.
• - o NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RAh
.. n
0 0
o•
O ~~
O® ~\
O'
• e
,\
~'~~~ •'
.~
,,- .., ,-
~~% ~~.v~
- ' ~ ~~ ~i
i ~- •
i~
i
_/'~ ~
~~ ~
O~\ O ~
0 ~ .'
°
,,
~,.
.~ o
.~,. ,~~
• ~~~~
9
.,
t
:~
,.
N I ~\ ~ . ~
o~
<<':
~~

\~zo n
~B~e~
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 130 OF 295
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370076 0130 B

0
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FEBRUARY 17, 1982
Federal Emergency Management Agenc
o ~' .
Cem ~., ..
/\.

John M. Gillis, Jr., Chair
Cumberland County
Clition McNeill, Jr., Vice-Chair
Cumberland County
David Averette,
Cumberland County
Dallas Byrd, Town of Stedman
Charles C. Morris,
Town of Linden
October 11, 2001
~~~~ ~Q~ ~? i~ ~. • ~~ mac;` C -
t~
z
o
~~ , t , ~ ~S
•~,y-=
Barry A. Warren
Planning Director
'~rH CA~., toe W. Mullinax,
COUNTY of CUMBERLAND Town of Spring Lake
Jeny Olsen,
Wade, Falcon
~ ., & Godwin
Cumberland County Joint Pla~ininQ Board
~ Dr. Marion"Gillis-Olion,
~ . •~ _. ~: Cumberland County
William D. Gilmore, PE
Project Development and Analysis Branch
N 49 Mai S rviref Ce teportation 4Cr 15 ,
Raleigh NC 27699-1549 `~~~
;~
R
-:.
t~~i
:c~:
~~=~
. "~~
' h .-~-rrtdt `
Subject: B-4093, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Middle Road (SR 1728) is on the Fayetteville Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan
as a Major Thoroughfare with a recommended Cross Section "D" (five lanes,
curb and gutter) on a 90-foot right-of--way. We request that the new bridge
accommodate this cross section. In addition, this road is on our Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, and we are also requesting a walkway on one side.
A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is included for your information.
Cumberland County's Emergency Management Director has reviewed the
proposal with the County Fire Marshall, and they see no problem with either an
on- or off-site detour.
If you need additional information, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Barry A. Warren
Planning Director
Attachment
cc: J. Lee Warren, Jr., County Board of Commissioners Chair
Robert Stanger, PE, County Engineer
Doc Nunnery, County Emergency Management Director
1.?0 GillespieSrreer •Posr QQice Bor~ 1819 •f'ntieaer~ille. Noah Carolina 78301-1$19 •(9/Oj 678-7d00 •far: (91 Q) X78-7h.?l

NATfONAI FL000 If1SURANCE PR06RAf,1
~i~~
FLOOD INSURAP~CE ROTE ~~1AP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PAtiEI 125 OF 295
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
COMHUI~ITY-PANEL IIUP~~BEIt
370076 0125 0
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FEBRUARY 17, 1982
Federal Emergency Aianagement Agency

~ X11
..i , •,`n.~ ~ I
'if',
ZONE C v1 ~ti
-A__ 1 .~/
O

I

Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
StatQ Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. B~093
AddQndum to
Categorical Exclusion
US DepartmQnt of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved
Z9
at
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
3 ~~ ~DC~ ~ 7'l~ (~~
Date , ~J~ _John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
~`~ Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration

Cumberland County
S R 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creels
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. 8-4093
Addendum to
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
February 2006
Document Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. ~~~••~~~ CARp~•`''•,
+• 0~ ,....... ~/~. ti
• a.
~ / ?
' E
• /lc.c. s 19026 1 ~
David L. Wilver, P.E. ~,~ :.FNC c?/~~~;
Proiect Manager ,,y~/ .,• 1 N,•,..~tr,~~.
O ~~, ~~.
for the •,~~'I~'~;'W```~~~
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
z.
hn M. Penney, P.E.
Contract Management Group Leader

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 Over Gum Log Creek;
Federal Aid Project No.: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project No.: 8.2443501
TIP No.: 8-4093
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Special Conditions,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
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:
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase
have been incorporated into the design and were standard commitments. Current
status, changes, or additions to the project commitments as shown in the environmental
document for the project are printed in italic font.
Roadway Design/Roadside Environmental/Division 6 Construction
Ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
This standard will be implemented during construction to the best ability of the
Department in coordination with existing standards and laws.
Roadway Design/ Division 6 Construction
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to
the approval of any bon-ow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain all
necessary permits.
This standard will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project.
Division 6 Construction
Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to only what is necessary to perform
the bridge demolition/removal and construction of the replacement structure and what is
permitted. Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
Division 6 Construction
All work shall be preformed during low flow conditions
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
8-4093 Green Sheet Page 1 of 2
Categorical Exclusion Addendum
i=ebruary 21, 2006

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
PDEA
A systematic survey of all potentially suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac was
conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. biologists in June 2001. No individuals of
Michaux's sumac were observed during the survey. A re-survey will be conducted
between the spring and fall of 2004, during the survey window, within the project limits to
determine if any member of the species is present.
This commitment will be implemented prior to construction of the project.
8-4093 Green Sheet Page ? of 2
Categorical Exclusion Addendum
February 21, 2006

Addendum
Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creels
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. B-4093
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended Bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis in conjunction
with a field reconnaissance of the site, the proposed replacement structure is a bridge
approximately 120 feet (36.6 m) long. The grade of the roadway will be approximately the
same as the existing road. A minimum grade of three tenths (0.3) of a percent should be
maintained to facilitate deck drainage. The length of the proposed bridge and the
recommended roadway elevation may be adjusted (increased or decreased) to
accommodate design floods as determined in the final hydrologic study and hydraulic
design.
B. Build Alternatives (Figure 2)
The alternative for replacing Bridge No. 81 is described below.
Alternate 1 (Preferred) includes replacement of the existing 104 foot (ft) {31.7 meter (m)]
structure with a new structure in the same location as the existing structure. The proposed
structure will consist of two 12 foot travel lanes and two 3 foot shoulders for a total clear
roadway width of 30 feet (9.2 m). The new structure will be approximately 120 ft (36.6 m) in
length and 33 ft (10.1 m) wide. The approach work will extend from approximately 270 ft {82
m) north to approximately 270 ft (82 m) south of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained with an off-site detour on existing roads (Figure 2A). The off-site detour route
will utilize SR 1730, SR 1725, US 301/1-95 Business and SR 1728.
1

C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternate 2 includes replacement of the existing approximately 104 ft (31.7 m) two lane
bridge with a new two lane structure approximately 20 ft (6 m) upstream of the existing
structure. The new structure will be approximately 120 ft (36 m) in length. The approach
work will extend from approximately 820 ft (250 m) north to approximately 900 ft (274 m)
south of the existing structure. The total project length is approximately 1840 ft (560 m) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
No Action Alternate The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate removal of
the bridge effectively removing the westbound section of HWY 74 from traffic service.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 1 is the preferred alternate. It proposes replacement of the existing 104 foot (ft)
[31.7 meter (m)] structure with a new structure in the same location as the existing structure.
Alternate 1 was selected because of fewer impacts to streams, better horizontal alignment,
and lower construction costs. NCDOT Division 6 Engineer concurs with the preferred
alternative and off-site detour route.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1: Estimated Cost
Alternate 1
Preferred Alternate 2
Structure Removal Existin $35,385 $35,385
Structure Pro osed $324,000 $324,000

Roadwa A roaches $405,538 $729,696
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $185,077 $300,919
En ineerin and Contin encies $150,000 $210,000
ROW/Const. EasemenUUtilities $58,000 $59,875

Total $1,158,000 $1,659,875
2

r
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
D. Biotic Resources
2. Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Potential impacts to vegetation communities are estimated based on the area of each
community present within the proposed construction limits provided by Wilbur Smith
Associates. A summary of potential vegetation community impacts is presented in Table
3 in acres (ac) and hectares (ha).
T~hlo Q Pnfantial Imnactc to Vanatatinn (:nmmiinitiac
Potential Impacts
Acres hectares
VEGETATION Alternative 1 Preferred Altern ative 2
COMMUNITY
Impacts Temp.
Construction
Im actsa
Impacts Temp.
Construction
Im actsa
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.60 0.24 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.06
A ricultural Land 0.17 0.07 0.38 0.15 1.49 0.60 0.25 0.10
Maintained/Disturbed Land 0.22 0.09 0.90 0.36 0.97 0.39 0.47 0.19
Total: 0.99 0.40 1.31 0.52 2.58 1.04 0.86 0.35
Total For Alternative : 2.30 0.92 3.44 1.39
Temporary construction impacts are lased on the portion or me rmpacrs nor inciuoea rn me
construction limits for the permanent structure.
b Totals for vegetation communities do not include the open water area attributed to Gum Log Canal
impervious road surface.
Potential impacts associated with a bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. The
two alternatives presented above minimize potential impacts to the adjacent Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest. Alternative 2 concentrates potential impacts in the
maintained/disturbed land and has the least amount of potential impacts to Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest. This alternative calls for the replacement of the existing structure,
which will reduce permanent impacts to natural plant communities and limit community
fragmentation. Alternative 1 has the least amount of total potential impacts while
minimizing potential impacts to agriculture lands through the reduction in the amount of
roadway approach work required.
3

E. Special Topics
2. Potential Impacts to Waters of the United States
Potential impacts to wetlands and open water areas are estimated based on the amount
of each jurisdictional area within the proposed construction limits. Open water areas of
Gum Log Canal (R2UB1) are included in this table, although impacts are not expected
due to the use of channel-spanning structures. During Bridge Removal Procedures,
NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including Erosion Control Measures. Therefore it is
anticipated that removing the existing bents will result in no impact to surrounding
surface waters. A summary of potential jurisdictional impacts is presented in Table 4 in
acres and hectares or linear feet and meters, as appropriate.
Table 4. Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas.
Potential Wetland Impacts
Acres hectares
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Alternative 1 (Preferred) Alternative 2

Impacts Temporary
Construction
Im actsa
Impacts Temporary
Construction
Im actse
R2UB1 Gum Lo Canal 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03
R4UB2 UT Gum Lo Canal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total: 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03
Total Wetland Im acts: 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.04
Potential Stream Impacts
Linear feet meters
Gum Lo Canal 40 12 0 35 11 125 38
UT Gum Lo Canal 0 0 0 0
Total: 40 12 0 35 11 125 38
Total Stream Im acts: 40 12 160 49
d Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not included in the
construction limits for the permanent structure.
Both alternatives avoid potential impacts to UT Gum Log Canal. Alternative 1 and Alternative
2 each have the same amount of potential impacts, 0.02 ac (0.01 ha). Alternative 1 has the
least amount of temporary impacts. Alternative 2 minimizes temporary impacts for Gum Log
Canal to 125 linear ft (38 m). Both alternatives include use of a channel spanning structure
that would avoid impacts to Gum Log Canal. The current alternatives will result in no wetland
impacts associated with construction.
4

c
~ •.
~~, • 4 ^~
~ ~~ w
~I --_ _, W tl e {~ 1
l_a-- - f' ^- ~ R f a a
~ V/ O ~,+
~ _--- - \
d ~ LL W
,p ~ ~~~
~ e r ~ ~
~, m ~ ~
~ ~~ ~-
•~
~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~y ~~~ i
_~ e
~\ O -1
I M7 W
1 ~
~ ~ 5
~~ ~ i ~~~ \
~~ l~ M • N M
M
"'~, ~ _ ~
'~I
~~ ~ ~
~' ~
~ e ~ ~ 0
' LL I-
o I
•" c ~ ~ ~'
~ ~ ~ za~o ~
_~e ~~~, ~~~~ w~
A ~
~~s~ ~ ~ ~
H ~ ~ ~
~~a ~ i
~I / h ~ ~ ~ NOII~
___.__ ___ .r f~q
..,.,,q C
.. ~' ~ .. o
_ - ~ ~ ~S
ti ~,.
t r
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 7.
r
.~ ~ ~

.~_ ~o
.~' ' `' ~.
~ ~.~
'~o.,.s'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMII~IT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

~~
~~ ~ ~^^
0 9s- ~0
~y°s~~'~
9yOS~y/~ ~ <`J"
~~ sli }
~2c `,P ~J
~cy
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the for the replacement of Bridge No.
81 over Gum Log Creek on SR 1728, Cumberland County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1728(1), State Project No. 8.2443501, Division 6, TIP
Project No. B-4093, WBS #33451.1.1.1.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), permit drawings, and %2
size plans for the above referenced project. The document states that Bridge No. 81 over
Gum Log Creek will be replaced with a new 125-foot long 33-foot wide structure on the
same location. Traffic will use onsite detours during construction. The onsite detour will
be constructed of three corrugated steel pipes. No permanent impacts will occur.
Temporary impacts to Gum Log Creek consist of 0.08 acres of temporary fill due to the
detour pipes described above and in the CE.
After construction of the new bridge is completed the temporary structure will be
removed. The temporary fill will be removed to the natural grade and the area will be re-
vegetated with appropriate plant species.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin (HUC
03030004). The project will impact Gum .Log Creek. Gum Log Creek is has been
assigned a best usage classification of C, by the Division of Water Quality. Impacts to
Gum Log Creek will tota10.08 acres of temporary fill. No permanent impacts will occur.
No wetlands occur in the project area.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 81 is composed of a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists on creosote timber piles encased in concrete. Bridge components are slated to be
removed without dropping any components into Gum Log Creek. However, due to the
May 9, 2005
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] CAa1T01. CiOU~EVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPRtENi AND ENVIRON(rgNTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUDDING. SUITE 168
1598 MAU. SERVICE CENTER WEBSJTE: WWIN.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

.. ~
presence of reinforced concrete in the superstructure of the bridge and piles the potential
exists for to approximately 70 cubic yards of temporary fill being excavated from Gum
Log Creek as a result of demolition activities. All guidelines for bridge demolition and
removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
MITIGATION
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation
of wetland and surface water impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A (Preservation of the Nations
Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and values provided by wetlands.
These directives require that new construction in wetlands be avoided as much as
possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to
wetlands.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and mini~2Lize jurisdictional impacts,
and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional
impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA compliance
stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design and
include:
o Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed.
o No Bents will be placed in the water
® No additional impacts will occur as a result of utility relocations
COMPENSATION: The primary emphasis of the compensatory mitigation is to
reestablish a condition that would have existed if the project were not built. As
previously stated, mitigation is limited to reasonable expenditures and practicable
considerations related to highway operation. Mitigation is generally accomplished
through a combination of methods designed to replace wetland functions and values lost
as a result of construction of the project. These methods consist of creation of new
wetlands from uplands, borrow pits, and other non-wetland areas; restoration of wetlands;
and enhancement of existing wetlands. Where such options may not be available, or
when existing wetlands and wetland-surface water complexes are considered to be
important resources worthy of preservation, consideration is given to preservation as at
least one component of a compensatory mitigation proposal.
FHWA STEP DOWN COMPLIANCE: All compensatory mitigation must be in
compliance with 23 CFR Part 777.9, "Mitigation of Impacts" that describes the actions
that should be followed to qualify for Federal-aid highway funding. This process is
known as the FHWA "Step Down" procedures:

a a
1. Consideration must be given to mitigation within the nght-of--way and should
include the enhancement of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands in
the highway median, borrow pit areas, interchange areas and along the roadside.
2. Where mitigation within the right-of--way does not fully offset wetland losses,
compensatory mitigation may be conducted outside the right-of--way including
enhancement, creation, and preservation.
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District" (MOA), it is understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume
responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation
requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during
the EEP transition period which ends on June 30, 2005.
Since project impacts are temporary, no mitigation will be required.
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 January 2003 the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists eight federally protected species for Cumberland
County (Table 1). A survey for Michaux's sumac was conducted on September 16, 2004
and no specimens were found. A biological conclusion of No Effect has been reached for
all federally protected species.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Cumberland County
Common Namc Scientific Nume f+cderal Habitat BiologicAl
Status Analysis Conclusion ..
American alligator Alligator T(S/A) No NA
mississippiensis
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No No Effect
woodpecker
Saint Francis' Neonympha mitchellii E No No Effect
sa rancisci
Small whorled Isotria medeoloides T No No Effect
00
Pondbeny Lindera melissifolia E No No Effect
Rough-leaved Lysimachia E No No Effect
loostrife as erulae olia
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Ycs No Effect
American Schwalbea americana E No No Effect
ehaffseed
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).

"'T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or significant portion of its range).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been 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 number 3403 will apply to
this project. All general conditions of the Water quality Certifications will be met. No
written concurrence is required. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section
.0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their notification.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Vd-----~
~,,, Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E. Division Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Mike Penney, PDEA Proj ect Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Ms. Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management

i ,'

~~~~~~~~
~~~~
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 33451.1.1 (8-4093)
DRIDGE N0.81 OVER GUDi LOG
CREEg ON SR 1728
(MIDDLE RD.)
SHEET ~~ OF ~ ~ 10/01/04

1 «~ ,
~ w « ~~-.~~~~ ~~~~w~ti-~ ~ ~~~r~~~~«.~~.w~ ~y~~.~~w~~-~~~~f~-~~w~~w ~~-.yf~~~.w ~~.~~. ~..~~~~-..~~-.-~~.-.a ~- ~w~~~y
~ I I 1
I~ " ~
I ~
i ~~ ~~
~~~
0 0
1 N ~ N N ~ _ ~ ~ /~~
N O N N ~ ~ ^Z ~ ~. _~ F88f _ i
,+ m ~ ~ t O
+ o • ~ D
+ a ~
I H N N b 1f~~ "" ' ~i l Raj Z ` . ~ O~
I F ~ ~ ~ aQ ae o O a ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~-f ~( ~F \
+ ~ w T • ~ ,(
"_ ~~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ `-
+ c, v T ` ` \
~ -~ ~ O h ~ i
I ~~ ~~ ~~
'71 T
(
0 ~ \ i .
` ~ O ` ` ~ .
I e u I~ ~ ~~ - -~ ~ O
~ \ i
1 ~ I ~~~~ ~ r`~~•s~,e ~' CJI~
~ ~ ~ ~ ti I I ~\~' ~ ~ ~ ~
+ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p '~
0
i~ : G) '`~
~ ~
r
~ ~ ~ I ~I ~" a ~ ~
I ~~ ~° 6 N I I ~ ~ ~
+ ~ I ~ ~
~ w~ A~ ~~~ ~`~ I~ ~ ~tl ~ ~
r ~ ~~
I I ~ ,~
' ~ _
ht~ [f r~ ~ I ~ ~
~s i w ~$ y I/ ` p
~ ,, ~ o ~
I a s ~ I ~:,I~ y~
+ ~ ~ I ~:.
`~ fibre I ~~~
~~ ~
~ ~ ~~ : o°~ I ,~ I oNo
1 _
my
~ '' I __ b
I e ~ ~~ "~ I I -~'
+ ~ o ~i I I i o
I __~~,-
~r ~
~ °
+ ~ ~ ~ ~_ I
~ ~ ~ S~'
1 ~'
~ ~
+ o~
W ~ ~
U
i
~
~ ~ ~
V
~ ~
~ 0

w
~

~ ~~

F
~~

n ~ ~O1rr u
....•
8/t7/99
~ ` ~ w~ ~ ~ '
I
~ ~~I I \~Y
o.
~
~
, a
~,~ ~
~
~ ~ A

C
~„ m" t 4, ~
~2 ~~.,\~
~ ,,iy~
A
~ u co u: y ~ ~ ~
~
\ _ ~

~~ ` p
,a. m

w .~
~t ~
' Ir am o ~ gy
„ +
~
... n•
• r~ n ~ ..~ ~ ; y y
°~t, x ~
I I ~
'~ W
p ao
q• ~ Raj ~ ~I1` O ~ 3i
" ~ ~ II 11~
'j'
~
n
C ro
~~ .~~ ~ '
PT \
N
6~ x
/
~C7 1m'M A
~ Q l
7
TI[/1~~(r+~y~~
u mm
nt$
~ ~
~`. I I X
I
I ``44 z
$ p
N~
§
~
- - n .•~
~~ I ;~
~ x

p a
~
n r
~ ~ ~
/
--j~§ ~a
I r ~
N
~

.~'

~ ~, "~~~y~°
~ ~Q,w 4~*
l
nn ~~ Q
~
B I R I .

I I .~

+
~
i
"
~s
~
~~ ~
~
~~..
;~ ~ 7 I I X ~ ~
~
_
~ ~ '~ ~ ', ~ ~ I
W
~ m~~q. D~ ~
~ . g,~ ~ ~
I$$ I
~~
I

~ w
~<
~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ '
` zm
~
~~~
" I
vm
s~~,
a ~ Iq

~ I
~
A
e
7i o
m ~a
r H ~

I

~

I .~
.
~ . ~x~
1 /4+54 7
+ o a° ~ a ~~ i x

~ _ ~ ~
~
~
7 (
`
A p ~

` ~l f.'
V'1 1+1

~

~ I x I
i
~
•~ O C Q ~ ~\O I I~ S/

_ ,
S `'4.
F, 5~
i
~ ~
~
, ~

¢
~ c
F y
0 .
~' _
~ ,
~
c Ob
_ / O ' (~
~
~ g
~ •
~ ~~ I I
~~ V
~ ~\ o ~ ~
l
a Ac 6 ~ ~
~ I J ~ ~
s
' I I ~
$
q ~ r ~ 7
~f!
~
`~b
. ~

..a
T T ~
[ ~ »
~
,,
~,
~S
/ / Qry. 1 4 I I
I ~-
~
S
,~ Fr s $p.
Y O ~}
1 1 1 1 1 1 ~/ ~ ~ Wti

~~
~
~
)

w _
°° FQ ~
~I
0o J
w o * I a

~~ ~~ I I ~'~ ~
.,
~~

NN

CO

~

t

~ g g~
.. ~

tii . ~
. ,
~ ~~~`
0 ~

~ 0o is ~~T
I
~
$ E
O O ~
~ ~ f ^ IJ ~S

~
3; a~
~ ~~
I
I ~w
~
~i ~ I I a ~ ~
fdq+6l 'olS~d ~__ I ,~ ~
e ~ ~ ~ OZ

~
I I I
I ~ ~ g
o ~ ~~•
m ~~:
~I I
I
~
~ 8 a
~
~
~~~oo~ ~
m
u
" u ~
u
uu
L^ O
I ~
~~~~~OwN D ~ ~~'
~ ~
H~ s~
m ~ ~ ~ p r
II -I
~
~ ~
_a cn,ve -IF
O
~ ~ ~m l
f ~ $
_
1
fob ~ J,•~ ~ ~ .. I
/o
P I ~ g
~~ ~
< I ~
~f /fix ~~ ~ ~~
\ ~
~ I :{Y [~:s ~h fv q ~~~

~
Z
+ _
~ ~ , I
AI
~ ~
m;

4 I

Q

*
I
I R
~- - -I ~ a~ lMa I
I

1
m
I ~ ~ Il9
~ ~'' a

~
cn o _ t ` - - - -ir crwu- - '~ ~ J I ~ " ( ~ o
~ --- IP WN'CL----- _~~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~
_
~ ~ ~ ~ ° n
f
t ~ ~
q
IR
~ I I ~
~
!~ t ~ ICI ~~
t q ''

.
I
e Q ~ I I
~
I
o Q I -
~ ro
~ ~
~
~ ,
I{
I
~ I
t
9 "1 m ~ ~ I µ • '~ .E
p~t
~ 1
a ~ ~

~
~
E

r,~n~~
n~i
3-aii
8/17/9
2
• • 'll 1\ / I ' ~

\ ~j I ~ p~ ~ C i.

~• R ~ ~ 1 ~\ ~ ,~
1
~
~ '\\ ')\,~~~\•_. w - 'W' ,fir
~
\ /~~r \ ~ 9
~°
~ ~
/
I
(

,,,, m
~O•
'
c
.' z '. ° •
vj A
vv
111\\~\ \ ~ ~^_-~~
\\ s ~ . 1
"' j II
`y0 ~~ v ~ -
I
Ifti
.l \~ ,~~
\ ~. i1 ~ I} / 41 VI1~
/'\ 11 1
:~ ~• •
1tof~i
\ rn \\\ ~ \~
~ r ro
• .~ - , I
T ~
~
~ ,
Y
~O t~ri A -l ~l
1\nVA,~,.,~l..~i~w ~~y,
~~ L~4
.•~7:''1~1 ~ '~%~I 11 I I /
I A 1 ~/
w4 p r . ~ ~Iili i ~~N ~ ~ / ~~ ^._i' III I,.MI. • 1 \ \ y, <
~ ® ~' ~\ \ II
\ti
~q0 '`' /14/1
11rl 1 1 I \ 1 I
I \ \

N \
\
I
•
I
~
I
\ 1 /
I11
, 1
\
~
o 4 IIIpD
~ ~~ O ( I
~
II
j~l
:~.
Z r Y 1 ~
1 +\~
\ *
.
~, q~Y~=j"'~41q
~I C V ~
/
~
~ \ / /1//~ ~ ~~}
`. \I / / 1 I I
~ / V I
/ y 111111
~ 1 1111
1
I \~F
,~+ .\k \
°
`,~
IV$ul
~ O S/Q~~
///~L I ~l\\ 1114
I 1 ~\ y
1
_ p,,,~T
~ r \~;,~ fll
~
~
n
' ~
\ \ ~ \ \
\ \ ~
.~ \~
;
\
F \ 1 /III
(~
I II II I ,h
1 ,IVx ` •
~' \ . \
. \ \
W Y 1
IIII1
I
~.
~
a
1
i 1~ L ;.\\
\\
•~i/~
\
'~ •\
/
' ~
\ II II~ ~
I
I~'
~ •
•_
`

~
'

l1 , 4 0.
'C\
~0qq~ i ~r ~ 1 ~• ~\\c
'T14aC-~1,+ '
~a~C ,C
\
~
~
1 I ~1 _'' ' \\ 1 /
\ -.~~ UI
I ,,,~ ~
^ 11
I I~ I f 7'11
I \~'I
I
C 1 "
~ \
~' \ ' ~~ ~ •
\ 1
• ~
~
,
\\ -
s I
11~
~ \
~ .
'
rr
~i~l I 1 - ~~\`~
\ \ ~ `'
~ : . .
~\~\~~~ \~ \ ~ it 1111\\\\~
~`~
\`
1
\~
~
1~ I II II ~
I I I I I
~\ x \.
~\ \ \
\
\ \
~ l 1
1
~~
\\\
~
~
i 1 1 II I11
/ •1• Ro r -~ I \ \~ _\ \\~ ~ \\\\\. I~ 1 I
'
~
I ( I1 I ~Z]{ II I
I If\I I x
~ 11~1111 ~
~
\ ` p /4f 4 J.I
` pl/ / \ , \ I }I
I
I
I
I
I Iil\ \ ~ ,
^ •
+ oa o a 1~ ?
( 1 1
l 1 1 ~ it
~ I
I
I
~ r~\
t
; `
•
\\; //
~
~ ~ ~ VN 1111 c
\
~
. 'l\
/ •' I E 1 II/l1 I \ ~ 1 ~
\ / I
I I II
~ I I 1
~ _
T,` _ ~.
si
` •r a M ~\ :r"1, Ir( r .d. i ~\\\\ ~ 1
` I
'
\
~
I i
I 1 l~ III 11 _ ~~'.
~\ ~
~
`
17
v O o u I
~
~ ~
v \`
_
i~;.
(Y!
/
~ \F I
~
~ I _ 1111
~ ] I~\
~ -
\ _
..~ ~'
~
~ O I ~o\ \
gam. /
1 hllj
l
/
fi
~ 1 1 I ~~~__
,-~~ ~
~ _~~ ~.
~-
(lt 1 11
~ \
l
I
i ~ \ ` _-_ ~ \\
~i / - -~ / I
/ _ _

\ /~
a ' - =~
\
~o e ms. / //, ~\;
~_ y
L _ _ __ ~
~\. \. • _
t~
, ~
O• ~ ~ ~~7/ v \ ~ ~\\~~~ ~ ~~a _ 111 I ~ ~ °~\\ ~'~^\
~~'~.~

I ~''~ I •
~£ / ~ `~
~ /
~?I~\
I 1\ \ \ ~ I /I / /'ll c II ~ ~ ~ ~ } I l tea. ~,c ~.~
f
{ I 11
~
~ 1
_. '~ / < \ 3' \ \\ Ii rl ~, III / \
III
~ ~ I
~
C:7 l ~1 - -y - -
' - p I / I I ~ \
.
l /
,~ 1. ,OFT ~~ ~ '( I 1 k

ce
~.
o/
/ Ol I
/ /
/
/ ~ x,
~ i
Q
I i
\
`i Y Y / /
mo \
/ F /
I1 \ I
~ /
\
\ /
~ 11 I \\
\\ ~/ ~1
1 11 Y
11
~~ I f` ' I • ~ \\
< 'O I
\ /
1
7 \ ~
\

NQ
m
~
t 1
\ I 11
1 1 5 r ~
\~. ~ I
j
~
\
4
' ,:~
•
) "~s4

~ a
~ o
W
\ I I'
\ 1
\
_ ,
H
I
y
1 1 1
I .'^I
1\ \ 1 1 r _I II III :\ /` 1 ~ • ,
h
~ I
\
I
\ }
I I I
I
~ fi
I
I \

r
/

f

•p

°
o
~
~
~
w Fy
~ ~
i ~ i
~1,1 :~: >\~ I ~
, \
I 11
~
I 1 1 1 ) I \ \ `' 1 I 1 l ~ ~
,
I
I
I I I I I, ~

• \ ~ ~~

Y; \~`
t
a j`+ ~~ ~
1 ~ l I 1 / / \ III . i ~ :•
_ I II I
~' .y `
j ~ .. .
~ I
15 I a I J \

a
\
,q
)
IIIi~:
~-a•~-r"
p
II
~
\ to
1 ~
8
-=/~
_ =-= -
i
,-/ ~r I o\
\ •
C
J
~Atir6A' /1~
~~I \ ~I
// ~/~
~ /~,~..
I ~Illill III,~1
'~
S~ J I' ~/I ~~

"'
G e I\ I
`
` I
~ . _
VF}
'
I,
I
`
_
a u- a/
~ h
,,
\
'~1 \
A \. \ •
`
, \
I
I /
~
I~ x~~~~
~
i~wwlN
~ ~ `
~ ~ I \ ~ 1 ~I
•
Al \\ \ / l~ FY \; ~ / 1 - I ~ I
II
4r~ ~ ~I I
~ r '
/
_
rn
~~ 1 g~~ I
~1 \ ` \1 1 , ..
p , '+- ~ II ~~'' ~ g~\I I II~ r
I~~ n
~
~ i 71~ ^ ~
~\\\_ 1~1 /
0/ /l r- ~ a~J I 1 I / I~l II ~f~'~ 8
~
'
_

l I
L'J'' t
f" `
v
-
z ~ j
li
~
~
/I \\ _\ •
r, \~ \"~

a '~
" \\ \\
~ I
\ I ,\ I ~ C \ ~ I~'I 1/ 11
~

V"
~
~ 3 1
I I~~I
I ~ y ~/ ' ~ \ ~~9
, , , L~ .. 4 , I
ll±

=w
<< L 1 d
.. - -'r' o I/
o I(
=
a
~
J ~
~~ ~ i;~ ~ ~
p y
_
=
` =
1
NI
~
1
EL
~ i
~ "
~ (fi
M -
_~
/ - 12 ~
~ ~ ~.
~--
II III
~ .' ~l II
i rp',v[c
~ _ i
^
~ ^ - - - - -r
,
I
r
~ ~ rC
.
"~" '~ ;-

~
o
~
c7 i
~
~
~
I~I
.. _
-
Q I r[

~~ `~ I ~..J
~_
1•~ Illlj
i ~ 111
11 ~
, -4
~
I
,o~.l \ ~
h
'
~

~ 1
1
Q ~ 1~1
I 11411 ,--:~ ,ti
~ r
~
c
x- 1 `
\ I ~\ I II1~
~a ~, ~~ \ -o ,~ `
\ ~ / dull '~ ~
1j ~~ ~ ~
~'
~
. •
is ~

ftFV190N5
n~~~tf
uatf ~~
8/17/9

r O I A
~
o +, o ~
~ ~ ~
~~
tee:' ~ s ~ p~ A
~
\
~
~ ~ ~
\
4 ~

~
~~ ~~ ~~ y ~ I i b~ i/~

we

A
+ ~ ~ .~
~
~ X
. '1 I x

•
---~ ~
~
.. ~ ~ ~

~ x
_
~
~ ~
..
~ ~~ ~
,: , I
, ,
~

N
,.~

~~ :
+
O \

'
~
\ a
~ I I •
+
~
o
.q
- /
~ ` m
\ I
~ I " ~
\+
~ ~
7C if 1" ~"~ ~1' J
• I
~
\, ~ . .. b
I
~
I
x
~.
~ +W
A~ Q+ y
1~
~ ~
'~I
~ ~
II I $I
~ ~
)
A4
WO O
W r0 C
, ~
~
VO S ~ ~~ i ~I ~
•
O ~ h ~ i f I I~ I

w o ~ ~
1 ~I I ~ ~
A' o w x
fa +
~ ~
~ I
- I
,~
' _X_

~
~~
'A
M
4

'

p -~~~ i

rx R
C
a ~ ,
i ~

'
CC
I
~ ~ I
~n i 4'.

~
$
I

~
a ~
~
,_
~
° , I ~ g~
~ ~G m
•+_~
_ x
~ ~ ©O m
A4
~~.
O /
k
~' _

~ ~ / / v '"po ~ ~b ~.
h
~ £ ~`~~ ~ ~ r
..
~
~ \ Q g ,~ .i ~
~ ~ I I
I w l I ~
~'~ ~~
~ .
RI ~'y4~\ ©
1
' fS
; \4b ~ E I~ I I a a
.
~~ E
,~, ~Q ~~ ~ ' - I I ~ ..~
V p, / ~ s Q.
~
~
~
I I
k
A ~
~ \
4 / ~

n

o

+ ~
a
/~ ~
/~,~
~~, ~

I I
cI I k

° ~x~
~ , ~_ ~

~
(d
'~ r
/ ~
EL)I ~ I I

•
y
f
O
q
pC
x
~ rp
I
c;)
~ m {
~
~ i Q7 X M ~ O ~ Q ~~.
` .:. I
~ P ~
G r` i
,

~

~ _ ,
.,
\\
~1 ~ A
p + ..
I
~ \ ~
~ ~ c;1
~
~ M N
(~r!~
r~l Q
~ ~
~ ~
'~ ~ .~ ~. ~~ o A W
a ~ , /
~a
r `"
{
j I f
~
~
' ~ ~
]] ~ y
~
i
~
t
No
lM u 4 S .
. J d ~ N N r+
[
g 1; I I O
N h v ~~ lo
+~ W
j -
~
N ~ m y
y
y O I
E i ~ I
n ..
. I ~
A.
C `
f ~
...
~e I

I A
o ~ k~: ~ R

o ~ ..~

~
E
I
m .,
~ ~ i I
.3
~
~ ~ ~ r
~- "
a cru'e
~ JJ
" I I
~

Cm'f
M

GN11
~~t

~.
~

~,y

O

~

• 8

a. ~
~ ~ r~, r _

YI '
~:
d ~ I
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-'
r ~, ~ ~ ~x ~~

~'~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~

~~
~ m4 c ~ ~ X~Yk ~
~ _ -~~ I I. ~
( I ~~ ~ ~~
~
~ \ f1 m
~ ~ - \ ~ ..
\
~ I I
I
m ~ ~{<'! rM 0 ,n,
y
~
Q ~up ~ \
• I~ I
4 `6
'

~
~ ~ NN
b O V+
O -- a~ 0 ~ R
8~
CCC -
al
IIII
N u ` A "~ W
i ~ I U9
~, v' ;~ ' I
-
o r+ ~ L I
-
'• ~

- ~~
/
---~ I I
~
s~
~
m
w _
- -
`
~ ,
'Y
~

O
~
~
1
~ ~
~~~
~ ~
~ ZZ
~ ~
I I I ~ U
w O ~ I
~ I ~ ro
.
~ ~ ~ ~ i~~ _
_.,
6~~ ~~

i
~ I ~ ! ~~c~
~~ y A ~
~6 i

FLY190NS
OA7E phi
p
its
8/V/5
1
r `
o~ 1I1~U1 t~,~t~Z^ ~ ~~--_/6y ~1v ~ v
\~v ~t

.
~
\ \
W
m• O ~_ / i .
`c.. \ ~\\ \II \ \
\~
,\~\ 1 \ \ `
/ rill R~ `
\ ~ ~"" - ~ ~ ;r\ gym.: - "l J I III "o ~~\` ~\
p~\
l ~
t \ '
Il I
\
`
~
y
~. l
- -~~
\
- \\
r ~
\
,
\ / / _
~ ~
ll
I 1
~
~
~ W O+ ~o ll l/.\
\"\ ~
\ \\~
~~~\ro ~
\\I\
r 11 7
'
~
'~
'
~F 11 V ~11
~.
1 ~
II
i ~ JX~
\
A . \
1
\\ \ \
\
~
~~ ~ ~ ~ \\ ,
I
/ \
Q m~ . \\\\w\c\\ 1 I\\\u1~ \•a1~\\ y .~/ ~.:~I II I (IV II /~\ //

p a
UC
- ~ ~ \\\\\ , ) I // ''7 I
111~111j111 \I l~ ~ ~ i1/\~ ~^~, ~ /II II ,/ 11 II ~.. ~ ~ 1
~ \\ \ ~\
1
r
I "

N 1 1
l I ~
\ J
I
\II~
~i~~
`
//
~
I
i
I
,
/
I \
• \
\
\
~ . \
/
Itl
1
ll
~I
~
~\~
II
/
~ I
P' \
~
+~
~;~ ` 1 /' ~ \\I1B II ~I' ~. \ 1 / 1 / l \ l I I I 111
II :. \ / / 1 I 11 ~ ' ~ \ `
~
o \ ` ii ~IIU \ ~ ~ ~~ ! / / i~ I I 1 / \ I 1 I 11 4 1 • \ \+~

w ~ n rr ~ ~ / ~ ~ - vrr'~l~U v l v ~ v 1 v I ~1 III
\ ~' f
le
~ ~~
?;
' ~"
~-
~
I
,4i ~ ~
.. \ :\
~\
~~

Aa
W+W
t \\
~
\
~~ tin~
ll I
2
~
\ ~ ~' :11111,;1111 11'(~ ~/• \\ ~\ 'a
1
lf
'
~
~
1 /
fi ~~
/ I
x
I'}f$~$ ~ ,IV(~I
1 ~
\
\
~" \~ ~I ~ ~
~\
~ •~
~
AO O ~
,~. I \\
1\\
~n I
\~I
/ .1
I~ `+
I b 11 \ ~~~
~
-• is --1
!
_
x Art I 1 1 _ _ \~ \\Z\p; \\Z ` J~ ~y_ \ ~ ~~ ~ ~ \~ I I I l l ~n I I i I x _ _ / ` - `

A mm
x
-/ O 1 \ \ \\~ O~ ~
\
~
\ >~/ \~
~ 1 ~ I 1
1
x \
1
\
O + S
11 \\ .
\'\\\\ \\\ \\ ~.~
1 1 1
\ ;
1 I II I I\I ` .
\
II
` \\
\ t ..

~ n
''~ sl
v ~II ij~l I I
f ~ 1
' \ '
\
I
I; I , '.p '~
-,~ t ( II,; \ ,1 I 1 i
I I II
II
11~ ~ ; 1111\ \ ~
\~ ,~
~ - - , `~ ~
q
N 1+1
'7 IA . ,~,
`\ i /•' 1 ~+ 1 I I/ Il l l ,' ~
\ ~ ~.
r 1
I I ~t II i l l~1
~T \
~`i~ _
-
~I
y
11
-
; ~d : \
fi ,
\ 1 \ .,l i
I I 1 \
_ .
~.
~ ~ l
I
c.+Y
. 1 F
V
e
l
l
~ ~ , _ ~
~~
c
~
..
..
1 //lI
NI . Ir
~ ~~\
'
l
l ~~\ - - v ~ 5/
' .
~ - ~ ~
N \
.
, 1111/I ==
-~ \~~
~
' \ / I
ae 1
~
/ J _
= _
\
-,
~
L / ~
\ \ '
~ /
~ \ \
`
~~
r ~
_ b
\
~ t
~ ~~~r
, ~\
1 I 1 \
I It/ ~ - ~~ ~~.
n-
I
/ ti
t
1
~
~ I 1 1
~
11
_'/~~` \ A 1 .F(cy~\• ~••
1
1
~~\~I ~ d 1111 ~ 1 Ir •~III~~~§ ~% 1
~ ~ I~J•^ ~
~, ~ s~~ ~~ ~f/

~ T / ..~

\
l/
~
1
1 r
r
t
r
~
\~~
f
/~
~
4\
~
f~iS
1: /
~ ~~~ ~~
~~ Il a
a
~1/
i~~~

V
rt ~
V
I
e. I ,
/
~ \ 3esr
r w
`
`
I/ [ i ~ I I
~~
/ ~
~ ~\
/
I
~
N //
/
1
,
` _-~
\
a 11
/ `
I
~
~
I~ I / I

r~
1 I
W
~
~
Q
Ci•
~
Cb o
~ cs
H tac
' s• ~
/ / / /I;L,q,~
~ ~
/
\ r,
/ moo/ ~ 1 i , 1 /// IIIW~ ~ a
! \ \ \ ~? 1\
1 1 \ \ /
r
O a / t
~
1
1 •
/ V- \
~ c c Q Fa N \ \ \
!
\`~h
1
I 1 '
1
1 1 1 1 «' ,
~/ / /
l
/ I
~I I
p\ ' \ \ Q
\
~ ~ ,,,^ I
1
~ I
/ I
l I ~ ~
.
a •I 1 I
~
~ ~ \ \
p ~l I ~. Q
\ -
~ A
C m
o N I
\
\., '
I 1 1 I 1 \ \ ~ \ \ \ ~ I
1\ I I 1 1 1 1 '1 ^ \a I \\ y, p I • \
1 1 \
r 1 1 ~ I ~, .r --
~ \ ~ . ~ .
I \ ~~ a
r , O A Q 1
.
4 \ 1 1 I I. \~ 1 ~
I ~ ~.. I r` I
f
~ e" b
~" • d
,i -e D 7
-~ a 9 ~
~
3 b{~ ={"~
e/yG I i'd~ \ \ 1 1 1 1\ ~I t<>\\ 11 ~
, 1 )
~` 1
l
I
1
1 ~ II III
I 111 ~
\ \A
~ ', v n~ y
;
~ 11
\
1
\
\`
f ~ / :\
I
I
I
/
\ ,I
( I
I s
.. .
/ i
\
x ~ ,11
I
~
~ !
~
\• /
1 ~
~ _
~ __-- _ ~ _In I \ 1 ~1
~
y ~
-~ j1~ 1
f
1
~ I
I 1
J
11,
I
\ 1
>~ ~'
n rt !
t
/_
1\\
\ _ a ~ a 1 \
c• l /II/~
~/^ I~~\ ~
/
1 I\I ~
-I \
I 1 I I /I I I A
O t ~
/
r
\
j
_~/ ~ i~flll \ /I. II//! ~ /`~~
~~
I 1
VIII Illla
I I
~ J
/
~~
^ / i I l ~
/ I I I \ ~ \ I
- ~ I
- ~ It I / `
w- vs

I
y.~
m ~ /
t~ \/ i I 1 .1
\ \
/
~ fx •\` ~
/ I l II I II ~
0.3 \
\
\
\/
/
.
ppt(f~l m '' 1 1 / /~ ~ • ~ 11 ~
~
~
-

• ~ it ` \yJ ~ \ ~1 I I 1 1 ~ \ \"'~

m .M 7t !s r -~ ~ O \ ~
~ _ fl ~ r~'^ ~ ~ 4 I I~ \ I II \\ _ \ ~t \ 1

~

•
~

t
NN
o a
~..
o
~~ r.a.
G \ \
\ _ _
\ \ \ I R
~ a ~ ~~III I11
.
\ LI

^ `
J ~/
..~ Ty~
A
1 ~
~ /
-
i
8 ~
~
~
Q7
> s
I I
- - - - -~..-..~
I I I
1 QQ
r ~
, ~

+
r
~ s--
\ l
Q~
1
1
I$` QI
~~~ ~
y
~~i i~
w
~ \
a
~~ ~
I 1
1
1 ~
W 0
• \I ~ \ 0
~ \ -
,
` 11~!(
I ~ I11
11
~ ,.C
~~
~

O \\ ~ -~
I
v
\ \~

c 1
I $ II~II
I
~ ~ r
I
\ I BiI~II
1j - - \\ ~ ~ \ \ f\'7 / ~ W11
I
1 \
\ . ~' ~
~~ ~ a
is r

DATl~ 3DAT[3
Tull: tT1MLi
fn~t!

DAT[: fDARf
TU4[: tilA4[S
fFlLL1
~I~

r
N
.r
O
-w
.0
-n -• p -n cD cn o
(~ T ~G (~
< ~ ~ ~• C N 0
~'~ w ~r
Z° ni
n°
3 Zq'n
n
~D ~
N
'
N W W c
n r
N '•' ~ ~.
W d W ~
O
J O
J

T /Z
\/
O ~ O

,-
m C V
< y
~ W N ~
c
•-~ O
m
-' ~~ Oz
J ~ T
J ~
...- ^ T O
O
Z D~ ~
0
~ r

W T
y
O ~
~.- '~l
N ~
o Z

H
2
A

5
'a

x
n
~ z
d
~
3J
` `°
b -
~

~ Cn
~
C ~ - . .
..
W
a o
~r z~
r~ ~
o
:. z ~
~d x.~
o ~
~
~
W ~ ~
ro
~

V
~ ~
~ ~ ~2

~ o
o z
c.J1

N °
D •
m
r

~
+ ~
.~
w ~
O ~ o ~
m-I O ~ o
O 0 °~

~ ~

~ ~ m
3 3

~ n w ~
X ~ (D ~ L7
~ ~ ,
~ ~
~ ~ C7
co~ ,~. fn
"1

8 ~
~
d'
N
~
CC
N T ~
O -• ~
~ a ~ v ~
N m
-~
~ ~ z
o n w ~ ~ ~
O .
y > ~
j' ~ -~ -m-I
~ N (n
8 ~
~ ~ w ~

N
.
7 ~
~ 'D
N
~- m
~ ~ ~_
O >
7 ~
8 n d
>.
7 7 d
N ~ ~
D
v n
-i
~
o
g ~ ~ to 3
~ ~' ~ °' V)
C
~ ~ ~

D

0 0 ~ ~ c ~
~
o
N
~
m

o ~~, d ~ ~* m
~~>>
7 N ~ ~ ~
.~

-i3 sX v
n
~ v m ~ ~
~ W ~ em.
~ ~ N N fn
f
~~
o v
x
~~
~
~3°'

~C~~IT~~71'a ~'IIII~ II~IR~~JIE~71' 1~-093
N N
O U
O
~
1 N 70
~ ~ N
U1 N
N
a

7 ._.
T
O m

p

O .
CD
~ _
,a -
n
~ ~
~ ~
N

~ N N
0
O
O
y

O $ ~
,~ g ,

n
"~ ~ -+ °
v o o b
~
=i
oN<-~
v~u
°~ u n II li n n
u
7C v o ul _ ~, w
o 0 o cNn b
a
y~ ~ ~ °E ° 3e o o y
Zw= «

~
~ O Z
~ ~
y
~
v 2
v O
$~ o~ 00
~~ ~~ ~D
q
Z
o

w~ o

w
~o
w

y
II 11
p

0 0 0
0o yN., A
~ ~ ~

N
N ~r7
1
N

'Q
70
r
~~
o a'
o

'17
a
,~~,
N~
O
4
M y
N
~~
y
~ ~ 8
n ~
x ~
a n
M
Y
S~
r
h
N
~b
~~ ~
~~
K~
~y
~~
~~
Ox
I1~
(~a
M

~~
~~
1FMN~{1 ~m
V ~~
~9
> 1
i
(mil 2
~~
~ ~~
i
i
x
m
Jyy
l~
~~
~~
~~
~y
I
~~, ~
~~ 1\ ,ffJ,il f
,.._~.
__...___...._.___-~ .. _. ~'~ ~ i
1
;;~--~------ a~l I,, --.. ;;
~~~ ~~~~ I ~~II i~ % a
y~ i li 1 /
it ~ ~
`~~ I i lu ~ ;
~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ; /
.%/
~ -~~ Cape Feo~ ~ \\
f
J l ~ --~ ~ i
~ 1 ~~ O O ~~ ~~'~
/1 ~ J
/' ~k' ~:;~ / ~.:~
~~ . ~~
-~,•{, ~,
w~ , ~ \ ~ ~_
~ ~~ i ~\
// ~`^ y
' , '~
II
~
\ i ~
~~ ~
,
\\ i

r^l~~-~t\-\-~\\\ -~r----
'
~~_
I __ v
~~`~ ~~
I /
~
'
~
j
~
' , l
I
~
~

`
/
I
/
I < \\
\
I
I ~
\
\`
I
`
4 ~ \~~
I ~ ~ \
I v ~ ~`
I 11
I
I
I
I j ,
,,
/~
1 /,
->-
_~X
r~ ~_` I
~I
I Ii
I ,
I
I _~1'---'--- .'_-----~
a----------------~-~
-- ;,
I ' ~
~~

~'I 1
b
~~
b
+7
~a~

Q
;~v
O
O
yC
A
^4^
VJ
n
w~
N
W
~a?,,~0
O ; o'
a ~ ~ /~~~
~ ey, ct,
0
al
~I
nl
I
i
1
` I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

i$ c$
~ ~
Q~ n
~~
o~
~ ~
~~
g y

~"~~
~,
t~
~~
i'~
i
C-=^4
~ ~ n ~

a
i
y

N
W
3

~ ~~
;9
~~

0o j ~ o T ~ ~ ~ T ~°• ~^ y .9 .y ~ y (n v ~o ~ ~ m v m v ~ n ~v -o ~o ~v ~o ~o Cl Gm.
a~ co .°o ~, o o ~• p~ ca ~ o' 3 0 o II o 3~ o ,~• ,~• q ~~ a~ 0 0 0 0 0 0' a o c°
a~ W 0 ~ 9 w 'o p 'a v~ •o ~ a 'o 'P r. ca W o 'o ~. } v p v v v v 3- W
~~ ~ ~ s~ fD 3' ~ o~ o W 3 3~>> W co o ca' w `o W ~ cn o C c~° s o 0 0 ~' ,b
O O O. ° 7. .~ ~ W ,y ,.~, S ~, S T a ~ c9 a' ° < 'D 'fl i T
°' ~ ~ a " T ' c'a ~ W o p o n ~ o a o o o o~ S ~ c7Oa ~ o a ~ ri ~ '' ~ ~°„ ~°„ ~W ,~'ti
° W = i i ' O ~ "°~'~ ~ p• O O ~ n ^ a `G O `•C `C ~ 'fl ~ ' -O, '7 a 'Tl ~ uWi vOi i -=i'
d C ~ a 3 ~ ~ Q Q m ~ W ~ N W = A ~ ~~~ i ~~ ~ ~ n _ 'O' i i
~ p ' h ~ cNO m > > ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~- I ca W W ~ t
C ~' S (~ ~ 3 H W (P 3 T Q ~- ~ ~ ~ T i
_ N ° W
,+J ~ 7 C ~Wi 'p 'p ' ' ~ ~p
a' .. o o ~ °
° W C ~ ~ ~ v
W o_ a i
! .
! ~ ~ ~ I I I I
o ~o~ ~ i ~:~ ~ _ m m m m n iD("il ~ D© ~ ~I ~~ IT In I I
{ I~1 ~i I' ~ ~ ~ ~-~ I p I I I I
~~ I I ~ i \ y 'I ~ I I I I
LJ I ~ I I I I i I I I
~_^ C -i ?1, -I -i of N -o -i ~ -v -v C n -I ~o cn V1 = (~ -i ~v v ~a -v p 'n ;v, _
o ~ `z o -• ° o W ~ o o ~ a o W Q', -, SI' SI' ~ SI' SI' ~
o~ S. W ~ ~~ --°«'c~av ~ ~ W ~ a 3~ c v ~ ~ ~~.~~a-~~..°D ,"~~~ «v°',-~,~~. ~ a, ~ ~ ~ z
c o o' .~ v, ~ ~ N ~ ~ a ~ ° ~ ~ 3 0 ~ ° 0 3 n o ~ 3 0 ~ W ~ o o` o ~ ~ c 0 0 ~ ~ a c Ro ~
fD ~ ~ n w~ j ° ~ N a W ~ W T ~ W W a ~ ~ O (D f~9 p f~D n ~ -Wp (OD ,0~, ~, fD W ~ ~ /D -..p• W ~ ~
in ' ° ~ 7C' -W~i f9 ~ c7~ Cv 0 ; ~„ 7 O •' ~n "'~ ° '9 'U T7 cD ~ tl W W W 7
f1 ' 9 '+ m d'~ H o y o v o o° <TI n~rW o~ C Co o y-oi T K ~ n.
c ~: ~° `- ~ -, ~ ° ca ~ z o ~ O ° ° ~ ~ a a. ~ W a 5 0 o O W
7 a W ~ i = O !V ~ i °
0 0 ° o o e~ O o ~. W i ...~ 2~ °a. g ra ca o o
~ i ~ ~ o = ~ I
o ~
W o ~ n. °~
3~ ~ _ I
~ 3 ~ i o ~ I r_ I
i I ' a vJ
j I j
i i j ; i i i
i
rx
I ®oo~ooomo®oo®I~a~~
mmm~ o ~_ co o -~vv-~v
~ ~
0
x
x -~o-~v~on-~
0
O (1~
O •~ 0 0
' C t9 t0
' 0 0 u
i ~ C Q
w' cc' ~ A 3 A~ ~ Z~'~'~ o ~~' ~ ~ ~
' ~

~
'
'
W ~ ~;
° ~
0
o ~
0 0~
c°
3~ 3~
o W `° c~
O :
caw o ~y-.~° ~
7
i W
O•
' '
1W
©
I
~
-F
i
W
'1
''y'
~ i
i
~ O i
Q. °. OW ~
,9 "" ~
~ o
i
~
O OW 7 W C '
W ° > > m ~ ~~
~ ~ ~
~ Cq
c W ~ ° c ° ~
~ .
~. °- ~ i °
I i W' I ' ` I i
a
' ' ~
'
b
.
N W ~ i N j i i i ~y
/V
N j i
! i t
' 1 ! i
1 O
~
I I I I I I~ x I ~
I I I
I I I

I I ; r I a
~ n ~ 0 0 0 ~ a• I
rr~te.,,
Qi W ZR_J

X50 ~
~ t t
I I I
l l
I I ~+7
a m m m m m I ~
I I I t I I I
I I I I I i I t
t/1
~' .'C
~
o
3 N
a
a
~ S
'~
a. O
°~

I
H
~
W =
W

~ N
W
s
2 N
W
-~
~

• i ~ I
W ~ i
TS
y W j I
. . ; ,
O

I
I Y 11
II
I i .I o
I
I ~
~ u
u =
I ~ II
;, , I
I7 ~ ~ p p p ~o C p p p ~ p ~ ~ p ~ p ~ N p 70

~, o
o
--~ w
a
i3. w
a
a °
o w'
a
~ w
a
3. w
a ~
o_ ~ w
a -,
a w
a
i3
Q ca'
a -,
a
. .

o a. ca .. ca o W ~ ° ~ ~
13 ~ _
° Q ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ fD v ° ~ ~ ~ '" ° ~ ~ ~
O W O ~ N• ~ ~ O S ~ ' ~ C. O a 1
.

~ W W N j A
Q' ~ D A W ' i N
o
o- W W c ~ ~ Q. C m ~ o C
~ W m .~ O ~ m
•'V y C I ~ C C ~ W ~ ~"' I
~ C I m C '~ i ~ a ~ I
f

' V i C ' N t
i

'
i
m i
C i
i i i j v
i `
i i 171 i i

I v
I
I

I
I
~
i
~ I
A I
A I (
'~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ I ~ I I
T
I
I i I I N H N
~
r ~
~ ® o
I I
II ~
I
I I
~ I
~
~ ~ I I

O
O
<
<
i
n
i
N ~ ~
I
m
u
N
C
N
C
n
rn
rn
Z
m
rn
C~
`~
/~~
® M
~~
r„~
~~

C ~
-1 I I
T I I
() T
q0
W "O
G) I
~ ~ I
(~ I
= ~ I I
N
N I I I I
N I I I I I i I

fD
~ i
~
~
~ ?' ~ W
'
•
N
T i i ' o ~ W 0 ~ ~
a
i i
~ i o
j p C
+ I O
~
i I ~ ~ '
i ~
~
~
i I
vJ

I

~ C7

i o
~ i
~ I
: .
I
~
~
~
y I ~ ; ~
O ~ I

i i
~ ~ ~ ~
I ~ n
. ~
i , ~ \I
Q I z ~ ~ / ~ i O Z7
In I ~ 1 ~ ~
0 1 ° 1 f~ I
~ I I ~ I
rl r-1
I I I I ^ ~
~ f0 ~O I I 1 1 ~ I ~~
Ij `1 ~
J

O
a ~
rn
0
~ ~
I I ~
~ n
~ ~ y
0o z
~~ o
~~ w
v O
0 P
cv
0
O ~
~ C
O ~
C ~
2
O
o '~`
o '~
O~ ~~
C
N
O
1
r
c° ~ '
~ ~ ~
m
y ~
o O ~
2
a O
S ~'
0
N
0
IU
O
REVISIONS

°c
O
k
o~
0
0
rn
k
k
~ ~
~
0 ~

f cn <
~/ ~
t
l
o
--- \n~, o
~ N
/'

~~ .
m A
CD N :q
~ - --
~
rn I
}----
-

g
~ -
~ ~ ~
~ ~g ~
~~
-~ m ~ ~ ;
O ~
Cb O C7
O N
2 ~
bIi
w~ z rn ~ ro~ ~
~
~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~
~
D v _
ti _--
b
__~{Nv -
~
~
N ° ~~R
Vl ~1-
O ~
~ -
~

^~+ ~ ~ rn 4 ~~m~ m~ bom
$ m$ rnm$ ~
~ ~ ~
~ m ~ ~~~~ p M=°AO A$ ~A$
T ~ ~ ~~A~ A~ ~~~0 ~
1~ Ny~ ( ' I
2
y ~ n_n?
~~C i~ y~z= ]
.
2~ ~~W
rn z2~x ~~ i°rn~i
~ m~
~~ mi
~~
~
~ i rn~
o~n~ rnv
zx tnz~
~ ~~ ~~ z

?
~rn~
rn~
rn8 ~
~°~
rn °g
~ ~
z~''z
~'~
~"~ O
C
;
~ w
m M
~ ~
~ ~~ ~nm
~ ~~
~ nl
gym ~ =rn~
brn ~~ m rnm
2~ T ~.
m
k

~
ot ~°

~--
-
- ~
rn
~,
~~ -
W
°~ ~
m~ N

N
m I
L-
----
-
~ c~ . ~ ~
I I
I ~
a O-

~, ~,
m y
~
O-
O n
C
N -~A Z m
N ctt
g~
p ~_,
m o ro bl
~ O ~/
~ A - - -- -..._ ..-------
p
GS
o
~~
~Z
O
N

~~
~ ~
~ i
~ ti O
rn
~ ~
s~
m~
~A/1 =
m ~
m
i
~ o
m w
~~
m
m ~
2 m
0 0
2
r
O
~y ~

~ tr
o~~
~m~ ~
~
~ ~
~ °c
s O
O
O
r
v
t~F1
( ~
fib
t a ~
a ~
~ cn ` ~ w
~

~ ~~
~ ;ta
" ~
{
f`~
~~ °
f
y ti , N
~~` ~~
g~ o~
o~

RLVISIONS

I

9m ~ 17
l" ES

r~l ~ _
_
•
9
I'F J
a
~~° -
~
wo 11 m
- = ~, (1
~
A < , -1
p1 W ~ 2
-
(A tJl ~ AI

- ~
_ J ~ t t (ll
N
W 1-
~
O

~ ~
i
.d v . - ~
o , ~a
`;~,
..~
_.,~ ~%~;
r
~,
' ; o.
,~ %
j ~e^0v~
;~`/

,,, m x
a2 z g
m
p tl I tl M M M l tl ~
1 1 1 1 1 1 b~$ O
m
w
C
c
rr~S
~ ' .~
• NW
~ O
C9 01
N•
V N
10 O
t
r
i
J
N
W
N
W
V
-Ai
v
}' `3 r•i
~ ~%
C
m~-+~oD~
unnnnlloOn
~~~~aoN
~~~~~~~ ~
~ ~~~ ~
m°
2

q ~/
®• 9~
A
,.:
e
6A.~ Pr ~~. ~,,. •~
;, ~ \;,

/ i
YLT ~
` V `~ .
1 .b
~
I yu~ v"'1~_ (a J/I
I I ----_'_ s c~m I.1 - ~~~
r
I ~ a a ,
1 ~ ~ I,ai I
~ '
' ~,~. ~ ''
\~E.
~.:
~.~
.,_.
r 4 :• '_
a
S~
Q 4~k.
a' ~
Q
_ [~
~}
Q
C ~ L 4~
~ ~ E
z
_
D Y
* ~
OZ
~ w
~
~ ~
R1 ~ car
~I N~
II
-'1
m
I P y;r..J
~_ ____I __mf~______-_______ IZ ~gN'EL_____r~_ `~ I ~`jg ~~ ~y Nom ~ O
1 Q l! to
--- ~~ ~'~ ~-, I ~ I I E a to ~ ~
~ Q I("~ ~I L i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~
s

REVISIONS
O

~ A m
-i W
-i ~
~ mb
~i C
~ m
-i :, ~
01 ~ ~
~ ~ -' ~ z n ~ ~ ~ ~
c
m ~ ~ ~ y j
~ x' 8 8 8 #
~ ° ~ S O ~ O '
2
C g o
O p ;~ ~- ~ r-
~
O ~ ~ rr~
i
~ ~ o
~ ~ $ g g Z

0 (~~
(
O
~
K ~ N
z
f') "
D~
~ N + ~ ~
w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o Zm
v
c
z
v
m

m
+ D

NO
pO~~
pbV
V
fpoJ~
N ~~
o
A P A t,Tl ~ O ~ A to

W
!O
Q
rj W
W
A
~
11~~
~ w
t0

V W
V

W W
V
t}~
O!
..~
~p
v

~
-+
V
~
.
a f
Jl
D

O ttpp
(A ccpp
W WW
A (w,~
A p~
N
N

D

O
Z
~C
z
(7 (7
D~
~T
°m
z
v
c
z
0
m
n
c
-i
m
a
+z
~~
o
y
m
z
-~
O

0
~ D

m
`J
~i

4l/
~.
~~
~~
~~--~-~
~I
~.~
~~
V" $~ 8~ ~~
~, r
e
i A
~
~~
~
Sp
~~ ~~ ~R7
~b a
r
16 ~ yy
~~ ~y
IF
8/

°I
~~

i I
REVISIONS
Ill=Ci~
i

1 f171TI~
It?i-tit"
. y
M
IOp
N --
WO
t
A
W
O
W
J
w
9
v
C
L'
C
C
C

-
~i~ ~
~
QPPp~Q~no~~
mmn,
i

~
~ ~o
a mr~p
~.
~ O
c
o
m ~
mm~'
Q " u1. mc
o
71N. ~
py
~,a ~
~ ~~~ ~n~~
~~~~ ~~~~
~
~ ~ !~_1n1mo
~ rn
~
~~2i ~ w
a
a~~ ~
g ~,

+

1 p

~~"

M 1 1 1 p I M 1 1

w ~b$~~~N
~
N
C
~

D o
,~ w
N N

i +Wj
1y~ ~ w
~ c
~
~~?1~~t~il~~t~n n _ as
tii .~.
-
-
N on
O ~
I~ r
C
r
J~
om
0
0
r
t ,~~, cti
t
m~
5,~,>
f: ,
'~{..
:~
;'Q.
.~~.~ _.
„~s,~
. f
.; '`~',~
~'~
i ,.
~~ /~
'~" ,
~ y _ a~
i ~ ~.
.~ n ~
~~"'t~Jr~.....y~..
r
1^r

> ~\ .('~IB' RCP:' ~
~"j
J ~~~. '
~x1) •.
t :
4
.t: _
~~
1~; \~
:yl~\\., ~.i ~..
~ r/~: ~,
f:
f~ ~r
`1~ -'? /
a ~~ ~,
a~ti~~
~m
+I
/5
a
~~
~,
_t„~411
..~,,~
Q~~~
I~'
Q ~`
. TY~
mQm © `
hp~rya r
- Y~R C
I rl~ O
V `~~ ~N
~ ~~ 8m
N~
N ~~ ~ w
'~~ ~ ~ ~~ J ~ ~ zl - ~~~
S.
2'PS. ry ry rrs.
I
~~ I,
I
b ~ ~ Z P~
m rno a~x
/5' = " R ~~
~
r2 r7
8

~ J, 3,
I
Z (
rz~

b
m b
~qyN~
•

a M
- + Q
Rv ~
2
*
~

2' PS. c~
r2 u~
!?'
T Ps.
.<----
~ I 4;. m-
,~
-~- I I • I ~ ~ a ~
~ mo
1
u ~::' I I~ S G ,yy~_gI
~ I .,~ , I
I ti~ 1
I 1
-[~---~~! --- _ ,, f~ ~~~~n 111 I ~~ ,~ ~
t:~ i
___ ~' / I ~ H Sm 8~ w
____'_______=_-1zL'gAVEt_,___''~n'`I ~ ~C xC., ~O ~ c
__ ~y tir
s ~
~,
~~
}~ ~ j ~ ~ ~~ ~yr
r' I a I '~ r y
?1 ~i ~ I ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~y A
i
f D

nnn ~ _
-ovv v m
AwN -• m
~ ~
c p
n
.9

~zvvc~or
n ~Z~f~A
cncnml-~
' M ~ '
c`~czirc`~~°n
-ozzND
-°i~o~rv
zmmmr
fA(n(nG)N
A` `o
Dc m
~ `vo
M
-~ M
m o D
N X ~
O -1
~ ,?~
S
~v
-1
H
-~
r
m

iii

i J J J J ~ i J J J i J J J J .i J
NNNNNNNN N-+~i-+-+-+-+-+
W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (71 A W '+ '~ O O O
A A N ~ -+ U1 f71 G1 fll O (J1 (J1 O O ~ ~ ~
N O O N O N A N O O O O N O~ W N
J J J J i J J
'cOG~OG)'V'V ~ v'r1a7A'v W-1--I-1
cccDDDD Do
~~aD ««~ o-1 mr..2r
~
~z
c~m~~~mmmmoxm ~a
-:..
-~-~~nv'v
mc~.l o o a m m m m m n N 0 0
''
p
~
H~~=
~
z
z ,
.,
z
~~
m
ng
lc
1-
ip-
-zib D~
~ r W
o "~ ~ O
nm~~~~~~9 ~t-z-io~
NM
OOC~ ~
g
M
O(A 370
m

r~~
A
ANN Z
(
( N'Orr
~ M m 0 O O
~ ~
~~~ z
nmm cnm
cc
~
37 9 W~ N r r 70 7J
~oo~-=r ~.o,mumivmi
o»~m
m °
m
m inc~~
zr
-c
-r
7D
mm~ ~z
i zzai
v
o
m
i
m
~~ ~

~~ ~r
pv
~
N
r
i O
-I N t/7
-C '9 't1
m n a
i
u~ -~ m m
-~
`
c
~ ~ in

N
VI
Z
0
H
r
m
8>~~
~v~~
~g~F
>~A~
~y~~
b N A
iNt~
OyyO'
~70W<
m .+
m~z~
mvc~
rz
V M N
i~
:: mi~~
~oa
~~>yp~
N -17J
v m .+
~ozz
~~~
-~
v~<
~~~
9
m H
~$v
~~
r
z
~n
~C
b

D
m
O
N
.D
D
® Q ~ m
C1 ~ A "'~
-yi 4`~i ~
` ~ r ~
M
z
o ~ < can
Q m
~~~
~ ~c
9
O
r
m
0
z
C7
7]
n
9
9
m
z
tied
T O ~
r c
~ ~ ~
9 m o
c
z
v
..
a
m
z
D
O
D
~ ~ ~o~
~•
- ~
~ , o m ~ a H
A n ~
~z ~
-~ N
~ -i
m '~1 O
t-A ~ f~ -I
m m -i
m
m
.n ~ ~ 1
A O W M M M M
F,
"' _ ~ -Ni ~ ~ ~ M
~
m 2 N z M _M ~
~ ~
~ H
c~ O
r ~ ~
~ ~
m m
y ~ ~ m
2
v
m

-I
m
m
N
n
0
r
v
n
m

v
O
D
mm<
i~
i
9
<°
n
r
0
m
X
H
D
m
-ZI
C3
D
O
I ~ A m
!\ z
t m
1 ~
n
v o r
°~ ~ m
n
°z
v
` ~
•,
~ M
1 ('~
1
~ T
~ ~
~t ~
N
~~rn\J
V• ~
v

~~"1 ~

~g
g~BQ~ ,`s~
ao fi
a
~r

111 ~~ ~v
r
., ~~ ~
nE
~E ~
~~~
~ w
3 ~
k ~ C~7
~ ~r y

i
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~y

l0 D J

p
rnv mRm Ram mam Tymm
r0 N>) '00> a0> OOr>
m Tyfl x>o m>o r mo
<z mm~t v~ }vim r><n
> O Z a T a T { R T O Z> T
My www >w m)w a yw
m>r •<r a<r wo»r
Om rr wr Nr •aor
mm o>rEi Ha ra+s mo>i
m m y m y y 0 y 0 O T
y 0 x x x v S V D
i m> m 9> T O T O m N 0
m yvm oT oT >w..
~zM oao NT NT <w+
a O y N y w m y
~v~ ma Oy Oy rir
m m O S S r p 0
m mC V ~ V •>1 iTm
rx <» m m m>
Dv y mm mm <c
Z m y> O N O N y m V
m 2 m O O x R
wo mr rm rm >m-i
T m wm m yzo
O m RO Rp y
T+ z 0 » w x y
p 0 y N y N > w x
i N M R w N N 2 m
a zT w r
>.• m> ro o> >Dm
T~ mef m T my
T ay NO O Omp
m w z A Z a> m
oz v u ow
->i s e 9>z
1 V 000
Z Z x TL
O T>
• o O
N a >m
N ~

a>moomyw
oaoazrwz
>mo> mt
v>azo<my
aw oa>. x
>• m>y m
< a 2 w m
m ,D Oam
>cmvmzw<
rwv> zm
omm< . pz
z omr> y
pOyRONy
awmo x>
cc<zNOm
zsmymm y
a N r y y w
> <mom»m
< y Z a A m
m 0» O> R w
o :N<»»z
v ,mzz
>m> rm o
crow ,p»
m»<.+ az
>z>c~wmm:
wmzz»{>o
>owp y
ym zyy
moawmom
y T m~•• >
S am2R
m y V 0 2 >
x ~ . O > O
mm ~wvm
o zv
pcN ma»
mzo>moz
mRZa1
o< o• ao
Tm> z
z z m Y m
orgy
Irmo
O > >
~ o a y
mow
O >
zmv
ra
»
~<
x
v T m v n r v m u A m N x a m y > .a p ..~
>
< .. .. .. .. > o O .. » - ~Tx

m z
m r

~ >
v e
m m
zy
R xT
m
z n
r >
< z
> a
m mo
o r
-~ o e N aor

m
o a m o O> O
m+ O C D a 0 r r a a N
c
O> T T y T
T T
} m y»
y 9 T T T
y T c< O T
. m
S O y
a
a» O O O O O T m>
O z a
0 r S 0 0 Z Z O >+ Z z a o r O> x m a S• a 0 C O a 0 T m x T S• O a 0 S O z m m 0 r O O ~+ m Z< a m» 2 a< O » w w
p
m omc
wz»z >oz ao vmao zzmR
a+a» nw pmzo m aewa ma
w•o N wa
v yTm
moz» msa wa
v
• ea y>oa
a am • r
wz o
< e~m yR>o >
oraa>mz<yT aya
map

0 c TO 10 w• <a m m < a w >O Oy >r as z O
w >R Nm r eZ •^• 00 » <crmwzpwSy OC

a 9 a R y y m y
m O m a Z m o p»»> a 0 a m
a N w O y a y r 0 m
O y y( x > x
R S a y D <>
m m m p
w m m > y z < m
•( S O t O> ~ w m m
> N m m a R
w Y y
< O
z > O> N r N m p m
r m O c w» w m y y 0 0
m y m
O
v a2T O a -<mSmS ZOar .Gi >mm» z y0 z»yy mm y0 <y 09
> O y0 N ..vr O mx 0wx
onym yo
z a rma o pw>m mN7l>
aeo z me z
a w mN y7C
TT•~1 ow oa ozam
momz > v oa
rpm m >
<
>a <wm o
r r
>o o wy>zewzm
Ttz zw»p om
mza
o
T waT >D7l zmT RO Oawm m oat p m0 VmmO y>x 61> Z• R +> ~ m 2N Op»p <T»y < >

T ywwo z< oro>wxV mmw R raD m» > mvzm m<p r o "Na
w vm vt z mza yr
S y a m m w
mmSR - rw C m O m m O O
DN
»•~z
O m
Z r m w <
O >w >< z m z 9 m > m
y
w 9 m» O a i m m> y a

a
mw ae T
2
zr
aw>r., a00
-~
a~ z
t• OxyO
mOxm mZ O
wm0 R> wm y
-1 xOy' O
> NO
Ta <ZT00 m>mT
wp C>y zaT x02
mL0
~*
o owza y>c o o» 'vy yN N »xm sp m zmm zTm < >a mzo p m n. v~pxao• w my

G vz o a<r
vp+a
-y ay»yama a c zmm .. m nz v oo m m
}
m - Mz m mrRmm o mom
o
o u~t >
~ >xrtTa> xma
»m» u< mmm o y
as sm yy
ca mox>
mo< mao y
vm> cm m
cm T
z o y >
>a wN<»> omy
c»o<veTOO Zyw
p-
m wV
a2
mtiw >
m r y0>Om Zw
< Rmm om
o mm O c m < mm r0°>a
>
m ra 90> m»T o » >
e w
ya»z <y0 a:zr ZO
a
O• Z >Dm mm z
Z~z 0~ wrn
OZ >va»
<>ww zw. w.y
OZ o^ Ry r
•
OS Oyem o
ma vmyoyawez
> zmT
m

z
mT C xc
a Momr <
o >m
>
<
mom Dm
zm aG• z
a
~ < rNmm
mOmy
m• ywpwma mNv
mor

y o0o awN
waTr oz ~c vr> rTw >oy <m <•-~ oo zmm ym p
zv
"~ my a >r myo am<

w r
wt < Y < cym z >mp
>NSZ>m Zam <TS z
m x
m >TZ
z Ovy z
mm7 >x
~
<O p>>x is
y> meo» az r
zOarOSyT v
yD
Omyw Oy. amw Z mTw >O y
' pa> Zm y C <xm w< y
wam MT y
mpxz x m zya> o Txx x x vvm x a y c
O
x m M
» c >zymr a
m D m 0
O m Z > a a+ O O A T
O+> O L r R a y a 0 m
m M C O
c m V N
> > m Z m
< z w C
>
m a a 0
G > r
w x T x>; a r D
p w O a w •p > O Z S>
m r
T m m S N
Z O m > m ») O< a> O m 0
w 0 m O N 0 6 9 N a S
'~ w O a
w > R y
c O y 2
m 2 O O N <
T O> a r
T> O m m z S T w
> 0 N< T O• 2 r
ywp> RO arrmm c yR c R T m C > NN OZ Oy»Zww»O Oy
Szm< my
m0 < x V>.~ OZ amy
a< rGy mmx x)O a
mwT w O
T y0
S> O a
>S w • yNZ
.GOO rm
rw Owa O• OZa
<Omy A Ox y»
SR
o r o O>w Sm -+m< y0 T Z• T o m20 NDRMm m m
y>T ON
a O w yNTZVy ww
m y m R 0 w z r ^O> O
m> T • S
m y 0 G O
) a T p
R > + a0
w C a >yrOyZ
» e y> < M aw
a
>ry >O O}> m O> m<T 9 Sa ZN <w ..a Z> yZ TOO T
<>a ym yZZ02y Z Z 7t • -IC O • TT D< DO Rx» NO
m2> »w
rm< O m0 ZyS Oym
O>O m 2 >R
OZ• y R CaN
mNC O
IpT V
•'~2R
p
O xa xNm
ma
m 20 aT> m TO N02 xm• a >O yy0 Zy
> r T momz y e p>v D+ a =~ m Oy OS
< a

> < Z

z ro x

m D < >

< .<

R
r m
m o
-~ m
m
< or vo
>
= I G
wa
r^ z >
y
y w
xo
mz
w .G
. .~. .N
. ~ 9 v ~ Z
e y r Z ~ w y
y . . .
, >
< .
. a .
. .
. .
. ~
"' a
O
m

m >

T m

Z >

T
r R T I w T
> y O p O
Z

m
o
mvya>v
Oma my 00>ev
N+
Ow N+
ew
R
mOw9
w>+yw mOa O
o
yw
TO
'O
rv
z
>

G zaxwwr
D
m r 'O > vmm N» mTNDr zz .I >z > >rwr zzoxv oax z
O y
O

°D M
w rxo m m v » m y 9 a>
azr w m
x
o m N a
~ a N a a O p> >> > c m y N O< O R O
y '~

zzN >m v
~c
> > ye a»»m o

o<> wy .
0
z> <rl> 7Cy

m> 7C

» aN20

wm m mo•~zo p:z

TTw m w a

o
>c
ra
Lm
ma
<
w< >w
-~»
m
a
mpmar
m v yon »a ewrz m o yr .o
I ar z o a Tm y e r ym o o zT
Nv « s
my•-~
ayOR a mm zo wzyoy
O y mr mr p >m-.y mzoao sN m yo m m

• MZ>•yp r D9 xy wa
xM> O m 7 O 2 a --.z N pz+< O ZwS >» O a> a

R O w» O
y Z v w O C> O C >
a R MT R>
e) w~R OS
Z>
> my.9
w» N m yy•f1> <x
a O m Z p m
< wr
Z r r
» a O
m 'O ]1S
m
m r
m z y>
} x~v m< > m v< 2 D m t Ohm < Z a > m Z m » O R m y a ~ m

0 9 w T a ev mom v
> T m y Z R y T rm o ym v ym>w <zym ma o a wR o s Nm a

TTZyr
y> Rv mxr > e r
tm m 2 R
mm
a O y»
ayw m y x r o
rmmw c> m
w > m
zv y 0
w< c
a > z
z op >
y
r mw
yw m< ms y>zmw mz z >
l >o> as N wv <m m m
TRO
xorv> Om x< xey n
R ym mv•M> ay a
w of ~y a
z r>Om
rvx> > V» ma
ywoz v> N
yw
a> w
w 2 VZ
y >m O
z
mD>Oy
y 0 a w mm e r ••~
t z t m m m Z w e >
O ZR I m
a •O
>09 <
Zyp a> xr D ym w
T M m> O y > 2 z T) O D O
T a > D w j w r a
wo Tz y ay pOrr2 ~c r a
7[ <. M
T• O a a m 0 Z N
S) pm y T< Z
p M
Z » m
D

9 Z 0< w
w <
x R ~ w a> w
m> a
<
a
v w
N w
O O>
m 0 < r} H
N
> m
D aN
Z Z+

yom•-~o z
o
a z> m»mmo >z cz a Tv z»w» »z ow. y »

-Taal
m~ Da mz >T <p
mm ap w m wv~ mo p po a z >o

>
a» ~( apya
e Tw
> wyNw r-mm c> vz me » p r}

»-~Te
oz r» xwT
m>
c» s>c•
ppT > mw a
z>v o >w ya y yr

N» x T>
O w 2 y m z>
Z Z y y
m Z
A O T a o
m z w T yz
y 0 o
c N x
w .ai mm

a w w
vzmoz
O w x p w D w
T m Rw z
y 0 x S
O
m> w»
O r 2 Z
m
a»
Z a Z
y > p
mym y -~ w
mmNy s mm
>v aAe >
wv mmoy
w wx n oo
w
a a» p y
9
x

y T
M
mx OC
9T~~>
N} Re>
>
Om
r
M
o.
O o z
zN
wz
NN
y
S
.
..
.
.

mCR>O
» Z OOaT
DMIa
< ooa
T<
OaZ•
wyya m+
w

m x p
a90yZ
e02y Oy m TzT>
S w 0)< » ~H Tm TVJC Om a ya 9r, z w+ Z Za y >

»zymz
x { vm ZS
yylz Oe rrw
rm }>z rR
rm O O
m<r> .-. O
mou> O+
v Ow
yy T
a S
m

Z S a m
m>wZa
O> y S> m e
O
r Z w N p
O Z
O m m 0
N T m a z

x w

• >< O my m
m Oy My~ ay aaz T m O 1 wr
i t y

a
m~
y
TrT-i -zi
» a
wR oil w
.. l mrpN
w>-,r > R> eN
myvw w
- o
m zz m
o a a
0
<m
x ac
iz ••a Nvxo mxx o o-r y ~ o
~ ym zfO--o ~ aT 'mm r ~ a
'~ >v
x O x tiMa ~^
a 00 om m w a y

m m
O
N y O m p O > H

>z
w p N m
mOm a y
»
y
m >
Ovy O
Z w
Tym
a
N
r
n
D
r

rn
t~
O
/~s'
~ •
ru
8
8~
8~
<

~~ 8~ ~~
?~
r~~ ~~
~b ~~
ar
~~ <~ ~~

i

A W !J
yy
z2 >s +Z~O Op ~O ~d'O
v~ ~m

T O°~
CT T
,~ j
+~ PN{~/{~
++~
~ p
OOQ ~
( NAC

v v
(~

~
v
~~~ V
V
~
~]
~-i
O~
OJ.~
S^n
~°D Nom
~ °~-C
Ch om Otn
o ~~
~° -1
O < ~a Z y
m o p

Z ~~
of m N
~' ~ ~
0
0 ~
~ O
F ~~
'rt ~~~
v
..7
(JI N ~ PO WA~

+
+
~A, ~- (~ ~ ,+,,3
IJ ..
obo
0
NV
~~m v
~
~
A ~ A ~ A
~ ~ ~

O
~

~
C
' N
O
O
_ _ -

r~ 1
~
D~ _. ~
_
O
r-
- ~ - - -
i ~
i O

I i
~ I ~
I I ~ °O ~ ~

O rn
~ ~
o
v ^
m
Z
C
Z
m
C

~

o IJ

o O~
T
C
r^ rn m Z

~~
~~
f~ ~
~~
~~
~~
REVISIONS
`_J
N

a to A W !;~ ~'
_
~ ~°
~ oo °zoAo
~ ~'~
m ~nZZ
'~
n ~~ ~~
~ Z ~O""
I
1n~ AC~
~ ~n=~i
A ~v
~ Cm
~.-. n~n7,0~oo
m7o7C

o
~~ O
g s~
~= O
,~
~ b

'v.~'

~
mm
• 3
Z+C
~O°~
~l
n~' r_
°Z r
vZm
o
~ ~ F
~ °v$O
jin0~ ~~
-< Avg ~'
GZ
~ fi J
~

m
O 3
Q~F
a p
O~m
m F
n
~
CO ~O~°
<~
C1 ~
~°
O
°
Om~o
G.T. ~^~ O
Z
Zr
GI
07 IJ~
<<
7 <
Nv N
1^
l m
yZ N
N
A
~
L p
?
A
N O N O BO O

3
~
. ~ ~ ~ A f 7

i I
~
~
, ~
o N
$
s
~
~ ~ ~ ~
_. 1 _ ..__ ._ ~ _-

~ ~

i O
~
~
o
p ~
I ~
o ~ 8 p
~
v ml

m
C
Z
z
m
C

W
0
p
0 N
M
°
0

~ 0
,ri o
S' C
mZ
,
~~
~~
~~
~~
ii9
~~F
~~r
E
i'
t
~~
~ 8A~A
~~ ~O ~ ~
r,
~z ~r
~ ~' ~
~~a •~'
~r ~y
~~ s~
w

REVISIONS
PM
J ~ "~~~ a ~ ~ - ,\~ Y.l~ ~ to
~`1 r ~.
r~ f ~.3~ , it I ~ ~,
,.. ~ ~ I, f' i ~
~:
~. t. r
l.. r :-~ _
,. ~r i
~: .t` , ~ ~,,.~. ~ i ~ ~ V x
i, s, " , ~ ~' `.
I 5 / ~v,f `I I
it
i~ ~~~~,
~• ~4
~ \ \~, lr 1,1C b.., I
it ` ; \ \ c~ 'IB`1 I sa+E ~ ~ ].., f.'
.` I
I } `, i , \ Zt\ a I~ S to t~ I -, ~~,,.
ti . ~ ~t~ ~ 1 x ~ ~ ~ e 3
•. I ~:.._
~~ .w
r
~ '~ 5'` Af•; r~
1. ~!~, m ~ IiI ~
;, ~~ ;}' ,1 i ~i ~
~ ~,:~4 ;~ i ,S 4
~ i ~I I ~ I ~hf' I~ ~,
f' y ^ y ~~ i f x S_'
O ,~ `r~'1 , ~' •'t
~,.,, ~~ , , °- ~ x
I ~
<'~ I I~ x
.~/ 5 f
',~, I ~' ,
FF~ ~~`
i f .,G.~ ; ~ ~ I
~'E.. it ~ f -
O ~ Q ,-.~ , I ~ © Q ~~.
/~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =
C V '. ` ~' ° I ~ ' '~
..I ,I ~~-~ ~ -_
SA' ~ ~I:: s`: ~5 ~ ~ 14 j M I ~ ~ ~` I
t `~ I~ ~ - I ~ ``
~ S'. , I Q
1, ~ ~. c ~
~,.ti' I~~ > ~ }
~! ~~`~~~~ ~ _ ~ I
~ -.~---- -- .i-I_ ~ .
~ f -_- a zo
' I
` wt" '
c
n,',14 ~ I
ZK 1 ~ 1,
~3
'Y 5 r
~..~ 1I - 1
II ~ ,. ,,, I ~ ~9 ~
~...- ,.r i----
I-- -~-, o Q _ i I
I '_.P_1
1 ~ ----'-'-~ I i .-. .. 1. .
I
I ! 1`~ ..
I 1 ~ t,
, 1
I ' ~ "~, ~
L_ ._....... I I
----
~_. ------------ ____ a
.,~, ,-Q~ i q I ~
};
m
i Q I
' Q 3~ i E;3 ~ f 0
,% ,. v II , -----------r~
,~ •, -

~- ,
~'
~~ i' •~ ~ ~~~~~
~;` ~.
~ ~ ~~
.,~,..~:"y ~~
~'.~~'•.
i.~^~
~, ~-
/' /
~`~~ `i
f~
~\
rn 4 ,:
S ( ~'
~ ~'V.
V
~
~
~~ ~
~

~;~

,1 yt
\ `:
~\~ ~
.~
~~ ~
~'
~, 1 ~'~'J .` t ~~'C1~.. ~~t
,
,,
j. ~
y ~ ~~~.
' '~
~'~~
`
ti ~
~
1
~ ~
~
•
`

'~,. '
.~a~ ~.\
~
,
~

~''-'~t~ st ~j "{~is~j

f{ k'.ti~~. ?~

;~ ~. ~ I
;-~ C , ~
~ ~ 4
~
f" IL._~I ~ ~1 `~
`,
'

O ~
.
S ,r IS

~r
7Q > Ir ~3-~t,~'/t,~+
L~ \~~
/
~
E,,, }~
© a ~
~ r~~'
~'', ~ a ~ ~>I ~; 1
l~ ~ y~'~ ~ ~ I . ~
`~ ~ ~
i ~~ .ti,~~
/ $ ._'+w
! ~
/ \ y'i s I I
.~ °~
i~
~~ r
~ ~' i~l
~ ,~j
rn
~ .; ~.
•~ i I I
~~ ~ I
is .;y ~ I
,'~" ~ ~ I
, I '
~ _ i \I
M
,~ ~; I
~I i
®~
r~
x
~J
I
x
~.~+=~ - ~
I~ ~ ~+.
~.I«i\
Ifs ;~,,,, r ~ '-r..
5
~..~
tt
'~;
,M ~ ,
S/
':"~ y
i; '` 2~
~~\,4~~}
r~i•. ~
'~ ~
<,
~~~'ti..t.''~,
-.~ ~ ~ ,;
~~:. ~~.
~`~. ~
,.~ ~` '14-1
Q ,k ~~~
>~
`-- ~ - _ >~
r ~ ~' Q
y~ 4 1 I O~ ` Q`
~~~~ >
oz
1~ i s
i..
~r i

I
'; j i)
~: ~;o
~: ~.
~ :~;;~~ ~~ 'I
~ I
1
.
~`:' '~' 7 ~ I i
J
41~ . ~
~~-- L~,~~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ I
_
~ Q I
~ I
I -___"
-_~ ~
i
I 1 ~
I I ~
5 _ __..I
'

I
!f
~ I
74 i
~
~ I
j I _ 1
i ~~. ~~
~f ~ I
'~'
~ {~ - .,.~ ..e.l
!1 ~ .~ -
, -_
i
1_._ _-I ------ ;` - - -
- -------:_-:_---- ~
~.~ I
--- ------- ------
~ ------- --I__~~ ~ ~, ;~ I
---~~; ;'a ~ ~ Q I I
a L
°
~ ~
;1 3 ~ I i
~= ~:: i
-. x-, 1,'2 ~((( j
((( c'j I i

O ((((((((
i,
~
i
~
1 ~
~ ts _
`
1 F, Fem..
` ° a
,~ 'a
~, ;,-
~ti o o ~'
i f ~w rl
\ `E~t L~ y ~I
>o
8 8~ S~
~ ~r ~~ i
~ is b ~
E ~~ ~~ ~
~ .m
'b
Gr jr
~ ~~ ~~

~vuloNs

--- -~-.
:~-
~ i~
J'f~. , c
~..
`~\ "+.
yt ~~i\ ~`~\`i•.
c ' ~~ ;~~
`, ~~
°t ~~ 411
~,
~... ~~ 1~
• ~; _:~
~,.
'.~~.
~r ?',,`
.~
r'~~ ~
..~ ..~~~
~, ..,k
.,.
I~ q `~~~~~~~
.a_
1
H
~~
~~
` o Q` ~
© ~`.
~ -- -----~ o a ~ I
~ ,.
i ._
' ~--------~ ' I
~ ~ I'~
any ~x.-~.,.:.~~
1 ~ t rk/ t
1 ~ 1 ---'---,~
~.
1 --~ ~ ~ --- •- c
_....._ _ ----~ ~-----------------------------~.j i
----- ,. ------- ._1-- ~ Q I ~
._,~; ,fln ~ I ~ ~
~~, '
Q ~ ~ ~ ~
Q
~ ~s J ,
Q ~ ~ ''
~,
--~"-. 1i
~ ~ O ; ~ t.f _ !~
t, ,~:'~ f , - q D i ~,
~~ \ ~ ~ r . /
.~ , {. `'
w r
~- > ~ ~~ „~ J l_--
'~ ~\ t, r ~~ -'
f:"f ~r•- ,~ F
\ •~ f
\\
`
io
©, ~~ ~,
\~ ,
,. -- -
\ `
o ~---~
x -
`k \

8 .. 1 \
{' .
g~ $~ ~~
~~ a~ ~~ ~
~~,~ ~
~ . ~,
~~ 'r
~~~
~ y

DAiG HY2051
TIME: 11:51:27 AM
nlKdw\b-iota\.~+ry\~\woa7 ~ .d_1 dam
: _ , . ~ • : .. v1 ul. , Fn .. vl . ~. .. cn : yr . to

.
:

_ .

:
.,....

_ .

.

:: .

:.

_

•

. . .

.

.
• -,

'

.
~
,
o _ ..

: ,..
i , ;

_ I
_ I I I I
, I:

_ I

I

1

, 1

I
1

I r

i
I

f _ r

I
I

I I'

I
I.

I. r

I::'.
.: 'f.:.

1 ..
..

,,
..

_..
,

.. ...
;,. i I. :1 r I ..-

' l
' '.. f: !
' t
' r
_ ~ r 1 ..
I
I. :.. I:. I _
: 1 _ I:
..

; _
I I _ I L
I I I.

` .
;.
! , .. . , ,
I

~
r. .. ~ I I

~ J' ~ ~ ...

- :

:

, _

..
,.

,
.,

..

'

.

:

.
.. ,
..
i.

:
.. ~ lY

, ~ ~

~

, ~

;< 1

i ~ ~m

k~ ~~ ~ ' ~' rn '
i~ ~ ~'
f ;

: a ~ .I: I
. i
~ _ i
a

L,. 1 i
i

,

~ pa
~W1 I ~~

~ ; aqI
IWi

~ ,
:, ~ ~ lo. a o : b ul t~too .
~ _

: .. ,. ...
:. :
t.

, ~ .

.

,~
. ;

. ~

....
I ,
, .. ~.. .. I... .. .... .. :
' : :.
I
1
I

..

I:..
,:
~ .
_ . I
. r

_
.._ ,:

..
_ ~ rl

r. ra

r

. 1
~ 1 ~ '

•
,
I..

I

_
.. r

(

1

'

l:
I
I

, _

r,.
1

: 1 :

r .
1 :

,.. . .
'. .
I` . f~' ~. it
I ` /

. ;

,I
I,

;.
I~

~

%

r

1

~ r I 7:
, ~. :l
~', ~ ~l;

L;
-; t
1

' I

1 ~;
I

!

~

;1'
~ .
/. _

it _
I
I
I i

1

1.
I
,I , `
; I
1

1
1

~

f:.

,
1
.' ,.... ' ~ - ~ 1 r,
:; 1.
.. l ;.,
_.. ;'.
. _
I i
~;
r -

~

~

1
r

.

,

1 :"
I

,
_: 1
I
r
:

,

~

'
r
_:

.:.

.

j
1

-

I

r

-

.

f
. ,
1
1

r
",
I
I ~ .
.' . I
,1
'

r.:

I

I

~

I

I
. .
:~'
I r
` t 1
-.
f ~' •
I I l
I ~ J
.
.. I
r
.:
_., 1
,. ..
.1 ... ., ;..
_,
:.
: r
;,:

~~
~

;

.

.

~r
I

;. _

I
t

o
.
_
1 .'.
:.
'..

I ,,;
r

;,

, .:

..
,

.

_

.. •
1

r

.

:.
I

1

O
!,
' _ _ .
r

I.

_

. .
. .;. : ,
':; ..
~ $~
., ,

:-:-
I
.
-
O
.: _
Ay
,
t+7
;

~

'

'
~
,~ _ .
'.
.... .~._
..
...
~S
g ~ ~., ; - :
:

x

~
gp
,.
xUJ .. .
~.
•~-

OATl: N42001
TVAE: 11:51:27 AIA
n ncdo l b-4097\ \+>{\~f09J .pl I.dgn
.: . .: '.:. .'~ lh Ul

. ~.~ Ul. ~~ ~. V11;
. . Ul ': .'

;' 111..... .C(1

,. f lh..

... '

_ ~.

, lri -. (71 .:

.
~. .1 .U71

..
.. ~

:

.

: ,
ter ,...
.
.
''

...~

..

..

' ~'.. _ .`
. , ~
,:

1
I I
I I
I _ : 1
I ,. l
I ':
~.
'. .
I
I
I
I I.
1
I
I

.. I
I
1
1

_

'

j 1
-I
I,
l I
I ,
l
1 _ L
~ I '.. 1 r
_
I
I
1 ~ ~ L I
!.I
! - ~ 1
I
1 1.

- .
I

. ..

1

1 _

.
I.

- l

,. .
I ; : ~ i ~r
. ' •
,.

,
I _: ~ _ . ~

' I
I
~

.-.. I
I I
1 '~

.,
1
_

.

~
I
_ ,
1
1

f
1,
l'

' I
1
,, , ,. I
~ I
.1 ~

;,

. .
il ,
. I : ~ 1

-

:: ~
l
_ F..

. ,,
, ~

• _. I

~ _

l _

~ •. 1

I

~ ~ _ ~ I ~~
I ~ i i ~ ~ ~~

..
.. .
., .,
..
~.
.. ;.
_
.,.
J
~.
11
.:_ „_
-
'
-

',
l
1

. ,~

~
-

I
-

1 -
,:, . ,, .
1
_ .
2t o m_. .. i i i
rn

• 1
~
..' - _ I
N

, .. -

.. iy 1
as

~ ..

.
' I I

I i

i i

i
. Q
'Vt

'... _ .

.:

_ . I
•
1

I :;
r

:

. .;
•
_

~

~
~ I
I
-~
._ • _ .
_

'
i.:

~

'

I
-
1

.. :.,, ~ .. .
: _;
; _
.

1, ,,

1
•.:
..

,,

,,•
~ ~ I :.
,.
,.

_

~

/
j
• ~
7 ~
/ I
1
/
..
l `
~
.
I
J

•

~
/ l
/

• ; .. ~

:. i;

: ;'I

'1
I
,
•.: f

L.

~

-
"~
- I

I
I

•

1

1

~ ~i

,
.

i
• .. I
I
..
.I ,

l

1

I ,.

,

:

.

~.' I

i.
~

~ ~ ~

i

~~:
I
_ ,
.:
..~..
i ;
I
I j
I .. . 1
; I
~ i i
I
I ...
I
i _ 1 l
. , :. I . _ . _. 1

•
I
_
r .. ~
.i
,.
I ..

I '.
I

1

. .

1
i. :;
, ~ I .
~
~
1 . -

:

'

:

_'

.
I

I
.

~
~
.• l

., ~ •

~ ,

;

: ~
.

;
:

`
; •
1
•

I,
L
.
:.
/ _ ..

• _. .
..
.
~
.:
_
1
,

it

O
~ _ 1
,, . . I : ~
I - ~ ~ ~

I \
`
_ l
` A

~
$ ~ ~ ~\ ~
3 C17
r c7
~ I ~
~
7 ,
~ 0 1 _. .
~

1
IY ;~
~
,
. cn - ~. _
~
-
- K m
~
1b r ~
~ a ~ ~
.
' _
~ l
? ~
' : Ul
: (J1
~
. •
~ ~ ~
~ ~ . ~ ~ : .
~
~ -(n
. ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111 •_ ~ _ _ .~ .. , ~ .-. :. :. ..: ~:. ~. , ' '.
v ... ,.
. ,
; .
. .... , .
, . _
, _
. -
-- ~
-L•

DATl; Nt20U1
nee: nst::a Ara
r.\Mdw\~ova\A~~w\~\b+osa_~ ,~ t d~
. to . , to to ut. ' : ' vt , . to , cn • M ui in . : vt
i

,
,'

~

:,

_

•

_

_ ,.

_

., :..

,,.

.._.

.

_

,

..

:

_,

'.

.

i

:

i

..

.
-

.. _ -.

,
~.

,..

•

...

1 - ,• ~

,
,., , ,

I .:
p , ,

1 i '.. I. ` I -. .1 Is
.

~ . . ..
~.
.;~
' \ _ .
,. ..
' 1,
I.,
I ', I

j• -

`:1 I

1
I

, I

I 1

i
,
1 _1 '~ 1 I' i I I
I
'
I

_ I
I

I,. ::.
_
, - I

I ~

.I .,

~ ..

-~-

I 1

1

1 1,

t
-
_..

__ I
I
1 - I
I.
I . I
, i I.
1 I -
f I ,:
1
-

• I
1
I _

I
I ~

I
.,
I ,_

I.
~
t
I ~.

,

..
_
1

~ I
I
I I
I '.
~
~ I ;til cNl 1

1

\ - 1

\
..
i 1

1

I

I

.

;,

,._
._. .
1.

_ .

.. \ ,
,

. .. , 1

1

.,''.

- I 1

ii

:
_ :,1
_ ..
, .
_.
... .,

•
,

,
~ ~
I _
x'
a
1
`5
''~
' ~c _
i
cf'
1ry
~
. ,
a

I ,. hh,
6. ~ ;; ,
~ , i
~ ,
,
~.

.; I
... ~i

, • `

.' c~ ~
,_.. j
.,

.

. _

r

_

. I
I

.

.
,

1 ,,

,.

1 :.

_

;

_...

;

- .:

....
,..,

-

t

- '
i
,.
'/.
/.
/_
/
/
I
I

~ ~

1 1 1 i~r
~
I. I I,.

L.
I

1.
I
_

: I
I
I ;;

I
I, I
I
(....

,
I
,

; I
I.

,
I ..:

I

. ~

::

_,

.
...

,~ I ~ ~
~

:
I

I

, I
I

~

~ I
I

-

. a

~
_
I I 1
is I ' ~ 1 ,. ' I '', ~ I ~ t , i

'"
' -
1
'. '_.. J

.,

.,
,.

.

~.

..

".,
1 •..

I

1:

_

_ ..

.
.. I

1

I

..

_

-

.

.

~

-

.

'

I

1 ~
...

I.
I _:

1

~ I

I

:-. ~

.

_

,

.

_ Y

I

1

1

1,-

.

i

'

~•;: i. .

I

I

I
I

I

I

_ 1

,
,.

,

.

.

_

_

I
-

I

~

I

,

.. .,
I

I

:

:

.
:.

:; -

. -

-

;
.. I

r I
_
1

.'

.

._
,

. I

:
1. :

,...

1
~ .,
,
.. ,

~ ~

c
,:~

.. ..I r
~
~I

~

I ,

;:

~
I

~

:

I

1
-
1

-

I

~i
I

o
1'
, I ~ 1
1 ~
' '

.• I
I

1 '
,:
..

-
.I
.' 7

1

'"`

'.

I

'

o

I
1. ~:
1 1 ~ m iR

~r ~o . I . ~
. 11 , I ;- ~
- z

~
a

,. •

,.

:
~~
~C ~~ , _
• :,

,.

~
..

:

;

i
ro _ .., ..
• x ~
, r
~ _
-L-

DATE: b'YlOW
nA~E: n:si:s] AM
rlkdwlbJ09]\~+'aY\..~1b109] Cdr *d I.A~n
, ,

..

... I
.:.

~
~ .

.

.

.:

.. _

_

~
...

.

~

:

.
. , : '.: i
.. s . . i ..

I
,_
I

_
I.
I I
I
1
L....
1
,
1. .' I 1 1' I ,.,
I

I 1

_I
1

' I

I
I

I

_ _1

I
I

_ 1
I.
f
1
,

':

I
I
t
I
I
I.
I
~

.
_ :1
1
I <
1.. ..
1
I.
i .. . , ,

I

1'

_
1
1
L

_
1
i
~ _

:
I
V_ .:'
I

...
1
_ I :..
I

.

...: ....

~ .
: I 1
I I
1 I_,
1 , I
1 :... ,.
, :
,

I
~I
t
: _: I ..,

I

[

! I
(.
I I
I
1
I

',
' ~I i i
~. ~.. ~.

_. _ -
..
- _,
_

: . ..

:

!

'~
.
i.
.,

~,
~ o
~ ~
' ~
~ ~
_ ~ _ :.
~
.
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ `

gi
b..
"'
1 pp
O
._
i
b.._
~
-
i
a -
~
..

..

.- ~
._ ..

_..
_.

' _
:.

, ;

,

.

f

1.. ,

.
1
I

,

.

I
I
, . 1~
I,. i 1
I
_ I
I ,..
~

I ., I;
I I
1 - I_
F _ _

I
' I
1
- ~
I I
1 _ 1
.
~
I
I ~ ~ I 1 I _ 1
~. ~ ~ -

I ',
I ,
~ 1
.. 4 I '
I

s : 1

~

I
.. .

'.

-

_.

, ,

- I

I

1

- ~

_. _' . ~
I

I
'~

:

' I

.. ,
I.
I
' . I
t ' ..' .. ' , ,
~

.. .
~ __
~
__ I .
,. I.
_.... :... ~ :..'.1 I

l
,,
:.,.

' )

'....4

_ ._

.

..'.

. ~.

.
_ :.

.

..;
,

..

:. i

_

,

0
1

_ ~ - ~
~ 8 G _ _
~
8~
=r ~o ~

s

~ ~. .
..
:.
,

Y .d
r

:• ,

~
~~ :
-
-
...
..
~
_ ., x m
~r ~ ~ .~ ~

•L-

130
-A-

o.
Z

o oJ.. .W ~

;. ~ ~ ~ ~ ti N ~ W ~

_

h
Z.g ~t

, ~

a=
a
W -
ff
's
.
,
,.
..

a~

~~
$
o~.
..
~
~
-
;.

.
-

:

;

s
a
~ g
.
.
...

.

_

1`I p
,
K m .. - ~.

..

.

i .

~

..

t ..

.. ..

s
.:

r

z

,

1

:

.

.
y
..
i.
.. ~

a

.

, 1

i
_...

..
_,.

.

...

i
i

i

....

~

1

...

~~.. _:

, ..

:. r
:f

.:,.

.
,'

r

,

. -

,.

~ _.

.

,
,.

,

,.

1..

_

. i

,

,.

.

.

.

.

~ .:.

,

.

.

,

.

t

..

.

_

.
I .
I 1

~

„
,. ~ I
I.

I ::

~,

~
,
'

.
~ ~

~~~
( ..

1

~

~ . I
I

- ;
I

I

I
.

_
1

r
_

. 1
.
.
'

~

I

_

. '

..

.. I

I

_

a

.,

'

.

r

_

~

.

,::

1

I ...

., ...

, F

,..

'i __

;

1
_
_,
..
~'

__

, .

,
,.

,

'
. , . _ L_ 1
,:.
r
I; I /
. ~
~ I
1 a
I
r
~ .
_~~

....
.
,:
~_

,

~.
,.;
O
~
~ 1
~~
I
~
q

.
~i i
~
.
F ~ P i
..
~ i-.'.

'~~ °

'~ i '.
tf

~~

~: ~- ~.

i . -
~ rl t
W ~ N ._ ~ ?
1S
' W
1. 1
~
.. ~
. 1 O
'. 1 -
'

• 1

~
'~ ~ '.; ... ~ ;
1
.. 1 ~ 1
'
~

i ...
1. T ...
1
f
..
..
i,
,.
~

I
r

r
... / I i
~ y
1 ..
I 1 ..
.. ;~.
'1,
.
~
'
~
...
..

I
..

I
I
I

i
1
~
_ .
.
.
. ..; ,

t
, 1
1 j:
I a

- i

. 1
I'

~
.. .

.. ..~ I
I
'.

,, I

~

I

I

i
' I .
,1 I
1
._ , ..

.

.. ~

-
~ ... j ~
. _ .. ,
..

~.

,.,:_
..

,.:. _

;. ;
_ ,

;

.

.

.:

., ~

~

, .
•. ..

;,
,..

r

~ .,

..

_.

.

_

, .

,.
;
..

_...

_:

.

,

,

.
~,
,:. t .. i
~'P I~ C60W\ oor C60h~q ropes
wr -z rs n ~awu
-oorna aura

r
DAR: b'~2001
TIME: 11:51:21 MA
r.\rKda\bJ093\iovd+o n~ 6092
Mf n
. ~ .. 111 ,. ~ Lry. , ..., .. .117. LP .... Ln 1,17 '. ln' , 111..
,-
:
:
..
.
. ,
:
. , :. .. ,
1,
I ,
' r
o

- ..

...
.' .

.
-

..

,
~

I

'.I

..
1 .

1

-
I

.

'I; ._.

I

i:.
I_ .'

r

.
,

.

, _. ..,.
•.. ,.. ;.
_

_ I
I

I

I. . .

_

I

1

,.
I

_ i

I

I
1
_
I ,

_.

F'
I. I' I. I" ~ 1.

:

1 ,_
_.:

I

1
,

_ -

.

,.

..

_

_ I

I
1.:

: I
1
L.
I

_ I
I.
.. I
I
I '

_ 1
I
I
1

. ;..

,
I
1
1,..

_
~

f ~

,

1
.1
_ .
I ,
)
1,

' t ., i 1.,. ~:..

_ .. 1 L. ,. I

I ,

i
_

1
I :'..

.. ;..: I . I ..

'
' : I .: I ', .; I
r
:

,1

-

I

I

I
~..:

..

... ;.
,

.

~ ,

,

.
,: ,I
1
:-.
r :

'
r

'

..
~

:

:

•. ,!
,I
~..

_
- .
;I,:
,-

'; L..
. ~'>, I: ~ i.l %~
1
' it
. _

: I
' L. .,

.:

,
1

.
. 1
I 1' ~I.
~

. .
~ ~ ~
~

1
_: _ ,
I
_. , r. , .. I ~}
: , ~
I
i ~ ~i . ~I
-: ~1

.,

,

I

•

i:. ,.
,I I
~
..~
h ~'
~N hN.
~ A ~
.
j
:. ~ 1
:;
i I it .'. l
_ . ;.
N -

i ~ro
YJ

..,
a
~
_ ...
1 I 1.
I
~
,i ~~1 `1 ,~o
1

.

•, -.
~

I

_
1

,. I
1.
.'.1
_
-~

_ I 1,,,. ..

'
.~ I I
'
_ 1 ~ '.
r I; I I..
•.I
'
. ~ 1 ~ 1
I ..~ l ~
t ,

__ I .• ~.~ ~ •-
, .
-

I
'.

•
,

:
, i t.
1
. _
I
.

, 1

` ~ I ,. I• .
1
,.
. I
I

I

,.

,

. r I
1 ) 1 1 I

.: 1 _

1 '
i

:

.. ,,
-. 1
.
..
..
)
I

:~
-

. I
I

1 ,) -

...,
~l

~

.. 1

r

~,

.
~

; 1 I
I
..
I
r
I
I
~
j
I `- I
i 1 ~• - 1-
_:
I -
I J
: 1 _
1
1• -
_ ,

' 1 .,
I
1
I
, . :.
` (
. /~

R
..,
1:
:
: - 1

1
r _

_
I

i
I `

f

I

0

,,

I l
~
~ ~
,

!..

-

:.
1
..

,..

'..
.. .

,.
._

.
,. _

: __
;.

_.

..

.

.

.

, .;

;,

i
_, ,. - -
o
. .
; ..

, ,.

...,
:.

..

~

~
,
[rl z f~
,;.

.i

_

_

~; }H

~ Ct7
~ _

. ,:

.

.
-

.:

•.
~ -:

. . _ . .

:

._
.
;

~

.b
,.
_. , ..
,

"
N U1 U7 -~ lTl: ~11_ . U1
7. z In ~, - Vl : ~
. In - Vl -
•

DET

a,rE: daaooE
TIME: 11:51:25 AM
. lh - .: lJl Ch _.. Ch ,. , lJl ' - . ~ Lail. ~ .. L~21 .: ~ 111 ~ ` ~' ~ ~ ~~~ ~. i ~ ,..~ '. (~ .
:. ~..

-.
;..
...
.

.

: . . ,

:.:

.

, ,
. . ~
:_ -
_ ::

.
....
_ , . ,

~:
.; . .

,,

r

;
.:.
.
. ,

..:

-

,

.
-

.
I

1
1 ;. .~ . : ;'

l '

.,
~,

'.

1

I

.
'

1
J 1

~

'
., _. ..
,
I

_
. 1:
I.
. ,
~
":
':. :. .
'
1
1
'.
I
, .:
..
- . , ,
I
f:
.., ; .:,
(

:
_ -

~ I
1 ..' ,

,

I

I

,
;
l:

. , I°,'

f

!
1 _
.'
I : ...

1

,
~::
~

if

"
I
I
.,
f
~
~ ..
I
i
~
~
~
..
;.

t f I _ .
..
~ l ._ I
I
..
f

- .. ( .
\ _

_ I I `, I.
;'; I.

I
~. _
I ..
-
~. d'

I ~

_

.
.. ~ ., I -
_ 1, _
I ~

, I
_

_
~ I
- _ _ '1
~ - '
1 f ~ -
tl ~ II
~~ .. ' _. 11. ~
~
: ,
' ~I
II I .
;
_.:
~1:
~ _ i
:
I ,

~

,

11 I

. 11
.I
il ~f

,. il
Ali '
1 I

. ..:.
il- ;..
~,
_ it
.I
;~

: .
it
~~

,~ ~
,I
;I
I ...
~'
.:..~

..
11
iI
{I _
~a

7
1
a

I I
~I

.

::

' f
_
1
~,

, .,

.I
I
1
1

1.

-
- I

I
_ ..
I

I
~ 1

... _

; ..

_ ,;
-
..

i -

::

.:..

,

-

I
`j;
-

.., r s ~ n~

;
-

' f ....
f. .: _
~
;

.

- ..

:,

i . _
.
. ,,
i, •
t _
- .
:

`

;
~
'
a ..
. . . _.

~

.
.
f
-

I
~
- - _ ~ .. f I ,rte ..
.,
k~
r
l
~
,
f
~ I
._ mwb I ..:: .... : ~ s r: :: t ~ _ ~U ~ 1 ~
I,
~g~ ~ I. ~

:: I .
,:

~
~ ... _ f
l;
~

I i
I
_

• ,.. ,
..

f

;
I

I
1
i

:~

1

1

1

1

f I I ~ ~ , ~

1 ~
_. ~...

i

~.. I '

;~

1

1

-
... ,~ :.
1 •
/ 1 ~
.
. I ~ -
;. . 1 ~
~ :

_.
r
~
~ ..
•~

.:

;
~

~

~

~
~

C

;
' ~ /
J~ 11
.. ~

-' , [ / `1 I
.: .. I' l
, _ 1
~ ~ ~ i

.

;
_

/

.,
.,

1
_
1

i

•..

'

~

. 1

%

-
I ,
/~ ., :
_ ~
I ~
~
i.
f
`
1
.' ~~
_. ' I _ ~ ~ ~
\
I.
1 _. _ _ ... a ~

:: r

I
.. .. I ' - t I
1, • , ~
;~
•
I f
I
,_
-

~

I

.
I
~ I
~ r
:
.

_: ~

,.. '
.

~.

,.. I

,
,.
•
..
.. _
_
..
., ..

,;

,. t
_,. , .
_.
;:

;.

.

,

.

'
:
-'

.-

a
_..

, .. _..
,..
;

_'

,

:

.

,

_ ,

,..:,

.

_
,....

,.. ,

m

~
~ 8Z ~
$
r
~~
~ ,.
~
..~ .,. _ ,.
z
~~ r - - °
_
8^~ im . .
`
,, _ ,.
.
~'

' - x ~
b
r ~
~ :~
~ . ,.
CO
2 N ' .. (n .: ~ ~ -. ~ Vl' ~
- (J7 .: Vl' - ~. ~,' ~' LR . ~ ~ ~ Ln Ul Vl _ G1 (II, ' lJl
. . . .
DET

. .. Vl ~ SJt _ U7 Lx1.. . Ul Ul '. ~. f ~

.

. ~ .,

i ,,

:

-

:
~

.
-
,
.

.. ;

.

.
. ,

,

.:
~-

, ,

. ',

'

..

... . .; -

-
_

..

~ ~

.

i
I\ I
,
.
,. I: I I I
I
I .
_ I
I 1
I _ L
L I'
~:

' I

I

..

I
I ,. I

I _ .
1

I

~

I
I

I
I
-.
.,..

).
I

I

I ,-

1.
1

,

;

I
I

1 ._
I
..

I.,

~
I
I ~ _ I .:
1 .:
I :._..
I I, ~
1 I
1
_ _ ~
4+ . .. I ~. .: I
' :.
. '
:
1

I I

I .
I
1 _

~ . _:1

1
_
.. 1

I I.

I
~ I I I I.
\ ~ ' - 1. - ~
\ I i
I
t ...

. ~

,
I l '

~ . :, . 1 - :.: I y
..
:`

I, , L,.
I ~ .. II - , ~ t ~
~
' ` . i i:::
_,. I
I,

I

,

,
l 4
ij it i
: l ~ ,
::
t ~
i~ i
:. it
; -
, ! ,

1
I
I

~

:
it
I
.I
it :..
~I
11 ..

'
~I:
,L.
i
I

_
~j
~
it
..
I'

I
-.
l -

I
I 1
f '-
1
,
•

- .
, I

_=
I,
I 1 ., :.
r. it
~ ii
~

•

_,

-

,

-

' I
1, I
i
- ,
i
(
1

_

:

~
;
. .

i ~

~
.

.: .._. I....

1_ ,..
,
..

_

.

_ .

_

~
I:

,

'
' I - - _

-. ~a I

i.
_

~~

~~

~a ~

~
o

,. ~~~ o

i ~

~

~~. 1
1
I

.. .-
i, :'

I I _

- ..
}Qopj
I 1
I 1: ~
I
~~ t

-,
_ I

I
I.
.:
I
-

~ ' ~ ~
..

•

I 1
;'
-

.

.
'
..I.

1

I

1

.. I'
~..
~ ,

'
,

1

.
.

. ~

_

i

.. :.
~ .

.

1

,

~.

.,
1

~
~ :,
I ~
' r

'
I.. 1 ~.
i'
'

-'.

i

I

~
I I _
. ~' I ' I ~ I
.. ~ ~

'- r i

, 1

,
I'

..

,
,.

..
,

,

I
-
.. ~.,
,I ..
, ,a~
-/

1 „

.
_

1 I

I

. ~
' ,. /,.
'
_

..

.; ..

: r
.I
.
I
,..
.. ~
~ _. r
1.

': ,

. 1

1

~~I
1
;
i
I
.: :!

F
I I
1

1 _

_ .~

,.

~ __
.

..

~.
`. _

_

,.

;

. 1
r ~

1

, ,1

,
I

I

.

.

_ '

o
1,

_ ,-. ~
•
.I

- 1

r 1

,

.
,. :
,.
.

,..
.. - . ...
.
.-

-

.
,:.

~

.._,

:
_

o

:. "

, .

..

_

::

.

;

.
.. .,
_
..

,.

..

,.

,

,

m
~
g g7 _
~
S ~~
>
_
'`
`
-
,- .
;.• ~
:.
_
d~ .. -
-
~
~a ~

_.
;. .
.

_

_

r
~
oy
~.

,. ,

DET

..~.

., ..

,.

,

.

_ ,
,.

::

.

_

,

,,. ..
_

.

.
.... .

_

.

_

:

.

.

,,;

o
I
I
I
I ,
_

.
,.

. ;;

. _
..

- ...

I L
I ,'
,.:

I
L .
I

I

-

_

_ : I __
'. I '
I

_I
..
I,

I .

I ..

r

~
_ _.
I

I

I .

'

,

-

_
I
I
I
I I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
_ I

,

':

_

1 I

I

I: _
I
I'

I
I
1

I

.

~ ...

_

1

,.

.
I
I

-
L
I
.

.

' I

f
,
I 1
I
- - 1 `. ~ I
.. ..

. _: I
I

I

_1
I
_:
I

.,
I.

I ,,

I
L .

;..

'

~' I
i.
I
.• I
I
I ~ I ,.
I

I ..
I
~.

,. I
I

I
I
_

:
1
I

I

~.
it
i
i

I

1 I_

I
~
~. I

-I
I
I

.

-

'

:

' ,
;I it . I `
:'

. I I , .

'I
~I r

.il ;

I
'
i)

it

.
y

~r~
11
1

I _,...

:,

I

li

~I

I

. -

3
~I
1 I ..
~I _ ~

I
it .
I
~ I
I

I

~. ' I

~ .. ~
I
I
1 11

11

I
-
' ~
, ~,
v - ~ 1 I I I
~ ~ ..

} I
1
I
' I
w
_.. I
I .
~ .
i
I
..` =
I
~: - -
~- ,,; =

I -
~ ., I
I

I
,
,
._

.

..

.. ,.
I
I.:

I I
I :
I I +'
_
I
I
i,
..
I
I

" I.

I. ..

- ~,

.
I'
I'
I

I

,

.

~

I

I

,

.
''. I i
I
I

, i

I
I

I

;
1
1

~

'
I

::.
I
i
I I I
I _ ~ ,
I
~

i

.. I.
I

I

.

_

_.

.
.

'
;
:1

:

_

... ... ..
I _. - ,
:

. I
I
, I
I ,I
I
I

'. ,. ; _

_: ~ '.
l
~
I

;
.: ,

. I

I

I
I

~

I `1

1

' ..:
_
_
~'
..

.

.. .:..
...
,...

,

.

.

,

.. ,

..

0
.. ,,.
~
,

~.

.

...

.

8~
$Z - ~ ... - - _
I
w
S ~~ 0

.

~r

~ `.

_
..

o

~

DET

•A•
. ~-

o

~
m

~
ti„

: ~

o

h

~

d
~.
n aE
~
~ .. _
-
-

~.. wr ~~

~ .
_ ,_ , .

~

z

^s .!.
.....
. ...
,.
.'. -.
- ..'
-. -.
.. ...-
..
..
-

.
.
.

b 5
L . .
i
U
w
~
•
~ - ,
. .
-
za
g ... .._. .. .: ,;; . _ a
w m
.
~ •

_.. ..
_.,
_, . _
_ .

,.

.. _

-

_

-

.

.
,
_.

,.:-

,

:
,
.
,. .: , .
..

„

. _

,.
,

.

.

- ..
_

.._

~:_

.
,....

. , _

_

.. , _
,

.

.-

-.

~

...

~

-

.
.~.

'

~
`•,

~

-

~'

l
'
I
i

,.

.- : .
.i

..
I.

;

:

~

l

1

. I

..,

..~ I
I I
1
1
~
i :~
I
;i 1

.:' r

I
~

.. 1

- I

I
.
I

1
1
1. 1,

t

1
r ,

-

1
I

I

I
1 - 1
.,1 , . 1
.

I

~'
/

1
~:
1 I':
I
1 : /
i 1
1 1 .

- . ... _ . ,. ~ ._ _.. _ , .
.
I
,_ .: ,.
r
I
1

: -
~' J
I ..

~

- I~
_' ~

':, ~

/ !
l:

, I
1

_ I .
~
~

~
,.
i

~ ..

.

_ i .
, ~
1
~ 1

~
1

'
p ~ Q
s
r 1 ,
1
~ W
..: ~,~. W ._: .'. _ is Nh .. _ .. l
aN
~ -... ~ i~
~x I
1~~
~ _
I ~ 1
X.._
1 ..:.

;

. 41

~
~

. ~
5
I
f
~ 4!
~
' ~

~..
:. : '' .
. ,..

~

~
1
I

I

; ....

..: ..
..
.,

t
-r

...

.

- ..
~,.
1 .

.

:

' i
,.
_
,

'

1

1

-
,, .; , ` ;
,
,:

.

~
_:
...
..

"

1
1

I. . .

_
I

1
~
' ,.

~
..
~
'
I
~
..

.'
1

~
r
I

I
I
i
1
I
I
I-
I
' _. I .. 1
1

.r

~

' {
~ '
/ ''

_.. _ _.
.:
...

o

~ !.
.
•
~.
~ ~

1W iLRS~II 9WIl
-OOLYN ~71~4
1
~ . ~ ~ ~ ' ~

Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. 8-4093
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved
~~3! 03
Date
13103
Dat
~~ 2~~
~~Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
~al~'J. Voelker
Actin Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration

Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. B-4093
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
January 2003
Iona .Hauser
Senior Environmental Planner
David . Wilver, P.E.
Project Manager
for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
eresa Hart, P.E., PM
Consultant Unit Head
z. ~-~.
Document Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc.
Torn M. Penney, P.E. ^~
Project Planning Engineer

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Cumberland County
S R 1728
Bridge No. 81 Over Gum Log Creek;
Federal Aid Project No.: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project No.: 8.2443501
TIP No.: B-4093
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Special Conditions,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
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:
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase
have been incorporated into the design and were standard commitments. Current
status, changes, or additions to the project commitments as shown in the environmental
document for the project are printed in italic font.
Design Services/Roadside Environmental/Division 6 Construction
Ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
This standard will be implemented during construction to the best ability of the
Department in coordination with existing standards and laws.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be placed on/a long the
temporary detour to ensure minimal degradation of Gum Log Creek.
This environmental commitment will be addressed during design and will be
implemented during construction of the project.
Design Services/ Division 6 Construction
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to
the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain all
necessary permits.
This standard will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project.
Division 6 Construction
Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to only what is necessary to perform
the bridge demolition/removal and construction of the replacement structure and what is
permitted. Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream
channel in order to minimize sedimentation arid reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
B-4093 Green Sheet Page 1 of 2
Categorical Exclusion
December 30, 2002

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Division 6 Construction
All work shall be preformed during low flow conditions
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project.
63093 Green Sheet Page 2 of 2
Categorical Exclusion
December 30, 2002

Cumberland County
SR 1728
Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek
Federal-Aid Project: BRZ-1728(1)
State Project: 8.2443501
T.I.P. No. B-4093
Bridge No. 81 is included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location of this bridge is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated that Bridge No. 81 has a sufficiency rating
of 49 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.
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek in
Cumberland County (See Figure 1). Gum Log Creek is in the Cape Fear River Basin. The area
of the drainage basin for the creek at the subject location is 31 square miles ~(80 square
kilometers).
The existing Bridge No. 81 consists of six (6) spans of approximately 17 feet (5.3 meters (m))
each. Total length of the existing bridge is 104 feet (31.7 m) with a bed to crown height of 19
feet (5.7 m). Construction consists of concrete deck on timber beams and timber bents with
concrete spread footings and timber abutments. There are two 11 foot travel lanes and a total
of 26 feet (7.9 m) clear roadway width. The existing bridge is in a horizontal tangent and is
skewed 90 degrees to the roadway. Vertical grade on the bridge is relatively flat. The grade of
the north approach falls toward the bridge with the sag located on the south approach
approximately 100 feet (30.5 m) from the bridge. Both approaches are in horizontal tangent
with good sight distances (See Figure 3). The south approach begins to curve approximately
500 feet (152.4 m) from the bridge.
There are no utilities attached to the bridge. Overhead power and telephone line run parallel to
the upstream side of the bridge, and there is a buried waterline upstream of the bridge.
1

According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance floodwater has been approximately 10 feet (3.0 m)
above normal water surface elevation. Attempts to corroborate this information with local
residents were unsuccessful. There was no debris accumulation or scour was observed. The
channel banks appear to be stable with trees and small bushes. There were no wetlands
observed at the bridge. There are no structures or utilities observed in the floodplain except
those mentioned above. Bridge scour information for the existing bridge is not available, as it
has not been assessed due to insufficient substructure data.
The posted speed limit is 55 MPH. The 2001 average daily traffic volume is 2,800 vehicles per
day (vpd). The projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 5,400 vpd by the year 2025.
Currently 12 school buses (six (6) in AM and six (6) in PM) use this bridge daily.
Six accidents were reported in the vicinity of this bridge during the period from January 1,
1997 to July 31, 2000. None of the accidents resulted in personal injury, however six
involved property damage.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Proj®ct Description
The recommended Bridga length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis in conjunction
with a field reconnaissance of the site, the proposed replacement structure is a bridge
approximately 120 feet (36.6 m) long. The grade of the roadway will be approximately the
same as the existing road. A minimum grade of three tenths (0.3) of a percent should be
maintained to facilitate deck drainage. The length of the proposed bridge and the
recommended roadway elevation may be adjusted (increased or decreased) to
accommodate design floods as determined in the final hydrologic study and hydraulic
design.
B. Build Alternatives (Figure 2)
The alternative for replacing Bridge No. 81 is described below.
Alternate 1 (Preferred) includes replacement of the existing 104 foot (ft) (31.7 meter (m)]
structure with a new structure in the same location as the existing structure. The proposed
structure will consist of two 12 foot travel lanes and two 3 foot shoulders for a total clear
roadway width of 30 feet (9.2 m). The new structure will be approximately 120 ft (36.6 m) in
length and 33 ft (10.1 m) wide. The approach work will extend from approximately 270 ft (82
m) north to approximately 270 ft (82 m) south of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained with a temporary on-site detour located approximately 10 ft (3 m) east of the
existing structure. Approach work for the temporary detour will extend from approximately
480 ft (146 m) north to 460 ft (140 m) south of the temporary pipe culvert structure utilizing
2

M
three (3) 84 inch corrugated steel pipe. The total project length including the temporary
detour is approximately 1050 ft (320 m).
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternate 2 includes replacement of the existing approximately 104 ft (31.7 m) two lane
bridge with a new two lane structure approximately 20 ft (6 m) upstream of the existing
structure. The new structure will be approximately 120 ft (36 m) in length. The approach
work will extend from approximately 820 ft (250 m) north to approximately 900 ft (274 m)
south of the existing structure. The total project length is approximately 1840 ft (560 m) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
No Action Alternate The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate removal of
the bridge effectively removing the westbound section of HWY 74 from traffic service.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 1 is the preferred alternate. It proposes to replacement of the existing 104 foot (ft)
[31.7 meter (m)] structure with a new structure in the same location as the existing structure.
Alternate 1 was selected because of fewer impacts to streams, better horizontal alignment,
and lower construction costs. NCDOT Division 6 Engineer concurs with the preferred
alternative and on site detour.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1: Estimated Cost
Alternate 1
Preferred Alternate 2
Structure Removal Existin $18,880 $18,880
Structure Pro osed $270,000 $270,000
Detour and A roaches $41,850 $0
Roadwa A roaches $440,100 $509,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $261,170 $272,720
En ineerin and Contin encies $168,000 $178,700
ROW/Const. Easement/Utilities $58,000 $59,875

Total $1,258,000 $1,309,875
3

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of natural resources in the project
study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) a delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters and preparation of a map depicting the
jurisdictional areas based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data; 2) an assessment of
natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation,
wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 3) an evaluation of
probable impacts resulting from construction and alternatives; and 4) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
The project study area is located on SR 1728 over Gum Log Canal, in Cumberland County,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The bridge is located approximately one tenth (0.1) of a mile (0.2
km) northeast of the intersection SR 1714 and SR 1728. The project study area comprises
an area approximately 2000 ft (610 m) in length and approximately 400 ft (122 m) in width.
The project study area is rural in nature and consists of a mixture of forested areas and
agricultural land
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
quadrangle topographic mapping [Polkton, NC (USGS 1970) and Russellville, NC (USGS
1971)], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping,
the Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina (United States Department of Agriculture
2000) as prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and recent
aerial photography (scale 1:2400) furnished by Wilbur Smith Associates.
Aerial photography served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant
community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field verified.
Plant community descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names generally follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Jurisdictional surface waters
(i.e., streams) were delineated pursuant to current COE and North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) protocol. All jurisdictional areas were located using TrimbleT"' GPS
4

A .
units and the collected data were differentially corrected and plotted to produce working
maps and site plans.
Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was obtained from the Yadkin-Pee
Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (DWQ 1998), and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using
current DWQ protocol. Fish populations were sampled using seine and dip nets. Fisheries
sampling is conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) under North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) Permit # 0616.
Additional resources utilized for this natural systems investigation include the most recent
list (March 7, 2002) of federally Threatened and Endangered species by county published
by FWS. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were also
reviewed on June 4, 2001 and periodically updated to determine if there are any
documented cases of listed species occurring within three (3) miles (mi) [4.8 kilometers
(km)] of the project study area (most recent update February 25, 2002). Habitat used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive
documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992,
Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995).
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level to gently
sloping. Elevations in the project study area range from 75 to 90 ft (23 to 27 m) above mean
sea level (USGS 1997).
The project study area crosses three soil mapping units (USDA 1984). Non-hydric soil
mapping units present within the project study area include the Altavista fine sandy loam
(Aquic Hapludults) and Wickham fine sandy loam (Typic Hapludults). Wickham fine sandy
loam is non-hydric but may contain hydric inclusions of Roanoke soils (Typic Ochraquu/ts)
that are found in depressions. The hydric soil mapping unit in the project study area is
mapped as the Roanoke and Wahee loam (Typic Ochraquu/ts) that are poorly drained soils.
5

C. Water Resources
1. Water Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-06-15 of the Cape Fear River
Basin (DENR 1999) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030004 (USGS 1974). Gum
Log Canal originates approximately one (1) mi (1.6 km) west of the intersection of US
301 and Walker Road and flows southwest to its confluence with Locks Creek,
approximately one tenth (0.1) of a mile (0.2 km) south of the project study area. Gum
Log Canal, from its source to Locks Creek, has been assigned Stream Index Number
(SIN) 18-28-1 by the DWQ. An unnamed tributary (UT) flows southwest into Gum Log
Canal and runs parallel to SR 1728. The UT to Gum Log Canal has not been assigned
a separate SIN by the DWQ.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based
on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams
in the basin. Gum Log Canal has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C (DEM
1993, DENR 2002a). The C designation indicates waters that support aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact with water on an
infrequent or incidental basis. The UT to Gum Log Canal has not been assigned a
separate Best Usage Classification, and therefore shares the Best Usage Classification
of its receiving waters, C.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-II
Waters occur within three (3) mi (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study
area (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a). Neither Gum Log Canal nor the UT to Gum Log Canal
are designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as a national Wild and
Scenic River.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates permits for
projects involving the construction, alteration, and/or operation of any sewer system,
treatment works or disposal system and certain stormwater runoff which would result in
a discharge into surface waters (DPA 1991). There are three permitted point source
dischargers located downstream of the project study area on the Cape Fear River. They
are listed in Table 2 below (DENR 2002b).
6

Table 2. NPDES Permitted Discharaes.
Permit Facility Receiving
Stream Discharge
(MGD)* Distance from
Study Area
NC0023957 PWC/Fayetteville-Cross Cape Fear River 22 1.3 mi (2.1 km)
Creek WWTP downstream
NC0076783 PWC/Fayetteville-Hoffer Cape Fear River Not limited 3.0 mi (4.8 km)
WTP downstream
NC0050105 PWC/Fayetteville-Rockfish Cape Fear River 14 3.0 mi (4.8 km)
Creek downstream
'Million Gallons per Day
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in
water quality at monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates
(DEM 1989). This program has been replaced by the benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring program associated with the basinwide assessment for the Cape Fear River
Basin (DENR 1999). DWQ assigns bioclassifications to streams and portions of streams
based on species richness and overall biomass, which are considered reflections of
water quality. The closest benthic monitoring station is located five tenths (0.5) of a mile
(0.8 km) downstream from the project study area at Person Street over the Cape Fear
River. This monitoring station received a bioclassification of Good-Fair in 1993 (DENR
2002c, DENR 1999). There are no benthic monitoring stations located on the UT to
Gum Log Canal.
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of
Biotic Integrity (NCIBt), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health
of the fish community. Neither Gum Log Canal nor its tributaries have been sampled to
determine a NCIBI score as of the most recent Water Gluality Management Plan (DENR
1999).
3. Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Gum Log Canal is not designated as Trout Waters or an Anadromous Fish Spawning
Area. There are no federally Threatened and Endangered species documented within
three (3) mi (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area. It is ESI's
opinion that this project can be classified as a Case 3 by the BMPs for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (NCDOT 1999). Case 3 bridge replacements have no special restrictions
beyond those outlined in the BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999). However, this project may be elevated
to a Case 2 at the discretion of the NCW RC in the event that a moratorium is established
to protect sunfish (Lepomis spp.). Case 2 allows no work at all in the water during the
moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into
nursery areas (NCDOT 1999). If a sunfish moratorium is established, in-stream work
would likely be banned during March 15 through June 30.
7

Y
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled
Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs), as well as
guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek resulting from demolition.
The superstructure consists of reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. Although these
components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any components
into Gum Log Canal, the potential exists for temporary fill of up to 35 cubic yards (27
cubic meters).
The substructure consists of three interior bents located within the stream channel.
These bents are creosote timbers with piles encased in concrete. Although these
components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any components
into Gum Log Canal, the potential exists for temporary fill up to 35 cubic yards (27 cubic
meters).
Bridge components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any
bridge components into Gum Log Canal. However, due to the presence of reinforced
concrete in the superstructure of the bridge and piles encased in concrete, the potential
exists for up to approximately 70 cubic yards (54 cubic meters) of temporary fill being
excavated from Gum Log Canal as a result of demolition activities.
During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including erosion
control measures; therefore it is anticipated that removing the existing bents will result in
no impact to surrounding surface waters
After construction activities are completed, abandoned existing approaches associated
with the existing structure should be removed and revegetated in accordance with
NCDOT guidelines.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. BMPs can minimize impacts during construction,
including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures, and
avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas. Additional measures which can be taken
to minimize water quality impacts include avoiding the placement of live concrete directly
into the stream channel and preventing heavy equipment operations from being
conducted in the stream channel.
8

Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or
increased shade due to the construction of the bridges, and changes in stormwater flows
due to changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels,
can be anticipated as a result of this project. However, due to the limited amount of
overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in
nature.
In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to
aquatic resources/organisms. Any specific moratorium dates will be determined by the
NCWRC. No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from
the alternatives being considered. The proposed project calls for reducing the structure
from two spans to a single span structure across Gum Log Canal, which will allow for
continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby protecting
stream integrity.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Existing Vegetation Patterns
Terrestrial distribution and composition of vegetation communities throughout the project
study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past
and present land use practices. When appropriate, the vegetation community names
have been adopted and modified from the NHP classification system (Schafale and
Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local variations within the project
study area. One natural community was identified within the project study area: Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest. In addition to this natural community, there are also areas of
agricultural land and maintained/disturbed land.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest -These forests occur in mesic upland areas protected
from fire. These forests occur primarily on north facing bluffs and ravine slopes, less
commonly on upland flats or islands surrounded by peatland or swamp communities.
The mesic mixed hardwood forest within the project study area is located southwest of
SR 1728 adjacent to Gum Log Canal. The canopy consists American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), white oak (Quercus albs), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak
(Quercus nigra), and black gum (Nyssa sylvafica). The shrub layer consists of flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida) and mountain laurel (Ka/mia latifolia).
Agricultural Land -The agricultural land within the project study area includes such
areas as livestock pasture and plowed fields used for production of crops. The pasture
is currently being used for production of cattle and crop production and occupies most of
9

the project study area north of SR 1728. Vegetation in this pasture is limited to hardy
grasses and weeds such as wild onion (Allium canadense), dandelion (Taraxacum
officina/e), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), and fescue (Festuca sp.).
Maintained/Disturbed Land -The maintained/disturbed land within the project study area
include residential homes, roadsides, industrial areas, and dirt roads/driveways. The
vegetation within these areas includes ornamentals such as flowering dogwood, river
birch (Betula nigra), azalea (Rhododendron spp.), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Herbaceous vegetation is limited to invasive weeds and grasses including broomsedge,
wild onion, rye grass (Lolium sp.), fescue, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
and other maintained grasses.
2. Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Potential impacts to vegetation communities are estimated based on the area of each
community present within the proposed construction limits provided by Wilbur Smith
Associates. A summary of potential vegetation community impacts is presented in Table
3 in acres (ac) and hectares (ha).
Table 3. Potential Impacts to Veaetation Communities.
Potential Impacts
Acres hectares
VEGETATION Alternative 1 Preferred Alternative 2
COMMUNITY
Impacts Temp.
Construction
I m acts
Impacts Temp.
Construction
I m actse
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.60 0.24 0.63 0.26 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.06
A ricultural Land 0.17 0.07 0.38 0.15 1.49 0.60 0.25 0.10
Maintained/Disturbed Land 0.22 0.09 0.90 0.36 0.97 0.39 0.47 0.19
Total: 0.99 0.40 1.91 0.77 2.58 1.04 0.86 0.35
Total For Alternative : 2.90 1.17 3.44 1.39
~ Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not -nciuaea m the
construction limits for the permanent structure.
b Totals for vegetation communities do not include the open water area attributed to Gum Log Canal
impervious road surface.
Potential impacts associated with a bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. The
two alternatives presented above minimize potential impacts to the adjacent Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest. Alternative 2 concentrates potential impacts in the
maintained/disturbed land and has the least amount of potential impacts to Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest. This alternative calls for the replacement of the existing structure,
which will reduce permanent impacts to natural plant communities and limit community
fragmentation. Alternative 1 has the least amount of total potential impacts while
10

minimizing potential impacts to agriculture lands through the reduction in the amount of
roadway approach work required.
3. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Little evidence of wildlife was observed during the field effort. Forests along streams
such as Gum Log Canal provide cover and food and function as a migration corridor
linking areas of more optimal habitats. Other expected wildlife species are those
adapted to ecotones between the maintained roadsides and adjacent natural
communities.
a. Terrestrial
One bird species was observed within the project study area, tufted titmouse (Parus
bicolor). Other species expected to occur within the project study area include such
species as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), white-breasted nuthatch
(Sitfa carolinensis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), and common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula).
One mammal was observed within the project study area, gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis). Other species expected to be found in and around the project study
area include raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected
to occur within the project study area include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus),
and black rat snake (Elaphe obso/eta).
Terrestrial amphibian species observed within the project study area include squirrel
treefrog (Hyla squirella) and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). Other species
expected to occur within the project study area include white-spotted slimy
salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans).
11

b. Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes Gum Log Canal
and its unnamed tributary. Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electro-shocking
and visual observation of stream banks and channel within the project study area
were conducted in Gum Log Canal and the UT to Gum Log Canal to document the
resident aquatic wildlife populations.
Benthic invertebrate organisms collected within the project study area were identified
to at least Order, Family and species, if possible (McCafferty 1998). Gum Log Canal
was sampled and the following organisms were identified including Asiatic clams
(Corbicula fluminea), snails (Gastropoda), fishflies (Megaloptera: Corydalidae),
dragonflies (Odonota: Gomphidae), crayfish (Decapoda), flies (Chironomidae:
Simuliidae, Dixidae), mayflies (Trichoptera: Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae,
Caenidae, Baetidae), stoneflies (Plcoptera), beetles (Coleoptera: Elmidae,
Dryopidae), and caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae, Phryganeidae,
Philopotamidae, and Polycentropodidae).
The UT to Gum Log Canal was sampled and contained the following organisms:
scuds (Amphipoda), sow bugs (Isopoda), snails (Gastropoda), fingernail clams
(Sphaeriidae), caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae), alderflies (Megaloptera:
Sialidae), flies (Diptera: Chironomidae), mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae,
Baetidae), water bugs (Hemiptera: Corixidae, Veliidae), dragonflies and damselflies
(Odonata: Calopterygidae, Protoneuridae, Gomphidae, Libellulidae), and beetles
(Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae, Haliplidae, Chrysomelidae, Elmidae, Curculionidae)
(McCafferty 1998).
Fish species collected from Gum Log Canal include pirate perch (Aphredoderus
sayanus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), and tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi).
The UT to Gum Log Canal was also sampled and contained largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia ho/brook~).
No aquatic reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected
to occur within the project study area include brown watersnake (Nerodia taxispilota),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), and
eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
12

Green frog (Rana clamitans melanota) was the only aquatic amphibian species
observed within the project study area. Other species expected to occur within the
project study area include species such as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), southern
leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
4. Potential Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known animal
populations. Wildlife movement corridors are not expected to be significantly altered by
the proposed project. Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided
by bridging Gum Log Canal to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition,
temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction
are expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute minimum, except
for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs) will be followed to minimize
impacts due to anticipated bridge demolition. BMPs for the protection of surface should
be strictly enforced to reduce impacts.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Gum Log Canal and the UT to Gum Log
Canal are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters in Gum Log Canal
within the project study area exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial,
unconsolidated bottom, cobble-gravel (R2UB1) waters (Cowardin et al. 1979). The
waters in the UT to Gum Log Canal within the project study area exhibit characteristics
of riverine, intermittent, unconsolidated bottom, sand bottom (R4U62) waters (Cowardin
et al. 1979).
Gum Log Canal is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
cobble-gravel and sand. The main channel is 25 ft (8 m) wide and an average of five (5)
ft (2 m) deep. A geomorphic characterization of the stream section within the project
study area indicates that Gum Log Canal is a "C" type stream (Rosgen 1996). These
stream types occur in broad, alluvial valleys with terraces and have variable sinuosity.
"C" channels also have well-developed floodplains and point bars in the meander bends.
The "C" designation indicates that the stream is slightly entrenched with well-defined
meandering channels (Rosgen 1996).
13

The UT to Gum Log Canal is approximately three (3) ft (1 m) wide and an average of two
(2) ft (0.6 m) deep. The geomorphic characterization of the tributary indicates that the
tributary is a "G" type stream (Rosgen 1996). These stream types occur in narrow
valleys and are unstable, with grade control problems and high bank erosion rates. The
"G" designation indicates that the stream is an entrenched "gully" with a low width/depth
ratio on moderate gradients (Rosgen 1996).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches [31 centimeters (cm)J the surface
for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on this three
parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands do not occur within the project study area.
2. Potential Impacts to Waters of the United States
Potential impacts to wetlands and open water areas are estimated based on the amount
of each jurisdictional area within the proposed construction limits. Open water areas of
Gum Log Canal (R2UB1) are included in this table, although impacts are not expected
due to the use of channel-spanning structures. During Bridge Removal Procedures,
NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including Erosion Control Measures. Therefore it is
anticipated that removing the existing bents will result in no impact to surrounding
surface waters. A summary of potential jurisdictional impacts is presented in Table 4 in
acres and hectares or linear feet and meters, as appropriate.
Tahla d Pntential Imnartc to .h~ricrlirtinnal Araac
Potential Wetland Impacts
Acres hectares)
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Alternative 1 (Preferred) Alternative 2

Impacts Temporary
Construction
Im acts
Impacts Temporary
Construction
Im actsg
R2UB1 Gum Lo Canal 0.02 0.01 0.63 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03
R4UB2 UT Gum Lo Canal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total: 0.02 0.01 0.63 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03
Total Wetland Im acts: 0.65 0.26 0.10 0.04
Potential Stream Impacts
Linear feet meters
Gum Lo Canal 40 12 150 46 35 11 125 38
UT Gum Lo Canal 0 0 0 0
Total: 40 12 150 46 35 11 125 38
Total Stream Im acts: 190 58 160 49
~ Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not -nciuaea -n the
construction limits for the permanent structure.
14

Both alternatives avoid potential impacts to UT Gum Log Canal. Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 each have the same amount of potential impacts, 0.02 ac (0.01 ha).
Alternative 1 has the largest amount of temporary impacts, 0.63 ac (0.25 ha).
Alternative 2 minimizes temporary impacts for Gum Log Canal to 125 linear ft (38 m).
Both alternatives include use of a channel spanning structure that would avoid impacts
to Gum Log Canal. The current alternatives will result in no wetland impacts associated
with construction.
a. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR
330.5(a)(23)) has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact.
DWGl has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However,
use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will
not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by
the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if
this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be required if temporary structures,
work, and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary for this project and not
covered within the CE.
4. Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance -Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the project
study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The proposed alternative avoids
impacts to wetlands. Wetland and stream impacts are previously discussed in Section
V.E.1.
Minimization -The alternatives presented were developed in part to demonstrate
minimization of stream impacts. Impacts to the stream will be minimized during
demolition by removing bridge components in a manner, which will avoid dropping any
components into the creek channel. Bridge demolition impacts have been previously
discussed in Section V.C.4. Employing 2 to 1 slopes where practicable can further
minimize wetland impacts.
Mitigation -Compensatory mitigation is not anticipated for this project due to the limited
nature of project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to
minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas within the stream channel.
Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by
replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of any temporary fill material
15

within the floodplain upon project completion. Final mitigation requirements rest with the
COE. Mitigation may be required for wetland impacts less than one tenth (0.1) if an acre
(>0.04 ha).
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are
listed for Cumberland County, see Table 5, US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list
dated March 7, 2002).
Table 5. Federally Protected Species.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
American alligator
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
Saint Francis' satyr
Small-whorled pogonia
Pondberry
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Michaux's sumac
American chaffseed
Alligator mississippiensis
Picoides borealis
Neonympha mitchellii
francisci
Isotria medeoloides
Lindera melissifolia
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Rhus michauxii
Schwalbea americana
T(S/A) N/A
E No Effect
E No Effect
T No Effect
E No Effect
E No Effect
E Not Likely to
Adversely Effect
E No Effect
American alligator -American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in
appearance to other federally listed crocodilians; however, there are no other
crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of
freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large
streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.
Biological Conclusion: Not applicable
NHP records indicate that the American alligator has been documented from the
Cape Fear River two and three tenths (2.3) of a mile (3.7 km) northwest of the
project study area. Potentially suitable habitat for American alligator does exist
within the project study area, however, a biological conclusion is not required since
this species is listed as T (S/A) by FWS.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) -This small woodpecker, seven (7) to eight and
one half (8.5) inches (19.3 to 23.4 cm) long, has a black head, prominent white cheek
16

patch, and black-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades)
behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980).
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by
loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P. serotina)
pines (Henry 1989). Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than
60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur
in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). Foraging habitat is comprised
of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. Pine flatwoods or
pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as
ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory
may result in abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark
around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance
that allows for easy detection of active nest trees (Henry 1989).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project study area does not contain potentially suitable foraging and/or nesting
habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. No pine-dominated tracts of land exist
within the project study area, which are ideal nesting and foraging communities for
the woodpecker. This project will have no impact on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
A review of NHP records revealed no documentation of this species within three (3)
mi (4.8 km) of the project study area.
Saint Francis' satyr -The Saint Francis' satyr is one of the rarest butterflies in eastern
North America and is known from one locality in North Carolina. The butterfly is fairly
small and dark brown in color. The wingspan ranges from 1.3 to 1.7 inches (3.3 to 4.3
cm) (FWS 1996). The Saint Francis' satyr has conspicuous eyespots on the lower
surfaces of the wings, which are dark maroon-brown in the center surrounded by a
yellow border. The outermost border is dark brown. The habitat required for this species
consists primarily of open wet meadows dominated by wetland graminoids (grasses,
sedges, rushes). Larval host plants are also believed to be graminoids.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No open grass/sedge dominated wetlands occur within the project study area, which
offer ideal habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr. Since no potentially suitable habitat for
the Saint Francis' satyr exists within the project study area, this project will not
impact the species. NHP and FWS records indicate this listed subspecies is known
to occur at only one locality, an artillery range at Fort Bragg.
Small whorled pogonia -The small whorled pogonia is asmall-flowered terrestrial
orchid which grows to about one (1) ft (0.3 m) high. It has a greenish or purplish stem
and a whorl of five drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded and pointed leaves
17

(Radford et al. 1968). The single, nearly stalkless flower is yellowish green, about one
half (0.5) of an inch (1.3 cm) long and is surrounded by three (3) narrow sepals less than
one (1) inch (2.5 cm) long. Flower production is from May to June, followed by an erect
ellipsoidal capsule less than one (1) inch (2.5 cm) long. This species is found on moist
hardwood slopes and along stream bottoms (Radford et al. 1968), usually in association
with white pine (Pinus sirobus) (Weakley 1993); it sometimes remains dormant up to 10
years between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977). The small whorled pogonia is
widespread but very local in distribution, inhabiting the Mountains and upper Piedmont
from southern Maine to northern Georgia (Weakley 1993).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No forested areas dominated by white pine are located within the project study area
that would provide potentially suitable habitat for this species. Forested slopes within
the project study area, while hardwood dominated, do not contain the white pine
component that is typically found in association with small whorled pogonia.
Therefore, potentially suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project
study area and this project will not impact this species. A review of NHP records
revealed no documentation of this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project
study area.
Pondberry (southern spicebush) - Pondberry is a deciduous shrub with a limited
distribution occurring in two portions of the southeastern United States, the Mississippi
Valley and the Coastal Plain of the Carolinas (FWS 1993). Within the two portions of its
range, pondberry is known to occupy different habitats. While pondberry is known from
hardwood depressional areas with perched water tables in the Mississippi Valley, in the
Carolinas pondberry occurs along margins of sink holes, ponds, and depressions in
pinelands (FWS 1993). Within North Carolina, potential habitat for pondberry is
described as: 1) shallow ponds with a sandy substrate, especially sites containing the
shrub pondspice (Litsea aestiva/is); and 2) Carolina bays containing a combination of
pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) with loblolly pine and red maple (Acer rubrum)
(Leonard 1995).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat in the form of Carolina bays, sinkholes, or other
seasonally flooded wetlands does not occur in the project study area. A review of
NHP records revealed no documentation of this species within three (3.0) mi (4.8
km) of the project study area. Therefore, construction of the proposed project will not
result in any impacts to this species.
Rough-leaved loosestrife -The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial
that often reaches the height of two (2) ft (0.6 m); its leaves are sessile and entire, in
18

whorls of three (3) to four (4). Five-petaled yellow flowers, approximately one half (0.5)
of an inch (1.3 cm) across, are produced on a loose terminal raceme from late May to
June; seeds are formed by August, but the small, rounded capsules do not dehisce until
October. Preferred habitat of the rough-leaved loosestrife consists of the ecotone
between longleaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where lack of canopy
vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. This species is fire maintained;
suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in our state.
Drainage of habitat may also have adverse effects on the plant (FWS 1994).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for this species in the form of the ecotonal zones between
pocosins and sandhills or isolated openings within pocosin wetlands does not occur
in the project study area. A review of NHP records revealed no documentation of
this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project study area. Therefore,
construction of the proposed project will not result in any impacts to this species.
Mlchaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous
shrub, usually less than two (2) ft (0.6 m) high. The alternate, compound leaves consist
of nine (9) to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be
slightly winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced
during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters
followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac
tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other
disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility rights-of-way. In the
Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or
sandy soil derived from granite; in the sandhills, it prefers loamy swales (Weakley 1993).
Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain
and lower Piedmont.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac exists within the project study area
along roadside margins and other similarly disturbed plant communities. A
systematic survey of all potentially suitable habitat was conducted by ESI biologists
in June 2001 during the flowering season for this species. No individuals of
Michaux's sumac were observed during the survey. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project should not affect Michaux's sumac. A review of NHP records
revealed no documentation of this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project
study area.
American chaffseed - Chaffseed is a perennial root-parasitic herb that stands 12 to 24
inches (31 to 61 cm) tall. The alternately-leaved plant is erect and simple, or branched
19

only at the base. The fleshy leaves are yellow-green or dull green with red undertones,
and become smaller and narrower from the base of the plant to the top (Kral 1983).
Flowers are arranged on a spike-like raceme and bloom from April to June. Chaffseed
occurs in grass/sedge assemblages with moist acidic sandy loams or sandy peat loams.
These assemblages typically exist in moist pine flatwoods, savannas, bog borders, and
open oak woods.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for this species in the form of open, frequently burned
long leaf pine savannas does not occur in the project study area. The shrub layer in
forested areas within the project study area is too dense to provide potentially
suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, construction of the proposed project
should not affect American chaffseed. A review of NHP records revealed no
documentation of this species within three (3) mi (4.8 km) of the project study area.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The March 7, 2002 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under
the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso
1999, LeGrand et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for the
following FSC species listed for Cumberland County (Table 6).
THIS SECTION INTENTIONAL LEFT BLANK
20

Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC).
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Statusa
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis N SC
Southern hognose snake Heterdon simus N SR
(PSC)
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus me/ano/eucus N SC
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito N SC(PT)
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Y T (PE)
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Y T (PE)
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana N E
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii N T
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula N C-SC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata N E-SC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium irido/lae N E-SC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea N E
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis N C
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii N C
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxum N T
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata N W 1
Carolina grass-of- Parnassia caroliniana N E
Parnassus
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii (=integrifolium var. N W1
mabryanum)
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confe-voides N C
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia N E
ecristata)
Sandhills pixie-moss Pyxidanthera barbu/ata var. brevifolia N E
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa N T
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra N E
Spring-flowering
goldenrod Solidago verna N T
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii N E
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra N C
Roughleaf yellow-eyed Xyris scabrifolia N C
crass
° E - Endangered, T -Threatened, SC -Special Concern, C -Candidate, W -Watch List, P -
Proposed, SR -Significantly Rare.
NHP records indicate that one (1) FSC species has been documented within three (3) mi
(4.8 km) of the project study area. The yellow lampmussel has been documented two
(2) mi (3.2 km) northwest of the project study area in the Cape Fear River. This
occurrence is approximately six (6) river miles (10 km) from the project study area.
21

,,
3. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
In addition to the above referenced FSC which also carries a North Carolina listing, the
eastern coral snake [Micrurus fulvius, SR (PE)] has been documented two and one half
(2.5) mi (4.0 km) northwest of the project study area. Two state protected mussel
species have been found in the Cape Fear River two (2) mi (3.2 km) northwest of the
project study area: pod lance (Elliptio folliculata), and the Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis). The occurrences of these mussel species is approximately six (6) river
miles (10 km) from the project study area.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical 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 projects) on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
In a November 5, 2001 memorandum, see Appendix, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) state "no comment" regarding this project. Afield survey of the
Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on March 19, 2002. The HPO concurred
that there are no eligible structures within the APE on April 12, 2002. A concurrence form
was signed which documents these finding and is found in the appendix.
22

C. Archaeology
Based on the November 5, 2001 memorandum from the HPO, see attached, denoting "no
comment" regarding this project and a review by NCDOT Archaeological staff it was
determined that the proposed project will not impact any archaeological sites that are
eligible for the NRHP.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacements of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project does not conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from 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 anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of
this project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or the representatives to
consider potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils be all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
23

This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Any noise levels increases 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 SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 722) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
As Examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department
of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in
the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were taken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the
project development with a scoping letter. Additionally, 67 newsletters detailing the alternatives
considered were mailed to citizens in the vicinity of the project. Newsletters were also mailed to
local officials. Two comments were received from citizens; both supported the bridge
replacement but were concerned right-of-way requirements for the project.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments were received from Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, North
Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, State Historic Preservation Office, and
local officials. Responses to the project scoping letter were not received from NCDENR
Division of Water Quality.
24

r .
X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pp 321-409 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's
Endangered Species. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg,
Va.
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontidae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 75pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. Water Quality Stream
Classifications Downloaded from http;//h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alphaold/yad. html
on19 February 2002..
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES Permits.
http;//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/download.xls on19 February 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002c. Biological Assessment
Unit. http://www.esb.enr.stae.nc.us/BAUwww/benthosdata.pdf on 19 February 2002..
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Ouality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Qualityt (DWQ). 1998. Yadkin- Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh..
Division of Planning and Assessment (DPA). 1991. North Carolina Environmental Permit
Directory. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.122). U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 28 pp.
25

r
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Atlanta, Georgia. 13pp.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. A Status Surrey for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
Freshwater Mussel Endemic to the Carolinas. Report prepared for the U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. 51 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh. 90 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
pP•
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
448pp. .
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management Practices For
Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Porter, D.M., and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991. Vascular Plants. Pp.51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.),
Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1138 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
26

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (CD-ROM).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1983 Polkton National Wetlands Inventory Map
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983 Russellville National Wetlands Inventory Map
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the
Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 28
PP•
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (FWS) 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern, By County, In North Carolina. Asheville, NC. 51 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1970 Polkton Quadrangle.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1971 Russellville Quadrangle.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
27

m
`` GRID d. 81 ~ '°'
~ r ~
I ..,.,..
K
!,~ ~-+
~ .~
1~ ,~
~ .
ux s ~~ , E ~ .°, ~
r
m
~~,~ s
~ ~ L
a.
.~
1
1
•e ~ \`
-~.
•- ~ `~--
~ o` ~~ ~i r ----
~-----~
'.
,` ~',!~~
~I ~. / u~t ~~,
cT
r ~ °~r ~It -.~\
~~ 4 /
a+ i `\`.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
• ~tv~^ar v ~aa~~s~
~-o~wcr M~~r ~
anuo~o~r~t. tuts ^t~
.0 9RIDfi6 NQ dI
SR 1721 OIBR OtlA/ I.00 CANAL
CUM~SRLAND COUNTY
D-~I9t~
VICIIITITY MAP
PlOURB I

Y
y 44th;
'G F C~7
h~
y0
~ ~~ a
~~ ~ ~ h
~o o x
~ g~~~ ~~
~ ~ xa ~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ V
• ~
~O ~
S n ~ n
1NlOd JNIH ~ M
V ~ ~
o ~ ~~
s~/.~ o~ ~ ~ I $ x
~ ~ w~ o
,. ~ $ ~
N o1 a. ~ s1 w
N ~, ~ ~ S~
. ~
~/ O
1NIOd 39NIN ~ ~ ~'+
U
w a,
~ ,~ ~ ~ ~
1Nl d JNIH ~:; C
e ~ ~
a
o ~ ~ ~ M ~ y
ry, ~ ~
J ~N 4 ~
w~ y Q
~O ~L g N ~ V
~~ ~
~ ~ A ~ ~
~°

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilnungton District
Action ID: 200101375
County: Cumberland
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Requestor: Authorized Agent:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager Josh Witherspoon
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Environmental Services Inc.
1548 Mail Service Center 524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548 Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Size and Location of Project (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): TIP Project No. B-
4093, Bridge No. 81 on SR-1728 over Locks Creek, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination: Onsite field inspection of jurisdictional area.
On October 10, 2001, the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional line as field delineated by the
NCDOT and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project/comdor. The project site was inspected and the
delineated jurisdictional line was found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The field delineated
jurisdictional limits, as shown on the attached plan(s), can be relied on for project planning and impact assessment.
This verification is valid for five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Any placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional limits will require
Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
USC 1344). Any un-authorized placement of dredged or fill material within the delineated jurisdictional
limits would be a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311) and subject to
enforcement action. If you have any questions regazding this verification or the Corps of Engineers'
regulatory program, please contact Mr. Richard K. Spencer at 910-251-4172.
Project Manager Signature
Richard .Spencer
Date October 24.2001
Expiration Date October 24.2006
Attachments

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Otrice Box 93726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276963726
July 15, 2002
Mr. Mike Penny
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Penny:
This responds to your letter of October 3, 2001, requesting comments on nine bridge replacement
projects. Five of these projects aze within the area covered by this office. Our biologist working
on projects ofthe North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) at that time, Tom
McCartney, requested survey data on federally protected species from the consultant, Wilbur
Smith Associates. The requested information was supplied to the Service in late March 2002 at
Mr. McCartney's retirement. In the transition to a new NCDOT biologist, the new material was
filed under the assumption that comments had been provided. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) regrets the delay in providing these comments and appreciates your efforts to bring this
oversight to our attention. This report provides scoping information in accordance with
provisions ofthe Fish and Wildlife, Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section
7 ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report
also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The bridges scheduled for replacement aze:
1. B-3680, Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 1 S/501 over CSX Railroad;
2. B-3830, Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp;
3. B-4093, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
4. B-4205, Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 over Doomas Creek, and;
5. B-4273, Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 on US 401 over the Lumber River
General Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands
For each project, we recommend the following conservation measures to avoid or minimize
adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical as
outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Areas

exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region
should be avoided. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur
outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
2. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along or adjacent to existing, roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
.areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. At the completion of
construction, the entire detour area, including any previous detours from past construction
activities, should be entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with
appropriate, endemic vegetation, including trees if necessary;
3. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project plaruiing should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset;
4. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning, and sensitive pre-adult
life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February l5 -June l5;
5. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and,
6. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species for which the Service
remains concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the
conservation status of these taxa. Although FSCs receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every
reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
Federally Protected Species
The Natural Resources Technical Reports (NRTR) make determinations that a project will not
affect a particular species, primarily plants, based on surveys in the recent past. If actual
construction is several years away, the Service believes such determinations are premature and
2

that additional surveys will be required. It would be more appropriate to note that suitable
habitat or the actual species was not found during preliminary surveys and such evidence
provides early indications that the project is not likely to adversely affect the species.
Effect determinations for plants based on surveys within the project area may require work at a
particular time of year for accurate identification. The biological conclusions of the NCDOT for
plants should include the time of year that a survey was conducted, the person hours of
surveying, and the approximate size of the area surveyed. Surveys should be done within two or
three years of actual construction for those species inhabiting stable and/or climax communities.
Plant species that utilize disturbed communities, e.g., Michaux sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), should be done within two years of actual
construction if vegetation disturbing activities, e.g., regular mowing or timber harvesting, occur
at the project site.
If surveys for a federally protected species should determine that a given project would adversely
affect the species, a biological assessment (BA) may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2)
requirement and in determining whether formal consultation with the Service is necessary.
Please notify this office with the results of the surveys for the listed species that may occur in the
project area. Please include survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the action,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
Project Specific Comments
B-3680 (Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 15/501 over CSX Railroad)
The NRTR presents three design alternatives for the bridge replacement that vary in
environmental impacts. Based on Table 2 (p. 8), the Service recommends Alternative 1 since it
is the only alternative that would avoid all impacts to Piedmont alluvial forest and has the least
amount of impacts on mixed mesic hardwood forest. Table 3 shows that impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands for the Alternatives 1-3 are 1.10, 1.44, and 2.85 acres, respectively. However, these
tabular data do not seem to con espond to the photographic presentation of the alternatives.
These figures indicate that Alternative 2 would avoid most wetlands in the project area while
Alternative 1 would cross a wetland just east of US 1. The Service recommends future design
work seek to further minimize impacts to wetlands, especially forested wetlands which provide
valuable wildlife habitat.
The NRTR accurately notes the four federally protected species for Moore County. The report
states that habitat for the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) (Picoides borealis), and American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) do not exist in the
project area. Surveys for Michaux sumac (Rhus michauxii) did not find the plant. Data on
known locations of these species available to the Service indicate that they have not been found
in the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, current data suggests that the project will not
impact species protected by the ESA.
3

B-3830 (Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp)
The NRTR for these two bridge replacements has not been released and design alternatives are
still under consideration. The major issues for this project include impacts to wetlands, state-
designed Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) that flow into Lake Waccamaw, and the Federally
threatened Waccamaw silverside (WS) (Menidia eztensa), a small (1.2 to 2.6 inches) fish
endemic to the lake where it occurs in schools near the surface in open water. Furthermore,
critical .habitat has been designated for the WS that includes all of the lake up to the mean high
water level that generally includes the lower reaches of stream flowing into the lake up to SR
1947. If a temporary detour bridge is required, this structure should be on the side of the existing
structure away (north) from the lake. Such placement would avoid issues of adverse
modification to critical habitat. Impacts can also be minimized by not installing "weep holes" or
other structures on the bridge that would allow run-off or degrade water quality in the creek or
lake. Overall, water run-off from structures should be minimized or avoided if at all possible.
The NCDOT should use BMPs and effective sediment and erosion control measures to minimize
debris and sediment entering the creek and lake. Finally, potential impacts would be minimized
if construction is performed outside the WS spawning period of March through July.
The wetlands in the project enhance the water quality of Lake Waccamaw and provide high
quality fish and wildlife habitat. Every effort should be made to minimize temporary impacts
and avoid the permanent loss of such areas.
In addition to the WS, the other federally protected species in Columbus County include the
RCW, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). The NCDOT should determine project impacts on these
species through either a thorough comparison of habitat requirements with conditions at the site
or actual field surveys.
The Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehkei), a FSC, has been reported near the project site.
These small fish occur in heavy vegetated shallows of ponds, sloughs, and creeks. This FSC
would benefit from all measures to preserve water quality and prevent the loss of vegetated
wetlands.
B-4093 (Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 [Middle Road] over Gum Log
Canal)
The NRTR states that two alternatives are under consideration for the project. Alternative 1.
would construct the new bridge at the same location and use a temporary detour bridge.
Alternative 2 would construct a new bridge approximately 20 feet upstream of the existing
structure. Both alternatives would have the same permanent impacts, 0.02 acre, on jurisdictional
wetlands. If Alternative 2 is implemented, the NCDOT should discuss the removal of the
existing structure and the restoration of the waterway and associated wetlands at that site.
4

The Service does not concur with the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a Federally threatened perennial
plant. This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. The
NRTR states that the species is characteristic of moist hardwood slopes and along stream
bottoms "usually" in association with white pine. The Biological Conclusion (p. 14) is based on
the absence of hardwood forests "dominated" by white pine. We do not believe that this plant
requires woodlands with, or dominated by, white pine, but that white pine is often present in the
forests containing the plant. The Service recommends that future conclusions be based on field
surveys.
In general, the Service can accept the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the RCW, Saint Francis satyr (Neonympha rnitchellii francisci), pondberry (Lindera
melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife, Michaux's sumac, and American chaffseed. Records
available to the Service indicate that none of the listed species of Cumberland County have been
reported to occur near the project site.
Table 5 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area.. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa). The Service recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control
be used during all construction to minimize any impacts to these mussel species.
B-4205 (Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 [Lovejoy Road) over Dumas
[Doomas] Creek)
Some documents for the project state that the bridge crosses Doomas Creek while other
documents give the name as Dumas Creek. We will use the latter in our comments and future
planning document should indicate the correct name.
The NRTR considers three alternatives, a new structure immediately downstream (Alternative 1),
anew structure immediately upstream (Alternative 2), and replacement at the existing location
with offsite detours on existing roads (Alternative 3). Table 2 (p. 12) presents impacts to
jurisdictional water and wetlands. While there are only minor differences in impacts to wetlands,
Alternative 1 has much greater permanent impacts to Dumas Creek (232 feet) versus the 32 feet
for both Alternatives 2 and 3. The Service does not support Alternative 1 and would recommend
Altemative 3.
The NRTR presents a biological conclusion for three federally listed animals and two plants. All
conclusions are that the project would have no effects on these species. The conclusions for the
three animals, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), eastern cougaz (Fells concolor
couguar), and RCW were based on the absence of suitable habitat or, in the case of the cougaz,
the absence of recent evidence that the species exists in the area. The conclusions for the two
plants, Schweintz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata) were based on field surveys which appear adequate. Occun ence data presently
available to the Service indicate that the species most likely to occur near the project are

Schweintz's sunflower and Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), a FSC. The NCDOT
should carefully monitor the project area prior to construction to ensure that Schweintz's
sunflower does not colonize the area.
Table 4 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Brook floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), and Carolina creekshell. The Service
recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control be used during all construction to
minimize any impacts to these mussels species.
B-4273 (Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 On US 401 over the Lumber River)
The NRTR considers two alternatives: replacement at a new location, approximately 70 feet
upstream of the existing structure (Alternative 1) and replacement at the same location
(Alternative 2). Table 1 indicates that Alternative 2 would have less impacts on important plant
communities such as cypress-gum swamp and coastal plains bottomland hardwoods. Table 2
shows that Alternative 2 would have less impacts (2.46 acres) on jurisdictional wetlands than
Alternative 1 (4.45 acres). Based on these data, the Service considers Alternative 2 to be the
least damaging to fish and wildlife habitat in the project area.
Table 3 accurately reflects the federally protected species known to occur in Scotland and Hoke
Counties. The determinations that the project would have no effect on four species (RCW, Saint
Francis' satyr, rough-leaved loosestrife, and American chaffseed) based on an absence of suitable
habitat appear accurate. The systematic surveys for two plants with potential habitat, Canby's
dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) and Michaux's sumac, did not find these species and present
sufficient evidence that the species do not occur in the project area in June 2001. Occurrence
data available to the Service indicate that no Federally protected species have been reported in
the project area.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us of the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of these bridge replacements. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact Howazd Hall at 919-856-4520, Ext. 27.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
Garland B. Pazdue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Super-visor
6

cc: Ted Bisterfeld, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC

Federal Aid # BRZ-1728(1) TIP # B-4093 County: Cumberland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
On 04/ 12/2002, representatives of the
[~ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
[~i Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[~/ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
~ Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
~ Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
[~/ There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
[~ There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
hist rical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
OD~r ~ eS ~ - ~ is considered not eligible for the National
RegisterTand no further evaluation of it is necessary.
~/ There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
[]/ All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
y(~ There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach arty notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
FHWA, for th~ivision Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Date
J"-' r ~~I
~ ~~ lL-`~ l c,}~,
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

~Y / - j V
~~Yd~~s~ I T\~~\~ V v
~? ~ _
-, Orr+•~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
November 5, 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. 81 on SR 1728 over Gtun Log Creek, B-4093,
Cumberland County, ER 02-7903
Thank you for your letter of September 26, 2001, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources, which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
,:.:~-
`~
Location Mailing Address Telep6one/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
Restoration S 1 S N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning S IS N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801

October 19, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
1549 Mail Service Center r~ ~ ~ ''~-~~',
Raliegh, NC 27699-1549 n`~ ~
Subject: RE: Bride Replacement Proiects
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letters dated September 26, 2001 regarding the review of nine bridge replacement
projects. The North Carolina Division of Emergency Management has reviewed the proposed projects
and would like to provide comments to the Department of Transportation.
My staff has reviewed the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for your project areas. The majority of
these projects are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, also know as the 100-year floodplain. Please
ensure that the proposed projects do not cause an increase in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in these
areas and that they comply with Nation Flood Insurance Program guidelines.
Projects Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4009, Bridge No. 33 in Anson County -Zone A
• B-3830, Bridge No. 363 in Columbus County -Zone A
• B-4205, Bridge No. 133 in Montgomery County -Zone A
• B-4273, Bridge No. 37 in Scotland County -Zone A
• B-3908, Bridge No. 246 in Stanly County -Zone A
• B-3909, Bridge No. 99 in Stanly County -Zone A
• B-4276, Bridge No. 33 in Stanly County -Zone AS
Projects Not Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4093, Bridge No. 81 in Cumberland County - Zone B (500-year floodplain)
• B-3680, Bridge No. 2 in Moore County - Zone X (500-year floodplain)
The Division of Emergency Management does not oversee the routing of Emergency Response Units on
a day-to-day basis. However, utilizing off-site detour routes has the potential to increase response times
of these units, especially if alternate routes are not available. Your agency should contact local
emergency management officials or the local representatives responsible for roadways. NCEM would
1830-B Tillery Place.• Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affu~native Action Employer

also like to advise that you pay close attention to roadways that have been identified as evacuation routes
and the potential impacts your projects may have on evacuation travel.
If you have any further questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Steve
Garrett at [phone], extension 349.
Sincerely,
l
Gavin Smith, Ph.D.
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
205 West Cabacrus Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Ai~irmative Action Employer

~ ~ •~ 1110. • ~ '. ~~ ~ -
1 w t ~ ~(i' - 1171 ~ o. _ ~~ •,f•'~ ~+ _.ny,
•
{ ~ '' i
et'lr 1119, 1r S- + _ ~ r . c ~ •.r~~ rr ~ .~_ v s apt S f r ~~~ 3 x r
} ~ --•S;C~fr• - ~` ~ i 'I•v..~ 0171 raar ~ ' ~•~, 1
3~ f.• f ~ F 4 y P
• ~ x
.~,y~~`y.'+t ,~,. i . .. ~: ,,.' ~• . .0111 ~ ..rb.u
t ~.
~~,_+'.. ~ ski ~ rs v~ ~~ i + M~
4 ' ~
~~ `;~ ~ ~, ~~ ,x is ~'n . u s -~ "' ~ ' ~ r . ~ ~ ..
'~l)Nr~1K.~'~.d141: ;a.~r/. 4~, u .- ~~~ ~~+..1'~.t u%y "n'[/~ f' N ~ ~C ••_
N . r , o •I r i.a'!$1 cy 4i ' A+"j'ik i ~,- + I; q. • -4e}; ~:~ 7e!r ~4:'~~ ~ ~1+
'a;.. ~ ` F:r'~ 4 y ' h~a N n r j~i'+~r;~rF i Ei / J yyG+~ ( '<T_.Y :H ' Y.
V ~ Fi"} sl G.t~S FF a¢t ~f w ~. tu. Jtw Ati',~~ # ~ • • ~ ` t~
may. „ ~ : ~,
FMS(. ~ r "-~~~ • +~• ~ :~ t .
_ .y * f
\ l ~ _Af ~ 5 •~ • t
"Y.}_jn
-""~!5 l ~ ~ 1 flip ~ 9, ~
~;tl~ ry t~: ,• eC (, p s~} ~tft t~,} a ;, ay ; a ,b.:. ~'!~'' ~ + f yam: ~ , 1
• r tl FSyrt F~ y t
~.•.•. of ~.~ } yF- •f ~ '!• ~ ~ ~~Y'~~. i:...:.
k~•a.1 il.. x k,_ ~ ~ .i Y`. L~aa~a ~. 'S~~' ;~ s F~:+ k-,» sti..
_. 0, • • •
.. ~ ~ ~ ••
±~ ••..
. r`~~ ~
• •R ~ •
• \ I • ' r '
Name: VANDER Location: 17 700748E 3886778 N
Date: 10/102001 Caption: Cumberland Courriya 8.4093
Sole: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Bridge no. 81 on S 1728 over Gum Log Canal. L=1048
W=27.38 yr built 1983 .
. ~-

• ZONE C ~+ ~ z
~, ,~~~ . .
i ~ i,yy..,..:.;:.;.
\~
~~
usl ZOI .~~NT~~
1 IL~4~?~JII
20NE B I APPROXIMATE SCALE
1000 0 1000 FEET-
)
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RAh
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ZONE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NO~tTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 130 OF 295
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
~ ~
/ ~ /'
O\\ . ~
i
• ~ ~'
p ~,~' ~ ~ COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
`~ ~~ ° ,: 370076 0130 B
.~,. ,~~
~~ •
• " EFf ECTIVE DATE:
9 -
•' '~ FEBRUARY 17, 1982
•.
• e
•
~.~~ •., • Federal Emergency Management Agenc
,' O ~.
o • •
0 ~'-
~ g\\ Ina Cem ;'`~:

,rlohn M. Gillis. Jr., Chair
~ Cumberland County
Clifton McNeill, Jr.. Vice-Chair
Cumberland County
David Avetette,
Cumberland County
Dallas Byrd, Town of Stedman
Charles C. Moms,
Town of Linden
October 11, 2001
'~ ~ ~ ~~ Barry A. Warren
I 3
Planning Director
~~ ~~
~N Joe W. Mullinax,
Town of Sprang Lake
COUNTY of CUMBERLAND JertyOlsen,
Wade, Falcon
~ & Godwin
Cumberland County .Ioint Planning Board Dr. Mar;on Gillis-olion,
.. • • ~, Cumberland County
William D. Gilmore, PE
Project Development and Analysis Branch
N549 Mai Servi of Centeportation 4Cj ~ 5 ?
Raleigh NC 27699-1549 `~~~

' ;.
,~
:~~
'•~,.:;
Subject: B-4093, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Middle Road (SR 1728) is on the Fayetteville Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan
as a Major Thoroughfare with a recommended Cross Section "D° (five lanes,
curb and gutter) on a 90-foot right-of--way. We request that the new bridge
accommodate this cross section. In addition, this road is on our Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, and we are also requesting a walkway on one side.
A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is included for your information.
Cumberland County's Emergency Management Director has reviewed the
proposal with the County Fire Marshall, and they see no problem with either an
on- or off-site detour.
If you need additional information, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Barry A. Warren
Planning Director
Attachment
cc: J. Lee Warren, Jr., County Board of Commissioners Chair
Robert Stanger, PE, County Engineer
Doc Nunnery, County Emergency Management Director
LiOGillespieStree- •PostO~ce Bor /819 •f'avegerille, North Carolina 18301-1819 •(910% 618-76!10 •For: (9/Q) 678-7611

a ~ ~' ,,

NATtONAI FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 125 OF 295
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370076 0125 B
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FEBRUARY 17, 1982
Federal Emergency Management Agency

~I
r
h~
ZONE C
e

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field OE~ice
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
July 15, 2002
,a
~~ ~-
Y~;~ ~ ~~
Mr. Mike Penny ~ a - ,) .~
j ~" 1~ ,..
North Carolina Department of Transportation i,.~ ;
Project Development and Environmental Analysis t,,, ~°~ ;•
1548 Mail Service Center ""~f~ ~~"~is ~ '~~`
~Y f~Cinirnn,•w~
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 -
Dear Mr. Penny:
This responds to your letter of October 3, 2001, requesting comments on nine bridge replacement
projects. Five of these projects are within the area covered,by this office. Our biologist working
on projects of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) at that time, Tom
McCartney, requested survey data on federally protected species from the consultant, Wilbur
Smith Associates. The requested information was supplied to the Service in late March 2002 at
Mr. McCartney's retirement. In the transition to a new NCDOT biologist, the new material was
filed under the assumption that comments had been provided. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) regrets the delay in providing these comments and appreciates your efforts to bring this
oversight to our attention. This report provides scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife, Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section
7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report
also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The bridges scheduled for replacement are:
i~16 B-3680, Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 15/501 over CSX Railroad;
n~ B-3830, Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp;
(~~13. B-4093, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
vt~~~. B-4205, Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 over Doomas Creek, and;
~ ~ ~B-4273, Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 on US 401 over the Lumber River
General Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands
For each project, we recommend the following conservation measures to avoid or minimize
adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical as
outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Areas

exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region
should be avoided. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur
outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
2. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along or adjacent to existing, roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. At the completion of
construction, the entire detour area, including any previous detours from past construction
activities, should be entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with
appropriate, endemic vegetation, including trees if necessary;
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset;
4. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning, and sensitive pre-adult
life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 15;
Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and,
6. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species for which the Service
remains concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the
conservation status of these taxa. Although FSCs receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every
reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
Federally Protected Species
The Natural Resources Technical Reports (NRTR) make determinations that a project will not
affect a particular species, primarily plants, based on surveys in the recent past. If actual
construction is several years away, the Service believes such determinations are premature and
2

that additional surveys will be required. It would be more appropriate to note that suitable
habitat or the actual species was not found during preliminary surveys and such evidence
provides early indications that the project is not likely to adversely affect the species.
Effect determinations for plants based on surveys within the project area may require work at a
particular time of year for accurate identification. The biological conclusions of the NCDOT for
plants should include the time of year that a survey was conducted, the person hours of
surveying, and the approximate size of the area surveyed. Surveys should be done within two or
three years of actual construction for those species inhabiting stable and/or climax communities.
Plant species that utilize disturbed communities, e.g., Michaux sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), should be done within two years of actual
construction if vegetation disturbing activities, e.g., regular mowing or timber harvesting, occur
at the project site.
If surveys for a federally protected species should determine that a given project would adversely
affect the species, a biological assessment (BA) may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2)
requirement and in determining whether formal consultation with the Service is necessary.
Please notify this office with the results of the surveys for the listed species that may occur in the
project area. Please include survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the action,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
Project Specific Comments
B-3680 (Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 15/501 over CSX Railroad)
The NRTR presents three design alternatives for the bridge replacement that vary in
environmental impacts. Based on Table 2 (p. 8), the Service recommends Alternative 1 since it
is the only alternative that would avoid all impacts to Piedmont alluvial forest and has the least
amount of impacts on mixed mesic hardwood forest. Table 3 shows that impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands for the Alternatives 1-3 are 1.10, 1.44, and 2.85 acres, respectively. However, these
tabular data do not seem to correspond to the photographic presentation of the alternatives.
These figures indicate that Alternative 2 would avoid most wetlands in the project area while
Alternative 1 would cross a wetland just east of US 1. The Service recommends future design
work seek to further minimize impacts to wetlands, especially forested wetlands which provide
valuable wildlife habitat.
The NRTR accurately notes the four federally protected species for Moore County. The report
states that habitat for the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) (Picoides borealis), and American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) do not exist in the
project area. Surveys for Michaux sumac (Rhus michauxii) did not find the plant. Data on
known locations of these species available to the Service indicate that they have not been found
in the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, current data suggests that the project will not
impact species protected by the ESA.
3

B-3830 (Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp)
The NRTR for these two bridge replacements has not been released and design alternatives are
still under consideration. The major issues for this project include impacts to wetlands, state-
designed Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) that flow into Lake Waccamaw, and the Federally
threatened Waccamaw silverside (WS) (Menidia extensa), a small (1.2 to 2.6 inches) fish
endemic to the lake where it occurs in schools near the surface in open water. Furthermore,
critical habitat has been designated for the WS that includes all of the lake up to the mean high
water level that generally includes the lower reaches of stream flowing into the lake up to SR
1947. If a temporary detour bridge is required, this structure should be on the side of the existing
structure away (north) from the lake. Such placement would avoid issues of adverse
modification to critical habitat. Impacts can also be minimized by not installing "weep holes" or
other structures on the bridge that would allow run-off or degrade water quality in the creek or
lake. Overall, water run-off from structures should be minimized or avoided if at all possible.
The NCDOT should use BMPs and effective sediment and erosion control measures to minimize
debris and sediment entering the creek and lake. Finally, potential impacts would be minimized
if construction is performed outside the WS spawning peripd of March through July.
The wetlands in the project enhance the water quality of Lake Waccamaw and provide high
quality fish and wildlife habitat. Every effort should be made to minimize temporary impacts
and avoid the permanent loss of such areas.
In addition to the WS, the other federally protected species in Columbus County include the
RCW, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). The NCDOT should determine project impacts on these
species through either a thorough comparison of habitat requirements with conditions at the site
or actual field surveys.
The Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehkei), a FSC, has been reported near the project site.
These small fish occur in heavy vegetated shallows of ponds, sloughs, and creeks. This FSC
would benefit from all measures to preserve water quality and prevent the loss of vegetated
wetlands.
B-4093 (Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 [Middle Road] over Gum Log
Canal)
The NRTR states that two alternatives are under consideration for the project. Alternative 1.
would construct the new bridge at the same location and use a temporary detour bridge.
Alternative 2 would construct a new bridge approximately 20 feet upstream of the existing
structure. Both alternatives would have the same permanent impacts, 0.02 acre, on jurisdictional
wetlands. If Alternative 2 is implemented, the NCDOT should discuss the removal of the
existing structure and the restoration of the waterway and associated wetlands at that site.
4

The Service does not concur with the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a Federally threatened perennial
plant. This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. The
NRTR states that the species is characteristic of moist hardwood slopes and along stream
bottoms "usually" in association with white pine. The Biological Conclusion (p. 14) is based on
the absence of hardwood forests "dominated" by white pine. We do not believe that this plant
requires woodlands with, or dominated by, white pine, but that white pine is often present in the
forests containing the plant. The Service recommends that future conclusions be based on field
surveys.
In general, the Service can accept the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the RCW, Saint Francis satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci), pondberry (Lindera
melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife, Michaux's sumac, and American chaffseed. Records
available to the Service indicate that none of the listed species of Cumberland County have been
reported to occur near the project site.
Table 5 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masctni) and yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa). The Service recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control
be used during all construction to minimize any impacts to these mussel species.
B-4205 (Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 [Lovejoy Road] over Dumas
[Doomas] Creek)
Some documents for the project state that the bridge crosses Doomas Creek while other
documents give the name as Dumas Creek. We will use the latter in our comments and future
planning document should indicate the correct name.
The NRTR considers three alternatives, a new structure immediately downstream (Alternative 1),
anew structure immediately upstream (Alternative 2), and replacement at the existing location
with offsite detours on existing roads (Alternative 3). Table 2 (p. 12) presents impacts to
jurisdictional water and wetlands. While there are only minor differences in impacts to wetlands,
Alternative 1 has much greater permanent impacts to Dumas Creek (232 feet) versus the 32 feet
for both Alternatives 2 and 3. The Service does not support Alternative 1 and would recommend
Alternative 3.
The NRTR presents a biological conclusion for three federally listed animals and two plants. All
conclusions are that the project would have no effects on these species. The conclusions for the
three animals, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), eastern cougar (Felis concolor
couguar), and RCW were based on the absence of suitable habitat or, in the case of the cougar,
the absence of recent evidence that the species exists in the area. The conclusions for the two
plants, Schweintz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata) were based on field surveys which appear adequate. Occurrence data presently
available to the Service indicate that the species most likely to occur near the project are

Schweintz's sunflower and Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), a FSC. The NCDOT
should carefully monitor the project area prior to construction to ensure that Schweintz's
sunflower does not colonize the area.
Table 4 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Brook floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), and Carolina creekshell. The Service
recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control be used during all construction to
minimize any impacts to these mussels species.
B-4273 (Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 On US 401 over the Lumber River)
The NRTR considers two alternatives: replacement at a new location, approximately 70 feet
upstream of the existing structure (Alternative 1) and replacement at the same location
(Alternative 2). Table 1 indicates that Alternative 2 would have less impacts on important plant
communities such as cypress-gum swamp and coastal plains bottomland hardwoods. Table 2
shows that Alternative 2 would have less impacts (2.46 acres) on jurisdictional wetlands than
Alternative 1 (4.45 acres). Based on these data, the Service,considers Alternative 2 to be the
least damaging to fish and wildlife habitat in the project area.
Table 3 accurately reflects the federally protected species known to occur in Scotland and Hoke
Counties. The determinations that the project would have no effect on four species (RCW, Saint
Francis' satyr, rough-leaved loosestrife, and American chaffseed) based on an absence of suitable
habitat appear accurate. The systematic surveys for two plants with potential habitat, Canby's
dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) and Michaux's sumac, did not find these species and present
sufficient evidence that the species do not occur in the project area in June 2001. Occurrence
data available to the Service indicate that no Federally protected species have been reported in
the project area.
Thy Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us of the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of these bridge replacements. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, Ext. 27.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Super-visor
6

cc: Ted Bisterfeld, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC v"
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
7

'~`~17

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ~~ ~~~~~w~~)P r
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890 (vGv ^ A
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890 /,v~On _
June 28, 2005
Regulatory Division
/~
0 .
~T ~NCOFN' 0 wq~R ~ ?~~S
sT ~~pU~Rs
~Cy
Subject: Action ID No. 2001-01375, TIP No. B-4093 Bridge No. 81 over Gum Log Creek on
SR 1728, Cumberland Counties, North Carolina.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
I am responding to your request dated May 9, 2005, requesting verification of Department of
the Army (DA) Nationwide Permit #23 for the above referenced project. On June 21, 2005, I
conducted a site visit to determine the feasibility of off-site detours for this project. I have
determined that an off-site detour routing traffic from Middle Road (SR 1728) to Dobbin Holmes
Road (SR 1725) to I-95 Business would be a feasible detour. It appears that the Dobbins Holmes
road is adequate to accommodate the increased traffic and that resurfacing may be the only
improvement needed. Emergency vehicles can still access housing around the project area by
use of other secondary roads and would experience only slight delays. Most of the through
traffic that would be detoured are either coming from or going to Fayetteville and the detour
should not be much of an inconvenience to these commuters. Local traffic can still rise Middle
Road and other secondary roads to access their residence. I have witnessed other detours that
resulted in a much more circumvented route than this detour. Furthermore, the use of this off-
site detour would avoid the need for a Department of the Army authorization for this project
provided that top-down construction is used and that there are no bridge bents located within
jurisdictional areas. All of these avoidance measures appear to be feasible and capable of being
done when considering cost and logistics. Based on this information, the proposed project does
not qualify for authorization under a nationwide permit. If you wish to pursue the project as
proposed it will need to be evaluated upder an individual permit process and additional
information will be required.
This letter is to inform you that I am retiring the application from fiirther consideration for
authorization under a nationwide permit. If you wish to pursue authorization for the proposed
project under an Individual permit, please submit a new permit application, which would include
an evaluation of why off-site detours would not be feasible, an evaluation of avoidance and
minimization measures that will be incorporated into the project construction and a list of

,~
-2-
adjacent property owners. Please reference the above Corps of Engineers' Action ID number in
your cover letter.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter or wish to discuss the project further,
please contact me at the Wilmington Field Office [phone].
Sincerely,
Richard K. Spencer, MS
NCDOT Project Evaluator
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality
I.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Art King
Division Environmental Officer, Division 8
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 1067
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
Mr. James J. Rerko, PWS
Division Environmental Officer, Division 6
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 1150
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302-1150
Ms. Beth Harmon
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652