20060964 Ver 1_Application_20060615

~~ o
a~~~ ~~
~A~. ~~ ~~
~ l ~S'
~,~,sF~ . `' , 0
~ D
•~~.;~• ~osgTEk ~~6
~My°gq~~ry
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA ~Re'~oy
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
D ~ F,T"r.
~~ k i'~
R `
`-,~;'
M'
~,
i
w ,Y,~
Mr. William Wescott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
(One Copy)
June 8, 2006
060gs4
,..
.~ .
4-:
Mr. John Hennessy
Wetlands/401 Unit
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
(Seven Copies)
Subject: Nationwide 3 Notification and Buffer Authorization Request, for the demolition and
reconstruction of Bridge No. 85, US 258 over Deep Creek, Edgecombe County. TIP No. B-
4934
Dear Sirs:
Please find enclosed the Pre-Construction Notification for the above referenced project. The existing
bridge (70-feet long) will be replaced with a new bridge of approximately 173 feet in length on the
existing alignment. Traffic will use an offsite detour during construction. There are impacts to buffers
and Waters of the U.S./State associated with this project. The new bridge will completely span the creek
and a much larger portion of floodplain. The bridge replacement will result in a better hydraulic
opening and provide for increased wildlife passage beneath the future bridge. Deep Creek is located in
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is classified by the Division of Water Quality at this bridge as WS-IV
NSW 28-79-32-(1.5).
The bridge will be removed by sawing the deck and lifting it out in sections. We will excavate behind
the end bents and fold them back, then remove them without dropping any components into the creek.
Concrete and steel piles from the existing bridge will be cut off at the mud line of the stream using a
hydraulic shear or other means that does not require construction equipment to get into the water. Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be strictly adhered to during the removal of the existing bridge.
[phone] x 3532 [e-mail]
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165

FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) currently list two federally protected species for Edgecombe
County (Table 1).
Table 1- Federally Protected Species of Johnston County
Federal
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Biological
Present Conclusion
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E N No Effect
woodpecker
Tar spiny mussel Elliptio steinstansana E N ~`Ti-~v i~v:.:- N°' ~~~Y
baua~ y
A mussel survey was conducted at the project site on July 26, 2005. None of the federally listed species
were found, and it was concluded that the project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the
tar spiny mussel. No element occurrences are listed on the NHP database within one mile of the bridge.
No pine trees suitable for RCW foraging or nesting are in, or adjacent to, the bridge. This project is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the federally protected species listed in
Edgecombe County.
No sites eligible for listing on the National Register occur within the area of potential effect. This
project will not affect listed or eligible historic properties.
Regulatory Approvals
USACE Section 404 Permit: The project qualifies for Nationwide Pemut 3 (Maintenance of previously
approved structures). All permit conditions will be followed. For our files, please provide general
permit verification that the activity is authorized.
NCDWQ Section 401 Certification: The project qualifies for 401 General Certification number 3494.
All conditions of the general certification will be followed.
NCDWO Buffer Rules: As bridges are an allowable use they require written authorization from the
Division of Water Quality. Only Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing.
Please contact Jamie Guerrero at [phone] if you have any questions or need additional
information. Your time and effort are appreciated.
Respectfully Yours,
R.E. reeve, Jr., PE
Division Engineer -Division 4
Cc: Mr. Jamie Guerrero, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. Jimmy Marler, Bridge Superintendent
Mr. Bobby Lewis, Division Maintenance Engineer

4
Office Use Only:
2 O O 6 O 9 Vssiop May 2002
USACE Action ID No. 4Q
(If any particular item is not applicable to this projectD, plea~selenter "Not Applicable" or "N/A"
I• Processing ~~
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
^ Section 10 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 3
3. If this notification is solely a ~, esy copy because written approval for the 401 Ce
is not required, check here: -no discharge -qualifies for GC 337 rttfication
6
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP is r
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN opoosed for
section VIII and check here: ^NA ), mplete
II.
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties liste
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Mana ementd on page
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here g Area of
^NA
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: R. E. Greene - Divisi
Mailing Address: PO Box 3165
Telephone Number: 252 237-6164x3501
E-mail Adrlrt~ec• ,.,...,...__r-. , .
-31
Fax Number: 252 234-6174
2. Agent/Consultant Information A si
must be attached if the Agent has si fined and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
Name: gnatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Jamie Guerrero Division 4 Environmental Officer
Company Affiliation: Division 4 - NCDOT
Mailing Address: ono ~x~.._~ .,, ,
-31
Telephone Number: 252 237-6164 x3530
E-mail Address: lEl1P.rrPrn(n1.7„4 ,.~_._
Page 5 of 13
Fax Number: 252 234-6174

t
w 7
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with res ect t
p o local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showin
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vi g property
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all bu ty map
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the ma sand 1 ildings,
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Surve with P ans should
Y he property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the a licant'
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution u discretion,
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 b 17-in
however, DW p rposes, the
Q may accept paperwork of any size. DW Y ch format;
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-siQze pl Hess ful full siz onstruction
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be infoplans are
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided. rmed that
1. Name of project:_Bridae 85 I lc o~Q ,..,,._ ~_
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): 6-4934
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Nq
4. Location
County: S eed Quad Mao (Edaecnmt~el
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number)NeaNeAst Town: Tarboro
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
6.3 miles N of US 64 on US 258 in Edgecombe Cnunt~.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.9539°N 77.4996°W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that se aratel 1'
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.) p Y fists the
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Dee Creek -WS_
79~~ •5) -~ IV NSW 28-
8. River Basin: T
9.
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river ba
River Basin map is available at htt~//h2o.enr state nc us/admin/mans/.) sins
The
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinit of
at the time of this application: rural agriculture nac+..,-e ....._~~_ _ . Y the project
Page 6 of 13

r
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project is to renlar.P F~~o,.,,w,~.,. ~_. _._~ ..
equipment with an offsite detour
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
structure will result in safer traffic o erations!
I~'• Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Inclthis
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date ermit ude
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued ermiand
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream ats,
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT r nd
list and describe permits issued for prior se p o~ect,
construction schedules. gments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
~'• Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated wor
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application. k
NA '
~'I• 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 im a
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant muscts to
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts errnt also
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accom ~ an ~ anent
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must beaho ng site
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland an wn on a
d stream
Page 7 of 13

evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photo a hs
i~' p may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetlan
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional s ace is nor stream
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet. p eeded for
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
4
----- • -.,~~.~y li~~ wetlanu Impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number Area of Located within
(indicate on ma Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Flood lain** Distance to
) (acres) P Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
N/A (yes/no) (linear feet)
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized cf
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, s
eparately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insu~ng' grading, fill,
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-3 -
online at htto://www.fema. ov ranee Rate Maps
*** List a wetland type that b describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh for 58 9616, or
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
ested wetland, beaver pond,
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Individuall list all intermittent and erennial stream im acts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number Length of
Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** Average Width Perennial or
(indicate on ma) of Stream
(linear feet) Intermittent?
Before Impact r„ie,...,. ___ ... .
" List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associa
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and floodin
stabilization activities (cement wall, ri ra g g)> relocation (include linear feet before and after, and nettlo s/ga n)
P- p cnb wall, abions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included
** Stream names can be found on USGS to
pograp is maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-96
www.us s.~..~~, Several Internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS ma s e.
www.ma uest.com, etc.). 16, or online at
P ( g., www.to ozone.com,
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0
Page 8 of 13

. `
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlanti
Ocean and an other water of the U.S.) below: c
Open Water Impact
Site Number Area of
Type of Impact* Im act Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
(indicate on ma) p lake
(acres) (if applicable) ( ,pond, estuary, sound
bay, ocean, etc.)
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA
Expected pond surface area: NA
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation dr
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
edging,
4. Pond Creation NA
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should b
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond shou e
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application. ld
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ~ uplands
Describe the method of construction e. ^ stream ^ wetlands
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA g' dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout on
local stormwater requirement, etc.): Nq p d,
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to r '
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibilrt ovtde
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-iy~ and
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how im pact
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
173'
CIOth and ctnnn
hases of construction.
Page 9 of 13

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required b the
Division of Water Quality for projects involvin Y NC
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to ~50 linear feet of total nmpacts tolme acts to
streams. p rennial
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nation '
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be re uired wide
q 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 im
pacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and racticab
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable inc le
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintainin w Jude,
g etland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacin los
g ses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preservin simil
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed. g ar
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. An a 1. order
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRp concurrence shall be placed yon p ication
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current hold as
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in NorthnCarolinaeaavailabration
httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm ide html. le at
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should r '
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach dire t ons
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 lan vie )
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, et ), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please atta
a separate sheet if more space is needed. ch
B
r
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Res
toration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCW
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of miti ationRP at
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application pro ess foprior
NCWRp, check the NCWRP website at htt ://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/w /index.htm. If u the
sc of
Page 10 of 13

r
the NCWRp is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and ro '
following information: p vide the
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the u
(federal/state) land? se of public
Yes ® No ^
If yes, does the project re uire
requirements of the Natio al or NorthaCal'olina Environrnentalapdocument pursuant to the
Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required ca11PA/SEPA)?
the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documenta '
Yes ^ No ®Meets Federal Categorical Exclusion criteria hon.
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so 1
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. NA ~ p ease attach a
Yes ^ No ^
X• Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required b DW
y Q)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and ma al '
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also
~ustlfication for these impacts in Section VII above. All p 1 Impacts to
proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buf provide
fers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be in DWQ
applicant's discretion. cluded at the
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCA
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman 2B '0233
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please Identify Rules and
Yes ® No ^ If you answered "yes", provide the followin info )~
g rmahon:
Page 11 of 13

Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buff
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation b a 1 in the buffer
multipliers. y pp y g
Zone* Impact
(square feed Multiplier Required
' 4211 3 -~--•-0 ...,..
2 3040
1.5 0
Total 7251
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e. Donat'
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, Preservation on
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information or
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260. as
AIA+ MA......-_ J ~
ft of fill from Buffer Zone 1 and 2 X297 s I~ ft from Buffer Zone Wlll be removin 4 21
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the si
Discuss Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetla te.
downstream from the property.
nn ___--- nds
d
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or dischar e
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facilit g) of
NA
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. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance o
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an appli anteSmed
ay
Page 12 of 13

choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may im ose limi
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endan eredts on
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's con rol and
Deers Creek has a potential as a travel COI'rldOr fnr a„a,~,.,.v...,..... r_, )•
m a .~.. _
Anadromous 1
July 26 2007
5
Date
Page 13 of 13

NORTH CAROLINA
1 A•h. lNlrph.ny
µ1.\ ~nY Mole
Rec<IMMm Ceewrll Preen Gebe '~
W.twa~, enc Wemn OMemPb
-„ cnnru
Itrhe Awry Nllbe Y•ekln 1 Ferglh tY1Yaa Nrrtlsnr
Vemey C•IUwrll (wlNerd emene
MOtlIeM •nnC•r) MO Fnnklh &rtle
Derle wym NOM h
Burke MArli
Bww.mbe raew•k Bewaeon N1eke
IWwen / Mettle OMnOt Tyrn01
~~ •wom k•nao m.tnrn
BweN cre.rbe pn i Gn
cnnem ~ N710on \~V
RutMmrtl llnwln NN Bewtert ~,a,
rMrn }}}\C Johnebn
Chrobe NAwn •<keep ONnn Gretan \\ nl ( 1
PeY ewln \~ My Yon Ler NYMtt`~ ~ 60mr r- Nyge
Clry T l Moon NhYne ~ 4~1k„
rdimb "...~ ^'~v
Lrmlr Cnrrn _
lmbn ninon N•k• ambene
Meon •enywn l .bnee~ P.ml
otle Cugin `~C_'~
lMnew Grb
ttetlnm
\ Bl.a•n Pr~r
CoNmbue rte Nem r
runrwick
d
%1501
~ _ -- r-;~500 y i . ~ \rr\ ~ ~ \ ~ 1513 _
1513 l
~~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ 1 ~ r\
% ~ ~ I `\ %
r ~ ~ ~ r
1514 ( l l~ /"
~ % ~~ ~
y
r--' Batts '~
~ '----- Chapel ~ 1505 ~
~----"
~`~; PROJECT ~- -~~ r~ ~~
1515 ~ l r,
LOCATION
1515 \_" j ~.L '~ ~ rT 1567
_ ~ _
rl
.-"~ ~---- ~ ~~ ~ 258 M ~ \
------ r~ ( ~ r
~~ _ $4 /~ ~ '~,~ err i e ' --~I `11
O e ; 122 1516 r`\ r --
L ~ ~ / \ ~~ ~
NCDOT
VI~,INI~ ~DC DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
f J EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 84934
REPLACE BRIDGE #85
OVER DEEP CREEK
ON US 258 BETWEEN
NC 122 AND SR 1533
SHEET OF 11/19rU5

1 , r'~,, f 7.0 Acorn f~
i
~f
~,~
`~

~/~ •

~~
.,~,~,
• ~ ~ t
~~ ~~~
~` ~'` ~`
e+ ` ~~
2S~$
1
I
s ~
~.,~ ~
;so
I
~~`
f
~t ~
~
~~.

i

ti.~ ~
~~ ? 1 ?;;~`'
~,.:
~.....-~

7
~ ~
..~ ~ ~ Etta
`
~

L C ~
Q E ~ ~ f
~
.d ~
--
~
'
~ ~ ~ ~ -a.~ ~
~ ~
~ ~1
~
j ~
~~
i

NCDOT

TOPO /PIMP DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 84934
REPLACE BRIDGE #85
OVER DEEP CREEK
ON US 258 BETWEEN
NC 122 AND SR 1533
SHEET OF 1V19A5

REFERENCE NO. NAMES LOCATION
1• PLUM CREEK TIMBERLANDS, L.P. DEED BOOK 1310, PAGE 326
2• CHARLES AINSLEY & DEED BOOK 1266, PAGE 339
SUSAN C. AINSLEY PLAT CABINET 1, SLIDE 118A
NCDOT
PROPERTY OWNERS DEDI~° oMBE couNnrs
PROJECT: 64934
REPLACE BRIDGE #85
OVER DEEP CREEK
ON US 258 BETWEEN
NC 122 AND SR 1533
SHEET OF 1129105

-was- WETLAND BOUNDARY
~~ WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL
IN WETLANDS
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER (POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• ~ ~ DENOTES MECHANIZED
"~' CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
~- TOP OF BANK
wE EDGE OF WATER
~ PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
Nc NATURAL GROUND
P~ PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAS- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPS- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
~ WATER SURFACE
- DENOTES AREA TO
BE EXCAVATED
xx xxx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
-- - CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
~~^~ PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE 12'-48'
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) PIPES
54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
•• •• •• •~ •• •• •• •• WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
® PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH/GRASS SWALE
® DENOTES IMPACTS TO
BUFFER ZONE I
® DENOTES IMPACTS TO
BUFFER ZONE 2
NCDOT
LEGEND
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 84934
REPLACE BRIDGE #85
OVER DEEP CREEK
ON US 258 BETWEEN
NC 122 AND SR 1533
SHEET OF 1V29i05

N~ ^. 3Z OOY W ~
~
r
O ~ ^
T ~ _ ~ M
W 3 ^
F
-
O~ ~
N N L
L
O =Om ~VmN
O
~~ v Q
W momma o
I
o
W
V
~ 7 puV,~ gw~N
ti ~
~
O ^
r y,^ a W O Z
W oG OZ
Z~ i N ~
O
~ N y N
W ~
-~
LL ~+-
LL
_
~
m ~ ~
N

N
W
iL
~
Z u; o
O H ri

W -,
~
r
r
Z N
'a
N

GC
W
d ~
Q W {J.
~ ~
N 0
~/
fi

W
V
LL J

~. _
LL
(~
v
N N
~
W ~
<~
~ ~
Q
U _. ~
Z
O --
N Q ~ o
D
Z >
~ ~
v

W

3 a: ~
W ~
~
H ~
N
J
J
0
LL
N
W
GC
F- N
U
~
W
OC
~ CC
O
v
i u

u'
I
I
Z

f ~\
}
_
O J
_,
F- u.. }, N

W W ~
~r
~ 3+ .-
Op
• Z

,

~. ~
~
~N
~

~ ~
01-
:
~-
~ OW
Zw
~ "
~ .
N r _ _.,_ a" ~ ._.

Nr-~..,CC , OQ
~
~0 ~N
Z d~~ ° 0
5 ~
p
.~ VQ.~
it
..., . :, ....
~.
~
~ ~
~
~
- ~I
o 0
u
] o ~
.,J
.
~"''VUdV
~''~ ~
Q
O
MZ
~ 4<
~

0
t/SC~NN 0^
~
r. b ._ _~ _. _ ~

l '

; ~
~.~ O
~
aZ~ ~~e
oc
I

~
' ~N~ ~ ~
wXoc
aCwm ~
T
b I
~
o
,~ ;,
c~
o ~
~~~
~
~

oC~=
.,. ZM~
~
NLL~ ~ WZ~
g
q °~
~
u3N ' Jai

ZJJ
`
" O'~'
L
Quo
c~?o
~
~,
p
Z,iS a

~
__ O
.~ ~
~ O
.i to O
M M ~A
N O ~
N r
~ M
Z
~
_ = M ~ Y W
~ W ~
~
O ur O0,
_~~ W OC
N
cum
Q Qm OCWGDZ
V V
OW WONQ
Z oW~ g>>~
Np~ W~ZU
~
QW Oz

J
H
Z J
Ov
W p~
J =L
V- ~ o
0
~/ II II
s s
~ r
W
Q
U
N
S
W
N

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. 8-4934
___
State Project No. 40135
Federal project No. BRSTP-0258(10)__.__...__ ____._.~~___, _,.__~~..,~~_
A, project Description: The purpose of this project is to replace Edgecombe County Bridge
No. 85 over Deep Creek on US 258 between NC 122 and SR 1833 (Dickens Hill Road).
(The vicinity map is included in the appendix.) The existing bridge has a total length of 70
feet. The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 173 feet in length
providing a minimum 39 feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 12-foot lanes
and 7.5 foot offsets.
The approaches will be widened to include a 24 foot pavement width providing two 12-
foot lanes. Eight foot three inch (8.3) paved shoulders with guardrail will be provided at
the bridge approaches. The roadway will be designed as a Rural Arterial Route with a 60
mile per hour design speed.
The project will be a replace-in-place with an off-site detour.
B. Puroose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records Indicate that Bridge No. 85 has a sufficiency
rating of 6.0 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally l
deficient due to a structural appraisal of 2 out of 9 and a substructure condition rating of 4
out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards, is functionally
obsolete, and is therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and ~\
Rehabilitation program.
Bridge No. 85 is a steel structure with a concxete deck and was constructed in 1931 and is
approaching the end of ifs useful life. The replacement of the bridge will result in safer and
more reliable traffic operations.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxit'~ary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder dcains

f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane).
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding ar upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact ettenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards and
flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
I. installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit.
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint}, scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
dO. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill).
4. Transportation corridorfringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does nat have significant adverse impacts
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction
is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are requirgd and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
70. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when located
in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate
street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction
is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.

12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation pf alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development
on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigat~n sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil or
groundwater contalmination pursuant to state or federal remediation guidelines.
D. Special Proiect Information: (Include Environmental Commitments and Permits
Required.)
Accidents -Between 4/1/02 and 3/31105 one accident occurred. This accident
occurred at night and involved an animal.
Design Exceptions -Proposed bridge width is 39', the AASHTO standard is 40'.
Traffic Volumes - 2003 ADT is 1800, projected 2025 ADT is 3600.
Bridge Demolition -The existing bridge is a steel structure with a concrete deck. The
concrete deck will be removed prior to demolition. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will
be any temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. During construction, Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Total Project Cost - $354,000
Offsite Detour - during the 8/24/05 site visit and scooping meeting, Division 4
"representatives stated their preference for an off-site detour. The detour is
approximately 6.22 miles in length; resulting in 13 minutes of additional travel
time. (Reference: NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for
A mussel survey has been completed and concludes that since the Tar River
Spiny mussel was not found during the July 8, 2005 survey it can be concluded
that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the species.
A CoE Nationwide Permit will also be required for this project.

E. Threshold _ Criteria The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be
completed for Type II actions:
Ecological Yes No
1 Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or ^ /
important natural resource?
2 Does the project involve habitat here federally listed ("~(
endangered or threatened species may occur? ~J
3 Will the project affect anadromous fish? (~
4 If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-
tenth (1/10) of ari acre and have all practicable measures ~ ^
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
5 Wilt the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service ^
lands?
6 Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? ^ /
7 Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
rs
t
W ^
e
a
Water Resources (OWR) aril/or High Quality
(HQW )?
8 Wili the project require fill in waters of the United States in
of the designated mountain trout counties?
an (""'~
(„~
y
9 Does the project involve any known underground storage ^ /
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
permits and Coordination Yes No
10 if the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ^
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
11 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ~ V
resources? --

12 Witt a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? (~ f
13 Will the project result in the modifrcation of any existing a /
regulatory floodway? ---
14 Will the project require any stream relocations or channel (~
(~ /
changes? ---
Social, Ec©nomic and Cultural Resources Yes No
15 Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned (""~
U
growth or land use for the area? _.__
16 Will the project require the relocation of any family or ~ /
business?
17 Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or

"'~'~
low-income population? '
1$ If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
acquisition considered minor?
f wa
ht
i
f _ /
V ^
y
o
r
g
amount o
19 Will the project involve any changes in access control? ^ /
20 Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or ^
land use of adjacent property?
21 Wiil the project hive an adverse effect on permanent total ('"" '~ _ /
v
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ~.~-J
,~
22 Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
d is ~ ^
,
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (an
ith the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
_---
therefore, in conformance w
23 Is the project anticipated to cause an Increase in traffic ('"'~ /
~J
volumes? -
24 Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing _ / ^
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? ___..

25 If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing
facility) and will ali construction proposed in association
n the
d
i
o
ne
with the bridge replacement project be conta
existing facility? -"-""
26 is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or ^ /
environmental grounds concerning the project?
27 Is the project consistent wikh all Federal, Stdt~ and local
ects of the project?
l as
t _ / ^
p
a
laws relating #o the environmen
28 Wiil the project have an "effect" on structures/prgperties
d on the National Register of Historic
list ^
e
eligible for or
Places?
29 Will the project affect any archaeological remains which ^ ,/
are important to history or pre-history? ___._
30 WIII the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
wildlife and waterfowl
reation lands
,
(public parks, rec
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
artment of Transportation Act
D
S
U
ep
.
.
Section 4(f) of the
of 1966)?
31 Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
W
ater
defined by Section 6(f) of the land and
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended? -'-
32 Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent ^
d as a component of or proposed for
t
i f
~/
e
gna
to a river des
inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? ---
F. Additional uocumen~a~w~~ Ra 411 c-iaJ ~~+. ~•••----'"- -
(Discussion regarding ail unfavorable responses in Park E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
See attached freshwater mussel survey that found that since Tar River Spiny mussel
was not found during the July 8, 2005 survey it can be concluded that project
construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the species.

3y 30 p6 09:13a FHWR North Carolina Divis 919-856-4353
G. CE Approval
T]P Project No. ..B-4934 ..............................................................
State Project No. 40135.11 ..,....._,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Federal Project No. BRSTP-0258(10) .,.,..,..,
Project Description: (Include project scope and location. Attach location map.)
Replacement Bridge No. S5 over Deep Creek on US 258 in Edgecombe County, NC.
The projects wi(l a replace-in-place with an off-site detour.
Cate orical Exclusion Action Classification: {Check one)
TYPE II(A)
/ TYPE II{6)
Approved:
4125106 °~-- ~ ~ ~`~'-
Da et Iona t... Hauser, AICP
Senior Planner
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
Date Project Manager Bridge Maintenance Unit
~nr tvpe II(B) prolBCtS Only:
Date ;.~~'~ohn F. Sullivan, 111 PE, Division Administrator
p.l
Federal Highway Administration

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Edgecombe County
Bridge No. 85 on US 258 over Deep Creek
Federal Aid Project No. ggS'rp-0258 (10)
State Project No. 40135.11
TIP No. B-4934
Ot'fice of Natural Environment -Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge is a steel structure with a concrete deck. The concrete deck will be
removed prior to demolition. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will ~n Y~t~c~P,ces f r~
resulting from bridge demolition. During construction, Best Manag
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Division Resident Engineer -Coordination .
The Edgecombe County Emergency Services and Public Scht~ols should be notified of
road closure prior to the start of construction. . ,
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet
March 2006
Page 1 of 1

~ ~ S
r ~ rr~ ~ ~ ~~+~ ~'
{ ~ r ~.r~~ ~" 1
~~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ _,~
I"
1
VT ~ ti-T ~
• ~ t
r f 1 ~~~ ~ 'r ' ,. ~ a
~~ ~
~ , ' ~ ~.
e~f ~ ~ rr 1
~ ~
s~
~ ~-.. ~ ~ ~
r~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~ ~
r ~ , 1ST ~'~ ti
i~0114- ~197w ~ j
~i 1 ~~rr L
'~ ~' ~ ~ 1 ~1 ~ ~
-~ r ` ~1
r
~,
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ r~ ~ ~
! tr ~ ~ ~.
~~
~- f ~ '~. .
1 ref r~ f ~ }/ ~
r f f ' +
,. ~ ~ ~
~ ~11 1 ~ ~
r.
Edgecombe County ~ ~r ~~ +`~
Bridge # 85 ~ ~J ~ r ~ 1~4 -~'~
US 258 Over Deep Creek ~+ rr-
f"~ i ,~
~~1STEWART `~ ~~~ ~'f
ENGINEERING, INC. ~ ~ ~ ~"~_'~
~ , [phone] AICP ~
.,
~i

12i01i2005 08:21
--,
;~
United States Department of the Interior
y ~ FIS1-( AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field OflicC
Post Office 13ox 33726
~ Raleigh, North Curolina.27636-3726
November 23, 2005
Mike Summers •
North Carolina Department of Transponaf.ion
.Br. iclge Maintenance Unit
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, Noa1h Carolina 27699-1565
Deer Mr. Summers:
N0.393 D02
This letter is in response to your request for comments fron, the U.S. Fisl~ and Wildlife Service (Service)
on the poteaitial environmental effects of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 85 on US 258 over
.Deep Creels, Edgecombe Courti.ty, Nortla Carolina (TIP No. 8-4934). These comments provide scoping
information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C, b61-
G67d) and section 7 of the Tndangered Species Act (BSA} o.f .1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Cnda,ngered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their designated
non-federal rc.prescntatives), in consultation with the Service, .insure that any :action federally autttori2ed,
funded, or carried out by such agencies .is not likely to jeoparcli2e the continued existence of any
federally-listed tlveatened. or endangered species. A biological assessment evaluation may be prepared to
fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requ.irerx~ent and will expedite the consultation. process. To assist you, acounty-
by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina a.nd information on their
life histories and habitats can be foundon our web .page at h~,t~;[/nc_-es.fws.gov/e, s/cotmc fr.hmll .
The Tar spinymussel (6llipttio steiastansana) is known to occur a few miles downstream of the ,project
area in. the Tar River, and .in the Tar River imrriediately upstYear~n of i.ts confluence with Fishing Creek
(Deep Creek flows into Fishing Creek immediately upstream of ris111ng Creek's con.tluence with the Tar
R.iver). It is possible that Tar sp.inytnussels may inhlbi.t Deep Creek in the project vicinity. A mussel
survey extending, at a n.~inimum, 400 meters downstream and. 100 meters upstregm of th.e project limits
should be conducted.
If you deter. mine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely ro adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your decennination, the results of your
surveys, sur-vcy rnctP~odologics, and an a.nalys.is of the effects of the action on listed species, including
consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conductin6 any activities that might afTect
t).i.e species. )f you determine that the proposed aeti.on will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse,
direct or indirect eFf~ct) on listed species, then you are not renu.ired to contact our offce for concurrence.
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recornmend~ the following general conservation measures to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wiJ.dlife resources;
~~ }. Wetland, forest and designated .ripnii~in buffer impacts ahou.ld be avoided a.nd minimized to the
maxirnu.m extent practical;
2. .If unAVOidable ~vctla.itd or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory mitigation'to

12/01/2005 06:21 N0.393 D03
J..
offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning process. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via consen-ation easements, land trusts or by other means
should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather tha~a construction of temporary, on-site bridges. For
projects requiring at.~ on-site detour in wetlands or open. water, such detours should be aligated
along the side of the existing structure which has the least sn.d/or least quality of t7ish and wildlife
habitat. At the completion otconstlvction, the detour area should be entirely ~emaved and the
i.mpactecl areas be plautcd with appropriate vegetation, in.clu.ding trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction insensitive areas should occur, outside fish spawning and
migratory bird nesting seasons..ln waterways that .may serve as travel corridors for fish, in: 'water
work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with tt~igration, spawning and.
sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period for. anadromous fish is Febntary 1 S
- 7unc 30;
5. New bridges sltou.ld be long enough to allow for sufficient wilclli.fe passage along stream
corridors;
6. .best Manrtgernent Practices ()9M.1') for Protection of Surface Wafers sl.~ould be implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed anti deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching t11c affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to
alleviate any potential effects from ru.n-off of storm water at.~d pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and sb~cam-bank morphology or i.mpecle
ftsh passage. To the extent possible, piers and betlts shopJd. be placed outside the bank-full width
o f the stream;
9. .Bridges and approaches should be designed. t0 avoid a.ny fill that will result in damming or
constriction of the channel. or flood .plain. Lf spanning the flood plain is not feasible, culverts
should be installed in the flood plain potion of the approaclt to restore some of the hydrological
functions o~f the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters within the affected area.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be reclui.red For this project, at the public
notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordinatio~t occur early in the planning
• -- process i~r order to resolve ony conflicts that may arise and minimize ~dclays in project imptamencation. In
addition to the above guidance, we .recommend that the. environmental. docu.tnentation for this project
include the following in sufficient detail to :facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1.• A clearly defined and detailed purpose a.nd need for, tl.~e proposed project;
2. A description oftbe proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being cons%dered,
.i.ncluding the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and, wildlife resources, and their b.abitats, within the project impact area
that ma,y be directly or indirectly affected;
~. The extent and acreage of waters of the CJ. S,, including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
fil.li.ng, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact shot-Id be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National

12i01i2005 08:21 N0.393 D04
~. ,
Wetlands Inventory (NW)), Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 ~~s
of l/naineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by rite U.S, Arnty Cotes of Engineers;
5. The anticipated envirottntental impacts, both temporary anal perntanent, that would be likely'to
occur as a direct result of fire proposed project. The assessment should also include the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural .resources, and how this
and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. .Design. featut-es and construction techniques which. would be employed to avoid or minimize
impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including .fragmentation anal
direct loss of habitat;
7. if unavoidable wetland or suea-n impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plats for offsetting rite unavoidable impacts.
Tito Service appreciates the opportunity to comment oft this project. Please continue to advise us during
the progressiwt of the planning process, including your ofrcia.l determination o~f the impacts of this
project. If you have nny questions regarding our. response, please cottta.ct Mr. Gary .lordan at (9] 9) 856-
4520, ext. 32. -
Sin.eerel.y,

_.~/~" Pete Benjamin.
~,~ Ecological Services Supervisor
cc; William Wescott, USAGE, Wash.i.ngtot~, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscltcr, USIrPA, Raleigh, NC

N0.706
Michael f+. LASIaY, (;,,~emor
I,ilDelh G EWirli, Seen~rf
)effreq J. Crod, Dcpury ~~,
January 10, 2000
MEMORANDUM
Oflee of A,.t:hivee and .Ktaroey
Uitilirnt of Hutorin112notuep
David Brook, Direcror
TO: Mike Sumamers
Badge Maintenance Unit
NCDOT Division Qf Highways
FROM: Peter Saridbeck ''` P~~
SUBJECT': .Replacem.ent of Bridge No. 85 over Deep Creek, US 258, 8-4934, Cdgecombe County,
1/R 05-2G56
Thank you for your, letter of November 2, 2005, concerning the above.project
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources, which
would be affectecl by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the• undertaking as proposed.
The abot•e comments are made pursuant to $ectzon l OG of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Coundl on Hisroric Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codi5ed at 3G CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.. If you have yuesdons concerning the Above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, In all fume
conununicadon concernins this project, please cite the above-referenced trac]cing number.
cc: MAY Pope I~utr, NCDUT ~ .
Mart Willterson, NCDOT
wDMJNrS7AArlION wclpon MgiUngAppnN
D.ESZOMYION SD7 N. Pobunr ~rr4er, Itdeidh NC 4617 Mal SetYire C~~ntcr, pgleigh N[; 27699-1611 Tekphooe/Paw
6URVEY k MW~rIN~ S)S N. Doan, Sucet, Aek+gh NC 1817 Mnl Serritt Cwnur, Rete~BA Nt: 27R991f.17 ~~)'~7JS'416J/7JJ•6G)J
SrS N. 7Nevn, Sp•cac,lGkylh, NC q/,t7 MnJ Srrvice Cent<r, RelrigA n1(; a7reu.Irt7 (`)t~7)7-RSr7/7ts•eNh
(719j )))• 65.5/71)~lUt
.+~ •
~ ~D
••~..• .Ja~~ ~ ,g ?.oos
North Carolina Dcpattrnerit of Cultural Re
State Nietoric Preservation Office N~~~f ~1NSPORI"ATIpN
Crnfral 8-;d~e Maint.
hoer D. 3endEeek Adrninir,q,or
D02

{
i
rx
p2;. .
_~
r
''
fi
f
j
i;
L Y
;.i
x
_: 1
i
,t
~- I
~~
:~ :r
~,
~~' MM
~~~~i.l~
atag ~r
r~~r,, Svc ~~z
(919) 73Z-1~ff0
FI~E~H~A,1'ER 1VIIJSSEL, ~5~~.
tJ5 258 ~uver ljeep'Ci'ee
..TIP B~4934
~Cigectimbc'C'ounty
Noirt~t Carolina
Pr~18 ~'Or
~'8T'O~ D~Ilt Q~Z'raI2~~Qrts1t7U21
PDEA - Ot~ice of Natural EnVirs~nme~tt'
1.598 A~Iai1 Sexvice Center;
17alleagl~, I~iQrq Carolina 27699=1598
Thames P Dickinson

INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
the bridge over Deep Creek on US 258 in Edgecombe County, North Carolina,
Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) No. B-4934 (Figure 1). The Federally
Endangered Taz River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is listed by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as occurring Edgecombe County. The Tar River spinymussel
is historically known from the mainstem of the Tar River and has most recently been
located in Little Fishing Creek in Halifax County (2005). In addition to the Tar River
spinymussel, there aze several other rare freshwater mussel species that may occur in the
Tar River Basin in Edgecombe County. These include the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa}, the
green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), creeper
(Strophitus undulates), and the eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata). The Atlantic
pigtoe, yellow lance, yellow lampmussel, and green floater are Federal Species of
Concern and are considered Endangered in North Carolina. The triangle floater, creeper,
and eastern lampmussel are considered Threatened in North Carolina.
WATERS IMPACTED: Deep Creek
The proposed project will impact Deep Creek, which arises approximately 26 river
miles (R1VI) to the north of the project crossing in southeastern Halifax County.
Approximately 1.5 RM downstream and west of the project crossing, Deep Creek joins
the mainstem of the Tar River. Within the surveyed reach, Deep Creek is approximately
10 meters (33 feet) wide with 2-3 meter (6-10 feet) high banks. The substrate in the most
downstream portion of the surveyed reach of Deep Creek is dominated by sand with clay
banks with occasional quartz gravel in the runs. Further upstream, the substrate was
dominated by detritus and mud. Throughout the survey reach, occasional outcrops of
fossiliferous marl were exposed. A wide forested buffer borders this portion of Deep
Creek. Water conditions were tarmic during the survey efforts.
SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River spinymussel)
Status: Endangered
Listed: 7/29/85
Characteristics
The Tar River spinymussel (TSM) grows to a maximum length of 60 millimeters.
Short spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and
symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as many as
12 spines that project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally.
However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they mature (USFWS 1992c). The
TSM is distinguished by its shiny periostricum, parallel pseudocardinal teeth, and the
linear ridges on the inside surface of the shell.
TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey
US 258 over Deep Creek, Edgecombe County, NC ~

TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey
US 258 over Deep Creek, EdBecombe County, NC 2

. •~
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992a),
however, nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which
involves a larval stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory pazasite on a
fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts which must be present to complete
their life cycle. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted for
a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Taz River system,
currently occurring in relatively short stretches of the Tar lover and three creeks (Shocco,
Sandy/Swift and Fishing/Little Fishing) in the Taz drainage. Historically the TSM was
collected in the Tar River from near Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt
County (approximately 78 river miles). Clarke (1983) located TSM in only a 12-mile
stretch of the Tar River in Edgecombe County. Recently (1998) the TSM was found in
the Little River of the Neuse River Basin. The preferred habitat of the TSM in Swift
Creek was described as relatively fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water
in sites prone to significant swings in water velocity, with a substrate comprised of
relatively silt-free loose gravel and/or coarse sand.
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have
contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. The remaining populations
of TSM aze generally small in numbers. The low numbers of individuals and the
restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human
influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including
agricultural, forestry and development activities has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading
substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by
direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment
accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality inmost
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the Federally Endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon),
because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the
diversity and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988)
TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey
US 258 over Deep Creek, Edgecornbe County, NC

~'~
found that recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below
points of chlorinated sewage effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented
(USFWS 1992a, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic
habitats, which results in changes with aquatic community composition. The changes
associated with inµndation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as
fish community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for giochidia.
Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for
naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with
19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of the river basins within the
TSM range have been impounded and this is believed to be a major factor contributing to
the species decline (Master 1986, USFWS 1993).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula,fl'uminea)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats
to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major
river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still
supporting surviving populations of the TSM. Concern has been raised over competitive
interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels
the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The zebra mussel,snativet
to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel
that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range
into the surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and
MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space with native
mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20 freshwater mussel
species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States (USFWS
1992 b}. The zebra mussel is not currently known from any river supporting TSM
populations.
SURVEY EFFORTS
Deep Creek is a perennial stream that could potentially provide habitat for the Taz
River spinymussel, and thus surveys for this and other freshwater mussel species were
conducted for NCDOT.
Pre Survey Investigation
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) systematic inventory (database) was consulted to determine if
there are any records of rare plant and animal species within aone-mile area azound the
proposed project study area. This review indicated the Federally Endangered TSM is
known in the mainstem Tar River less than 1.5 miles downstream from the survey site.
Additionally, the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), triangle floater (Alasmidonta
undulata), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia mason, yellow lampmussel (Lcrmpsilis cariosa),
TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey
US 258 over Deep Creek, Edgecombe County, NC

'~
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis)
were also found in the mainstem Tar River.
Mussel Surveys for this Project
Tom Dickinson, Steve Melin, and Kate Montieth of The Catena Group, Inc., and
Jay Mays of NCDOT visited the project crossing on July 8, 2005. Mussel surveys were
conducted from a point approximately 400 meters downstream of the project crossing a
point approximately 100 meters upstream.
Methodology and Results
Visual (using batiscopes and mask/snorkel) and tactile methods were used to
survey for mussels. Approximately 100 meters below and 100 meters above the bridge
crossing the survey reach was too deep to survey with these techniques (depth to 10 feet},
therefore SCUBA was used. Water levels in the survey reach ranged from 1 to 10 feet
deep, with the majority of the reach being less than 3 feet deep. Timed searches were
conducted for a total of 8person-hours. Mussels were identified, counted and returned to
the substrate. Data points were taken at the starting point 400 meters downstream and at
the ending point approximately 100 meters upstream of the project crossing. A total of
213 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.l), 2 green lance (Elliptio viridula} and 1 paper
pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis) were found during the survey efforts (Table 1). 'The
introduced Asian clam (Corbicula, ft'uminea) and the aquatic snail Campeloma decisum
were cotnmon. The Tar River spinymussel was not found during the survey efforts.
Table 1. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Dee Creek
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE #/person hr
Elli dos Elli do mussels 213
Elli do viridula 26.6
en lance 2 0.26
Utterbackia imbecitlis er ondshell 1
0.13
Discussion
The survey results indicate that a viable elliptio mussel population exists in the
surveyed portion of Deep Creek. While the presence of the Tar River spinymussel within
the project area is unlikely due to the tannic conditions and unsuitable substrate
conditions for TSM, their presence cannot be altogether ruled out, as areas of appropriate
habitat are present. However, since TSM was not found during the July 8, 2005 survey it
can be concluded that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the Tar
`Because of the taxonomic uncertainty of the Elliptio genus, elliptio mussels not strictly adhering to the
"type" Elliptio complanata and E. icterina forms were lumped into 1 group, At least two forms of E.
complanata were noted, with gradation between each form, making separation difficult. It is very possible
that at least two or three species comprise the elliptio spp. fauna in the surveyed reach of the Deep Creek.
TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey
US 258 over Deep Creek, Edgecombe County, NC

River spinymussel. Due to the close proximity of a documented occurrence of the Tar
River spinymussel and several other rare aquatic species in the mainstem Tar River
downstream of the project area, it is recommended that further discussions between
NCDOT and the USFWS take place regarding the potential impacts of this project on the
Tar River spinymussel. During these discussions, measures should be taken to
avoid/minimize impacts to the water quality of Deep Creek in order to protect the lrnown
populations of rare mussels and other aquatic fauna downstream from project
construction.
LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages
98-107 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds.
1997. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis,
Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Illinois.
293 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spinymussel. Final report to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment
effluents on mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia.
Final Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Lea, I. 1829. Description of new genus of the family of Naiades (etc.). Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, new series. 3:403-456.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock
Island IL. 270 pp.
McMahon, R.F. and A.E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalva. Pp. 331-429. In: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and Classification of North American
freshwater invertabrates. 2nd edition. Academic Press.
Master, L. 1986. ACasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal
to list as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey
US 258 over Deep Creek, Edgecombe County, NC

'~ ~
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state ofthe Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C.
Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island
IL.189 pp.
Neves, RJ., and J.C. Widlak, 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull.
1(5):1-7.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha):
an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Crrant, Coastal Resources Fact
Sheet. New York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Pennak, RW. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Molluscs
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
Smith, D. 19$1. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Molluscs, Annelids, Arthropods). MA Dept, of Env. Qual.
Engineering, Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D.L., S.J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of
populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalva:Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Revised TechnicaUAgency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. Atlanta GA. 47 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf-wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
U.S. Fish snd Wildlife Service. 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash.
D.C. 1,070 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992c. Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
TCG -Freshwater Mussel Survey
US 258 over Deep Creek, Edgecombe County, NC

~1 Y
NORTH CAROLINA
"
•
AMO NIedllny
W^Y ~Ireer e,
IbgllpMm;CnwNl. Plnen Inc IMTn ,IIg01F11 ~N V
Olenrll
..
WI/Wp' Mill/u ~ 1btlfeN

'.
kehe J1nry,
-
yNINe VooiJn
fenl'.N
CuI~pY
emenc &NO
npe Fnntlb
YrneOY CeltlwNl Jllaneer] ,Mm NFg1'
- MngeNl COMB ' Y
... Nwp
~
~ Web 'YO,Mn ~MhMY 7hn1
I(ewel WIMO WNYwn
YunoemN
' Maven MNOyII fTWen MAben -
~
wwoad
Makl
'~

. Menlo
ae C
~ ~ -
RutMlfaA
~. .

PaF~ lewlri gPeee

Llaceln

6eMn

eNrrw. /~qY '
/

~
Jolnebn
..

Ur
~Y ~ ~ .
Pllk
- .. MnWIK~
On.n~ .. M10e

J
~
J
/~Ae 1
~
\
J

Wmn..
T eylnn ~
\

IgIMO Mean- ~
_
_
L+.nek `•'..••^ '~~
.. ~
pMn~n WFO mblM Nniwn -. .lelml\ Pun
Unbn
' Mean
b ~q!n
Onebw ~ . ' title
Meeeen-
-
-
-
Mean" hnaF
CoelmMU tiro
1151
~ --~. .~~ --~ -\ ~
~ ~ 1513 -
-""
`
~ - 500
f_.
~ 1
1' `\ ~
1513
~ I
\
,~\ ~ I'
~ I
'

-_l
,~ ,
~ /~
1
~ 1533' j `

~ ~
-
__-,
r , ~
~ ,, ~ ,.
u1a ~ ~` ~ ~ ~i; ~~.

~_, sacta ~
Chapel
1 _ , ~ '`'
1505 ~`~ ;
___
I 1s15
' _
~' LOCA ION
\ !
-~
,~,~ 1567
~ ~
1515 -"~"~
`\
r_` ,~
'- / -~~ ,\
.~ 258
r
~
/ i~
`
~ ~\

_
O
o^ ~ ~ ~
- ,
® ' r~
~ ,r-"-

` -'
,
~\
~ --
\ --- `~ .
~ \ `'---"" O
`,\
122 1516 ~
•
0 J
~
~ ~
~ ,
_
, I
V 1 `
( ~
1'1 __---~--
NCDOT

VI C ~ N ~ 1 1
/YIf1PS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 84934
REPLACE BRIDGE #85
OVER DEEP CREEK
ON US 258 BETWEEN
1 NC 122 AND SR 1533
SHEET OF 1VZbU5

/ ~- r~
NCDOT
TOPO MAP
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 84934
REPLACE BRIDGE #85
OVER DEEP CREEK
ON US 258 BETWEEN
NC 122 AND SR 1533
SHEET OF 1V1YU5

ovl izo
~..\ ~o~ 4934_PRMT_PSHl.dgn
1 .fTt
~,~ ~~
°S Na ,' U
Z ~~ ~ ~'Q
Dr vs m
N
-r^i^' pZ~• ~
00 ~O~ F' I
o> ^b $~ I
oZ ~ ~F ^1
N ~ ~ ~:
,~ ~ ,
1
1
n'~
m m I
y O
9 ; I
tFi m
m c -m+-~i 1
O ! f„ m g I 1
~ g o I 1
.t m f
0 0 m iu m D m 1 ~ ~T
70 V/ i i2 ~ ~~ i S
D~ > m 1
~2 s r i j +
~ > I 1
x
~n x
1~1 =~ _ ~m"Com~ n 1
~K ~~~nmsm I
~ cm c I I
' 'a mm my
wD J = = i 1
ot~~-m~
C Nm Z'~ T_N~ Tp Ij I~ TNT Tm
~ LH ms pNpy F~' F... ,I ~ 1r-Aj i-~
2
Z 'mw ~o ~m pD pD ~ i" ~ "D "[~
ro mim or F II F I~ t 11 ~ F II ~ II
y rm II C II A ~~ II ~ II o.
o AA J~ ! ~ I ~V .rW
m ~N ~T ~~ ~ I +N W N
T T T J: I Lti ;-n T T T T
,/ "~
~.
~` ~ e~• TT
r, y (y W
~ B
~ t ~
i s t ', ~0 ~ / '.., ..t .._.._.
~~ ~~ '.,'
~ ~
ti0 R1
~ m ~
r
~5 N , ~ ~~f1 m r
7C A' .~
Y ~ J
, ,..: , ~ " mom. , ,.
" ~,.,c Kam. ..:.
., _4
~ ~ n
r~~~ ~~
.;
,.
•.
" _ >..,
\
~ F
r: \
r ~ .
N D ~
n /n --~ ~ M \\; ~lj
~ \
m ~ ~
I • ~
r ~ ,/ ' 1 ~~
p. / / ` I ~
O ~s~'~ ~ ,~0 „ I I m
~ i
~ ~I 1
„m Tm ~I I I ~m
OD OD ~\ 1 rl I O'D 0>
\ a I I ~ ~
II v II
~ p m ° 'f II a II p
`+ r., 0 4 1 ~..o m y
N~ HT 1.YI I1 i N~ NT a
nl T 'tl 1 I ''.. T T C~
I
I W
I
I I
I
1 T
T \
i
I
'. '~ 1 +~~
I i.. Z
N I ~ Q
rn ~ ~ 1 ~ C')
~ ZO 7v R'~ ~Q
~ZO~ .~~y 1 a;,z
< ~orn~ Z I +~
NN~C~ O~Z I" Q(~'}
p Z~m~ TWO +n I ~+
a>' ~ A~i 0 z
~~7~um ~OG1 --__
~ ~ rn ~ ~ A Z
S °° ".
~o wZ N ~~
a ~, ___a-_ -.