19950942 Ver 1_Complete File_19950907

•0 4ty, SP - 7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF •TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 30, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Beaufort County, Replacement of Bridge No. 70 over Smith Creek on
NC 99, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-99(1), State Project 8.1150801,
T.I.P. No. B-2805.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 70 will be replaced in its existing
location with a bridge that will be approximately 25 meters (82 ft.) in
length. It will have a 7.2 meter (24 ft.) wide travelway plus a 2.4 meter (8
ft.) wide offset on each side and 1372 millimeter (54 inch) bicycle-safe
rails. During construction, traffic will be detoured onto existing area
roads. Construction of the proposed project will impact approximately 0.05
hectares (0.12 acres) of jurisdictional wetland communities.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2145 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
We anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
`?epartment of Frv;ronmont; Health, and Natur??l Re-ources, Division of Coastal
4anagement, for l.hi s project. i he NCDOI wi l "ph ly d1i rectly to DEHNR for
that permit when plans have been developed.
:a
.August 30, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincer ly -
H. F a klin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, COE Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NDDEHNR, DCM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. G. R. Shirley, P. E., Division 2 Engineer
NC 99
Beaufort County
Bridge No. 70
Over Smith Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-99(1)
State Project No. 8.1150801
T.I.P. No. B-2805
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMII*IISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
+-r7-95 r v ` - - p", ?
D H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch
Dated Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 99
Beaufort County
Bridge No. 70
Over Smith Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-99(1)
State Project No. 8.1150801
T.I.P. No. B-2805
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
4 9-S7
Richard W. Fedora, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
W? ;
Gyka-
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
f
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SEAL
20642 '
- -
r P ••
c??,
ell
NC 99
Beaufort County
Bridge No. 70
Over Smith Creek
Federal Project No. BRSTP-99(1)
State Project No. 8.1150801
T.I.P. No. B-2805
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 70 in Beaufort County. This bridge crosses over Smith Creek (Figure 1).
NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) classify this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no
significant environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 70 at the existing location as shown in Alternate 1,
Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing Bridge No. 70 with a bridge that will be
approximately 25 meters (82 feet) long. It will have a 7.2- meter (24-foot) wide travelway
plus a 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide offset on each side and 1372-millimeter (54-inch) bicycle-safe
rails. The project will require minor improvements to the roadway approaches. The new
roadway approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway with 2.4-meter (8.0-
foot) shoulders, 0.6 meter (2 feet) of which will be paved. The new roadway approaches
and bridge will be at approximately the same grade as the existing roadway. During
construction, traffic will be maintained by detouring along area roads as shown in Figure 1.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost is $ 332,000. The estimated cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is
$ 343,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT expects no design exceptions for this project.
III. SUMIVIARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Best Management Practices will be used during construction.
NCDOT will obtain a North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide permit #23.
NCDOT will obtain a CAMA major development permit.
A United States Geodetic Survey benchmark located on Bridge No. 70 will be
relocated.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies NC 99 as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Near Bridge No. 70, NC 99 is a two lane paved road, 5.5 meters (18 feet) wide with
2.1-meter (7-foot) shoulders. Vertical alignment in the project area is flat, and horizontal
alignment is good.
The deck of Bridge No. 70 is 4.3 meters (14 feet) above stream bottom. Water
depth is approximately 2.4 meters (8 feet) in the project area. Vertical clearance under the
bridge is approximately 1.2 meters (4.0 feet), depending on tidal conditions.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 70 in 1949. It has a reinforced concrete floor on I-beams
with reinforced concrete caps on timber piles (Figure 3). It is 23.2 meters (76 feet) long
with a 6.7-meter (22-foot) roadway width. It carries two lanes of traffic and the posted load
limits are 19 metric tons (21 tons) for single vehicles and 26.4 metric tons (29 tons) for
Truck-tractor Semi-Trailers (TTST).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records (updated February 1995), the
sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 70 is 42.1 of a possible 100.0. The bridge has an estimated
remaining life of six years.
The current traffic volume is 2,400 VPD. The projected traffic volume for 2014 is
4,300 VPD. Truck percentages are 3% truck-tractor semi-trailer and 6% dual-tired vehicles.
Speed limit in the area is 90 km/h (55 mph).
Traffic Engineering records indicate zero accidents occurred in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 70 between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1994.
The Transportation Director for Beaufort County Schools indicated there are eight
school bus crossings daily (four busses crossing in the morning and afternoon).
V. ALTERNATES
There are two build alternates for replacing Bridge No. 70 (Figure 2):
Alternate 1 (Recommended) will replace the bridge at the existing location. The
replacement bridge will be approximately 25 meters (82 feet) long. It will have a 7.2- meter
(24-foot) wide travelway plus a 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide offset on each side and 1372-
millimeter (54-inch) bicycle-safe rails. This alternate will require minor improvements to the
roadway approaches. During construction, traffic will be detoured off site along SR 1714,
US 264, and SR 1718 as shown in Figure 1. The design speed for this alternate will be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2 would replace the bridge at the existing location as in Alternate 1.
During construction, traffic would be maintained along a temporary on-site detour. The
detour structure would be a bridge approximately 72 meters (236 feet) long. The design
speed of the detour alignment would be approximately 80 km/h (50 mph).
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The bridge would continue deteriorating
until unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive maintenance.
VI. COST ESTIMATES
Table 1 shows the estimated costs and component costs of the alternates.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
COMPONENT ALTERNATE I
(RECOMMENDED) ALTERNATE 2
BRIDGES $166,300 $ 166 300
BRIDGE REMOVAL 10,500 10,500
TEMPORARY DETOUR ------------ 436,500
ROADWAY &
APPROACHES 34,200 34,200
MISCELLANEOUS &
MOBILIZATION 45,000 125,000
ENGINEERING &
CONTINGENCIES 35,000 110,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $291)000 $ 882 500
RIGHT OF WAY $41,000 $63,500
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $ 332 000 $946,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 70 at the existing location as shown in Alternate 1,
Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on area roads during construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 70 with a bridge that will be approximately 25
meters (82 feet) long. It will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus a 2.4-meter (8-
foot) wide offset on each side and 1372-millimeter (54-inch) bicycle-safe rails.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 100 km/h (60
mph). The project will require minor improvements to the roadway approaches. The new
roadway approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus 0.6-meter (2-foot)
paved shoulders. The new roadway approaches will be at approximately the same grade as
the existing roadway.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 due to the lower cost and minimal environmental
impact. Provision of a temporary on-site detour would result in additional costs and
environmental effects to Smith Creek. Closing the road to traffic during construction will
avoid the extra cost and environmental effects. The division office concurs with closing the
road during construction. The Beaufort County School Bus Transportation Supervisor does
not anticipate significant inconvenience.
Alternate 1 will require approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) of additional travel for
the average vehicle affected by road closure. Based on a closure period of six months, the
road user costs would be approximately $1,015,000. NCDOT estimates the cost of
Alternate 2 would be $614,000 more than Alternate 1. This additional cost is from
maintaining traffic in the project area. The resulting ratio of user costs to project costs
(benefit-cost ratio) would be 1.6.
The project should be let to contract between January and March. This would result
in an availability date between March and May. This would minimize the amount of
construction during the school year. A letting date later than April will cause more
construction to occur during the school year. In addition, it would conflict with winter
months, causing a road closure period greater than six months.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more
than 30 centimeters (12 inches). Figure 4 shows the 100-year floodplain limits in the project
area. Construction of Alternate 1 will not place significant amounts of fill in the floodplain
area.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low.
There is a United States Geodetic Survey benchmark located on Bridge No. 70.
This benchmark must be relocated due to the project.
NC 99 is a bicycling highway. These highways normally require 4.2-meter (14-foot)
lanes and 1372-millimeter (54-inch) bridge rails. The replacement bridge will provide the
required bridge rails. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Unit comments that the 12-meter (40-
foot) wide, two lane replacement bridge will be sufficient for bicycle traffic. Therefore, 4.2-
meter (14-foot) lanes will not be necessary.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prefers the
navigational clearance of the bridge be maintained or increased if possible. Increasing the
clearance would increase the amount of fill on the roadway approaches, which would
increase the project cost and environmental impact. There is not justification for increasing
the vertical clearance of the bridge. No recognized demand for navigation exists. A major
bridge, Bridge No. 64, is just south of Bridge No. 70 (Figure 1). Bridge No. 64 provides
access to waters for boating activities in the main channel of Pungo Creek. NCDOT
constructed this bridge in 1949. It is 208 meters (681 feet) long with a 6.7-meter (22-foot)
wide clear roadway width. The vertical clearance of Bridge No. 64 is 3.6 meters (12 feet),
and the water depth is 6.7 meters (22 feet). Only a small body of water exists upstream of
Bridge No. 70; therefore, little improvement would result from raising the vertical clearance
relative to the additional environmental impact. The design of the bridge should provide the
same vertical clearance as the existing bridge.
Smith Creek is not susceptible for use as a means to transport interstate or foreign
commerce and there is no evidence that boats greater than 6.4 meters (21 feet) long cross
under Bridge No. 70. Therefore, NCDOT and FHWA have determined that the project
does not require a U. S. Coast Guard Permit.
VIII. NATURAL SYSTEMS CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Overview
Materials and research data in support of this investigation include the following
sources: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) water quality
classification (Tar-Pamlico River Basin), DEM Point Source Discharge Report for the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin, DEM Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey
for the Tar- Pamlico River Basin, United States Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
(Pantego, N.C.), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species,
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) data base of uncommon and protected
species and unique habitats, and aerial photography (scale 1:1200) furnished by the
NCDOT.
A biologist conducted field surveys along the alternate project alignments on 8 July
1994. The biologist observed plant communities likely to be impacted. The biologist
identified wildlife using the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binocular), and recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tr acks,
and burrows). The biologist conducted cursory surveys of the aquatic habitats using a long-
handled triangular sweep net. The basis for impact calculations is the right of way limits of
24 meters (80 feet) for the existing alignment and additional temporary easement of 18
meters (60 feet) for the temporary detour.
The proposed project occurs in a rural area of Beaufort County (Figure 1). Nearby
land-use is agricultural, marsh, residential, commercial, and urban/disturbed areas. There
are marsh wetlands along Smith Creek. There are urban/disturbed areas along the project
area including an old road bed, manicured lawn, and roadside areas. Agricultural and
swamp lands comprise much of the surrounding areas. Commercial development adjacent to
the project area includes the Cee-Bee Marina.
B. Soils and Topography
Beaufort County is in the Lower Coastal Plain-Pamlico System. Topography is a
combination of broad, gently undulating plains separated by sounds. Elevations in the
immediate project area range from 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) along the creek to 1.5 meters
(5.0 feet) along the roadside.
Sedimentary rock is the primary underlying rock in Beaufort County. Local changes
in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are
rare. Soils in the project vicinity include the presence of Dorovan mucky peat, Dragston
loamy sand and Augustatine sandy loam. The classification for Dorovan mucky peat is as a
hydric soil or as having hydric soils as a major component.
C. Biotic Communities
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant community types occur within the project area. Specific
communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.).
The marsh area (Tidal Freshwater Marsh Type) occurs on level areas within and
adjacent to Smith Creek. The dominant vegetation in this community are sawgrass and rush.
Also present are common cattail, wax myrtle, arrow-head, skullcap, sedge, and panic-grass.
The urban/disturbed community includes disturbed areas along an old road bed,
manicured lawn, and roadside areas within the project area. The composition of the canopy
is sweetgum, red maple, loblolly pine, and eastern red cedar. Sub-canopy trees include the
canopy species and chokeberry, sweetbay magnolia, sourwood, and honey locust. The
shrub layer includes myrtle and saplings of red maple and sweetgum. Vines present are
poison ivy, multiflora rose, greenbrier, grape, and trumpet creeper. Grasses present are
fescue grass, crabgrass, foxtail, and plantain.
2. Wildlife
The biologist observed no sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) of
any mammals. Mammals typical for this type of area are the gray squirrel, gray fox, Virginia
opossum, mink and white-tailed deer.
The observed bird species are typical of coastal and rural settings where a patchwork
of habitat types are available. Species encountered above and near Smith Creek include
common crow, fish crow, and summer tanager.
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter
snake, Carolina anole, yellowbelly slider, eastern box turtle, spotted turtle, and Fowler's
Toad.
Smith Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. The biologist
observed anglers along Smith Creek with buckets of sunfish. The biologist also observed
clam shell fragments in the creek. American shad, white perch, and striped bass are in
similar coastal waters.
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt, southern dusky salamander, frogs,
and several snake species.
3. Biotic Community Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system
present in the study area. The basis for estimated impacts is the entire proposed right of way.
Project construction often does not require the entire right of way and therefore, actual
impacts may be less. The following table summarizes potential plant community impacts
which could result from the proposed bridge replacements.
Table 2. Estimated Irn acts to Plant Communities
ESTIMATED IMPACT
PLANT COMMUNITIES Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Permanent Temporary
Urban\Disturbed 0.15 ha 0.37 ac 0.15 ha 0.37 ac 0.30 ha 0.74 ac
Tidal Freshwater Marsh 0.05 ha (0. 12 ac 0.12 ha 0.30 ac 0.07 ha 0.18 ac
Total 0.20 ha 0.49 ac 0.27 ha 0.67 ac 0.37 ha 0.92 ac
Alternate 1 impacts plant communities along narrow strips adjacent to the existing
bridge and roadway segments. Bridge and approach improvements occur primarily within
disturbed right-of-way limits and marsh edges. Alternate 2 requires greater taking of the
tidal freshwater marsh along the shoreline of Smith Creek. The loss of marsh habitat is
likely to reduce the number of plant species which serve as shelter, nesting, and foraging
habitat for numerous species of wildlife.
Habitat affected by the proposed action includes marsh and urban/disturbed areas.
The proposed action can potentially have substantial effects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless NCDOT maintains strict sediment control measures. The disturbance of the creek
bed and sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic
invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
D. Water Resources
Bridge No. 70 crosses Smith Creek southwest of Belhaven, North Carolina. Smith
Creek flows to the east into Pungo Creek which is part of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Smith Creek is class SC NWS, indicating tidal salt waters which are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and secondary recreation and a
supplemental classification for Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which require limitations on
nutrient inputs.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reports no
dischargers within 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles) upstream of the proposed crossing.
No Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I
or WS Il Waters occur within 175 meters (575 feet) of the project site. There is a proposed
High Quality Water (HQW) zone 0.81 kilometers (0.5 miles) downstream of the project
area.
There are no Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network sampling stations on
streams in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the
use of best management practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and
sedimentation control measures during construction.
The biologist does not expect long term impacts to water resources as a result of
proposed improvements. The new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream
integrity. Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for
vegetated road shoulders and limited use of ditching wherever possible.
E. Jurisdictional Issues
1. Wetlands and Surface Waters
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Alternate 1 will impact approximately 0.05 hectares (0.12 acres) and
Alternate 2 would impact approximately 0.12 hectares (0.30 acres) of Estuarine Intertidal
Emergent Wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979).
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5(A)23, for impacts to surface waters of Smith Creek will apply if the NCWRC certifies
that construction of this project will not adversely affect these waters.
A DEM Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must be acquired prior to
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. The issuance of a 401 permit from DEM is a
prerequisite to issuance of a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) or Section 404 permit.
This project will require a CAMA major development permit because impacts to
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) are likely. The CAMA major development
application form serves as an application for three other state permits and for permits from
the COE required by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The state permits include: 1) permit to excavate and/or fill; 2) easement in
lands covered by water, and; 3) 401 Water Quality Certification.
This project is likely to affect the following AEC: Estuarine Waters, Public Trust,
Coastal Wetland, and Estuarine Shoreline.
2. Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1983, and 1988)
protects species with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Proposed Endangered (PE),
Threatened (T), or Proposed Threatened (PT). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) lists the following federally protected species for Beaufort County as of 17
November 1994:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Bald Eagle (Hahaeetus leucocephalus) - T
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kemtri) - E
Loggerhead turtle (Care tta caretta) - T
Green head turtle (Chelonia mydas) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lys achia asperulaefolia) - E
Sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene v_ir i iica) - T
The following text gives brief descriptions of these organisms's characteristics and
habitat requirements.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker has a range comprised of scattered locations
throughout the southeast. Nesting habitat consists of open pine stands (minimum age 60
years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf pine is most
commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NCNHP data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Status: E
Family: Accipitridae
Listed: 2/14/78
The bald eagle primarily occurs in areas with coasts, rivers, and lakes. It usually
nests near bodies of water where it feeds. It usually constructs nests in living trees, but will
occasionally use a dead tree. The proximity of good perching trees may also be a factor in
site selection. An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity
in the area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is human activity near the creek including residential and commercial
development which would discourage bald eagle nesting. Biologists conducted surveys
along Smith Creek on 23 April 1994 to determine the presence or absence of this species.
They found no evidence of bald eagles during the survey. Also, a review of NCNHP data
revealed no records of this species in the project area. It can be concluded that project
construction will have no impact on the bald eagle.
8
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kepi)
Status: E
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 12/2/70
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle inhabits shallow coastal and estuarine waters often
associated with red mangrove.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle does not nest or breed along the study area. Also, a
review of NCNHP data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
An incidental passage of the turtle through the study area is possible. It can be concluded
that project construction will have no impact on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle.
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 7/28/78
The Loggerhead turtle inhabits a large range of marine, salt marshes, and inshore
areas. The loggerhead nests on beaches from North Carolina through Florida.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of NCNHP data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. An incidental passage of the turtle through the study area is possible. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Loggerhead turtle.
Green head turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 7/28/78
The Green sea turtle inhabits shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs,
bays and inlets. The Green turtle nests on open beaches with a sloping platform which have
minimal disturbance.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of NCNHP data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. An incidental passage of the turtle through the study area is possible. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Green sea turtle.
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Status: E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
Rough-leaved loosestrife habitat occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth) usually on a
wet, peaty, poorly drained soil, on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow
organic soils overlaying sand.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The wet, poorly drained soil areas along the project study area offers suitable habitat
for this species. A biologist conducted plant by plant surveys along the wet, poorly drained
soil area on 8 July 1994. The biologist did not observe rough-leaved loosestrife. Also, a
review of NCNHP data revealed no records of this species in the project area. It can be
concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Sensitive joint vetch (Aeschynomene vir 'ice)
Status: T
Family: Fabaceae
Listed: 6/19/92
Sensitive joint-vetch habitat occurs within freshwater tidal marshes influenced by
tidal fluctuations with fresh or only slightly brackish water. Plants that grow in this
environment are subject to a cycle of twice-daily flooding.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Freshwater marsh habitat occurs within the project study area. A biologist conducted
plant by plant surveys on 8 July 1994. The biologist did not observe sensitive joint-vetch.
Also, a review of NCNHP data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
F. Air and Noise
The project is within the Northern Coastal Plain Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Beaufort County is in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. This project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
does not contain any transportation control measures. NCDOT and the FHWA do not
anticipate that it will create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project uses burning to dispose
of vegetation, 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 of the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional
reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies, or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
The Act exempts from its requirements developed land, or land commited to urban or other
non-agricultural. Bridge No. 70 is on a man-made causeway in Smith Creek that cannot be
used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, this project requires no further consideration of
farmland impacts.
10
B. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
In terms of historic architectural resources, there are no historic structures located
within the area of potential effect of the project. The State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) recommends no surveys for historical resources.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area of potential effect.
The SHPO believes that it is unlikely there are any archaeological resources eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places in the project area. The SHPO recommends no surveys
for archaeological resources.
NCDOT and FHWA conclude this project will not affect historic architectural or
archaeological resources.
X. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
FIGURES
Road
2
t- IN /' 15 Pike
Old Ford
Pinetow c NA
i
?2G3 10 6 Panteeo, .
\ r ashington? 3 Acre Terre 3 Lsechville?
5 63
? eatesvill
'cowinit u 3 6 )10 6
NORTH CAROLINA 3•ck - 9 Rt idnein a
6?,?
line 8erv1 r ns v,
`I a fRee
r
Core
Wilmer Pal FFRRY? 1Q/ \
? r"e' Peril co
Cox Cross ad Bonn n .?•-
Mount Creek /
Sou
Edward 3 Leek ,
urors Royal 12
? 3,
e
LHgVEN
POP
• 2,430
FAP BYP.
7609 PQ Deep Ran 'eels `?V? I ;. 2.0 264
2US BUS. b
``----- .` ; 64Pc,'.a\ .? 264
774
7718 •3 i-775
99
mitht
S on
1752
BRIDGE NO. 70 FPS
1 j ;
1 13
.77. Ck
3 ( 176 9
1 67
17116 .8
-' A 1-3
1 BRIDGE NO. 64 i, •6 ?
•0 1_717 1 7 JqcA. 1720
100
10 Q 1,19
1V Sidney
0 1778 b ?
1,32 17 1722?? SOCk e
X19
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
?? ? 17 WlnstepdDIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
lam 99 A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
NC 99
BRIDGE NO. 70
STUDIED DETOUR OVER SMITH CREEK
-?-?-?- T.I.P. NO. B-2805 FIG I
ROUTE
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
I 1 I I I I
f f,
?f -
r
t
Y.
i
i Y
O
IrU
M1
LTJ b d ?. T.
r
ro p1 0 ii
Pd 7 !-?
s @ -
Gpaoc
in ? ptl ? io ? x H r ,
x?y
m

.a1r?rLrL

1 7 '

T?,?A.
T -., f h
-tit' ?A I
Y.Si:

'
f?
a

BRIDGE NO. 70
BEAUFORT COUNTY
B - 2805

FIGURE 3 1
APPENDIX
s,,. STATE °?
SV -
w.n
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 6, 1'994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 70
Pungo Creek, Beaufort
8777
Dear Mr. Graf:
on NC 99 over Branch of
County, B-2805, ER 94-

GE?Vc?
?:1t
JAK? 1
DIVISION OF
k sa^Ls,ueVC , On June 21, 1994, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting concerning the above project. We
reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological
surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project
area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for our use
afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
July 6, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental revievii coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
.Sincerely,
avi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DAT
9
TO:
E
C;
?
] REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-DIEM
? c
?..,
a
FkOMI REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSkI10N
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS
FOR
?
YOUR APPROVAL
^
,,,,,, ?
,
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT TNIS L-FOR YOUR INFORMATION
- ? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
_ ? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE- ? SIGNATURE
? TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

JUN 31994
WE.TLANDi GROUP
WATLR Ui?LiTY ScCI'ICN
I

STAIr
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SK:RHARY
Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 70 on NC 99
over Smith Creek, Beaufort County, B-2805
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on May 18,
1994 to initiate the subject project.
The participants decided on two alternates for replacement: replace on
the existing location with road closure, and replace at existing location
with a temporary on-site detour to the west of the existing alignment. The
replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 25 meters (82 feet)
long, with a 12-meter (40-foot) wide travelway. The detour structure would
be a bridge approximately 15 meters (50 feet) long. The participants
concluded that for the road closure alternate, traffic would be detoured
along SR 1718, US 264, and SR 1714 as shown in Figure 1.
The Roadway Design Unit is preparing a cost estimate for each alternate.
In terms of historic architectural resources, there are no historic
structures in the project area. There are no recorded archaeological sites
in proximity to the bridge. SHPO recommends no survey for archaeological
resources.
Mr. Galamb of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) indicated
that DEM classifies Smith Creek as SC-nutrient sensitive. Normal soil
erosion control methods will be required. Mr. Galamb prefers replacement at
the existing location with road closure.
Mr. Cox of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
prefers replacement in existing location with road closure. He also stated
NCWRC would like to raise the grade to allow anglers access to the waters
upstream of the bridge. Mr. Cox said the NCWRC prefers at least 1.2 meters
(4.0 feet) of clearance above the mean surface elevation.
R J
1
June 1, 1994
Page 2
Mr. Tarleton indicated there is a fiber optic cable attached to the
bridge and an underground cable in the project area. Mr. Snead noted evidence
of an earlier roadway alignment east of the existing alignment. This
evidence includes the old approaches, abutments, and remaining timber piers
in the water. The detour alignment could line up with this previously
disturbed area.
The current project schedule includes right of way beginning August 16,
1996, and letting August 20, 1997.
A USGS benchmark located on the bridge will need to be relocated. NCDOT
personnel will consult with the USGS on this matter.
WF/plr
Attachments

v i d ('ox
1, I.Y Srlea(I
1r,V Moore
A? .lI I Lansford
I`mii Tar I e t on
wmllly Ko?er's
V I.I1 I? I. r,1) v
1"d kathmn
. A. West
I,ric (;aIalnh
"',lyric fedora
Nc,,, hI
I1 ,':I r,1u l i ?'?.
?tl!Iclill'?'

111; 11)UI',
,k(
UAFK D4/O5/q`
REVISION PATE;: 06/0_1/q)
PROJ I,A"T I)I;VF,I,UI'?JI;N'I' S 1',AGi,,
PROGRAMMING:
PI.ANN I NG : - ?,
OKS 1 GN :
I 1 I' I'I.().I i i'
;;'I'AT11, 1'1,',O
I)I?.?I, Iil I ,
l'(,)t?N i ,,, ? I
1"OtI'1 :
BkAUF'ORT COUNTY
I'WANCH OF PUNGO CREEK

Ml,;l'lh)i) (,', 'i•1,1.A('1";W, ,, !,:
KN `T1?N(; 1. "',ATI(Q (&Sill? I)1?DAG',
i'I 1'!? ;;i'I i11 i'(i;N1)11IARTI('II'-1'I'ION P'Y MU NICII'A1,I'I'Y..
1, 1 '.`r 'A- 1! i':U 4A,I \;' A`d1 , .:,i,: (;i,j ('L)
TRA1'1'IC. CI'RI'FNT 110H `,'I'II. IH ! „ n
l'YI AL 1, OAI)WA)" ti I';('':
FX 1 ST f N(; STRUCTUR1'; : l l;` (l 1`11 ..? M, t I :I `pit! I r, rr,
PROPOSED STRUCTUR F :
RRIDUK - `,i':^;i;'III
O I\,
I•I';N(?`1'li
CULVERT
D1;TOUR STRUCTURE: (if l hud )
Bk I DGE -- l,l;MITH

OR
P I P F 0• ?Nbd KU( "L ION COST ( I NCLKW ! i
('(ANT I `'(: !•;! ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I' I (ill I' O1, WAY COST ( I',N('lTH I Nh I:1'. AP
AN 1) Al`(!I I I `, I'i' I
1 ()RCI?. (VOUNT ITEMS .. . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . .
\I, COST .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'I' f T' ('ON,,TRUCT I ON .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'I; !"A . 000
'I' i P R I (fill` OF WAY CONT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 o . no
'1'O'1',11. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -' 000
PRIOR V EARS COST ... . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. :i,
I f' 1'U'1'A1 ('0ST............. . . . . . . . . . .:f 2 7 Q0()
?1-
-2-
NORTH CAROLINA
A ? M p
Frs. lhd, ,9
Gi

17
1?1
I l]J ? L767
6
G
-H S O S k A M _3
2.6
STUDIED DETOUR ?
ROUTE
-Pike Road t?
Old F ord
Plnetow?y
PanleRo
Washington+ 9 31 C h.,
r es9dle Belnav -
uny
6 - \ J g A 699 - - -
[owlmty
lack ? ?A_ f . .. c,... R I nay
/ 2 6 \J s, rr y? Bath Z Mns ea,
n„.t C.
Ine
Baynew l_ ans?(?i11e ?
J .1 U T\ FREE I
}mar PO ?Ir, fERRYt '1 /r'irty. \? f
Pamlico Be
tl i
Co. Cwssroa Bon ne
&unl Creek F .
Soul
Edward Creek
r7 a
Royal It
3 r
t
l ] ?D' - 11gp
.FJ 99 _
J?
!'04 -BELHAVEN
'tr POP. 2.420 AP aYr. 9
264 r5
1o t
t? 1
ads.') U>er
264 1p 1704 99
7 2
_ -nh Pint
BRI E 35-30'
70
3.7 p 1722 S" -dock
/
/ Polnr
1119
IJ2?t ? I
a \
s
Wlndwdvilla
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
122 '2';t TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
131ZANCH
NC 99
BRIDGE NO. 70
OVER BRANCH OF PUNGO CREEK
T. I. P. B - 2805
FIG. 1
o kilometers 3.2 0 miles 2
1 1 I I
a -
?c
.

f `

?F
t 1??? ??1_'IfI LV(`ll
, ? =F t
J3 0' 1 1)

i,lfld

(92 ? -

r

1

I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DA E
4
9 9
TO: R[F
. .0.. ON ROOM, SLOG.
11
Eri C C AlA.m T
I l if / -1
FROM; REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTIO N
_
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO M[ ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR APPROVAL
?
? NOT[ AND SEE M[ ABOUT THIS ,? ?
,
?roR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEAS[ ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
Fo
?
d
r
_
APR 1 91994
WETLAND
WATER UAL S GROUP
iiY StUICI'!
a M STAR' °
V M^
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Govi,KNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEI. HUNT 111
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacement of Bridge
No. 70 on NC 99 over Branch of Pungo Creek, Beaufort
County, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-99(1), State Project
No. 8.1150801, T.I.P. No. B-2805
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for May 18, 1994 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/plr
Attachment
71 V 71
S A) 1,J
?llc9? ?J???? c/of
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]"28
BRIDGE
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
DATE 04/05/94
REVISION DATE: _
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PI_,ANN I NG : X
DESIGN: TIP PROJECT: B-2805
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-99(1
STATE PROJECT: 8.1150801
DIVISION: TWO
COUNTY: BEAUFORT
ROUTE: NC 99
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: NC 99, BRIDGE #70, BEAUFORT COUN'T'Y
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BRANCH OF' PUNGO CREEK
COMMENTS:
USGS QUAD SHEET: PANTEGO
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON S I TE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) (%) -
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC : CURRENT LC?G _ VPD ; DESIGN YEAR 0 C VPD
TTST DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 23.2 Meters WIDTH 7.1_ Meters
76.0. Feet 23.4__ Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH Meters WIDTH Meters
Feet Feet
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH Meters
Feet
DETOUR STRUCTURE: BRIDGE - LENG'T'H Meters
Feet
OR
PIPE - SIZE Millimeters
Inches
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST .......................................$ -
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ _ 265,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ ______101000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 275,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ __275,000
--
? 15 Pike Road Z?
Old Ford I
Pmetow C NA 99
/ - - _ - \ Z64 ?o fi * 25 Acr;,vtll Terrs Pante°o
e
t Washington 32 c 264 3 5
Y e
NORTH CAROLINA -- 6 u y 3 6 99 _-
cowrmty
lack C, k 92 W R
/ sr k Bath Z ms as,
6
2 N„ro„< Bore ISO
!`ne Bayvie ' ns
3 mar Porn 1+'ff"i s' RIte' Pamlico Be
co,re Cos Crossr adk Bonne n _
"I plount Creek
out
? Edward 3 Creek t
urora
` Rovat 12 33
r
A M P
Pop
0
? 99 rti
b Jy
2.2 BEIHAVEN
2" ,7 'fr POP. 2•430 0 go. 9
a p 36e t?.
rp37 :'o? 1 3
1619
Frs minion Rod ((I ( ?6' i:. aUi?`':1•. A\ ! 264 1
1609
a 3?t.1 I]II P_?p ?`
G?
awkwiM Ya°taevilb ` a ) 99
14 : G
QA. ?-"•??J ?,
Il?p N 9S 'v? 17J7
-.1% Pint
1)73 _ ?...\ X67-
_ l_ 1
_ ine r 35°70'_ `
GRID
b 3717 lu Jock
J,7 t
p 17F7 Sxk W ddnck /
Q / - Si ney b - / Point
? A C K S 0 N. a i?ie 19 I a,
t
3 W q U71 2 s
M P WimN°dv01?
Lo
IZ;} !a
) . NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
99 "7i•r, TRANSPORTATION
' JA R°nean01. 6"" e DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
°"?? p PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 99
BRIDGE NO. 70
OVER BRANCH OF FUNGO CREEK
- T. I. P. B - 2805
FIG. DETOUR 1
ROUTE 0 kilometers 3.2 0 miles 2
f.. -.
y_
`1
y ?t tag x 4 / ?; <` \` ; °i?ddfellow.
It.
s ,-
Stote-sberry J a e( t
-Point \ } f ;err
° , \ 3
-v t ? ' ? ?fpat/
_ t
%
_ _ _ _?. _ _ fit'. wY'"?., _ .,Panes a ? ? - .-? I.., v ,. _ _ ? ?,e ? •?
? '? - ti '4r .' t?roa ' t?d \ { ' '• ? .(Jj: +•R>v.H d?+f3v - y?' „ •`
el ave - e
\Cedare1t - r
Five_., s
Isand
1
-. r\rf••a'`?`'/ /Pt L -\_ Iv q+v`. \.f.:z<4k »x: _iI?C)?
'i•15?1 S? t. 1hTi4eY i -qr wZt ?t rL. ,'.
'it
t71 <J' O
.. #... ..y}r• •ceefr. - (" t . ?"^i?? fa, e.4 .?•.. 4 \tf .t f<w'? ?" , ?'?
., a7twrQss#ot^cf rr1 ?f j Cedar ?^a: s
t
P
d? ?,?\J? 'hi('C.?? ?S'? Yn 2 _ _dr-' ? ) - ,. 't P? `"1rF.'s?a' .
? - xa t
.P.g..?.?4? \\ r -ti..? t ? _.. '?{. ._ - _ - ..e?• ?. -?? iz ?i? Yw? .iil ?7:phLJ'1?'
/ h
\ sr :/ _ 92 \ 4
- yl

l
921'. 3/I113
\ /± Archbell /
'__ 111.' 1 _ , -Pt , -
?\ \ -
I
: -
\mithtowne,'
r
it z.:? ?' \ _.. ...
\ ?` ?r ais / m j• -_, \ '? ,\ ?C?Le' _C? l\? Persrmlgmon?.Tre
90
/ j. vjndmm
e
.I n • ?• t `\ 4 11i\ \ ? \ ?' pt /? f t -// ??„ rrrrr{ra+V'?'y?A;Qr,'` t -.• y7:
a L ? : ?_ r,fii, A cJc
fr '+_?, .? (' Shore bf r
y
yr -1 7
f,;7
U?j.