20110058 Ver 1_Application_20110119

JAN 1 9 2011
- of WargA
-WATFRQU ?' pG
1 S _ ?
110058 Office Use Only
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
I a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ®No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
I
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ®No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: B-4234 Pitt 98, SR 1407,Bud Parker Road Over Conetoe Creek Pitt County
2b. County: Pitt
2c. Nearest municipality/ town: Belvoir
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: 335771.1
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: 105 Pactolus Highway NC 33 P.O. Box 1587
3e. City, state, zip: Greenville, NC 27835
3f. Telephone no.: 252-830-3490
3g. Fax no.: 252-830-3341
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
i. A
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Division 2 Environmental Officer
4b. Name: Jay B. Johnson
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
North Carolina Depratment of Transportation
4d. Street address: P.O. Box 1587
4e. City, state, zip: Greenville, NC 27835
4f. Telephone no.: 252-830-3490
4g. Fax no.: 252-830-3341
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: N/A
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form Version 1.3 December 107 2008 Version'
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
I a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): B4234 Pitt 98,SR 1407, Bud Parker Road Over Conetoe
Creek
Latitude: N 35.721797 Longitude: - W
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 77.480737
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Conetoe Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C;NSW
2c. River basin: Tar-Pamlico Lower Tar 03020103
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
B-4234 Pitt 98 SR 1407, Bud Parker Road is an un-paved secondary state highway. Woodlands and Agriculture dominate
the landscape.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
910 Square Feet of 404 Wetland Impacts For The Bridge to Bridge Replacement.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
60' This site is part of a longer adjacent stream system
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Bridge To Bridge Replacement ; the existing bridge has deteoriated and needs replacing.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The Existing 90' Long by 28.1' Wide Timber Bridge will be replaced with a Proposed 120' Long, 21 Cored Slab Bridge.
Excavators,Dump Trucks,and Crane Trucks will be used for the Bridge To Bridge Replacement.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property
/

? Yes ®No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type

Final
El Preliminary El
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): NCDOT Other: NCDOT
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
October,2004
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December,l.0, 2008 Versions

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes O No
6b. If yes, explain.

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 21b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ 0 Sq. ft.
W2 ® P ? T Fill Bottomland ® Yes ® Corps 910 Sq. ft.
Hardwood Forest ? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Nos El DWCorps Q 0 Sq. ft.
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ 0 Sq. ft.
WS ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 910 Sq. Ft.
2h. Comments: 910 Sq. ft.(0.02 Acres) 404 Wetland Impacts
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Tempora y (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Conetoe Creek ®? IN R ® CDW s 30' 0'
S2 ® P ? T Conetoe Creek ® PER
? INT ? Corps
® DWQ 30' 0'
S3 ® P ? T Conetoe Creek ® PER
? INT ? Corps
® DWQ 30' 0'
S4 ®P ? T Conetoe Creek ® PER
? INT ? Corps
® DWQ 30' 0
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S6 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 0 LF
3i. Comments: 0 Linear Feet of Stream Impacts
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December, 10,'2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments: None
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5L Total None
5g. Comments: None
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ?Tor-Pamlico ? Other: None
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary (T impact required?
B1 ®P ? T Fill Conetoe Creek ® Nos 2045 Sq. Ft. 1610 Sq. Ft.
B2 ® P ? T Fill Conetoe Creek ® Nos 2750 Sq. Ft. 1915 Sq. Ft.
B3 ®P ? T Fill Conetoe Creek ® Nos 505 Sq. Ft. 340 Sq. Ft.
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: See Page 6-A For Total Buffer Impacts
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts None
4g. Comments: None
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. Sc. 5d. 5
e
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) l
,,
pland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose cres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total None
5g. Comments: None
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other: None
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary (T impact required?
B1 ®P ? T B4 Fill Conetoe Creek ® Nos 530 Sq. Ft. 1585 Sq. Ft.
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts 5830 Sq. Ft. 5450 Sq. Ft.
6i. Comments: Buffer Zone 1 Impacts = 0.13 Acres Buffer Zone 2 Impacts = 0.13 Acres
Paged Df,10 "
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
I a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
There are 910 Sq. Ft. of 404 Wetland Impacts for this Project; Therefore,The Wetland Impacts have been minimized to the
greatest extent feasible, with just those impacts occurring for the Maintenance Road for the project
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Use of existing roadway to operate construction equipment; no equipment will enter wetlands.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ®No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres -
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
-Page 7 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ? Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: None
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 11 x
PCN Fohn - Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ® Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Sheet flow through Vegetated Uplands and Special Sediment control
Fence will be used to treat Stormwater Runoff from the road. Roadside ditches will ® Yes ? No
have wattles installed to treat water before entering into the buffers; the roadside
ditches are vegetated and will treat stormwater as well.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a ., What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A Roadway/Bridge Project %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Sheet flow through Vegetated Uplands and Special Sediment control Fence will be used to treat Stormwater Runoff from
the road. Roadside ditches will have wattles installed to treat water before entering into the buffers; the roadside ditches
are vegetated and will treat stormwater as well.
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
® DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other: N/A
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
® Other: NPDES Permit
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ®No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December) 0, 2008 Version .
5b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered 'yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ®No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered 'yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered 'yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered 'yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 10 of 11
PCN Forth - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes Z No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? A
h
ill
s
ev
e
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
PDBEA NCDOT Mussel Survey
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes Z No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
PDBEA NCDOT
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes Z No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b . What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NCDOT Historic Architecture and Archaelogy Natural Environment Unit of PDBEA
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a . Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Z Yes ? No
8b . If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Bridge designed to no-rise standards
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Maps
uary
Jan
13,
Jay B. Johnson 2011
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name A lic UAg it's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is lid o if a uthorization letter from the applicant
is vid,
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B-4234

` BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
?. PITT 98 em'
SR 1407, BUD PARKER ROAD OVER CONETOE CREEK
GREENVILLE,NW USGS QUAD MAP
SHEET NUMBER 10-A OF THE SOIL SURVEY OFPITT COUNTY
FIRM PANEL 4742 K MAP NUMBER 3720474200 K
WBS ELEMENT NUMBER 335771.1 AUGUST 4, 2010
CONETOE CREEK C, NSW
a TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN LOWER TAR 03020103 ;

? ra t ?
Mama ? a
C
33

I C
.. ILO '. ? a. ?? \ l -
teas
i \ d w' n
Y
N
-1 W

t
f.
S
y s ? 1
1 inch= 2,000 feet
0 7001,400 2,800 4,200 5,600
Feet
?? -

-rr-Gem s;

t
1
.
7

B-4234
PITT 98
Y= 721081.7523
X= 2450911.5970 o i
N35^-43'-18"
W 77^-28'-51 " r

N 35.721797 DECRE ES
W 77.480.737 DEGREES `

•i\ tic •
1

120

Bridge Memo
May 22, 2002
YELLOW LIGHT. The Tar River supports a good fishery for sunfish; therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels, NCDOT should
contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to discuss special
measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard recommendations apply.
24. Onslow County - Bridge No. 24, US 17, New River, B-4214
YELLOW LIGHT. The New River is designated as a Primary Nursery Area on the
downstream side of the existing US 17 bridge. Due to the potential for adult and larval
stages of anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes a moratorium on
work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to September 30. Other standard
recommendations apply.
25. Onslow County - Bridge No. 19, NC 210, Stones Creek, B-4215
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is also the potential for
impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts
to these wetlands. Other standard comments apply.
26. Pamlico County - Bridge No. 65, SR 1304, UT to Neuse River, B-4219
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality coastal wetlands at
this location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts to these
resources. Other standard comments apply.
27. Pamlico County - Bridge No. 4, SR 1344, South Prong Bay River, B-4221
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
apply.
28. Pender County - Bridge No. 21, NC 210, NE Cape Fear River, B-4223
RED LIGHT. There are records of the federally listed Shortnose sturgeon in the NE
Cape Fear in the project area. Due to the potential for anadromous fish and Shortnose
sturgeon at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes a moratorium on work within
jurisdictional waters from February I to June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is
preferred. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
apply.
29. Perquimans County - Bridge No. 69, SR 1222, UT to Mill Creek, B-4227
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
apply.
30. Pitt County - Bridge No. 98. SR 1407. Conetoe Creek-. B-4234
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
31. Pitt County - Bridge No. 118, SR 1538, Grindle Creek, B-4235
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
10- 08-Qoo I
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: 8.2221701
WBS No: 33577.1.1
F.A. No: B-4234
Federal (USACE) Permit Required?
County. Pitt
Document: PCE
Funding: State
X Yes No Permit Type:
X Federal
NWP3
Project Description: Replace existing 90' timber bridge with 120' cored slab bridge - Bridge
No. 98 on SR 1407 (Bud Parker Road) over Conetoe Creek. No off-site detour or ROW
acquisition planned.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Briefdescription of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: HPO quad maps, historic
designations roster, and indexes reviewed on 24 August 2010 and yielded no NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Pitt County current GIS mapping, aerial photography,
and tax information indicate cultivated fields and wooded parcels in the APE (viewed 24 August 2010).
The county architectural survey (1980s) and related publication recorded no properties in the APE
(Scott Power, ed. The Historic Architecture of Pitt County, North Carolina ([Greenville]: Pitt County
Historical Society, Inc., 1991)). Properties at east end of APE are under same ownership as parcel
containing previously surveyed, Holland House (PT 512, ca. 1900) (#1071 Holland Road (SR 1404),
standing approximately 625 feet southeast of the intersection of Bud Parker and Holland Roads (and
approximately 350 feet east of the latter)and, therefore, well outside the APE and not affected by the
proposed project Constructed in 1969, Bridge No. 98 is neither included in the NCDOT Historic Bridge
Survey, nor representative of any distinctive engineering or aesthetic type. The State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) reviewed project B-4234 in 2002-2003 and accepted a Categorical Exclusion
for historic resources (no NR-listed or-eligible properties affected) (see attached copies of
correspondence). Google Maps "Street View" confirmed absence of historic structures/landscapes in
APE (viewed 24 August 2010). No architectural survey required for project as currently defined.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE: APE centered on existing bridge and
extends 200 feet to N and S and 200 feet beyond 1120-foot project length (120-foot proposed bridge +
500 feet each side of creek) to W and E to encompass proposed construction activities. While not
recent, the county survey is well-executed and records no properties in the APE. County GIS/tax
materials and other images support absence of significant architectural resources. No National
Register-listed or -eligible properties or other properties of concern are located within the APE.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Project location map; HPO correspondence 2002-2003
FINDING BY NCDOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL
NO SURVEY REQUIRED - Historic
NCDOT Cultural Resources Specialist Date
"No survey Required "form for Minor 7ranrponation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
NCDOT Archaeology & Historic Architecture Croups
"Nn .s,,ev Required"fore, for Minor Trmuport d n P giecu as Qrmlifed in the 1007 Programmatic Agreement
i
B-4234 ?
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
°a PITT 98
SR 1407, BUD PARKER ROAD OVER CONETOE CREEK
;`..I GREENVILLE,NW USGS OUAD MAP
SHEET NUMBER 10-A OF THE SOIL SURVEY OF PITT COUNTY -
FIRM PANEL 4742 K AIAP NUtMBER 3 72 04 742 0 0 K : `..
WAS ELEMENT NUMBER 335771.1 "t;'
CONETOE CREEK C;NSW AUGUST 4, 2010
TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN LOWER TAR 03020103
i
14
\, s °?dHa nsi 4 a
1133
%
Ilan
r'; \
?\-. I { ? \ ?. nor 1 IW? N/ .? )s,' S`Z 5? I ^..',•
\ U aCem :• ?`?
1? ??4.u 1. d'• '
I'
N

S
B-4234
UZI ?If' S - PITT 98
Y= 721081.7523
X= 2450911.5970
N35^ 43'-18"
F' ?? not j?
W 77 A_28 ?-51
N35.721797DEGREES 01 '
W 77.480.737 DEGREES
Diu o 0 :lavj gpf
? o uo
1 inch = 2,000 feet I RAP /
0 700 1,400 2,800 4,200 5,600 '
Feet
9S
t
co,-r??(-e re ? h i f
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
September 15, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways _? f /
FROM: David BrookQ?( 1-?
Division of Historical Resource
SUBJECT: Federal Program Categorical Exclusion, Replacement of Bridge No. 98
on SR 1407 over Conetoe Creek, Pitt Coun ,p ,
ER02-8551
Thank you for your letter of August 12, 2003, transmitting the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for
the above project. We believe the CE adequately addresses our concerns for historic
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: John F. Sullivan, FWHA
www.hDo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Addrus .Tdcphotii/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699.4617 `ii',?(919) 733-763 • 733-8
Raleigh NC 27h99-1h17 fw; '[phone]'. • 715-4
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
10-08-0001
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No.
WBS No:
B-4234
County: Pitt
Document: PCE
F. A. No:
33577.1.1
Federal (USA CE) Permit Required?
Funding: ? State ® Federal
® Yes ? No Permit Type: NWP 3
Project Description: Replacement of existing 9011 timber bridge with a 12011 cored slab along SR 1407
(Bud Parker Road) over Conetoe Creek
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
A map inspection at OSA showed no previously recorded sites. The APE for this project is limited
spatially. Information obtained from aerial and street level photography suggests the environment
immediately surrounding the road where the new turning lane is proposed is unlikely to have significant
archaeological deposits, especially within the small APE. Further, this project was reviewed earlier by
HPO/OSA, and a 3-22-2002 correspondence from that office recommends no archaeological
investigation.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The undertaking involves a bridge replacement. Limited changes to the existing transportation feature are
planned The existing facility has already disturbed a large portion of the APE. No previously recorded
archaeological sites were noted during investigations at the Office of State Archaeology, nor has there
been a previous survey. Combined, these factors suggest that undocumented, significant archaeological
sites are not located within the APE.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: USGS quadrangle, Greenville, NW NC
=7CHAEOLOGY OT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE (CIRCLE ONE)
8/26/2010
Resources Specialist Date
"No Survey Required'yormjrMlnor T mponadonR jecvas Qual edin the 2007Programmade Lgreement.
NCDOTbchaeology & HisioHc Architecture Groups
' DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
999 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
77°30' : ,
35°45':-- 75?^^E 276 277 / 27'30'. ra us w
1
C",
Cem 1
`\` `?? Ill/` , \?? `.?.?I •? r? -:?- ?
¢
?{?. ^'` ? lam' ti,I ??1 ,?_ ,I I ?( r• I,
. ^\
to -r 6a
?'• '--l 1i am
s
`e•yd..
I7.1
??) 11
%
i. Ql
Cem I.. _ _ %\1 - ?!
..:, .w.
3956
\ f, J Ilands 'I ?` l ?G SW11p`m`p Ch
Cem 11 "
-Ts
t ? \ l /
Cem'
\\ Cem ?J PA 10-08-0001 % ?I -'•;.
,C
r'55
42'30"
3354
0
H-iy
Cecnlh
1 n- .B¢t0- v
\

Cem. J'

n

' 9M
12A

.a f7 i -rK it
4

Name: GREENVILLE NW Location: 18 0275762 E 3956184 N NAD 27
Date: 8262010
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Copyright (C) 1998, Matted,, k=
Project Commitments
Replacement of Bridge No. 98 on SR 1407 Over Conetoe Creek
Pitt County
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1407(4)
State Project No. 8.221701
TIP No. B4234

e.. srnrro
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
Michael F. Easley. Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans. Secretory
Jettiey J. Crow. Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 22, 2002
Iv1ED1CRANDUM
t?f. i'y't rj?r-.

Division of Historical Rcsoun
David J. Olson, Director
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transp((oo?rtation?
FROM: David Brook 1 U<?l lR GQ [G'
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 98 and SR 1407 over Conetoe Creek, B-4234, Pitt County, ER 02-8551
Thank you for your memorandum of September 25, 2001, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Because the Department of Transportation is in the process of surveying and evaluating the National w
Register eligibility of all of its concrete bridges, we are unable to comment on the National Register r \ttt
eligibility of the subject bridge. Please contact Mary Pope Furr, in the Architectural History Section, to
determine if further study of the bridge is needed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Farley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location - Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617 (919) 7334767
_. ..- ...?.. ., .. ''. n._.... n.._•1 nn[nn..(• /nll1'll1 «An
Johnson, Jay 'B
From: Lynch, Karen M
Sent: Thursday, November 05.2009 12:40 PM
`To: Williams, _Logan; Sutton, Michael W
cc: Alligood, Qwaynak Caldwell, Betty A;'Mombaerts,.Cerard E; Johnson, Jay B; Tran; Van 'K
Subject: RE: 84236 Pitt 121
Hi Mike,
I sent out the concurrence letter and 'No Effect" for 8-4233 (Pitt65) and 5-4234 (Pitt98)
so you should receive it by Monday.. Yesterday Jay Mays and Mitchell from our group looked
at B-4236 (Pitt 121) and discussed the project with USFWS Gary Jordan. He agreed with'the
"No Effect" call for B-42.36 (Pitt 121). If you need anything else, just let us know!
Karen
Karen 14. Lynch
Biological Surveys Group,
Natural Environment Unit
:(M) 431-6642
Mailing Address:
1598 Mail Service: Center
Raleigh,.'Nc 27699
Physical :Address?
4101 Atlantic Ave., suite 116
Raleigh„ NC 27604
-----Original-Message-----
:From: Williams, Logan ..
Sent. Wednesday, November 04., 2009 7;26 AM
To: Sutton, Michael F - ..........
Cc, Alligood, Dwayne H; Caldwell, Betty A „Mombaertsj.: Gerard E; Johnson, Jay B;. Tran, Van
!K; Lynch, Karen M'
Subject: RE:, .8-4236 Fitt 121
Hi Mike;. good to hearfrom you. The Biological Conclusion remains "no effect." for both
projects. No further surveys are required for either of these projects. If you need
further information please .contact us. Thanks, Logan
-----Original 'Message-----
-From: Sutton, :Michael W
Sent: Tuesday, November 63', 2009 2:00 PM
To: Williams, Logan
Cc: Allgood, Dwayne H; Caldwell, Betty A; Mombaerts, Gerard E; Johnson, Jay B; Tran, Van
K
Subject: B--=:236 Pitt 121 .
Hey Mr. Logan.... Division 2 is planning. to replace Pitt 121. A Tar River Spinymussel
Survey was Conducted in 2002 with aBiolog:ical Conclusion of "No Effect". Is this
recommendation still valid at the present time? Pitt 121 has a. May, 2010 Let. Date. Will we
:need to schedule another mussel survey? Pitt. 118, ?B-4235 is downstream from Pitt 121. and
it's Biological Conclusion. was No Effects". Please advise .... many thanks...mike:
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
OOVRUWR
Memorandum to:
CC:
From:
Subject:
May 22, 2009
Bill Goodwin P.E., Planning Engbeering Group
Chris Underwood, Project Management Group
Jason W. Mays, Biological Surveys Group
B4601 Mussel Survey Report
EUGEM A- CON77, IR.
SECRETARY
Biologists from the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group performed a survey for Tar River
spinymussel (EMptlo steinstansana, TSM) at Nash Co. SR 1214 crossing of Pinelog Branch (TIP B-4601)
on May 22, 2009. Pinelog Br., at this site, consists of a small (-2-3 in wide) channelized blac1cwater
stream, having unconsolidated sand and silt substrate. This habitat is not adequate for TSM, which
requires silt-free sand and gravel substrate, and flowing, well oxygenated water. During 0.5 persat hours
of search time, no mussels were encountered. Only one snail, Campeloma sp., and one fish, Gambusia
holbsook, were observed in the stream. Both of these species are tolerant of stream degradation, which in
Pinelog Br. appears to include the effects of channelization as well as significant agricultural and
residential runoff. Pinelog Br. is littered with trash and with discarded oil absorbing booms, indicating a
past spill in the creek that could have resulted in the observed lack of biological diversity.
Additionally, Pinelog Br. at the SR 1214 crossing is likely to be too small of a watershed to
support TSM, being many times smaller than the smallest known watershed to support this species.
Pinelog Br. is of the size that it can be expected to regularly cease flow daring times of decreased
precipitation, reducing its suitability for mussel fauna in general. The habitat within Pmckig Br. is not
suitable for TSM.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Principle Investigator
Investigator: Jason W. Mays, Environmental Specialist
Permit: NC - 2008 ES 133
Education: B.S. Biological Sciences, UNC Chapel FEB 2002
At S. Fisheries and Wildlife Science, NCSU 2009
Experience: NCWRC Field Biologist May 2002-October 2003
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, March 2004- Presort
MAUNO ADDRESS:
NO DEFARTNENT OFT 44vmTATKw
PRaArT DEVROPROW AND ENARONIB AKkY=
NATU4L 8*At0W NT UNIT
1508MALSERNCECENTER
T aepNONE: 91 S1T1.2oo0
FA1C 810431.2001
LOCATION:
4701 Atltnlb A"..
sums 110
PA11". NO 271104
'3-y234=P4g9

United States Department of the Interior
RECEIVED
AUG 11 2005
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 4, 2005
Phil S. Hams, Ill, P.E. .
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
OMSION OF HIGHWAYS
W-OFFICE OF HA1Lr41. DIViRONIIfI
This letter is in response to your letter of July 29, 2005 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 98 on SR 1407 (Bud Parker Road) ov 'nle Creek in
Pitt County;14o. B4234);may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio sleinsiansana). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have
no effect on the federally protected bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). These comments are provided
to accordance With U.S.C. 153 1
1543).
According to information provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on May 26, 2005.
The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1407. No specimens of Tar
spinymussel were observed. Based on the information provided and other information available, the
Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the Tar spinymussel. Also, due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with
the determination that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle, West Indian manatee and red-
cockaded woodpecker. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that
was not considered irr this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
r //01-
etc Benlar
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC K
Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
.R
?e * o
u
Q
r• IN
txi F
Cl V!
c
z
W C7
Z W ? 4
b Cl/? ? Fi
? q
? ? h O
@ ? a f
N
llI" ''?
h
0
k
R
a
- Q
0
F
0
Q
a
Q
ll trzt-S -0109foUcr dLZ

t ap 66 /89/68
< y t. l
t j
ip
r` xa
w m
g
i

!!!-
O
4 4
'.

N
W ®Y§
3 h
x
o
g x
E ?
ms, o y$1.
8 O 4
b

?a tyw?
N
b N N
C C N
II II
? ? II

F U
O 0 U
V a?40
o ??a

ay

O O
O O Q p F
y N a g
o
r r ? a
h N O
=LIOV4YINOO
u6p•I-ystl-Zopp-0 CZ bQ\86.":d\11$d\SJ)3f0ad
96:91110Z-NVf

J?
0
m
Z LJ
TW

C? ? 7
®
® Lim
® c0
>
Q

J
L
I?
V
O
I-
Z
LLI
Z
O
V.
k
w
b
j
m
O
II
IN
v

I I I I
? I : I

©
®
F l y
?7
®
®
® I
I $
O
® ? I
® O+
a
b" I
N I
E
O
O

I I I ? Y I

W

W • O • v

VI
O
=
c OC
?
'° Ti OR
O m O ° u 'S ° N C O
c -
O -
O Q
V O 0
7 :3
w c
?
L C c
3 p
m
°
w +
y ?p
e0
,
pqF
p
W

C

3

3

3

?

LL
Q
O L
p Y
J .
V
oc
x IL {? O d <
< U b N O LL y O O « «
O cC C ? O ^
tS
J C
Ill O O N C LL N , N 0 3 3 O
O O C T O o
L 0.. ° u O o ' O m ` uuuN C $ N Q W O O C 3 x ?$ w
= O O O
° ° ; ° O p O O
° r pr r °
N O
m m d d J F
- 7 O O O O C
{Y
F O V m
o N d 1- O N
o V ,
o w
u w ° M
o t
C y l
o U >
S >
S _ >
S
e
3 3 3 3 3 n m > > a W

I
I
I
3
C

W
C m

h

s

! .t
0
U
m`o

C
m

m
m u
3
$

3

C

g

m

a

3

9
W

°

x

m
t

U

6

c

a

LL

p O
c.
m
u

m
°
em

?

s,

«
S
j3

o
F

N

O

N

O
-0 -0-+-¢0 2 0 0 I
V-
0 O C = O
e o d x° `m 3
0 o d ° ? °
6 C j ? e ° F O d d
w ° O
O ? C O r~ w U O
d ? d
6 e
I ' I
k
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I Il
t I m +_
? tIl I7
F j O
° O
o e ao ? c ? o
u u U U U
o °c c° l Ty
x 0 L C L e O 6 O
r o r m O o
g0
6° O e O C 12 al 0
o 2 o 0
=?arrrssmomso
O O O O ?Cq o p p
W ? d 1-° le- le- 10- 7 K ? K 0 K O
I I I I O
tr f I i I I I
I I a
a } I Iw ? t?y?lii o
`m I I o ????111
O Q C W
ng a E, g E 'c
c w° u 5 o e rF
S w O W W \ O 0 3
'? ° Ti O O O O O C
m -? 2 0 o a W W o o ??????111111 a
w c c c E
0 oc :3 :3::E :3 o .? Q e e? o U LL _ 'Q
o o a t` U D 0 0 7 w E ° o m =°.E o 'oo
1? 'o S m 3 3 o 3 c r r E 'c 'c r 'c o o o s r
h t S d 3 3 0 0? -00 o 0 0 >? E o 0 o E ov o in n U$ U o
orn P o o c E E E? c a m o U o 0 0 0
Q= m v r .c m r o P c E E E€ a s ??c mc o o :o .n E 'r
:E o C m m d eZ c a° p u 'o^ Im- 4° d d d F i c voi In S o l7 o u 2
M o U a oe d U w o, y w V U N °o s c
°c o f i ° o m c w c m m?? o o$ k m ", ?= N E
Cyop((c?4°suyy gds ?? QSpp ass sQ4 ?;W << o
o o
N OC V;l K d' m W d d d d W d d b d d d d W W d d L W 6 d0 Ih h x 3 O c
x
Oe OA Q
I
1
1
s o o- o. x o0 0?-??
r
o ? o ? a
c
c O m O O
c LL c LL o ED
C
E r
ao ? d
vl E z$ 3 3 v°
$ a o E ,°, :3 cc c o o °rn om
o$? o j° V° = a 3 U m° 0 3 c c a o c
Q :3 a LL 3 W W ,9?`? E C O
O b e€ m°np o 8 x $. n o fQ E ay ?.f. 1p7?' w eo o E o E s E
ry N V f U K 1 W 1 1 6 1 6 111 d "?/ N 3 N LL 4 V m w U
I
ti n
Li I
I.
3 of E E
ai ? ? °o e
V 0 N N
° r
Q `o $ o °cp oc
(? E d t IJ IJ° ? O. 1
?,+ N ? ? 0 ? IL Ct V
u
6
°m
x
m
9 a
e o n
3 d LL

?B000
0
`
r 0 ?0
'9
.

U
u
a
a 5 lr y
0? !
z d
A 5< z
w Hi ll 0 1, IN I
V p
3 Q 5
4 (? C
rc N

m ?

r ? : Q

b s m N
ewi
(? k aR? '?
?
Rg
J N G
G
? ? ? M??q
I >
& Q VY
4 ??
a m ? ? o ? s
5 ????
q

?
a ----- MIN OR
u Q ; II r i N
d
v
c
LL
R
C
?L
? V
? H
K
r 6
N -
W ?
? U
w 6
O V
U H
W
y
C
4

t

k
I&R?E I - . . F J . l Q I !
.et em vvs p.
tt4•
IN

s Y Y !'i I i.' i MI 5'k!'F Y
B 93 Y.'31 F?ili 3! F??P?'1?$?LI':?N, i?fi?F??3M1d'f5'f 46&8'?S

7
z
U)
J O ?
56
rn ?- _I O O ?7
_
F'n
•
C

<

??'
Z

Z r

y O

r n O

N
Q C
--
< r
g
n
O
?
A
p O
o O

-n

?

-TI
T
(J) ~
D OI Q :z) c) rr, ?I
?
roM w
~
O
C
o
O
00

< `C F
O O
O
-rl
r
?Crn?o
? II rn
ofd rr?^^ cnj
y v l 1,
? o•
-ta
m
00
Nm
A (n
y
Ln c/)
4l1
? ? r I oc
n1 ,_
? OO
: i

I I-
I = O
I ?Z
I („ co Z

cO
rn _ zmr7Q

,?. iz >>m tt C

-0 V) z ?u r-
n M
Lrl D
pa
r

t II :ZE
II W (n
O
L i
C, ? n?o o_ Z

I rnz co

TI N O C; I

f
n TI
'I
- r lA
,,n I TI
?:
P
-rte
M
a
n
t S
X

I

' 72
n
r- -
1 .I-i c
N ( tt
Dr;
h (n
rTl r', -
Z
-+ C
s' .
n;
/S

N
STS
?, Z { f'
`a b Z --I
-goo -
M> Sf ?? S
-si
1 m
L Zg ' ? Z 9
?
T

O T -
iJ cr)
n Fn cr y
1
? 0
s
C:?

:zl

CD
N

O G
O Uli

1l [? W
rn?o ?
? z
0
co
II rr,
?

a O

>
?I
lD M
D
p
m
z

zi
D D / 00
e
i O
.f O
,? .
Is ZZ
f ,
O
f O Q
0 ?1 (n
I ?
2
Q ti SOIL DR 0 N rn

C rn
II ?
I I
II
? rn ?
?{
- ?

J Q
r
I
N
1 - II
o 1,
-•
I N
I
I I ? I
^?
' V
z ?`
Fri V
O 2
Z
p D
cz) F
p
00
0 CD -;
rn co
O <
b r?ly m?

l<

? rn ? z
O O
I?
O

^'lJ -
Ul C
)

C-) C
? rn
0

f

n ?
p ?> ?x
cn
O CO M (A
N Z D
N
L >
70
D

-
_ p
C-) r?
-? D o
m
ur? o
co
o

6
z ? o z ? o n o o ?
rn CID

r

-ti C ` nl O

°n

W 70 O C ( C -V ' I CQ
00
C--
Do
D
-< rn
0
0
70
N

Q
l
rT) f

Cb O
o
r ;r-q

-TI
m
a
n
i?
lF1nZ
O rI Z
T D>
-G?
G
y

O
v J
? _y
rTl -D O
r rn?

aC?
O
CO fD

O O

O

C
? rn
n ?
y
O
?? rn
o ?

L/)
qc t /,
Lrl O a?ab- S
L Z.g
X% I
r
I I
I
i 1
I r„
X ?
I ?
X' I
• J?
L
M
Z Z9
0

I
10
I co _M D
Z
I

IT Raj m
U)
zm
no L N
I ?
i m
c) DDm# ? n
O nl Rl Z > r
D
O < ?
= U
l >
F (D

rv N)
W L'i
O

zE ~ N n`
N II CD
1 II
N CD
?
OO ?
2

1O

m?

Q
c?
m
r
? N
0 W O
o Q .I r;
o CZ)
N
?

r-,, CID

?
Q) L
" z
?r-n
•O ?

C) CO
co-
N '<
7 D
Q0 m
D
O
m
z
?o
O
g o
O

_ M .Z?,6bo90 N
?SOIL DR

n? nc?
11 ? ? T
rn Do

?z om
rn ?
o
N -

C)

p D CD
XD r- m
zx
Co o ;u
CID m C/i
c
D

Tl D F7
00
?
O
Z >
m?
O
Z
p D
Co r

0
rn co
C) m

z Z
? O?
a rnU ? Zt o

0

N
CIq

-- o
?
rn
O

b