20061531 Ver 1_Complete File_20060914

r
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

3-

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 14, 2006
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
(f?? •^+?
i s ? J f
v/ nom,/
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 14 over
the Black River on NC 411, Sampson County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
411(1); State Project No. 8.1280401; TIP No. B-1381.
Please find enclosed the half-size plans, the Categorical Exclusion (CE), and Natural Resources
Technical Report (NRTR) for the above-mentioned project. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 14 over the Black River on NC411 in
Sampson County.
The project involves replacing the old bridge on the existing location with a new 4-span bridge
approximately 204 feet long and 37 feet wide. Traffic will be detoured off-site during
construction.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: The Black River is the only water resource within the study area and is
located in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin, Subbasin 03-06-19. The Black River [Index No. 18-68]
has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C Sw ORW by the North Carolina Department
of Environmental and Natural Resources and is in Hydrologic Unit 03030006. The Black River is
not designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic
River, nor is it listed as a 303(d) stream. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply H (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mile of the project study
area.
Permanent Impacts: NCDOT anticipates limited permanent impacts for this project. The only
impacts to surface waters will result from the placement of in-water bents. Bents in the water
will be 15.72 square feet each for a total of 31.45 square feet or less than .001 acre of permanent
impacts.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Temporary Impacts: NCDOT does not anticipate any temporary impacts for this project.
Temporary workpads or causeways are unnecessary for the demolition of the existing bridge and
construction of the new bridge.
Utility Impacts: NCDOT Utilities reported a power line located on the North side of Bridge No.
14 that travels the length of the project. This line is not in conflict with the project and will
remain in place during construction.
Several buried telephone cables are located on the North and South sides of NC 411 and travel
aerially on two poles over the Black River. Any adjustments to these cables to clear the area for
bridge construction will take place by open trench method outside of any jurisdictional resources.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 14 is composed of a reinforced concrete deck on timber joists and I-beams. The
original structure was composed of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. Temporary steel
crutches have been added to reinforce the structure until replacement. It is likely that all
components can be removed without any appreciable debris falling into the water.
All measures will be taken to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.
Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented.
Avoidance and Minimization
NCDOT has minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible. The number of bents in the water
is being reduced from five for the existing bridge to two for the new bridge. In compliance with
15A NCAC 0213.01 04(m) we have incorporated the use of BMP's in the design of the project.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction.
An in-stream moratorium from September 1 to January 1 to protect anadromous fish that may use
the river as a travel corridor is recommended in the CE. The Wildlife Resources Commission has
informed NCDOT that these dates are incorrect. The correct in-stream moratorium will occur
from February 15 to June 15.
Mitigation
No mitigation is required for this project due to the limited impacts to the Black River. There are
no wetlands within the project area.
Federally Protected Species
As of 27 April 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four protected species for
Sampson County (Table 1). Descriptions of the protected species are provided in the attached
Categorical Exclusion. Habitat surveys were conducted on 31 August 2006 for Red-cockaded
woodpecker, American chaffseed, and Pondberry. No suitable habitat for any of these species
will be impacted by the project. Therefore, Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" remain valid.
Table 1. Federallv Protected Species for Sampson County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Biological conclusion
American alligator Ili ator mississi iensis Threatened S/A) /A /A
Red-cockaded woodpecker icoides borealis Endangered es No Effect
American chaffseed chwalbea americana Endangered No No Effect
Pondberry indera melissi olio Endangered NO No Effect
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This 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 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403
will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section.0500(a) we are providing
two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
United States Coast Guard: A letter of exemption from the USCG is included in the CE. The
letter exempts NCDOT from needing an USCG permit for this project.
The NCDOT hereby requests that this project be authorized by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. If there are any questions, please contact
Ms. Veronica Barnes of my staff at vabarnes(@dot.state.nc.us or [phone].
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Pennit.htnil.
SincerePF , L
?o Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3
Environmental Officer
w/out attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming
and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Williams, PDEA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A.
B.
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-1381
8.1280401
32594.1.1
BRSTP-411(1)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over the Black River
in Sampson County. B-1381 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program
and is eligible for the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge 230-foot long and 30 feet wide.
The bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two 12-foot lanes with three-
foot offsets on each side. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
Approach work will extend approximately 150 feet east and 200 feet west of the
bridge. The existing 18-foot wide pavement will be widened to 24 feet to provide
two 12-foot lanes along the approaches. Eight-foot grass shoulders will be
provided on each side (11 feet with guardrail). This roadway will be designed as
a rural major collector with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
Purpose and Need:
At the time of programming, Federal Highway Administration requires that a
bridge have a sufficiency rating of less than 50 paired with being either
structurally deficient and/or functionally obsolete in order to qualify for the
Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Bridge
Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 26.6 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally
deficient due to a structure appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) standards.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (311 and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
C. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
2
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Project History
A Categorical Exclusion and Programmatic Section 4(f) were signed on June 30, 1995.
The project was originally scheduled for Let in 1998 but all bids came in over the
estimated cost and were thrown out. The project remained dormant until recently. The
purpose of this Programmatic Categorical Exclusion is to update the environmental
documentation for the project so that the project may be pursued to construction let once
again. The original Programmatic 4(f) is included as an attachment to this document.
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 625,000
Right of Way for this project was purchased prior to the original Let date. The
current proposal stays within those R/W Limits.
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 800
Year 2025 - 1200
TTST - 2%
Dual - 1 %
Accidents: In a check of a recent three-year period, four accidents occurred in the
vicinity of the-bridge.- None were-within the proposed project limits. The nearest was on
the curve in the east approach. Because this is an historic district, it is considered
appropriate to limit the project to what is currently proposed.
Design Speed: 60 mph
Functional Classification: Rural Major Collector
School Busses: During the school year there are six school bus crossings per day at this
location. The Transportation Director for Sampson County Public Schools indicated that
re-routing would not be a problem during construction.
Division Office Comments: The Division concurs with the proposed alternate.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge 14 is composed of a reinforced concrete deck on timber joists
and I-beams. The original structure was composed of reinforced concrete caps on timber
piles. Temporary steel crutches have been added to reinforce the structure until
replacement. It is likely that all components can be removed without any appreciable
debris falling into the water.
Studied Offsite Detour: NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for
Bridge Replacement Projects consi ers mu tip e project variables beginning with the
additional time traveled by the average road user resulting from the offsite detour. The
offsite detour for this project would include SR 1130, NC 903, NC 411 and back to
SR 1130. The duration of the project will be approximately 8 months. The detour for the
average road user would result in 9.3 minutes additional travel time (7 miles additional
travel). According to the Guidelines, these criteria fall within a range where NCDOT
would normally consider an onsite detour to be appropriate but if mitigating
circumstances are present, an offsite detour might be considered acceptable. The
presence of the historic district is a mitigating circumstance on this project. It would not
be possible to use an onsite detour without impacts to the historic structures. For this
reason, NCDOT has elected to detour traffic offsite during construction.
Design Exception: There will be no design exceptions for this project
4
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
5
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? ? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
?
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
X ?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X ?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
- (25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the

bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
X ?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
6
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Documentation for Question 7: The Black River is classified as an Outstanding
Resource Water. Hi4h Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures will be
implemented to mina m,ze impacts during construction.
Documentation for Question 12: A U.S. Coast Guard Permit will be required since
the Black River is historically a navigable water. The new bridge will maintain or
increase the vertical and horizontal clearance under the bridge.
Documentation for Question 28: Clear Run Historic District is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. All efforts have been made to minimize the
impacts to the historic district. Section 106 and Section 4(f documentation were
provided in the original CE and are repeated as an attachment to this document.
Documentation for Question 29: There is an archaeological site on the northwest
quadrant of the project. As part of the on ''nal effort to Let the project to
construction, the site was excavated and all appropriate materials recovered and
preserved to clear the location for new construction.
Documentation for Question 30: Both the archaeological site and the Clear Run
Historic District are considered Section 4(o resources. All impacts have been
minimized and mitigated as art of the previous Administrative Action. The Section
4(0 documentation is included as an attachment to this document.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
Project Dev,?lopment & Environmental Analysis Branch
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over the Black River
in Sampson County. The replacement structure will consist of a bridge 230-foot
long and 30 feet wide. The bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two
12-foot lanes with three-foot offsets on each side. Traffic will be detoured offsite
during construction.
Approach work will extend approximately 150 feet east and 200 feet west of the
bridge. The existing 18-foot wide pavement will be widened to 24 feet to provide
two 12-foot lanes along the approaches. Eight-foot grass shoulders will be
provided on each side (11 feet with guardrail). This roadway will be designed as
a rural major collector with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
a8 D?
Date
G- y'
Date
B-1381
8.1280401
32594.1.1
BRSTP-411(1)
nit

& Environmental Analysis Branch
I (0
Date
Date
A. ?• Wit i l"'
Pr ject Planning Engineer
Pr ject Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Jbhn F. Sullivan, III,P.E., Division
Federal Highway Administration
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Sampson County
Bridge No. 14 on NC 411
Over the Black River
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-411(1)
State Project No. 8.1280401
W.B.S. No. 32594.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-1381
All Design Units/Resident Engineer- Historic District
Because the project lies in the middle of Clear Run Historic District, all design and construction
work will be conducted so as to minimize impact to the properties surrounding the bridge to the
extent practical.
Structure Design - On Bar Metal Rail
As part of the negotiations with the SHPO, NCDOT has agreed to include 1-bar metal rail as part
of the new bridge design.
Office of Natural Environment - Bridge Demolition
Except for the deck the entire bridge is constructed of timber and steel. It is unlikely that there
will be any temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Resident Engineer- Sensitive Watersheds
The Black River is designated, as Outstanding Resource Waters and will be subject to Design
Standards for Sensitive Watersheds.
Office of Natural Environment - Coast Guard Permit not required.
The Black River is historically navigable but currently not used by anything other than small
recreational boats. Advance approval has been given by the Coast Guard for the construction of
such bridges. An individual Coast Guard Bridge Permit will not be required.
All Design Groups/ Division Resident Engineer- Anadramous Fish, High Quality Wetlands
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has indicated that a moratorium on in-water
construction will be in place from September 1 to January 1 of any given year.
To the extent practical, construction should be accomplished without the use of construction pads.
To the extent practical, bridge demolition should occur without getting into the water.
To the extent practical, the footprint of the proposed project should be minimized.
NCDOT will implement Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Crossings.
NCDOT will implement High Quality Waters Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
June 2004
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SAMPSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 14 ON NC 411
OVER BLACK RIVER
B-1381
Figure 1
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT BRSTP-411(1)
STATE PROJECT 8.1280401
T. I. P. NO. B-1381
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over the Black River in Sampson
County, State Project No. 8.1280401, Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-41 1 (1), TIP # B-1381.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of the X ?
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location? ?
X
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the ?
existing highway? X
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings, ? X
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are ? X
important to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(0 ?
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic ? X
site, does the Advisory Council on -
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"?
17

7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed X ?
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation
of an EIS? ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do nothing X ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X

or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X

or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create a cost or impact of ? X
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using the
adjacent historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes ?
in standards, use of retaining walls, X
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
18
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
. or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new ?
location without using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X
historic integrity of the site.
19
2. Measures to minimize harm have been ?
agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR X
Part 800, by the FHWA, the SHPO,
and as appropriate, the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
The existing bridge is being replaced on the existing location and all work on
approaches is being kept to a minimum. Only work which is absolutely necessary for
safety is proposed. That work includes drainage pipes along the side of the road, guardrail
extending from each corner of the bridge, and some regrading on the shoulder at the
northwest corner of the bridge. A right of way taking of approximately one meter will be
required on either side of the east approach in order to accomplish the work described
above. A right of way taking of approximately two meters will be required on the north
shoulder of the west approach to meet the safety standards for shoulders. Finally, a one
bar metal rail is proposed for the bridge instead of the normal jersey barrier. This is to
allow for a better view of the historic district as well as the river when crossing the bridge.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(0 evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following :
a. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
NCDOT and FHWA have coordinated with SHPO from the outset of the
project to minimize harm to Clear Run Historic District. Attachments 2
through 9 reflect this coordination..
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
NCDOT and FHWA have coordinated with the ACHP through
correspondence. They have stated agreement with the determination of "no
adverse effect". They also noted that this completes compliance of Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (See Attachment 9)
c. Property owner
Amos McLamb is the present land owner of all properties surrounding the
bridge. NCDOT on behalf of FHWA has contacted Mr. Johnson early in the
process and described the project and its effects. Mr. Johnson concurs with the
project as described.
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies
NCDOT and FHWA have coordinated from the beginning of the planning
process with the FHWA and SHPO to ensure that all known issues were
addressed. Attachments 2 through 9 reflect this coordination.
20
e. US Coast Guard
NCDOT and FHWA have coordinated with the US Coast Guard regarding this
project and concurs with the Coast Guard that this project will require a Coast
Guard permit since the waters of the Black River are historically navigable at
this location. NCDOT will obtain a Coast Guard permit prior to construction
as noted in Section II of the document.
SUMMARY OF APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
6-3o-7S
Date Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch NCDOT
Date ?,rDivis' Admuiistrator, FHWA
21
U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard
Commander 431 Crawford Street
United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Atlantic Area Staff Symbol: (Aowb)
Phone: [phone]
16590
15 NOV 02
Mr. John Williams
Manager, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
State of North Carolina, DOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Williams:
Our Bridge Staff has reviewed your letter and site plan, dated November 7, 2002, for the
replacement of a bridge on State Route 411 over Black River, located in Sampson County, North
Carolina.
Black River is considered a navigable waterway of the United States for Bridge Administration
purposes. It also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways set forth in Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 115.70, at the bridge site. Advance approval waterways are those
that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than small boats. In such cases, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his advance approval to the construction of bridges
across such waterways. The Black River bridge project qualifies in the advance approval
category. Accordingly, an individual Coast Guard bridge permit will not be required for the new
bridge across this waterway.
The fact that a Coast Guard permit will not be required for this bridge does not relieve you of the
responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or local agency
who may have jurisdiction over any aspect of this projects.
Sincerely,
1,21
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
,,,; ?/ is "?a ?'• ,- ,?• ?•
r;,r F a-
K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391 .? "
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
1 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager _r.•
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 41 on NC 411
over the Black River, Sampson County, North Carolina,
TIP No. B-1381.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed
the proposed project and possible impacts to existing wildlife
and fishery resources in the area. An on-site investigation was
conducted on September 9, 1993. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C)), and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
plans to replace an obsolete wood/asphalt bridge over the Black
River on existing location. The NCWRC encourages replacement at
location for such projects and supports the NCDOT in its choice
of this alternative. No significant effect on horizontal or
vertical clearance for river navigation is anticipated, although
public access to the creek may be temporarily impaired by
construction activities.
In addition to on-site replacement with road closure, strict
adherence to Best Management Practices for construction
activities on the project area should be employed to minimize
impacts from erosion on water quality. The NCWRC also recommends
that all bridge replacement work within the stream. channel be
conducted between September 1 and January 1 to minimize impacts
ATTACHMENT 11 ?
MEMO TO: L.J. Ward Page 2 September 14, 1993
to anadromous fish stocks and freshwater game fish. Any instream
construction outside of this window should be coordinated with
Keith W. Ashley, District Fisheries Biologist, at (919-866-4250).
Also, the completed structure and roadway approaches should not
obstruct existing public use of the site for boating access.
Public access to the unimproved boat landing adjacent to the site
should be maintained during construction to the extent
practicable.
Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to provide input to
the planning stages for this project. If we can provide further
assistance, please call David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator,
at (919)-528-9887.
cc: Keith W. Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Tom Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
John Williams, NCDOT

P
a.r ?.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation, Archaeological Survey
Report, Bridge Replacement No. 14 over Black
River on NC 411, Sampson County, Federal-aid
BRSTP-41 1 (1), State 8.1280401, TIP B-1381, ER
94-8479
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of March 3, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Anna L. Gray of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project. We apologize for the delay in our response.
The proposed bridge replacement project is located within the boundaries of the
National Register-listed Clear Run District. Although the areas of significance for
the district were listed as agriculture, architecture, and commerce in the National
Register documentation, significant associated archaeological resources are
present and discussed in the nomination. During the archaeological survey, Ms.
Gray located the remains of a house and a barn within the area of potential effect,
but was unable to locate any surface evidence of a blacksmith-cooper shop
described in the nomination. Since archaeological resources will be affected
regardless of the alternate selected, Ms. Gray recommended that subsurface
investigation be undertaken only after the selected alternate has been identified,
thereby avoiding unnecessary destruction of significant archaeological resources.
We concur with this recommendation.
Based on the results of the investigation, we also concur with the finding by
Federal Highway Administration that no visible remains or features would be
suitable for public display or interpretation and that preservation in place of the
archaeological remains is not warranted. As soon -as the selected alternate for the
bridge replacement is identified, please forward that information so we may
determine appropriate archaeological investigations. By copy of this letter, we
also request that Ms. Gray complete and submit to our office archaeological site
forms for the house and barn remains identified during her survey.
ATTACHMENT3
IM =--? T---- c._.__. - A7-. 6 r?-..,,1:-- 1-fCn? 7on-?
Nicnolas L. Graf
April 22, 1994, Page 2
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.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review cgojdinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, p I A
a",-
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slwf
cc: ?Fi. F. Vick
T. Padgett
.. o'^ STATE °
o ,
N"fJ t 3
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 11, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over Black
River, Sampson County, B-1381, ER 94-9126
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On June 9, 1994, members of the Historic Preservation Office met with
representatives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to discuss the project's effect
upon the National Register-listed Clear Run Historic District. During the meeting,
we recommended that the new bridge design include a three-bar metal rail rather
than a solid concrete barrier.
We have received additional information from NCDOT concerning the design for
the new bridge. We understand that FHwA presently accepts the three-bar metal
rail only when used with a sidewalk. Thus, NCDOT has provided us with
photographs and details of a two-bar metal rail which is acceptable without a
sidewalk.
Based upon our discussions at the June 9 meeting and additional information
provided by NCDOT, we concur with FHwA's determination that the project will
have no effect upon the Clear Run Historic District if the following conditions are
carried out:
1. NCDOT shall stop the guard rail on the north side of NC 411 west of the
Clear Run Grocery building.
2. NCDOT shall use the two-bar metal rail design for the new bridge.
3. NCDOT shall conduct archaeological testing at the scattered tree site west of
the Black River. Depending upon the information discovered, we may
reassess the project's effect upon the Clear Run Historic District.
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 Junes Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 37601-2607
cholas L. Graf
July 11, 1994, Page 2
Thank-you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sirrce ly,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H., F. Vick
..,-B. Church

P it z 13a Federal Aid # - 4+1(?L= County
CONCUJRRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSNI MNT OF EFFECTS
-ief Project Description
R L-wz 5gtvac Qo. 14 aN ?k.411 oveiz 5,Lcu. R,vry-
a representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
viewed the subject project and agreed

there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
imed:
epresen6uve, CD. T
&L,,/ r,
HwA, r the Division Admin.istr
or other Federal Agency
z - 0,9 -s5
Date
ePreisentative, SHPO Date
tate historic Preservation Officer Dat
(over)
ATTACHMENT 7
g g,- Mt'l
Federal Aid rJrJ 5tzc rP - 411County SAM fss• rJ
erties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
ster-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).

)ernes within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
desc:'Lbe effect.
G l-EA? IZWQ 41-.TOPC, plsTTZ-l-T ( NF-) - ao ADVERSE OFF EG'r'
WITH Tli-e, FOu.oWltJC- CvQDl v0c-7 •.
?. 1ILDor e7NAu, 4iTP TNF- Gt,tx=LAlu oo SRer tJoRr)+ Std ?F 1JL411 v-ja?;T-
OF 1-HE- GEAR- [" G?Zcz;-/ ?-+4tA11IG '
2. • }.?f.Vo j- sHAu, t.FSE Tt4F- T'jo "6t"9- Mal-Al- FAIL pE--,tC +? fioFi Tlt? tJE1.j 8rc?
?i. Ne.voT' wtu. PRE?o.RG A?.ro R.Y "T- N. GITA. Pzz4vcf-y Pint' FaR
?J? zp 300?? ({'ho 1oL.cl..4ww?t'llaooPc? Slvr? ?RtoFz. To Ut??, (('fR?•r10?J .
ialed: NCDOT FHwA SHPO

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
March 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., ;Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trari sp?nation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State istoric Preservation
Gd4-6-Q
Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over Black River,
Sampson County, B-1381
On March 9, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met.with John Williams of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to discuss the above project. Mr.
Williams indicated that NCDOT can use a one-bar metal rail on the replacement
bridge. We are pleased to learn this since we prefer the one-bar rail rather than
the two-bar rail discussed previously.
Representatives of NCDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, and the State
Historic Preservation Office have already signed a concurrence form stating that
the project will have no adverse effect on the National Register-listed Clear run
Historic District if certain conditions are met. Substitution of a one-bar metal rail
for the two-bar rail does not change our determination of effect and provides a
further degree of compatibility with the character of the historic district.
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.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
Williams
ATTACHMENT 8
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004
APR 1 2 1995
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 14
Sampson County, North Carolina
Project No. BRSTP-411(1)
Dear Mr. Graf:
On March 30, 1995, the Council received your determination, supported by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the referenced undertaking will have no adverse
effect upon the Clear Run Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. Pursuant to Section 800.5(d)(2) of the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic
Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are not
required to take any further steps to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act other than to implement the undertaking as proposed and consistent with any
conditions you have reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
wou'??
MaryAnn Naber
Historic Preservation Officer
Eastern Office of Review
ATTACHMEVT 9

", Syr . ? ?M? `• ,?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 30, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: Archaeological Data Recovery Report, Federal-aid
Project BRSTP-41 1(1), B-1381, Sampson County;
ER94-7361 & ER98-7820
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

i

P
,S
•,1????0 Thank you for your letter of October 21, 1997, transmitting the above mentioned
archaeological report. We apologize for the delay in our comments.
The report of the data recovery excavations of archaeological site 31 SP300 * * 1, the Clear
Run Blacksmith-Cooper Shop, by Ellen Mayo Brady, Victoria L. Saxe, Clay Swindell, Daniel
P. Lynch and Loretta Lautzenheiser of Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. is a very clear and
well-written report which fulfills the stipulations of the scope-of-work developed for the
project. We concur that the excavations are sufficient to retrieve the important information
at the site and together with the report adequately mitigate the effects of the bridge
replacement project. We do not recommend any additional archaeological investigations in
connection with the bridge replacement.
We look forward to receipt of the final report and believe its wide distribution will be a
valuable contribution to the professional archaeological community. Attached are a few
minor corrections to be addressed in the final report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sin,cErgly,

David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
cc: Frank Vick, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Loretta Lautzenheiser, Coastal Carolina Research, Inc.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507
ODI
13
3
Specific Comments, Data Recovery Excavations, 31 SP300* * 1
ER 94-7361 and ER 98-7820, Sampson County
1. Page 23, last line: Debra should be Deborah
2. Page 30, 2nd full paragraph: Bituminous coal has more sulfur that anthracite coal.
3. Page 52: Figure 29 is upside down.
. STATt o
7 s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum To: John Williams, P.E.,
Bridge Replacement Unit
From: Brett Feulner
TIP Project Management Team
Subject: Proposed replacement of Sampson County Bridge No. 14 on NC
411 over the Black River. TIP No. B-1381; State Project No.
8.1280401; Federal 1 Aid Project No. BRSTP-411(1).
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and descriptions
of natural resources within the project study area, and estimations of impacts likely to
occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information
concerning Waters of the United States and protected species is also provided.
April 7, 2004
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
cc: File
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Proposed replacement of Bridge No 14 on NC 411 over the Black River.
Sampson County
TIP No. B-1381
State Project No. 8.2180401
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-411 (1)
WBS Element No 32594.1.1
Natural Resources Technical Report
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS .
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
Brett M. Feulner
Environmental Specialist
April 8, 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B-1381
SAMPSON COUNTY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over the Black River, Sampson
County, North Carolina; TIP No. B-1381.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over the
Black River (Figure 1) on existing location with an off-site detour. Project plans call for
replacing the existing bridge with a 62.3 meter (207 feet), 9.2-meter (30.2 feet) wide two-
lane bridge. The right of way width is 18.3 meters (60 feet) An offsite detour will be
make use of SR 1130, SR 1003 and NC 411.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The Black River is the only water resource within the study area and is located in the
Cape Fear River Drainage Basin, Subbasin 03-06-19, and Hydrologic Unit 03030006.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification
of the Black River [Index No. 18-68)] is C Sw ORW. Class C uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Swamp
waters (Sw) are defined as waters which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) are high quality waters that are unique and special waters of exceptional state or
national recreation or ecological significance that require special protection to maintain
existing uses.
Since the Black River is classified as a ORW, the proposed project is located in a "High
Quality Water Zone" which is defined as areas that are within 1 mile and drain into an
HQW. Construction that impacts a "High Quality Water Zone" is required to follow
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in the Sedimentation Control Guidelines (Title
15A. 4B. 0024).
Biotic Resources
Three terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: Cypress-Gum
Swamp, Mesic Pine Flatwood Forest and maintained/disturbed land. Table 1 shows the
impacts of the project on these communities.
1/3
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Impacts (Acres)
Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.1
Mesic Pine Flatwoods 0.0
Maintained Disturbed 1.3
Black River 0.17
Total 1.57
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
The Black River is considered a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The field investigation revealed no wetlands within the project
study area.
Permits
If minor impacts occur to the Black River, a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Section 401 certification will be required from the
state prior to construction. It is anticipated that a Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 [33
CFR 330.5(a)(23)] will be required. Nationwide Permit No. 23 is for projects expected to
have minimal impact. In the event that NWP No. 23 does not apply, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify
under a Regional General Bridge Permit designated for NCDOT bridges (Permit No.
031) issued by the Wilmington USACE District (USACOE-WD 1998). Notification to
the Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is to be utilized.
Nationwide Permit No. 33 may be required if temporary construction including
cofferdams, access, and dewatering are required for this project. The USACE will
determine final permit requirements.
Mitigation
According to 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h) and 40 CFR 1508.20, mitigation will be required
for stream impacts to jurisdictional streams requiring mitigation when these impacts are
equal to or greater than 150 linear feet per stream. Because the proposed alignment only
impacts one jurisdictional stream, it is anticipated that the USACE and NCDWQ will not
require mitigation.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of January 29, 2003, there are three federally-protected species
(Table 3) listed for Sampson County. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) has no record of the occurrence of either of these species within one mile of the
project.
2/3
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Sampson County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened (S/A)
Picoides borealis Red cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Endangered
American Alligator
No Biological conclusion is required for the American alligator.
Red cockaded woodpecker: No Effect
Potential habitat was found within the project corridor. There were several loblolly pine
trees found in the Mesic Pine Flatwoods Forest that were approximately 60 feet tall and
12-14 inch dbh. Current project plans call for replacing this bridge in place, therefore
none of the pine trees are expected to be removed. However, if project plans change and
the removal of any large pine trees will occur, then this biological conclusion will need to
be confirmed. There was no evidence of current or previous nesting on any of the pine
trees. Additionally, the understory in this community was much thicker then preferred by
the RCW. The NC Natural Heritage Program Database was checked and no occurrences
of the RCW were observed within one mile of the project area.
Pondberry: No Effect
There was no habitat found within the project study area for the pondberry. There are no
seasonally flooded wetlands, sandy sinks, pond margins, swampy depressions sinks, or
pineland depressions. Additionally the NC Natural Heritage Program Database was
checked and no occurrences of pondberry were reported within one mile of the project
area.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the study area for this project, there are no wetlands and one jurisdictional stream,
Black River. The Black River is not listed as a 303(d) stream. A Biological Conclusion
of "No Effect" has been issued for the pondberry and the red cockaded woodpecker.
3/3
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................2
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................. ...2
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................... ...2
1.3 Methodology .......................................................................................................... ...2
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ....................................................................4
1.5 Terminology ..............................................................................................................4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................4
2.1 Regional Characteristics ............................................................................................4
2.2 Soils ..........................................................................................................................4
2.3 Water Resources .......................................................................................................5
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics .................................................................5
2.3.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams ...........................................................5
2.3.3 Best Usage Classification ....................................................................................6
2.3.4 Water Quality .....................................................................................................6
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..............................................................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .................................................................................................7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ...........................................................................................8
3. 1.1 Cypress-Gum Swamp .........................................................................................8
3.1.2 Mesic Pine Flatwood Forest ............................................................................. ..8
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Community .................................................................. ..8
3.2 Wildlife .................................................................................................................... ..9
3.3 Aquatic Communities ............................................................................................. ..9
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................ ..9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...................................................................................... 10
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................................................................................... 10
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................. 11
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................... 11
4.1.3 Permits ............................................................................................................. 11
4.1.4 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ..................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................. 13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ...................................... 16
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 17
6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 19
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURE 1- LOCATION MAP ............................................................3
TABLE 1- BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS .....................................10
TABLE 2- FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ...................................13
TABLE 3-FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN ......................................17
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of
a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is situated in
Sampson County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over the
Black River on existing location with an off-site detour. Project plans call for replacing
the existing bridge with a 207 feet, 30.2 feet wide two-lane bridge. The right-of-way
width is 60 feet An offsite detour will be make use of SR 1130, SR 1003 and NC 411.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary
design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations
will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this
pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Ingold), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory Map, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly the Soil
Conservation Service) soil maps, and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200). Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DENR, 2003). Information concerning
the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of concern, and
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Brett Feulner and Matt Haney on July 30, 2003 . Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using
one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks, and burrows).
Figure 1
4
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Brett Feulner, Environmental Biologist NCDOT.
Education: BS Forest Management, North Carolina State University
Experience: Environmental Biologist, NCDOT February 2003- Present
Environmental Scientist, LandMark Design Group June 2001- Dec. 2002
Expertise: Wetland Delineation, Section 7 field investigations; NEPA investigations.
1.5 Terminology
Definitions for aerial descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area
denotes the area bounded by proposed right-of-way limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.5 mile on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project
occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiograpluc Province. The
topography in this section of Sampson County is characterized as nearly level to gently
sloping. Project elevation is approximately 25 feet above mean sea level (msl). The city
of Clinton is approximately 20 miles to the north of the project area. The study area
within the proposed right of way is primarily forested.
2.2 Soils
two soil phases occur within project boundaries: Chipley sand and Bibb and Johnston
soils.
• Chipley sand is a moderately well drained soil that occurs on smooth, low ridges.
Permeability is rapid, the seasonal high water table is located 2 to 3 ft below the
surface and flooding occurs infrequently for brief periods. Chipley sand is listed as
non-hydric.
• Bibb and Johnston is a very poorly drained soil along major streams. The seasonal
high water table is at or near the surface for several months during the year. This soil
is flooded for brief periods. Bibb and Johnston soils are listed as a hydric soil.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a sandy texture.
The soils did not exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low areas and
adjacent to Black River. Therefore, hydric soil indicators, as defined in the "Corps of
5
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, were not observed within the project
study area.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource,
its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the
resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The Black River will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the
proposed project (Figure 1). The Black River is located in sub-basin 03-06-19,
Hydrologic Unit 03030006 of the Cape Fear River Basin, the largest river basin in the
state of North Carolina. Currently there are no buffer rules in effect for the Cape Fear
River Basin.
The Black River is described as having a slow flow with large pools and low turbidity.
The substrate is composed of silt and sand. The Black River at Bridge No. 14, is
approximately 70 ft wide and has an approximate depth of 4.5 ft at this location.
2.3.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the NC 2000 Section 303(d)
list. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An
impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards including
designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and anti-degradation requirements defined
in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple
pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The source of impairment
could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition. Some
sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly
based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b) guidelines
(EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting
(PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list.
Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the NC 2000 Section 303(d)
list, according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the
stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, N.C. has
developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value
and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. The Black River is not on the NC
2000 Section 303(d) list.
6
2.3.3 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of
the Black River [Index No. 18-68)] is C Sw ORW. Class C uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Swamp
waters (Sw) are defined as waters which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) are high quality waters that are unique and special waters of exceptional state or
national recreation or ecological significance that require special protection to maintain
existing uses.
Since the Black River is classified as a ORW, the proposed project is located in a "High
Quality Water Zone" which is defined as areas that are within 1 mile and drain into an
HQW. Construction that impacts a "High Quality Water Zone" is required to follow
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in the Sedimentation Control Guidelines (Title
15A. 4B. 0024).
2.3.4 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ and is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term
trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Some macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality. There are no BMAN
Stations located within one mile of the project area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water
quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and
chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters, that are
collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification and
corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1995). Class C waters are sampled at a
minimum frequency of once per month. Bridge No. 14 over the Black River is
designated as a location for a AMS station. A water level/quality monitoring structure is
attached to the bridge. The structure consists of a stainless steel box (located
approximately 1.2 in above the deck) connected to a section of corrugated galvanized
pipe which extends to the creek bottom. The DWQ reports that high conductivity
readings and elevated concentrations of nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen have been noted at this
location (DWQ, 1995).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is
required to register fora permit. There are no point source dischargers located within
one mile of the project area.
7
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing
on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides
used in revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface
water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential 'for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced
during the construction phase of the project. Limiting in stream work activities and re-
vegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of the grading will further
reduce impacts.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources located in the project area include terrestrial and aquatic communities.
This section describes the communities encountered and the relationships between fauna
and flora found within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of the topography, hydrologic
influences, and the project area's past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and
follow those presented by Schafale and Weakly (1990) where possible. The dominant
flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and
discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided for each
described animal and plant species. The plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Lee et al (1982), Martof et al (1980), Potter et al
(1980), and Webster et al (1985). All subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna that is observed during the site visit is denoted
8
with an asterisk (*). Scat evidence or tracks equate to observation of the species.
Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Cypress-
Gum Swamp, Mesic Pine Flatwood forest and maintained/disturbed community.
3.1.1 Cypress-Gum Swamp
This unique coastal plain swamp community occurs as a fringe along both banks of the
Black River. The canopy of this community is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodiurrz
distichunt), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple(Acer rubrum). The
understory of this community is composed of saplings of trees found in the canopy as
well as water oak (Quercus nigra) and willow oak (Q phellos).
3.1.2 Mesic Pine Flatwood Forest
The Mesic Pine Flatwood Forest is present along both sides Black River. The transition
from the pine forest to maintained/disturbed community is abrupt in some areas due to
mowing activities and is more gradual in some areas. The transitional areas between the
pine forest and the maintained community exhibit characteristics of a successional
community composed of species in the canopy of the pine forest.
The canopy is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The midstory is composed of
sweet gum, American elm (Ulmus americana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and red maple. The shrub layer consists saplings of the
canopy and midstory trees as well as persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), hickory (Carya sp.), river birch (Betula nigra), -red bud (Cercis
canadensis) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sineme). Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) and trumpet creeper (Cantpsis radicans)
comprise the vine layer of this community.
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community is found along an access road to the Black River in
the northwest quadrant and along the road shoulders along NC 411 and are present along
the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically maintained community
includes: fescue (Festuca spp.), bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and crabgrass
(Digitaria sp.),
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas
and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
9
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely
those species inhabiting the alluvial forest.
3.2 Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of
biotic communities discussed. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt with little
transitional area between them. The forested tracts and drainageways provide habitat for
species requiring a forest community, and provide shelter and movement corridors for
other wildlife species within the project vicinity.
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project area consist of the
white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and
raccoon* (Procyon lotor).
Forests and forest edge habitats located in the project area also provide opportunities for
foraging and shelter for avian species such as the belted kingfisher* (Megaceryle alcyon),
northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), morning dove* (Zenaida nzacoura), crow*
(Corvus brachyrhynchos) prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), northern parula
(Parula americana), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus),
and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea). The barred owl (Stria varia) is a
permanent resident in this community type.
A variety of reptiles and amphibians may also be expected to utilize the terrestrial
communities within the project area. These animals include the broadhead skink
(Eumeces laticeps), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacunz), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
3.3 Aquatic Communities
This community is contained within the Black River. No submersed or emergent aquatic
vegetation was observed within this section of the Black River. Fauna associated with
the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Common
species found in the black river include cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), banded
watersnake (Nerodia fasciata), yellow bellied slider (Chrysemys scripta), American
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) beaver (Castor canadensis), and racoon. Fish
species that are likely to be found include eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis),
redfin pickeral (Esox americcnzus), eastern mud minnow (Umbra pygmae), yellow
bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), bowfin (Amia calva), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus),
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), banded pygmy sunfish (Elassonza zonatum), and
madtom (Noturus sp.)
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction related activities in or near the previously described resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
10
the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems effected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are also considered.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 14 and its associated
improvements may reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers.
However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna
will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (non-paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some
wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by creating more early
successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities may
repopulate areas suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of animals will
result in an increase of competition for the remaining resources.
The calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential losses to
these biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are
derived using the proposed 60.0-ft ROW on the proposed alignment. Since the entire
ROW will probably not be impacted, actual impacts may be considerably less than
indicated.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Impacts
Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.1
Mesic Pine Flatwoods 0.0
Maintained Disturbed 1.3
Black River 0.17
Total 1.57
Note: Values cited are in acres
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" (Waters of the U.S.), as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
(CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface
waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters
II
include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the
public.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland. There were no wetlands found within
the project corridor.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to "Waters of the US" were determined by using the width and
length of the bridge. Impacts to the Black River are approximately 0.16 ac.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the
USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part,
by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A Nationwide Permit No. 33 may be required if temporary construction including
cofferdams, access, and dewatering are required for this project. The USACE will
determine final permit requirements.
12
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USCE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the U.S., specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
Waters of the U.S. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Wetland impacts
can be avoided by confining construction activities within the boundaries of the existing
road shoulder (maintained/ disturbed community).
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the U.S. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the proposed project footprint through the reduction of median widths, ROW
widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical minimization
mechanisms include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project, reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity, reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams, reduction of
runoff velocity, re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage, minimization of "in-stream" activity, and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extend possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation, and enhancement of Waters of the U.S. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
13
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of-
• More than 0.1 acre (0.04 ha) may require compensatory mitigation,
• At least 1.0 acre (0.40 ha) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation,
and/or
• At least 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) of streams will require compensatory
mitigation.
The impacts from this project do not meet the minimum mitigation threshold.
Therefore, no mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the USACE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline due to
either natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any
action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject to
review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the FWS
lists the following federally-protected species for Durham County (Table 2). A brief
description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Sampson County,
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological
Conclusion
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened (S/A) N/A
Picoides borealis Red cockaded Endangered No Effect
woodpecker
Lindera melissifblia Pondberry Endangered No Effect
1 Threatened species are species that are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
2 Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
14
Name: American alligator (Alligator n ississippiensis)
Family: Alligatoridae
Federal Status: Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
Date Listed: June 4, 1987
Characteristics:
The alligator is a large aquatic reptile, measuring 1.8-5.8 meters in length, with a broadly
rounded snout, heavy body, laterally compressed tail, and a dark gray or blackish color.
Young are black with conspicuous yellow crossbands; the banding may occasionally
persist on adults, although very faintly. Unlike the American crocodile, the fourth tooth
on the lower jaw of the alligator fits in a notch in the upper jaw and is not exposed when
the jaws are closed.
The alligator can be found on the east coast of the United States from Tyrrell County,
North Carolina to Corpus Christi, Texas, and north in the Mississippi River drainage
basin to Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. Home ranges may vary considerably, with
3,162 acres for males and 21 acres for females being average. Individuals can travel great
distances, both overland and in the water, but males tend to travel more than females.
The alligator is found rivers, streams, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes.
Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt water, but the young are apparently more
sensitive, with salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand considered harmful. The diet
consists of anything of suitable size, including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish,
and crustaceans.
Nesting takes place in late spring and early summer, with the female building a mound of
grass and other vegetation that may be two feet high and six feet across. The nest is
usually constructed near the water, in a shaded location. The clutch of 30-60 (average 35)
eggs is laid in a cavity near the top of the mound, and is incubated by the heat from the
decaying vegetation. The female usually remains near the nest until the eggs hatch.
Hatching takes place in about nine weeks, at which time the young begin calling to alert
the female to excavate the nest.
No survey or biological conclusion is required for this species.
Name: Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Family: Picidae
Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic
range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina
moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few
15
populations found in the piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of
former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is
up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 in (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 in (30-50 ft) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense by the RCW against possible
predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring
from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days
later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share in
raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on
seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potential habitat was found within the project corridor. There were several loblolly pine
trees found in the Mesic Pine Flatwoods Forest that were approximately 60 feet tall and
12-14 inch dbh. Current project plans call for replacing this bridge in place, therefore
none of the pine trees are expected to be removed. However, if project plans change and
the removal of any large pine trees will occur, then this biological conclusion will need to
be confirmed. There was no evidence of current or previous nesting on any of the pine
trees. Additionally, the understory in this community was much thicker then preferred by
the RCW. The NC Natural Heritage Program Database was checked and no occurrences
of the RCW were observed within one mile of the project area.
Name: Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)
Family: Laurel (Lauraceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: July 31, 1986
Best Search Time: February-September
16
Characteristics:
Pondberry is a deciduous shrub growing to approximately 2 meters tall, and spreading by
means of stolons. The leaves are thin, drooping, prominantly veined and pubescent
beneath, ovate to elliptical, and have rounded bases. Leaves emit a sassafras-like odor
when crushed. This species is dioecious (male and female flowers are on separate
plants), and the flowers of both sexes are pale yellow, small, and appear before the leaves
emerge in the spring. The fruit is a bright red drupe containing one seed, which forms in
.the late summer or fall and is supported on a stout pedicel that remains on the branch
after the fruit falls. Vegetative reproduction (stolons) seems to be more common than
sexual reproduction (seeds).
Pondberry is known from several widely scattered locations across the Southeast, in
Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In
interior areas, habitat for pondberry consists of seasonally flooded wetlands, sandy sinks,
pond margins, and swampy depressions (Steyermark 1949). In the coastal plain of the
Carolinas, pondberry is found along the margins of sinks, ponds, and pineland
depressions. Soils in these areas are sandy with a high peat content, and have a high
water table. Fire may have been an important factor in maintaining suitable habitat in the
past. This species is most often found in shade, but may be seen full sun in areas where
competition is not as intense.
Pondberry can be distinguished from southern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) by having
drooping foliage, rounded leaf bases rather than tapered, sassafras-like odor of the
crushed leaves rather than spicy, and fruit pedicels that persist throughout the winter.
Pondberry can be distinguished from bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) because the
latter's leaves have little or no fragrance when crushed.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There was no habitat found within the project study area for the pondberry. There are no
seasonally flooded wetlands, sandy sinks, pond margins, swampy depressions sinks, or
pineland depressions. Additionally the NC Natural Heritage Program Database was
checked and no occurrences of pondberry were reported within one mile of the project
area.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are fourteen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Sampson
County. Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be
included for consideration. An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for
listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition,
organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under
17
the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979, as amended.
Table 3 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the
study area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Sampson County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC
Corynorhinus rrafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC/PT **
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SC
Noturus sp. "Broadtail" madtom SC
Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic glass lizard SC
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog T
Dolania americana American sand burrowing mayfly SR
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap SR-L, SC
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5
Ludtvigia brevipes Long beach seedbox FSC
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice SR-T
Alacbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint 2
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod SR-L
Cylindrocolea andersonii A liverwort SR-P
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection
and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
"C"-A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its
range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"-A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W2"-A Watch Category 2 species is a rare to uncommon species in North Carolina, but is not necessarily declining or in trouble.
"W5"-A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its habitat; populations may or may not be
known to be declining.
"/P_"-denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not
yet completed the listing process.
* - Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** - Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Within the study area for this project, there are no wetlands and one jurisdictional stream,
the Black River. Impacts to the Black River are approximately 60 feet. Estimated impacts
are derived using the width of the bridge and approximate length of the river at the
18
location of the bridge. The Black River is not listed as a 303(d) stream. A Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" has been issued for the two species listed as federally
protected in Sampson County.
19
6.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, Jame L., and A. S. Weakley, 1995. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall, 1995. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water
Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983- 1990.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin.
http://b2o.enr.state.nc.usibims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydroCapeFear.12df on
August 7, 2003
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins." Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1995. "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan". Raleigh. -
20
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Annroximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1985, Soil Survey of Sampsoon Count , Soil
Conservation Service. North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Mar IY and. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
tsh
FC-ONTRACT: X200855 117111 PROJECT: B-1381
-o
? o O
w
m 3 3
O
A N
2 3 3 3
O!Q ° N N y
w vo. G1
(O N R,n u u u u u x
-i. Cw O O co A
0;u > ZR -4
r- in
w
0 m m
D 0 0
rr- 2
O
c v
[) ::E
X
O -?-v
° o
m -n
o o
?- m
m n
W
CA) w
II 00
00
O N ?
3
c: 0
Z
rn
N?NA p??
odoo
00 ?, O v
10
w G x
(n m
ti> Z
ti
z
ti z
?n?
gc= N _
g 1-
0
A
v -a
m m
t
b ?
x,
x
R y
p cp
O
lr L? O vi
• + `? O A
o rfn'?y o ti
Z O °
C ottl?5
N
m
rn _ _
w ?
°
ftft
z -?MPSON COUNTY
O ?, ,?? m d DUPLIN COUNTY
o
O n
z 'y
A ? o
° II b ?
I ' O ti
I ? Cy
I I x cn
n
44
(z
?° ( o H
Si j ~ ? O
b n
IL
y
1 y?
h, t?4
a I?j ? ? ? b
11 ?
Nth o
12
V
n
+ n
/ a
/ ( N
sm
/Z/ Z
N w a ? y
Hwy
y N?
C.0
00
1> t
k
m
r ??

I
r
T
? C
r N
+ m
V
O ?
C)n
o D
io r
m
Z
wO
7o z
v
O Z
.?
o
? D
D N
T
N O W
+
N r
:0 O
z
O O N
z
v
a)
v
G)
.M
1rnrnr rnJr
D ? N
M
U
N +
+ _C
-v
N us
n
co °o D
0 o r-
40 N
z m
n
v cn
z
v ?
+ Z
z
c)
m 0-
V
-I
O C)
° N
° D
D m N
m 'n
w _ O
N
+ Z rr-
w ca O
4 N
v
can G) '
m
C7 C-
O
? rn
n
r
cn
m
C)
O 3
z C
Z
O
N
r n
r
I
v
m
z
O
X
v
c
v
m
Z.
11)?
C
N
mi
Zv
D
n

O _

r 11
U m)
Z N 14
Z O 3
^ `
1
Z L/

_ =
c? a N

D
r O
.n '

N
3

(?
m
Z
Z II
z0
O
r
r?
I I
r r
mX X
r
N to
D A
N J
+ +
W °
1
C)
?4 (D
°

N
I -1
O O m

r
?
N

"O 0

m
•1 '
D cn n m
cn -{

D? D
r
N
+
A m 3
+ O
A
-1 T
0
V O O
0o
O
o
- Z
+
?! z w
Z (n 0
N_
p DO
D
+
Z Z N A

-n + m
m 10
w
O O
cn
?
a
N O X O
N

Z Z
O G)
0
O O
cn
N
-N4 z
O
Z
t
v'1
-i c ?i N [7
m>c Z7O m A ?p
0
rl. O O O O

m
j
;!v 70
00
rn O
00
3 Zi M?
? Z m
? ? m2<
?o
o
0 5:
0-
0a -v
D
tn 3
W z !J
V?
C
1 Ong ?
co 0 ?
?

C
^ • rmn
A
Z ??
C 0
--1 7C' fl
0 ? Z s
c
p
'?
m
S L
L4
ADP -
m n m
,p„0 Z
o
H Z n
m A C (1
m

3:: n
M
Cm

n

>
CA
C°l 3
m 0 3 m c •? "? m

Z? ri.
P?
Z A
Z0
v
z v m
o m
"?' rn
m C C
t 7
v 3
OMP N 3 U Om
't1 N
.n
°? > >
1 °r

A 0
O

-0
D °
r 3
N 3
m
Z
,o
0
Z 3
O
O

g-
z
n
Z
O
Z
Z rn
?° r^ Z
O O
z •
I
3
I
---------------------------------------------
YNS.A ---------------------------------------------

d
n 4 f d x
C

>
o p H

I? n , x
to
d i ,L
•9 " .
Mno
en 1
2I
u
w1
m
a
i=I ?TSO? '
A Z
O r1 n
m I P i
. ? l v
u n uuuu?
3 rn??A?
y
cj1,t ?~rD
nuuuuu
rn wB'Lz 11)
4
V y
:?Dyr-D-D
11 11 4 14
\ \O
V W V(nQl
u
i1411II?
0
NNb?En
W?L+1
?O
?ycn 0a
II II it U
NcVao
?D n
?°2 NO
y
rT-. ? Hoy
p
u`7
yC
I y
alvo A
aD 14

a
o

0
%' = oL
W i
O
H

??r 3

C
t
ol o> _ + }?
° Y 4
q
L7
y
' o
U
? A 1
&
j
+ py
R ANA
>w:
?
+
q
wN.. N y ti'.'n n A 3' N
}
O Q r

O N
a
<
s [[7?
Pp (? i

llp
03N

mm mvlir
U N U m\ f
+Imm??
-IYtiN?
n+I mf7pp
Z?A i7? I
C'1 V P x fI! 76
J9 ? y
a C'
1 ?1 +
N T
?,pNO
O
FS
l`J C
y
N
w
U
3 A 1
035n0N?05`
O
E
Y w0
? my
ti1? C
0
Z
O OA
VI
n?
n 00 W g
3
3 ?
1
D G 00+L5
0
zl ? A
e
ca
0r l
0 ,oy ?_I
I a
-1.- SC 53+18.060 A
I? C, $ ?`
Q 10
? a $ t•?1
a I ?r3
f ? + y
I
I ?

O+a7?i?f I? '}
a?Wwa G:
I
I I 1 ?

V `I'MO
1
ONUN? .. .. ..

-4-C SCATTERED TREES
=A1 ' 1

1
I

OA?nGi
b0 O W r'
?

W
QO
O a
?Q Z
?Nw
c, c
I "
??o?
W
Cl
Q
O
s
Q SJ"6009'

?NC w^, 1 ? 1
xf n~i
I
an w
g J m O
-•1
A
• 3 r
/ N
T
y O
P? +
0
er
1
L P R
?t4 SOL u
2
NP
\ N In
MWONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O
0
O
C)
W
~
J p0+15
mmminir
Inlnlnm\>
'y -•? .r m n -1
min In °vpr?°mNn
Nm ? ? i i? m"? > ti N r
p0? •ZOZZ\?Q NlN.1> °7m,INPUj<
myr f?tpa7 "{mI~•1 °DmWnAs
i0 A O n n A x
?J>4 NC ? TPA D V
/ v °ao r9
Z
1411 / /
$ j?s
1 rNs
A

a '? / (fie N3? -
'1105 0Y / r
r' o
a N
g
m
n o CT
?. Zr•
n 0
n
N o pm
~ NAD
° v prf
0
a obi ? ? I>
O O N =
r Iu o T
-1 O -
3 0-
p. NON
aFr
K O ?
ww
0
A
R.
-?1 V
iJ
xS
3 y?
3
?

LO fA
I

b

e

N u
p u
N
s . ?, s
3 3
3 3

N
3
b
b

R
7
?7
111...
......
?
N W ? ?j
.

3 M
Z 3
i

d3N0
U r
Zm
6 doi ± {np
o N<D
(A rl
?0?1n.1 a oo m?
y _ ,.=IW
In In vlmny p=p ?m
1 IpL~I
S
mp Vr?nAn" Y r ryu 1n
or x Pc 3 Om
lwmwPm< -1 OZ ti 3 0°
o ^+IWC''AO
N ; ca A •91'~'1
_zv xx
n? n
? p9 9
N ?
r
-, T
(. N
r raa
mm z
O Oy
« m
c i

f> r ZA
UU m om?
1 4
+
i o,
° ?
y fTl
ol.-
rb
_
o
o° OD

y-+ N
A
x? pOr
p000 r
UU n
Q
D Sln
y?,?1 IO pip
O N r
yy
$_
'?3 33
H
N
h
b
to
?+1
xO
1
i
i
w 9<
z
V ? N
30
m€
?: n
x ?
o?
p'I-v
M»D
?Y? o s
mm
mY; ?
C
v
Y
«
0
i
w
M
Y
M
Y
-f-
N m
+ m ut rn
n ci --I
m
I
`
z n
z
+ n +

N rn v a
A
A N
0
a
z

N n
7
N -
i
I x N

m r A
< n
m m
< m

A O
H r
rna
N
xN
n
rn H
H
m
N
211-0
C)
owil,--
D
N
-4-
i ?
MNm rnNm

N ??m
LG1 r-aH
nr
m
rn -

Z
J'

u+
r
:
N
o+ N
0+n
O I
, Q'A r010
a
H Qlz OrH
m
? 000 u<„

n N
I
-o m
o
?v
r r
o
mm Am
m omo
I , < m
< oo,
rr7 N 4 50 -+ 3 °

Z
(T .
YP.)
1
.- o
? 4 'T r
?

m -- - I I '?
X
z /

"r ?
N ? \N
r n
r•
r
n+
o a,
m?

Z
o,-
W A

?
m

-0

o
O Z'

^ D
Z z

0
3 O

?N n
Dr
'

- - r N
-4r
00
r 1 ¢rn

-
J mv,
-
-- -
m-i g
O -
N
•_• Y
N
N -I Co
+
m O D H OW
z
0
O C3
-z-1 O
A
x Qi 3 + m AO
00
0 w H r
0
T O
3 -p orn rr-
H
m
-0 z
H
r

N
o a3nia ??d ?
0
o
3 O
o rr - - - -
H 3 l - o -
r ,
0
::4
r
m < A
rn m

r
rn

n
m _
-- _
---
my
zn
PE
L - - - - -
N •
NN W
00
? m 0N
0 ox zo
o 0
m 700
0
0
3 -+
H 0
r
z
mcl
70
-
ON M
z
c m<
<<
m
mO v,
?A
xc
me

m

m i
za.
N

O H r op
O rn n Z o
O N
N
3 - 0
X O
n
rnH rl
rA
H m
z<
m

m
ri (,
-) -U
;u
w °D G7 v F
o H m
m O

i
Nomm ImL1
70
70 m
z
Ln -p z
= <z f- H ° Q
n
zmz 3c ?
A, I A cA
co
Z D n Q co
(/107
x m?
D D Z
-^ i
m
CD , _.
J -•
r
mp * 0 ?P C) ui

I C) CO
W
z
Z7 C)
(n . N m m z
m z O
Z
O w
N
-' m rnN ?
p z
O
v, I-, ?
m rn
v
+
O D n "N N
W A V N Z n+
N O A N
+ m0

v'
n

.?
w A O

a
= o
0 w o
o
z m0
r N -+ H Z
m D ? (A yr
< p L m
o
r
m m
z<
m
' N
?- - - - - m
? Iv

- - - -
A
x7

N F? 1
"I
m
? I

Q g/
sl
? `
I
D 1
r eel
'
Q s I
Z 1

co -1- ----
1 1
r z
?
m N
C F I m?
rn
6
?
"? /
-I
9
*I orn
?- m

I
Lnoz
i 'CO
1 NTH
I
n?
m
1 m?
rn

? \ w A
y \ 0
.
\

\
\ (O
O

co \
m \
Z
luj
? (Tl
C? H
1 H,
C
C?
m
Z
0
co
m
z
N
X
IT
Im
v
ux
N C H
'u A G7
OOrnx
ng
ma
m m
rA
a
0
0
X
rn
x
(n
D
Z
03
?(n
D
Z
C-)
\ I?

\ D
\ Z

\ 0

d
?,
H
?
- -

\

N 1 -IA-

I
? >r,
N I --I Nr
v m !
nc v
rn
Lo
+
i r
-
v
(rm

0 1 i.,r)
z
0+?
:nm
o?
m W A
00 O
0,.,

1 z
z
?-4 liv
c? m I cc N A m
AXO
• r mm
OH r0 <z
C: (A z mm a
v ? < N

m