20131288 Ver 1_401 Application_20131213

20 13 128 8
�ot WATg9
O
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ® Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 4 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes ❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑ No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑ No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project
2b. County:
Bladen
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Elizabethtown
2d. Subdivision name:
NA
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
NA; State -owned waters
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
NA
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Cape Fear River Watch, Kemp Burdette 0
3d. Street address:
617 Surry Street
3e. City, state, zip:
Wilmington, NC, 28401 DE
3f. Telephone no.:
910 - 762 -5606
3g. Fax no.:
910 - 251 -9409 yy
3h. Email address:
kemp @cfrw.org
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Cape Fear River Watch
4b. Name:
Kemp Burdette, Executive Director and Cape Fear Riverkeeper
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Cape Fear River Watch
4d. Street address:
617 Surry Street
4e. City, state, zip:
Wilmington, NC, 28401
4f. Telephone no.:
910 -762 -5606
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
kemp @cfrw.org
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Dawn York
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
5c. Street address:
201 N. Front Street, Suite 307
5d. City, state, zip:
Wilmington, NC, 28401
5e. Telephone no.:
910- 251 -9790
5f. Fax no.:
910 - 251 -9409
5g. Email address:
dyork @dialcordy.com
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
NA
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.626167 Longitude: 78.574972
1c. Property size:
0.5 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Cape Fear River basin
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV
2c. River basin:
Cape Fear River
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The proposed spawning enhancement site is located on the north side of the Cape Fear River just below Lock and Dam 2. The north side of the river
is privately owned and is in a naturally- vegetated state. The Lock and Dam 2 boat ramp and lockmaster facilities are located on the south side of the
river and is used by recreational water users. The immediate area surrounding the proposed enhancement site is used by recreational fisherman.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 175
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Considering the limited passage above Lock and Dam No. 2, spawning habitat enhancement downstream of Lock and Dam No. 2 will provide substrate
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will place approximately 1,000 tons of Class B size rip rap rock in a 0.5 -acre area to enhance spawning habitat for anadromous fish. The p
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes ®No ❑Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWO (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W2 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts _
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)T
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 P
Fill
Cape Fear River
PER
Corps
250
175
S2 -
Choose one
-
S3 -
Choose one
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
S5 -
Choose one
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
175
3i. Comments:
Approximately 1,000 tons of Class B size rip rep (8 -12 inch) rock will be placed in a 0.5 -acre (125' x 176) area on the north side of the Cape Fear
River, just below Lock and Dam 2. Purpose is to enhancetrestore spawning habitat for anadromous fish species, including American shad. The rock
material will be submerged at all times and will not impede navigation, recreational fishing, or the USACE's disposal site downstream of the proposed
enhancement site.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 -
Choose one
Choose
02 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
S. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number—
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 -
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project was coordinated closely with state and federal resource agencies to ensure design and placement location avoided any and all
potential impacts. The location of substrate placement is downstream of the scour hole below Lock and Dam 2 as well as upstream of the USACE's
disposal site. The spawning enhancement site will not be a navigation hazard to recreational boaters. Signage will be added to the site.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The proposed project has been discussed thoroughly with the USACE - Wilmington District and determined the substrate material (1,000 tons) will be
off - loaded and stored in a grassy easement area of the parking lot at Lock and Dam 2. There is no risk for erosion of river bank. No in -water
construction will take place during the annual anadromous fish moratorium window (February 1 - June 15).
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In4leu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
S. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
This project will be 100% submerged after construction is complete.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
NA
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
w►
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Elizabethtown, Bladen County, NC
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally- implemented stormwater management programs
USMP
apply (check all that apply):
Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
[]Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HOW
4a. Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply
ORW
(check all that apply):
HSession Law 2006 -246
®Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
® Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstateAocal) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federaUstate) land?
1 b. If you answered `yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered 'yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project will have no cumulative adverse Impacts on development and/or water quality downstream. The proposed project should result
In increased spawning success for anadromous fish species including American shad and sturgeon by providing additional substrate for eggs to
adhere to.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wastewater will be generated by the proposed project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Oyes ❑ No
Impacts?
5c. If yes, Indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USACE. 2010. Em►tronmen I Assessment for Rock Arch Rapids at Lock and Dam No.1
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Personal oomn nlcs tion with Fritz Rohde. NOAH -IMFS.
T. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ®No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
USACE. 2010. Environmental Assessment for Rock Arch Rapids at Lock and Dam No. 1; Section 4.8 Cultural Resources
B. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8s. Will this project occur In a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The proposed project has been designed to maintain a submerged profile during all flood stages. This will prevent the project to become a flood barrier
and wUl not unnaturally divert floodwaters, which may increase flood hazards within the floodplain.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Blades County. Chris Eros, tax administrator (910. 862 -8758)
httpJMrww. bladenrkc .govoMoe3.kmm/veMcaUsits M783,428E8B44 M$ D-4S CE- 9692-0A719CB4C4FB%7DA*badslFLood Damage Prevention ordi
Kemp
•fir
IZ /.a'13
Applicant/Agenrs Printed Name
Applicant/Agenrs Signature
Date
(Agent's signature Is vaUd only It an authorization
letter* m the applicant Is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project
Nationwide Permit 4 Application
4 October 2013
Prepared by:
Dial Cordy and Associates
201 N. Front St., Suite 307
Wilmington, NC
28401
Prepared for:
US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC
28403
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 1
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Project Description
The Cape Fear River (CFR) historically supported large runs of anadromous fish species, but
population levels have declined substantially over the last two centuries. Current commercial
landings are 87% lower than historic estimates. Reduced landings of anadromous species in the
CFR have been attributed to the same variety of anthropogenic stressors (e.g., overfishing,
pollution, habitat degradation and dam construction) that have affected many other Atlantic
coastal rivers. The most apparent of these stressors in the CFR is the presence of three low -head
lock- and -dam structures (each approximately 4 m tall) that were constructed between 1915 and
1934 by the USACE for commercial navigation (Photograph 1 — Lock and Dam No. 2).
Photograph 1. 2007 photograph of Lock and Dam No. 2.
Photograph taken by Mike Wicker, USFWS — NC Coastal Program.
These structures are downstream from North Carolina's geologic and topographic transition
zone, referred to as the "fall line," this zone includes the Smiley Falls area; which is considered
to be the historical spawning grounds for American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Upstream passage
was limited except during boat lockage and possibly during extended periods of high flow,
although in recent years a schedule of fish lockages has been implemented. Currently, the
United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) conducts weekly lockages during the
spawning season to ensure some passage of anadromous species (personal communication, Frank
Yelverton, USACE Wilmington District). As of March 2013, the USACE completed
construction of a rock arch weir at Lock and Dam No. 1, allowing fish passage up to Lock and
Dam No. 2. Considering the limited passage above Lock and Dam No. 2, spawning habitat
enhancement downstream of Lock and Dam No. 2 will provide substrate to encourage successful
spawning activity for American shad.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 2
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

The Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project includes the following goals and objectives:
1) Assess benthic habitat along a three -mile stretch of river utilizing remote side -scan sonar
(completed in March -April 2013); 2) Develop a substrate map identifying potential spawning
habitat restoration areas (Completed in April -May 2013); 3) Design and enhance up to 0.5 -acre
of spawning habitat for the benefit of American shad, as well as other Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission ( ASMFC) managed species such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (To be
completed in Winter 2013 - 2014); 4) Secure USACE Nationwide Permit 4 (To be completed in
October 2013) and 5) One annual post - construction survey of eggs within the vicinity of the
enhanced habitat (To be completed in Spring — Summer 2014).
Importance of the Project to the Resource
The CFR was one of the most productive rivers for American shad in NC at the beginning of the
20`b century, but current commercial landings are 87% lower than historic estimates. The project
will provide spawning habitat for American shad just below Lock and Dam No. 2. The project
addresses specifically the restoration of spawning habitat for American shad, an ASFMC
managed species and sturgeon, a federally- endangered species.
Indirectly, the restoration project will also provide potential spawning habitat for striped bass and
river herring. This project has been identified by the CFR Partnership as a priority (Cape Fear
River Partnership).
Specific Cause of the Problem
Population declines and reduced access to spawning habitat have been caused by three Lock and
Dam structures located between Wilmington and Fayetteville, NC. Currently, the USACE is
complete with the construction of a rock arch weir at Lock and Dam No. 1 on the CFR that will
allow volitional fish passage to the next dam upstream (Lock and Dam No. 2) (personal
communication, Frank Yelverton, USACE Wilmington District Civil Works, September 2012).
There are no existing plans for fish passage mitigation at Lock and Dam No. 2 or 3.
As a result of 70% of the population's inability to pass thru Lock and Dam No. 2 in the CFR,
restoration of 0.5 -acres of preferential spawning habitat for American shad downstream of Lock
and Dam No. 2 will facilitate 32 miles of larval rearing habitat [personal communication, Mike
Wicker, United States Fisheries and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) Coastal Services, September
2012]. The project is located in a priority area identified in the North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) (2010; Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan) indicating that improvement of anadromous fish spawning habitat is a priority
due to less than 35% of the population being able to migrate to historical spawning grounds
above Lock and Dam No. 3. This project will result in available and improved spawning habitat
and directly results in meeting target restoration goals being developed in the CFR Partnership
Draft Action Plan (July 2012). Joe Hightower, fisheries biologist with the U.S. Geological
Survey, and Chip Collier, a biologist with NCDMF, has calculated population estimates and
forecasted population potential based in part on historical landings. American shad target levels
are 450,000 for the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers. These targets will most likely be
used by the USFWS in developing a surrogate species approach in which American shad may
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 3
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Photograph 3. View to the west of Lock and Dam No. 2. Large rocks and boulders present against
dam wall are exposed due to lower flows.
Photograph 4. Ensuring accurate recording of side -scan sonar data in Sea Scan Survey software.
DC &A staff continually conducted QA/QC during collection of data.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 8
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Photograph 5. View of onboard computer screen during collection of side -scan sonar data. Yellow
line indicates location of vessel.
Side -scan images were analyzed using QTC Sideview post - processing software. Substrate map
production was conducted through ArcGIS. Following field data collection and post - processing
analysis, a draft benthic and sediment characterization map was prepared and provided by to the
Partners for review and evaluation. These draft maps served as the base map for potential
groundtruthing efforts as well as baseline for design and engineering specifications completed by
engineers with USFWS. Benthic habitat assessment, groundtruthing and post - processing of data
were completed by May 31, 2013.
Completion of groundtruthing efforts (Figure 4) and analysis of the remote side -scan data
occurred leading to a recommended and proposed habitat enhancement area (Figure 5). Before
groundtruthing efforts were completed, staff from DC &A, joined on May 7, the Wildlife
Resources Commission biologists, Keith Ashley and Tom Rachels, to further knowledge of
American shad habitat preference downstream of Lock and Dam No. 2. Based on years of
electrofishing sampling of American shad downstream of each Lock and Dam, Wildlife
Resources Commission indicated flow, current velocities, slope of the bank, and preference
dictate the presence of American shad on the northern side of the river. Therefore,
groundtruthing efforts were directed at those areas on the northern side of the river where the
substrate would be preferable for siting of 1,000 tons of Class B size rip rap (2 -12" locally -
quarried granite) (_Wildlife Resources Commission Fisheries Report - May 10, 2013) (Figure 5).
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 9
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Figure 4. Remote side -scan groundtruthing locations of potential substrate consisting of coarse
gravel, the preferred substrate for the project.
=F' Iba>.I. cr O S <1
On.n rF B�nC
sr+a wn OnA
swa
YoW pMl�e
- vow, D."
Loo— M so DIY
1 in 711 L]e
�wlYr�.��wnb VAM1e!MaMw.. rn.e�
Figure 5. Substrate classification map depicting high priority areas consisting of gravel with sand.
Coarse substrate will ensure the enhancement area will remain stable.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 10
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

The classifications identified in Figure 5 and listed below are approximately 90% accurate due to
high water levels precluding sampling some groundtruthing locations due to depth of water and
high flows. Sediment classifications include the following sediment types downstream of Lock
and Dam No. 2: gravel with sand, sand with gravel, sand, silty sand, mixed substrate, and woody
debris.
Based on review and evaluation by Curt Orvis, hydraulic engineer with USFWS, and Mike
Wicker, biologist with USFWS, the habitat spawning habitat will be located approximately 800
feet downstream of Lock and Dam No. 2; whereby, approximately 12,000 cubic feet (444 cubic
yards) of Class B rip rap will be deposited over an area 40 feet x 300 feet at a depth of 1 foot (see
Figure 6 below). The siting location was chosen based on several factors including: known
preference of American shad, depth, flow and vicinity to Lock and Dam No. 2, presence of
gravel/sand bar, the absence of major navigation thruway. It has been verified by the USFWS
the habitat spawning habitat will not need to be buoyed or an impediment to navigation or usage
of the Lock chamber at Lock and Dam No. 2 (personal communication, Mike Wicker, USFWS,
26 September 2013).
LWwd
Q P,,.d RVOWO n Sk S05 ac 1
Oibstnft CYwlkrlbw
}.,, .
e
;;rya rim Cvrwl
l:
Sem
S*f Sam
Wed Wbot !e
�w WOWv Debm
101k , m Ne Dols'
170 700
700
Figure 6. Proposed location of the Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement spawning site as
determined by USFWS hydraulic engineer.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 11
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

As indicated above, the suitability of habitat for spawning was judged based on known and
estimated water depth, water velocity, gravel size, and percentage of the substrate made of sand,
silt, and mud in comparison to published criteria for spawning habitat (Whitworth et al. 1975).
These characteristics were evaluated and reviewed with representatives from the Cape Fear River
Partnership which includes Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW), USFWS, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration — National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NCWRC, NCDMF,
and (DC &A).
Habitat Restoration Construction Activities
The preliminary design of the project includes the placement of approximately 1,000 tons of
crushed granite rock for the purpose of restoring 0.5 acres of preferential American shad and
sturgeon spawning habitat downstream of Lock and Dam 2. The substrate material is being
donated by Martin Marietta, a local quarry located in Castle Hayne, NC (Letter of Commitment
attached). Downstream of Lock and Dam No. 2 was chosen due to existing hydraulics in which
the turbulence from the Lock and Dam would keep stone placed clean and free of silt, which is a
key element for spawning. Elevation of the hydraulic control or artificial riffle below the Lock
and Dam could eventually be used to facilitate converting the dam to a rock arch rapids as the
slope could be steepened once the elevation of the downstream riffle was reached (personal
communication, Luther Aadland, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, September
2012).
Based on estimates from Maritech Dredging, restoration construction is anticipated to take
approximately four to six working weeks to complete, at a placement rate of 90 tons per day.
This includes four days of mobilization/demobilization to the project site. Weather days are
considered. Rock substrate will be held at a local haul yard until construction takes place in the
winter of 2013. Delivery of material to staging area will be by dump truck and will begin
promptly once Maritech Dredging receives "Notice to Proceed." Martin Marietta will manage
the movement and delivery of the substrate material. Due to logistics of material delivery (truck
schedule) and barge schedule, material will be stockpiled at the staging area and then loaded onto
the barge via wheeled loader or tracked skidsteer.
The project will be completed utilizing a 56'
spud barge (see image) with hydraulic ramp
and excavator along with a small tug boat.
Research has shown American shad and
sturgeon are pelagic or semi - pelagic spawners
(spawn within the water column) and spawn
over larger substrates, therefore this project
proposes to utilize a mixture of gravel, cobble,
and boulder size rock, primarily 2" to 12" size
for gravel and cobble. This material will be
loaded onto the barge at the staging area
located adjacent to the project site (boat
ramp). Material will be moved to the
designated placement areas via tug and barge. Once on -site, the barge spuds will be lowered to
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 12
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

the river substrate to hold the tug and barge in a stationary position. After anchoring (spuds),
material will be placed on the river bottom by the hydraulic excavator shown in the above figure.
The spud barge provides a stable work platform for volunteers as well as placement of material.
Considering that the barge does not move once "spudded" in place; it enables crew to collect
accurate GPS data on the location and depth of placed material. This GPS data will be used for
future monitoring of substrate stabilization. Following or prior to unloading of material, the
work area will be accurately marked with buoys. The barge will then return to staging area for
another load. Buoys will enable Maritech Dredging to return to the exact location with the
following load and ensure placement of additional material will adjoin the prior placement with
no gaps in coverage. The contractor will flag the bank directly out from where the stone will be
deposited and to the extent practical marking the four corners. This will avoid the contractor
from placing material outside of the proposed project boundaries. To assure the yardage criteria
will be met, Martin Marietta and the contractor, Maritech Dredging, will tally the trucks carrying
the stone as well as the number of trips from the boat ramp to the project site.
DC &A will coordinate with the USACE Wilmington District Real Estate office to receive a
temporary easement for the use of the parking lot for stockpiling and the boat ramp for
transporting the substrate material. The administrative fee will be waived by the USACE for the
preparation of documents and an appraisal based on personal communication with Michael
Hosey with the USACE (see attached letter). The temporary easement process is approximately
45 days and will occur simultaneously during the permitting phase. Discussions with the Lock
and Dam No. 2 Lockmaster, Buddy Ray, have been initiated to begin coordination of the location
of substrate material delivery and holding area. It was agreed the area of the parking lot closest
to the boat ramp would be best (Photograph 6).
To assure the permit conditions are met and to answer any questions the contractors may have,
representatives from DC &A, USFWS, and CFRW will provide project oversight during
construction.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 13
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Photograph 6. General location (white truck) of substrate delivery and holding location at Lock
and Dam No. 2 boat ramp and parking lot.
Monitoring Plan Overview
Clean, hardbottom habitats with interstitial spaces are preferred spawning habitat for many fish
species. Unfortunately, much of this preferred habitat in the CFR is inaccessible and is buried
under sediment from numerous natural and anthropogenic sources. The Cape Fear River
Fisheries Enhancement Project is the first of several habitat restoration projects planned for the
CFR watershed. To ensure the proposed outcomes of the construction project (spawning of
anadromous fish) have been met, active monitoring of spawning and egg production is essential
to the success of the proposed enhancement project.
Variability exists between studies as to specific habitat requirements for American shad and
sturgeon spawning sites (Stier and Crance 1985, Ross et al. 1993). Depth at spawning locations
is highly variable, with a reported range between 0.45 and 10.0 m (Mansueti and Kolb 1953;
Walburg 1957; Marcy 1972; Bilkovic 2000). American shad spawning in the Neuse River
predominantly occurred in depths less than 2 m (Beasley and Hightower 2000). Eggs have been
collected at velocities ranging from 0.15 to 0.61 m/s (Marcy 1972; Williams and Bruger 1972).
Ross et al. (1993) found no correlation between spawning activity and water velocity. However,
Walburg (1960) concluded that sufficient current is required to buoy eggs in the water column to
maximize hatching success. Bowman and Hightower (2001) and Hightower and Sparks (2003)
found substrates dominated by cobble at American shad spawning sites. However, Massmann
(1952) reported high concentrations of eggs over sandy bottoms free of mud and silt. Bilkovic
(2000) asserted that sediment size was not an important factor in determining habitat suitability.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 14
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Spawning typically occurs from sunset to approximately midnight (Massman 1952; Chittenden
1969) and often involves a single female and group of males. Spawning is often characterized
by splashing or "fighting" at the surface (Leim 1925). Eggs are considered demersal and quickly
become non - adhesive after release and begin to sink once water - hardened (Chittenden 1969;
Rulifson 1994). Drifting eggs have been found to lodge in downstream substrate or travel
several kilometers from the spawning grounds (Chittenden 1969; Marcy 1972). Massmann
(1952) suggested high current velocity and water turbulence increase distance traveled by newly
spawned eggs.
American shad and sturgeon eggs undergo rapid development during the first 48 hours after
fertilization and hatch in 2 -17 days depending on the water temperature (Jones et al. 1978).
Larvae drift downstream until they are free - swimming and begin to utilize fresh and brackish
water nursery habitat. Juvenile American shad generally remain in riverine or estuarine areas
until the fall of their first year, then move offshore when temperatures fall below 15°C (Walburg
and Nichols 1967).
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 15
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Pre - project Monitoring
Baseline studies on the migration and spawning habits of American shad, as well as water
quality, in the vicinity of Lock and Dam No. 2 have been conducted since 2004. The following
studies provide sampling data that indicate some upstream passage of American shad via the lock
chambers, however, these studies also illustrate that there remains a substantial proportion of fish
that do not access upstream spawning areas (above Lock and Dam 2 and 3).
• Raabe, J.K., Hightower, J.E., and Collier, C. 2013. Evaluation of Fish Passage
Following Installation of a Rock Arch Rapids at Lock and Dam #1, Cape Fear River,
North Carolina
• Smith, J.A. and Hightower, J.E. 2012. Effect of low -head lock - and -dam structures on
migration and spawning of American shad and striped bass in the Cape Fear River, North
Carolina, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 141:2, 402 -413
• Smith, J.A. 2009. Spawning distribution and migratory characteristics of American shad
and striped bass in the Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Master's thesis. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.
• Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. 2006. Cape Fear River anadromous fish egg and larval
survey. Dial Cordy and Associates Inc., Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Contract W912HN -05 -D -0014, Wilmington, North Carolina.
• CZR Incorporated. 2004. Pre - construction monitoring of American shad and striped
bass passage at Lock and Dam 1 on the Cape Fear River, North Carolina. CZR
Incorporated, Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract GS- 10E- 0043P,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
Post - project Monitoring
One annual post - construction sampling survey for American shad and sturgeon eggs and larvae
will be conducted using the methods described in Smith and Hightower (2012). As a summary,
egg surveys will be conducted at several locations during March — May 2014 (Figure 7).
Sampling locations will be established within 0.5 km downstream of each restoration area. All
sites will be sampled after sunset. Additional upstream sites will be sampled for eggs and larvae.
Water quality will be sampled at all stations.
Oblique plankton samples (15 min/sample) will be collected with a bongo -style net consisting of
two 0.3 -m hoops with 500 -µm mesh, a 6:1 tail -to -mouth ratio, and solid -cup cod ends. A flow
meter will be used to estimate current velocity (m/s) and the volume of water sampled during
each collection effort. Readings of depth, temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration will
be taken with an onboard hand -held, multi- parameter water quality monitoring unit. Plankton
sample contents will be fixed with a 5 -10% solution of formalin.
Quantifiable success criteria will be met if and when spawning (eggs /larvae present in the water
column) of American shad (and other ASMFC managed species) is documented during post -
project monitoring. In addition to the egg/larvae sampling study to be conducted by DC &A,
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 16
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

simultaneous tagging and stock assessments will be conducted by NC State University,
NCWRC, and NCDMF which will assist in the documentation of restoration success.
To further supplement the biological monitoring objectives /tasks of this project, DC &A jointly
with CFRW will be requesting additional funds, approximately $50,000, from Atlantic Coast
Fish Habitat Partnership to increase the length of monitoring in the first post - construction season
as well as add one more year of post - construction biological monitoring (implemented in 2015).
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 17
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Figure 7. Post - construction biological monitoring stations.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 18
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application
Raleigh
8 e'f G Mounleins NP
Lillington
z
charlotte
4ayetteville
eLD -3
LIM on m 273
77-
O LD -2
G) LD -1
Uppar��i1 /e
r
0
50 100
200 300
Miles
m
�he4srC
ape
F etteville m 220
s
m
n
x �
%iOCk h Creek a0 C�a
eew c
�C'eeM
%
marsh SW, �F
P
Ole
kU�
Swamp
C ee4
0
ae
w
m 149
ee
p
r
Spawning hanoement�ay,
G
w
Site Locatio (0. ..
F
eV\
B
M1er sy w flc
m
Legend
Post Construction Egg Sampling Station (2014 -2015)
0 Cape Fear River Egg Sampling Station (Smith- Hightower, 2009)
0
10 20
30
■ Cape Fear River Egg Sampling Station (Dial Cordy and Associates, 2006)
Was
Figure 7. Post - construction biological monitoring stations.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 18
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Numerous Partners are continually conducting monitoring activities within the vicinity of Lock
and Dam No. 2 including:
Water Quality — Dr. Larry Cahoon, University of NC at Wilmington. As a subcontractor to
CFRW and funded via the Striper Foundation, Dr. Cahoon conducted water quality monitoring
adjacent to Lock and Dam No. 2 for nutrient levels that trigger blue -green algae blooms. These
blooms lead to low dissolved oxygen levels.
Fish Passage — USACE and NC State University. Dr. Joe Hightower is contracted with the
USACE to tag and track American shad and striped bass to monitor the success of the
construction of a rock arch weir at Lock and Dam No. 1. A brief summary of results of
monitoring activities as of 31 August are provided below, as presented at the 30 May 2013 Lock
and Dam No. 1 Ribbon Cutting Ceremony and on a Cape Fear River Partnership Fish Passage
Implementation Team conference call 29 August 2013.
Project Objectives: Evaluate passage at Lock and Dam No. 1 rock arch rapids; Evaluate passage
at Lock and Dam No. 2 and Lock and Dam No. 3 via lockage (including assessing percentage
passed; and the rate of passage (rapid, or delayed), and the influence of environmental factors).
American shad, striped bass, and flathead catfish are the three species being evaluated. The two
former are anadromous species, managed on an inter jurisdictional basis by the state and federal
fishery management agencies, and the flathead is an introduced predator, as well as a possible
surrogate for the two sturgeon species.
During 2013, 50 American shad were acoustically tagged, between February 25 and March 28.
Fish were captured using electrofishing downstream of Lock and Dam No. 1. Thus far (through
May 24th), passage efficiencies have been as follows: of the 50 American shad tagged, 32
returned to the base of the fshway, and 16 made it upstream, for an efficiency of 50 percent. For
Striped Bass, 9 of 42 passed (21%), and for flathead catfish, 8 of 20 have passed (40 %). Passage
results at the two upstream locks and dams were reviewed. For the fish passing Lock and Dam
No. 1 successfully, the following percentages passed Lock and Dam No. 2: for American Shad,
36% (5/14); for Striped Bass, 78 % (7/9); and for flathead catfish, 33% (1/3). All the fish that
passed Lock and Dam No. 2 and reached Lock and Dam No. 3 successfully passed via the lock
chamber.
Outreach Plan Overview
Community Involvement and Engagement
Over 60 volunteers (providing two 12 -hour days each or 1,440 hours) will directly assist in the
restoration of spawning habitat for American shad and sturgeon by handling the first ton and last
ton of substrate material and placing it overboard into the river. Maritech Dredging has a 56'
barge with a large stable platform, allowing space for at least 15 volunteers at one time for two
shifts at the beginning of the project, and two shifts at the completion of the project. Adam
Knierim, owner and barge operator of Maritech Dredging, has committed to a safe environment
for all volunteers, staff, and contract workers.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 19
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

In addition to on -site volunteers coordinated by CFRW, the media, local municipalities and
government, recreational and commercial fishermen, state and federal regulatory and resource
agencies, members of CFRW and the public will be invited to view the restoration activities from
the safety of the parking lot at the boat ramp located just downstream of Lock and Dam No. 2.
At least two educational presentations will be made on -site during construction for the purpose
of engaging the stakeholders listed above and increasing awareness of the project's significance
to the recovery of the anadromous fish population. This is the first spawning habitat
enhancement project conducted in the CFR for anadromous fish and CFRW will ensure
education and public awareness is at the forefront of the project. CFRW will encourage the
media to follow the project and produce a follow -up to an article recently published discussing
the significance of the fishery population in the Cape Fear River and success of the recent
construction of the rock arch weir at Lock and Dam No. 1
(www.habitat.noaa.goy/pdf/winc sept oct 2012 cape fear.pdf).
Permit Status
Early discussions with the USACE — Wilmington District indicate a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 4
(rather than 27) will be required for the construction of the fisheries enhancement habitat project,
which eliminates the need for a Pre - Construction Notification. DC &A will provide the
documentation necessary for the Nationwide Permit 4 once the agencies and team have reviewed
and evaluated the benthic habitat assessment maps.
In a letter dated May 7, 2007, the NC Division of Coastal Management found this NWP
consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. NWP will ensure the
proposed project has fully integrated NEPA into the planning and decision - making process thru
the project's timeline as well as fully consider the impacts of the proposed actions on the quality
of the human environment. This project has and will continuously involve interested and
affected state and federal agencies, local governments, organizations and individuals.
Coordination with Curtis Orvis, hydraulic engineer, with USFWS, was initiated in June 2013 to
discuss the siting of the 0.5 acres of habitat spawning enhancement area. The USFWS assisted
in the design/cross section/ and profile of the enhancement area for permitting purposes. These
efforts were completed by end of September 2013 with the development and submittal of the
NWP 4 document.
Section 7 consultation was preliminarily initiated with NOAA -NMFS on 26 September 2013 in
an email indicating sturgeon would not be affected from the construction of the project due to
there is no evidence of sturgeon occurring above Lock and Dam No. 1 (personal communication,
Fritz Rohde, NOAA -NMFS, 26 September 2013).
Project Partners
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Fisheries biologists, Keith Ashley and Tom Rachels, with the NCWRC completed the annual
stock assessment sampling of anadromous fish species, including American shad, below each
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 20
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Lock and Dam in the CFR. These stock assessments were conducted weekly in the spring via
electrofishing to monitor spawning stocks of striped bass and shad. As it relates specifically to
Lock and Dam No. 2, five American shad were captured just below the dam. These annual stock
assessments provide vital data to the Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project and
contribute to the knowledge of where American shad will stage themselves prior to moving
upstream above Lock and Dam No. 2 or retreating back downstream. American shad were still
present at Lock and Dam No. 2 as of the 10 of May; however, water temperatures rose to 73
degrees precluding observations of American shad. Weekly reports and observations can be
found here: Wildlife Resources Commission Fisheries Report.
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
The NCDMF is currently conducting annual research on striped bass that will benefit the Project
and be benefited by the Project. Between 2011 and early 2013, over 60 striped bass have been
tagged with sonic tags that are expected to have a battery life of three years. These tagged fish
will assist side -scan sonar research efforts to hone in on current habits and habitats of striped
bass. Once these areas of high concentration are determined, mapping can be conducted to
determine preferred habitats and substrate. Additional striped bass are tagged with internal
anchor and PIT tags to determine the current population size and fishing of mortality of striped
bass. Tagged fish will be used to determine population size of adult fish and if current
management efforts are assisting to restore the CFR striped bass population to sustainable levels.
The Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project is also listed as a research need in the NC
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan and identified as high priority.
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 21
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Project Timeline
The Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project includes several tasks as shown below in
Table 2.
Table 2. Timeline for the Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project
Project Activity
Status
Processing Agreement and Benthic Habitat Assessment
Complete
Groundtruthin and Post-Processing Data
Complete
Permitting process PCN and 401 WQ Certification
Anticipated issuance in October 2013
Project Design and Engineering Specifications
Completed in September 2013 with USFWS
Construction Mobilization and Substrate Delivery
Anticipated for November 2013
Restoration Construction
Anticipated for December 2013 — February 2014
Post-project Monitoring
Anticipated for March — June 2014
NOAA Final Report
Anticipated for July 2014
Cape Fear River Fisheries Enhancement Project Page 22
Nationwide Permit 4 - Application

Martin Marietta Aggregates
P.O. Box 347
Rocky Point, North Carolina 28457
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
January 2, 2013
Attn: Dawn York
Dial Cordy & Associates
This letter is in regards to our previous conversations on the Cape Fear River Fisheries Restoration
Project. Martin Marietta is committed to a donation of the required rock materials for the fish beds.
At this point our understanding is that the job total will not exceed 1,000 tons. We have not been
provided any specifications other than clean 12 "minus materials will satisfy the project. We look
look forward to being a part of this project. Please keep me updated as more information and
scheduling becomes available.
Sincerely,
Sam Lathan
Sales Representative

fish habitat project (UNCLASSIFIED) Page 1 of 1
fish habitat project (UNCLASSIFIED)
Krvh I /W lfkcU #vDZ 0 HxdhdD]crvh I = xvdtnla p 1:4? 1J#
Sent: Z hgghvgdI AVryhp ehL*; A345#7i14#>P #
To: Gdz q#\nn#
Attachments: Z ip ljj rgbG bUhtxhv£4]sgi +77#NE,
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Ms. York,
Thanks for taking time to discuss the proposed fish habitat project and your
potential request for a license for access at Lock & Dam #2. Information on
submitting a request for access is attached. As discussed, we would consider waiving
some or all of cost for the license based on the project providing benefit to the
government, but cannot make a final determination on authorizing access or any
waiver of cost until we receive the request.
Please give me a call if you have questions.
Thanks
Michael
Michael Hosey
Operations Division
USACE - Wilmington District
office 919 - 542 -4501 x 26
cellular 919 - 630 -4117
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
https: / /remote.ion l 23.com/owa/ ?ae= Item &t = IPM .Note &id= RgAAAADaLlOVsh4pSYKf... 11/28/2012

—L�j j- i,
~'
•
v
art
i d
•
i . kw4y,.� � • .. • •• � � M ,.rte •• -'_
� .
w
'
r .
:'• rt •'tom -�,
iii
t
'�a .
i. •
• .08
_ a
. r ;,, • .ter i• +, • : • ' � ' i -
.i v
-•�' • +•-f• •fry
'
."''1.
_
_ t
• l �4
It
—L�j j- i,
4
ry• `.
♦ y
r
I
1
i
r"i, ,.
I
}
•
t
art
i d
w
'
r .
t
'�a .
i. •
• .08
_ a
•
I+
�► `sue,
."''1.
_
_ t
4
ry• `.
♦ y
r
I
1
i
r"i, ,.
I
}