20161221_USACE Merger Process Application_20131218

PAT MCCRORY
GovERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
December 13, 2013
Tracey Wheeler
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
a
ANTHONY J. TATA
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: SECTION 404 - NEPA MERGER PROCESS Application for a
Department of the Army (DOA) Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States to improve NC 11 and US 13 from NC I I/NC 561 to
US 131US 158/NC 45, Hertford County, WBS Element 45449.1.1
TIP Project R -5311
The following application, including separate attachments for (1) ENG Form 4345 and
(2) mailing list (labels), is submitted for your consideration. As you are aware, this
project was selected for treatment under the Merger process. The Regulatory Division has
provided concurrence with Purpose and Need (CP 1), and with the selection of Detailed
Study Alternatives (CP 2 and 2A). A federal Environmental Assessment (EA) has been
prepared and was distributed on November 25, 2013.
The following information is a summary of relevant project details and is being provided
to assist in the Section 404 regulatory review of the project. This letter and attachments,
along with the previously distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the
issuance of a Public Notice for the project.
Please issue your public notice at the earliest opportunity so that we can jointly proceed
toward selecting the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative
which meets the purpose and need of the project) following analysis of public input. Once
the LEDPA is selected and approved, efforts will be undertaken to further minimize
impacts to wetlands and riparian buffers in the LEDPA corridor and to propose suitable
compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1548
TELEPHONE 919 - 707 -6000
FAX 919 - 250 -4224
WEBSITE
HTTPS / /CONNECT NCDOT GOV/RESOURCES/ENVIRON
MENTAL/PAGES/DEFAULT ASPX
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

If you have any questions, or need .additional information, please contact Ms. Kim
Gillespie, PE, at (919) 707 -6023 or Mr. Tyler Stanton at (919) 707 -6156.
Sincerely,
c
r-lorlRichard. W. Hancock, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
cc: Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
David Wainwright, NCDWQ (7 copies)
Renee Gledhill - Earley, HPO
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Fritz Rohde, NMFS
Jay Bennett, PE, Roadway Design
Greg Perfetti, PE, Structure Design
David Chang, Ph.D., PE, Hydraulics Unit
Phil Harris, PE, Natural Environment Section
Jerry Jennings, PE, Division 1 Engineer
Rob Hanson, PE, PDEA
Kim Gillespie, PE, PDEA
Jay McInnis, PE, PDEA
Justin Oakes, Peanut Belt RPO

I' a
R -5311 —November 2013 Merger Application
Pagel of 23
NC 11 AND US 13
FROM NC 11/NC 561 NEAR AHOSKIE
TO US 13 /US 158/NC 45 NEAR WINTON
HERTFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R -5311
INTRODUCTION
The subject project proposes to improve NC 11 and US 13 from just south of the NC 11
intersection with NC 561 to the US 13 interchange with US 158 and NC 45, a distance of
approximately 7.8 miles. The proposed project is included in the approved 2012 -2018
State Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1.
NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
The project is federally funded and is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, and has followed the NEPA/Section 404 Merger process. The meeting
for Concurrence Point 1 (CP 1) was held on September 14, 2011, while the
Concurrence Point 2 (CP 2) meeting was held on September 19, 2012. The final meeting
to date, the Concurrence Point 2A meeting, was a field meeting that was held at the
Hertford County Resident Engineer's Office in Ahoskie on June 18, 2013. Concurrence
has been reached on all three points.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety of the NC I I/US 13 corridor
between the NC 11/NC 561 intersection and the US 13/US 158/NC 45 intersection in
Hertford County.
The proposed project is intended to address the following needs:
Safety
All of the alternatives currently under consideration for this project would improve the
NC 11/US 13 corridor in the project area to a four -lane, median divided facility.
Intersections along the project would either be removed, grade separated, or upgraded to
superstreet intersections (no left turns from side streets) or interchanges. Widening
NC 11 and US 13 to four -lane divided roadways and changing access patterns at the
existing intersections are expected to improve the safety of the route throughout the study
area.
Over 70% of the crashes occurring on NC 11 between 2007 and 2012 were frontal impact
crashes. Construction of a median divided, either fully or partially controlled access
facility is expected to reduce these types of accidents by either channelizing or
eliminating all left turn and side road through movements. Because over half of the

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
frontal impact crashes occurred at the intersection of NC 11 /SR 1212 (Shortcut Road)
and NC 11, changing this intersection to a superstreet or an interchange would drastically
reduce the potential for frontal impact crashes. In addition, the proposed new lanes
should help to reduce the number of rear -end type crashes by reducing congestion and
providing another lane for faster moving traffic to move into, in order to avoid stopping
or slowing vehicles.
The proposed median will reduce the likelihood of head -on collisions by separating the
opposing lanes.
There are a high percentage of heavy vehicles along the corridor, with heavy truck
percentages ranging from 19 to 22 percent. The proposed project would provide an
upgraded route for these vehicles by improving both the available capacity and overall
safety of this facility.
A traffic safety analysis was performed by the NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit in
August 2012. This study compared the different alternatives for the project from a safety
perspective. Safety performance functions were used to make comparisons regarding the
safety performance of the potential alternatives. Safety performance functions are
mathematical equations that relate characteristics of a road segment or intersection to the
number of predicted crashes at that site. The safety performance functions used in the
analysis came from the Highway Safety Manual and safety performance functions
developed or calibrated specifically for North Carolina.
Based on the traffic safety analysis, if no improvements are made to the existing facility
(i.e., the No Build alternative), the number of crashes within the project limits is expected
to be 58% higher in the design year (2035) than in the current year.
Traffic Carrying Capacity
Although the primary purpose of this project is to improve the safety of NC 11 and US 13
within the project area, the project will also improve the traffic carrying capacity of the
existing facility. With any of the alternatives under consideration, NC 11 and US 13 in
the project area will operate at LOS A in the year 2035.
COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULE
Cost estimates for each alternative are presented in Table 1 below. According to the
Draft 2013 -2023 NCDOT Program and Resource Plan, right -of -way acquisition for
Section A (the construction of an interchange or superstreet intersection at the existing
intersection of NC 11 /SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Road)) is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, and the construction is scheduled for
FY 2016. Right -of -way and construction for Section B (the remainder of the project
from just south of the intersection of NC 11 and NC 561 to the intersection of
US 13/US 158/NC 45) are scheduled to begin in FY 2017 and FY 2019, respectively.
2

f
R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
Table 1: Cost Estimates by Alternative
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Preliminary Study Alternatives
1. No Build Alternative
The No Build alternative avoids impacts to the study area. However, this alternative does
not address the purpose and need of the project because it does not improve the safety of
the NC 11/US 13 corridor. By year 2035, crashes are predicted to be 58% higher than in
the current year under the No Build alternative. For this reason, this alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
1. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Hertford County is primarily rural in nature, and therefore, has few options available with
regard to alternative modes of transportation. However, there are two publicly subsidized
operations available for those who may not have access to a car for their transportation
needs.
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority (CPTA) is a demand responsive, paratransit
community transportation program funded by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Public Transportation Division that serves the transportation needs of
Bertie, Halifax, Hertford and Northampton Counties. CPTA provides local services,
Monday through Friday, for trips to human service agencies, medical appointments,
community colleges, daycares, dialysis clinics, Headstart programs, individual shopping
trips, and many other destinations, although there are no fixed routes.
The Hertford County Office of Aging also provides some limited public transportation
services for senior citizens living within the county limits. They offer two types of
services: one that is available every other week andmay be scheduled by any of the seven
local communities for their citizens, and one that is by appointment only for medical
services.
3
Alternative 1
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Right of Way Acquisition
$1,812,640
$15,543,520
$14,969,690
$1,243,270
Wetland /Stream
Mitigation
$6,035,300
$3,915,100
$2,472,500
$4,244,500
Utility Relocation
$697,720
$1,004,920
$1,004,920
$697,720
Construction
$64,600,000
$71,100,000
$54,000,000
$50,200,000
Total
$73,145,660
$91,563,540
$72,447,110
$56,385,490
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Preliminary Study Alternatives
1. No Build Alternative
The No Build alternative avoids impacts to the study area. However, this alternative does
not address the purpose and need of the project because it does not improve the safety of
the NC 11/US 13 corridor. By year 2035, crashes are predicted to be 58% higher than in
the current year under the No Build alternative. For this reason, this alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
1. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Hertford County is primarily rural in nature, and therefore, has few options available with
regard to alternative modes of transportation. However, there are two publicly subsidized
operations available for those who may not have access to a car for their transportation
needs.
Choanoke Public Transportation Authority (CPTA) is a demand responsive, paratransit
community transportation program funded by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Public Transportation Division that serves the transportation needs of
Bertie, Halifax, Hertford and Northampton Counties. CPTA provides local services,
Monday through Friday, for trips to human service agencies, medical appointments,
community colleges, daycares, dialysis clinics, Headstart programs, individual shopping
trips, and many other destinations, although there are no fixed routes.
The Hertford County Office of Aging also provides some limited public transportation
services for senior citizens living within the county limits. They offer two types of
services: one that is available every other week andmay be scheduled by any of the seven
local communities for their citizens, and one that is by appointment only for medical
services.
3

I
R -5311 - Merger Application
November 2013
Given these limited options for alternative transportation, and because the use of public
transportation systems wouldn't substantially reduce or mitigate the existing safety issues
within the project study area, this alternative was not considered a viable option and was
eliminated from further consideration.
3. Transportation Systems Management
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies seek to maximize the efficiency,
safety, and utility of existing and planned transportation infrastructure. TSM strategies
encompass many activities, such as:
• Traffic incident management
• Traffic signal coordination
• Transit signal priority (TSP) and bus rapid transit (BRT)
• Freight management
• Work zone management
• Special event management
• Road weather management
• Congestion pricing
• Managed lanes
• Ridesharing and demand management programs
• Electronic toll collection and transit smart cards
• Traveler information systems
TSM is also connected to planning and infrastructure considerations such as access
management, street network layout, and intersection design (e.g., use of roundabouts,
right -turn slip lanes and median islands, four -way stops, turning lanes). The emerging
integration of operational improvements with urban design and context - sensitive roadway
design — through such means as boulevard designs, repurposing of excess road capacity
for bicycle lanes, and the use of roundabouts —can help improve vehicular operations and
multimodal access, while improving safety, enhancing aesthetics, and reducing
emissions.
In the case of this particular study area, some TSM measures have been implemented in
an effort to help reduce the existing safety issues at some intersections, including the
closing of SR 1213 (Old NC 11 Road) at its intersection with NC 11 and
SR 1212 (Shortcut Road). While this does reduce the number of crashes at the
Li

ff
R -5311 — Merger Application
November 2013
intersection in question, it does not wholly solve the larger safety issue, and was therefore
eliminated from further consideration as a viable alternative for this project.
4. Improve Existing Facility
It is expected the upgrade of the existing roadway would meet the project purpose and
need by improving the safety of the NC 11/US 13 corridor between the intersection of
NC 11 and NC 561 and the intersection of US 13 and US 158/NC 45 near Winton in
Hertford County.
Six preliminary alternatives for improving the existing facility were investigated for the
project. A traffic safety analysis was performed by the NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit in
2012 in order to compare the different alternatives for the project from a safety
perspective. Table 2 presents the predicted percent reduction in crashes within the
project limits for each alternative in comparison to the No Build alternative. As noted in
the table below, the 2012 traffic safety analysis found that all of the alternatives
investigated would likely result in fewer accidents in the design year than the No Build
alternative, given that each build alternative would reduce conflict points on the existing
roads.
Table 2: Alternative Safety Analysis Results
Source: Alternative Comparison for R -5311, Safety Planning Group, Traffic Safety Division, NCDCT, 8/8/2012
These preliminary alternatives were also evaluated from an environmental standpoint.
Table 3 below presents the potential environmental impacts of the preliminary
alternatives.
5
Predicted
Alternative
Description
Crash
Difference
from No Build
1
Freeway, part on new location
52% decrease
2
Freeway on existing location
53% decrease
3
Freeway/expressway on existing location
45% decrease
4
Construct interchanges at NC 11/NC 561 and
24% decrease
NC 11 -SR 1212/NC 11 intersections only
5
Superstreet on existing location
24% decrease
6
Su erstreet, part on new location
24% decrease
Source: Alternative Comparison for R -5311, Safety Planning Group, Traffic Safety Division, NCDCT, 8/8/2012
These preliminary alternatives were also evaluated from an environmental standpoint.
Table 3 below presents the potential environmental impacts of the preliminary
alternatives.
5

R -5311 — Merger Application
November 2013
i
Table 3: Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives
Resource
Alt.I
Alt.2
Alt.3
Alt.4
Alt.5
Alt.6
Project Length (miles)
8.1
8.2
8.2
spot
8.2
8.1
Improvements
Relocations
Residential
34
96
87
0
63
1
Business
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
34
96
87
0
63
1
Churches
0
1
1
0
1
0
Cemeteries
0
1
1
0
1
0
Parks
0
0
0
0
0
0
Schools
0
0
0
0
0
0
NC Crews Wetland
Impacts (acres)+
80
70
70
63
22
33
Delineated Wetland
Impacts (acres)
143
87
87
74
28
85
Delineated Stream
Impacts (linear Feet)
585
296
296
0
296
580
Hydric Soils (acres)
245
243
243
93
160
170
Prime Farmland Soils
(acres)
117
131
131
72
66
63
Structures/Districts
Listed on or Eligible for
0
3
3
0
3
0
National Register
+ ivt- t-rctw� wevanas were mcivaea since aenneatea wetianas were not avaiiabie for the portion of the project along existing US 13,
between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 461. Impacts presented are based on preliminary environmental analysis.
On September 19, 2012, four of the six preliminary alternatives were selected by the
Merger team to be carried forward for detailed studies based on the results of the traffic
safety analysis and preliminary environmental analysis. Alternatives 2 and 4 were
dropped from consideration. These alternatives are described below.
n

R -5311 —November 2013 Merger Application
Page 7 of 23
Alternative 2 — Freeway (Existing Location)
Alternative 2 would involve upgrading existing NC 11, existing SR 1212 (Shortcut
Road), and existing US 13 to a four -lane freeway from south of NC 561 to south of
US 158/NC 45. Interchanges would be constructed at the NC 11/NC 561, NC 11-
SR 1212/NC 11 and US 13/NC 461 intersections. All other crossing roads would be
grade separated or cul- de- saced. Full control of access would be obtained along the
portion of existing US 13 between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 461. Service roads
would likely be required to provide access to adjacent properties in this area, because this
section of US 13 currently has no control of access. Alternative 2 was eliminated from
consideration because it would relocate substantially more homes and would have greater
community impacts than the other alternatives.
Alternative 4 — Interchanges Only
Alternative 4 would involve constructing interchanges only at the NC 11/NC 561 and
NC 11 -SR 1212/NC 11 intersections. NC 11, SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and US 13 would
remain two -lane roads with this alternative. No improvements would be made to the
portion of existing US 13 between SR 1212 and NC 461. Alternative 4 was' eliminated
because it would provide much less crash reduction than the other alternatives.
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives were studied in detail for the proposed project and are described below
(see Table 4 for a comparison of project related impacts).
Alternative 1— Freeway (Part New Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four -lane freeway from south of NC 561 to US 13. A four -lane roadway on new
location would be constructed between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) at US 13 and existing
US 13 at its northern intersection with NC 461. Full control of access would exist for this
new roadway. Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four -lane freeway between the
northern intersection with NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45 and interchanges would be
constructed at the intersections of NC 11 with NC 561 and NC 11 /SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) with NC 11. All other crossing roads would be grade separated or have
their access removed and turned into' cul -de -sacs. Additional right of way would be
required to construct the new road segment east of existing US 13 between
US 13 /SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and the northern US 13/NC 461 intersection.,

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
I
Alternative 3 — Freeway/Expressway (Existing Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four -lane freeway from south of NC 561 to US 13. The portion of US 13 from SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) to NC 461 would be widened to four lanes with partial control of access
(one driveway per parcel). Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four -lane freeway
between the northern intersection with NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45. Interchanges
would be constructed at NC 11 and NC 561, NC 11 /SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and NC 11
and the northern intersection of US 13 and NC 461.
Alternative 5 — Superstreet (Existing Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of NC 11, existing SR 1212 (Shortcut Road), and
existing US 13 to a four -lane roadway from south of NC 561 to south of US 158/NC 45.
Partial control of access would be obtained along existing US 13 between SR 1212
(Shortcut Road) and the northern intersection with NC 461 since this section of US 13
currently has no control of access. Although an interchange would be constructed at the
northern intersection of US 13 and NC 461, a superstreet design will be utilized at the
remaining intersections, with the exception of NC 11 and NC 561, which will be an offset
or "dog leg" superstreet design.
Alternative 6 — Superstreet (Part New Location)
This alternative proposes the upgrade of existing NC 11 and SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) to
a four -lane roadway from south of NC 561 to US 13. A four -lane roadway on new
location would be constructed between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) at US 13 and the
northern intersection of US 13 at NC 461, which will become a grade separation. Full
control of access would be obtained for the new location portion of the project north of
SR 1408 (Saluda Hall Road). Existing US 13 would be upgraded to a four -lane roadway
between NC 461 to south of US 158/NC 45. No interchanges would be constructed with
this alternative, but a Superstreet design will be utilized at the remaining intersections,
with the exception of NC 11 and NC 561, which will be an offset or "dog leg" Superstreet
design.

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
Table 4: Comparison of Detailed Study Alternatives
Resource
Alternative 1
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Project Length (miles)
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.9
Relocations
Residential
1
54
54
1
Business
0
2
2
0
Total
2
50
52
1
Minority/Low Income
Populations -
Disproportionate Impacts*
No
Yes
Yes
No
Historic Properties
(adverse effect)
0
1
1
0
Community Facilities
Impacted **
0
2+
2+
0
Section 4(f) Impacts
0
2
2
0
Prime Farmland (acres)
58.7
68.9
62.2
51.5
Noise Impacts
2
26
26
1
Wetlands (acres)
118.7
77.0
48.7
83.5
Streams (linear feet)
1,141
1,101
1,101
1,171
Floodplain (acres)
0
0
0
0
Federally Protected Species
0
0
0
0
* The impacts to the affected communities are considered to be disproportionately high and adverse since there is not enough
available housing in this area to accommodate those relocated by these alternatives.
** Impacts to schools, parks, churches, fire stations, cemeteries, etc.
+ Community facilities impacted include the Pleasant Plains Church & cemetery
As shown in Table 4, Alternatives 3 and 5 would both use property from two historic
properties and would relocate substantially more homes and businesses than either
Alternative 1 or Alternative 6. However, Alternatives 3 and 5 both have fewer wetland
impacts than Alternatives 1 and 6. Historic properties are protected by Section 4(f) of the
USDOT of 1966. Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of
1966 states FHWA can only select alternatives which use land from historic sites if there
is no feasible and prudent alternative. Alternatives 1 and 6 are both feasible and prudent
I

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
alternatives. At this stage of the project, all four alternatives are still under consideration;
however, NCDOT prefers to select either Alternative 1 or 6 as the LEDPA, given that
they have fewer community impacts and will not require a Section 4(f) evaluation.
Structures
There are three major structures (structures with hydraulic openings of 72- inches or
larger) proposed for this project, depending on the alternative. Table 5 below lists these
major structures by alternative. Additional stream crossings requiring structures with
hydraulic openings of less than 72- inches are considered minor drainage structures and
will be identified during the final design phase of the project. The NEPA/404 Merger
Team concurred on these proposed structures at a meeting held on June 18, 2013.
Figures 2A and 2B show the location of these stream crossings.
Table 5: Proposed Structures
Stream
I Existing Structure
Pro osed Hydraulic Structure
Alternative s
UT to Horse
Swamp (SZ)
3 @ 48 -inch RCP
Extend 3 @ 48 -inch RCP
1, 3, 5, 6
Mill Branch
4 @ 48 -inch RCP
(existing location)
2 @ 48 -inch RCP
(Retain & extend existing two,
3 & 5
supplement with 2 additional)
Mill Branch
(new location)
N/A
1 @ 84 -inch RCP*
1 & 6
U I = Unnamed I rlbutary; KCP = Kelntorced Concrete Pipe
*This pipe will be buried 1 -foot to create a hydraulic opening of 72- inches
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
SURFACE WATERS
Streams
Nine jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area. The locations of these
streams are shown on Figures 2A & 2B. The physical characteristics and water quality
designations of these streams are detailed in Table 8 below.
10

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
Table 8: Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Project Area
Stream/Map
ID
Bank
Height
(ft. )
Bankfull
Width
(ft.
Water
Depth
in
Channel
Substrate
Velocity
Clarity
Flat Swamp
5
15
6
Silt
Moderate
Slightly
Turbid
Ahoskie Creek
10
12
24
Silt, Sand
Fast
Turbid
SC
5
6
6
Silt, Sand
Slow
Clear
SX
3
8
12
Silt
Slow
Clear
Sy
6
6
12
Silt, Sand
Moderate
Clear
SZ
1
8
20
Silt
Slow
Slightly
Turbid
SBB
4
10
12
Silt
Slow
Clear
SCC
3
6
30
Silt
Slow
Clear
Mill Branch
5
6
8
Silt, Sand
Moderate
Clear
Wetlands
Forty -nine jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project study area. Wetland
classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 9. The locations of these
wetlands are shown on Figures 2A & 213.
11

R -5311 -Merger Application
November 2013
Table 9: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area
_Map ID
NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ Wetland
Rating
HUC Code
Area acres)
WA
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
12
03010203
54.3
WB
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
17.4
WD
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
7.1
WF
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
5.1
WG
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
6.1
WH
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
271.0
WJ
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010204
32.2
WL
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
12
03010204.
12.6
WM
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
Riparian
12
03010203
17.7
WN
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
12
03010203
7.1
WO
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
24.4
WP
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
24.6
WR
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
23.9
WS
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
20.7
WT
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
13.8
WU
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010203
03010204
46.2
WV
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
7.3
WX
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010203
94.1
WY
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010203
03010204
60.2
WZ
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
43.9
WAA
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
4.2
WAB
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
0.8
WAC
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
12
03010203
0.2
WAD
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
2.7
WAE
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
12
'03010204
9.0
WAF1
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
2.9
WAF2
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
7.7
WAF3
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010204
0.02
WAF4
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
0.3
WAF5
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
0.2
WAG
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
1.2
WAH
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
6.4
WAI
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
Riparian
16
03010204
3.3
WBB
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
Riparian
12
03010203
1.0
12

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
Ma ID
T—NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ Wetland
Ratin
HUC Code
Area acres)
WBC
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
Riparian
20
03010203
0.9
WHA
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010204
97.6
WNA
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010203
0.3
WRA
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010203
7.5
WRB
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
4.1
WSA
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
6.2
WSS
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
2.9
WTT
Hardwood Flat
Non - Riparian
16
03010204
9.2
WUU
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
8.0
WVV
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
3.4
WWA
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
10.1
WWW
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
17.6
WXX
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010204
37.1
WYY
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
31.6
WZZ
Hardwood Flat
Non-Riparian
16
03010203
19.7
Total:
1,085.8
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Tables 10 and 11 present the estimated impacts to streams and wetlands by the detailed
study alternatives. Impacts lie within an area delineated 25 feet outside of the slope
stakes.
Table 10: Estimated Stream Impacts
Map ID
Class
Alternative 1
(linear feet)
Alternative 3
(linear feet)
Alternative 5
(linear feet)
Alternative 6
(linear feet)
SZ
P
155
165
165
161
SY
P
273
273
273
273
SX
I
135
130 '
130
151
Sc
1
81
79
79
81
Mill Branch
P
254
327
327
254
Flat Swamp
I
252
200
200
252
Total:
1,150
1,174
1,174
1,172
Classification: I — Intermittent; P — Perennial
13

R -5311 -Merger Application
November 2613
Table 11: Estimated Wetland Impacts
Map ID
c
o
U
Z
U
Class
DWQ
Rating
Alternative 1
(acres)
Alternative 3
(acres)
Alternative 5
(acres)
Alternative 6
(acres)
WA
HWF
NR
12
7.53
0
0
7.61
WAD
HWF
NR
16
4.34
0
0
0
WAE
HWF
NR
12
0
2.72
2.72
0
WAR
HWF
NR
16
0
0.29
0.29
0
WB
HWF
NR
16
2.79
0.01
0.01
2.59
WD
HWF
NR
16
1.23
0.42
0.42
0
WG
HWF
NR
16
0
0.87
0.87
0
WH
HWF
NR
16
31.91
11.63
11.63
31.95
WHA
HWF
NR
16
13.68
0.15
0.15
13.68
WJ
HWF
NR
16
0
4.70
4.70
0
WL
HWF
NR
12
0
0.16
0.16
0
WN
HWF
NR
12
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.35 -
WO
HWF
NR
16
2.98
2.99
1.44
1.44
WP
HWF
NR
16
4.96
5.00
0.26
0.25
WR
HWF
NR
16
2.33
2.32
0.53
0.55
WS
HWF
NR
16
0.68
0.67
0.73
0.74
WSA
HWF
NR
16
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
WT
HWF
NR
16
1.63
1.64
0.99
0.99
WU
HWF
NR
16
7.11
7.20
1.89
1.91
WV
HWF
NR
16
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
WWA
HWF
NR
16
1.79
1.83
1.83
1.84
WWW
HWF
NR
16
0.27
0.23
0.23
0.27
WX
HWF
NR
16
7.12
7.06
1.50
1.68
14

R -5311 — Merger Application
November 2013
NCWAM Classifications: HWF— Hardwood Flat
Classification: NR — Non - Riparian
WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The proposed project primarily involves improving an existing road, which crosses
streams. Wetlands are adjacent to the existing road, as well. Total avoidance of streams
and wetlands by the project is not feasible.
NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable when choosing a preferred alternative and during project
design. At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or
design of the preferred alternative.
Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
Once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred alternative,
NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities. If
on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP). The final determination regarding any mitigation requirements rests with the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
15
o
Map ID
CJ
3 �
Class
DWQ
Alternative 1
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Rating
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
z�
U
WXX
HWF
NR
16
4.35
4.63
4.63
4.54
WY
HWF
NR
16
10.10
10.09
5.71
5.68
WYY
HWF
NR
16
0
0.06
0.06
0
WZ
HWF
NR
16
8.28
8.35
4.01
4.07
WZZ
HWF
NR
16
4.94
2.93
2.84
2.99
NC 461
HWF
NR
16
0
0.35
0.35
0
Wetland
TOTAL:
118.73
77.02
48.66
83.50
NCWAM Classifications: HWF— Hardwood Flat
Classification: NR — Non - Riparian
WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The proposed project primarily involves improving an existing road, which crosses
streams. Wetlands are adjacent to the existing road, as well. Total avoidance of streams
and wetlands by the project is not feasible.
NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable when choosing a preferred alternative and during project
design. At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or
design of the preferred alternative.
Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
Once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred alternative,
NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities. If
on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP). The final determination regarding any mitigation requirements rests with the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
15

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
North Carolina Buffer Rules
No North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules apply to project streams, which are part of
the Chowan River Basin.
FLOODPLAINS
Hertford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
However, there are no flood zones in the study area.
RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Federally Protected Species
As of September 22, 2010, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists three
federally protected species for Hertford County. Biological conclusions for federally
protected species are shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Federally Protected Species for Hertford County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Habitat
Present
Federal
Status
Biological
I Conclusion
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus
Atlantic sturgeon
No
E
No Effect
Picoides borealis
Red - cockaded woodpecker
No
E
No Effect
Trichechus manatus
West Indian manatee
No
E
No Effect
t = tnaangerea; a taxon --in aanger of extinction tnrougnout an or a signiticant portion of its range'
Suitable habitat.for the Atlantic sturgeon does not exist in the study area (confirmed via
telephone correspondence with Fritz Rohde, National Marine Fisheries Service, May 31,
2013). No estuarine or large river systems are present within the project study area.
Surveys for red - cockaded woodpecker were conducted by, biologists throughout the
project study area in October and November 2012. Pedestrian surveys of forested areas
were also completed within the project study area. No suitable foraging or nesting
habitat was observed. Forested stands within the study area that have greater than 50%
composition of pines are less than 30 years old due to active timber management
practices, and are not of sufficient age to provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for
red - cockaded woodpeckers. No cavity trees or individuals were observed.
Suitable habitat for the West Indian manatee does not exist within the study area. Streams
within the study area are characterized as headwater systems and would not meet the size,
depth, or flow requirements for this species.
16

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) records, updated
October 2013, indicates no known occurrence of any of these species within one mile of
the study area. Due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences, it has been determined
this project will not affect any federally protected species.
The bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de- listed) from the USFWS
Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species effective August 8, 2007. The bald
eagle remains federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and
the Migratory Bird Species Act.
A desktop -GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a
1.13 -mile radius (one mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on
April 24, 2013 using 2010 color aerials. The Chowan River is located approximately
0.7 mile northeast of the project study area. Surveys were conducted throughout areas of
suitable habitat in October and November 2012. No bald eagles or suitable nesting sites
were observed. Suitable nesting trees were observed to be sparse within the study area
and within 660 feet of the study area. A review of the NCNHP database, updated
October 2013, revealed no known occurrences of this species within one mile of the
project study area. Due to the results of the survey and lack of known occurrences, it has
been determined that this project will not affect this species.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121- 12(a), and Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Historic Architectural Resources
As noted in the July 1, 2011 letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO),
three structures of historic or architectural importance have been identified within the
project study area. These include the Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School, the Newsome -
Hall House, and the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church, all of which have been determined
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Given the function and
proximity of the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church and Rosenwald School, they have been
considered as one joint historic resource. A description of each resource is provided
below.
The Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School, located on the west side of US 13, just south of
the intersection with SR 1132 (Pleasant Plain Road), was built in the 1920s and is a well -
preserved, one story, symmetrical frame building that was originally constructed as a
school for African- American children. The school was built with assistance from the
Rosenwald Fund, which was named for Chicago philanthropist Julius' Rosenwald,
president of Sears, Roebuck, and Company. The Rosenwald Fund offered matching
grants to rural communities interested in building black schools, which often became the
centers of small, rural, black settlements in early 20th century North Carolina. Pleasant
Plains School, a three- teacher facility, was one of the first of ten Rosenwald schools built
17

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
in Hertford County, and is a well - preserved example. Since the 1960s, after it ceased
functioning as a school, the building has been used by its owner, Pleasant Plains Baptist
Church, as a recreation building and community center.
Pleasant Plains Baptist Church, organized in 1851 and located across US 13 from the
Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School, is a 1949 Gothic Revival, 2 -story brick church.
The Newsome -Hall House is a two -story farmhouse with Queen Anne style- influence
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of US 13 and SR 1131
(Saluda Hall Road). It was originally the home of W.D. Newsome, a free black man that
lived from 1822 -1916, and served Hertford County as both a county commissioner
(1868 -1870) and a state legislator in the House of Representatives (1870 - 1872).
On June 11, 2013, a meeting was held with the State Historic Preservation Office to seek
concurrence on the effects that the various alternatives would have on these resources.
Table 13 presents the effects of each alternative on these resources.
Table 13: Historic Resource Effects
Alternative
Historic Resource
Project Effect
1
Newsome -Hall House
No effect
1
Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
No effect
3
Newsome -Hall House
No adverse effect
3
Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
Adverse effect
5
Newsome -Hall House
No adverse effect
5
Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
Adverse effect
6
Newsome -Hall House
No adverse effect
6
Pleasant Plains Baptist Church &
Rosenwald School
No effect
Under Alternative 1, there will not be any impacts to either of the historic resources, and
under Alternatives 3, 5, and 6, there will be no adverse effect to the Newsome -Hall
House since the access may be affected, but the character of the property will not suffer.
However, under Alternatives 3 and 5, the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church and Rosenwald
School will both have adverse impacts due to a loss of property and a change in access.
The church will lose nearly 40 feet off the front of their lot, which will reduce the
available parking and impact the adjacent cemetery, possibly necessitating the relocation
of graves. The church building itself will not be directly affected. The Rosenwald
School will also lose approximately 100 feet of property as a result of the additional right
of way that will be acquired, although the structure itself will not be affected.
Archeological Resources
18

R -5311 — Merger Application
November 2013
In 1977, during the initial planning phases for the NC 11 Ahoskie Bypass project, known
archaeological sites were surveyed and recorded within the project study area. None of
these identified sites were found to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places; regardless, as a result of the construction of that project, these sites have
since been destroyed.
There may be areas within the current study area that have a high potential for the
presence of eligible archaeological resources, particularly those dating to the historic
period. As the designs are refined and a preferred alternative chosen, NCDOT will
coordinate with the SHPO so they may assess the potential effects of the project and the
need for an archaeological investigation.
SECTION 4(F) /6(F) RESOURCES
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, and all
historic sites of national, state, and local significance may be used for federal projects
only if. a) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and b) the
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such
use.
Three resources protected by Section 4(f) exist within the project study area: the
Newsome -Hall House, the Pleasant Plains Baptist Church, and the Pleasant Plains
Rosenwald School. All of these are historic sites that are either listed on or eligible to be
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Alternatives 1 and 6 will not impact
any of these resources. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have an adverse effect on the Pleasant
Plains church and school, with an impact of 0.3 acre on this property, which is considered
a Section 4(f) resource. The Newsome -Hall House is not expected to be adversely
affected by any alternative. If Alternatives 3 and 5 are not dropped from consideration
after the USACE's Public Notice period and the subsequent public hearing, a Section 4(f)
evaluation will be prepared.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 stipulates that
property acquired or developed with the assistance of the Fund may not be converted to a
use other than public recreation unless suitable replacement property is provided. No
properties purchased or improved with funds from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund are located along the project.
MINORITY/LOW INCOME POPULATIONS
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects individuals from discrimination on the
grounds of race, age, color, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order
12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low - Income Populations" provides that each federal agency shall make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
19

R -5311 — Merger Application
November 2013
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
and low- income populations.
The racial character of the project study area in the 2010 census was very similar to that
of Hertford County. African- Americans were the majority of residents in the
demographic study area (DSA), making up 62 percent of the population, slightly higher
than the county's total of 60.5 percent. Whites were the second largest population group,
making up 33.8 percent in the DSA and 35.6 percent in the county. People who
identified themselves as Hispanic in ethnicity represent 3.5 percent of the demographic
study area population and 2.6 percent of the county population, as reflected by the 2010
census.
In addition to the potential presence of minority communities, there is also a high
likelihood that low- income communities may be impacted as part of this project.
According to the American Community Survey, over 20% of the population of the census
block group encompassing both the California and Pleasant Plains communities, which
constitute the vast majority of residential development in the project study area, is
considered "very poor ", while the average for Hertford County is only 9.4 %.
Communities are generally considered as qualifying for Environmental Justice
consideration when the population of the area in question qualifying as "below the
poverty level" is over 5 percentage points higher than the county average. Given that
"very poor" is a more extreme level of poverty than simply being considered "below the
poverty level ", it is likely that consideration will need to be accorded for low- income
Environmental Justice populations as well.
While minority and low income populations are present in the study area, no notably
adverse community impacts are anticipated with Alternatives 1 and 6; thus, impacts to
minority and low income populations do not appear to be disproportionately high and
adverse for these alternatives. Benefits and burdens resulting from the construction of
either of these alternatives are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the
community.
Notably adverse community impacts to low income and minority populations are
anticipated with Alternatives 3 and 5 due to the high number of relocations and the
subsequent loss of community cohesion. Ultimately, benefits and burdens resulting from
the project are not anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community.
Despite the fact the project's proposed safety improvements will benefit all users of the
facility, the impacts to the affected communities are considered to be disproportionately
high and adverse since there is not enough available housing in this area to easily absorb
the proposed relocatees, given the low housing vacancy rate within the area.
Public involvement and outreach activities must ensure full and fair participation of all
potentially affected communities in the transportation decision - making process. A
Citizens Informational Workshop was held for the project on March 27,'2012. This
workshop was advertised in local media outlets, and newsletters announcing the
workshop were mailed to area property owners.
20

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
Thfough the public involvement efforts, citizens have been kept informed of the proposed
project. Alternatives have been developed and measures implemented to minimize
impacts to the low- income and minority populations identified. This project is being
implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
21

R -5311 —Merger Application
November 2013
PRIME & IMPORTANT FARMLAND
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal, agencies, their
representatives, or those agencies that receive federal funding to consider the impact of
land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land
which has been previously developed or planned for development by the local governing
body or land within a defined urban area based on US Census mapping is exempt from
the requirements of the Act.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as
designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Land which is
planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation
afforded other rural, agricultural areas. This policy does not apply to lands which are
already in or committed to development projects such as water impoundment,
transportation, and urban development.
There are several active farm operations in the study area (see Table 14 for the prime
farmland impacts for each alternative). A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (MRCS
CPA -106) has been completed for this project, and since all alternatives surpassed the 60
point threshold for Part VI, the Farmland Impact Conversion Rating Form was submitted
to NRCS for review. Upon completion of their review (Parts IV and V of the NRCS
CPA -106 form), it was determined all alternatives received final point totals of less than
160 points. Therefore, all alternatives fall below the NRCS minimum criteria rating and
will not be evaluated further for farmland impacts. These alternatives will not have a
substantial impact to farmland.
Table 14: Prime Farmland Impacts
Alternative
Prime Farmland Impacts
acres
1
58.7
3
68.9
5
62.2
6
51.5
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Four sites presently or formerly containing petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs)
were identified within the project limits:
The former Winton Dollar Bill previously operated as a gas station. The facility is
located at the intersection of US 13 and NC 45 in Winton. The UST Section
Registry shows four USTs at this facility that were closed in 1992. This site is
anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project.
22

R -5311 — Merger Application
November 2013
• The Keene property is a former UST facility. The facility is located at
614 US Highway 13 in Winton. The UST Section Registry notes that this site
formerly contained USTs, but it is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental
impacts to the project.
• The A.B. Jones property is a former UST facility. The facility is located at
634 US Highway 13 in Winton. The UST Section Registry notes that this site
formerly contained USTs, but is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental
impacts to the-project.
• The Deborah Simmons property previously operated as the Al Simmons store.
The facility is located at 830 US Highway 13 in Ahoskie. The UST Section
Registry shows three USTs at this facility were closed in 1993. This site is
anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project.
No hazardous waste sites or landfills were identified within the project limits. If right of
way is required from any of these properties, soil and groundwater assessments will be
performed before right of way acquisition. Discovery of additional sites not recorded by
regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernible during the project reconnaissance may
occur.
LOGICAL TERMINUINDEPENDENT UTILITY
The proposed project has logical termini and independent utility. The project involves
widening a two -lane road into a four -lane divided facility and either making intersection
improvements or upgrading intersections to interchanges, depending on the alternative
chosen. The project limits are restricted to the area necessary to widen the road and
contain all approach work'required to tie the project back into existing roadways. The
proposed project will not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements in the area. This project would be a reasonable
expenditure of capital even if no additional transportation improvements in the area were
made.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
No federally or state designated Wild and Scenic Rivers occur within the project study
area. Therefore, the project will not impact any Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or
any rivers included in the list of study rivers (Public Law 90 -542, as amended).
23

i
O5�
QO
RC/
� 1®
INSET MAP LEGEND
OStudy Area --- TIP Projects
O Municipal Limits
Alternatives 1 and 6
Alternatives 3 and 5
US Route
NC Route
"Secondary Roads
R -2507,
Saluda Hall Rd (SR 1408)
N
�. 0 2,500 5,000
Feet
Vicinity Map
TIP Project Number R -5311
Improvements to US 13 /NC 11
from NC 11 /NC 561 near Ahoskie
to US 13 /US 158/NC 45 near Winton
y North Carolina Department of
�. Figure
Transportation
k Project Development and 1
-�✓� Environmental Analysis Branch

00 /' m
w
N i O
m
3 �
2
i ® m
m
z
0 0 0 o
0 0 o pp
(D (D (D
m m (D
a a o.
m m
a -
s <o a y {'
(D (0
0 0 (D
a
R -�tfi D
< a
CD (D
CDo�
0
Q.
CD
0 I D
= o a m
Q
(D (D f,
a N (D
CD
< m E
(D .fir ♦ ,�
o'
Va
7 .4
17 "� � t�.• tip. 4. - .• •_
••% , )
CD
CD
o �
♦♦
1•
,.
S 0 �. •��
CL
m n
Q1 \ IS' � � ,•1
•� +, •
■
-
■•. SuuoC
•• �QMU6!H ..
E
vE3 3� D
wzo rt
() < ID
cCn 3 o CD
al � a p1
Z cn CD
0 0) 3 N
4�-, C Q-
C/) m
CD
°' w MAl•CHLINE SHEET B
�oC)� Q.
cn
�•
O N

N 0
.202
- a
1pti \ \eNeP�\e$l 6�
1
t
8
• a
0
I' •
a
a�
a
a
SHEET 3D'

MA�TiCHLINE SHEET 3B
I�7
f i
.L� • t
r
r -
ti -
1
S
,I•
1•
�Wjo W
;
nl
SHEET 3D2

W,
m;
w°
N '
f
i -
f
- 4
fig
i

,SHE -EST 3
,N.:�
;0 w
AM
a "
1'
.r
� ♦� X71. ` � .i1..'_
'yam
b
•

i'
1~
0
1
1ikk
. L�
q�i��1
Iwo
v
ON
�
*,
1: eUA .
;
TIP R-25
• �iLt,�
11 IL

I
j
r
w \
P.P.Mmo

l
cn
Ts m
� o
c_ �3 W
C)
m r Z
41
A` O
N mm
-n ` ,
j
O
I r 2
I 1 m
v v z
-o 0 -0
m m (D n
CL a a
;1 a 07 t
o X) n
CD co
0 o CD
o '
< c �.
CD <
m
� CD
rr
CD
.. n
- O
7
� � O
o
CD cD
CL CL
CL
o SL
CT
n � m
,x r
m`i. 'E �- tom. a .��r. `•
CD
o
y �
* 'r •♦
•.♦ ♦. ��
1
A_
r�
IF •
e.
{
•
/ /-

U012,
5
r
C7�LSSU SuL.CS ••�
i
3
I#.
1
� I
P
y I
qti
V
e
r
I

J►
v
•r SI
S ,
s
3
C• eP��eSI
� MATCHLINE SHEET 411= 1p�peN
5
• E
r
/1
rj
r
y i
i
Y'
• t
M4111

A {
m;
A',
N
J
•
UBA
1
lTI
x
d
x
m

•
x
( m = w
mZ
MATCHLINE SHEET 4D' MA�TCHLINE SHE T 4D1
R
A
A ,A
o v
A
m
IM
M
o '
m
C)
a a a
o
0 0 0
(D N
CD
C C C
Q Q Q
;) m W
(o' Q
(o ri
(D (o
0 0 (D =
0
a
CD
3 <
m m
0 �
ova
=oo
�.
U a (D -.
_o cn+ 1
CD m i
d d
fn n
CD 1"
o �
Z
0
v j
CID
sCD
co
.;
,CD m � 1
IM
0
spr1 ,
o ��o •t
Q
� G@
00
® f'P
J
a
N
7 3 6 —I
�Z0
< n
D
A�3 m.
O r
�zm C fD o _
:oC�� y Z
m
�° ° c
n (n m �� aT w m
'"
Q
nw
j'
(D r
3 � `fir'• ",' -
a

E
I
MINE
All
.. ... ... ... ... .

I
MEN
r
&M
i
•
rr, I=
AI
IR

q
CO
I I
D
m
0
.9
=
--,-o
.9
w
O
"Q7
"CO
m
J� /77
m
`"
^
o
� ^
o
-
o
m
-
a
m
aOR
cn
-�
v, °-
X
X D
0 w
> —n
D 0
F
X
N
�
N
N
N
O
Cl) Cl)
(/� —
D
�
N
N
CD
U)
U)
LVI
—L
N
W
�
N
W
W
—
N
lCl*)
N
�
N
�
�
N
N
� O
O
e
p
�7
mv�z
<7
_���
wzo
��
''co
-.tom
oTa�
o-
cn <�
�� o
`I
co
(D CD
�
F
-own
cony, Z
D 0
� (D -o
Z(n..c
C -)
Cl)
m
m
D
A
�<p ��
CD
0
rr
(D v W�a
O
__a
o
v D Z al
o C7
�cn
O (D
N
n
C
(D
q