20080049 Ver 1_Application_20080109

~ w
~~~~
~`
~ ..,:
.~ ~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 4, 2008
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
LYNI~O TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attention: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permits 23 and 33, Water Quality
Certification, and Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization, for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 95 on SR 1151 over Turkey Creek in Nash County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1151(4), State Project No. 8.2322501, TIP No.
B-4210. Debit $240 from WBS 33556.1.1
Please find enclosed the permit drawings, Pre-Construction Notification form (PCN), and
half-size plan sheets for the above referenced project. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
(PCE) was completed for this project on June 23, 2005, and distributed shortly thereafter.
Additional copies are available upon request. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 95 on SR 1151 over
Turkey Creek in Nash County. The project involves the replacement of the existing 91 foot
bridge structure with a 100 foot concrete box beam bridge at approximately the same
location, and at a slightly higher roadway elevation, as the existing- structure using top-down
construction. Permanent impacts will consist of 0.07 acre to wetlands adjacent to Turkey
Creek and 9,623 ft2 of riparian buffer. Traffic will be detoured off-site along surrounding
roads during construction.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: The project is located in the Neuse River Basin (Hydrologic Unit
03020203). A best usage classification of "C NSW" has been assigned to Turkey Creek
[DWQ Index # 27-86-3-(1)]. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Turkey Creek is not
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILhAINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.OFtG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic
River. Additionally, Turkey Creek is not listed on the Final 200b 303(d} list of impaired
waters due to sedimentation for the Neuse River Basin, nor does it drain into any Section
303(d) waters within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts: Wetlands adjacent to Turkey Creek will be impacted by the proposed
project. Construction of the proposed project will result in permanent impacts of 0.07 acre
due to fill material (see permit drawings).
Tern~orary Impacts: This project will result in 0.03 acre of temporary fill in wetlands in the
Hand Clearing areas for the installation of erosion control measures, including some or all of
the following: Temporary Silt Fence, Special Sediment Control Fence, and/or Temporary
Rock Silt Checks_
Hand Clearing: Hand clearing of 0.11 acre in wetlands will be necessary for project
construction outside of the new fill slope (see additional hand clearing in Utility Impacts
section}.
Utility Impacts: The relocation of one power pole in the southwest quadrant of project area
will result in 4 ftZ fill in wetlands. Installation of a powerline will result in 0.06 acre of hand
clearing, 0.02 acre of which are in addition to the hand cleared area resulting from clearing
around fill slopes.
Bride Demolition: The existing bridge is a three-span structure consisting of apre-stressed
concrete channel superstructure with an asphalt-wearing surface. The substructure is
composed of pre-stressed/pre-cast concrete caps on timber piles. Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed to prevent any temporary fill from
entering Waters of the United States.
Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations pertaining to the
buffer rules apply. There will be a total of 9,623 ft2 of impacts to riparian buffers. This
includes 7,399 ft2 (7,252. ft2 in Zone 1 and 147 ft2 in Zone 2) due to the bridge crossing.
According to the buffer rules, bridges are allowable. In addition, 2,224 ft2 (156 ft2 in Zone 1
and 2,068 ft2 in Zone 2} of impacts will occur from approach fill and hand clearing activities
due to road crossings. This Road Crossing activity is allowable because impacts are less than
the 150-foot/0.3 acre threshold, for which mitigation is required. Uses designated as
allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical
alternatives to the requested use pursuant to Item (8) of this rule.
There are also a total of 1,722 ftZ of impacts to riparian buffers from hand clearing activities
due to the relocation of a powerline {see utility drawings). This includes 1,106 ft2 in Zone 1
(599 ft2 in Site 3 and 507 ft2 in Site 4} and 616 ft2 in Zone 2 (310 ft2 in Site 2 and 306 ft2 in
NCDOT TIP 8-4110 Page 2 of S

Site 5). These impacts are considered exempt, and completely overlap riparian buffer
impacts resulting from the bridge and road crossings.
Federally Protected Species
As of November 11, 2007 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed three federally
protected species for Nash County (Table 1). The bald eagle was removed from the
Endangered Species List on August 8, 2007. A biological conclusion of "no effect" remains
valid for red-cockaded woodpecker due to lack of suitable habitat. NCDOT received
concurrence from USFWS for a Biological Conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect for the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel on September 3,
2004. A resurvey for these species was conducted on August 27, 2007 (see attached survey
report), and the Biological Conclusions will remain the same.
Table 1. Federally protected species of Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name. Federal Stators Habitat Bioio cal Conclusion
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Yes MANLAA
Tar River spinymussel Edliptio steinstansana E Yes MANLAA
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from the Endangered Species Act as
of August 8, 2007. However, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act. No suitable habitat exists within 660 feet of the project area. Therefore, this project will
have no adverse effect on the bald eagle.
In-Stream Work Moratorium
Turkey Creek falls under the jurisdiction of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). Per letter from NCWRC on December 21, 2007, no moratorium is required for
this project.
Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the
project study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is committed to
incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts. Minimization measures incorporated as part of the project design
included:
• Fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio
• Use of an off-site detour during construction
• Construction of a 9-foot longer bridge
NCDOT TIP B-4Z 10 Page 3 of S

• The new structure will span the creek, therefore there will be no interior bents in the
water
• Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the existing
alignment
• Best Management Practices will be utilized during demolition of the existing bridge and
construction of the new bridge
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized during demolition of the
existing bridge and construction of the new bridge
Mitigation
Due to the limited amount of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, and because impacts to
riparian buffers have not exceeded the threshold requiring compensatory mitigation, NCDOT
is not proposing mitigation for this project.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The
NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23. We are also
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for the temporary fill due to the
installation of erosion control measures. (72 CFR; 11092-11198, March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701 and 3688
will apply to this project, and are requesting written concurrence from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Therefore,
in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a), we are providing five copies of this
application to the NCDWQ for their review and approval. Authorization to debit the $240
Permit Application Fee from WBS Element 33388.1.1 is hereby given.
Neuse River Basin Buffer Authorization: NCDOT requests that the NC Division of Water
Quality review this application and issue a written approval for a Neuse Riparian Buffer
Authorization.
A copy of this application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
htty://www.doh.dot. state.nc.us/nreconstruct/ne/neu/nermit.html
NCDOT TIP 8-411 D Page 4 of S

'Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact David E. Bailey at
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincer ~1~, ,
C°
~, f.
`~,ti Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment:
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
w/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Richard E. Greene , P.E., Div. 4 Engineer
Mr. Jamie Guerrero, Div. 4 Environmental Officer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. John L. Williams, P.E., PDEA
NCDOT TIP B-4210 Page S of 5

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
IL Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Aff liation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. 'The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of proj eCt: Replacement of Bridge No. 95 on SR 1151 over Turkey Creek in Nash County
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only}:
B-4210
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN}: N/A
4. Location
County: Nash Nearest Town: Samaria
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take US 264 to NC 97
East and turn left onto SR 1151 (Bryantown Rd)_ You will come to bride 95 after
approximately 0.5 miles.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.}
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum}: 35.862047 °N 78.195951 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Contentnea Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at littp:llh2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin./maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project is located in a rural area in Nash county. Land
around the site is mostly forested or under agricultural cultivation.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The existing bridge, constructed in 1969, is a three-span structure consisting of apre-stressed
concrete channel superstructure with an asphalt-wearing surface. The substructure is
composed of pre-stressed/pre-cast concrete caps on timber piles. The proposed project will
replace the exisitin~ge in place with a new bridge that is 100 feet long. Standard
NCDOT construction equipment will be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to replace a
structurally deficient bridge to ensure the safety of those traveling over the bridge.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action 1D Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.LP. project, along with
construction schedules. Wetlands have not as yet been verified by the Corps. The jurisdictional
determination information packet will be included in the permit application packet.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permit requests are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Construction of the proposed
project will result in permanent impacts of 0.07 acre to wetlands due to fill material (see
Page 3 of 8

permit drawings). This proiect will result in 0.03 acres of temporary fill in wetlands in the
Hand Clearing areas for the installation of erasion control measures
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately List impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of

Site Number
Type of Impact
(e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact

(indicate on map)
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
1 Permanent Fill forested yes abuting 0.07
1 Temporary Fill forested yes abuting 0.03
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.10
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 6.0 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, darn
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Tmpact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on map) Before Im act (linear feet) (acres)
N/A
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0.0 0.0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.}. Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number
(if applicable} Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): O.0
Wetland Impact (acres}: 0.10
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.10
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0.0
Page 4 of 8

. 7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water {wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USAGE.
S. Pond Creation
if construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site
layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts were
minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be
followed during construction to reduce impacts. The NCDOT is committed to incorporating- all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts. Minimization
measures incorporated as part of the project design included fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio,
use of an off-site detour during construction, construction of a 9 foot longer bridge, the new structure
will span the creek, therefore there will be no interior bents in the water. Measures used to minimize
im acts to the buffer zone include usin the existin all ent. Desi Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds will be utilized during demolition of the existing_bridge and construction of the new bridge
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8

USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and. type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http :i1h2o.enr.state.nc. uslncv4letiands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as passible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservatian mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Due to the limited amount of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, and because impacts to
riparian buffers have not exceeded the threshold requiring compensatory mitigation, NCDOT
is not proposing_mitigation for this project.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrplndex.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested {linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested {acres): N/A
Page6of8

IX. Environmental Documentation {required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current threshalds for environmental documentation_
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's} responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 1 SA NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other {please
identify Neuse )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
1 7,399 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
2 2,224 1.5 0
Total 9,623 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1 .
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
Page 7 of 8

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQj
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http./Ih2o.en~-.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
~~-~1~~
Ap~-lican~/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
B-4210
8.2322501
33556.1.1
BRZ-1151(4)
A. Proiect Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 95 on SR 1151 over Turkey Creek in
Nash County (see Figure 1). The new structure will be approximately
100 feet in length and will be located in approximately the same location. The
roadway elevation of the proposed bridge will be raised slightly to accommodate
the new structure.
The proposed structure will have a typical section that, at a minimum, will
accommodate two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets to the face of the bridge rail.
The approach roadway will be widened to accommodate, at a minimum, two
11-foot lanes with 6-foot grass. shoulder that will be widened as required where
guardrail is warranted. The approach roadway work will consist of some grading
and paving to tie back into the existing roadway for 290 feet to the west and 500
feet to the east of the proposed structure.
The total project length is approximately 890 feet. Traffic will be detoured offsite
during construction (see Figure 1 and Section D, Studied Offsite Detour). No
improvements will be needed to the roads on the offsite detour.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 95 is a three-span structure with an asphalt overlay prestressed
concrete channels (STD BMD-13}. The substructure is composed of prestressed
precast concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge is 91 feet in length and
was built in 1969.
Bridge Maintenance Unit Records state the bridge's sufficiency rating as 26.9 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is currently pasted at 17 tons for
single vehicles. Bridge No. 95 is considered structurally deficient due to a
structural appraisal rating of two out of a passible nine for a new structure
according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Therefore, the
bridge is eligible for the FHWA's Highway Bndge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program due to its low sufficiency and structural appraisal rating.
The prestressed concrete channels are spalling and cracking, which leads to
delamination of the prestressing strands and reduces the members ability to
perform as expected. Timber piles typically, do not last beyond 40 to 50 years of
age due to the natural deterioration rates of wood. Rehabilitation of a timber
structure is generally practical only when a few members are damaged or
prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber
members become impractical to maintain and upon eligibility are programmed for
replacement.

5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of
right-of--way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.

Division Office Comments:
Division Four concurs with the reconunended alternate for replacing
Bridge No. 95.
Bridge Demolition:
Using current bridge demolition techniques and guidelines, the bridge can be
removed without dropping any components into Turkey Creek. Therefore, there
is no anticipated temporary fill from the removal of Bridge No. 95.
Alternatives Discussion:
The no-build alternate is not feasible. The bridge will continue to deteriorate and
eventually need to be closed down. This is unacceptable due to the traffic
SR 1151 serves.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not a feasible alternate. Timber structures
typically do not last beyond 40 to 50 years of age due to the natural deterioration
rates of wood. Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally practical only
when a few members are damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a
certain degree of deterioration, timber structures become impractical to maintain
and upon eligibility are programmed for replacement.
Replacing the structure on existing location while maintaining traff c onsite is not
practical. There is a feasible offsite detour available for this project. A
temporary onsite detour would increase the construction costs of the project as
well as the environmental impacts.

(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
{17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? a X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ~ X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location {along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
7

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4210
State Project Nv. 8.2322501
W.B.S. No. 33556.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1151(4)
Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 95 on SR 1151 over Turkey Creek in
Nash County (see Figure 1). The new structure will be approximately
100 feet in length and will be located in approximately the same location_ The
roadway elevation of the proposed bridge will be raised slightly to accommodate
the new structure.
The proposed structure will have a typical section that, at a minimum, will
accommodate two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets to the face of the bridge rail.
The approach roadway will be widened to accornrnodate, at a minimum, two
11-foot lanes with 6-foot grass shoulder that will be widened as required where
guardrail is warranted. The approach roadway work will consist of some grading
and paving to tie back into the existing roadway for 290 feet to the west and 500
feet to the east of the proposed structure_
The total project length is approximately 890 feet. Traffic will be detoured offsite
during construction (see Figure 1 and Section D, Studied Offsite Detour). No
improvements will be needed to the roads on the offsite detour.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
~~
Dat
Co ~3 S
Date
~ ~~.~...
Yrc~ject engineer
Project Development 8~ Environmental Analysis Branch
Prod ect Development Engin er
'ect Development 8L En onmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B} projects only:
Z3 ~s~ ~ -~
Date ~ ~ F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Nash County
Bridge No. 95 on SR 1151 Over Turkey Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1151(4)
State Project No. 8.2322501
WBS No. 33556.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4210
Project Development and .Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit,
Structure Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Hydraulics Unit
There are wetlands in the project vicinity. However, at this time the impacts are less than
0.1 of an acre based on preliminary design plans. A final estimate of the impacts will be
done during the permitting phase when the final design plans are more advanced.
NCDOT will avoid and minimize impacts to these wetlands to the extent practical. Any
mitigation required will be done according to USACOE criteria.
The mussel survey for the dwarf wedgemussel and the Tar spinymussel is valid until
July 2, 2006.
Nash County Emergency Management Services has stated that they do have concerns
over the use of an offsite detour. They have requested that the length of road closure be
kept to a minimum because this is a heavily populated area. Therefore, where practical,
the final design for the bridge and the roadway approaches should incorporate
construction techniques that expedite construction_ The contractor will be alerted to the
need to expedite construction in the contract documents.
Division Four Resident Engineer
Advanced notice of road closure for SR 1151 will be given to Nash County Emergency
Management Services and to the Nash County School Transportation office in order for
them to facilitate their services during construction.
Greensheet -Sheet 1 / 1
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion,
PDEA
June 2005

1 ':_ ( ~
-~__>- ~~
Vorth Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development g
Environmental Analysis Branch
dash County
Replace I3rid~e X10. 95 on SR ll51
Over Turkey Creek
~ B---210
5C`ILI:: l in = 1 rTti ~'i~~urc ~

P~ME"T °F r~F United. S fates De~artsnent o~ the Interior
QP ~ S
y'" 7 2(104
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
- _ Raleigh I;eld Office ~S~ QF~~~~~
- 9 Post Office Box 33726 ~~E ~, ~N~
~'-0RcH ~, t$' Raleigiz, North Carolina 27636-3725 F~f
September 3, ?00?
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail~Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of August 24, 200? which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 95 on SR 1 151 over Turkey Creek in Nash County (TIP
No. B-?210) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussei
(~llastnidonta heterodon) and the Tar spinymussei (Elliprzo steinsransana). These comments are provided
in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U_S.C. 1531-
1843 }.
According to the information you submitted, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on July 2,
2004. The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1 1 S 1. Neither of the
federally listed species was found. Although the dwarf wedgemussel has been observed several miles
downstream in Turkey Creek, the project site is well above the known range of the species in this stream.
Based on the information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your
determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
have been satisf ed. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review: or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined
that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-?820 (Ext. 32).
Sincerely;
' ~~v~-- ~. ~k-,-,
r ~
Tom Augspure~
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

d.s Sr/1tF v
y ,.~ ~.
.~ ...~~
a./w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
January 16, 2001
Division of Ard~ives artd History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
,--.,
Frorn: David Brook ~'~ ~ ,~ ~j~~ ~~
Deputy State Histo `lc Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 95 on SR 1151 over Turkey Creek, -
TIP No. B-4210, Nash County, ER 01-7933
On December 5, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff met with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are aware of no historic structures located within the area of
potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our present knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 500.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator,
at 919 733-4763.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fa~c
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4617 Maii Service Center, Raleigh 27b99-4617 [phone] •715-8b53
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4b 13 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 (919) 733-b547 •7151801
Survey ~g Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 46I R Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh 27699-4b18 [phone] •715-4801

d NF. JRI~~ 4
~,~
~~
~~ Wwm v~~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. Ea.si/Ev
GOVERNOR
November 27, 2007,
Memorandum to: David Bailey, Project Manager
NEU Project Management Group, Eastern Unit
From: Mike Sanderson, Environmental Senior Specialist
Natural Environment Unit, Biological Surveys Group
LYIVDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Freshwater mussel survey update for proposed replacement of Bridge
Na. 95 over Turkey Creek, Nash County; TIP # B-4210.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 95 over Turkey Creek on SR 1151 in Nash County in the Neuse River basin.
The dwarf wedgemussel (Alasrrridonta heterodon} and Tar River spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana), which are both federally endangered, are listed by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as occurring in Nash County. Prior to conducting in-stream surveys,
a review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database was conducted to determine if
there were any records of rare mussels within the proposed project study area or receiving
waters. This review indicated that the dwarf wedgemussel has been found
approximately 5 miles downstream of the project site on Turkey Creek near the
crossing of US 264 highway. The last known observation of dwarf wedgemussel at this
site was in 1996.
The dwarf wedgemussel inhabits stable areas of creeks and rivers of varying sizes
with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates for dwarf wedgemussel
have been described that range from coarse sand and pebble/gravel, to firm muddy sand
to submerged root mats along stable stream banks. The Tar River spinymussel prefers
relatively swiftly flowing, well oxygenated, nearly neutral waters that are subject to
fluctuations in velocity. Preferred substrates are course sand and pea-gravel or gravelly
substrate.
The original survey for this project was conducted on July 2, 2004 (see attached
report from Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.) The biological conclusion at that
time was "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect." Concurrence was received from
the USFWS on September 3, 2004.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] or LOCATION:
IVC DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPORTATION 919-715-1335 PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 24O
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT FAX: [phone] RALEIGH NC 27604
1598 B/~AIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG

A second site visit was conducted at the project site (B-4210) on August 27, 2007
by Karen M. Lynch (Permit No. NC-2007-ES-165), Logan Williams (Permit No. NC-
2007-es-165), Jason Mays, Neil Medlin and Mike Sanderson. An unusually prolonged
drought this year has dried up extensive stretches of Turkey Creek, most notably in areas
where abundant mussels have been found in prior surveys. In these dried up stretches,
numerous mussels (Elliptio complanata) were found in the substrate, high and dry.
The following conservation measures will be implemented for avoidance and
minimization of impacts to Waters of the United States.
• Fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio
• Use of an off-site detour during construction
• Construction of a 9-foot longer bridge
• The new structure will span the creek, therefore there will be no interior bents in the
water
• Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the existing
alignment
• Best Management Practices will be utilized during demolition of the existing bridge
and construction of the new bridge
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized during demolition of the
existing bridge and construction of the new bridge
As a result of these surveys and a review of historical data, it appears extremely
unlikely that dwarf wedgemussel and/or Tar River spinymussel will be adversely affected
in this watershed or in this creek by bridge replacement. The biological conclusion for
dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel for this project remains "may affect-
not likely to adversely affect". This biological conclusion received concurrence from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 3, 2004.
enc.

Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.
August 2, 2004
PROJECT: Freshwater mussel survey fvr B-4210 on SR 1151; Turkey Creek, Nash
County, NC
TARGET SPECIES: Federally listed endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), federally listed endangered tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana},
federally listed species of concern atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), green floater
(Lasmigona su8viridis), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolate) and yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis carioca).
BIOLOGISTS: John Alderman
Karen Lynch
Logan Williams
Jason Mays
Mike Sanderson
N.C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION ES PERMIT: NC - 2004 ES 09
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ES PERMIT: TE065756-0
STATION 20040702.1 j ma
LOCATION: Turkey Creek, Neuse River Basin, Nash County, North Carolina;
Location: 35.86147 N, 78.19592 W; see associated map at end of report.
SURVEY DATES: July 2, 2004
SITE COMMENTS: no comments
HABITAT:
WATERBODY TYPE: Creek
FLOW: Slack, pool
RELATIVE DEPTH: Shallow

HABITAT (CONTINUED):
DEPTH (%<2 FEET}:
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH:
BANK HEIGHT:
BANK STABILITY:
BUFFER WIDTH:
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
LAND USE:
PERCENT COVER:
WOODLAND EXTENT:
NATURAL LEVEES:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
20
Clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder
Normal and unconsolidated
None
High
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Low
Present
~-8 meters
<1 meter
Very stable
Wide
Wooded, shrub-brush
Natural, timber, rural
85
Extensive
At least one
Turbid
Law
Sun-cloud, hot
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES:
SURVEY TIME:
Visual; tactile; SCUBA
4.7 person hours
FRESHWATER MUSSELS:
Elliptio complanatcc - 7 live
Elliptio fzsheriana - 1 live
Utterbackia imbecillis - 1 live
OTHER TAXA:
Campeloma decisum -present
BIOLOGICAL DETERMINATION: May affect, not likely to
adversely affect if HQW water quality protection measures are
implemented during all phases of this project

s
F

L
l ~~~~
~~
i
•
~a ~. ,.....~..de.,m.-._.
_w ~
,~ i~ ~ ` ~ ~~~~
pilFA_~1trFt(°G f1G t.I~l`ii~:r~l ~'~iillRflAiEAGAt7
5
~. + J
i'^^s~~ i

y r ^t
:!.
Iz l
E
~ , ~.. ,,,rte
0
V~CgNg~][°~
MA~Ii~
tE ~}
ti} 1
cr ,
~t
t~
~~
4 '. +,,,
{
F ~ ~ t` "f
:
E .~

~ l
• '
x ~
~
-.f'~ y ~-
`
~~
~
-F' ~'. hj
~'!
'
f"fi
6 ~~
~
f .1
`~~
--, ~ ft ~i
f

j/ a
~ ~^~ ~ ~ ,.
~~ .
+
+r~ F~~
~r ~.. ~= s
~
'
~
~ ~
j ~
~il
~ L~
,
~~ ,
,M ~ i'
11
ti
~
~ 1
`
, r
~~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ '~ 2

~ ~,
;;Y 4 O
~~ ~
E ;~

t
r

NA1dIE5 AND ADDRESSES
fl~ARCEL ND. NAMES ADDRESSES
~0~8 I~R®NG CREEg RDAD
g I~.IR~ STRIC~LAND MIDDLESEX, N.C. X7557
~ D®NNiE R. CDNE 355 ~IZ~ANTDWN R®AD
MIDDLESEX, N.C. 27557
Q}.aot Z of 1 L

~+.,~ ~ 1
~~~~
c ti
`•==r ---
.~-Y1f~
J ~`
a
r. + J is~Y'
Ii l~
1~ 1
tf ~
l3'
k'
~1
~ +
r

4
O ~R
" \l~
~~1
t
Btl~Q1'

Z
O ~
[n
v
~ Q
}}-- m
~=
z r- O
~ C7
Z = ~ co
~ U ''"

W
= ``~
F-
Z
cn
w
Z ~
W ~ ~ ~
p D O
U d
Z

v-ti
cV
..~

U
cd
~
~
~±±
Q

.fl
.

N
7r
y
~-1
3
O
"~
L=i
c~
Pr
4.
d
.i:
Gp

0

}- N

w Z ~ O

~ ~

~ Q
J
m

~ ~ ~ o
N
J
~ ~

o
~
O ~ o
H
W
J
m N
~ Z ~ o
F- O '_' °

Z o
~ o
O ~
N
J ~ O ~
~/ ~ ~
v c~ ~ N
I.L
Q
~. W
J ~ ^ N ~

U
~
Q
N 0

ti 0

°o

0
~j
a
O ~ r
~ V' cn
N to
G . O N
J N
'J
Q ~ 0 0
O
////~~
V / W
z ~ N
CV ~
t.f) p
Q ti V
n
J
Q ~
~ J
a~
~ ~
Q
R
W W
W ~ o x
~ ~ ~

~ ~

m z
¢
~
O X
O
~
~
U
O
O
p ~ ~

~ ~
~ J
~ O
f
N
. W N
N [O
~ O
~ d m
~ }
H H c7
U o
~ Q
H
to
O
z J
a

o

0
0
N
etrlltsr
~~of S

ti
0
z N
~ ~
L N
~..i C!) O
dN'
zzQ ~
F ~ Z
.--.
~,
~ ~ O
~' O U M
L~
m
~ ~
Ll ~
~
a
w
a
U
~ F

x
V?

N
O
d

O
Q
d
C
O
O
O
.~
U
O
N
O
W

cn
C
cG
3
.~

O

N
C
~l
2
r
~ ~^
~ ~, ~
z ~ o
CJ~ ~ ~ v

I-- ~ y--
in (a Q ~ ~--~
Q U ~ F-
ii

~ ~
W v
~
6 ~^
~ c
'
,X ~
Q ~ ~
~

w
v'
~ ~ ~ Q

~ ~- ~
a

~ ~~ a
cn ~ cn E
~
F-
U .-
~
a ~
~ ~ ~ ^
A
~

(~ ~ _~
` T T
=U ~`' o 0

~
d ~ ~
~ ~~
0 N ~ ~
z ~ ~ ~ ~

U
- ~ v
W U G7
~
~~

~ ~
~_ o
~ ~

~ ~ -
~
~
Q X ~}
W
J

LJJ ~
fl. C ~ U
- - (~
~ ~

c co
C
(~ ~ ~
~ LL N
Q.)

~ Q Z
~ ~ J
~
_
~ ~
_N
~ ~

CD

O
O N
.~ Q ~
~
v }
T
'/~
/'1

~ O ~~
,/
VJ

~~

N
Z
W LL

W
U N
Z
~ ~ Z
O W
~ ~ ¢ o O
~ O ~ ~
m N ~ ~ m
to ¢
_ H
W
Q a' 2 co =

~ W
~ 2
W F-
Z (h
c+J
O ~ ~
W p O U N
o ~ _ ~ v
Z d
W Z ~
m
Q
C7
~
~ N
~ N
~ N
~

J
Q
r O
~ N
O
p7 N
O
tD ~
6J
O
~ ~
(D
O
~ ~
47
O

F-

N O_
~ N
O
y W
Z c+~
Q W
J O
~ ~ Q ~ ~ 4'i
N L] ~ W rn o
rn Q
~ O Z
O ~n u~
Q
a
~
U
LL a
`~ ~

m
x
x x x
w
r
~ J
a
J
F- ~
Q
~ d
W
C7
D
d'
m
C7
Z
VJ
O

U
a
~ ~
0

"~ O
O Oi N ~
Q.
W +
T }
~ +
~ +
~
O O O O
Z
O H
N H
cn F-
rn 1--
rn
~
Q n
+ o
+ rn
+ m
+
F- N 7 N c+J
W
d
F-
W
N

W
~ W
Z W
Z W
Z W
Z
~
U J J J J
~1l
S ~.I
S
~
~
d d d a
~

O N ~Cf cr] ~
Z
~
F-
F
O O
c~ ~ ~