20070864 Ver 1_Application_20070521

~~~
d ~,~
.~ ~ ~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
. 'i
,, -~
~.. 3~~
~~.-~~ ~U
,~l ~.;,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `~~~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO~'IPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 14, 2007
Post Office Box 1000 ~ '
Washington, NC 27889-1000 y ~ .
ATTN: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir,
SUBJECT: General Permit 31 Application and Tar-Pamlico Riparian
Buffer Authorization Request for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek in Beaufort County.
Federal Project No. BRSTP-32(2), State Project No 8.1151401,
WBS Element 33385.1.1, T.I.P. No. B-4018.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Please find enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, permit
drawings, roadway plans, and Pre-Construction Notification form for the above
referenced project proposed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). The NCDOT plans to replace Bridge No. 104 over Broad Creek on NC 32 in
Beaufort County. The existing 172-foot long bridge will be replaced with a 200-foot long
structure using top-down construction in the existing location. During construction,
traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour. No permanent impacts and 0.02 acre of
hand clearing and 0.01 acre of temporary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are
anticipated. Impacts to riparian buffers total 4,962 ft2. Impacts to jurisdictional surface
waters are anticipated to be <0.001 acre.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-03-07 of the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin. This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the
Mid-Atlantic/Coastal Plain Ecoregion. The project study area contains two streams:
Broad Creek and an unnamed tributary to Broad Creek (UT1).
Broad Creek and UT1 are within a riverine system that is subject to wind tides. Both
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING"
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
154$ IVIAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 '

~ r
have an unconsolidated benthos consisting of muddy sediments. A best usage
classification of SB NSW has been assigned to this section of Broad Creek. Broad Creek
is not designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and
Scenic River. Broad Creek is not listed on any section of the NCDWQ Section 303(d)
list. Broad Creek is not located within 1 mile nor does it flow into a stream with 303(d)
classification. In addition, no designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur
within 1.0 miles of the project study area.
Broad Creek, UT1, and their adjacent wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR
section 328.3). Wetlands within the study site exhibit characteristics of a palustrine
forested system with broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved evergreen vegetation.
Additionally, these wetlands are seasonally inundated, tidally influenced, and therefore
under jurisdiction of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management according to
the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
Permanent Impacts: Proposed permanent impacts to surface waters due to in-stream piers
will be <0.001 acre. This project will result in no permanent impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands.
Hand Clearing: Hand clearing (0.02 acre) will be necessary for project construction.
Utility Impacts: The relocation of a water supply pipe will result in 0.01 acre of temporary
excavation in jurisdictional wetlands.
Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (subbasin 03-03-07, DWQ index
29-10-(3)), therefore the regulations pertaining to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules
(15A NCAC 2B.0259) apply. Buffer impacts associated with this project total 3,736 ft2
for Zone 1 and 1,226 ft2 for Zone 2. Of these impacts, 2,344 ft2 are considered allowable
due to bridge construction and 2,618 ft2 are allowable with mitigation due to roadway
construction. All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones were
followed.
Avoidance and Minimization
NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible:
• Traffic will be maintained using an off-site detour during construction.
• The bridge will be built in-place using top-down construction and can therefore be
built without the need of a causeway or work pad.
• The bridge is being lengthened by 28 feet.
• There will be no deck drains over surface waters.
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be strictly adhered to.
• The number of interior bents in the water is being reduced from eight for the existing
bridge to three for the new bridge.
Page 2

~ f
• Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the existing
alignment.
Mitigation
The proposed project will have no permanent impacts to wetlands. Temporary impacts
totaling 0.01 acre are a result of excavation of a water pipe. Following construction, this
area will be graded to preconstruction elevation and revegetated. Hand clearing in the
vicinity of the north abutment (0.02 ac) is not a jurisdictional impact and therefore does
not require mitigation. Because there are no permanent impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands, and impacts to riparian buffers have not exceeded the threshold requiring
compensatory mitigation, NCDOT is not proposing mitigation.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge is 172 feet in length, consisting of ten spans with the maximum span
approximately 18 feet. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on
timber joists. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. The bed to crown
height is 19.7 feet and the normal depth of flow is 11 feet. The bridge will be removed
using Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Bridge Demolition to avoid any temporary
fill in "Waters of the United States".
Bridge Construction
Bridge No. 104 will be replaced with a 200-foot long, 4-span structure in the existing
location. Asingle-row driven-pile substructure will support a cored slab superstructure.
Construction of this bridge will not require a temporary causeway.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under Endangered Species Act §§7
and 9. As of January 29, 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 7
federally protected species for Beaufort County (Table 1).
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were reached for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulaefolia), and sensitive jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica). A biological
conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" was reached for Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Concurrence
from the USFWS was received for all species on May 5, 2006. A copy of this letter is
included with this application.
Due to the presence of potential West Indian Manatee habitat, NCDOT has committed to
implementing Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee:
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters.
Page 3

~ r
Table 1. Federally protected species of Beaufort County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus
leucoce halus Bald eagle T(PFD) Yes MANLTAA
Le idochel s kem ii Kem 's ridle sea turtle E No No Effect
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E Yes MANLTAA
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded wood ecker E No No Effect
Canis rufus Red wolf EXP Not Re wired N/A
Lysimachia
as erulae olia Rough-leaved loosestrife E Yes No Effect
Aeschynomene
vir mica Sensitive jointvetch T Yes No Effect
In-Stream Work Moratorium
As required by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), a moratorium on in-
stream construction activities will be strictly adhered for the dates between and including
February 15th and September 30th in order to protect striped bass (Morone saxatilis),
American shad (Alosa sapidissima), river herring (Alosa pseudoharengus), and hickory
shad (Alosa mediocris); all anadromous fish species. In addition, the Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented.
Project Schedule
This project is scheduled to let December 18, 2007, with a review date of October 30,
2007.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: NCDOT is hereby applying for a Clean Water Act Section 404
General Permit. All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion". The NCDOT requests that these activities
be authorized by a General Permit No. 198200031.
Section 401 Permit: NCDOT is hereby applying fora 401 Water Quality Certification
from NCDWQ. We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3404 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a), we are providing five
copies of this application to the NCDWQ for their review and written concurrence. A fee
of $400.00 will be debited from WBS Element WBS 33385.1.1 for the processing of the
CAMA permit.
Page 4

a t
Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer Authorization: This project requires written authorization
from the NCDWQ or the delegated local authority. Therefore, NCDOT requests that the
NCDWQ review this application and issue a written approval for aTar-Pamlico River
Riparian Buffer Authorization.
CAMA: In a separate application, NCDOT is requesting that the proposed work be
authorized under a Coastal Area Management Act Major Development Permit.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Worth Calfee at [e-mail] or (919)
715-7225.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html.
Sincerely,
~.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
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. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer.
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Mr. Stephen Lane, NCDCM
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Wade Kirby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Page 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: GP31
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:
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information .
Name: Gre~orv J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number:~919~ 733-3141 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 Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
5.
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 project: Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 Over Broad Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4018
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Beaufort Nearest Town: Washington
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.512077 °N -76.965313
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Broad Creek
8. River Basin: Tar / Pamlico
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.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: Agricultural (row-crop fields and pasture land)
sheet that
°W
Page 2 of 9

i t
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacing a structurally deficient bridge using top-down construction. Standard road building
eq>zi ment will be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a structurally deficient 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 ID 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.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. Project let date - 12-18-07, USACoE Action ID - 200411714
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.
n/a
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: Temporary impacts of 0.01
acre for excavation of a water pipe. Permanent impacts <0.001 acre are anticipated as result
of in-stream bents.
Page 3 of 9

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
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
17+35 to 17+45 excavation (temporary) Riverine yes see plans 0.01

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.01
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:~l
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, dam
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 Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Bridge Bents Broad Creek Permanent Perennial 100' N/a <0.001

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage}
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, dred in ,flooding, draina e, 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

Page 4 of 9

Total Open Water Impact (acres) <0.001
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Im act (acres): 0.01
Open Water Impact (acres): <0.001
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
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 USACE.
8. 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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe 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.Top-down construction, bridge
was lengthened, offsite detour utilized, and minimum widths were used for structures and
approaches.
Page 5 of 9

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.
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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, 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,
preservation 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.
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/wrp/index.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
Page 6 of 9

~ s
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): n/a
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
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 a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
'coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds 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
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify Tar-Pamlico )? 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.
* Impact Required
Zone , ~,_~_~ F e,~ Multiplier *,~;,;R,*,,,~,
1 3,736 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1,226 1.5
Total I 4,962
* 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.
Page 7 of 9

< r
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
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
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. Impervious area will remain approximately the
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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
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
Page 8 of 9

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).
F.
Applicant/
S- I~- ~~
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

,-
R ~• ~1......
~ ~
-' •
-'' ~ ~ SITE ~e, „
U
SEppE~~~~ I f/W~~Su~ET :~
` GLLV~~. " as ~/
~ ` ~u~ ,
~ ~ ` • n ~
~ ~ • ~ eee ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ` ` ~ „ .
BEAU=ORT COUNTY
--
~t.
,. ,
_ ~ --- ~
i/ ~ ~ 'fir -t - fyl~~ y~~• ,~~ y
y{ ~ r,f
," i
~ { ,1 X14, , '.~ • \7 ~ ,:
~~~/f^ //~{{~~~jj/r c j
L.. ~ ~• ~ i i u ;J l 'y'/ .'111 - / ~ ~ ~'~ ~ .(~ y ~ ,,` ~;\~~
"+s,~.-<' I~i ;'tip.,,. i4--~ r~'W /~ 1+
~(
~l ~ ~~y+._~ _)1 `~.*,~+p,r,~ n ' A'y ! .~~~ ~~~ /~. ~ 11 `~~^~l'~,.~!( ~ ~1 j{/ly~+ ~ 1~
~~na o, ' ~ ~ X11 ` ~ ~°'- .~, 4 ^4 .~j'~ 'h ~ •,..~: ~ ~ ',
VICI11tITY MAP NTS
N.C DBPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DtVIStON OF HIOHwAYs
WETLA11tD sBAVFORT covNTY
PROJBGT:cs-~o161
IMPACTS BRIDOB NQIa OVBR
BROAD CRBBC ON NC S2
SHBBT ~ OF ~ --- _ --

~ ~ p)
~ a~i ~
Z~0
~~~
H v `m aE~
Q W U ~~
~
_~
~ C
c c ~ °~
m
W
F.. ~, ~ m
~
fA t0 p_ ~
~ wv Ea

U
Q N
LL Q > U
d
~ fQ
~ ~
} ~
(Q ~ ~
•-

a
~ m
C p
~ ~
~ ~ N
N ._
i- a
U
a ~ ~
'6 ,E C
N
N

~ 2 ~ C ~ ~ O O
U

a N ~ c
~
Z ~ ~ a ~
L N
g ~~~
~ ~
W
U

d co ~
~ c
~
c~ ~
0
0
0 , o
g x ~ 0
W
W ~,
a ~ c
H~°~~
~
~ C ~
C
f
0 _ N ~
L.L ~
m
a
m
U ~ ~
~
_ _
~ ~ m

J
p
~ ~ ~
+
:
cp ° a
o
o
~
in

~ J
CA Z 0
n
p °~
¢ ~ °~'
g¢ ~~
z x z
F S ~ ...
tz ~ F N
~ Q a m
z z ~. ~,,
m 0 ¢ m
~ N G] F
~ '> m ~
O °-
Z
F•
w
~
m
w U
N ~
C C
~p O
.y CO ~
O
~ ~ a
~ ~ ~
a+ > ~
c, 'C N
~ ~.c°-. ~
o ~ o
m m m
~"' rc

~
o
m
c

O m

a ~
a

a
E

m .N
c
_ ~
~ ~ o
M 3
N

` 3
a 3 N
O 'O 3
°' a U
~ C ~
~
~ O
>

~ X ~
Q w Q e

z
a

~I

---,/'.
• •ti....
-'--~ SITE ,« ,x
'~L >..
~~T u
~~ ox oo ,
~ ` ` ` ~Q~ ;
~ ~ • n ~
~ '
~~
~`` ~
~ ~ ~ ~ r•
~` ~'
~~
~`` ~
~ ` ~+ ~
~`
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
BEAIFORT COINTY
4 L
,~ _ i ~ ! ..a r , . , _ ~r
~ i ° J S i . ~''~ ~~ .ice' ~ ~~ `~ ~--.1 a ` .~ - - ~;..J
-,1~ t , i~ V . `Y ~,
~'~„ ..t Vic. ~ :,~ ,•1~ ~ I. ,I^' ~~ ~~ ~~
k
N r
~ , c fib. " , r , at ~„~ ~~ \' ~~.
-" . . ~
J .~ f ,-T - ' i.
13~ J ~' 1 ~ ~.b•1~ ~/ fb"` ~~~-alb.-~1'j a ~,x~~l ~t'~ ~; ~.'' ~ ~7 f^"
~~' r t r
. q '• ~~ --,~\1}~ ,Jh ~+L~I,.A ~Jt~ ;~4k'".'ilir~ ,!<{ t ~11 ~N ~I ~~ ~„I!~ :,',`-',
~`~ ~ y'~" ~''f ~~.~ '~'~---~.r"5~7= ~-a~ i. ? ~~ ":'` ,.ti ~ sj ~` -`~1' l.~~~+~~~1 ~ILi ~ t:
~n .. G 1, ' ' ~ d ~ p, ' ~ r ~`--^~'~ ~ ri .
t1~
VICI11lITY MAP ~ NTs
NBC. DBPT. OR TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HlollaAYs
BUFFER sBAVFORT CouNTY
IMPACTS PItaBCr:cs-~ola~
sRIDOB Na la ovBR
BROAD CRBBC ON NC at
SHBBT .L OF ~, --4i

-~ ~,

D z
r o
~

O A
~ ;U
C
~ ~ { ~
d W ~ ~
m

T a m
~
~ N
m
~
++
Oo
~ ~
+
OD
~T

T (A

~+ +
N +
~ ~ 'i
r r O Z
~ 1
W 4e
~
~ ~
~
n
;0 ~
O~
x
°
W
z C
o
~ ~
x o 111
o
m m ~
v
~D
D
r
ni m D
r
N
~
A N
v m
~
A A ~ D
r
o
r
O ~ C
0 o x m ~ D
~
N ~ ~

w w ~ ~ m
~= ~

w
~ O
~

N
N Z
" m

N
N N
~ ~ ? D
N W
r
m
-~
~o
v~
,_ o ~
m
m W
~
C
C7 m
rn T

~Z ~m
rn~
,% m Z
N
8ulfer Drawing
Sheet _;~ ~f to

Drawing
_~- at

1 VO:Y
3n\ - l8\design\64018_hyd_prm_psh_buf.dgn
i ~
~ r
INI~
~w
1~:
w
o~
1~

~o FI-J--LL
~o
I~
N
N
N
w
N I~t
~. 1-
~ ~ a~
~~' Ra ~~ 9
~~ $~~~~~~~~~ s
~~ ~~g~~~s~~
~~ ~~ a~~ ~$~ ~
~ ~ ~~Q ~
~ ~ 88@~
/~`-\
/ +l
x
+~_x/

~~
~ r
~ ~~ i ' I i
2 '
O ~ x '
l ~~ ~ P
j ( ~
u
r ~ x
~ ~
x
s~ ~ ~ I
~ x I i ~
~1~~ /~

~'~~~~g}~~~ ' ~ ~
Yy0 ~ I ' b ~~A
I ~ ¢ nor
' Z m
~^ m <
X T~D
ml ~ 000
~ ~
o.z
x 'g .~
to • rW I,o I '^ 8 0
0 1 s r 8 x~ I f O O ~
m I ~ ~
sN ~~ m ~ ~°
m ~, ~ _x;,
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~¢ ~~~~ II ~ ~~ ~ ~-
m ~o ~ ;o~~ ~aa I I ~~~ r ~ /Sfao
A~ ~$5~~ ~ x~ I ~ ~ `~
Z "'
ii
~o i i Y
ii
C `~.. .. t _~__ ii
7O D
R0 = ~ f
r
{ o
OT ~ - ~
D E
A~ ~ ~ fr*1
o _ J
~~ 3
°1 ~ ~
~ o N
a . ~ ~
~~ ~ . . N N
~~ ~' ~ Z ~
:~ ~ ~~ ~
µ L o"'~y N
~ \ / av~yy~ 5 ~3 iO m a
I ~ k ~ ~ i s in =' ~~
r ~ y 3 ~~ d ,uN ,\ .
~ r
ti
O
_ ~ Q O
~n ~ 1 M
`-~`-~ `" ~ ~ I I ~'
~1
a~ ~ ~ I ~P •. Z(1
~ : N I I ~ C 21DtA0
N N
UI
~ ~ ~ I ' 4
C ~` N .
I
W
K !~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z `\ ~W
g~ ~ , ~ ~ o
~. ~
,~ `~ I I + y
a k ynO~U I I I~µ ~ ~ ~ .!
/mod u a ~a f I ~~
~ 8~~ ~ f ~' , ~ ~ r
I f r
1 ~ ~
N .. II b i
;1~ / ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~ k i
~ ~ ~ ~ €; ~ ~
ti
amA
-N
~ It ~ I .~ / ~ ~ a r Zii 8
C ~~~.r O
\ 43
I I l 11 o
? ~ ~ ~. I f
µ

i i
irnr cu : ua:9
r o,je~ts~~eue~~l~F~~1B\des:gn\b4018_hyd_prm_psh_buf.dgn

~ -.
-FEB-2007 R:20
~eis~~p^~~~~`ro~~b4452_u t_neu_per mi t.dgn
/x~+ ux
11~
x
°~
+~-x/ I NIA ,~1~ 1 d'
1 N1~ ~!I I ~l
11~ I
'~ a~?~~--~x J 11 1 1
x 111 ~~ I r
~. / 1 ~- ,
o y x J 11 `I 1
` w~ ' ~I 11
D ~~ ii "' ¢ a
Z I 111 ~' I +
z a ~ x 111 ~Ji i
rj ~ I J 11 `I 1
~' i it ~; 1
+ ao 111 I I
$ x 11 ~1 1
~'IrOD~ 8 III NI ~
~w gi bc., w>~c i r'• +2, ~ x ~ AI III 1 ~ ~~
~, Nd~~w s•P.s. i~ ~$(
ooi ~ ~ 8~V iu x ~ ~
1 ~,
-Im ~ ~r 1 -L
~p ~ ~' 4' P.S. 4' P
.O +75.00 + m
-o p~
M ~ ~ W w
~ ~~ + X I
m ,~
~g~ ~ xl I f + ~~
$ ~ ~ Q`
~+~ ~~~~ a
~~ g°~ ~ I e C~~ <~

D ~ ~~
~D
O~
Z~
~m
~O
°m
15+010 mm
~ ~, _ ~ a
mm ~ I
_ ~+~
Hp ~ ;a ~~ S° ~ .
OZ '' ~ '',',~ y ~ _ ~~ '
Z" 1
Zm ~ <'. 'ar ~ m~
~°r xDD ~ _ +35.00 ~ ~ 4' P.S. ~ ~o
r -I-n p, ,,,~ n• ~ - 9 HD
~ ~z°m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~
r~ i $ '~ , , 00 p D~
' P.S.
~~~ ~ , ~ +es.oo 111 I, o ~~
z -< ~ I ~~I III - R ~ ~ ~m
i ~ ~ ~ I,
_ ~ ~ ICI III $ K i
$ III I,I ''P
, ,~ Z
I I; , ~ C~
~~ ~,~~. 1j1 liil ,.- ~~ 2ofoo
~i ~ I ~~I ~~~~ ~.. ~ O
mN 3 I
Z N 'r ` ~~ ' '~I li~ g ti
m i, u, P , z
~ I"~ ~
~ ~ I ~'~ CA
t _' I C I IiII ~ i ~~ w
~~ ~ ! / ~~° y~~ ~; i it liii ~ i ~ 1. ~~ .~
I
~ ~ 1~vw I ~ ~ ~I~~ I R
o ~~~ ? I1 111 ~ r~ ,, C
ti I I, IJ I ~ -.- ; .
~+e ZFS~ss ' $'
N ~ c. '111
'~,~ ~ 1 1 JI I ,' ooh . - ~ F..~ C
~ ~ ~_
~ __
~ ~ ~~ - ' ' / 1111 ,;4 ' ~ / -~I ;,:^
.•. -. ati \ r ~ II ~I~ ~ .off
O ''fir' ~ ~ i i 1 ~ oN
~ 1 ~ ~ 111 iii C7 ~~
~. ~ ' r: 111 ~IJ s O -t
Z `°'
~~ ~, ~ m
liI J ~
f ~7S ~ ~ ~ 1116• ~ ALOO,C0.SSN ~ C
~ /// / \\ : e !ti
~ ~ ~ ~l ~JII ~ ~ ,~ `~vl ' ~ O `cry
y,, ~ • y
~~
~i
~~.
m
~~;
0:.
~.
v
. "':
~~
n~
a

.~
MAR-2007p 10:07
roe€8U ERt~AMFS.I $E40(8_rdy_tsh.dgn
co~T~
CT.•
TIP PROTECT.• B-40I8
2y
2 Z
~~
C ~ ~ tt
n 2~ e
t` ~ Y ~ _ /
~y
v, S ~ ' ~
r" o o n /
~~ z
~ '~ ~
~ _ ~• /
~~ ~ ~
a ~~ I 1 ~ ~'~'"
a ~ Z ~~ ~ o ",I ~ o
8 A j '~
~ o j j z
~ ~ o
n A f j z
o ~I
c
~ D ~C O
M
n ~ +
~ ~
~ o N tin ,,~ ~ ~ ~
'~ ~ °
r2 00 ow ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
I z ~ ~
~° +a ®`~
_- '° ~ O
to / ~ ~ ,A
z ~
~ ~~ ~~.~ b o y ~ ~
° I'
J~ ~ ~ ~
m ~ 4a ~ ~ ~
t ~_ ~ ° ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
C~ ~ ~®
~ ~ II g < o
a° ~° ~ i i i o y~ ~
~ ~ N
~, ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ z 'ti n
/ !I ~
m ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ II O ~ O
~ ~ 1 I ~~~
~~ \~~
'~ ~ ~ o;
o
CD 2~ / -
~ ~~ ~ a
~,
N :+
~ ~
~ b "'
8~ ?
sr ~ ~
C
Da ~~
~~ ~N ~ ~
~r ~
z 4
Fr ~~
7
m
~ ~~

io:o7
~0~\64018_r dy_typ.dgn
-~
om
~x
A ~
-t A
~ D
r~
m8
rti
ax
2
mz
in m
v
m
C/ 1
r
~m ~
m N
O {
w
iD
--
0
N
i
O
J
m,
O
O~
n
a
r
m
m
m
-1
Z

r
4
-i
m
i ~ ~~ ~~ ~
€

~ ~;
S~
~a
~~ .>

~
~~

~
~
D
m~
~
~~
~ _~~
O~
~~
~

I~yl m
Z
'w-l
YI
~
T
o~ ~yq
'J ~
a~ ~
G
~ h
T"
i

m $ '...
~
a
~~ m
a ~m
~$
~ i
rr
i ~ a
N V1
1. {
C ~
~O
.

~ ~
m -I
Ii0 ~

t+ ~ iN N
~
Q1 O C'7 n
° o ~ D 4
m
o r
m f
Z 0 ~^
n ~
~ 1
iN ~ - "'
~m
° r
^
N
N ~' m o
w -+
A 0 p n
2
~ -
v _ Z -1 ~x-, ~N
O r ! N
~ W Z ~ ~
O ~ D
N N
~
-~ Z
o O
N
~ m r ~a
Z w
+
m ~
V1 r
m m .~ 1~
Op ~~
Om ms

~ ~
~m
x ~
y
v~ °~
n

2 rn
0 y
C
D Z
rn~
~A
rn
v
~O
Z
A
C_
~in°
v
O
~o
N i~

Beaufort County
Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 Over Broad Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-32(2)
State Project No. 33385.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4018
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
DATE ~ Gregory J. Thorpe, . D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
• Analysis Branch, NCDOT
/~
DATE ohn F. Sullivan, III, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Beaufort County
Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 Over Broad Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-32(2)
State Project No. 33385.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4018
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 2006
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Greg S. urvis, P. E.
~~
CAR '~
i
z ~Q~
i4
~ ~ ei _ :~-
5f Z5Ic(.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~~
Wade Kirby, P. E.,
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Manager

.I ~~
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Beaufort County
Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 Over Broad Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-32(2)
State Project No. 33385.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4018
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's Guidelines for
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Division Two
The Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passaee will be implemented.
An in-water work moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to September 30 due to Anadromous
Fish in the project area.
Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction
Activities in North Carolina will need to be adhered to during construction.
Road closure will be coordinated with the Beaufort County Schools and Beaufort County Emergency
Management Services prior to construction.
Roadway DesignlHydraulic Design/Structure Design
The width of the proposed bridge will be studied further during fmal design to determine if additional
width is needed.
Division Two/Roadway DesignlHydraulic Design
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred that there is a No Adverse Effect to the Candy-Alligood
farm property located on both sides of the road from the beginning of the project to the beginning of the
bridge. Currently, there is a temporary construction easement shown in this area if this changes it will
need to be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office.
Hydraulics & Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A CAMA major stormwater permit will be required.
Categorical Exclusion
May 2006
Page 1 of 1

Beaufort County
Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 Over Broad Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-32(2)
State Project No. 33385.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4018
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 104 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 7.0 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of an inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 32 is classified as a rural major collector. Land use in the project area is predominantly
cleared farmland with a mix of light residential development. The Candy-Alligood farm is
adjacent to the project both south and southeast of the existing bridge. The State Historic
Preservation Office considers the Candy-Alligood farm eligible for the National Register.
Bridge No. 104 was constructed in 1953. The existing structure is 172 feet in length, consisting
of ten spans with the maximum span at approximately 18 feet. The clear roadway width is 24.2
feet, providing two ten-foot travel lanes with two-foot gutters. The superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber
piles. The bed to crown height is 19.7 feet and the normal depth of flow is 11 feet. The posted
weight limit is 31 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 39 tons for truck-tractors semi-trailers
(TTST).
The existing bridge on NC 32 is on a tangent. The southwest approach has an approximate
3,230-foot radius curve that becomes tangent at the bridge. The northeast approach has an
approximate 1,115-foot radius curve that is approximately 322 feet from the bridge. NC 32
consists of two ten-foot lanes with approximately five-foot grass shoulders.
The estimated 2004 average daily traffic volume is 3,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected
traffic volume is expected to increase to 5,600 vpd by th_ a design year 2030. The volumes include
two percent TTST and four percent dual tired vehicles.
The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is not posted and therefore a statutory 55 miles per
hour (mph) is assumed.
There are aerial power lines and telephone lines on the west side of NC 32. There is a fiber optic
telephone on the west side of NC 32. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There were no crashes reported for the three-year period of October 1, 2002 to September 30,
2005.

Two school buses cross this bridge twice daily.
This section of NC 32 is part of a designated NC Bicycling Highway, NC-2 Mountains to Sea.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure will provide a 33-feet six inches clear roadway width to allow for two 12-
foot travel lanes with four-feet nine-inches from edge of travel lane to face of bridge rail. The
bridge railing will be bicycle safe rails. The existing bridge navigational clearance will be
maintained with a bed to crown height of 19.7 feet.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travel way providing for two 12-foot
travel lanes with six-foot shoulders including four foot paved shoulders. The design speed will be
60 mph.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, Bridge No. 104 will be replaced with a 200-foot long
bridge. The grade of the roadway will match the elevation of the existing roadway since lowering
the grade could cause the road to be flooded by Broad Creek. The minimum deck grade will be
0.3%. The opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined from a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed
during the final design phase of the project.
B. Build Alternatives
One (1) build alternative studied for replacing the existing bridge is described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic
will be maintained by an off-site detour route along SR 1328 (Black Road), SR 1326 (Turkey
Trot Road No. 2), and SR 1311 (Magnolia School Road) approximately 2.9 miles in length. The
existing bridge will be replaced with a 200-foot long bridge. The length of approach work will be
approximately 285 feet on the south side of the bridge and approximately 100 feet on the east side
of the bridge. Alternate A was selected because it minimizes natural environment impacts
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge and closing of
the road. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 32.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge at the existing location while maintaining traffic by an
off-site detour route is the preferred alternate. Alternate A was selected because it minimizes
natural environmental impacts and construction time. The Division Engineer concurs with
Alternate A as the preferred alternative.
2

Alternate A is estimated to cost $1,330,500. A breakdown of the estimated cost is shown in Item
V (Table 1).
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ANTICIPATED
A design exception will be required for the six-foot shoulder width.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current 2006 prices, are as follows:
Table 1. -Estimated Costs
Alternate A
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 53,100
Structure (proposed) 648,000
Roadway Approaches 234,400
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 194,500
Engineering and Contingencies 170,000
ROW/Contt. Easements/LJtilities: 30,500

TOTAL. , ' ~ 1,33000
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $1,431,000 including $31,000 for right-of--way, $1,150,000 for construction, and
$250,000 for prior years cost
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Bunyan, NC 7.5 minute
quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping (NWI)
(Bunyan, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly the
Soils Conservation Service [SCS]) soils mapping (SCS 1980), and recent aerial photography.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with exceptions for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (LTSACE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Aquatic
and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by supportive literature
(Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Palmer and
Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DWQ 2002, DWQ 2004a, DWQ 2004b). Quantitative sampling
was not undertaken to support existing data.

The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Beaufort
County (February 5, 2003) was reviewed prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition,
NHP records documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations.
The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this
evaluation, the project study area has been delineated by Wang Engineering Co. to be approximately
300 feet in width (centered on the existing roadway) and approximately 1475 feet in length,
encompassing approximately 10 acres. Potential impacts of construction will be limited to the cut-fill
boundary for the proposed alternative. Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential
protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water quality protection of Broad Creek.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located within the Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods ecoregion of North Carolina.
This ecoregion is characterized by low-elevation plains that exhibit little topographic relief, and have
poorly-drained soils (Griffith et al. 2002). The project study area is located within aloes-elevation
floodplain valley. Elevations within the project study area range from a high of approximately 15 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the eastern and western ends of the project study area,
to a low of approximately 5 feet NGVD within the stream channel. Land uses within and adjacent to
the project study area consist of woodlands, agriculture, roadside shoulders, and residential lots.
Based on soil mapping for Beaufort County (SCS 1980), the project study area is underlain by six soil
series: Altavista fine sandy loam, Arapahoe fine sandy loam, Dorovan mucky peat, Muckalee loam,
Seabrook loamy sand, and Tarboro sand. The Doravan and Muckalee series are considered hydric in
Beaufort County by the NRCS (1996).
The Altavista series with slopes ranging between 0 to 2 percent consists of nearly level, moderately
well-drained fine sandy loams that occur on smooth ridges on stream and marine terraces.
Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is moderate, and the shrink-swell potential is low.
The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 1.5 to 2.5 feet during winter and early spring.
The Arapahoe series with 0 to 2 percent slopes consists of nearly level, very poorly-drained fine
sandy loamy that occur on broad flats and in shallow depressions on uplands. Permeability is
moderately rapid, available water capacity is moderate, and the shrink-swell potential is low. The
seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1 foot during winter and early spring.
The Dorovan series with slopes ranging between 0 to 1 percent consists of nearly level, very poorly-
drained organic soil that occurs in wooded areas on the floodplains along the Pamlico River and its
tributaries. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is very high, and the shrink-swell
potential is low. The seasonal high water table ranges from 1 foot above the surface to 0.5 foot
below, but usually is at or above the surface. The soil is frequently flooded for very long periods.
The Muckalee series with slopes ranging between 0 and 1 percent consists of nearly level, poorly-
drained loam that occurs on floodplains along small streams that flow into the Pamlico River.
Permeability and available water capacity are moderate, and shrink-swell potential is low. The
seasonal high water table is at a depth of 0.5 foot to 1.5 feet during the winter and early spring, and is
frequently flooded for brief periods.
4

The Seabrook series with slopes ranging between 0 and 2 percent consists of nearly level, moderately
well-drained loamy sand that occurs on smooth ridges on river and stream terraces. Permeability is
rapid, available water capacity is low, and the shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water
table is at a depth of 2 to 4 feet during winter and early spring.
The Tarboro series with slopes ranging between 0 and 5 percent consists of nearly level and gently
sloping, somewhat excessively drained sand that occurs on smooth or slightly rounded ridges on river
and stream terraces. Permeability is rapid, available water capacity is low, and shrink-swell potential
is low. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 4 to 6 feet during winter and early spring. This
soil is subject to rare flooding.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-03-07 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
(DWQ 2004a). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the Mid-Atlantic/Gulf
Region. The structure targeted for replacement spans Broad Creek. The portion of Broad Creek
that lies within the project study area has been assigned Stream Index Number 29-10-(3) by the
N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (DWQ 2004b).
2. Stream Characteristics
The project study area contains two streams: Broad Creek and an unnamed tributary to Broad
Creek (UT 1). Broad Creek enters the project study area in the northwest quadrant, flows
southwest, parallel to NC 32, and makes a broad 180 degree turn at Bridge No. 104. Broad Creek
then flows northeast along NC 32 and exits the project study area in the northeast quadrant
(Figure 6). UT 1 is located in the northwestern quadrant and flows south for approximately 30
feet to a culvert. UT 1 exits the culvert and flows for another 125 feet to a confluence with Broad
Creek (Figure 6).
Broad Creek enters the project study area as awell-defined, third-order, perennial stream with
slow flow over an unconsolidated bottom. At Bridge No. 104, Broad Creek is approximately 100
feet wide. The banks of Broad Creek range from 1 to 6 feet high and are moderately sloping.
During field investigations, the water level appeared normal and ranged up to approximately 4
feet deep. Water clarity was moderate, with little visibility to the substrate, and flow-velocity was
slow. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream. Opportunities
for habitat within Broad Creek include overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf
packs.
UT 1 enters the project study area as amoderately-defined, first-order, perennial stream with slow
flow over a mud substrate. UT 1 is approximately 5 feet wide and its banks range from 0.5 to 2.0
feet high and are gently sloping. During field investigations, the water level appeared normal and
ranged up to approximately 0.5 foot in depth. Water clarity was moderate, with some visibility to
the substrate, and flow-velocity was slow. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was
observed within the stream. Opportunities for habitat within UT 1 include overhanging trees,
undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies
according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the
N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired

',
waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards including
designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40
CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants,
pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The impairment could be from point sources,
nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state
lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines
available in the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams
attaining only Partially Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status aze listed on the N.C. 2002
Section 303(d) list. Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2002
Section 303(d) list, according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for
the stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North
Carolina has developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative
value and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. Broad Creek is not listed on any
section of the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list (DWQ 2002).
Classifications are assigned to salt-waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of SB NSW has been assigned to this section of Broad Creek. The designation S
refers to saltwater. Class B waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, primary recreation, and agriculture. Primary recreation refers to human body contact
with waters on an organized and frequent basis. The designation NSW (Nutrient Sensitive
Waters) refers to waters needing additional management due to their excessive growth of
vegetation resulting from nutrient enrichment. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within
1 mile of the project study azea (DWQ 2004a, DWQ 2004b).
The DWQ (previously known as the Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section [DEMJ) has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study azea is summarized in
the Tar-Pamlico River basinwide water quality plan (DWQ 2004a). Broad Creek is rated as
Supporting of designated uses (DWQ 2004b).
This sub-basin (03-03-07) supports three major point-source dischargers and 17 minor point-
source dischargers with a total permitted flow of 7.5 million gallons per day (MGD). There are
no point-source dischazges directly associated with this section of Broad Creek. Major non-point
sources of pollution for the entire Tar-Pamlico River Basin are agriculture, construction, forestry,
mining, onsite wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition.
Sedimentation and nutrient inputs aze major problems associated with non-point source
discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and parking lots, and
increased nutrient levels in surface waters (DWQ 2004b).
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures
as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation,
and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the
use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of
construction staging azeas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct dischazges into steams
by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
6

A ~~
There is potential for concrete deck and bent components of the bridge to be dropped into waters
of the United States during removal of the existing bridge. The resulting, temporary fill
associated with the deck and bents is approximately 68 cubic yards. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of
this bridge.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation ofpre-project stream flows in Broad
Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of these waterways. Long-term impacts to adjacent
reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to
water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
3. Anticipated Impacts
a) Impacts Related to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal,in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used
in revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project study area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States will be avoided unless
there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, aworst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the United

States. There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into waters of the
United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is expected to
be approximately 68 cubic yards. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be applied for the removal of this bridge.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section,
work done in the water for this project will fall under Case 2, which states that no work will
be performed in the water during moratorium periods (February I S to September 30)
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within. the project study area: mixed
hardwood/pine forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and disturbed/maintained land. These
communities are described below; and their approximate locations are depicted in Figure 6.
a) Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest
Approximately 0.8 acre (8 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by mixed
hardwood/pine forest. Communities of mixed hardwood/pine forest occur on uplands,
floodplains and floodplain slopes in the project study area. This community consists of a
mature, secondary growth forest characterized by a closed canopy with a relatively open
understory. Small areas of this community exist as immature, secondary growth scrub/shrub
communities.
The mixed hardwood/pine community supports a canopy of tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda}, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple
(Ater rubrum). The sub-canopy includes canopy species as well as eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and water oak (Quercus' nigra).
Sapling and shrub layers include canopy and sub-canopy species as well as devil's walking
stick (Aralia spinosa). Herbaceous plants and vines within this community are poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor are blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), and
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Other avian species expected to occur in this
community are red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus
bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), yellow-romped warbler (Dendroica
coronata), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), eastern
bluebird (Sialia sialis), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica
dominica), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus).
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit. Evidence of mammal activity
includes raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) tracks. Other mammal species expected to occur within the
forested portion of the project study area include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and red
bat (Lasiurus borealis).

No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some
terrestrial reptiles and amphibians, which may occur within the forest, include eastern box
turtle (Terrapene Carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), southern ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), gray treefrog (Hyla
versicolor), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus).
b) Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Approximately 1.1 acres (11 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by Bottomland
hardwood forest (Figure 6). This community consists of a mature, secondary growth forest
characterized by a closed canopy with a relatively open understory. Bottomland hardwood
forest within the project study area occurs within the floodplain of Broad Creek. Bottomland
hardwood forest also occurs as isolated islands within the embankments of Broad Creek.
Bottomland hardwood forest within the project study area is dominated by a canopy of bald
cypress (Tazodium distichum), green ash (Frazinus pennsylvanica), swamp cottonwood
(Populus heterophylla), water oak, and red maple. Sapling, shrub, and sub-canopy layers
include canopy species as well as elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and wax myrtle
(Morelia cerifera). Herbaceous plants and vines within wet areas of this community, and
especially along the streamside/riparian fringe, are poison ivy, muscadine grape, soft rush
(Juncus effuses), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor are northern mockingbird and green heron
(Butorides virescens). Other avian species expected to occur in this community are red-
bellied woodpecker, tufted titmouse, blue-gray gnatcatcher, Carolina chickadee, yellow-
rumped warbler, Carolina wren, fish crow (Corvus ossifragus), American crow, eastern
bluebird, barn swallow, yellow-throated warbler, pileated woodpecker, and red-shouldered
hawk.
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit. Evidence of mammal activity
includes raccoon, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed deer tracks. Other mammal species
expected to occur within the forested portion of the project study area include gray squirrel
and red bat.
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some
terrestrial reptiles and amphibians which may occur within the forest include eastern box
turtle, five-lined skink, southern ringneck snake, cottonmouth, gray treefrog, spring peeper,
and slimy salamander.
c) Disturbed/Maintained Land
Approximately 4 acres (40 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by
disturbed/maintained land (Figure 6). This community includes roadside shoulders,
agricultural fields, and residential lots. Within the disturbed/maintained areas, grasses and
herbs dominate the vegetation. Representative herbaceous and grass species include clover
(Trifolium sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), multi-flora rose
(Rosa multiflora), common plantain (Plantago major), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), wild
strawberry (Fragaria sp.), and dandelion (Taraxicum o~cionale).
9

_~
Birds observed within disturbed maintained land include the northern cardinal, American
crow, common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura). Other bird species expected to be found within the
disturbed/maintained portion of the project study area include northern mockingbird, red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), and American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis).
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit. Mammal species expected to
occur within the open portion of the project study area include least shrew (Cryptotis parva),
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus jloridanus).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Terrestrial
reptiles and amphibians which may occur within maintained/disturbed land include eastern
box turtle, six-lined racerunner (Cnemidomorphorus sexlineatus), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor), and five-lined skink.
Many of these wildlife species are adaptable and can eat a wide variety of plant and animal
material when the preferred food is absent. Many of these species can be found within
disturbed areas, brushy edges of the forest, within heavy underbrush, or amongst shrubby
plants. Migration between communities of the project study area may be frequent based on
the needs of each species for food, cover, protection from predators, and nesting.
2. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the project study area
include cottonmouth, green frog (Rana clamitans), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta
scripta), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), redbelly watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster
erythrogaster), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), and two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata).
No sampling was undertaken in Broad Creek to determine fishery potential. Visual surveys of
Broad Creek revealed the presence of fish. Fish species expected to occur in Broad Creek include
American shad (Alosa sappidissima), white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and inland
silverside (Menidia beryllina). Potential game fish that may be present within the project study
area include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and yellow perch (Perca jlavescens).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some terrestrial
reptiles which may occur within the study corridor include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), little grass frog (Limnaoedus
ocularis), southern toad (Bufo terrestris), and slimy salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed bridge replacement is expected to _ result in permanent impacts to plant
communities. Permanent impacts are considered to be those impacts that occur within the
proposed cut-fill limits. Plant communities within the project study area were delineated to
10

determine the approximate area and location of each community (Figure 6). A summary of
potential impacts to each plant community is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Plant Communities Within Cut/Fill lines of Alternative A
Plant-Community Permanent Impacts*
Mixed Hardwood/ Pine Forest <0.1
Bottomland Hardwood Forest <0.1
Maintained/Disturbed 0.4
Total 0.4
*Areas are given in acres
Projected permanent impacts to natural plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are
generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments. A small area of natural plant community is expected to be permanently impacted by
the proposed project.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements will be
restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances will have
short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns. However, long-term
impacts are expected to be negligible.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has developed a Significant Aquatic
Endangered Species Habitat database (1998) to enhance planning and impact analysis in areas
proposed by WRC as being critical due to the presence of Endangered or Threatened aquatic
species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat occurs within or near the project
study area.
Broad Creek is a Coastal Plain, estuarine water system, and anadromous fish passage should be
considered in the timing of any proposed in-stream activities associated with the bridge
replacement. Six anadromous fish species have been documented to occur in Beaufort County
(Menhinick 1991), and eight anadromous fish species have distributions which include the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin (Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991). Design and scheduling of bridge
replacement should avoid the necessity of in-stream activities during the spring migration period
for anadromous fish species (February 15 to September 30) within the Pamlico River and its
tributaries, including Broad Creek.
Special consideration needs to be given concerning spawning migration of shortnose sturgeon
(Acipencer brevicauda). This anadromous fish species is federally protected and listed as
Endangered. Although shortnose sturgeon is not listed by the USFWS as occurring in Beaufort
County, there is potential that this section of Broad Creek provides suitable migratory passage
and spawning habitat for this species during late summer to early winter.
To minimize fishing and non-fishing activities that adversely affect marine fisheries, areas of
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) afford limited protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et. seg.). EFH has been broadly defined by congress as "those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." Fishing and
11

non-fishing related activities that can adversely affect fisheries include fishing gear, dredging,
filling, agricultural and urban runoff, and point-source pollution discharge. According to the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance manual (2001), the water column and the
soft bottom substrate of Broad Creek at Bridge No. 104 provide EFH for managed species of fish
and shrimp. Therefore, the temporary fill (68 cubic yards) associated with replacement of Bridge
No. 104 will adversely affect existing EFH. There is also potential for EFH to be impacted from
bridge pile insertion, bridge runoff, and construction related sediment erosion. Utilization of
BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
There is potential for concrete deck and bent components of the bridge to be dropped into waters
of the United States during removal of the existing bridge. The resulting, temporary fill
associated with the deck and bents is approximately 68 cubic yards. Upon completion of
construction, temporary impacts associated with construction activities will be restored to pre-
project conditions. This project can be classified as Case 2, where no in-stream work may occur
during moratorium periods due to anadromous fish migration.
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging Broad Creek to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and
suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream habitat
from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
stringent erosion control measures.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Broad Creek and UT 1 are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR
section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that Broad Creek exhibits characteristics of a tidal, open
water, riverine system with an unknown bottom, that is Permanent Tidal (R1OWV; Cowardin et
al: 1979). Field investigations indicate that, within the project study area, Broad Creek is a tidal,
riverine system subject to wind tides, with an unconsolidated bottom of mud that is Permanent
Tidal (R1UB3V). Field investigations indicate that, within the project study area, UT 1 is a tidal,
riverine system subject to wind tides, with an unconsolidated bottom of mud that is Permanent
Tidal (R1UB3V).
Wetlands adjacent to Broad Creek and UT 1 are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR section 328.3). These
areas are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing
season (DOA 1987) (Appendix C). NWI mapping and field investigations indicate that, within
the project study area, wetlands adjacent to Broad Creek exhibit characteristics of palustrine
forested systems with broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved evergreen vegetation that is
seasonly flooded (PFO1 /4C; Cowardin et al. 1979). These wetlands satisfy the three-parameter
approach outlined by the ACE (DOA 1987). Wetland vegetation species are bald cypress, green
ash, swamp cottonwood, water oak, red maple, elderberry, wax myrtle, poison ivy, muscadine
grape, soft rush, arrow arum, royal fern, and jewelweed. Evidence of wetland hydrology includes
saturated soils, standing water, and oxidized rhizospheres.
All project study area wetlands occur within bottomland hardwood forest. Wetland 1 (Figure 6)
supports an immature shrub/scrub community on the west side of the bridge and transitions to a
12

more mature, secondary growth forest on the east side of the bridge. Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 (Figure
6) occur as islands within the banks of Broad Creek and support a mature, secondary growth
forest. Wetlands 5, 6, and 7 (Figure 6) support a mature, secondary growth forest, as well as
significant amounts of streamside/riparian fringe. Wetland 8 (Figure 6) is a small, open, wetland
area that supports mostly herbaceous plants, predominantly jewelweed.
No impacts to project study area streams or wetlands are expected to occur as a result of the
proposed project. An impact to 341 linear feet of riparian buffer within maintained/disturbed
land is expected to occur as a result of the proposed bridge replacement. Impacts to riparian
buffer that occur as a result of the proposed project are expected to be Exempt from the buffer
rule given land use remains the same within these areas (impacts to riparian buffer are "Exempt"
in areas where land uses are present and on-going).
2. Permits
a). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
This project will be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 (67 FR 2082; January 15, 2002) for
CE's due to expected minimal impact. Activities under this permit are categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because they are included within a category of activities
that neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human and natural
environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and
conditions of the particular permit.
b). Section 401 Water Quality Certification
DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 23 (GC
3403). If temporary structures are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or
dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15, 2002) permit and
associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366) will be required. Impacts to
vegetated wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078) and the associated
Genera1401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWP No. 23, 33, and 3
will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements
are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 and its associated General 401
Water Quality Certification (GC 3404). Notification to the Wilmington USAGE District
office is required if this general permit is utilized.
c). Bridge Demolition and Removal
If no practical alternative exists to remove the current bridge other than to drop it into the
water, prior to removal of debris off-site, fill related to demolition procedures will need to be
considered during the permitting process. A worst-case scenario will be assumed with the
understanding that if there is any other practical method available, the bridge will not be
dropped into the water. The worst-case scenario associated with the bridge removal is
expected to be 68 cubic yards of temporary fill. Permitting will be coordinated such that any
permit needed for bridge construction will also address issues related to bridge demolition.
13

d). Coast Guard
According to a letter received from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) dated June 22, 2004, this
reach of Broad Creek is considered legally navigable for Bridge Administration purposes.
This reach of Broad Creek also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways outlined in
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 115.70. Advance approval waterways are
those that are navigable in law, but are not actually navigated by other than small boats. The
Commandment of the Coast Guard has given advance approval to the construction or repair
of bridges across such waterways; therefore, Section 10 permit for structures and/or work in
or affecting navigable waters of the United States will not be required for this project.
e). Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
The proposed project will occur in one (Beaufort) of the 20 counties covered by the Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA). Because the project area contains open water within a
CAMA county, a N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) representative will need to
verify the presence or absence of a Public Trust Waters Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC). If the project area contains Public Trust Waters AECs and replacement of the bridge
avoids impacts to AECs, the DCM will review the permit application for CAMA consistency
prior to construction. If an AEC is proposed to be impacted, a CAMA Major Permit for
bridge replacement maybe applicable.
f). National Marine Fisheries Service
NCDOT, because it is a state agency, is not required to consult with National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning projects that adversely affect EFH; however, NMFS is
required to make conservation recommendations to NCDOT concerning these actions.
Pursuant to section 305 (b) (2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal agencies providing
funding to projects that adversely affect EFH should consult with NMFS to develop EFH
conservation recommendations on a programmatic level. NMFS should supply the state
agency with the conservation recommendations developed by the associated federal agency
consultation (NMFS 2001).
3. Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) provides a designation
for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Tar-Pamlico Basin. The Tar-Pamlico
Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured parallel to the stream) directly
adjacent to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Changes in land use within the buffer area are considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes
within the riparian are defined as being Ezempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or
Prohibited. The Ezempt designation refers to uses allowed within the buffer. The Allowable
designation refers to uses that may proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no
practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the DWQ is obtained prior to project
development. The Allowable with Mitigation designation refers to uses that are allowed, given
there are no practical alternatives and appropriate mitigation plans have been approved. The
Prohibited designation refers to uses that are prohibited without a variance. Exemptions to the
riparian buffer rule include the footprint of existing uses that are present and ongoing.
14

~,
Impacts to areas and linear distances of riparian buffer occumng within the proposed cut/fill
limits are shown in Table 3. Riparian buffer areas within the existing alignment footprint will be
Exempt from the buffer rule given land use remains the same within these areas.
The .chosen alternative proposes to undertake uses designated as Exempt and Allowable with
Mitigation under the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule for the protection of riparian buffers.
Approximately 507 linear feet will fall under the Exempt category because the footprint of
existing uses that are present and ongoing will remain the same (roadside shoulder). The
remaining 163 linear feet of permanent impacts to riparian buffer (mixed hardwood/pine forest)
will fall under the Allowable with Mitigation category. A request fora "no practical
alternatives" determination will have to be made to DWQ in order to obtain a Certificate of
Authorization.
As this reach of Broad Creek has potential as a travel corridor for migratory fish, this project can
be classified as Case 2, where no work at all will be allowed during moratorium periods
associated with anadromous fish migration.
4. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), DWQ may require compensatory mitigation
for projects with greater to or equal than 1.0 acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater
than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance
with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and
type of the proposed project impact and the function and value of the impacted aquatic resource
15

..
are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts, which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and
creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site.
NCDOT will propose compensatory mitigation for cumulative impacts exceeding 0.1 acre.
However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. A final
determination regarding wetlands or stream mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. rests with
DCM, USACE and DWQ.
Riparian buffer mitigation will be considered due to extent of potential impacts resulting from
bridge replacement. A final determination regarding riparian buffer mitigation rests with DWQ.
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Experimental (Exp.),
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing
are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seg.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened Species" is defined
as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (l6 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened",
but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally
protected species known to occur in Beaufort County are listed in Table 3 and de$cribed below.
Table 3. Federally Protected Cneripc
,.,. 'k~~' A~S'4~' IY ~ ~'x~#i i'~~A~+
r ~9!~ ~xu4~~
, ~`^'~' ~~ c~' Yn',R'.~.8 ~ G ~
'y,
then
~
~
~
c ~'',1~ S~~..4 F 7 k,- +~'e
'~ cad-Conc1 ~' ~
Biolo
°~ederal
~~ ~- ,~ ~. ~
~; .;~ {
, ~
,
„ ~
F ~~, ~^us~°nl-
~z
y.
Statas
Red wolf Canis rufus No Survey Required Exp
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus May Affect, Not Likely to

Adversel Affect E
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus May Affect, Not Likely to
leucocephalus Adversely Affect T
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis No Effect E
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii No Effect E
Sensitive jointvetch Aeschynomene
virginica No Effect 1'
Rough-leaved Lysimachia
loosestrife asperulaefolia No Effect E
T TL-..-._ _~ r _~_._
1 - 1 LIGQLGUGU, ~- ~naangereQ, ~xp- t;xpenmental
16

t•
Canis rufus (Red Wolf)
Experimental
Family: Canidae
Date Listed: November 19, 1986
The red wolf is a medium-sized canine that resembles the coyote but is larger and more robust.
Adults measure 4.5 to 5.5 feet in length, and weigh from 35 to 90 pounds. This species is slightly
smaller than the gray wolf (C. lupus) with a more slender and elongated head (FWS 1990), and
longer legs (Webster et al. 1985). Its pelage is shorter and coarser than in any race of C. lupus
(FWS 1990) and individuals vary in color from reddish to gray to black (Webster et al. 1985).
The red wolf prefers habitat that provides large amounts of cover, including upland and swamp
forests, coastal marshes, and prairies (Webster et al. 1985). Small- to medium-sized mammals
are normal prey items, but the red wolf is also heavily dependent on white-tailed deer (FWS
1990). The red wolf was once found throughout the southeastern United States, but was
extirpated from most of its range by 1920. Captive-bred animals were released at Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge in the fall of 1987, and successful reproduction resulted in 26-30 adults
by August 1993 (USFWS 1990).
The red wolf is considered by USFWS to be an experimental, nonessential endangered species
because the local population has been recently introduced into its historic range and habitat. This
species is considered "nonessential" because loss of the experimental population is not expected
to "appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild" (CFR 50, Part
17.80). The red wolf is considered by USFWS to be Threatened on public land, for consultation
purposes, and as a species Proposed for listing on private land. Therefore, with respect to the
proposed project, the red wolf is considered as Proposed for listing.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO SURVEY REQUIRED
The project study area does contain very small areas of suitable habitat for red wolf; however,
based on the limited nature of this project concerning impacts to forested areas, and the proximity
to a concentration of human development and activity, this project is not likely to adversely affect
the red wolf. NHP records have no documentation of this species within 1 mile of the project
study area.
Trichechus manatus (West Indian Manatee)
Endangered
Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The West Indian Manatee is a large, gray or brown aquatic mammal that averages 10 to 13 feet in
length and weighs up to 1,000 pounds. During summer months manatees migrate from their
Florida wintering areas to as far north as coastal Virginia. These mammals inhabit warm waters,
both fresh and salt, where their diet consists mostly of aquatic vegetation (Webster et al. 1985).
The manatee rarely occurs in North Carolina inland waters, although there have been sightings in
the Cape Fear and Neuse Rivers.
The USFWS has developed recommendations for general construction activities in aquatic areas
that may be used by the manatee. The USFWS directs that construction that can be completed
within aseven-month period should take place between November and May. The USFWS also
makes a series of recommendations pertaining to construction and the manatee (see Appendix B),
some of which are summarized as follows: 1) construction managers should advise all
17

construction personnel to be aware of the possibility of manatee appearance and the legal
obligation to avoid harassment of the species; 2) construction personnel will watch for manatee
sightings and be prepared to shut down equipment if one is made; 3) any sightings or contact with
manatees will be reported to the appropriate natural resource agencies (USFWS, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission); 4) a sign will be posted providing instructions to equipment
operators in case a manatee is sighted; 5) special steps will be taken on site concerning operations
during the no-blast moratorium period, such as guidelines for operating water craft and placement
of siltation barriers.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Based on available information, the manatee is not expected to occur within the project study area
during the period from November to May, and is unlikely to occur from June to October. To
avoid impacts to manatee, all construction associated with the project should be conducted under
the above-mentioned guidelines prepared by the USFWS (See Appendix D). Assuming these
guidelines are adhered to during construction activities, this project may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect West Indian manatee. In a letter dated May 5, 2006 the USFWS concurred with
the biological conclusion that this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West
Indian Manatee.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and
black-and-white barred back. Males often have red mazkings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature
to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P.
elliotii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed
in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 60 years, which have been infected with
red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies
(FWS 1985). The woodpecker excavates holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting
in a shiny, resinous buildup azound the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas that have been maintained by frequent natural fires
serve as ideal nesting and foraging.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Plant communities within the project study azea include 1) roadside/disturbed land and 2) mixed
hazdwood/cypress/pine forest. Forested, upland azeas within the project study azea support
hazdwoods in the canopy and have a moderately dense shrub layer. Plant communities within the
project study area lack the open shrub layer of pine savanna habitat required by this species for
foraging. In addition, the project study area does not include pines that are older than 60 years
that are required for nesting. NHP records indicate that red-cockaded woodpecker has not been
documented to occur within 1 mile of the project study area, and the project study area contains
no suitable habitat for this species. Based on a NHP record search and habitat types within the
project study azea, this project will have no effect on red-cockaded woodpecker.
18

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6.0 feet. Adult bald eagles are dark
brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail,
belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small
mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et al.
1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water.
Bald eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel
1992). Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1,500 feet from a nest tree
are considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). The USFWS
recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this
primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a
distance of 1 mile from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to
the non-nesting period. The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines
where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1,500 feet of
known roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The bald eagle typically nests in large trees near open water. The project study area includes
open water and has some large trees that may be suitable for nesting or roosting by bald eagle.
NHP records have no documentation of this species within 1 mile of the project study area.
Based on the availability of open water and large trees within the project study area, a survey was
conducted by canoe along all shorelines within 1,500 feet of Bridge No. 104. The survey
identified no bald eagle nests within this area, and no bald eagles were observed during field
investigations; therefore, this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles.
In a letter dated May 5, 2006 the USFWS concurred with the biological conclusion that this
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp's ridley sea turtle)
Endangered
Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: December 2, 1970
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles. The carapace length ranges from 23
to 30 inches and the weight ranges from 79 to 110 pounds. This species is generally considered
to be the most endangered of sea turtles in the world (Palmer and Braswell 1995). Distribution
ranges from the Gulf of Mexico and the east coast, to Nova Scotia and Europe. In addition to its
small size, this species is discernible by the heart shaped carapace and gray coloration. Kemp's
ridley prefers shallow coastal waters, including sounds and the lower portions of large rivers,
where it feeds on crabs, shrimp, snails, clams, and some saltwater plants. Nearly all members of
this species are believed to nest on a short strand of ocean beach in the state of Tamaulipas,
Mexico. The nearest suitable nesting habitat for this species is the Outer Banks ocean beaches
(approximately 60 miles from the project study area).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
19

A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no existing records
of Kemp's ridley sea turtle within 30 miles of the project study area. There is no suitable nesting
habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the project study area; the neazest suitable habitat for this
species is the Outer Banks ocean beaches (approximately 60 miles from the project study area).
Based upon the lack of habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtle and NHP records for Beaufort County,
this project will have no impact on this species.
Aeschynomene virginica (Sensitive jointvetch)
Threatened
Animal Family: Fabaceae
Date Listed: May 20, 1992
Sensitive jointvetch is a robust, bushy-branched, annual legume often exceeding 3 feet in height.
Young stems have bristly hairs with large, swollen bases (Leonard 1985). The alternate,
compound leaves are even-pinnate, approximately. 1 to 2 inches wide, with 30 to 56 toothless
leaflets (Radford et al. 1968). Flowers are bright greenish-yellow with red veins, about 0.5 inch
long, and are subtended by bracts with toothed margins (Leonard 1985). Flowers aze produced
on few-flowered racemes from July to October. The jointed legume (loment) is about 2 inches
long, has 6 to 10 segments, and a 0.5 to 1.0 inch long stalk.
Sensitive jointvetch occurs in the intertidal zone near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation. It seems
to prefer sparsely-vegetated areas where annuals predominate (FWS 1995x). Habitat for this
species in North Carolina consists of moist to wet coastal roadside ditches and moist fields that
are nearly tidal (FWS 1995a); especially in full sun (Leonard 1985). Associated plants listed for
this jointvetch in North Cazolina are all fresh water species. Sensitive jointvetch is not expected
to be found in association with salt-tolerant species such as saltmarsh cordgrass or giant cordgrass
(Rouse 1994). This species seems to favor microhabitats where there is a reduction in
competition from other plant species, and usually some form of soil disturbance (FWS 1995a).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Wetland azeas within the project study azea are within the upper reach of intertidal, estuarine
systems. Within the project study area, this azea supports salt intolerant plant species including
soft rush, arrow arum, royal fern, and jewelweed. Wetland fringes also receive full sun exposure.
NHP records indicate that sensitive jointvetch has not been documented to occur within 1 mile of
the project study area. A systematic plant-by-plant survey for sensitive jointvetch was conducted
on August 19, 2004. No specimens of sensitive jointvetch were observed. Based on NHP
records and a systematic plant-by-plant survey, this project will have no effect on sensitive
jointvetch..
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (Rough-leaved loosestrife)
Endangered
Family: Primulaceae
Date Listed: June 12, 1987
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows to 2 feet in height. Plants
are dormant in the winter, with the first leaves appearing in late March or early April. The
triangular leaves typically occur in whorls of 3 or 4. Leaves aze typically sessile, entire, 0.3 to 0.4
inch wide, broadest at the base, and have three prominent principal veins. Five-lobed yellow
flowers, approximately 0.6 inch across, are produced on a loose terminal raceme 1 to 4 inches
long (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Rough-leaved loosestrife is reported to flower from late May
20

to June (USFWS 1995b). Seeds are formed by August, but the small, rounded capsules do not
dehisce until October. Habitat typical of rough-leaved loosestrife consists of the wet ecotone
between longleaf pine savannas and wet, shrubby areas, where lack of canopy vegetation allows
abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Kral (1983) indicates that rough-leaved loosestrife is
typically found growing in black sandy peats or sands with a high organic content. This species is
fire maintained and suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat
in our state. In the absence of fire, rough-leaved loosestrife may persist for several years in an
area with dense shrub encroachment; however, reproduction is reported to be suppressed under
these conditions, leading to eventual local extirpation (USFWS 1995b). Because rough-leaved
loosestrife is an obligate wetland species (Reed 1988), drainage of habitat also has an adverse
effect on the plant.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Wetland areas within the project study area which provide suitable habitat for rough-leaved
loosestrife are disturbed/maintained areas and wetland edges which receive abundant sunlight and
lack a shrub or canopy layer. NHP records indicate that rough-leaved loosestrife has not been
documented to occur within 1 mile of the project study area. A systematic plant-by-plant survey
for rough-leaved loosestrife was conducted on June 3, 2004. No specimens of rough-leaved
loosestrife were observed. Based on NHP records and a systematic plant-by-plant survey, this
project will have no effect on rough-leaved loosestrife.
2. Federal Species of Concern
T'he February 5, 2003 USFWS list includes a category of species designated as "Federal species
of concern" (FSC) (Table 5). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed
in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. NCNHP files have no documentation of FSC
listed species within the project study area or within 1 mile of the project study area.
21

Table 4. Federal Species of Concern

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential

Habitat
State Status**
Eastern Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii susurrans No SR
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii Yes T
Carolina gopher frog * Rana captio capito * No T
"Neuse" madtom Noturus furiosus Yes SC
Pinewoods Shiner Lythrurus matutinus No SR
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus No SR
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni No T
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis No E
Tar River crayfish Procambrus medialis Yes W-2
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa No E
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula No SR-L, SC
Carolina asphodel * Tofieldia glabra * Yes W-1
* Historic record -this species was last observed in Beaufort or Pitt County more than 50 years ago
**State Status Codes - SC: Special Concern; T: Threatened; SR-L: Significantly rare and the range of the species is limited to North
Carolina and adjacent states; W-1: rare and declining; W-2: rare, but relatively secure (Amoroso 2002, LeGrand and Hall 2001)
VII. CULTURAI. RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects) on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted by NCDOT architectural
historians on July 30, 2003. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed
with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a report dated December 2004
the farm adjacent to the project in the southeast comer was determined eligible for the National
Register. HPO concurred with the eligibility of the Candy-Alligood Farm in their memorandum of
February 3, 2005. In a concurrence meeting on June 14, 2005 NCDOT, HPO, and FHWA agreed that
the project would have No Adverse Effect to the property since only temporary construction
easements were required and a form was signed to this effect. Copies of the relevant correspondence
are included in Appendix A.
22

C. Archaeology
The HPO, in a memorandum dated July 14, 2005 recommended no archaeological survey on the
project as currently proposed. There is little likelihood of any National Register archaeological sites
occurring in the project area because of the disturbed landforms, therefore the SHPO recommends no
further action. A copy of the HPO memorandum is included in Appendix A.
VIII. ENVIItONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications. -
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or
local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of this
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
There are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge; therefore the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, therefore it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Beaufort County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project
is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. Therefore, the project's impact
on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
23

Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites, no regulated or
unregulated landfills or dumpsites with in the project area. No facility with underground storage tanks
(UST) was identified in the project vicinity.
Beaufort County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The bridge is located within a
Detailed Study Area, but there is no floodway. delineated in this azea. The new structure should be
designed to match or lower the existing 100-year storm elevation upstream of the roadway. Since the
proposed replacement for Bridge No. 104 would be a structure similaz in waterway opening size, it is not
anticipated that it will have any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway. Since
the proposed replacement for Bridge No. 104 would be a structure similaz in waterway opening size, it is
not anticipated that it will have any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway.
The existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A mailing list was developed based upon property owners located near the bridge. Approximately twenty
names aze included on the list. Newsletters were mailed eazly in the planning process to the neazby
property owners and local officials. A copy of the newsletter is attached in Appendix B. No responses
for or against replacing the bridge were received.
X. UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
No unresolved issues or areas of controversy have been identified during the planning process and none
are anticipated.
XI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Scoping letters were sent to the following agencies listed below. Agencies that responded are mazked
with an asterisk (*). Comment letters aze included in Appendix A.
Federal A eg ncies
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh*
US Army Corps of Engineers -Washington
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency -Raleigh
National Marine Fisheries -Beaufort
US Geological Survey -Raleigh
24

State Aeencies
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Cultural Resources*
NC Division of Coastal Management*
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Regional and Local A eg ncies
City of Washington
Beaufort County Schools
Beaufort County Schools -Transportation Department
Beaufort County*
Beaufort County EMS
Mid East Commission RPO*
The following are comments received during the scoping process:
1. United States Department of the Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practical."
Response: The preferred alternate, Alternative A replaces the existing bridge in the existing
location and minimizes natural environment impacts.
Comment: "Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site
bridges."
Response: An off-site detour will be utilized for this project.
Comment: "Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish
spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.....The general moratorium period for anadromous
fish is February 15-June 30."
Response: An in-water work moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to September 30 due
to Anadromous Fish in the project area.
Comment: "The bridge design should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology
or impede fish passage."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge length will be
determined during final design.
Comment: "Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in
damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge length will be
determined during final design.
25

2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous
species are found in this portion of Broad Creek, including striped bass, American Shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous
fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and an in-water work moratorium
will be in effect from February 15 to September 30 due to Aadromous Fish in the project area.
3. Mid-East Rural Planning Organization
Comment: "Doing the project during the winter months might minimize the traffic load having
to use the by-pass."
Response: This will be coordinated during fmal design.
4. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
Comment: "...the following projects will impact CAMA Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC) and will require CAMA permits."
Response: NCDOT will coordinate with the DCM during final design to obtain the permits
necessary.
26

FIGURES
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Alternate A (Preferred)
Figure 3 - Photographs of Bridge No. 104
Figure 4 - Typical Roadway Section
Figure 5 - FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 6 - Natural Communities Map

OW

5
Pike

i
f
- 1326
,' o
'•~..~~~
~ee'..~1~Q~•.`
`mo,
1311
NORTH CdROL/1V.!
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT70N
PROJECT' DEVELOPMENT
BEAUFORT COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. !04 ON NC 32
OVER BROAD CREEK
TIP NO. B-4018
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE l
I•
.~
LEGEND
r~ Studeed Detour
Route
32

Y
B-4018
Replacement of Bridge
No. 104 on NC 32
Over Broad Creek
Beaufort County
FIGURE 3

Q Q ~
+ ~ ~ ~ O CJ a
W ~ ~ O QO tiQ~ N
>~t ~ oo N ~°o o ~ ~ ° .,
W~j M^ Vj !~ N yO ~~~~ C C~
A ~a o[.Q~ ~ ~O o
2xF ~ x~
'~ ~cc ~
a ~,
~ ~ ~4s w~
w N a O Q O ~~ q0
N N N ~ V~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ wa °.`~
~ ~
•
f ~ O
`1
V
~o
~ Z
_ 4 IR ~ ~ OO
~ ~ V~
~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~ w=
' a~ ~ z
W W
~ ~ J ~
~ o
o ~
of ~ m
2 V
F" m
U~
~ ~ W •
•
in
> ~ ,
J

NORlH G!/[OLQIfd
DEYARTMBM' OF 7RANS1'ORLl770N
TROJEC7' DR~•1~NT
BEe! UFORT COUNTY
BRIDGE NO 184 ON NC 32
OVER BROAD CREEK
7TP NO.8-4818
FEMA FLOODPZAIN MAP
FtcvRE s

APPENDIX A
Comments received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fdd Ogee
Post OtTice Booc !3?26
Raleigh, North Carolina 2763fs3726
January 13, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
~:.
:~- ~ CU
- '~ 2 :~
~ ~J
~:~'`c:vTA~
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
nine bridges:
• B-4018, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek
• B-4019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek
• B-4020, Beaufort/Pitt County, Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403 over Tranters Creek
• B-4055, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 on SR 1124 over Branch of Newport River
• B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 on NC 561 over Looking Glass Swamp
• B-4172, Lenoir County, Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 over Jericho Run
• B-4212, Northampton County, Bridge No. 77 on NC 35 over Kirby's Creek
• B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 over Carraway Creek
• B-4326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 on SR 1001 over Bloomery Swamp
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) anti section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by

other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour azea should be
entirely removed and the impacted azeas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive azeas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected azea.
A list of federally protected species for each county in North Carolina can be found at h ://nc-
es.fivs.gov/es/countyfr.html . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at htt ://endan ered.fws. ov . Please note, the use of the North
Cazolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
suitable habitat occurs near the project site. If suitable habitat exists in the project azea, we
recommend that biological surveys for the listed species be conducted and submitted to us for
review. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We do not have any specific comments for the individual projects, with the exception of the
following two:

B-4020, Beaufort/Pitt County -There is a past occurrence of the West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) less than one mile south of the project area. The Service's
Guidelines For Avoiding Impacts To The West Indian Manatee: Precautionary
Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters should be
implemented to minimize impacts to this species. These guidelines can be found at
httn:/Jnc-es.fws. og v/es/publications.html .
B-405, Carteret County -There aze known occurrences ofred-cockaded woodpeckers
(Picoides borealis) and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) within two
and three miles, respectively, of the project azea. If habitat for these or any other listed
species occurs at the site, appropriate surveys should be conducted. In addition, this site
occurs within the Croatan Game Lands azea. Impacts to this protected area should be
minimized to the maximum extent practical.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur eazly in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact azea that maybe directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that aze to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Coros of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
S. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similaz projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;

7. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regazding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~s~.~~~,
Gazland B. Pazdue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, IJSACE, Washington, NC
Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

-,~=~;
~ • - - ~~_
~;
~ ~,
~4!
nn.: w i rat -~ ~'rr7r~ -
Uttitef~ S~a~f~ Depar~tt>f~rnt o~ tt>t~ ~>~t~r~>~
F15H AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
May ~, 2006
Phil S. ~iarris, IIl, P.H.
t3cuth Gamlina Depariruent of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
i ~9sI Mail Services Centtr
Raleigh, North CaroliTia 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Hams;
- {1
pp ~f'~ t ~ i
R~~~ Y ~ fi
..i~ar ~'~ :.,
a~~
~: ,.
.~~~
- ~`- ~

~NI~tY9~"
'T'his letter is in response to your letter of April ?6, 2006 which provided the ~.].S. Fisb and
W;Idlife Service iSerwce) with the biological determination of the North Carotins Depattmcm of
Transportation {1`ICDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek in
Beaufort County (TIP No. B-4018) may affect, but is rlOt likely to adversely affect the federally
protected btrldeagie{x,(uliAeetus-teucnceFhaitas) and Westlndran manatee (~'richecl[us.nia~ratur).
In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no effect on the federally
protected ICetnp's-ridley sea tu~tlc(Lepicioehelps maRattts}, rid-cockaded woodpeelcer (Pieaides
borealis), rough-leaved looscstrife (Lysimachia asperulaefoliQ) and sensitive jointvetch
lrlesrhima»re-re vr'rginica). These comments are provided in accordance with st:ction 7 0l the-
):ndangered Specizs Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (!6 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, an eagle survey wa$ conducted within a onctnile radius'o#'
the project site on March 30, 2006. No eagles or eagle nests were observed. Based on ~thc
survey results, the Service concurs with your determination that the project may affect, but is not
liYely.to-adversely affect the bald eagle.
NCDOT has committed to implemenring t13e Service's GUIDEI.IIVES FOR AVOIDING
IMPACTS TO 7I~E WEST INDIAN MANATEE: Precautionary iVleasures for
Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters. Based-on this commitment and on all
available .ixafarmaiinq the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed project may
affect, but is-not likely to adversely affect the West Indian maaatee. Please note that the above
guidelines were rcviszci in 2003 and can be found at the following website: httn:unc-
es fivs gov/mammalJrnanatee euidelines.ndf .
Based on the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your determination tbat the project will
have no effect on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle and red-cockaded woodpecker.
Based on ?fl04 surveil results provided to the Service via facsitaile tm May ~, 2906 by Tyler
Blanton of NCDQ~', the Servire-concttrs witlrye-rr detcrrrrinatiotr tlsa[ the project wiN have no
effect on rough-leaved looscstrife and sensitise jointvetch. We believe that the requirements of

~.1
~~
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7
= consultation must be reconsidered if: (l.) new information reveals impacts of this identified
' action that may affect listed species or critical hahitat.in a t„a~nPrnot lmreviously considered in .
Ibis review; {2) this-action is subsequently modified in a matmner that was not considered in this .
review; or (3) a ne,s~ species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by This
idcmifted action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. 1f you have any questions
r~&ar~g our rosponsc, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
„Pere Benjamin f
Ecological Servict:s Supervisor
cc~ William Wescott, 'U~ACE, Washington, NC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris ~lvfiltschtr} LTSEPA, Raleigh, NC
Sohn Sullivan, EHw~-, Raleigh, NC

'. • U.S. Departrnent Of Commander 431 Gawford Street
Homeland Security united States Coast Guard Powmouth, Va. 23704-5ooa
FiRh Coast Guam p Staff Symtwl: obr
United States Fax:757-39&69
Coast Guard Email: GHeyer~lsntd5.uscg.mil
Ms. Heather Saunders
Ecoscience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Ms. Saunders:
16593
22 Jun 04
This is in response to your fax letter of June 22, 2004, proposing to replace the bridge on NC 32
crossing Broad Creek, a tributary of the Pamlico River in Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Since Broad Creek is subject to tidal influence, it is considered legally navigable for Bridge
Administration purposes. This waterway also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways
outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 115.70 advance approval waterways
are those that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than small boats. The
Commandant of the Coast Guard has given advance approval to the construction or repair of
bridges across such waterways. Therefore, an individual permit will not be required for this
project.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contract Mr. Gary Heyer, at the phone
number or address shown above.
Sincerely,
WAVERLY . G GORY, R.
Chief, Bridge Admuustration Branch
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District

e.~SWt~~
~.
~wI
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA `
DEPARTIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Gail Grimes, P.E.
PDEA
FROM: Jennifer Cathey ~'~'v
Historic Architecture Section
SUBJECT: B-4018 Beaufort County
Section 106 Compliance for Historic Architecture
DATE: June 14, 2005
CC: / Greg Purvis, P.E., Wang Engineering
Project File
At this morning's concurrence meeting, NCDOT Historic Architecture staff and
representatives of the North Cazolina Historic Preservation Office (HPO) assessed effects
for the above referenced project. HPO and NCDOT agree that there is No Adverse Effect
to the Candy-Alligood Farm property, which has been Determined Eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. No further compliance for Section 106 for historic
architecture is required. Should the plans be modified or the scope of the project
otherwise change, please notify the Historic Architecture section in writing so that the
APE and effects maybe reassessed.
I have attached a copy of the signed effects form for use in the Environmental Document.
You may reach me at 715-1516 if you have any questions or concerns.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPMgNE: 819-715-1500
FAX: [phone]
WEBSl7F: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINC.OW BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 168
RALEIGH, NC 27604

Federal Aid # BRSTP-32(2) TTP # B-4018 County: Beaufort
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek, Beaufort County
On June 14, 2005 representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Q Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
^ There aze no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
^ There aze no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
^ There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's azea of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Representative,

FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
~~
HPO
fate Historic Preservation Officer
v/~~4 /05
Date
/y ~-
Date
~p 1 a
Date
- ~!~-~
Date

Federal Aid # BRSTP-32(2) ?7P # B-4018
County: Beaafort
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).

Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.

Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
N O ~d V?,.r~L ~~ S i/1G'. ~~ ~O r. ~ v~ 7~1.~ ~A.~+-1
G~ S'i~'v C~h u~-s tw. ~-~ ~G--~ ~'l LG c. s S~ ~ -~ -
Initialed: NCDOT ..~ h' [~' FHWq
N' nw ~~ W ~~ S
HPO J~' - 1
_~

,.'
~~~~.~.
~.~; ,~
North Carolina Department of Cultaral Resources
Stste Historic Preservation OfSce
Peters. seedber$ ndo~mieaatar Office of Ardtives and History
lviicvaat F. Easley. Clm'aaa' 1)ivisien a('Hiaforid Reeansea
Ibbeth C. Evans, Sea+etary David BOOCk. INrector
Jeffrey J. Crow. Deputy Sazntary
July 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways ''__ -- rr,,
FROM: Peter Sandbeck n ~~ ~Y~•~
F~~
SUBJECT: Bridge Group 50, Bridge 104, NC 32 over Broad Creels,
B-4018, Beaufort Couaty, ER 04-0102
Our memorandum of February 18, 2004 concerning this project contained conflicting recommendations with
regard to archaeological resources. We apologize for the confusion and would like to clarify our comments.
There are no known archaeological sites witiun the proposed project area. Based on our present knowledge
of t3~e 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 tfie pmject construction. We, ~erefore, recommend ti~at no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project
The above comments are made pursuant to Bettina 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regtilations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for pour cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental rcview coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-refereaced tracking number.
cc: Paul Mohler
NC DOT
~S PAflTI~{PATION
~ivEa
iJUI 1 9 2005
,..
.:%,
f•~.
ADMIIV1S1TtATiON 307 N. Blount Sheek lialog4 NC 4617MW Setvia Cep iRaleigh NC x699'0617 (919T733.4763?33.8633
ggSTpRA1TON 513 N. Blount Street, liabigh NC 46171~/W Savioe CR~ter. Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)?33.6347/'TI34801
S[JRVEY ec p1,ANNIHiG SIS N. Blount Stages. Raledgh, NC 4627Mail Savior Caae:'. Rald~ NC 276994611 [phone]/'7154801

~s~~~a
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth G Evaat, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, DeQuty Secretary
February 3, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director .
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck 1e V P~ ~~~
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Replace Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over
Broad Creek, B-4018, Beaufort County, ER 04-0102
Thank you for your letter of December 15, 2004, transm;**t~ the survey report by Jennifer Cathey for the
above project
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:
• Bridge No. 104, on NC 32 over Broad Creek is not eligible for the National Register because it has
no innovative or distinctive details and is one of hundreds of simple secondary road bridges
throughout the state.
We do not concur with your evaluation of the Candy Alligood Farm located on NC 32 in eastern Beaufort
County.
We believe the Candy Alligood Farm to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places wader
Criterion A and C. This is an intact farmstead of the late 19`~ and early 20~' centuries with a representative
example of a late Greek-Revival farmhouse and a i3ne collection of outb„il +nos. The complex has
undergone few major alterations through the years except for the interior of the farmhouse and a moved
smokehouse. The farm is one of only a few remaining small farms associated with maritime activity on the
creeks that feed into the Pamlico Rives.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
z~ s. saad6eek, Admeusnamr
Office of Archives and History
Divieiorr of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
The farm's boundary should include all the buildings, structures, field patterns, and laced that were historically
associated with the Candy Alligood Farm. From the information provided in the report, it appears that the
current Beaufort County legal tax pazcel may suffice as the historic boundary as it encompasses the eligible
resources and part of the original faun acreage.
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Surer, Raleigh NC 4617 A40 Seniee Crane; Raleigfi NC 27699617 (914)7334763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Bbunt Sweet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal 5erviee Ceooer, Rakigl+ NC 27699617 (91733-6547/715-4801
SURVEY & PLAI~TNIA~G 515 N. Bbunt Serea, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mai Seevice Cep Rakigh NC 27699-4617 (915733-6545/715-4801

~~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. rull~ood, Executi~•eDirector
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elmo Vance
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ~~ 1~ -
Habitat Conservation Prosram "
DATE: February ~, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Beaufort, Carteret, Halifax, Lenoir, ,
Northampton, Wayne, and Wilson counties. TIP Nos. B-4018, B-4019, B-4020,
B-4055, B-4132, B-4172, B-4212, B-4321, and B-4326.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
IJ.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
~Iailin~ ~\ddres+: Di-. i:i~~n ut L•i:.....? ~'. .' _. ~ _ . • i . ~ ~l.ia ~l'1a.'if ~ ..Ci~•;' ' ,..,.~ -_.. ~.f_ "5419-~ %'_1
Telephone: ~+ i `-~ _ _ in ~' .'~:. _'ri ~ ~ f':1\: ~~~ f ~~' ' ~ ~- h~ j

Bridge Memo
2 February 5, 2004
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual.`404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Pnk-~dT N ,,o.,,,,n,
should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be ~'~~ °~t
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the pmject.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,.
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used

Bridge Memo 3 February 5, 2004
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic Life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed_
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfulI or
floodpiain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodpiain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-yeas floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B-4018, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 104 over Broad Creek on NC 32. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species are foutidiri -~
this portion of Broad Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river herring, and
hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30.
Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo 4 February 5, 2004
2. B--1019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 over Runyon Creek on NC 32. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Runyon Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4020, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 8 over Tranter's Creek on SR 1403. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Tranter's Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-405, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 over Branch of Newport River on SR 1124. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this area, including striped bass, American shad, blueback herring, and
hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30.
Standard recommendations apply.
B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 over Looking Glass Swamp on NC 561. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Looking Glass Swamp, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT
should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an
in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations
apply.
6. B-4172, Lenoir County, Bridge \To. 9 over Jericho Run on NC 55. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridle. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4212, Northampton County, Bridge No. 77 over Kirby's Creek on NC 35. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Kirby's Creek, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No. 17 over Caraway Creek on SR 1918. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Caraway Creek, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B-4326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 over Bloomery Swamp on SR 1001. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box

':
Bridge Memo 5 February 5, 2004
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

•.
Greg Purvis
From: Steve Sollod [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:32 PM
To: [e-mail] _ _
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; bill arrington; Doug Huggett
Subject: [Fwd: Scoping Request]
~.
Scoping Request
(Z.33 KB)
Based on a preliminary evaluation by Bi11 Arrington, DCM's Field
Representative and Transportation Project Coordinator for NCDOT's
Divisions 2 & 3, the following projects will impact CAMA Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC) and will require CAMA permits.
B-4018, Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek, Beaufort County
B-4019, Bridge No. 103 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek, Beaufort County
B-4020, Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403 over Tranters Creek, Beaufort/Pitt
County
B-4055, Bridge No. 22 on SR 1124 over Branch of Newport River, Carteret
County
The specific type of permit and specific permit conditions will depend
on design of the project, methods of construction, and impacts to AECs.
It is recommended that NCDOT allow sufficient time to coordinate with
DCM.
Be advised, DCM did not receive the NCDOT January 8, 2004 letter
requesting comments on the potential impacts of the proposed projects.
We apologize for the delayed response. Please ensure future requests
for comments on potential environmental impacts are also directed to
DCM.
Please contact me at 733-2293 X 240 for questions or comments.
Steve Sollod
Steve Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
[phone] X240 Phone•
[phone] FAX
1

June 17, 2005
I spoke with Paul Spruill, Beaufort County County Manager and the County does not
have any issues with an offsite detour for this project.
Greg Purvis, P.E.
Project Manager
Wang Engineering

~,
APPENDIX B
Newsletter

NEWSLE~'7'ER
Beadfert Ceuaty
For Repiaceeneat of Bridge No. 104
Over Bread Credo On NC 32
TIP Project No. B-4018

This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform citizens of the
alternates for the proposed replacement and road closure of Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek (TIP Project No.
B-4018). This newsletter gives an overview of the steps in the project development process and presents the bridge
replacement alternatives evaluated.
~ ~t .. u
..
~. ~ ^ ,
t ,ti
~ , , Y , ' ' Stop $ 1'~Iblic ~nvc~veitratt
~'t ~~. < ~` "~ ,, . ,. Sly 4 5e1ec#,~n of Ptefe~red Ateanative
4~2 ~_2 1 r ..
a;. f ~ ~ ~ Pnvirc~~tz>~at S>~ies
.>'... -
.. .. ,,: 31. - ..
_. ,.- rt -,c. .. .,_ _. .x -., ,. ,s _ _..
T r> t E PR o, ~ c r I l~~ P~ 1 v r
During Step 1 of tbe project development process,
information was collected on the existing human and
natural environments. This information was used to
identify preliminary alternatives for replacing Bridge
No. 104. In Step 2, the preliminary alternatives
were evaluated and one "build" alternative was
selected for detailed environmental studies. Steps 3
and 4 involved conducting the detailed
environmental studies fa the "build" alternative and
selecting a preferred alternative. The build
altennative studied was:
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces Bridge No. 104 at
the existing location with a new structure. During the
construction of dre new bridge and approaches, traffic
will be n~ietained by an off-site detour. The off-site
detour is abng SR 1328 (Black Road), SR 1326
(Turkey Trot Road No.2), and SR 1311 (Magnolia
school Road). It is about 2.9 miles in length.
Alternate A was selected as the preferred alternative
because it minimizes natural environmental impacts and
construction time.
The NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the
proposed project area want to know tbe potential effects
of the project on their homes and businesses. However,
exact information is not available at this stage in the
planning process. Additional design work will be
performed before the actual right-of--way limits can be
established. This newsletter is to inform the public of
the replacement of Bridge No. 104 and solicit your input
on the project.
Planning and environmental studies for this project are
in progress. The Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) is
scheduled for approval in February 2005. The CE will
address the potential impacts of the proposed bridge
replacement on the human and Mural environments
aad will include recommended design criteria for the
project. Input received from the public will be included
in the decision making process.
The right of way date for this project is 2/17/06 and the
construction date is 2/20/07.
I~3ect Costs: Alt. A
Right of way costs -x30,500
Construction costs - S 1,150,000
Total costs - 51,180,5(10

NEWSLETTER

~~ Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E. or Mr. Greg Purvis, P.E.
~~- NCDOT - PD&EA Branch Wang Engineering
~:,
~7 1548 Mail Service Center 15200 Weston Parkway, Suite 101
=`~,_ Raleigh, North Cazolina 27699-1548 Cary, North Cazolina 27513
(J ~ [phone], ext. 223 [phone]
~ ernail:khtatdo~dotstate.ncus email:gpun~i~;a?wang-engineering.com
If you have transportation questions on other projects,
call the NCDOT Customer Service Office toll-free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU.
BEAUFORT COUNTY
ReplacenNnt of Bridge No. 104
Over Broad Creak
On NC 32
TIP Project NO. B-4018
Public involvement is an important part of the project planning process. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation is committed to ensuring that all
issues of public concern aze considered. Please send your comments to one of the
addresses listed below. Your comments are important to us!
sr? +3zs
' (Tt! TROT RD.)
~`@ 32
SR l311~ -• -~~''
~GNOU~ scH. ~.) ~•_
BRIDGE NO. 104
32 ~ j
r.:
I.ECrBND
Sallied D~era~rr Rode '~~1-'1!~-
~lpp~+~cie>ame Dwnrr Lw;de 29 weslas
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548

APPENDIX C
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms

. ~ •.
DATA FORM rv t.7 i"~ ~ ~ I ~ I nr wed
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (~ '/ ,~ l ~~( b~b(n (~
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ` "'~'
ProjecUSite: ~ 0 0 I uate: _7 , L, y- •v
ApplicanUOwner: County: ~j~u~-+-
Investi ator: State: L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~s ^No Community ID: -~ t~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes Q,~N/o Transect ID: -~~ K
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ^No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
ON
Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
10.
~- 11.
~ (~ 12.
6. 14.
7. 15. _
g. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species t at ~r OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). ~ ~ ~ ~6 __ -
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: N /~ (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~ ~ (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Remarks:
~tland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
~aturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
^ .Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)

SOILS
IMap Unit Name
(Series and Phase)
ti~
r
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
~(0 V ~-!~ Drainage Class: ~ ~ . ~a,,'Z
Field Observations
~ o fin. ~-~ Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
T~
Profile Descriptions:
Depth
(inches) Horizon
~_
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Munsell M ist Munsell oist
2 ~ p z
Mottle Abundance/
Size/Contrast
Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc,
a
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
^ tic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? [y'~es ^No (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? [~]'S'e~ ^No
Hydric Soils Present?L~~1/es ^No
Remarks
(Check)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^'1'es ^No
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

~'
Project/Site~ - ~ Dal
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands De-ineation Manual)
l
ApplicanUOwner: ~ U County: ~.(~ ~/ ~-
Investi ator: State: N (r
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (des ^No Community ID: /tn
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes `~~ Transect ID: ~_
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ^No Plot ID: rj 8 ~,3
li needed, ex lain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ~ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
3. 0 n t/ ~~ ~. 11.
a. i ~h' ~ 5 -y~~ (~1 i 12.
5. ~~ i+~ 1/ ~_ 13.
6. ~ 14.
7. ( 1ti m _~ 15.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that aj OBL, FACW or FAC
excludin FAC- .
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
etland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Rerrfarks:
NQ Ny1~~el~o~ii± ~N~~~~--TO2s - ~

SOILS .~
IMap Unit Name
~
~ ~
i
Cl
~
(Series and Phase): ~
() ass:
Dra
nage ~
I
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~ Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon Munsell oist {Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
5
~)_ o~?~ ~,~
Z,IZt p Sn~~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
^ Histic Epipedon
^ Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surtace Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
tnr~-n eNn nFTERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? des ^No (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes [~lo
Hydric Soils Present? es ^No
Remarks
(Check)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
' ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: - ~ ~ Date: . i5 y
ApplicanUOwner: N LD 0 County: Y
Investi ator: dt~ S State: N L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~s ^No Community ID: ~~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ,[~~f~lo Transect ID: ~j
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes LINO Plot ID: ~~ ~ ?j
If needed, ex lain on reverse.
VEGETATION __
Stratum Indicat r Dominant Ptant S ecies _ Stratum Indicator
r/r s.
Pt (~ 10.
~ 11.
~ -~
_ 12. '
_
~_ __
(_, 13.
~_ 14.
15. -
16.

Percent of Dominant Species that ar OBL, FACW or FAC
excludin FAC- . ~
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: ~ Q (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _N (k (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
etland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
[Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ diment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
IMap Unit Name I
(Series and Phase): (~Y~O t, Drainage Class: (~ I
Field ObservationsV1-"
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ' \~ (J j ~, C{~ U/-t o Confirm PAapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
r
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
2~ ~:
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
^ Histic Epipedon
^ Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ^No (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ^No
Remarks
(Check)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ^No
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

Z
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ~ Date: ~. Z~ . ~`'~
t
~
[
(
~ ~'
C
ApplicanUOwner: y:
j
,
,t ~,(
oun
' ~ L
Investi ator: ~ State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ ^No Community ID: /Fy~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situat ion)? ^Yes ~ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ^No Plot ID: Z
If needed, ex lain on reverse.

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1 lxi G'F ~ ~
~"~ G ~ 9.
z. t '~ w C"
-~
A 10.
3. k ~ 5 ~
""
Iv k 11.
4 A u. , z.
.
5.
NZ
13.
6. 14.
~ 15.
8 16.
.

Percent of Dominant Species that re OBL, FACW or FAC
~~
~
(excluding FAC-) ~~
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in•)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
tland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
NO NyD1Z6LDG ~ c TNDiLhTa? S ~
Remarks

SOILS
IMap Unit Name
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
~~ ~~ ~ ` ~
~ f ~ Drainage Class: v ~ .~`' €3"n~/ ~ _ ~~/~'/t~
Field Observations
~ ~( Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
I Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/
inches Horizon Munsell ist Munsell M~t Size/Contrast
V 2
Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc,
n-~,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes l~vo (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ~o
Hydric Soils Present? es ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes QtQo
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: ~ ~ U care: .l . /~ T • U ~
ApplicanUOwner: (~CUU"r ~- County: ~({r,.~-~(-~-
Investi ator: State: N L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es ^No Community ID: ~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ~N Transect ID: j- ~ }
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed. explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant
i . ii{ i
L ~'A
3.~, 1 ./
6. r11(,,r.~l.
7.
8.
Percent of Dominant Species tIIl
(excluding FAC-). I ~ t
Remarks:
Stratum Indicator
~ Dominant Plant Species
9.
i~ ~ ~i 10.
'r -
~~_ 11.
OaL 12.
p~ _~~ 13.
_~_ ~a ~ 14.
15.
16.
OBL, FACW or FAC
~uawm motCaior
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: ~ (^ (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: f (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
tland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
~nundated
~iSaturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
S,e-c-,o/ndary Indicators (2 or more required):
~v Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
IMap Unit Name
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
~~tDV a-{1 Drainage Class: ~ (7~v I ~~,r~-~,
Field Observations
I Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon Munsell Most (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
D ~2 + ~_
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
r^~~Histic Epipedon
l~ Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
[3Yes ^No (Check) (Check)
[des ^No
[a'~s ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? [a'Pes ^No
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: V- - v l a vale. .ems. • v I
ApplicanUOwner: (, l~ ~"~ County: -~'
Investi ator: d State: (r
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~-'f~es ^
No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ,,~~
,,
CJ NO Transect ID: 1-1 _
fs the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ^No Plot ID: ~_ ~ ~-
If needed, ex lain on reverse.

VEGETATION
ndicato
r
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum I Dom inant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
~
~
~

2. ill 11-- 10.
3. ~~C -~- ! 1 ~ 11.
4. 0 ~~- J 12.
5. ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~' 13.
_~ ~ 14.
6.
7. ~h- X1-1 ~! - 15-
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Speci s tllal are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-1. ~~ / d
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
~tland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
d~ ~ yp ~ o L_ O 6 1 C I N t7 - L t4-TZ~.~

cnn C
IMap Unit Name
(Series and Phase):
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
Drainage Class: Y l ~''
~t~ ~ v A~1
Field Observations
~~ ,~ i 1 ~ ~ ~I ~~ ~ n ~_ Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
i
Profile Descriptions:
Depth
inches Horizon
n ~2 ~'
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc,
Munsell Moist Munsell Moi t - Size/Contrast
3 Z ~ Z ~
5
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
^ Histic Epipedon
^ Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks
es ~^,N/o (Check)
^Yes L~No
es ^No
(Check)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ~No
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

't
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecUSite: - I iS - U I Date: ~, t . O7
ApplicanUOwner: (, 1'7 0 County: -I-
Investi ator: - i( State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? [des ^No Community ID: /~Yt
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes [,]1~1o Transect ID: ~-}Z
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes [Ado Plot ID: ~ ~ ~~
If needed, ex lain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum lndicator
~
4-C Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
:
1. i ~ s.
2. r ~ ni ct~~k- 0 ~ ~- 10.
3. 1 )~1 fw~ L 11.
aLi~iof~{n~an~.~~D~a j C. 12.
5. N~ _~ ~~ L 13.
s. ' S ;~~ ~~ ia.
7. 15
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
excludin FAC- . Q
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
^ Strearn, Lake, or Tide Gauge Pr
i
mar
y Indicators:
^ Aerial Photographs r
-
r
mundated
~
^ Other r
~ ~
I.~- saturated in Upper 12 Inches
~] No Recorded Data Available ^ Water Marks
~ift Lines
,~,
L~ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
y~
Depth of Surface Water: ~ J (in.) ^^ ~xidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
~7 Lam' Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: V (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: l/ (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
., ~ ('
IMap Unit Name I ~ //,
(Series and Phase): ~~~ V ~ Drainage Class: ~~/~ ~1(l - tNb '/~,
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ( Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
Profile Descriptions:
i Depth
inche Horizon
~-12
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
^ Histic Epipedon
^ Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
WETLAND DETERMINATION
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (y~Xes ^No (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? [~(e~ ^No
Hydric Soils Present? L-J.~/es ^No
Remarks
(Check)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Oyes ^No
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0 3 ,~.d ~ ~
2 "~ C 5 ~~ ~ _ 0 /tin-~
~~ ~ Z ~
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

,~ , w
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: J,L ' ~ b ~~" ~D ' "1 ~) 0 ~ uaie: ~ p . ~J 7 , v ~
ApplicantiOwner: ~ YV ~ uM' County: ~j (~,t~Y.~-
Investi ator: ~ State: ~ L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? [~`es ^No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ~BiQ~o Transect ID: --~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes LINO Plot ID: ~'F ~~_
If needed, ex lain on reverse.
V EGETATIO N
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ~ 211 - S k,S ~~ ~~G s:
2. ~ ~. 10.
~G
4 ~ l A,~+t~ ~ -~--~--= 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are L, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). ~ ~ a / u
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
tland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surfiace Water: (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Remarks:
~U ~} ~b1~..0 L V 6 ~ L ~ N ~ - C ~TZ)2- ~ ~

SOILS
~.
IMap Unit Name
(Series and Phase):
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
~_ ~Y D ~ ~1 Drainage Class: ~f ~ `^.
Field Observations
~I (. ~VW ` 0 S ~ )'r ~T Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth
inches Horizon
--~-
~-~
Zr
Matrix Color Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Stru~ ,
0~ s
~ 3
0 5 b f, tom,,,
~ ~
Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es ^No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ~~^,,Y//es No
Hydric Soils Present? Ly'Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ~Pdo'
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ~ - OI ~ Date: b . U T
ApplicanUOwner: (, '~ County: .~-
Investi ator: ,>, State: ~ (/
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? [}Y2S ^No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ~ Transect ID: F ~- ~.
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ^No Plot ID: 'F Z
flf needed, explain on reverse.)
GETATI ON
Stratum
ies
c
Dominan Plant S~e Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies
_
r
.

3. ~ iw~ ~-F' 11.
4~ ~o ~ ,~.. T C~P~ ,z.
5. I ~~
~ Y ~- ~ ~- 13.
`'
7. ~~ [ 'FS L~-1 ~ ~l )~ ~~~ 15.
g. 16.
Stratum Indicator
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI. ACW or FAC
excludin FAC- . ~ O V
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: ~ ' S (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ,l (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: y (in.)
tland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
~/(nundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

.~
SOILS
IMap Unit Name
(Series and Phase):
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
~~Y~ V t~ Drainage Class: ~ - ~ /t-(,
Field Observations
~I i>> ( ~f-F /AOl /~ s ran s~ Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ^ No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth
inches Horizon
2
~~}
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/
Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast
d 3
U 3 SY
Texture, Concretions,
Structure, etc,
~ ~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
^ Histic Epipedon
[[~ Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
in/GTI entn nFTFRMINATION
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? [.~'Sles ^No (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present?~ °(~Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? [~/es ^No
Remarks
(Check)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? [v~Y'es ^No
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

~ , ,,
Wetland Rating Worltsheet
Project n e ~ ~ 5-~ Nearest road
un Name of~ Evaluator o v~Date ~ J ~~. /0
Co ty ___``~."`7
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
ion perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Adjacent Land use (within U2 mile upstream)
forestedlnatural vegetation ~ ~ ~
agriculture, urban/suburban ~b
impervious surface
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series .LJ~Y~y~1
dominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channeiized
wetland width >1= 50 feet
(1~ 1~xod-~ -~ ~~ 5~~h~-~
(2) ~ ~ G~
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipennanently to permanently flooded
or ' tmdated
orally flooded or inundated
_ imermittentiy flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (s ct one)
ottomiand hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_, Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat • Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _'Jtba
•The rating system cannot be applied W snit or brackish marshes
Water storage ~ * 4 _ -~.
Bank/Shorellne stabilization * 4 - ~ a~,score
Pollutant removal * 5 = ~.
Wildlife habitat _ * 2 = ~_ .
Aquatic life value ~ * 4 = ~
Recreation/Education ~_ * I = `~
Add 1 point if in sensitive ~vatcrshcd and > t 0% nonpoint disturbance tivithin IR mile upstream

J+
APPENDIX D
Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee

:S. ~.~
NT United States Department of the Interior
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office 13oz 33726
~~ x ~ Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), also known as the Florida manatee, is
a Federally-listed endangered aquatic mammal protected under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as.amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C 1461 et seq.). The manatee is also:listed as endangered
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act of 1987 (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of
the General Statutes). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead Federal
agency responsible for the protection and recovery of the West Indian manatee under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Adult manatees average 10 feet tong and weigh about 2,200 pounds, although some
individuals have been recorded at lengths greater than 13 feet and weighing as much as
3,500 pounds. Manatees are commonly found in fresh, brackish, or marine water habitats,
including shallow coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and inland rivers of varying salinity
extremes. Manatees spend much of their time underwater or partly submerged, making
them difFcult to detect even in shallow water. While the manatee's principal stronghold in
the United States is Florida, the species is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North
Carolina with most occurrences reported from June through October.
To protect manatees in North Carolina, the Service's Raleigh Field Office has prepared
precautionary measures for general construction activities in waters used by the species.
Implementation of these measure will allow in-water projects which do not require blasting
to proceed without adverse impacts to manatees. In addition, inclusion of these guidelines
as conservation measures in a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, or as part
of the determination of impacts on the manatee in an environmental document prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, will expedite the Service's review of the
document for the fulfillment of requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. These measures include:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform III personnel associated with the
project that manatees may be present in the project area, and the need to avoid any harm
to these endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all construction
personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about
completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be
informed that they are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence
of manatees.
2. The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that

~• ..
there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction and/or dredging
operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions will be implemented to ensure
protection of the manatee. These precautions will include the immediate shutdown of
moving equipment if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operational area of the
equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee has departed the project area on
its own volition (i.e., it may not be herded or harassed from the area).
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report
must be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.856.4520 ext. 16), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (ph. 252.448.1546).
5. A sign will be posted in all vessels assocated with the project where it is clearly visible
to the vessel operator. The sign should state:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occur in these waters during the warmer
months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if operating
this vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down
if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the vessel or operating equipment. A collision
with and/or injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (919-856-4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252.448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and/or injuries to
manatees during project activities. Upon completion ofthe action, the project managerwill
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees encountered and submit
the report to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake/idle" speeds
at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four foot
clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers will be: (a) made of
material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in a manner that they
cannot break free and entangle manatees; and, (c) regularly monitored to ensure that
manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to allow
manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
Prepared by (rev. 06/2003):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
919/856.4520

,~ .
Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.

t1Ta
Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source: Clark, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-
3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.