44779_NC DOT_20060323 (2)

CAMA DREDGE & FILL
GENERAL PERMIT
Previous permit
-i New i_]Moclification L-] Complete Reissue Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
Ll Rules attached.
Applicant Name NC_ i� 01_
Address; c,
yes
no
City --_-
State
ZIP
'7
Phone # Fax #
yes
Authorized Agent C. 11
V _J
k
no
Waiver Attached:
yes
Affected "-I CW El EW
X PTA [I ES
APTS
__�
- El HHF
AEC(s): iOEA
El 1H D UBA
0 N/A
F, PWS:
1JFC:
ORW: yes no PNA yes / no Crit. Hab. yes / no
Type of Project/ Activity
Project Location: County
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
Subdivision
City- (rr .5- ZIP
Phone# River Basin
Adj. Wtr. Body r 1,l " t'( nat man /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
(Scale:
Pier (dock) length
Platform(s)____________ _
Finger
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length
avg distance offshore
max distance offshore
A 4
Basin, channel _0
cubic yardsr C ly I I r f ,f
Boat ramp ---- — -
Boathouse/ Boatlift
t
Beach Bulldozing
Other,
Shoreline Length
SAV: not sure
yes
no
Sandbags: not sure
yes
no
Moratorium: n/a
yes
no
Photos:
yes
no
Waiver Attached:
yes
no
A building permit may be required by: See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
Notes/ Special Conditions
Agent or Applicant Printed Na} ie I Officer's Signatur
r", - I-- Morehead City DW 71
7
Signature Please read compliance statement on back of permit Issu[iii)i D2 Expiration Date/
:,, � +� to �� �;�3 �`i . i . i .�f / (���<�-,� C�. � � � j � t 7 �
Application Fee(s) Check # Local P12(n6ingjuri-sdiction Rover File Name
) I

kf•.
Statement of Compliance and Consistency
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine or criminal or civil action; and may cause the permit to become
null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance. The
applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) prior to undertaking any activities authorized by this permit, the applicant will
confer with appropriate local authorities to confirm that this project is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement or certified mail return receipt has been obtained from the adjacent riparian
landowner(s) .
The State of North Carolina and the Division of Coastal Management, in issuing this permit under the best available
information and belief, certify that this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
River Basin Rules Applicable To Your Project:
<Tar- Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules _� Other:
Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
If indicated on front of permit, your project is subject to the Environmental Management Commission's Buffer Rules for the
River Basin checked above due to its location within that River Basin. These buffer rules are enforced by the NC Division of
Water Quality. Contact the Division of Water Quality at the Washington Regional Office (252-946-6481) or the Wilmington
Regional Office (910-796-7215) for more information on how to comply with these buffer rules.
Division of Coastal Management Offices
Central Office
Mailing Address:
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Location:
Parker -Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293
Fax: [phone]
Elizabeth City District
1367 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-264-3901
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Camden, Chowan, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Pasquotank and Perquimans
Counties)
Morehead City District
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
202-808-2808/ I -888-4RCOAST
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
New River Inlet- and Pamlico Counties)
Washington District
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Hyde,
Tyrrell and Washington Counties)
Wilmington District
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
910-796-7215
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Brunswick, New Hanover,
Onslow -below New River Inlet- and
Pender Counties)
Revised 06129/05

/CAMA / /-DREDGE $ FILL N9 44779
.� n
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit # ''A
)4New Modification Complete Reissue Partial Reissue Date previous permit -wsued AVh
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to I SA NCAC L;7 I�
— Rules attached.
Applicant Name L . _ _ __—�— Project Location: County,�j C,t f+
Address (5q5 - FAcd S E- t" v _ tom' :� Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)S '� 4
Cic.��(�. State �lL_ ZIP L - %`
h I -�— - -- --- — 2-ElIL �_y P �t t �e��1} f "�c = c 1--- IY�: r � r s r r �
Phone # (��y) 7.r i Fax # (_-_) _ Subdivision
Authorized Agent k_11'rjcl�y_� Li m y r 5-friiJ t- city _LLCj4�2`�S�)���_�`��c S ZIP
cw EW % PTA E� / PTS Phone # J/ River Basin
Aff .4
etre
AEC(s): OEA HHF IH UBA N/A
PwS FC:
ORW: yes /Cno� PNA no
Type of Project/ Activity
Pier (dock) length
Platforms)
Finger piers)
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length
avg distance offshore
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubic yards
Boat ramp
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing
Other ?, 1 c fit
Shoreline Length
SAV: not sure yes no
Sandbags: not sure yes o
Moratorium: n/a yes no
Photos: yes 0
Waiver Attached: yes no
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions k I-
Crit. Hab. yes / no
i- / IA
Adj. Wtr. Body 71 `C r_l nat man /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body -_ _- , t.L-1 t c i\ _Ccl'k _
%--1 4` I Ct C i i C ti' f ,.
RSV
1 /
Lti I �fl
z�.c x�I
t;,
(Scale: `i.k rc+� J
QQ 1�' XSee note on back regarding River Basin rules.
0Cc-�-'k i IC c t- L f JZ� f fc Sspi3C'
GD 't. -r r Pr
5' 4ww"-
Agent or AppAcant Printe Na0e
i < 7
Signature ** Please read compliance statement on back of permit ls;suil,iDate Expirat n e
Application Fee(s) Check # Local PI ningjurisaiction Rover File Name
Ili

ALF
A !'
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 23, 2006
N.C. DOT
Attn: Gregory Thorpe
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Attached is General Pen -nit #44779C- to replace existing 175' X 24' bridge with a 220' X 30'
bridge off SR 1414, at the Beaufort/Pitt County line, over Tranters Creek.
In order to validate this permit, please sign the permit as indicated. Retain the white copy for
your files and return the signed yellow and pink copies to us in the enclosed, self-addressed
envelope. If the signed pen -nit copies are not returned to this office before the initiation of
development, you will be working without authorization and will be subject to a Notice of
Violation and subsequent civil penalties.
We appreciate your early attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bill Arrington
Coastal Management Representative
BA/rcb
Enclosures
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Attention: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
February 17, 2006
X o -V 1&) 7 14
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application, CAMA General Permit Application, and
Buffer Authorization for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 90 over
Tranter's Creek on SR 1414 / SR 1556, in Beaufort & Pitt Counties. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1414(2), WBS 33389.1.1, TIP No. B-4022.
Please find enclosed the permit drawings, Pre -construction Notification (PCN), Categorical
Exclusion (CE), Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR), completed CAMA MP5 form for
CAMA General Application, and half-size plan sheets for the above referenced project. WBS
Element 33389.1.1 will be debited for $400.00 for the application of the subject project. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No.
90 on SR 141.4 / SR 1556 over Tranter's Creek in Beaufort & Pitt Counties. The project involves
replacement of the existing bridge structure with a 220 -foot box beam bridge at approximately
the same location and roadway elevation of the existing structure using top-down construction.
There will be 0.04 -acre of permanent impacts to wetlands adjacent to Tranter's Creek. Traffic
will be detoured off-site along surrounding roads, during construction.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: The project is located in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin (Hydrologic Unit
03020103). A best usage classification of "C SW NSW" has been assigned to Tranter's Creek
[DWQ Index # 28-103]. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS -I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS -II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project study area. Tranter's Creek is
not designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a national Wild and Scenic
River. Tranter's Creek is designated as a Public Trust Area and a Public Trust Shoreline under
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
Permanent Impacts: Tranter's Creek and adjacent wetlands will be impacted by the proposed
project. Construction of the proposed project will result in permanent impacts, including 0.006 -
acre of fill and 0.034 -acre of mechanized clearing (see permit drawings). In addition, a total less
than 0.001 -acre of surface water will be impacted from placement of bents in Tranter's Creek.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Temporary Impacts: No temporary impacts to jurisdictional resources will be necessary for the
construction of this project.
Utility Impacts: No impacts to jurisdictional resources will occur due to relocation of utilities in
the project area. Existing utility lines are in conflict with the proposed project; however, all
utility work will be conducted in upland areas and existing road fill.
Tar -Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin; therefore, the regulations pertaining to the
buffer rules apply. There will be a total of 10,025 ft2 of impacts to riparian buffers, 5,917 ft2 in
Zone 1 and 4,108 ft2 in Zone 2, due to construction of the new bridge. All practicable measures
to minimize impacts within buffer zones were followed. According to the buffer rules, bridges
are allowable. Uses designated as allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer provided
that there are no practical alternatives to the requested use pursuant to Item (8) of this Rule.
These uses require written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge consists of a steel plank deck on steel I -beams with an asphalt -wearing
surface. The substructure is composed of timber end bents and interior bents consisting of timber
caps on timber piles. The bridge can be removed without dropping components into Waters of
the United States during construction. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.
During project development, the National Marine Fisheries Service recommended restricting in -
water work to the dates of October 1" to February 15. However, Tranter's Creek is designated as
inland water, and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) did not recommend an in -
water work moratorium (See attached WRC Letter dated July 30, 2003). Therefore, no moratoria
will be applied to this project.
Federally Protected Species
As of January 29, 2003 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists eight federally protected
species for Beaufort and Pitt Counties (see Table 1). All biological conclusions remain valid for
each protected species. No species have been added or deleted from the list since the completion
of the CE (July 28, 2004).
Table 1. Federally rotected species of Beaufort and Pitt Counties
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucocephalus*t
Bald eagle
T(PFD)
Yes
May affect, not likely toadversely affect
Le idochel s kem ii*
Kem 's ridley sea turtle
E
No
No Effect
Trichechus manatus*t
West Indian Manatee
E
No
No Effect
Picoides borealis*t
Red -cockaded woodpecker
E
No
No Effect
Canis ru s*
Red wolf
EXP
Yes
N/A
L simachia as erulae olia*
Rough -leaved loosestrife
E
Yes
No Effect
Aesch nomene vir inica*
Sensitive 'ointvetch
T
No
No Effect
Elli do steinstansana*#
Tar spinymussel
E
No
No Effect
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
T (PFD) — Threatened "Proposed for Delisting".
EXP — Experimental, Protected only on Federal Lands.
NCDOT TIP B4022
* — species listed for Beaufort County
t — species lasted for Pitt County
Page 2 of 4

Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States". Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the project
study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is committed to incorporating
all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts.
Minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design these included:
• Use of an off-site detour during construction.
• Construction of a 45 -foot longer bridge
+ Best Management Practices will also be utilized during demolition of the existing
bridge and construction of the new bridge.
Mitigation
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for the unavoidable impacts to 0.04 acre of wetlands. A
copy of the EEP Acceptance Letter, dated January 31, 2006, is attached.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The
NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10,
pages 2020-2095, January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Water Quality Certification number 3403
will apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200, we are
providing copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality for their review.
Tar -Pamlico River Basin Buffer Authorization: NCDOT requests that the NC Division of Water
Quality review this application and issue a written approval for a Tar -Pamlico River Riparian
Buffer Authorization.
CAMA General: By copy of this letter, NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized
under a Coastal Area Management Act General Development Permit. The landowner receipts
are attached.
A copy of this application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/,oe/neu/pennit.htnzl
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Tyler Stanton at
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
NCDOT TIP B-4022
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Page 3 of 4

Cc W/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. Steve Sollad, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer
Cc W/o attachment:
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PDEA
NCDOT TIP B-4022
Page 4 of 4

•.
Office Use Only:
USACE Action ID No.
DWQ No.
Form Version March 05
(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: NW 23
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
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than I 1 by 17 -inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of proj
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4022
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Beaufort & Pitt Nearest Town: Washington
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): -77.1705 ON 35.6760 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Pamlico River
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: Rural with forested areas and scattered residential and
Page 2 of 9

ar
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of the existing bridge structure with a 220 -foot box beam bridge at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation of the existing structure using top-
down construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The bridge is considered to be structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete and the replacement will result in safer traffic operations.
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. N/A
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.
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.
Page 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Roadway fill and mechanized clearing
to widen approaches for safety.
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
I00 -year
Floodplain
( es/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
Sta16+24 — 18+43
Fill
Palustrine
yes
adjacent
0.006
Sta16+24 —18+43
Mechanized Clearing
Palustrine
yes
adjacent
0.034
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
0
0
Total Wetland Impact (acres)
- 0.040
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 5.52 in proiect
study area.
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 Impact
Impact
Length
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
0
0
Page 4 of 9

♦.
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
0.040
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
0
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres):
0
Wetland Impact (acres):
0.040
Open Water Impact (acres):
0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
0.040
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.
N/A
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.): N/A
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 may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower -impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
Page 5 of 9

techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Use of an off-site detour
during construction, construction of a 45 -foot longer bridge Best Management Practices will
also be utilized during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
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/newetlands/strmgide.html.
1. 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.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem
_Enhancement Prog-ram (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean
Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements.
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
Page 6 of 9

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.ne.us/wip/index.htin. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.040
Amount of Non -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
(Neuse), 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.
Page 7 of 9

Zone*
Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1
5,917
3 (2 for Catawba)
0
2
4,108
1.5
0
Total
10,025
0
W. Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or .0244, or .0260.
N/A
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. Roadway improvements will result in an
additional 0.107 -acre of impervious surface. Proposed Stormwater controls include: an off-site
detour; approach roadway drainage will be by sheet flow across 3:1 grassed shoulders; no deck
drains on bridge; deck drainage will be directed away from either ends of the bridge by Rutter
and drainage system, and then dispersed on rip rapped pads before entering the wetlands.
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
Page 8 of 9

f.
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:
N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw -down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Appilicant/Agent's Signature bate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-I. Be sure to complete all other
sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
Concrete Box Beam
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Tranter's Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
I Al
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
x Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 175'
(2) Width of existing bridge 24'
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge 7.5'
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
All will be removed
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes x No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
Revised 03/95
g. Length of proposed bridge 220'
h. Width of proposed bridge 30'
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
III
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes x No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
8.0'
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? x Yes No
If yes, explain Height increases 0.5. Three piers in
the water will replace four existing piers in water
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes x No
If yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard concerning
their approval?
Yes x No.
If yes, please provide record of their action.

-
J.
Form DCM-MP-5
2. CULVERTS . N/A
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
b. Number of culverts proposed
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a ' part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
g. Width of proposed culvert
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
Revised 03/95
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes x No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within: NO
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
x Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 50'
(2) Width of area to be excavated 50'
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 465 cubic yards
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves any
excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
to be determined by contractor
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
to be determined by contractor
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area? N/A
Yes _ No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes x No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes x No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
If yes,, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.

Form DCM-MP-5
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below MHW
or NWL? Yes x No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
Coastal Wetlands SAVs x Other Wetlands
If yes,
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? NCDOT's Sediment and
Erosion Control Policies will apply
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic dredge)?
Heavy highway construction equipment
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes x No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
(1) Length of area to be filled 35' h.
(2) Width of area to be filled 7'
(3) Purpose of fill roadway approaches for
additional saftey
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? x Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled +/- 575'
(2) Width of area to be filled +/- 45'
(3) Purpose of fill Roadway
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
x Yes No
If yes, explain in detail
EEP will handle mitigation
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? x Yes No
If yes, explain in detail All utility work will be
conducted in upland areas and existing road fill
c. Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes x No
.If yes, explain in detail
d. Will the proposed project require any work channels?
Yes x No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
Revised 03/95
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
Yes x No
If yes, explain in detail
U L�x T
Applicant or Project Name
Signatuiir
Date

Ekoem
ag`e'ment
PROGRAM
January 31, 2006
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
RECEIVED
FEB 3 2006
omsiOM CIF O'N1AYS
PMA-OFFM OF NAiMONIMM
B-4022, Bridge Number 90 over Tranter's Creek on SR 1414/SR 1556,
Beaufort and Pitt Counties
The purpose of this'letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
will provide the compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated January 10, 2006, the impacts are located in CU
03020103 of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin in both the Northern Outer and Northern Inner Coastal
Plain (NOCP/NICP) Eco -Regions, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetlands: 0.04 acre
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22,
2003. Mitigation for this project will be provided in accordance with the above referenced
agreement. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation
to offset the impacts associated with this project by the etid of the MOA year in which this project
is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri -Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon
at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. William Wescott, USACE-Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4022
Jzmt rtY, ... .. Prot-", 0"r-ftGi,�& N®"C'D��NR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

PROGRAM
January 31, 2006
Mr. William Wescott
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dew Mr. Wescott:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B4022, Bridge Number 90 over Tranter's Creek on SR 1414/SR 1556,
Beaufort and Pitt Counties; Tar -Pamlico River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03010203); Northern Outer and Inner Coastal Plain (NOCP/NICP) Eco -
Regions
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the unavoidable impact
associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request
letter dated January 10, 2006, the project will impact 0.04 acre of riverine wetlands.
EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation up
to a 21 ratio to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in
which the permit for this project is issued, in accordance with Section X of the Memorandum of
Agreement between the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, and N. C. Department of Transportation (Tri -Party MOA), signed on July 22,
2003- Compensatory riverine wetland mitigation assets available include, but are not
limited to, the Grimesland, Huskanaw, and Mildred Woods mitigation sites.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Hamman at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4319
North Carclis Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-715-NCBENR
0476 / www.nceep.net

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
i item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print y6ur name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
2.851 S
A. Signature
X ElAgent
rl/v� ❑ Addressee
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
A) -/.3-D(0
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
'®T.ertified Mail O Express Mail
❑ Registered O Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 7005 11,60 0001 4339 6376
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ;

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box 0
/v c -D 6 —(
j
f?,pK PAmLt'cb
fit.

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print yoLr name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to:
143o L cA W4 IN,
/85-70
A. Si ature
X ❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
B. eceived by (Panted Name) C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from item 17 `❑lyes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service labeq 7005 116 0 0001 4339 6345
i PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ;,'

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
usps
Permit No. G-10
0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box 0
N c -b D 7-
-p D 15 8 -7
wc 27;83�
ii �Lm bc o
%...I H.1A .... H.I.: aj

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
' ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to:
A. Signature
X �✓I/d/
0 Agent
B, Received tV(PrintedName) C. Date of Delivery
10-13-<o6
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No
3. Service Type
Certified Mail O Express Mail
0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise
0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 7005 1160 0001 4339 6352
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box *
/' ( c- -C) C) ---
'-p-
'-p D.Box i5b7
7
-------- ----------- ----------

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
139-Y.A
)D)2) (
. JI> rJ cS
AL� �j0fzO ( Pj C-
29
-
Z$e"'1 S
A. Signature
X . /( ❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
B. Received by (Printed NAme) C. Date of Delivery
10-13
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3.Serv' a Type
Certified Mail ❑Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Exba Fee) ❑ yes
2. Article Number
(rransfer from service labeq 7005 116 0 0001 4339 6369
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595 -02-M-1540

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box 0
/Y C � D T
/-59'7
vj
Z-7
I i Hi It t it i I il i 1 " i i 11 1 1 Wye, 3D
r.Z? h! : -: - :: -:.. !:: 1 . . . . . .
h1i ... 11,01...

CATEGORICAL* EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FOk
TIP Project No.
B-4022
State Project No.
8.2151001
WBS No.
33389.1.1
Federal Project No.
BRZ-1414(2)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Beaufort County Bridge No. 90 on
SR 1414 over Tranters Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge 200 feet
long and 28 feet wide. The cross section will include two 11 -foot lanes and 3 -foot
offsets. The west approach will be approximately 342 feet long and the east
approach will be approximately 406 feet long. The approach cross section will
include 11 -foot lanes and 6 -foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction (see Figure 1). The roadway will be designed with the criteria for a
60 -mile per hour design speed.
B. Purpose and Need:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires that a bridge have a
sufficiency rating of less than 50 paired with being either structurally deficient
and/or functionally obsolete in order to qualify for the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Bridge Maintenance Unit records
indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 45 out of a possible 100 for a new
structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient with a structure appraisal
of 2 out of 9 according to FHWA standards.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
C. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights

C.
Adding or upgrading guardrail
d.
Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e.
Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f.
Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g.
h.
Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
Making minor roadway realignment
i.
Channelizing traffic
j.
Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k.
Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1.
Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
G) Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at -grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
C. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where.the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning andlocated on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
2

protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. �Pecial Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 825,000
Riot of Way $ 29,000
$ 854,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current -
400
Year 2025 -
700
TTST -
1 %
Dual -
2%
Accidents: In a check of a recent three-year period, no accidents were recorded.
Design Speed: 60 miles per hour
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
School Busses: There are four school bus crossings per day at this location. Re
routing will be manageable.
Division Office Comments: The Division concurs with the recommended
alternate.
Bridge Demolition: No fill should result from demolition of the bridge.
Offsite Detour: NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge
Re lacement Projects considers multiple project vans les beginning with e
additional time traveled by the average road user resulting from the offsite detour.
The offsite detour would utilize Pitt County SR 1550, SR 1551, and Beaufort
County SR 1416, and SR 1001. The duration of the project will be approximately
six months. The detour for the average road user would result in 9 minutes
additional travel time (8 miles additional travel). According to the Guidelines,
these criteria fall within a range where NCDOT will consider an onsite detour. At
this location wetland impacts would result from an onsite detour. The School
Transportation Director, Emergency Services Director, and Division have all
stated that an offsite detour is acceptable. For these reasons NCDOT has chosen
to detour traffic offsite.
Design Exception: A design exception is not anticipated for this project
3

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or ❑
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ❑
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ❑
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X.
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activitiesT ❑ -X
(7)
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
❑
X
(8)
Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
x
(9)
Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
❑
X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
YES
NO
(10)
If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
❑
X
(11)
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
❑
X
(12)
Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
4

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

(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X ❑
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ❑
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre -history? ❑ X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of ❑
1966)?
X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non -recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation ❑
Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a componentof or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System --of Wild and ❑
Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
X
X
Response to Question 2: Habitat is present for the rough leaved loostrife but the species
itself is not present. A biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect has been reached and US Fish & Wildlife Service concurs (see attached letter).
An additional survey will be conducted if the project is not let to construction by June
2009.
Response to Question 3: The National Marine Fisheries Service has indicated that
Tranters Creek supports spawning and nursery habitat for anadramous fish. They have
indicated that impacts to wetlands must be minimized to protect habitat and that a
moratorium on in water construction will be required from February 16 to September 30
of any given year (see attached letter). By replacing on the existing location NCDOT has
insured the alignment with least impact. Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadramous
Fish Passage will be implemented on this pr ject.
Z

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
WBS No.
Federal -Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-4022
8.2151001
33389.1.1
BRZ-1414(2)
The purpose of this project is to replace Beaufort County Bridge No. 90 on
SR 1414 over Tranters Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge 200 feet
long and 28 feet wide. The cross section will include two 11 -foot lanes and 3 -foot
offsets. The west approach will be approximately 342 feet long and the east
approach will be approximately 406 feet long. The approach cross section will
include 11 -foot lanes and 6 -foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction (see Figure 1). The roadway will be designed with the criteria for a
60 mile per hour design speed.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Approved:
-,)& 'L,4 -
Date
Date
�l -Z1-,�4
Date
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
f..
Assistant Manager"
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Planning`Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
get Development Engineer
ect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
71&lG)vy
Date
N��5
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Beaufort County
Bridge No. 90 on SR 1414
Over Tranters Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1414(2)
State Project No. 8.2151001
W.B.S. No. 33389.1.1
T.I.P. No. B4022
Roadway Design Unit, Construction Unit — Anadramous Fish
A moratorium on "in -water" work will be enforced from February 16 to
September 30 of any given year. The Let Schedule of this project should be
coordinated with the moratorium.
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadramous Fish Passage will be implemented in
the design and construction of this project.
PDEA Office of Natural Environment — Bridge Demolition
There should be no fill resulting from the demolition of Bridge No. 90.
PDEA Office Of Natural Environment — Rough -leaved loostrife
Habitat is present for the Rough -leaved loosstrife. If the project does not let to
construction by June 2009 a re -survey will be required.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
July 2004

1001
/ Beaufort County
t Pin" Gmm CIL
142
' 149
56
r
1 1410
} 3 • F 26� .,� 414 / .�\ 84 1
_/ - " 88
l 1415 • Cmrwo� '� 141d
Pitt County
119
90
n 1.4
1001 f
1414 f Tmrdm crwA Ch. 1410
T! 89 >� S
/ i
12
1
1001
•� J
t.
~• 1410 1
125
Studied Detour Route
Th
'
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
'
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I
cw rn,
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BEAUFORT COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 90 ON SR 1414
OVER TRANTERS CREEK
B-4022
Figure 1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
October 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM
Division of Historical Resources
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ema�t
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 90 on SR 1414 over Tranters Creek, B-4022,
Beaufort County, ER03-0919
On September 4, 2003, Sarah McBride, our preservation specialist for transportation projects,
met with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of
the minds concerning the above project. We reported on our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. DOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we
offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of historic structures located within
the areas of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be
conducted for this project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
www.hno.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone] • 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Ralcigh NC 276994617 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Ralcieh NC 27699-1617 [phone] • 715.4801
I
R �cF
�G
LL
IQS
SNBR�G�
Division of Historical Resources
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ema�t
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 90 on SR 1414 over Tranters Creek, B-4022,
Beaufort County, ER03-0919
On September 4, 2003, Sarah McBride, our preservation specialist for transportation projects,
met with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of
the minds concerning the above project. We reported on our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. DOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we
offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of historic structures located within
the areas of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be
conducted for this project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
www.hno.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone] • 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Ralcigh NC 276994617 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Ralcieh NC 27699-1617 [phone] • 715.4801
I

October 28, 2003
Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill -Easley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.

01, 0
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
a
I .
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
r
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
October 8, 2003
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr. PE
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch '
North --Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAH Fisheries) has reviewed the Natural Systems Technical
Reports (NSTR) for five bridge replacement projects identified in your July 11, 2003, letter. These
projects are scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2006. We offer the following project specific
comments and recommendations:
B-4311 would replace Bridge No. 63 for the SR 1337 crossing of Headquarters Creek in Warren
County. No resources for which NOAA Fisheries is responsible will be impacted by this project.
B-4310 would replace Bridge No. 62 for the SR 1337 crossing of Headquateres Creek in Warren
County. No resources for which NOAA Fisheries is responsible will be impacted by this project.
B-4115 wouldreplace Bridge No. 57 for the SR 1419 crossing of Sycamore Creek in Franklin County.
No resources for which NOAA Fisheries is responsible will be impacted by this project.
B-4114 would replace Bridge No. 151 for the SR 1146 crossing of Camping Creek in Franklin County.
No resources for which NOAA Fisheries is responsible would be impacted by this project.
4022---ould replace Bridge No. 90 for the SR 1414 crossing of Tranters Creels in Beaufort County.
Tranters Creek is a tributary of the Tar and Pamlico Rivers. Because spawning and nursery habitat for
estuarine and anadromous fishes may be adversely impacted by replacement of Bridge No. 90,
measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands should be included in the project
plans. In the absence of adequate fishery resource protection and conservation measures, NOAA
Fisheries would recommend against Department of the Army authorization of these projects.
Therefore, the following provisions should be incorporated into the project plans:

1. Following impact avoidance and minimization, unavoidable wetland losses shall be offset through
implementation of a compensatory mitigation plan that has been approved by the Corps of
Engineers and in consultation with NOAH Fisheries.
2. All construction related activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to those systems and their associated flora and fauna.
3. In order to protect anadromous and estuarine fishery resources that may utilize the project areas
as spawning or nursery habitat, work in the waters of the creek shall be restricted to the period
Octoberl to February 15 of any year unless prior approval is granted by the Corps of Engineers
following consultation with the NOAA Fisheries. We recommend contacting tha North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries, Washington Field Office, for site information on other species that
may be present and for further refinement of construction periods.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Related questions or comments should
be directed to the attention of Mr. Ronald S. Sechler at our Beaufort Office, 101 Pivers Island Road,
Beaufort, North Carolina, or at [phone].
Sincerely,
Miles M. Croom
ti
;jam- Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

QPP��ENT Or ryF
O 9
N
9
�4ACH 3 'ap
\ u,rM
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
July 8, 2004
Phil Harris, III
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail -Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Hams:
! RECEIVED
JUL 12 2004
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PDEA-OFFICE OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
This letter is in response to your letter of June 28, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 91 on SR 1414 over Tranters Creek
in Pitt and Beaufort Counties (TIP No. B-4022) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the federally protected bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucodephalus) and rough -leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia). In addition, NCDOT has deternuned that the project will have no
effect on the federally protected Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), West Indian
manatee (Trichechus manatus), red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), sensitive
jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). These
comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangerr'd Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a survey for rough -leaved loosestrife and bald
-eagles was conducted at the project site on June 3, 2004. The eagle survey extended to a one-
half mile radius around the project area. No specimens of rough -leaved loosestrife and no bald
eagles or nests were observed. Based on the information provided and other information
available, the Service concurs with your determination that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect rough -leaved loosestrife and the bald eagle. Also, due to the lack of
habitat, the Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on
Kemp's ridley sea turtle, West Indian manatee, red -cockaded woodpecker, sensitive jointvetch
and Tar spinymussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Tom Aug urger
Ecological Services Acting Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, U SEPA, Raleigh, NC

NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 90
ON SR 1414 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
BEAUFORT AND PITT COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA
T I . P No B-4022
State Project No. 8.2151001
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1414(2)
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 02 -ES -03
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
OF NORTH C,y'q
hP1 l��
May 2003

NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 90
on SR 1414 over Tranters Creek
Beaufort/Pitt Counties, North Carolina
(B-4022)
(State Project No. 8.2151001)
[Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1414(2)]
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 02 -ES -03
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
E 1 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 South New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
May 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description..................................................................... ..1
1.2 Purpose....................................................................................................1
1.3 Methodology............................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications............................................................................................4
1.5 Definitions................................................................................................4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES.................................................................................... 4
2.1 Soils........................................................................................................5
2.2 Water Resources.......................................................................................5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES......................................................................................... 8
3.1 Terrestrial Communities.....................................................:.......................8
3.2 Aquatic Communities...............................................................................11
3.3 Summary of Potential Impacts..................................................................13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS................................................................................14
4.1 Waters of the United States.....................................................................14
5.0 Permits and Consultations................................................................................18
5.1 Mitigation............................................................................................... 20
5.3 Protected Species ................................................... ............................22
5.4 State Protected Species........................................................................... 28
6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................29
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plant Communities Within the Project Study Area..................................10
Table 2. Jurisdictional Areas Within the Project Study Area................................17
Table 3. Activites That May Be Subject to the Buffer Rules.................................20
Table 4. Federally Listed Species for Beaufort and Pitt Counties, NC ....................22
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern (FSC)...................................................:....28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. Location Map.....................................................................................2
Figure 2. Wetland and Stream Location Map.........................................Appendix A
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Wetland and Stream Location Map and Data Forms

Replacement of Bridge No. 90 on SR 1414 over Tranters Creek
Beaufort and Pitt Counties, North Carolina
(B-4022)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
90 on SR 1414 over the Tranters Creek in Beaufort and Pitt Counties, North Carolina
(Figure 1). Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) was provided with a project study area
depicted on an aerial photograph and was asked to complete a Natural Resource Technical
Report in order to assess the existing environmental conditions of the identified project
study area. B-4022 is located approximately 0.7 mile [1.1 kilometers (km)] west of
Leggetts Crossroads, Beaufort County, NC. The project study area for B-4022 is
approximately 25.6 acres [10.4 hectares (ha)] in aerial extent based on the map provided
by the NCDOT.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of existing natural resources in the
project study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an
assessment of natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions
of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an
evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from construction; 3) a preliminary
determination of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on the mapped
project study area and does not take into account final design or construction limits.
1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle
maps were consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape
characteristics. These USGS quadrangles include Leggetts Crossroads (USGS 1979). The
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map of the same quadrangle was reviewed prior to the
initiation of field studies. Additional information on soils, topography, and physiography
was obtained from the Soil Survey bf Beaufort County, North Carolina (USDA 1995) and
Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina (USDA 1974). Recent aerial photography
1

E 802026.03/location. dwg
6
A1 17
0 ?
tv
it
J
J
I. co R,Afi1fC
q
`2
It
-----------
41,
%
C
1414)
-7
-2
--Cam-,
Bridge 8-4022
NV
41
-A
A
C49
A
Cem
'A
%
%
1000 0 1000 2000
Feet
!%
—2 Source: USGS Digital Raster Graphilcs,
Leggetts Crossroads Quadrangle (1976)
. 7k
L)
Location Map Figure: 1
Environmental Bridge No. 90 Over Tranters Creek Project: EF102026.03
Services, Inc. Beaufort and Pitt Counties, North Carolina
(TIP B-4022) Date: May 2003

(1:2400) furnished by the NCDOT was also used in the evaluation of the project study
area.
The aerial photograph served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands.
Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field
verified.
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. 0 968).
Surface waters crossed by the project study area were visited and evaluated to ascertain
physical characteristics. All stream channel segments within the project study area were
classified using the Natural Stream Channel Classification System (Rosgen 1996) and
classification scheme established by Cowardin et aL 1979. Water quality information for
Tranters Creek within the project study area were derived from available sources provided
through the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), formerly the
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) [DENR. 1999,
DWQ 2003a, DWQ 2003b]. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to'evaluate the
DENR data.
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USA(rE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Jurisdictional
wetlands and surface waters within the project study area were field -delineated and GPS
mapped (Figure 2 in Appendix A). The USACE and DWQ field review was held for 1 May
2003.
The most current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list (29 January 2003) of federal
protected species with ranges extending into Beaufort and Pitt Counties was reviewed
prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting
occurrences of federal or state -listed species were consulted prior to commencing the field
investigation. Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were documented, and
expected population distributions were determined through observations of available
habitat and review of supportive documentation found in Martof et al. (1980), Webster et
aL (1985), Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Palmer and Braswell (1995), and National
Geographic (1999).
3

1.4 Qualifications
The field investigation for B-4022 was conducted on 24 March 2003 by ESI biologists Gail
Tyner, Lauren Cobb, and Steve Kichefski. Ms. Tyner has a B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries
Science and more than five years of professional experience and has been certified by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols. Ms. Cobb has a
B.S. in Natural Resources and more than three years of professional experience and has
been certified by the DWQ in Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols. Mr. Kichefski has a B.S.
in Environmental Science and one year of professional experience.
1.5 Definitions
The project study area is located 0.7 mile (1 .1 km) west of the intersection of SR 1414
and SR 1411, near the Leggetts Crossroads community in Beaufort County, North
Carolina. The project study area is approximately 2,800 feet (853 m) in length and
approximately 400 feet (122 m) in width (Figure 2 in Appendix A).
The project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 km) on all sides of the
project study area.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project study area is located in the outer Coastal Plain physiographic province of North
Carolina and is part of the Yorktown and Duplin Formation, undivided (NCGS 1985). The
Yorktown Formation is characterized by an underlying layer of fossiliferous clay with
varying amounts of fine-grained sand and shell material commonly concentrated in lenses.
The Duplin Formation is characterized as shelly, medium to course grained sand, sandy
marl, and limestone. The project study area is more characteristic of the Yorktown
Formation; the Duplin Formation is more prominent south of the project study area.
Topography in the project study area is characterized as flat, but with low, gently sloping
areas along drainageways. Somewhat steeper slopes are found along the edges of stream
and river floodplains. Elevations within the project study area range from 25 feet (8 m)
above mean sea level (MSL) to 10 feet (3 m) above MSL along Tranters Creek (USGS
1979). Topographic mapping for the project study area can be found in Figure 1.
The project vicinity and the project study area are rural in nature and dominated by
anthropogenic activities including residential and agricultural land uses.
21

2.1 Soils
Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors that include past geologic
activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal
activity, age of sediments, climate, and topographic position. General soil associations
incorporate areas with distinctive patterns of soils, relief, and drainage (USDA 1995). Two
types of general landscape positions can be identified across the project study area:
floodplains and uplands.
The project study area is located within the Leaf-Lenior-Craven association in Beaufort
County and in the Bibb-Portsmout h association in Pitt County (USDA 1974, USDA 1995).
Each general soil association contains one or more mapping units occupying a unique
natural landscape position. Mapping units are named for the major soil or soils within the
unit, but may contain minor inclusions of other soils. There are six soil mapping units
located within the project study area.
Hydric soil mapping units within the project study area include Leaf silt loam (Typic
Albaquults), Muckalee soils (Typic Fluvaquents), Portsmouth loam (Typic Umbraquults),
and the Swamp mapping unit which indicates soils that are under water for most of the
year (USDA 1974, USDA 1991, USDA 1995). Non -hydric soil mapping units include
Craven (0 to 1 percent slopes) (Aquic Hapludults) and Lakeland sand (0 to 6 percent
slopes) (Typic Quartzipsamments) (USDA 1974, USDA 1995).
2.2 Water Resources
Water Quality Classification
The project study area is located within sub -basin 030306 of the Tar-Pamilco River Basin
(DENR 1999) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03020103 (USGS 1974). Best usage
classifications and stream index numbers (SIN) follow Classifications and Water Quality
Standards published for the Tar-Pamiico River Basin IDEM 1993, DWQ 2003a).
One stream is located within the project study area, Tranters Creek (SIN 28-103). Physical
characteristics of this stream are provided in Section 4.1. Tranters Creek carries a best
use classification of C Sw NSW from its source to the Tar River (DWQ 2003a). Class C
waters are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life (including
propagation and survival), and wildlife. Secondary recreation is any activity involving
human body contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis. Class Sw swamp
waters are waters with low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen, and high organic
content. Class NSW waters are waters that a -re nutrient sensitive and require limitations
on nutrient inputs.
A

Tranters Creek is not registered as a National Wild and Scenic River nor a N.C. State
Natural and Scenic River. There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High
Quality Waters (HOW) within the 030306 sub -basin (DWQ 2003a). There are no WS I or
WS II waters within the project study area or 3.0 miles (4.8 km) upstream or downstream
(DWQ 2003a).
There are no surface waters within the 30306 sub -basin listed as impaired on the N.C. 303
(d) List of Impaired Waters. Tranters Creek was listed as an impaired waterbody in the
1994 basin plan (DENR 1999). Tranters Creek was resampled in 1997 and received a
Good -Fair biological rating and is no longer considered impaired (DENR 1999, DWQ 2000).
Water Quality Information
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). The nearest benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station
for Tranters Creek is located more than 10.0 miles (16.1 km) downstream of the project
study area at SR 1403. This monitoring site (B-1) was .sampled four times between 1983
and 1997 (DENR 1999). In 1983 and 1986 monitoring site B-1 received a Fair
bioclassification rating. In 1989 and 1997 the same monitoring site received a Good -Fair
bioclassification rating.
Another measure of water quality used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the
fish communities. No NCIBI fish community sampling has occurred on Tranters Creek
(DENR 1999).
Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffers
Since the project study area is within the Tar -Pamlico River Drainage Basin, jurisdictional
surface waters are subject to the Tar -Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules
apply to a 50 -feet (15 m) wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to surface waters in the
Tar -Pamlico River Drainage Basin. This includes intermittent streams, perennial streams,
lakes, ponds, and estuaries that are depicted on either USGS topographic maps or county
soil survey maps, but does not include jurisdictional wetlands (non -surface waters)
regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Tranters Creek is mapped on the
USGS and soils mapping, therefore is subject to the Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules are
discussed in Section 5.0.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
"those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity" (NMFS 1999). An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed
action on EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 (g) mandatory contents include: a description
f

cf the proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the Federal action
agency's views on those effects; and proposed mitigation, if applicable. An adverse effect
includes any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR
600.810 adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption),
indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat -
wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequencesof actions.
During the agency review period for the proposed project, the USACE makes the
determination of whether or not a proposed project "may adversely affect" EFH. This
determination by the USACE is submitted to the NMFS for their review and comment.
NMFS will then determine if additional consultation is necessary regarding the proposed
project or if they concur with the USACE's decision. EFH designations to date have been
limited to marine and estuarine species and as such, EFH is not expected to occur within
the project study area.
Permitted Dischargers
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater point source discharges
include municipal (city and county) Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP), industrial
WWTP, small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial
offices, residential subdivisions, and individual homes (DWQ 2003b). Stormwater point
source discharges include stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater
discharges associated with certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North
Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to
DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
There are no permitted dischargers within 5.0 miles (8.0 km) of the project study area
(DWQ 2003b).
Evidence of non -point source discharges observed within the project study area includes
stormwater runoff from roads, residential areas and agricultural practices.
Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled
Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs), as well as guidelines for
calculating maximum potential fill in the stream resulting from demolition. The
superstructure of Bridge No. 90 consists of a steel plank floor on 1 -beams. The
substructure is composed of bents and end bents with timber caps on timber piles at
varying centers. No fill expected from the demolition of Bridge No. 90.
7

This project will most likely be classified as a Case 3 by the BMP's for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (NCDOT 1999). In which there are no special restrictions beyond those
outlined by BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters. However, all work potentially
affecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with the agency having jurisdiction.
Tranters Creek within the project study area is not designated as an Anadromous Fish
Spawning Area (NCGIA 2001).
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction -related activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) can minimize impacts
during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas.
Other impacts to water quality such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream -side vegetation or increased
shade due to the construction of the bridge, and changes in stormwater flows due to
changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels, should be
minimal. Due to the limited amount of overall change anticipated in the surrounding areas,
water quality impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
In -stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic
resources/organisms.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Existing Vegetation Patterns
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape -level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Logging, farming, selective cutting, and natural succession after fires, farming,
hurricanes, and other disturbances have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from Schafale
and Weakley (1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local variations within the
project study area. Four natural communities (small stream swamp, bottomland
hardwoods, mixed pine/hardwoods, and pine woodlands) occur within the project study
area and two additional communities (maintained/disturbed and agricultural) are the result
of human activities.
N.

Small Stream Swamp - The small stream swamp designation corresponds to the Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) natural community of Schafale and
Weakley (1990). Small stream swamp is found on the floodplain of Tranters Creek within
the project study area. The canopy contains bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and a mix
of broad-leaved deciduous species including swamp tupelo (Nyssa bif/ora), red maple (Acer
rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). Understory species include ironwood (Carpinus caro/iniana),
Amercian holly (ilex opaca), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea palustris),
and red maple. Shrubs are variable and include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora). Vines such as greenbrier (Smilax spp.) are common, but herbs are
typically sparse and may include giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Bottomiand Hardwood - The bottomland hardwood community type is found within two
depressional features located in the southwest quadrant of the project study area. The
canopy consists of sweetgum, red maple, swamp tupelo, tulip popular (Liriodendron
tulipifera), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxiil, and river birch (Betula nigra).
Understory species consists of ironwood and saplings of canopy species. Vines such as
greenbrier are common and the herbaceous layer is dominated by giant cane.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood - The mixed pine/hardwood community type is found in the
northeast quadrant of the project study area. The canopy consists of water oak, loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The understory species consist
of American holly, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and horse sugar (Symplocos
tinctoria). The shrub layer consists of highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) and
bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra). The herbaceous layer is sparse and contains partridge berry
(Mitchella repens) and in lower areas wool -grass (Scirpus cyperinus) and soft rush (Juncus
effusus) are common.
Pine Woodland - The pine woodland community type occurs in the southeast quadrant of
the project study area. This community type is a pine plantation that has moderate
hardwood encroachment. The canopy consists of loblolly pine. The understory layer
consists of sweetgum, red maple, and tulip poplar. Shrub layers consist of water oak,
musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), highbush blueberry, American holly, wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera) and scattered American beech. Vines consists of greenbrier and wild
grape (Vitis rotundifolia). The herbaceous layer is sparse and contains partridge berry and
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
Agricultural Land - Agricultural land is used for the cultivation of row crops such as
peanuts (Arachis sp.). Agricultural land covers a small portion of the land within the project
study area and occupies small areas located near the eastern and western ends of the
project study area.
9

Maintained/Disturbed Land - Maintained/disturbed land includes areas with disturbed
vegetation and/or soils with man-made structures including buildings, roadways,
powerlines, maintained yards, and areas where other human activities dominate.
Ornamental trees, shrubs, and grasses intermix with native hardwoods and invasive
species in an anthropogenic landscape setting. Species found in .the residential areas
include black willow (Salix nigra) and Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana). Species found
along the roadsides include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Carolina geranium
(Geranium carolinianum), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), white clover (Trifolium repens),
Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), fescue (Festuca sp.), mouse ear chickweed (Stel/aria
media), and common blue violet (Viola papilioacea). Species found in the powerline right-
of-way include broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), water oak, wax myrtle, honeysuckle, American holly
and bitter gallberry.
Potential Plant Community Impacts
The plant communities within the project study area were mapped on the aerial photograph
base and field verified. A summary of the coverage of each community within the project
study area is presented in Table 1. The open water area attributed to the Tranters Creek
channel [1.32 acres (0.53 ha)] and impervious road surface [0.06 acres (0.02 ha)] are not
included in this plant community assessment.
Table 1. Plant Communities Within the Project Study Area.
Plant Community
Area
Acres (hectares)
% of Project Study Area'
Small Stream Swamp
2.50 (1.01)
9.8
Bottomland Harwood
3.91 (1.58)
15.3
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
4.04(l.64)
15.8
Pine Woodland
5.00 (2.03)
19.5
Agricultural Land
3.18 (1.29)
12.4
Maintained/Disturbed Land
5.62 (2.28)
21.9
Totals':
24.25 (9.82)
94.7
a Project Study Area includes open water area attributed to the Tranters Creek channel [1.32 acres (0.54 ha)]
(5.2 percent) and impervious road surface [0.06 acre (0.02 ha)] (0.2 percent) not included in this plant
community assessment.
The four natural plant communities account for 60.4 percent [15.45 acres (6.26 ha)] of
the project study area. The majority of the forested plant communities occur in the
northeast and southeast quadrants. In order to avoid/minimize impacts to forest
communities construction activities should be limited to maintained/disturbed and
agricultural land to the greatest exteht possible.
10

Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Most of the
terrestrial wildlife species occurring in the project study area are typically adapted to life in
fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts should be minor. The natural community
coverage within the project study area provides some cover and food and allows animals
to travel between different habitats.
The only mammal evidence directly observed within the project study area was for white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Other mammals expected to occur within the project
study area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), and beaver (Castor canadensis).
The only terrestrial reptile observed within the project study area was a skink (Eumeces
sp.). Other terrestrial amphibians and reptiles expected to occur within the project study
area include Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhouseil, southern cricketfrog (Acris gryllus), green
treefrog (Hyla cinerea), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and black racer (Coluber
cons tric tor) .
Terrestrial bird species observed within the project study area .include pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Other species expected to occur within the
project study area include downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), chimney swift
(Chaetura pelagica), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and
northern parula (Parula americana).
No wading birds were observed within the project study area. Wading birds that may be
expected within the project study area include green heron (Butorides virescens) and great
blue heron (Ardea herodias).
No waterfowl were observed within the project study area. Waterfowl species that are
expected to occur within the project study area include wooduck (Aix sponsa).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitats located within the project study area are limited to Tranters Creek and
portions of the adjacent small stream swamp where intermittent flooding is evident. No
distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic vegetation were observed in the
channel during the field investigation.
11

Visual observation and limited sampling of stream banks and channel within the project
study area were conducted along Tranters Creek to document the aquatic community.
Aquatic Wildlife
Due to the depth of Tranters Creek, no fish sampling was conducted. Fish species that are
expected to found in Tranters Creek are those that prefer slow moving streams and
swamps and a bottom dominated by mud and sand. These species include American eel
(Angui(a rostrata), eastern mud minnow (Umbra pygmaea), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), channel catfish (lctalurus punctatus), yellow bullhead (L natalis), pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), flier (Centrarchus
macropterus), bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), and swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme). Game fish typically found in
habitats present in the .project study area include such species as chain pickerel (Esox
niger), redfin pickerel (E. americanus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus).
Due to the depth of Tranters Creek, limited benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was
conducted. These surveys included log washes, limited bottom sampling, and walking all
streambanks in the project study area to locate freshwater mussel middens. No mussel
middens were observed on the banks of Tranters Creek within the project study area.
Freshwater mussels documented within the project study area included the paper pondshell
(Utterbackia imbecillis). Log washes and limited bottom sampling conducted within the
channel of the Tranters Creek produced various aquatic macroinvertebrates. Taxa
collected were identified to order or family using McCafferty (1998). Several species of
conspicuous aquatic macroinvertebrate species were observed during stream surveys or
other field work. Mollusks documented from project study area include pointed campeloma
(Campeloma decisum), a freshwater snail (Gastropoda: Physidae), and fingernail clams
(Bivalvia: Sphaeriidae). Crustaceans observed in the project study area include sow bugs
(Isopoda), scuds (Amphipoda), and grass shrimp (Decopoda). Other macroinvertebrates
documented within the project study area include segmented worms (Oligochaeta) and
leaches (Hirudinea), as well as aquatic insects or larvae including skimmer larvae (Odonata:
Macromiidae), water boatmen (Hemiptera: Corixidae), predaceous diving beetles
(Coleoptera: Dytiscidae), perlodid stoneflies (Plecoptera: Perlodidae), shore bugs
(Plecoptera: Saldidae), and noctuid moth larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
Streams within the project study area provide riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of
amphibians and aquatic reptiles. Swamps within the project study area provide additional
aquatic habitat, especially for breeding amphibians. No aquatic amphibians were observed
within the project study area. Aquatic amphibians and reptiles expected within the project
study area include bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog (Rana clamitans), southern
leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern mud
12

turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), Florida cooter (Pseudemys floridana), spotted turtle
(Clemmys guttata), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), and cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon ,oiscivorus) .
3.3 Summary of Potential Impacts
Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of Bridge No. 90 is expected to involve minor impacts to the terrestrial
communities located within the project study area. Alternatives for the replacement of
Bridge No. 90 have not been developed at the time of this report. The replacement of the
existing structure in place will reduce permanent impacts to plant communities and limit
community fragmentation. Impacts resulting from bridge replacement are generally limited
to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments.
Due to the anticipated lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement should not result in significant loss or displacement of known
terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement corridors should not be significantly
impacted by the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the project study area are
generally acclimated to fragmented landscapes, and the bridge replacement should not
create any additional detrimental conditions within the project study area.
Aquatic Communities
The replacement of Bridge No. 90 will likely cause temporary impacts to the aquatic
communities in and around the project study area. Potential impacts to down -stream
aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging Tranters Creek to maintain regular flow and
stream integrity. Support structures should be designed to avoid wetland or open water
habitats whenever possible. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitats from
increased sediment during construction should be reduced by limiting in -stream work to an
absolute minimum, except for the removal of the portion of the sub -structure below the
water. Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating
silt curtain. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 ft (15 m) from the stream
channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order to
minimize the chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BDR) will follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce
impacts during all construction phases.
Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during the bridge replacement project. No
long-term impacts are expected to result from this project. Resident aquatic species may
be displaced during construction activities; however, anticipated impacts are expected to
be minor and temporary.
13

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, wetlands are
also considered "Waters of the United States" and are subject to jurisdictional
consideration. EPA and USACE have defined wetlands as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [33 CFR
328.3(b)(1986)].
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) 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).
Eight wetland areas occur within the project study area. ESI delineated the jurisdictional
extent of these wetland areas based on current USACE methodology, and the areas were
subsequently mapped with Trimble' Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Figure 2). The
jurisdictional areas within the project study area have been verified by the USACE.
Wetlands Nos. 1, 5, and 6 are located adjacent to Tranters Creek. These wetlands are
located within the Tranters Creek floodplain and are subject to overbank flooding from
Tranters Creek, and therefore are considered to be riparian wetlands. Although the small
stream swamp receives the majority of its hydrology from overbank flooding, it is still
palustrine in nature as classified by Cowardin et a/. (1979). These wetlands exhibit
characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved and needle -leaved deciduous (PF06)
wetlands. The vegetation is hydrophytic in nature, and includes bald cypress, swamp
tupelo, red maple, American holly, and titi. Soils exhibit hydric characteristics and are
mapped as Muckalee soils and Swamp. Hydrologic indicators observed include inundation,
presence of saturation at the soil surface, and drainage patterns within the wetland.
Wetland No. 2 is located within the northeast quadrant of the project study area and
exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) wetlands
(Cowardin et a/. 1979). The vegetation is hydrophytic in nature and includes red maple,
soft rush, wool' -grass and giant cane. Soils exhibit hydric characteristics and are mapped
14

as Leaf silt loam. Hydrologic indicators include presence of saturation Wetland No. 2 is
not adjacent to a surface water and does not receive overbank flooding, therefore it would
be classified as a non -riparian wetland.
Wetland Nos. 3 and 4 are located within the southeast quadrant of the project study area
and exhibit characteristics of palustrine forested, needle -leaved evergreen/ broad-leaved
deciduous (PFO4/1) wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). The vegetation is hydrophytic in
nature and includes loblolly pines, red maple, sweetgum, sweetbay, and greenbrier. Soils
exhibit hydric characteristics and are mapped as Leaf silt loam. Hydrologic indicators
observed include inundation and presence of saturation at the soils surface. , Wetland Nos.
3 and 4 are not adjacent to a surface water and do not receive overbank flooding and
would be classified as non -riparian wetlands.
Wetland Nos. 7 and 8 are located in the southwest quadrant of the project study area and
exhibit characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO 1) wetlands
(Cowardin et al. 1979). The vegetation is hydrophytic in nature and include loblolly pine,
red maple, river birch, giant cane, and netted -chain fern. Soils exhibit hydric characteristics
and are mapped as Portsmouth loam. Wetland Nos. 7 and 8 are, not adjacent to a surface
water and do not receive overbank flooding and would be classified as non -riparian
wetlands.
Jurisdictional Streams
Surface waters within the embankments of the Tranters Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States"
(33 CFR 328.3). Streams present within the project study area were classified using the
Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et a/. 1979) and Natural Stream Channel
Classification System (Rosgen 1996).
Cowardin Classification
Tranters Creek is classified as a riverine system (Cowardin et al. 1979). Riverine systems
may be perennial (R2) or intermittent (R4) and are identified as those areas contained
within a channel that are not dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent
mosses, or lichens, and contain less than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) ocean derived salts
(Cowardin et al. 1979).
Tranters Creek is a perennial stream (R2) with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
sand and muck. The channel ranges from approximately 100 to 180 feet (30 to 55 m)
wide within the project study area. R2 systems generally have slow flowing water all year
and are generally associated with well-developed floodplains. The waters of the Tranters
Creek are classified as riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, sand and muck
(R2UB2/4) waters (Cowardin et al. 1979).
15

Natural Stream Channel Classification
The Natural Stream Channel Classification System uses several definitive criteria for
classification: 1) number of channels associated with a stream; 2) slope; 3) width -to -depth
ratio; 4) entrenchment ratio; 5) sinuosity; and 6) bed material (Rosgen 1996). This
classification system uses the first five criteria to assign one of eight channel types to a
reach of a stream. The eight types are designated A, B, C, D, DA, E, F, and G. Use of the
Natural Stream Channel Classification System for a Level 1 classification requires the
identification of several features in the field including bankfull width and depth (the stage
at which the controlling channel forming flow occurs), slope, sinuosity, and valley
morphology.
In the field, the stream channel was traversed to identify any significant changes in
channel type. Estimations of channel width, bankfull depth, and flood -prone width were
made at selected locations to verify channel type; these locations were selected because
they were either representative of the stream as a whole or of a specific reach. Sinuosity
was estimated in the field and compared to estimated sinuosity from the GPS mapping.
Slope was also estimated in the field.
Preliminary observations within the project study area indicate that the Tranters Creek
represents an "E" type stream (Rosgen 1996). "E" type streams have a gently sloped,
relatively deep and narrow, slightly entrenched channel with high sinuosity. "E" type
channels are characterized by riffle -pool sequences, well defined meanders, and a well-
developed floodplain.
Table 2 contains the approximate area of wetlands and the approximate area and linear
feet of the jurisdictional stream within the project study area, although permanent impacts
are not expected due to the use of channel -spanning structures. During bridge removal
procedures NCDOT's BMPs will be utilized, including erosion control measures; therefore, it
is anticipated that removing the existing structures will result in no impact to surrounding
surface waters. Potential fill resulting from bridge demolition has been previously
discussed in Section 2.2.
HR

Table 2. Jurisdictional Areas Within the Project Study Area.
Wetland Community Types
Wetland Type
(Wetland Number)
Area Percent of Project Study Area
Acres (hectares)
PF06 (1,5, 6)
1.46 (0.59) 5.7
PF01 (2,7, 8)
2.67(l.08) 10.4
PF04/1 (3, 4)
1.39 (0.56) 5.4
Total:
5.52 (2.23) 21.5
Riparian/Non-riparian
Wetland Type
(Wetland Number)
Area
Acres (hectares)
Percent of Project Study Area
Riparian (1,5, 6)
1.46 (0.59)
5.7
Non Riparian
(2,3,4,7, 8)
4.06(l.64)
15.8
Total:
5.52 (2.23)
21.5
Wetland Assessment
Wetland Quality
(Wetland Numberl
Area
Acres (hectares)
Percent of Project Study Area
High (1,5, 6)
1.46 (0.59)
5.7.
Other (2,3,4,7, 8)
4.06 0.64)
15.8
Total:
5.52 (2.23)
21.5
Flow Characteristics
Linear Feet
(meters)
Area
Acres (hectares)
Percent of Project Study Area
Perennial (112)
493 (150)
1.32 (0.54)
5.2
. Total:
493 (150)
1.32 (0.54)
5.2
There are 5.52 acres (2.23 ha) of wetlands within the project study area. Wetlands
account for 21.5 percent of the project study area. In the project study area 22.3 percent
of the wetlands are high quality, riparian wetlands associated with the floodplain of
Tranters Creek. There is approximately 493 linear feet (150m) of perennial stream within
the project study area. Impacts to wetlands and streams can be minimized and/or avoided
by bridging Tranters Creek. Designing alternatives that avoid expanding the -existing bridge
footprint and right-of-way downstream of the existing bridge will minimize impacts to
wetlands.
17

5.0 Permits and Consultations
A final permitting strategy cannot be developed until an alignment is selected and
construction impacts firmly established. However, construction activities resulting in
impacts will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of
protecting the water quality of public water resources. Surface water systems and
wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to most regulatory
permits. These permits are authorized under the Clean Water Act and under separate state
laws regarding significant water resources.
Section 404 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States." Potential impacts to "Waters of the United States" may be
avoided if the wetlands and streams are bridged, no disturbance to the wetlands or
streams occur during construction activities, and bridge demolition does not result in
material falling into wetlands or streams.
The proposed project will be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR
330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the USACE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. In
the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and
associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit
031 issued by the Wilmington USACE District. Notification to the Wilmington USACE
office is required if this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be necessary if temporary
structures, work, and discharges including cofferdams, are required for this project.
Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ prior
to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States."
Issuance of a 401 Certification from the DWQ is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section
404 Permit.
Potential impacts to open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of-way width and
will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project. Impacts to open
water areas of Tranters Creek are not expected due to the use of channel -spanning
structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including
erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also recommended to minimize
the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
im

LAMA
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) provides for jurisdictional review of impacts
affecting Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) in 20 designated coastal counties,
including Beaufort County. Tranters Creek is likely to be considered an AEC because it is
designated as inland fishing waters and as Public trust waters. Encroachment on an AEC
resource will require a Major Development Permit. The Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act requires that federal actions (i.e., 404 permit issuance) comply with requirements of
state -administered coastal zone management programs [16 U.S.C. 1456(c)]; therefore, for
non -AEC impacts in Beaufort County, a CAMA consistency determination will be required
as part of the permit process.
Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules
Tranters Creek is mapped on the USGS map and is subject to the Tar -Pamlico Riparian
Buffer Rules. The riparian buffer consists of two distinct zones. Zone 1 comprises a 30 -
foot (9 m) wide area adjacent to the surface water that cannot be disturbed except for
those specific activities that are allowed by the Buffer Rules. Zone 2 comprises a 20 -foot
(6 m) wide area adjacent to Zone 1. that is to be left undisturbed except for those activities
specifically allowed by the Buffer Rules.
Activities in the buffer area beyond the footprint of the existing use as classified as either
"exempt", "allowable"," allowable with mitigation", or " prohibited." Table 3 provides a
list of activities that may be subject to Buffer Rules within the project study area along
with their classifications. Depending upon project alternatives, not all of the uses listed
may apply, and other uses not listed here, such as utility crossings and roadside drainage
ditches, among others, may be regulated under the Buffer Rules. Guidelines will be
consulted in their entirety to review all project related uses subject to the Buffer Rules.
WJ

Table 3. " Activities That May Be Subject To the Buffer Rules.
Use
Exempt
Allowable
Allowable With
Prohibited
Mitigation
Bridges
X
Road crossings that impact less
X
than or equal to 40 linear ft
(12 m)
Road crossings that impact
X
greater than 40 linear ft (12 m)
but less than or equal to 150
linear ft (46 m) or 0.33 ac (0.13
ha) of riparian area.
Road crossings that impact
X
greater than 150 linear ft (46 m)
or greater than 0.33 ac (0.13 ha)
of riparian buffer
Temporary roads used for bridge
X
construction or replacement
provided that restoration
activities such as soil stabilization
and revegetation occur
immediately after construction.
Activities deemed "exempt" will be designed, constructed, .and maintained to minimize soil
disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection practicable. "Allowable"
activities may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practicable
alternatives to the requested use. Prior to initiating impacts written authorization from the
DWQ or delegated local authority is required. Activities deemed "allowable with
mitigation" may proceed within the riparian buffer if there are no practicable alternatives to
the requested to the requested use and an appropriate mitigation strategy has been
approved. Written authorization from the DWQ or delegated local authority is required.
"Prohibited" activities, none of which are listed above, may not proceed within the riparian
buffer unless a variance is granted from the DWQ or delegated local authority. .
5.1 Mitigation
Mitigation has been defined in National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA)
regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate;
or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a -e)].
Mitigation of wetland and stream impacts is recommended in accordance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23 CFR
777.1 et seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS mitigation
policy directives (46 FR 7644-7663) (1981).
20

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands and
streams. Practicable alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory
mitigation can be discussed.
USFWS policy also emphasizes avoidance and minimization. However, for unavoidable
losses, the USFWS recommends that mitigation efforts be based on the value and scarcity
of the habitat at risk. Habitat is classified into four Resource Categories based on
decreasing importance and value, with subsequent decreases in mitigation planning
objectives (46 FR 7657-7658). The non -riparian wetlands in the project vicinity are
believed to be Category 3 or 4 resources (medium to low value), primarily because of the
degraded 'and segmented nature of the systems. Minimization of further 'habitat loss is
recommended. Mature forested areas within floodplains with extensive, intact adjacent
wetlands could be considered Category 1 or 2 resources (very high or high value) with a
mitigation goal of no net loss of habitat values (compensation through functional
replacement).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policy stresses that all practicable measures
should be taken to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands and streams, which will be affected
by federally, funded highway construction. A sequencing (step-down) procedure is
recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible. Mitigation employed outside of
the highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.
Avoidance - Surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas are present within the project
study area. Although actual impacts to surfaces water and jurisdictional wetland areas are
not known at this time, potential wetland and stream impacts are previously discussed in
Section 4.1. It may not be possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas, but impacts
can be avoided to specific wetlands and the stream, subject to design constraints. Impacts
to the jurisdictional surface waters present can be avoided by bridging the stream channel,
by avoiding construction activities in the stream channel, and by avoiding deposition into
the stream channel during bridge demolition.
Minimization - Alternatives will be developed in part to show minimization of wetland and
stream impacts. Impacts to the stream can be minimized by designing support structures
to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. The jurisdictional delineation
within the project study area will be utilized to further minimize wetland and stream
impacts when designing the proposed alignment within the project study area.
Minimization of jurisdictional impacts can be achieved by the replacement of a bridge in-
place and utilizing as much of the existing bridge corridor as possible. Utilization of BMPs
is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas
within wetlands.
21

Compensatory mitigation — Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas are
not known at this time. Due to the anticipated lack of jurisdictional impacts, no mitigation
is expected to be required for this project. Temporary impacts associated with the
construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native species
and removal of any temporary fill material within the floodplain upon project completion.
Mitigation may be required for wetland impacts greater than 0.1 acre (0.4 ha) and stream
impacts greater than 150 linear feet (46 m).
5.3 Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or officially
Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Table 4 presents the federal protected species listed for
Beaufort and Pitt Counties (29 January 2003 USFWS list). Descriptions of these federally
protected species along with habitat requirements and biological conclusions for this
project are presented following the table.
Table 4. Federally Listed Species for Beaufort and Pitt Counties, NC (29 January 2003
USFWS list).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
Potential
County
Biological
Status'
Habitat
P/B°
Conclusion
Present
Red wolf
Canis rufus
EXP
Yes
B
No Effect
Manatee
Trichechus manatus
E
No
B/P
No Effect
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
T
Yes
B/P
Unresolved
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
E
No
B/P
No Effect
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Lepidochelys kempii
E
No
B
No Effect
Tar spinymussel
Elliptio steinstansana
E
No
P
No Effect
Sensitive jointvetch
Aeschynomene virginica
T
No
B
No Effect
Rough -leaved loosestrife
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
E
No
B
No Effect
EXP - Experimental, E - Endangered, and T - Threatened.
P - Pitt, B - Beaufort
Red wolf - The red wolf is a medium sized, canid that resembles the coyote but is larger
and more robust. Adults measure 4.5 to 5.5 feet (1.4 to 1.7 m) in length, and weigh from
35 to 90 pounds (16 to 41 kilograms). The red wolf prefers habitat that provides large
amounts of cover, including both 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 (USFWS 1993). The red wolf was
once found throughout the southestern 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 1993).
22

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NHP records indicate that there are no documented occurrences of the red wolf
within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area. However, with the EXP status
for this species, it is only considered to have federal protection on public lands. No
public lands are contained within the project study area.
Manatee - The Manatee is a large, gray or brown aquatic mammal that averages 10 to 13
feet (3 to 4 m) in length and weighs up to 1,000 pounds (454 kilograms). During summer
months manatees migrate from their normal 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).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no documented occurrences of the manatee within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of
the project study area. The project study area is more than 10.0 miles (1.6.1 km) .
upstream of the Tar River and does not provide potential habitat for the manatee.
This species will not be effected by the proposed bridge replacement.
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet (2 m).
Adult bald eagles are dark brown with white head and tail.. Immature eagles are brown
with whitish mottling on their 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 water and
forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching (Hamel 1992).
Preventing disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (229 to
457 m) outward from a nest tree is considered critical for maintaining_ acceptable
conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). USFWS recommends avoiding any 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 miles 1.0
mile (1 .6 km) from a nest tree, construction and land -clearing activities should be restricted
to the non -nesting period. FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines
where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land -clearing activities within 1500 ft
(457 m) of roosting sites.
NHP records indicate that there is one documented occurrence of bald eagle within 3.0
miles (4.8 km) of the project study area. The bald eagle nest is located approximately 0.3
mile (0.5 km) northeast of the intersection of Sheppard Milpond Rd (SR 1550) and Loy
Forbes Rd (SR 1555). The nest was last observed in 2000.
23

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
NHP records indicate that one active bald eagle nest has been documented within
3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area. The project study area may contain
potential foraging and nesting habitat for the bald eagle, but no large nests were
observed within the project study area. Due to the limited nature of disturbance
associated with the proposed bridge replacement, construction activities outside of
the nesting season would be expected to have no effects. However, the effect of
construction activities during the nesting season can not be determined at this time.
A nest survey may be required.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle - The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles
(58.4- to 23- to 30 -inch [76.2 -centimeter (cm)] carapace, 79 to 110 pounds (36 to 50
kilograms) and is generally considered the most endangered species of sea turtle in the
world (Palmer and Braswell 1995). This species 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. Only a single nesting record exists for North Carolina, on Long
Beach in Brunswick County (1992). The nearest suitable nesting habitat for this species is
the Outer Banks ocean beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no documented occurrences of Kemp's ridley sea turtle within 3.0 miles
(4.8 km) of the project study area. The project study area does not provide
potential habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtle. This species will not be effected by
the proposed bridge replacement.
Red -cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) - The RCW is identified by a black head, prominent
white cheek patch, and black -and -white barred back. Males often have red markings
(cockades) behind the eye, but this feature may be difficult to see. RCWs typically are
found in association with a clan, which is a cooperative breeding group consisting of a
breeding pair and one or more male offspring fledged in the previous one to three years
(Hooper et a/. 1980).
The RCW is endemic to pine forests of the southeastern United States. In North Carolina,
the RCW is most prevalent in the Sandhills and Coastal Plain (Hamel 1992). Primary RCW
habitat consists of mature to over -mature southern pine forests. Traditionally, pine
flatwoods or pine -dominated savannas, which have been maintained by frequent fires,
serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for the RCWs. Nesting and roosting cavities are
24

constructed in the heartwood of living pines, which are generally older than 60 years and
often infected with red -heart fungus (Fomes pini). The fungus weakens the inner
heartwood, making excavation easier. Cavities are usually located 20-50 feet (6-15 m)
above ground and below live branches. Development of a thick understory may result in
abandonment of the cavity trees. The resinous buildup around cavity openings allows for
easy detection during surveys for RCWs. Most cavity trees tend to be clustered such that
a colony can typically be encompassed by a circle 1500 feet (457 m) in diameter, although
some cavity trees occupied by a clan may be as much as 0.5 mile (0.8 km) apart (Hooper
et al. 1980).
RCW foraging areas typically are centered on colony sites and range in size from 100 (40.5
ha) acres to as many as 1000 acres (405 ha) depending on the quality of habitat (Hooper
et al. 1980). RCWs typically forage on pines in pine stands 30 years of age or older within
0.5 mile (0.8 km) of the colony site (Henry 1989). Stands dominated by pines larger than
9 inches (23 cm) diameter at breast height (dbh) are considered to provide good foraging
habitat, but RCWs will forage in stands dominated by pines 4 to 9 inches (10 to 23 cm)
dbh (Hooper et al. 1980). Extreme impacts to foraging habitat can lead to reduced
productivity and/or abandonment of the colony site. Minor habitat changes within the
foraging range may have little or no impact to RCW behavior patterns.
NHP records indicate that there is one documented occurrence of RCW activity within 3.0
miles (4.8 km) of the project study area. The site is located 2.9 miles (4.7 km) northwest
of the project study area, near Sheppard .Millpond. The site was last observed in 1977.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NHP records indicate that one inactive RCW colony has been documented within
2.9 miles (4.7 km) of the project study area. The few scattered mature pine within
the project study area were surveyed and no RCW activity was observed. The pine
woodland community within the project study area is too small in areal extent to
offer potential foraging habitat for the RCW. The pine stand within the project
study area is not contiguous with other larger stands of pines due to surrounding
agriculture and silvilcultural practices. Therefore, potentially suitable habitat for the
RCW is not present within the project study area and construction of the proposed
project will not effect this species.
Tar Spinymussel - The Tar spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel that grows to
approximately 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) in length. The external shell of the adult is smooth,
orange -brown to dark brown, and ornamented by one or two rows of short spines [to 0.2
inches (0.5 cm) long]. The shell is thicker on the anterior end and thinner on the posterior
end. Preferred habitat of the Tar spinymussel includes relatively fast -flowing, well -
25

oxygenated, circumneutral water over a silt -free, noncompacted, gravel/coarse sand
substrate (TSCFTM 1990).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no documented occurrences of Tar spinymussel within 3.0 miles (4.8 km)
of the project study area. Tranters Creek within the project study area is a slow
moving blackwater swamp system with muck over sand substrate and does not
provide potential habitat for the Tar spinymussel. This project will have no effect
on the Tar spinymussel.
Sensitive Jointvetch — Sensitive jointvetch is a robust, bushy -branched, annual legume
often exceeding 3 feet (0.9 m) in height. Young stems have bristly hairs with large
swollen bases (Leonard 1985). The alternate, compound leaves are even -pinnate,
approximately 1.25 - 2 inches (3.2 to 5.1 cm) wide, with 30 to 56 toothless leaflets
(Radford et a/. 1968). Flowers are bright greenish -yellow with red veins, about 0.5 inches
(1.3 cm) long, and are subtended by bractlets with toothed margins (Leonard 1985). The
flowers are produced on few -flowered racemes from July to October. The jointed legume
(loment) is about 2 inches (5.1 cm) long, has 6 to 10 segments, and a 0.5 to 1.0 inch (1.3
to 2.54 cm) stalk. Habitat for this species in North Carolina consists of moist to wet
coastal. roadside ditches and moist fields that are nearly tidal (USFWS 1994); especially in
full sun (Leonard 1985). This species seems to favor microhabitats where there is a
reduction in competition from other plant species, and usually some form of soil
disturbance (USFWS 1994).
Sensitive joint -vetch is known from Hyde and Beaufort Counties, North Carolina, and in
scattered coastal areas from New Jersey to the Savannah River (Leonard 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no documented occurrences of sensitive jointvetch within 3.0 miles (4.8
km) of the project study area. Tranters Creek within the project study area is a
non -tidal freshwater system and does not provide potential habitat for the sensitive
jointvetch. The project will have no effect on sensitive jointvetch.
Rough -leaved Loosestrife - The rough -leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial herb
that often reaches the height of 2 ft (0.6 m). 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 are typically sessile, entire, 0.3 - 0.4 inch (0.8 - 1 cm) wide,
broadest at the base, and have three prominent principal veins (Godfrey and Wooten
1981). Individuals of rough -leaved loosestrife, especially young plants, have been
observed by ESI biologists to have paired, opposite leaves rather than whorls of 3 or 4; this
pattern has also been observed on new growth resprouting from the upper leaf axils in
W.

individuals that have been browsed or mowed. Five -lobed yellow flowers, approximately
0.6 inch (1.5 cm) across, are produced on a loose terminal raceme 1-4 inches (3 to 10 cm)
long (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Rough -leaved loosestrife is reported to flower from late
May to June (USFWS 1995); however, ESI biologists have observed scattered individuals
flowering through mid-July in New Hanover County. Seeds are formed by August, but the
small, rounded capsules do not dehisce until October. Populations also reproduce
asexually from rhizomes, with rhizomes producing several shoots.
The rough -leaved loosestrife is endemic to Coastal Plain and Sandhills regions of the
Carolinas. Typical habitat of the 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. This species is fire maintained; 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 1995). Kral (1983) indicates that
rough -leaved loosestrife is typically found growing in black sandy peats or sands with a
high organic content. Because rough -leaved loosestrife is an obligate wetland species
(Reed 1988), drainage of habitat also has an adverse effect on the plant.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSI—, AA
ON•&L; ; — A N �.�
A
There are no documented occurrences of rough -leaved loosestrife within 3.0 miles
(4.8 km) of the project study area. The powerline right-of-way is the only area that
may superficially resemble potential habitat. The soils in the powerline right-of-way
are mapped as Leaf. The soils were characterized as a sandy loam and lack an
organic component which is present at sites where rough -leaved loosestrife is
typically found. The project study area lacks the common plant species, such as
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), pond pine (Pinus serotina), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
wiregrass (Aristida stricta), dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), and meadow beauty
(Rhexia spp.) normally associated with rough -leaved loosestrife. The adjacent
naturally forested areas do not provide potential habitat for rough -leaved loosestrife.
The project will have no effect on rough -leaved loosestrife.
Federal Species of Concern
The 29 January 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. However, these are listed since they may attain
federally protected status in the future. The presence of potential habitat (based on
LeGrand et al. 2001 and Amoroso and Finnegan 2002) within the project study area has
been evaluated in Table 5 for the FSC species listed for Beaufort and Pitt Counties.
27

Table 5. Federal Species of. Concern (FSC).
Common Name Scientific Name State Countyb Potential
Designation' P/B Habitat`
Eastern Henslow's sparrow
Ammodramus henslowii
SR
P/B
No
susurrans
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
SC (PT)
B
Yes
Southern hognose snake
Heterodon simus
Sc
P
No
Carolina gopher frog
Rana capito capito
T
B
No
Pinewoods shiner
Lythrurus matutinus
SR
P
Yes
"Neuse" madtom
Noturus furiosus (pop. 1)
SC
P
No
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia masoni
E
P
No
Yellow lampmussel
Lampsilis cariosa
E
P
Yes
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
E
P
Yes
Tar River Crayfish
Procambarus medialis
No Status
P
Yes
Venus flytrap
Dionaea muscipula
SR -L
B
No
Carolina asphodel
Tofieldia glabra
W1
P/B
No
a E — Endangered, T - Threatened, SC - Special Concern, SR -Significantly Rare, PT
- Proposed Threatened,
and SR -L — Significantly Rare range of species is limited
to North Carolina and adjacent states,
and
W1 — Wa tch List population
are rare, but relatively secure.
b P- Pitt, B — Beaufort
Potential habitat based extensively on Amoroso and Finnegan
(2002), LeGrand et
al. (2001), and
other
literature previously cited.
According to NHP records (March 2003), no occurrences of FSC are known from the
project study area are project vicinity. This project will not affect any known occurrences
of species listed as FSC.
5.4 State Protected Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina status
of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). A review of the NHP
records indicates that no state listed species have been documented within the project
study area or within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the project study area. This project will not affect
any known occurrences of state listed species.
WHO

6.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. and J. T. Finnegan. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation; N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources; Raleigh. 111 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
USFWS/OBS 79/31. U. S. Department of Interior. 131 pp.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section (DEM). 1989. Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN): Water Quality Review 1983-1988.
Rpt. 89-08, N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR); Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section (DEM). 1993.
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Tar -
Pamlico River Basin. N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR), Raleigh.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1999. Tar -Pamlico River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. N. C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Department of the Army (DON- 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2000. 303(d) List. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/
General 303d.htm.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2003a. Basinwide Information Management System
(BIMS): Stream Classification. March 2003.
http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/ basins and waterbodies/hydroTar-
Pamlico.pdf.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2003b. Active NPDES Permits.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc-us /NPDES /documents/download.xls March 2003.
Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern
United States: Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 933
pp -
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill. 437 pp.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and
Evaluations for the Red -cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA.
29

Hooper, R.G., A.F. Robinson, Jr., and J.A. Jackson. 1980. The Red -cockaded
Woodpecker: Notes on Life History and Management. Gen. Rpt. SA -GR 9. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Atlanta, GA.
Kral, R.A. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest -related
Vascular Plants of the South. Technical Publication R8 -TP 2. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. 1305 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr., S.P. Hall and J. T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. N. C. Natural Heritage Program, Division
of Parks and Recreation; Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources; Raleigh. 91 pp.
Leonard, S. W. 1985. Status report on Aeschynomene virginica in North Carolina.
Unpublished report to the Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6+ pp.
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury,
MA 448pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
National Geographic (NG) 1999. Filed Guide to the Birds of North America. Third Edition.
National Geographic Society. Washington D.C. 480 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service 1NMFS). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Guidance. 62 pp.
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA). 2001. Basin Pro:
Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT 412 pp.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina.
Division of Land Resources, Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast
(Region 2). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. 125 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Printed Media Companies. Minneapolis,
Mn. 8-43 pp.
30

Schafale, M.P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation; N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources; Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report
on the Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan
Fauna. Pp. 37-41.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North
Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 74 pp + maps.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995. Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North
Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 132 pp + maps.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald
Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. 8 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (The Red Book). U.S. Department of the. Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Agency Draft Sensitive Jointvetch Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Rough -leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina: Beaufort and
Pitt Counties. 29 January 2003. Asheville, NC.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1979. Leggetts Crossroads, N.C. 7.5 -Minute
Topographic Quadrangle.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
.Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
31

APPENDIX A

F IN
F
m
I
q�t

DATA FORM YA, YB, YC
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Wet
(1987 CE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Tranters Creek
Date: 3/24/2003
Applicant/Owner. NCDOT
County: Pitt
Investigator Environmental Services, Inc.
State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? -j Yes No
Community ID: Forested
s the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑Yes'❑ No
Transect ID: YC
s the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑Yes QNo
Plot ID: Wetland
1. river birch
tree
FACW
VEGETATION
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Aerial Photographs
Q Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
PLANT SPECIES
Water Marks
1. river birch
tree
FACW
7. greenbrier
vine
FAC
Betula nigra
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 3'
Smilax spp.
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
2. red maple
tree
FAC
8.
#N/A
#N/A
Acer rubrum
Standing water in places
#N/A
3, loblolly pine
tree
FAC
#N/A
#N/A
Pinus taeda
19.
#N/A
4. american holly
shrub
FAC-
10.
#N/A
#N/A
Ilex opaca var. opaca
#N/A
5.- giant cane
herb
FACW
11.
#N/A
#N/A
Arundinaria gigantea
#N/A
6. netted chain -fern
I
herb
OBL
12. _T
#N/A
#N/A
Woodwardia aereolata
I
#N/A
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 86%
emarks The hydrophytic vegetation requirement has been met.
HYDROLOGY
Lj RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS):
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
Q Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
Q Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 3'
0 Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6"
❑ FAC -Neutral Test
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0"
Remarks: The hydrologic criterion has been met -
Standing water in places

SOILS
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Portsmouth Series
DRAINAGE CLASS: very poorly drained
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Umbraquults
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
❑ Yes D No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-18" 1OYR 3/1
sandy loam
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
0 Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has been met
WETLAND DETERMINATION
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Q Yes ❑ No
Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? __-E) Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ❑ No
By Soil Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Data point is jurisdictional.

f s5
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WE"II AND DETERMINATION
(1987 CE Wetlands Delineation Mannall
Project/Site: B4022 Tranters Creek
ate: 3/242003
INDICATOR
Applicant/Owner: NC Department of Transportation
County: Beaufort
INDICATOR
Investigator: Environmental Services, Inc.
slk State: NC
❑ Other
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes
✓ommunity
No C ID:
Pine woodland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? []Yes
Q No Transect ID:
NA
Is the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑Yes ❑ No
Data Point #:
Latitude:
Longitude:
6
uphill from flag TINA -6
VEGETATION
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Drift Lines
1 _ Loblolly pine
tree
FAC
7. Gripe
vine
FAC
Pints taeda
Depth of Surface Water: 0
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
Vitus rotundifolia
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18"
2. American holly
shrub
FAC-
8. Partridge berry
FACU+
Ilex opaca var. opaca
Mitchella re ns
3. Water oak
tree
FAC
9. American beech
shrub
FACU
Quercus nigra
F-gus grandifolia
4. IMusclewood
tree
FAC
10.
ffN/A
#N/A
Carpinus caroliniana
#N/A
5. lHighbush blueberry
shrub
FACW
11.
#N/A
#N/A
Vaccinium corymhosum
#N/A
6. IGreenbrier
vine
FAC
12.
#N/A
#N/A
Smilax s
#N/A
ercent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 67%
emarks
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS):
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
❑ Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
❑ Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
Q NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 0
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18"
❑ FAC -Neutral Test
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18"
emarks: The hydrologic criterion has not been met.

cnrr c
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Leaf Series
DRAINAGE CLASS: poorly drained
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Alba alts
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
❑ Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3" l OYR 3/1
loarny fine sand
3-10" 1 OYR 32
fine sand
10A5" l OYR 32
l OYR 72 common fine sand
15-18"+ l OYR 72
10YR 32 common fine sand
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has not been met
►.syr .n r �rnr ,.u. � r r .i
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Q Yes ❑ No
Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? El Yes Q No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑Yes No
y Soil Present? ❑ Yes ❑� No
emarks: Data point is not jurisdictional.

iN t(ct41.10
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WEILAND DETERMINATION
(1987 CF Wetland- T)Ainratinn Mnnnatl
o ect/Site: B-4022 Tranters Creek
STRATUM
Date: 324/2003
DOMINANT
PLANT SPECIES
Applicant/Owner: NC Department of Transportation
INDICATOR
County: Beaufort
tree
Investigator. Environmental Services, Inc.
slk
State: NC
#N/A
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? PjYes
F1 No
Community ID:
Pine woodland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑Yes
Ej No
Transect ID:
NA
Is the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑ Yes Q No
tree
Data Point #:
6 continued
#N/A
downhill from flag #NA -6
Latitude:
#N/A
Longitude:
10.
#N/A
VEGETATION
DOMINANT
PLANT SPECIES
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
PLANT SPECIES
STRATUM
INDICATOR
1. Cypress
Taxodium dirtichum
tree
OBL
7.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
2.
Tiffshrub
rCrac
yrilla emiflora
FACW
8.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Depth of Surface Water: 1"
3. Red Maple
Acer rubrum
tree
FAC
9.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
4.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
10.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
5. 1
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
H.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
6. 1
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
12.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
ercent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 1000/0
emarks The hydrophytic vegetation criterion has been met.
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE M REMARKS):
WEILAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
Q Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
Q Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
❑ Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
Q NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 1"
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: surface
El FAC -Neutral Test
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface
emarks: The hydrologic criterion has been met_

�OIr .S
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Leaf Series
0 Yes
DRAINAGE CLASS: poorly drained
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Alba alts
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
❑ Yes F1 No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon
Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6"
1 OYR 2/1
loamy sand
6-9"
2.5Y 4/2
loamy sand
9-18"+
2.5Y 5/2
loamy sand
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has been meL
ydrophytic Vegetation Present?
0 Yes
❑ No
Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Q Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Q Yes
❑ No
ydric Soil Present?
El Yes
❑ No
remarks— : Data point is jurisdictional.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 CE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
We-r(anaNj6.
Z
YE
UP
Project/Site: Tranters Creek
Date: 3/24/2003
Applicant/Owner. NCDOT
County: Beaufort
Investigator Environmental Services, Inc.
State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ,r Yes No
Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? []Yes ❑ No
Transect ID: YE
s the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑Yes Q No
Plot ID: Upland
1. loblolly pine
tree
FAC
VEGETATION
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Drift Lines
1. loblolly pine
tree
FAC
7.
#N/A
#N/A
Pinus raeda
Depth of Surface Water. 0"
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
#N/A
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18"
2. american beech
tree
FACU
8.
#N/A
#N/A
Fagus grandifolia
#N/A
3. southern red oak
shrub
FACU-
9.
#N/A
#N/A
Quercus falcaia
#N/A
4. dog fennel
herb
FAC-
10.
#N/A
#N/A
Euparorium capillifolium
#N/A
5.
vine
FAC
]I.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
6.
#N/A
#N/A
12.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 40%
,remarks The hydrophytic vegetation requirement has not been met.
HYDROLOGY
Lj RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS):
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
❑ Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
❑ Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
0 NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 0"
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18"
❑ FAC -Neutral Test
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >18"
Remarks: The hydrologic criterion has not been met.

cnrr c
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Leaf Series
DRAINAGE CLASS: poorly drained
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Alba uults
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
❑ Yes 0 No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-11" I OYR 3/1
sandy loam
1 OYR 5/4
sandy loam
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ SulfrdicOdor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has not been met.
WFTI _ANI) I)FTFRMINATION
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑ Yes Q No
Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? _ ❑ Yes ❑ No
edand Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes ❑] No
y Soi} Present? ❑ Yes Q No
Remarks: Data point is not jurisdictional.

VV
DATA FORM YE
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Wet
f 198 CE Wetlands Deiineation Mnnnnll
Project/Site: Tranters Creek
Date: 3/24/2003
Applicant/Owner NCDOT
County: Beaufort
Investigator. Environmental Services, Inc.
State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? M Yes No
Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? []Yes Q No
Transect ID: YE
Is the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑Yes F11 No
Plot ID: Wetland
I _ red maple
tree
FACW
VEGETATION
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES
Q Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Drift Lines
I _ red maple
tree
FACW
7.
#N/A
#N/A
Acer rubrum
Depth of Surface Water. 1/2"
Q Water -Stained Leaves
#N/A
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0"
2. american holly
tree
FAC-
8.
#N/A
#N/A
11ex opaca var. opaca
#N/A
3. horsesugar
tree
FAC
9.
#N/A
#N/A
Symplocos tinctoria
#N/A
4_ seedbox
herb
FAC
10.
#N/A
#N/A
Ludwigia sp.
#NIA
5_
#N/A
#N/A
11.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
6.
#N/A
#N/A 112.#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
j
ercent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 75%
Iffs The hydrophytic vegetation requirement has been met.
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS):
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
Q Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
Q Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
❑ Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
Q NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
Q Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 1/2"
Q Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0"
❑ FAC -Neutral Test
El (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0"
Remarks: The hydrologic criterion has been met_
Standing water in places

cTi71 �y
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Leaf Series
DRAINAGE CLASS: poorly drained
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Alba uults
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
❑ Yes Q No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-18" l OYR 3/1
sandy loam
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
El Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
Ej Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has been met.
WM I .AND DETERMINATION
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Q Yes ❑ No
ydric Soil Present? O Yes ❑ No
emarics: Data point is jurisdictional.

w�. � ►GLn�t IVUs
374
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 CE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4022 Tranters Creek
STRATUM
Date: 3/24/2003
DOMINANT
Applicant/Owner NC Department of Transportation
INDICATOR
County: Beaufort
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Investigator Environmental Services, Inc.
slk
State: NC
❑ Drift Lines
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? / Yes
No
Community ID:
Pine woodland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? []Yes
Q No
Transect ID:
NC
Is the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑Yes 0 No
Smilax spp.
Data Point #:
6
2. American beech
uphill from flag #NC -6
Latitude:
8. [22E!jj
Longitude:
FAC
VFGFTATION
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Drift Lines
1. Loblolly pine
tree
FAC
7. Greenbrier
vine
FAC
Pinus taeda
Depth of Surface Water. 0
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
Smilax spp.
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: > 18"
2. American beech
tree
FACU
I
8. [22E!jj
vine
FAC
Fagus grandifolia
Vitus rotundifolia
3_ Red Maple
tree
FAC
9.
#N/A
#N/A
Acer rubrum
#N/A
4. American holly
tree
FAC-
10.
#N/A
#N/A
Ilex opaca var. opaca
#N/A
5. Horsesugar
shrub
FAC
11.
#N/A
#N/A
Symplocos tinctoria
#N/A
6. Wax myrtle
shrub
FAC+
I
12.
i
#N/A
#N/A
Myrica cenfera
I
#N/A
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 75%
emarks
HYDROLOGY
❑ RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS):
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
❑ Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
❑ Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
Q NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 0
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: > 18"
❑ FAC -Neutral Test
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 18"
emarks: The hydrologic criterion has not been met.

enn .-N
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Leaf Series
DRAINAGE CLASS: poorly drained
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Alba uults
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
❑ Yes Q No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 4" 2.5Y 4/2
fine sand
4-10" 2.5Y 5/3
fine sand
10-18"+ 2-5Y 6/3
fine sand
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has not been met-
WF'TI AIM r)FTFRM1NAT ON
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Q Yes ❑ No
Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes EJ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes Q No
ydric Soil Present? ❑ Yes Q No
emarks: Data point is not jurisdictional,

3� q
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 CE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B4022 Tranters Creek
STRATUM
Date: 3/24/2003
DOMINANT
PLANT SPECIES
Applicant/Owner: NC Department of Transportation
INDICATOR
County: Beaufort
tree
Investigator: Environmental Services, Inc.
slk
State: NC
#N/A
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ✓ Yes
No
Community ID:
Pine woodland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑Yes
Q No
Transect ID:
NC
Is the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑Yes M No
9.
#N/A
Data Point #:
1 continued
4.
downhill from flag #NC -6
Latitude:
W+
Longitude:
#N/A
VEGETATION
DOMINANT
PLANT SPECIES
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
PLANT SPECIES
STRATUM
INDICATOR
I. Sweetgum
Li uidambar styraciJlua
tree
FAC+
7.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
2. Loblolly pine
Pinus taeda
tree
FAC
8.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
3. Red Maple
Acer rubrum
tree
FAC
;FAC
9.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
4.
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
tree
W+
10.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
5. Greenbrier
Smilax =.
vine
FAC
IL
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
6.
1 Sweetbay
Magnolia vir 'niana I
shrub
FACW+
12.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Percent of dominant species that are OBI, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 1000/0
emarks The hydrophytic vegetation criterion has been met
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS):
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
Q Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
0 Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other
❑ Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
❑✓ NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 2"
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0
❑ FAC -Neutral Test
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0
emarks: The hydrologic criterion has been met

gt7tr.C,
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Leaf Series
Is this Sampling Point
DRAINAGE CLASS: poorly drained
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Alba cults
Wetland Hydrology Present? Q Yes ❑ No
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
❑ Yes No
yanc Soil Present? ❑✓ Yes ❑ No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon
Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
l OYR 3/2
san loam
4-10"
IOYR 6/2
fine sand
10-18"+
2.5Y 7/2
IOYR 6/8 Common/prominent fine sand
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
0 Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
n Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
0 Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has been met
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑✓ Yes ❑ No
Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? ❑� Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Q Yes ❑ No
yanc Soil Present? ❑✓ Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Data point is jurisdictional.

DATA FORM YA, YB, YC
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Up
(1987 CE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Sitc: Tranters Creek
Date: 3/24/2003
Applicant/Owner-. NCDOT
County: Pitt
Investigator. Environmental Services, Inc.
State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Fal Yes No
Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? []Yes Q No
Transect ID: YC
Is the area a potential problem area (If needed, explain)?
❑Yes 0 No
Plot ID: Upland
1. loblolly pine
tree
FAC
VEGETATION
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
DOMINANT
STRATUM
INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other"
PLANT SPECIES
❑ Drift Lines
1. loblolly pine
tree
FAC
7.
#N/A
#N/A
Pimrs taeda
Depth of Surface Water. 0"
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
#NJA
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18"
2, eastern red cedar
shrub
FACU-
8.
#N/A
#N/A
Juniperus virginiana
#NJA
3. american beech
shrub
FACU
9.
#N/A
#N/A
Fagus grandifolia
#NJA
4. honeysuckle
vine
FAC-
10_
#N/A
#N/A
Lonicera japonica
#NJA
5.
vine
#N/A
H.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#NJA
6.
#N/A
#N/A
12.
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#NJA
ercent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 20%
emarks The hydrophytic vegetation requirement has not been met.
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (DESCRIBE IN REMARKS):
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
❑ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage
❑ Inundated
❑ Aerial Photographs
❑ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Other"
❑ Water Marks
❑ Drift Lines
'❑ NO RECORDED DATA AVAILABLE
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water. 0"
❑ Water -Stained Leaves
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >18"
❑ FAC -Neutral Test
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 18"
Remarks: The hydrologic criterion has not been met.

JV1LJ
MAP UNIT NAME (Series and Phase):
Mapped as Lakeland Series
DRAINAGE CLASS: excessively well
TAXONOMY (SUBGROUP):
Typic Quartzipsamments
FIELD OSERVATIONS: Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist)
Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 11" iit R3/i
sar. y loam.
11-18" 10YR5/4
sandy loam
HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listing on National Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on State or Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low Chroma
❑ Color
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The hydric soil criterion has not been met
w C l L+^114L.' Ln 1 n>unli'n 1A-
ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No
Is this Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? ❑ Yes 0 No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes Q No
Hydric Soil Present? ❑ Yes 0 No
Remarks: Data point is not jurisdictional.

NCDENRNcR
E„v�Rd .H —0 N, uR— Resour+ccs
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
NOTICE FOR REQUIREMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF EMC RULES FOR
PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING RIPARIAN AREAS
PROJECT # COUNTY a4 DWQ OFFICE Wytft)
VERSION: NEUSE (15A NCAC 2B.0233) TAR-PAMLICO (15A NCAC 2B.0259)
CATAWBA (15A NCAC 2B.0243) RANDLEMAN (15A NCAC 2B.0250)
OTHER
EXEMPT r
(DWQ INITIALS)
NOT EXEMPT
Property Owner's Name I`3C.�
Phone Number (Home) (Business)
Add rens
City State L Zip
Location (Nearest State Road, Nearest Water Body, etc.)
As indicated on attached map initialed by staff on
Description of Proposed Project
(DWQ INITIALS)
Violation noted on site YES�O. yes, a Notice of Violation will be forwarded from the appropriate regional office.
The osed project which is to be located and constructed as described above is hereby determined as
NOT EXEMPT from compliance of the requirements of the aforementioned rules as it applies to section
. This determination does not alleviate the
necessity of your obtaining any other*State, Federal, or Local authorization.
Property Owner's/Agent's Signatu t
DWQ Official's Signature
Date of Determination , - % —d
•This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit or a CAMA Permit for the proposed activity. Inquiries should be directed to the DWQ Central
Office at [phone], Washington Office at [phone], Raleigh Office at (919) 57113700, Wilmington Office at [phone], Winston Salem
Office at ((336) 7714630, Asheville Office at [phone], Fayetteville Office at [phone], or Mooresville Office at [phone].

MEMORANDUM
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM:. Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 30, 2003
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Warren, Franklin, Beaufort, and Pitt counties.
TIP Nos. B-4310, B-4311, B-4115, B-4114, and B-4022.
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
U.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.

Bridge Memo 2 July 30, 2003
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'x10'. 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 Mr. Hal
Bain should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
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 project.
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.

Bridge Memo
July 30, 2003
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
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 bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain 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 -year 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:
1. B-4310, Warren County, Bridge No. 62 over Hubquarter Creek on SR 1337. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
2. B-4311, Warren County, Bridge No. 63 over Little Hubquarter Creek on SR 1337. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo 4 July 30, 2003
3. B-4115, Franklin County, Bridge No. 57 over Sycamore Creek on SR 1419. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-4114, Franklin County, Bridge No. 151 over Camping Creek on SR 1146. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Our records indicate a known population
of Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in close proximity to the project located
downstream in Cedar Creek. NCDOT should conduct a mussel survey to determine the
presence or absence of Dwarf wedge mussel. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4022, Beaufort and Pitt Counties, Bridge No. 90 over Tranters Creek on SR 1414. 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
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

a `c i ami11on � �? V6'oo;ar�s�Y 1 4 3f
�b ro i- 4 142 .4 Pori 9ranch ROANCIKE,RIV j �S
4 1 111 Hasse 1 Cfv!l War Site NA T' -W4 UFS +{ V/eslu
Princcvillc i 903 »b 3 S Rt
GOItl 3 125 S �:, � � =. _
3 42 11 P•-ji- I . a �.
_r ; 13 a Eyerettst,C" 1UJlllIaMSitr G rder�1 PI i n i i th~
l e 64 ,q r Ii Ja�les�ille s W �A S 1
:nratne R fheI Rok�rson✓i le 5 , 125
64A e ale a M A R T I-
Pear Grass 99
t Hin�wr
13
30.. 171 i' 3 45
9 t
`t S_okes 17
� F
Pike Rr
33 r L 903 cn ,,rs"
1 ^7 ,�
43 3 louse 30
i1 5 l 1 3 Pactolus t t 61 A
r ,�' 1 Nineiuwn CLN
✓inP 264 .y I 11 264 $ NCEmarium j _
�eenvi l I e + �S /ire ^ ffa
ea
'Il Arthur 2 Simpson 1u33 ,+, ':Washington 32 764
�• 64A Gririeslaid s ' • 5 SLngan
� � �ea_esvil a 9t
T T Was-,irgtun Z 92 r•
ndtreF+ 903 Wintervill E31ack Cltw owinilr $Parke=�{ g f EF� 0 R
4 Jack�' * }oose 92 Bath
Creek ,+sfonc Bath �
lOZ C 11 Shelnerdine', `�� 6 p �t Pk.
103 �.' Aydcn
102 8 14 FREE 3D6
7 v Calico 33 I PnrntY�?,iy,
ViliIria r p;
O Gr tton r •. 17 ] % �Cross oads Bon-iarton'`
19 f 4 `
a 11E 306
BllD n-s
rgers Creek,_
Edward�� 1_
Vanr.ahnrn
55 5 Fort ,:tnerell � Aurora � loyal 33
Aurora Fosill
U �c Ernul Cayton Museum
on
55 4s�. 308
lb•--
C R A9� E Askins I ) HolI'M 11F 304
VicinitMap
Wel-.►=5
NORTH CAROLINA NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT / PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: 3=9J 1 (B-4023)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR
BRIDG090 ON SR1414
OVER TRANTER'S CREEK
SHEET f OF �% 8/12/05

VICINITY MAP
-W DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT/ PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: 33N9.1.1 (B-4022)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR
BRIDGEtt90 ON SR1414
OVER TRANTER'S CREEK
SHEET •2 OF / 8/12/05

Leggetts Crossroads Quad Map
.We4lnrNr'
500 0 1000 2000 3000 feet
NORTH CAROLINA NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT/PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: 33389.1.1 (B-4,022)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR
BRIDGE a 90 ON SR1414,/SR1556
OVER TRANTER'S CREEK
SHEET 3 OF 9 9/29/05

PROPERTY OWNERS
Annette Chauncey Radford
4287 Wards Bridge Rd. Greenville NC 27834
Gilbert Family Properties., LLC
108 Longmeadow Rd. Greenville NC 27834
Susan Edwards Bailey Thomas
4209 Glen Laurel Drive Raleigh NC 27612

TA 1
f �� • Ili
N 61' 53139.2" E
\
I
\
� \s
\
DO NOT DISTURB WETLAND\ \
* * * • DENOTES MECHANIZED
* .
• * * R N D
WETLAND IMPACTS CLEA ING I WETLAN
Em DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
GRAU 35
1
N 61' 53139.2" E
\
I
\
� \s
\
DO NOT DISTURB WETLAND\ \
* * * • DENOTES MECHANIZED
* .
• * * R N D
WETLAND IMPACTS CLEA ING I WETLAN
Em DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
GRAU 35

Ia\OI 1\l. .f At
IMF WEI 1o, am Man,
AS\t1 \N1
Imo mosi li► ■■ 11SoI
1!!I MEL `o/
15? _ C

N
Q 1U
FROJ. REFERENCE N0.
SHEET NO.
B-402
x-3
m
10
10
l0
10
10
1110:1-5
0
e
0
70
0 so
A 0
D
20 1 D
1
D 20
40 0 60
70
8
D
90
10
10
10
10
10
10
pp��
79
19
3 19
I T
�f
010
3 19
39
00
le
b+AoDo
Sd
20
09
\
ge
-
—
—
L
577
v
2c
09
F'
O.00
�.
EN RI&E -L-
S A 18+44
/-
I
�
9
I
n
-om
�
L�
N
0
S
u, u
o-�
mLN
10
10
1010
10
10
1
1
10
1
10
10
10
10
10

«w
Ville �
2i
.0 Arth
6�
3' F
indtree
tisvlll��
h
IgErsl/l
Vicinity Map
Pike Rr
4
1L
bora■ �oyal 33
Aurora Fossil
Museum
H.,uy41IIF 304
NORTH CAROLINA NCI)®T
DIVISION OF ffiQHWAYS
BEMMORT / PITT COUNTY
353sq. !. i
PROJECT. -M iM B-4022)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR
BRMB*% ON SR1414
OVER TRANTER'S CREEK
SHEET % OF 4t 8/12/05

VICINITY MAP
. DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT/ PITT COUNTY
PROJECT "B-4022)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR
BRIDGE #90 ON SR1414
OVER TRANTER'S CREEK
SHEET -� OF i

I
Leggetts Crossroads Quad Map
500 0 1000 2000 3000 feet
www� 156i66iii
NORTH �AROLINA
NICDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT/PITT COUNTY
PROJECT:Z= (B-4022)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR
13RIDGE'90 ON SR1414
OVER TRANTER'S CREEK
SHEET 3 OF (-* 07/19/05

4
to ?'�♦'.♦♦�`!:' ♦ ►, ►/ v ♦:.
iVVE
.t.♦� S �!0M. WAN mumme
. i ♦ `ilii!?Ci!��♦
- ice/,%':;mac' I ♦ %-;.�t���1
544
14
iy��� .1� wli �n ►.:1Q.B.u!i.J�i�.�:
1
1
1
1
Ar
(`r T - r- T- -T�
\ 130
�WLa _ \ %TCD®°
\ o DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT/ PITT COUNTY
DO NOT DISTURB WETLAND \ Z��2n PROJECTt 33389.1.1-(B-(022)
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
BUFFER IMPACTS
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2

m
L
a
------------ s.o3
1ROlECf AEFHIEIVCE NO. f!1!!f NO.
N6szs zap �� (( B-4022 4
\ RAV lNliT NO. to
\ ROADWAY 0li1GN NYDRAWCR
fp
.......................................................
N
FOR —L— PROFILE SEE SHEET 6
® BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
n
CHARLESux
\ /
O \
\ !
RIDN
M>295 g6, BE ON
9 4zq� STEEL IGST DECKUOVER STEGE EN FILINGS & 1
\ STEEL GUARD RAILS
/
WOODEN HEAD HA
C
ANNETTE CHAUNCEY RADFORD \
ANNETTE CHAUNCEY RADFORD \
/ ISFp
a V \ \
?SFp o` CpNOdW / s ro rohf
Q �N4CKl 2 / do
/ OLD WELL?
4- — _ \ O1'NFa , ODDS 3•'S
.81.99 \ \ �..�
ECM �v 1 " 12• CONIC1�
HOODS .. .. ..
9.30'
/ N55'221 :k '
i<
t /
/
/
/
/
/
e
/a
- GROW - - - - - - - -
T_E_"'
WOODS }
50 1 \
\ EP TAPER
1 t /
l /
1 DO NOT DS7UN Wt AND
1O�s /
GILBERT FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC
STA. 13 + 00 -L- BEGIN TIP
B-4022
RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PROPOSED PAVEMENT
BEN BRIM APPFOACH SLAB
t- SrAi6F24 •i- 't- SrAN6Bi+i-
I I 1
2c.1 TAPER24;V-P54 R
BUFFER IMPACTS
R TYP u
APPl10ACH $AB -t- STAN•,. •�-
-c— STA19+00 t/ -
NOT TO SCALE
,a �� \
vo
\
DO NOT Dwrupw wmmM
t \
i<
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
W
W
S
N
W
W
Vf
SIO
O
O
N
GAAU ]60 � F
_c
1
\
1
a
\
\
1
i<
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
W
W
S
N
W
W
Vf
SIO
O
O
N
GAAU ]60 � F
_c

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT
BUFFER
REPLACEMENT
SITE NO.
STRUCTURE SIZE I
TYPE
STATION
FROM/TO
TYPE ALLOWABLE MIITIGABLE
ROAD PARALLEL ZONE 1 ZONE 2 TOTAL ZONE 1 ZONE 2 TOTAL
CROSSING IMPACT (ft') (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
ZONE 1 ZONE 2
(ft) (ft)
1
Bride
17+43
5917 4108 10025
TOTAL:
1
5917 4108 10025
Note: There is an overlap with wetland impacts as follows:
232 sq. ft. fill In BZ1; 479 sq. ft. clearing in BZ1; 305 sq. ft. clearing in BZ2.

m
m
OZ
m
W
0
See Sheet l -A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet I -B For Con✓entlonol Symbols
1688 1415 10011861 Q
�C
1661 �,
1551 ` t 1001
1662 J
1654
Vokm Of AmeAm
` (SM A)
1650 1416
C,
1642 ,f�LoNeft
PROJECT i
1414
�¢¢ 41
1666
® 1 ' 1412 1001
1660
VICINITY MAP
DETOUR ROUTE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT fH
BF44A UFOR T COUNTY
LOCATION. BRIDGE NO. 90 OVER TRANTERS CREEK
ON SR 1414 & SR 1556
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
STA. 13 + 00 Ir BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4022
11 NO
OGOO
GL
TO SR 1550 _ — SR 1556 -L-
WARDS BRIDGE ROAD ORSE
BEGIN BRIDE
+
+ -
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
4�
SR 141
PE SWV4 ROAD
CROSSROADS
rtn
rt.n nm.r.T ■vsn,o pn
s«
rorwc
•C
B-4022
1
112.
GARY COVERING. PErs
33389.1.1 8RZ-1414 PE
33389.2.1 BRZ-14141 R /W UTIUTIES
Sim" vim.
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 5 0 10 20
�1
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT 8-4022 = 0,161 MILES
rRWacr axcaae
RON MCCOLLUM, PE
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
rs
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
A"NOYMamxAi>ma
ROADWAY PLANS
STA. 21 +50 -L- KAM TIP PROTECT B-4022
5
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 0 50 100
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2006 = 452
ADT 2026 = 713
DHV = 10 %
D = 60 %
T = 3 % r
V = 60 MPH
a TTST =1% DUAL =2%
FUNC. CLASS = RURAL
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4022 = 0.119 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8-4022 = 0.042 MILES
_
Prexred In the Ofrlce of:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Birch Ride Dr., Raleigh NC, 27610
rHYDRAULICS ENGINEER
A&
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
STAra ZuLvruv xffina e
WO SrANDARD MWIMATMS
GARY COVERING. PErs
PLANS
50 25 0 50 loo
JtIGNT OF WAY DATE.
JUNE 3, 2005
Sim" vim.
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 5 0 10 20
�1
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT 8-4022 = 0,161 MILES
rRWacr axcaae
RON MCCOLLUM, PE
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
rs
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
A"NOYMamxAi>ma
LETTING DATE.
JUNE 20, 2006
PXOJ T DISMV Mr OU
DrVLK x ApAwmnumre RAZZ

Note: Not to Scale
•sux = . savo2we utr{v s„e:meHxg STATE OF I'IOffgTH CAROLINA
DIQIISYON OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
o
StateLine ------------------------------------------
-
ounty Line -------------------------------------------
--
TownshipLine ------------------------------------- --
—
CityLine --------------------------------------- —
—
Reservation Line ------------------------------------
— —
Property Line --------------------------------------
0
Existing Iron Pin -7 --------------------------------
r T r
Property Comer -----------------------------------
--
Property Monument -------------------------------
---�•
Parcel/Sequence Number ------------------------
rrs
Existing Fence Line --------------------------------x-xx-
e
Proposed Woven Wire Fence -------------------
e
--------------------
Proposed Chain Link Fence -------------------------------
FDr:
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence--------------------
Proposed
e
Existing Wetland Boundary --------------------- - -
-�^- - - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary --------------------
�a
Existing High Quality Wetland Boundary ------
p R°
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
Etl
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary -----------
BUILDINGS AND OTWER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or WG Tank Cap -------------
o
Sign------------------------------------------------
s
Well ------------------------------------------------
°
M
Small Mine -----------------------------------------
5Z
Foundation -----------------------------------------
�_�
Area Outline --------------------------------------
D
Cemetery-----------------------------------------
0
Building--------------------------------------------
r T r
School--------------------------------------------
❑CB
Church---------------------------------------------
---�•
Dom------------------------------------------------
--E—
BMROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir -------------- r--- -�
River Basin Buffer ------------------------------- Rae
FlowArrow --------------------------------------- --
Disappearing Stream ---------------------------> ---- —
Spring-------------------------------------------cam~�_.
Swamp Marsh -----------------------------------
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head, Ditch -------------
False Sum --
RAILROADS.
Standard Guage----------------------------------� T
[$X TFAVSfOVlATSM
RR Signal Milepost -------------------------------- MILEPOST D u
Switch----------------------------------------------
RR Abandoned --------------------------------------- --- -.-
RR Dismantled ------------------------------------ ----
RIGBT OF WAY.
Baseline Control Point -------------------------
e
Existing Right of Way Marker -------------------
D
Existing Right of Way Line -------------------
- - - c - - -
Proposed Right of Way Line ------------------
--�—
Proposed Right of Way Line with ------
�_�
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
CF�)
Proposed Right of Way Una with
--`-----------
@
Concrete or Granite Marker
r T r
Existing Control of Access
❑CB
Proposed Control of Access --------------------
---�•
Existing Easement Line ----- ----------------
--E—
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement -
e
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement -----
TDE
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement -----
FDr:
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement ---------
Pue
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES
Existing Edge of Pavement ----------------------
---_--
Existing Curb ------------------------------------
-11111-
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut --------------------
- - - c - - -
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill --------------------
F
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp -------------------
�i
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp -----
CF�)
Existing Metal Guardrail -------------------------
- L -T-
Proposed Guardrail ------------------------------
r T r
Existing Cable Guiderail -----------------------
❑CB
Proposed Cable Guiderail----------------------
Storm Sewer Manhole
Equality Symbol -------------------------------
Stone Sower ----------------------------------
Pavement Removal
VEGETATION.•
Single Tree --------------------------------------- 0
SingleShrub ---------------------------------------
Hedge---------------------------------------------- m mm r
Woods Line ---------------------------------------sur_
Orchard-------------------------------------------- 0 0 Q 4
Vineyard -------------------------------------------- v�neY- J
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
MAJOR:
-11111-
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert -----------------
-0-
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall --
O
MINOR:
4 -
Head and End Wall ---------------------------
Com H•
Pipe Culvert
- - -•- - - -
Footbridge ---------------------------------------
19
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB ---------
❑CB
Paved Ditch Gutter ------------------------------
-----
Storm Sewer Manhole
OO
Stone Sower ----------------------------------
s
UTILITIES.•
POWER:
-11111-
Existing Power Pole ------------------------------
-0-
Proposed Power Pole -----------------------------
--------------- -----------Existing
O
ExistingJoint Use Pole ---------------------------
4 -
Proposed Joint Use Pole-----------------------
-&
Power Manhole ----------------------------------
- - -•- - - -
Power Line Tower --------------------------------
19
Power Transformer -------------------------------
B
U,G Power Cable Hand Hole -
- - -*- - - -
H -Frame Pole ------------------------
Recorded WG Power Line -----------
Designated LLG Power Line (S.U.E."
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole ------------------------
-11111-
Proposed Telephone Pole ----------------------
-0-
Telephone Manhole----------------------------
O
Telephone Booth ---------------------------------
0
Telephone Pedestal ------------------------------
ID
Telephone Cell Tower --------------------------
- - -•- - - -
WG Telephone Cable Hand Hole ----------- -
19
Recorded WG Telephone Cable --------------
Designated LPG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.`) -
- - -*- - - -
Recorded WG Telephone Conduit --------
E.O.I.
Designated LPG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.")- -
- - - - - - -
Recorded WG Fiber Optics Cable -----------
T
Designated USG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.")- -
- - —1
WATER:
TV-
TV
Water Manhole ROA aHeEr1 ----
O
TV Pedestal --------------------------------------
0
Water Volvo --------------------------------------
0
Water Hydrant ------------------------------------
.0
Recorded WC's Water Line ---------------------
r ,
Desi nated UG Water Line S.U.E ` -
- - -•- - - -
-------------------
Above Ground Water Line---------------------
0
TV:TV
Satellite Dish ---------------------------------
C�
TV Pedestal --------------------------------------
In
---------------------------------------
TVTower -----------------------------------------
0
WG TV Cable Hand Hole ------------------- -
LkG
ER
Recorded USG TV Cable ----------------------
r ,
Desi nated LING TV Cable S.U.E." -
- - -*•- - - -
Recorded WG Fiber Optic Cable ----------------
0
Designated LPG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.•)-- -
GAS:
Gas Volvo -------------- ------------------------- 0
GasMeter---------------------------------------
Recorded
-------------------------------------Recorded WG Gas Line -------------------------
Designated
---- -----------------
Desi noted WG Gas Line S.U.E." - - - - -
Above Ground Gas Line °I0 `C$
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole ---------------------- OO
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout ---------------------- O
LIS Sanitary Sewer Line ----------------------- u
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer ---------------- . G santtory seer
Recorded SS Forced Main Line---------------- fu
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.") --- - - - -ass- - - -
MISCELLANEOUS:
UtilityPole ----------------------------------------
•
Utility Pole with Base ---------------------------
O
Utility Located Object ---------------------------
p
Utility Traffic Signal Box -------------------------
m
Utility Unknown WG Line ---------------------
r ,
WG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil ---------------------
ASG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil ---------------------
0
UG Test Hole (S.U.E.") -------------------------
Abandoned According to Utility Records -----
AATUR
End of Information -------------------------------
E.O.I.

N
Da
JO
TO
NCDOT BASELINE STATION BL -3
t OC4Lr ED PROJECT COORDINATES
N 705625.0771
E 2542644.0195
DATUM DESCRIPTION
THE LOCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROJECT
IS BASED ON THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES ESTABLISHED BY
NCDOT FOR MWWENT 84022 -1 -
WITH NAD /953/95 STATE PLANE GRID CMINATES OF
AWHIAG• 707046170W) EASTIAC 25448604030'fn
THE AVERAGE CLWBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS PROJECT
(GROUND TO GRID)15t 09-cW2
THE N,L- LAMBERT GRID BEARIAG AND
LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCE FROM
84022-1 -TO -L- STATION 13M0000 IS
S 57147'519' W 2273.(&02"6)
ALL LINEAR DIMENSIONS ARE LOCALIZED 1A7RIZOI k DISTANCES
VERTICAL DATUM USED IS NAVD 88
SURVEY CONTROL SHEET B-4022
FlIORCT IlrL &<E NO. -Eff NO.
R-40PP I 1--r
BL
CONTROL DATA
POINT
__ _____
DESC.
NORTH EASTELEVATION
L STATION
OFFSET
___ __
3
---------- _--- ________________
BL -3
________________ ________________ ________________
705625.0711 2542644.0195 16.48
_______
OUTSIDE PROJECT
_________
LIMITS
4
BL -4
705968.04]9 2543219.6369 19.69
16.29.60
15.66 LT
5
BL -5
706357.6935 2544015.0900 19.17
OUTSIDE PROJECT
LIMITS
BENCHMARK DATA
...............................
BMl ELEVATION - 74.67
N 705893 E 2543309
L STATION 16.73 92 RIGHT
RR SPIKE SET IN 36' OAK
NCDOT BASELINE STATION BL -4
LOCALMRD PROJECT COORDINATES
N 7059640419
/ B 2543219.8369
/ r 1
f- TD SR 1550 -L l
SR 1556 WARD5 BRIDGE RD.
__. - -7 - _
11
/
//
/1
NCDOT BBNCFIMARR BMI
El"ATION 14.87'
-Z- POT Srm 13+00.00
LOCAL LIED PROJECT COORDINATES
N 705798.9514E 2542936.4778
NOTES:
NCDOT BASELINB STATION BL -S
OCA. ED PROJECT COORDINATES
N 706357.6935
8 25440I5.09A0
TO LEGGETTS CROSSROADS
-L- POT Stm V +50.00
LOC4UZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N 706199.3871 E 2543686`2453
THE CONTROL DATA FOR THIS PROJECT CAN BE FOUND ELECTRONICALLY BY SELECTING
PROJECT CONTROL DATA AT:
HTTP.•\WWW.DOHDOT.STATE.NC. US/PRECONSTRUCTIHIGHWAYILOCATIONIPROJECT
FILE: 64022 Is contml 040812.w
SITE CALIBRATION INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR THIS PROJECT.
IF FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, PLEASE CONTACT THE LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
0 INDICATES GEODETIC CONTROL MONUMENTS USED OR SET FOR HORIZONTAL PROJECT CONTROL
BY THE NCDOT LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
PROJECT CONTROL ESTABLISHED USING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM.
NETWORK ESTABLISHED FROM. NGS ONLINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS)
NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE

-/+"+81 Y1S -'1- of -/+ tZ+ 9 L Y1S -I-
321nlonNIS NO NO1103S IV:)IdAl 3Sf1
3:)Y"ns 0N11Y3M 11VHdSv
46+8L Y1S -1- Ol (390118 (3N3) --+y►+8l Y1S -1-
(39(3116 rZ+91 YIS -r 01 VL+9L Y1S J1 -
Z 'ON N01103S IV01dAl 3sn
SNOLLMA 33S
3d01S WA
09+LZ'Y1S -1- 01 f6+8L Y15 -1-
YL+91'V1S -1- 01 00+£L 'VIS -I-
L 'ON NO11:)3S IV0Wd 3sn
SNOlL:)3S-X 33S
UOIS WA
ti�wwo�e icw+rxa
NDWG INIMAVJ I N.O%Q AVMOVOI
.0 1 zzoa-a
'ON .Wam • I 'ON alanm 1=01W
j:t
(•`-S nsHl l -s SNV1d 3v=nn
32lnl5nKS NO NO1103S 1V01dA1 39(3laesa3a'aid nnsiv:iSOdsd
3Nn SIH1 O1 3cwo
Z 'ON NO11:)3S IV:)IdAl
3Nn SIHl Ol 30V119
n ,9'9. J n
HMO 10^
i 1 ,A-,9
ll -'- .0-19
L 'ON NO1103S IV01dAl
Y'9'9 .9.9
1/0 M M
ZO'0 Zp•p
l7
1N IOd
3CM0
wo/m
a0-,9
SIHI 01 30WO
SNOU:)3S-X 33S
3d01S WA
SNO1103S'X 33S
3d01S WA
P0190 6u'BPGM
AIANnS 5
'3SIMH3H10 NMOHS 8831Nn L:L 3HV S3d018 3003 1N3V13AVd :31ON
(1IV130 ONI003M 339) 1N3M3AVd IIVHdSV HId30 319VIUVA M
'1N3h3AVd ONIISIX3 n
'1VIu31VW HIHV3 1
'H1d30 NI ,K-19 NVHI
H31V3H0 HO H1d30 NI „£ NVHI 5531 ION SUAV1 NI 030V1d 38 Z3
O1 'H1d30 „L dad '0A 'OS Had '881 4LL d0 31VH 30VH3AV NV IV '80'938 3dAi '3SHn0O 39V8 313HONOO 11VHdSV H1d30 'HVA 'dOHd
'(3A '09 Had 'S81 891 d0 31VH 30VH3AV NV 1V `3
'80'538 3dAi '3SHnOO 3SV8 313HONOO IIVHdSV „4 'XOHddV 'dOHd
'H1d30 NI „Z 033OX3 01 ION SUAV1 NI 03OV1d 38
O1 'H1d30 yl Had '0A '08 Had 'S81 011 d0 31VH 30VH3AV NV 1V
V9'838 3dA1 33Hn0O 3OVdHns 3i3HONOO 11VHd8V Hid30 'HVA 'dOHd
'Sa3AV1
OMI d0 HOV3 NI 'OA 'DS Had 'SS1 9'L£4 d0 31" 30VH3AV NV 1V
'V9'8dS 3dA1 38HnOO 3OVjHns 313HONOO 11VHdSV ,411 'XOHddV 'dOHd
NJIS3a -IVNI3
m
3ina3HOS 1N3N3AVd N
n

NO
..........