20051035 Ver 2_Application_20070718

e , 4
y as SfNF°~
y d +/' ~
~•@~,.~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVIENI' OF TRANSPORTATION ~u/a'ER~~>
~,~,c
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT~
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 16, 2007
Mr. William Wescott
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Dear Sirs:
~+
~~ ~~~~
l
~FT~wps ~~ ~c~
~~f~s~ ~;;~, ~O~ j U,~°
o,~~, wU~
05~ b35 v. ti
Mr. Stephen Lane
Division of Coastal Management
N. C. Dept. of Env. & Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application, CAMA Major Development Permit
Application, and Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization Request for the
Replacement of Bridge No. 212 over Bachelor Creek on SR 1005; Craven
County; TIP Project B-4085; Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1005(7); State
Project No.8.2171201; Debit $400.00 from WBS 33444.1.1.
Please find enclosed the Preconstruction Notification (PCN), CAMA Major Permit (MP) forms,
Adjacent Riparian Landowner return receipts, permit drawings, half-size plans, NRTR, and the
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the above-mentioned project. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 212 over Bachelor Creek on SR 1005 in
Craven County. The project involves replacement of the existing functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient bridge and approaches with a new 115-foot bridge and approaches. The new
bridge will feature two 12-foot lanes with 4.5-foot offsets. The west approach will be
approximately 330 feet long and the east approach will tae approximately 300 feet long. An
offsite detour will be utilized. Proposed permanent impacts include 0.09 acre of riverine wetland
impacts for fill. Additionally, there will be 0.09 acre of hand clearing in riverine wetlands.
Impacts to Water of the United States
General Description: Bachelor Creek is located in the 03020202 CU of the Neuse River Basin.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned Bachelor Creek a Stream Index Number of
27-98. DWQ has assigned a best usage classification of C Sw NSW.
Bachelor Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a national
Wild and Scenic River. It is not listed as a 303(d) stream nor are there 303(d) waters within 1
mile of the study area. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1 mile
of the project study area.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MaL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27599-1548

~ a ~
Permanent Impacts: As stated above, permanent impacts consist of fill in riverine wetlands. The
total amount of proposed impacts is 0.09 acre.
Temporary Impacts: There are no temporary impacts proposed for this project
Utility Impacts: There will be no impacts to jurisdictional resources due to utilities. The electrical
lines to the north of the project will remain in place. The buried, fiber optic phone line will be
relocated using directional bore.
Hand Clearing: There are 0.09 acre of hand clearing proposed for this project.
Neuse Buffer Rules: This project lies within the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations
pertaining to the Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply. There are 2,386 square feet of impacts to
Zone 1 and 2,260 square feet of impacts to Zone 2. Of these impacts, 2,129 square feet are
considered allowable due to bridge construction and 2,517 square feet are allowable with
mitigation due to roadway construction.
Bridge Demolition
The superstructure for Bridge No. 212 is a concrete deck on I-beams and will allow removal
without dropping components into the water. Likewise, it should be possible to remove the
timber piles and timber caps without dropping them into the water. Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented. Any component of the bridge dropped
into the water shall be immediately removed.
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:
• To avoid impacts, NCDOT is replacing Bridge No. 212 in place and utilizing anoff--site
detour.
• The bridge will be lengthened by 22 feet.
• Top down construction will be utilized.
• NCDOT is also minimizing impacts to surface waters by utilizing longer spans with fewer
bents than the existing bridge.
• NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction moratorium from February 15 to June 30 and
utilize Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage.
• 3:1 slopes were used in jurisdictional areas.
2

f ~~
Mitigation
The proposed project will have permanent impacts to wetlands totaling 0.09 acre due to fill. Due
to the minimal amount of permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, and impacts to riparian
not exceeding the threshold requiring compensatory mitigation, NCDOT is not proposing
mitigation.
Access
Due to safety concerns, increased costs, and not meeting the threshold of "undue interference", as
it relates to NCDOT's "Guidelines for Recreational Access at Creeks and Rivers" (attached),
NCDOT does not propose access for recreation for this project.
Federally Protected Species
As of June 28, 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five federally protected
species for Craven County. The following table lists these species.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Conclusion
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochel s coriacea E N No Effect
American Alli ator Alli ator mississi iensis' T S/A Y N/A
Red-cockaded Wood ecker Picoides borealis 1/ N No Effect
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E N No Effect
Sensitive Joint-vetch Aesch nomene vir 'pica T N No Effect
E - endangered; T -threatened; T(S/A) -threatened due to similarity of appearance
The bald eagle was delisted as of June 28, 2007 and is no longer protected by the Endangered
Species Act. The most recent survey found no individuals or nests. It is, however, protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Project Schedule
The project has a scheduled let of January 15, 2008 with a review date of December 4, 2007.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; March 19, 2007).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3632 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing two copies of this
3

,r ,.
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their review.
Neuse River R~arian Buffer Authorization: NCDOT requests that the NC Division of Water
Quality review this application and issue a written approval for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Authorization.
CAMA Permit: NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit. The landowner receipts are attached. NCDOT has
received a stormwater permit for this project.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.or /g doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
W/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. John Williams, P.E., Planning Engineer
4

1 ~r
ACM MP-1
n~ruennoMror
~uK oe~oo~eM rormn
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicand Landowner Information
Business Name
Nc Department Of Transportation Project Name (it applicable)'
B-4085
Applicant 1: First Name
Gregory MI
J. Last Name
Thorpe
Applicant 2: First Name MI Last Name
If additional applicants, please atfach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
1598 Mail Service Center PO Box City
Raleigh State
NC
ZIP
27699 Country Phone No.
919 - 715 - 1334 ext. FAX No.
919 - 715 - 5501
Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP
Email
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name MI Last Name
AgenU Contractor 2: First Name MI Last Name
Mailing Address PO Box Ciry State
ZIP Phone No. 1
- ext. Phone No. 2
- - ext.
FAX No. Contractor #
Street Address (~f different from above) City State ZI P
Email
<Form continues on baclc>
x52-80$-2808 :: 1-$88-4RCL9AST :: www.nccoastatmanagement.net

r ,.
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
None
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
None
5. Activities and Impacfs
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? Commercial Public/Government
^Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
New bridge over Bachelor Creek. Used for conveying traffic.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
Replace existing bridge using road construction equipment.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Bridge replacement
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? ^Sq.Ft or ^Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area Yes No NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Surface runoff
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ^Yes No NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ^Yes ^No ^NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? Yes No ^NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on bacl~
6. Additiona/Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following ftems below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) - (fl are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

' ~ ~ Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple) Street Address State Rd. #
Craven
Subdivision Name City State Zip
Phone No. Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext.
a. In which NC river basin is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Neuse Bachelor Creek
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade? d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ^Manmade ^Unknown Neuse River
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
^Yes ®No work falls within.
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.) b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
N/A
c. Size of individual lot(s) d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (nomtal high water) or
N/A, NWL (nom-al water level)
(If many lotsizes, please attach additional page with a list) ^NHW or ^NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
Wetland vegetation, roadside grasses
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
Bridge, railroad and bridge, & guardrail
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Forested wetland
h. How does local government zone the tract? i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Rural services (Attach zoning compliance certificate,rf applicable)
®Yes ^No ^NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? Yes No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. Yes No NA
If yes, by whom? SHPO
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a Yes No NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the sfte? Yes No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ^Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ®Yes ^No
(Attach documentation, if available)
252-8~8-2848 ;; 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoa5tafmanagement.ne#

' r ~ Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name International Paper Company
Phone No.
Address 865 John L. Regel Road, Reigelwood, NC 28456
Name Monta Humphrey Betts
Phone No.
Address 8421 Two Courts Drive, Raleigh, NC 27613
Name James C. Humphrey
Phone No.
Address 607 West Wilson Creek Drive, New Bern, NC 28562
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date
Print Name
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
^DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ®DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
^DCM MP-3 Upland Development
^DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X52-8Cf8-28tt8 ,. 1-888-4RCQA5T .. www.nccoastalmanagemen4.net

,r ,~
BRI06ES and CULYERiS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
1. BRIDGES ^This section not applicable
a. Is the proposed bridge: b. Water body to be crossed by bridge:
^Commercial ®Public/Government ^Private/Community Bachelor Creek
c. Type of bridge (construction material):
21 "cored slab
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at NLW or NWL:
-9'
e. (i) Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? ®Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Length of existing bridge: 83'
(iii) Width of existing bridge: 32'
(iv) Navigation clearance underneath existing bridge: -5.~'
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be removed?
(Explain) All (new bridge will be longer)
(i) Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert? ^Yes ®No
If yes,
(ii) Length of existing culvert:
(iii) Width of existing culvert:
(iv) Height of the top of the existing culvert above the NHW or
NWL:
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be removed?
(Explain)
9• Length of proposed bridge: 120' h• Width of proposed bridge: 33'
i. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow? ^Yes ®No j. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by reducing or
If yes, explain: increasing the existing navigable opening? Yes ®No
If yes, explain:
k• Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge: -6.5' 1. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guam concerning their
approval? ^Yes ®No
If yes, explain:
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing no navigable n. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands: -6'
waters? ^Yes ®No
If yes, explain:
2. CULVERTS ®This section not applicable
a. Number of culverts proposed: b. Water body in which the culvert is to be placed:
< Form continues on back>
c. Type of culvert (construction material):
"r_'~::~W~t3~-~~gS .: 1-8~8-~t~d:C]A,~"t" v~rwv ~.:~z.,~stalrxa~~t~c„~~ene~st_n~i rev;ser#; °ff3J26tt3€s

t ,i
iF+r~rm C~iCIV! IVff~-~ ~i8ridges and Culverts, Page 2 of 4)
d. (i) Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
^Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Length of existing bridge:
(iii) Width of existing bridge:
(iv) Navigation clearance underneath existing bridge:
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be removed?
(Explain)
e. (i) Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
^Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Length of existing culvert(s):
(iii) Width of existing culvert(s):
(iv) Height of the top of the existing culvert above the NHW or
NWL:
(v) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be removed?
(Explain)
g. Width of proposed culvert:
i. Depth of culvert to be buried below existing bottom contour.
k. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
^Yes ^No
If yes, explain:
f. Length of proposed culvert:
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the NHW or NWL.
j. Will the proposed culvert affect navigation by reducing or
increasing the existing navigable opening? ^Yes ^No
If yes, explain:
3. EXCAVATION and FILL ^This section not applicable
a. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any b. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any
excavation below the NHW or NWL? ^Yes ®No excavation within coastal wetlands/marsh (CW); submerged
If yes, aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands
(ii) Avg. length of area to be excavated: (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square
feet affected:
(iii) Avg. width of area to be excavated: j]CW ^SAV ^SB
(iv) Avg. depth of area to be excavated: ^WL ®None
(v) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic yards:
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
c. (i) Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any
high-ground excavation? ®Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Avg. length of area to be excavated: 70'
(iii) Avg. width of area to be excavated: 30'
(iv) Avg. depth of area to be excavated:
(v) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic yards: 1,~4
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves any excavation, please complete the following:
(i) Location of the spoil disposal area: To be determined by the contractor
(ii) Dimensions of the spoil disposal area:
(iii) Do you claim title to the disposal area? ^Yes ^No (If no, attach a lettergranting permission from the owner.)
(iv) Will the disposal area be available for future maintenance? ^Yes ^No
(v) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs), other wetlands (WL), or shell
bottom (SB)?
^CW ^SAV ^WL ^SB ®None
If any boxes are checked, give dimensions if different from (ii) above.
(vi) Does the disposal area include any area below the NHW or NWL? ? ^Yes ®No
If yes, give dimensions 'rf different from (ii) above.
252-808-2808 s: 1-888-4I2COA,8T ,vww n~~oa~tafrnz ~ =~t~~~-a~,,t,rs~t revised: 1f,S-26tt3~

~ ,s
Form DCM MP-5 (Bridges and Culverts, Page 3 0# 4j
e. (i) 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 NHW or NWL? ®Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Avg. length of area to be filled: see oermit drawings
(iii) Avg. width of area to be filled:
(iv) Purpose of fill: Piles driven.
g. (i) 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 high-ground? ®Yes ^No
If yes,
(ii) Avg. length of area to be filled: -400'
(iii) Avg. width of area to be filled: -12'
(iv) Purpose of fill: Widen shoulders that approach bridges.
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project require the relocation of any existing
utility lines? ®Yes ^No
If yes, explain: Telephone line will be directionally bored.
See attached Utility Plan sheet No. 4.
f. (i) 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/marsh (CW), submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands
(WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square
feet affected.
^CW ^SAV ^SB
^WL ^None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
b. Will the proposed project require the construction of any temporary
detour structures? ^Yes ®No
If yes, explain:
If this portion of the proposed project has already received
approval from local authorities, please attach a copy of the
approval or cert~cation.
< Form continues on back>
c. Will the proposed project require any work channels? d. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
^Yes ®No controlled?
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP 2. Silt fence, NCDOT Type B silt basin, diversion ditches, and
inlet protection.
e. What type of construction equipment will be used (for example, f. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project site?
dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
^Yes ®No
Bulldozer, backhoe, & crane. If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert require any
shoreline stabilization? ^Yes ®No
If yes, complete form MP-2, Section 3 for Shoreline
Stabilization only.
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 10/26/06

i
dorm DCM MP-5 (Bridges and Culverts, Page ~ of 4)
Date
Project Name
ap
plicant Name
ap
plicant Signature
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www_nccoastalmanagementnet revised: 1~12S1Q6

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 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: ^
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
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (9191733-9794
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 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005 over Bachelor Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4085
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Craven Nearest Town: New Bern
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Bridge 212 over Bachelor
Creek on SR 1005
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.1494 °N 77.1739 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Neuse River
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at 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
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Replacing
a structurally deficient bridge using top-down construction. Standard road building
equipment will be used.
Page 2 of 8

11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a structurally deficient bridue.
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.
No.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 0. 09 acre of wetland impacts.
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.
Page 3 of 8

Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year
Floodplain Nearest
Stream Impact
(acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) es/no linear feet
Bridge Fill Riverine Yes 0 0.09

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.09
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: ~1
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 Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Stream Width Length Impact
indicate on ma Intermittent? Before Im act linear feet acres
N/A

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
indicate on ma
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of

Impact
acres
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Im act (acres
Wetland Im act (acres): 0.09
O en Water Im act acres
Total Irrt act to Waters of the U.S. (acres 0.09
Total Stream Im act (linear feet
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Page 4 of 8

Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USAGE.
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.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
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
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Top-down construction.
bride was lengthened, and minimum widths were used for structures and approaches
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.
USAGE - 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.
Page 5 of 8

If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Due to the limited amount of area impacted, no miti ation is proposed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
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 ^
Page 6 of 8

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.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
s uare feet Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 2,386 3 (2 for Catawba) None
2 2,260 1.5 None
Total 4,646 None
* 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.
XI.
XII.
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.
Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.Impervious acreage will not appreciably increase
as a result of the bridge construction.
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.
No wastewater will be generated from the implementation of the proposed project.
Page 7 of 8

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 anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
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).
~. ~ ~ ~~i.~ ~~ Z
ApplicantlAgent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

Page 8 of 8

GUIDELINES FOR RECREATIONAL ACCESS AT CREEKS AND RIVERS
Public interest in recreational access along various creeks and rivers in North Carolina has been
increasing in recent years. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) fully
acknowledges the value of recreational access but has not been given the mission to fund, provide, or
manage such facilities. The Department will lend support (as legal, design, and funding constraints
allow) by coordinating with other agencies that have been charged with such a mission.
1n order to delineate more clearly how NCDOT will participate in providing recreational access,
NCDOT has developed the guidelines to direct the decision making process. These guidelines should
be used during the planning process. The decision regarding whether an access will be provided should
be made before the final planning document is completed so the access can be addressed within the
document.
If there is an existin pgL ublicly owned formal facility managed for recreational access (fishing,
canoeing, or otherwise), the Department will replace the facility as part of the project
construction. This is in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
Section 4(f) procedures.
If there is an existingprivately owned formal facility managed for recreational access (fishing,
canoeing, or otherwise) NCDOT will address any project impacts to the facility through the
right of way acquisition process. NCDOT will not, however, replace impacted parts of the
facility as part of the project construction.
1f formal access is desired where there is an informal recreational access (no formal facilities
but site is used to access fishing, canoeing, and otherwise) or no existing access at all, NCDOT
will include new access as part of the project construction under either of the following two
conditions:
1) If, in the judgement of NCDOT, there is a strong transportation safety related need to
include an access then NCDOT will improve the location as appropriate to resolve the
safety concern. NCDOT will coordinate with local agencies on the long term management
of the site. A separate government agency must agree to provide the long term
maintenance and management of the site.
2) If al] of the following five criteria is met, then NCDOT will as part of planning, design
and construction, include a recreational access facility:
- If there is a separate funding source outside of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation
- If there is a partnering government agency willing to maintain, fund, and manage the
site
- If there is a willing seller or provider of land needed for the facility
- If there are not unacceptable impacts associated with developing the new recreational
access facility (wetland impacts for example)
- if the adjacent property owners and the majority of the public comments favor the
addition of the recreational access facility
Any project constructed by NCDOT will be consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Any exceptions to the guidelines will require the approval of the NCDOT State Highway
Administrator and the FHWA Division Administrator.

i~

55
'~ 7243\
•
70
'fir ~ C7' ~ 4s
v o05 N 'IF--'~ R T,
SO~en~ R ~ ~ Hymans
1243 ~ i
i
7005 ~ ~$~{
~~ /Clarks
~ -~~
NOT TO SCALE ^
DETOUR ROUTE

1~~~~~
[ ;.
i e
DIVISION ~ OF HIGHWAYS-----~ ~, ,~ ;
_, .._
--'.
CRAVEN COUNTY '' t ,
REPLACEMENT OF.. BRII2.GsE ~2~2
ON SR 1005, OVER BP~CH$$q~~~
SHEET 1 OF 5
1/31A~05
Perms Drawing _ h
NORTH CAROLWA

r
-WLB •WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
L
® DENOTES FILL IN J
WETLAND "1 PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* _ DENOTES MECHANIZED
^" __ *' » CLEARING
--~ ~ FLOW DIRECTION
~.~ TOP OF BANK
-•-• WE EDGE OF WATER
_ - ~- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F -PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P-j- - PROPERTY LINE
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
.. .. .. .. WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE ~ GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -~ - - - WATER SURFACE
Xx Xxx x X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
1V ~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CRAVEN COUNTY
PROJECT:33~~1~1.1.2 (B-085)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE X212
ON SR 1005 OVER BACHELOR CREEg
SHEET 2 OF S
1/31/05
permit Drawing
~r,.a ~ of '~.

.a
I i `, ~: ~ u o
j ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ a ..,
o " ~ ~ ~ ° ~
D v o I j ~~ Z a F co a m
~ °~ ~ ~ ~'~zh ~~
~- ~~ j I ,~, ®~ ~ ~ o as
~ I ~ ~ ~ - ~ p ~ ~ z m
I ~Z ~ ;~oe~ w~
' -
~v ; U g
'" o ~
zo I ~~ ~ J° ca ~ a
n~ I ` `''o a a "' w
X~ I ~ - N~ z c~
wc~-I i ~1 I ~o p ~
O I ~
Q i ~ I
I
1
M
r- ------
I I
I I ~~~
''~ ~ i
Q
-~ -----
N II
~ ~I
I if ~
I I' ~
~I b
I. ~
I II
~ I. ~
II a
O ~ °~
' I a.
r- o° ~ I ~
~~ ~r
OCR ~ Na
~ ~ I ~r
~~ II U~
~ .I
I Z II
N
I '' ~p
I S~
I >
zo I II v°,b
Q `L
~~ 1 I J
O N~ I ~ II N
~ wc~ ~ J II
Z 'I
o N I~ ~
i
,~

PR®PERTY ®WNEI~S
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCBL NO. NAMES ADDRBSSES
O ~IT~RNAL TIQNA~~PAPER
O MONTA HUMPHREY BETTS
O .LAMES C. HuMPHREY. et ux
O ~T -REGAL T~ CORP.~R
Rie~iwOOd~ivC "2845
~Rdeigh.~l~ur 2~6~~
6 N@r ~Berr~i. NC r@2@8562r~
~65 JOhn L. R@q I R
@Q@IwOOd. NC ~84~~
~ °r_.~~

~ rn
3 d to ,~,
(tl « N ..
Z ~

~ ~N+
O1 C U a
F- N co O.y~
"
U xt EI-
Q WU-
a
~ y c
C C
Q U C
~J,J :: C c0 cC ..
~ ~
Q
~ x ~ ~
WU-a

W
Q
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
E

Q
~ c
~
~ w
f0 ~ UN U
~
~ ~
~ N .-
V
a a
a
~
m c
C 'C (0
o
Of
F U
cu~~~ro o 0
~ U ~ 0 0

W
a
~ p, ~

p N C C
.
co ~.
•
a ~
ro
L N j ro
U
W U c
~
~ o H
a
~ R
p ~ ~
d
W
J
F-
W
N
3 ~
~
~
C
O U
_
(
~
H ~ ~
C fn
C C C
c0
l4
O
~
O
0
_
~ 0
LL d O
O
~..
N a
~ ~ m
~~
°~ a
m

O ~
c~
p J J
~
~
O
fA O
M
v ~
O ~

~ C
- J
a
,,
V/ ' ' ~
'
OO
r
~y
~'~I

~:
~l:~'
ik r~:i Aii M''.
~~..
~:
aqi

~:

~
:,
~
~:.i:: k:: : ~:
~,
:~~ ~ ... Y ~ h ~ri
~~~;*:

~i ~ ~~1' ~R~ ~ ~
~ ~~
Rp ~
~
.
.. :
~ ~
A . .: :
~
~ ~
,
4
'
! .: +
~ ~ .
:: ~2 :
, ..., .
~
~~ '
~ ~
~
' ~
:/ 1Y/YMMM
~:
.:

I
? ~
~
I
I
I ~
I ~

~
~
~
I
I e

I
~
~
~ ~
~ A ~'\~
~
~ ~ ~
~
~__ ~
~
I
p
+I
I 2
i

I I _
~b
II
. ~; I ~
~ ~~~
i
I~ ~ ~
~I
i I~ s~
~ a
~ + ~~ ~$O
I ~ ~ ~ ~~~
II
I~
I
I
S mI
I ~~
. I
0
m
Cy
r
2 ~

a
~
g
~
~~

tes
x
~

r0 ~~aS
~~~~~~~ ~
~~gO~~x\
~~rn~~~' ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~
~H~ ~ Q~ ~ 8C~ ? s ~
~~~~ti~ ~ ~~r~ ~~
~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
m~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ k ~ ~
ZC•~ ~~ '' v
~~ ~ Y
~arn~6~~~ 2 ~ ~,V +~
g y ~ ~
o ~
~I
I

I i
~ ~
I ~
i
I
f i
I ~
I ~
I r ~
'~ ~
~ ~~~~ ~ ~
R ~
~~ i
I~
.~
~o
i~ ~
IN
Iw
I~
Icy
la
I~
i.k{
~~~
q,
~~
~~
~m
~ 1'
~~ •
.,,. ~~~
y,~~
~~`~
a~~
~.

9 ~ ~~
~ £~ ~
I` ~ ~" '
o ~:
~~ ~~ Q, ~ ~
~ ~
~~ ~ g~~~~~~ ~
~ ~ ~
++
~G~~^~ ~ ~~ ~ }~~ i
~a~~ ~ '~ ~~~~~~~.. i
~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~I

I N o~/
I
I I 'q ------- --------
I ~~»R
~~~~
II ~
»I
II
I ~' ~ ~5 ~$
~ ~ *~ a~
I/ ~~ ~$O
~~ ~~ y
h ~ H
I
I
,~
I
m
M
m
9r
M
Sx
m~
~~

G
O
Z
r
ns
x
~
i

!,, ~' o~ 1R A ~ ~
~~ ~~~~ ~~T - s~ ~ j €
~~NN ~~~~ ~_~
~,~~_ ~
2 ~ ~ ~ a~ d
fii~~~DH ~~~ ~
m ~ a'U ~~
~~~~~~ ~~~~ 1 ~~ ~z
F6~ ~. ~
o

I-MAY-200yy6 08:15
$$SUSERNAM~$$~gb4085_rdy_tsh_040813.dgn
,C011iTRACT: C201428 _ _ TIP PROJECT: 8085_
ID 10 I 11yy
~ ~ Wei ItN7~ ry
o ~ IarV
o ~ o o ~
~ _ -~
n
~ °~ ~, ti
zN
10 y to
~ y o
IW ~~ u O
• gg
~ ' v io io ~ h
Iw ~ < ~ v ~ icNi~ iv ti
IaR x x u n n n n
c o io ~°' io '~ io iN ~ as
~ ~ ~ a~ ae a~ I° IN y 'n
~ i
ire ~ _ • ~ ~ rtr_!
I I rvr_]
v]
$ss
s ~ `~
~. ~.
~ 2 0 '~~'!
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ C~
~ a o ~ :~
~~
p O
w N
II II II
p O p
o s~
3 3 3
a ~i

N° b
~~
a A,~ oS
a

N
V~
C ~'
~~ O
b h
„O~
I~
b

~ 0 O
m ~T
Z ' +~ R.
~ A y~
y y a `~

~
m
~ "~
~
I ~
I j
~~
,~
. . ~k
O I
~~
•'
O
0
0
x
r
rn
H
Z
H
0
n
-.~
W
0~0
cn m
Dv
~~
v H
-~ "O
O ~7
.~,
.. mO
....:~
,± I''
y ~: ~ ~
c ~~~~' ~ ~
_. ~ ~
., w ,..... ; ~.,..:,l
0
CD ~
no
-f'
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
mil
III
oll
--~ I I
~' I l
III
II
oli
cll
-+ I I
~II
III
II
II
I I
~I
I v
~~ ~
,mil •~~.1 - ',m ~.
'BACHELOR CREEK
. ~ - ~ - ~, .
II _a o_.
(.W C~
II ~
II
r
pp I
II
II
II
II
II
II ~ ~
I~
III
II
II
II
II
Ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Z
n~
~, O
~ ~~
c ~~
o
~~ ~~
~~ySyS ~ O
N
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
^
a
k
O
~ ~
~ n ~~
o ~
x ~~
~~ojj ~~y ~
F~ CJ
c ~' {
0 ~ ~°
N
~y N ~ ~ ~
0
~ 0 ~~
~ ~
~ C ~~
r A
~ ~ ~~
VJ ~ ~ ~
O
V~
b
O
1J
,n~
N ~
I ~ A
~~ ~
~~
~~ ~ ~j~
I
I ~
I~

31-MqY-2006 08;2Z__ _ ___

E
~
C
Z
v

~ ~ i

1

I

a
g ~
'D n
N
i

A N
n1n'1f
~ Q
~ r
T
~
_~ O
Z
ZO
-11 ~ ~-
~ ~°
Z
C1 Z
~ '~ O
~ ~ N W
z
v
o I
1
~~ N
1~1
~~

~ b'

O
O
O °~
s
~ ~ b
a

N ,
'
O s
~
O -- - b
O nn ~
O j
O N~'- ~

0
n

O ~ I
•
•

t
0
i
-~L-
0 5
7 ^y
3n A
p
C

~ ~;t
D
r
N
m

Z l" l
N
°' + -p
S$ Y
'

o 1
O ~ r"
to '
z ~ ~,~ ~

0~
>~
~ LL
5 5
y
~+ Z S ~~ m
Sg Z ~~ ~
G Q C ~
A ~
t
+ NN _~
(~
y ~.
r'ii m
v z N
m
~ ~
v ~ Z
Z,w ~~ a ~ Z
. o
IW

v
1 z ~

~ SIN ~
~. i
~
N
S
O

7a c~i
m m

~
~ ~~
C~
~~

~ C
~ Z
S
M~Ss IN /
W G~
~ O
a I
~

~IW
m

z'~
I ?i
~
55 N
++ ~
~N n
$$ r
z~ N
v~
m
~> O
a+ Z
Lm
,o Z
5 $ 0
~~
~:, i IN
~~
s~
~-,~
N
A
~~r
a
~ o
~~ N
~ o ~~
O m
~ I ~
_~~ w II
n^ II ~ N
II°
m ~~"~ I s ~^^.
Z ~/ I ~ .ooN _ ~
Z ~ ~ m S
v I I ~ ~ ~
i o II ~
~ m ~T ~ ~
o ~
-1
15 y
m
a>
W ~
+ + ~
p~
g0
~ O T
~~
;> O
~~ Z
++
sg o
~ < c I~ m i o i N ° In
y xm A Yio
~m Y10 a
m~o ~o y y
° y
> „ .
.
~ ff
Za
Z
v
t --
~~
v
Al 0
>a O
m
a~~ o
v
O m H O
i> i ± z ~
~ ~ o ~ 1$m<~ <v '~o~ ote c
t ~< <~
~ aom A7 -10. 9 e
AV ~
oA Ao

^'

z
>
< A
a

zz~o as
so
o x e.
sas oa
o0 ~a
0

z~ y'
0
.
,
m
AA x
A• zA- o
A x ox
A. o
AA
~X
~ m ~ m~sy~ as ~~~ -YIN ~ ~ 70u
o
L ~ ~ yT<
SiA> ~O
A a O~
zA Y ~
ZS ~r
A~ A~
7AY -Ic
A

r
ST9
101
IOIIM<S
<~
ON
p07 >
00
D
"~ O ~
~ 7
a 1ZAY
-
~ Al
x A

~ ST
o~ T7
s C
~
i
~ _
r
i + it
~ i
~ m- s ~~ nosy °> oN ° m
°
~ O
m g8 ~~~ ~o ~y :~ :_ ~
y s
~ _ <a
A is
A t1 x
Cl• a p
Y 7 -
1 9a O
S 9 dz A 7 < yms111

T zAA
i AA
i <OA
~I OA
w AO
7 OAA
! A•~ (7

'^ u

app m

pms r
M
m+2
d+- T
N
M A

~pp
-1 o

~.~
C iA

S
m
y
Y _• A
< :
< i
sa A' O
012
1
- OA
~ NpT
~ 9
> v
C
TO~ A
O Hri
~ r
yAy
f <
C~ <
i0A <
p~ r
x a
~mm g 00
z•
Y o
A
°
~
o m
c a N'-
7 .
ve ei vm
i g A p

o~
g $e ' ' ~1
'1
1a1111 ~
9 a
' g o~ ~'

O
S1O
11
1
<A
°-
<:
A
T i
w

e
;xa
~
o
A i
= 9
1q
~ 7 N AA ~ ~ NO
y
P o ya y
e ~
a z e m n~s
a°O' a s
s
5/28/99

OD FH+Ff
~O H-FI-F~
o
~ ~J-41J.J

~/1~ t1-~--1-+~
A

O~
V
~~
~~~
s`
~~
q
4
~~~~
~ ~
~~~~ i ;
I
~~~ i
~~~~ I
N I ' h
~~ I t a
T~ i
3 i ~
I
I ~~
~~
I i s
~ _~
~ :~.~• l__ ~~
RAM.ROAp R/M ? ~
I
t:
I
TT ~ I i
--.
.,
S N
I 8~~ ~ 0
~-_ _
~ _ A
D
,o\ /
~~~

sus ~5 0
z
m>
Y~±
P
~ =
m N 2
N
QQNr
~O~ 'O W ~
i ~ ~
S
'aim
W ~
~~f ti
J
m ~
m ~
mi°'„ym
<ND~
N W

~r W
N
~~lp
~ N
I~ O
Z
~O
a
T ~
-~rQ1
f*t - ~ r
< ~ ~
ii ~N~
~~
a Z 0 ~
U1nTZ
_ ~~ O
J N V10
~ ~ +
W ~ N
~ .~
r0
-a ~
-5" P r-5 PS.
m

D
~r
M
SS
m~
s
Z
Q
Y-
-
D
N ~
D
zm
R
im

3
l

-s"PS. r-s PS.
1 1

i" •~ ~...

I<
•
-'~V.~ 005
Southe?i Rn,~ Hymans
55
7243\
+saz
1248 I
1 ~ ~Sg~~
/ Clarks
~o ~ coos
IN R
NOT TO SCALE ^
~ DETOUR ROUTE ~-~-+~+~ ~~
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER

~A~ll~~
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CRAVEN COUNTY
PROJECT:33~~~(.L1.2 8-085)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE X212
ON SR 1005 OVER BACHELOR CREEg
SHEET 1 OF S 1 / 31 / 05
Buffer Drawing
Suet _.~___ of 't,_
NORTH CAROLINA

~~F~~~ ~,E~~~v~
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY

L WETLAND
YYXX~/ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
~~.
~~~~~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
®
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
- BZ - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
-BZ1 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 ft (9.2m)
- BZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 ft (6.1m)
-~• ~- FLOW DIRECTION
TB
~- TOP OF BANK
--•• WE EDGE OF WATER
- -~ - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-~ PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -P~ - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - -~ - - - WATER SURFACE
Xx Xx X X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
.. .. .. .. WOODS LINE
~ DRAINAGE INLET
~- ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
- LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
~R SS SWALE
1V ~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CRAVEN COUNTY
PROJECT:33~~~.1.1.2 (B-085)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE X212
ON SR 1005 OVER BACHELOR CREEg
SHEET Z OF 5
1/31/05
Buffer Or~wing
cruet a of _~

N

W Z ~
~ ..,
W ~
W

~ Q
m ~
W
Z N
O v

J

F ~ ~

N
O
~
O N
w
J

m o
Q
C7 W ~ O
Z r.
~
v N v
N
N
O
~ O
~ ~ ~ fh
n
N a
J
H r ~
N O
~
,
O v _ N

Q
W
N _
N
J

C
G

V
m
N O

d Q
~ W
Z
`Y-' ~
N O
(O
Q O
N N

J o
~ Q Z "j. ~ M
`
r ,,
~ ~
/~ N

a J V
J Q
as
Q~
~ a

W w "'
a o x
LL ~ m
~ ~
m oN
op x
¢
~
U
0
M

aO o
LL ~
~
W
N
y
W m
~ ~ ,v_
m
.
V

Q
H

Z

T Q
F- ~
N Q

~~
~~
6~
Q

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A.
B
C.
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-4085
8.2171201
33444.1.1
BItSTP-1005
The purpose of this project is to replace Craven County Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005
over Bachelor Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge 115 feet long and
30 feet wide. The cross section will include two 12-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets. The
west approach will be approximately 330 feet and east approach will be
approximately 300 feet long. The approach cross section will include two 12-foot
lanes and 8-foot shoulders: Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see
Figure 1). The roadway will be designed as a Major Collector with a 60 mile per
hour design speed.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge Maintenance Records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 35.2 out
of 100. The bridge's four- span superstructure is composed of a concrete deck on
continuous I-beams. The substructure is composed of timber caps on timber piles.
The bridge's deck width (32 feet wide) and low structural appraisal (2 out of 10)
qualify the bridge as both functionally obsolete and structurally deficient and
therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement Program.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements that apply to the
project:
1. 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. Modenuzing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane unprovements (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 budge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.

12. Acquisition of land for hazdship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hazdship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particulaz pazcel or a limited
number of pazcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. S ecial Pro'ect Information: (Include Environmental Commitments and Permits
equire .)
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 700,000
Right of Way $ 50,000
Total $ 740,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 3100 vpd
Year 2025 - 5500 vpd
TTST - 3%
Dual - 3%
Design Exceptions: There are no design exceptions anticipated for this project.
Functional Classification: Rural Major Collector
Bridge Demolition: There will be no appreciable fill associated with debris from
demolition of the bridge.
Alternatives Discussion: An offsite detour will be utilized during construction
including SR 1244, NC 55, SR 1243 and back to SR 1005. The delay for the
average road user would be approximately 4 minutes over 2.2 miles additional
travel. The Division, the School Bus Transportation Director for Craven County,
and the Emergency Services Coordinator for Craven County have no objection to
an offsite detour at this location. The School Bus Duector did indicate that a
turn-around would need to be provided and asked that NCDOT provide one prior
to road closure.

(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel '
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ^
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ^
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properdes
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
5

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description: (Include project scope and location. Attach location map.)
The purpose of this project is to replace Craven County Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005
over Bachelor Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge 115 feet long and
30 feet wide. The cross section will include two 12-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets. The
west approach will be approximately 330 feet and east approach will be
approximately 300 feet long. The approach cross section will include two 12-foot
lanes and 8-foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see
Figure 1). The roadway will be designed as a Major Collector with a 60 mile per
hour design speed.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
,~-~-v~
Date
3~ 3 -Q
Date
3-31fo
Date
~.~uaet.- J~1
B-4085
8.2171201
33444.1.1
BRSTP-1005
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
ect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
3 31~- ,
Date John F. Sullivan, III, Division Ac
deral Highway Administration
7
rro~ect i~evetopment ~ti t;nvironmentat Analysis tsrancn

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Craven County
Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005
Over Bachelor
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1179(1)
State Project No. 8.2171201
W.B.S. No. 33444.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4085
Hydraulics -Anadramous Fish
NCDOT will implement Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadramous Fish
All Design Groups/ Division Resident Engineer -Anadramous Fish
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has indicated that a moratorium on in-water
construction will be in place. from February 15 to June 30 of any given year.
To the extent practical, construction should be accomplished without the use of construction pads.
To the extent practical, bridge demolition should occur without getting into the water.
Office of Natural Environment -Bridge Demolition
The entire bridge is constructed of timber and steel. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any
temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition.
Contract Specifications -Length of Construction
In order to address specific requests from the Craven County Emergency Services Coordinator,
NCDOT will set the. minimum reasonable contract time to reduce the period of road closure.
Resident Engineer -School Bus Turnaround
Prior to the Construction Letting, the Division will coordinate with school bus officials to
establish a turnaround for busses during the period of construction.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
March 2004

` +~~ {- ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~~ y 20~
``
, •tI~/
"1J
,~
Y
~1 21

: .
-
~
I ~ __
r
~ ~~ ~ •\
~ ,
%
L .mot . , P96 a: .

P39 ~~ ~ ~ ;.; ~ >
>~ ~ ~
~ ,

_ ,
.
~'
' • e ~ • 209 , "'~,

.-' . ~
='
' ~~ ~
~ ,• i+~
•,:.
~.~~ r> ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ 20~ ~,

'~
~~
e
~. ~ ~ ~f1
e A
•~ 124 ''
~,
-
~
. ; ~: ~ ~

.~"~ o. 0
P70 ,i '_ ~` _ _ ~
~•• ~' 69 i •-~

~ ~ '
'>eS „r,a~ P45 %%

~
40 P193 ~ ,j ~ .r.e..o

, ~,
~ T NT
~ `
C O U N T Y ~~
~~,~ ~~ ~\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
!~ ,
' TRANSPORTATION
I~
'~ DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
~'
'~ PROJECT DEVELOPMEM &
ENVIItONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
~
CRAVEN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.212 ON SR 1005
OVER BACHELOR CREEK
B-4085

Figure 1

L/. l,~I: 11 ~'ams
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
June 27, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager i b
Project Development and Environmental Analysis B ~t~'i
NCDOT Division of Highways z~~
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005 over Bachelor
Craven County, ER03-0928
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson. Director
' REC~~b
~O
`~Gl
~'
~N
L ~gySG~ ,n .
Thank you for your memorandum of Apri17, 2003, concerning the above project
There are no known azchaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge
of the azea, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion is the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project
We have conducted a seazch of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical
or azchitectural importance within the general azea of this project:
Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005 over Bachelor Creek
We recommend that a Department of Transportation azchitectural historian identify and evaluate
any structures over fifty yeazs of age within the project azea and report the findings to us.
The above comments aze 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-Eazley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Fury, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT ~,M,~;,h
Location
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Dlount St., Raleigh NC
RESTORATION 515 N. 13tount St., Raleigh NC
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. [Mount St., Raleigh NC
o.dcrstate.nc.us
Mailing Address Tekp6ooe/Ra:
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919) 733763 •733-8653
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699.461 R [phone] •715-4801

AM SWjo~
y .,.
,~
~~ w.d~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Cmw, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 5, 2004
MEMORr1NDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highw~s
FROM: David Brook !~ ~~ L•7'~'~S~"'~-1 v~.f,
J
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005 over Bachelor Creek, B-4085,
Craven County, ER03-0928
Thank you for your letter of December 30, 2003, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the additional research you provided•in your letter concerning the eligibility
of Bridge No. 212 over Bachelor Creek.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following structure is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:
Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005 over Bachelor Creek is not eligible for the
National Register because it is not one among the state's technologically
significant examples of the continuous stringer bridge tS-pes.
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-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Ftur, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
w~v~v.hpodcrstate.ecns
Division of Hist~
David L. S.
V~
wR
~., ~~ ~,. ~Q`
S
O~
a
f, F-
.~a`5 F,
loeatioa Mstllag Address Telep6one/Faz
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 Cenur, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801
SURVEY 6c PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801

J ~
' - ~~~~ -
~~~.
NCDENR
North Caroiina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
tvticha~l F. casley: Governor
G'Vitliam G. Ross. Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE
NCDOT
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
FROM: Mike Street .. - "

DATE: July 8, 2003
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement for: # B-4168, # B-4088, # B-4085
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
Attached is the Divisions' reply for the above referenced project. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. .
MS/sw
~Y~; ~,r~~;,,~;;'; S; . r=... ~~>. -n~~+.~~_~crehead City. North Carolina 28557'
Fncre:.~SL-~ 2~-r ~? i . :~. ~'_-; 27-5?271 Internet: ~~~ ~ . nc~mf .net
An equal Opporturiiy `. %;ffin'1?ii:~' ~cF•o~ ~mc~over - 5~'/o Recycled, l0% Post Consumer Paper

'1 3
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 212
SR 1005 (Old US Highway 70 West) over Bachelor Creek
Craven County, North Carolina
(B-4085)
(State Project No. 8.2171201)
(Federal Aid No. BRSTP-1005[7])
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
March 2003

~~ ' • 1
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 212
SR 1005 (Old US Highway 70 West) over Bachelor Creek
Craven County, North Carolina
(B-4085)
(State Project No. 8.2171201)
(Federal Aid No. BRSTP-1005[7])
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
-~
EcoScience
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
January 2003

'~f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 212 at SR 1005 (Old US Highway 70 West) over-
Bachelor Creek, Craven County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-4085.
INTRODUCTION
The project proposes replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR 1005 (Old US Highway 70
West) over Bachelor Creek and associated floodplain. The project area is approximately 30.2
acres (12.2 hectares) in size, and includes the channel, banks, and associated floodplain
swamps of Bachelor Creek. Land use consists of undeveloped forested .land, disturbed land,
and sparse rural residential and commercial development. The project area is within the Lower
Coastal Plain physiographic province, approximately 5.0 to 25.0 feet (1.5 to 7.6 meters) above
mean sea level. Approximately 14.4 acres (5.8 hectares) (38 percent) of the project area is
underlain by hydric soils, consisting of Masontown mucky fine sandy loam and Muckalee sandy
loam, frequently flooded, and Tomotley fine sandy loam.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The project area is located within sub-basin 03-04-08 of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ
2002a). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020202 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region.
The structure targeted for replacement spans Bachelor Creek and the Bachelor Creek
floodplain. This section of Bachelor Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-98 by
the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 2002b).
The Best Usage Classification for Bachelor Creek is C Sw NSW (DWQ 2002b). No
Watershed Critical Areas or water resources classified as High Quality Waters, Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters are located within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
the project area. No §303(d) listed streams exist in or within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of the project
area.
Biotic Resources
Five distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype), shrub/scrub assemblage, Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype), disturbed/maintained land, and Cypress-Gum Swamp
(Blackwater Subtype). A summary of plant community areas is presented in the following table.
1

y Y
Plant community coverage within the project area. Coverage is given in acres, with hectares in
parentheses.
Plant Community Area
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) 8.2 (3.3)
Shrub/scrub assemblage 5.8 (2.3)
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) 5.5 (2.2)
Disturbed/maintained land 5.7 (2.3)
rypra~c-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) 2.5 (1.0)
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Bachelor Creek is considered jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The replacement bridge will span Bachelor Creek. No impacts to surface
waters are anticipated. Based .on field investigations, the project area also contains
jurisdictional wetlands. Areas of these systems within the project area are summarized in the
following table. Coverage is given in acres, with hectares in parentheses.
Cowardin Classification Area DWQ Rating
PF01A (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, Blackwater Subtype) 1.8 (0.7) 60
PF01 C (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, Blackwater Subtype) 3.0 (1.2) 60
PF06C (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, Blackwater Subtype) 1.3 (0.5) 60
PF06F (Cypress-Gum Swamp, Blackwater Subtype) 0.9 (0.4) 71
PSS1/3C (Scrub-shrub assemblage) 0.3 (0.1) 27
Total 8.3 (3.3)
In addition to vegetated wetlands, there are 860 feet (262 meters) and 1.0 acre (0.4
hectare) of Neuse River riparian buffer within the project area. Of this acreage, 0.6 acre (0.2
hectare) is in Zone 1 and 0.4 acre (0.2 hectare) is in Zone 2.
During project construction, Bridge No. 212 will be dismantled without dropping portions
of the structure into Bachelor Creek. Therefore, no temporary fill from bridge demolition is
expected to be placed in waters of the United States. As this reach of Bachelor Creek is in the
Coastal Plain, and has potential as a travel corridor and breeding area for migratory fish, this
project can be classified as Case 2, where in-water work will be avoided during moratorium
periods (February 15 through June 15) associated with fish migration, spawning, and nursery
areas.
To minimize fishing and non-fishing activities that adversely affect marine fisheries,
areas of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) afford limited protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
2

i
of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). EFH has been broadly defined by congress as "those waters
and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." Fishing
and non-fishing related activities that can adversely affect fisheries include fishing gear,
dredging, filling, agricultural and urban runoff, and point-source pollution discharge. No marine,
estuarine, or tidally influenced waters are located within the project region. Based on the latest
directive from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2000), the nearest designated EFH
is associated with tidal waters of the Neuse River, approximately 12.7 river miles (20.4 river
kilometers) downstream of the project area.
Permits
The project area may contain Public Trust Waters AECs. If replacement of the bridge
avoids impacts to AECs, the DCM will review the permit application for CAMA consistency. If
an AEC is proposed to be impacted, a CAMA Major Permit or General Permit for bridge
replacement (15A NCAC 07H.2300) may be applicable.
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP)
No. 23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the
U.S. expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water duality
Certification for NWP No. 23 (GC 3361). However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts
through use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. If temporary construction is
required that is not described in the CE, a NWP No. 33, for temporary construction, access, and
dewatering (67 FR 2020, 2084; January 15, 2002) and associated DWG General Water Quality
Certification (GC 3366) may required. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, impacts
attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may qualify under
General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington USACE District. DWG has made
available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031 (GP 3375). Notification to the
USACE Wilmington district office is required if this general permit is utilized. The USACE may
exert discretionary authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance and minimization have
not been adequately addressed, or if mitigation is inadequate (assuming mitigation may be
required).
The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot (15-meter) wide riparian buffers directly
adjacent to surface waters of the Neuse River Basin. Neuse Buffer Certification will be needed
in addition to a USACE permit and DWQ Water Quality Certification. .
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed
for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). One federally protected species is listed for Craven County (May 31,
2002 FWS list), and is presented in the following table.
3

. ,
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator missisippiensis T(S/A)"
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Sensitive iointvetch** Aeschynomene virginica T
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance: resembles in appearance a threatened species that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species. The American
alligator has this designation due to similarity of appearance to other rare crocodilians.
"' Historic record -last seen within Craven County more than 20 years ago.
Alligator missisippiensis (American alligator)
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not
required. However, this project is not expected to affect the American alligator.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Potential habitat for bald exists within the project area. The open water swamp of this section of
Bachelor Creek contains numerous emergent bald cypress, gum and green ash suitable for
perching. Areas of open water for foraging are also present. No bald eagles were observed
during the site visit. The nearest NHP record of a bald eagle is approximately 9.0 miles (14.5
kilometers) southeast, at Brice Creek near the Trent River. No long-term impact to bald eagle is
anticipated as a result of this project.
Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea turtle)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Bachelor Creek, in the project area, is anon-tidal, freshwater stream. Therefore, no habitat for
Leatherback sea turtle exists in or near the project area. No Leatherback sea turtles were
observed during the site visit, and NHP documents no Leatherback sea turtle occurrences within
5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the project area.
Trichechus manatus (West Indian manatee)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for West Indian manatee does not exist within or near the project area. The
dimensions of the Bachelor Creek channel preclude access for an animal as large as a
4

° ~
manatee. In these upstream reaches of the stream, obstacles such as beaver dams, logjams
and point bars obstruct the movement of larger aquatic mammals. No West Indian manatees
were observed during the site visit. The nearest NHP record of the West Indian manatee is
approximately 8.0 miles (12.9 kilometers) southeast, at the mouth of the Trent River.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:A few mature loblolly pine trees exist within the project area and
adjacent areas. However, the trees are widely spaced and occur in scattered locations. The
clustered arrangement of pine trees preferred by the birds for nesting colonies is not provided in
the project vicinity. In addition, dense shrub and understory layers occur under large areas of
bottomland and mesic mixed forest. The use of scattered pines for foraging sites would depend
on the birds' crossing large tracts (greater than 300 feet [91 meters] wide) of roadways,
agricultural fields, and brushy woods. Therefore, the project area contains no suitable habitat
for red-cockaded woodpecker nesting, roosting, or foraging. No occurrence of red-cockaded
woodpecker is documented by the NHP within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the project area. No
red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed during the site visit.
Aeschynomene virginica (Sensitive jointvetch)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The project area is well upstream of any tidal influence. In addition, disturbed open areas with
little herbaceous competition are not found within the project area. Most shoreline and open
areas are colonized by tearthumb, marsh pennywort, and soft rush, as well as other grasses
and rushes. Therefore, suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch does not exist within the project
area. The nearest NHP records for sensitive jointvetch are approximately 8.5 miles (13.7
kilometers) southeast, near James City. However, this species has not been recorded in
Craven County in over 20 years. No individuals of sensitive jointvetch were observed during the
site visit.
CONCLUSIONS
The project area contains 8.3~ acres (3.3 hectares) of jurisdictional areas that could potentially
be impacted by the proposed project. Permits potentially be required for this project are a
CAMA Major Permit or General Permit for bridge replacement (15A NCAC 07H.2300), NWP No.
23 and No. 33 along with their corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certifications. Neuse
Buffer Certification will also be needed in addition to a USACE permit and DWQ Water Quality
Certification.
5

• t
Cypress-Gum Swamp, a High Quality Resource, occurs within the project area. The
National Marine Fisheries wilt be consulted as to the timing of construction activities to minimize
impacts to fisheries resources.
Construction of a replacement bridge within the footprint of the existing Bridge No. 212 is
recommended to minimize impacts to wetlands, plant communities, and fisheries resources.
6

~ t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ....................................................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications ............................................................................................................4
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology ................................................................................ 5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Physiography and Soils ............................................................................................ 5
2.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................ 9
3.1.1 Vegetation Communities ..................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Faunal Communities ......................................................................................... 11
3.2 Aquatic Communities .............................................................................................. 12
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................ 13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ....................................'............:.............................................. 14
4.1 Waters of the United States ..............................~...................................................... 14
4.2 CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern ................................................................. 16
4.3 Permit Issues ..........................................................................................................16
4.3.1 Permits .............................................................................................................. 16
4.3.2 Mitigation ........................:.................................................................................. 16
4.4 Protected Species .................................................................................................. 18
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Plant community coverage within the project area ......................................................13
Table 2: Wetland areas within the project area ......................................................................... 15
Table 3. Federally Protected Species listed for Craven County ...............................................18
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern listed for Craven County ............................................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location ...................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Plant Communities ...................................................................................................... 3

,~
Replacement of Bridge No. 212
SR 1005 (Old US Highway 70 West) over Bachelor Creek
Craven County, North Carolina
(B-4085)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge
No. 212 on SR 1005 (Old US Highway 70 West) over Bachelor Creek and the associated
floodplain (Figure 1). Bridge No. 212 spans Bachelor Creek and adjacent banks for a distance
of approximately 82.0 feet (25.0 meters). The existing roadway is approximately 28.0 feet (8.5
meters) wide with a total, maintained right-of-way width of approximately 52.0 feet (15.8 meters)
(Figure 2).
The project area is located at the crossing of SR 1005 (Old US Highway 70 West) over Bachelor
Creek approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) northwest of downtown New Bern, NC (Figure 1).
Included within the project area are Bachelor Creek, the associated floodplain, and adjacent
terraces. Also included is a railroad track that parallels SR 1005 approximately 55 feet (16.8
meters) to the south.
Bridge No. 212 was built in 1937 of timber piles and caps, with a superstructure of continuous (-
beams. The NCDOT project engineer will complete bridge materials and fill data at a later time.
During project construction, Bridge No. 212 will be dismantled without dropping portions of the
structure into Bachelor Creek. Therefore, no temporary fill from bridge demolition is expected to
be placed in waters of the United States. NCDOT will coordinate with various resource
agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are
resolved.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the project area.
Specific tasks performed for this study include 1) an assessment of biological features within the
project area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, jurisdictional
wetlands, and water quality, 2) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional areas and subsequent
survey of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble XRS Differential Global Positioning System
technology), 3) an evaluation of plant communities and their areas within the project area, and
4) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
1

,~
t
~ ~ ~ ,~
_ :u~-
P39
.`; `
~' ,
ay
~i
L'' f 1lS4 Ll '~ .tlS!
19e _ _\__-_ _`-
,
,.
..)
G'~ ~
t
~..~!
~'
•.1.
c

0
___.
,19
..r~.r`
4~ .~
,
r' ,,
r~ I
.~
s
J
i~ `
`~
.,. ~•f, •
tA ~~..~ i
U /

~ ~ ® Here gay.
wi~ 'y PO- 7"!4
m.rr ati O i - ' ~ i

.~ ' ~
~
. • s
~M+.. '
``
" •
v

•~ ~
iea"T .
' ~
..
. ~ !
s~
i ~

40 •' PI93 ~¢
'. 'ro ~
_
..... i ~~
' T Nr ..
~ ~
.`

C O ~~
U N T Y
%~ 4~ _.
`•
~d ~~
j; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PRO]ECT DEVELOPMENT Bt

m-/ ENVIItONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
CRAVEN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.212 ON SR 1005
OVER BACI~LOR CREEK
B-4085

Figure 1

~y "~~.
n
Y x~ ~ s ~
'v_ _.~ 'Sf ~ s .3.
a«
r, L~~~..m. ~ at..
~`~ ~
r
~Sg ~ ~
~`~,.- ~~
.L ,n ,v '. g ~ >} ~ ts~
1Cy +~ x i ~~
.`
:. !
.~~t~~ } _ ~j:. .#~ 3t 1 cif>Y •r ~~ 3 r
n ` ~ ~ ~~
r ~ ri x
„'i:' Jf i~ ~ ~~ .. L 'i1~C
,~ '1~
~ ~ ~
CM ~ -~ ~~ a
~ f
'r/ j.~ir. p
''fir ' ~ ~ .~" ~ ~.
Vie},. ~~ ~ v`
~.~ ~ r
~..
'.
F
. ..
li R ~ II pp
,~
~ ~ ~ r ~`
~x t
'~ - -
~. ~- ~ t sue, ~'' ~.. ~-; ~~ ~ ~'~~ •w. ti~ ;~ 1w
. ,- r ,,.
-~ .a .'
~'
{~ ~ ~ f
~ r 7~
.. ~ ~, ~ ~ ~{ ~ a 7.r- Q 1~: ~ ~ @'~-...
.l r `
r
~~
.,
,.
~~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ,~
k. ~<, ~ ,f ~' '~'
~~ ?~ , n
~~~~ ~` a '~ >„ j -
.j 4r ¢ r
1 },*'~ ~ ,; -!~ `~~~ ~: ~ ' i ~ ~rc„ ~' ~ ice.... f~C~~ ~Cr `,~ ,* Sm- ~~;
r ~ s.i ~ 'if 1~ '~'4 ~ s.
_ by ~
~ ~r ~ r Y
i ~ ,~
it !~' 1r1 iy, ~
~ . ~ # t ~"
y ~ ~ : ~ ~,,
<, s
f ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ tt- ~ F ~'
YL. Yrp_ I f ~
S.. G~i. SAAR? ~ ~ . ~ _ Q ~ ~ ~ ~
~" ~ ~ ~f Nr. r, ~%> • ~,*. ~wr ~ ~~~ ,~ ~ O. 111 ~ ~ t ~ ~,.:
`~ y t r r s ~ r ~~ 'i p
.., ,~ ~
i ~ r ~.
~ ...r~
~,~ ~»
~n v

~ v

~ -v
-,
o, n

c~'
~ ~ ~ ~ _~,.

II
~
~j o
N Z

cn
°_
~
N
o
-'
w v
O
-I
o
W O
00
~_
~'. ~ ? w -n ~ o0 00 ~
ZN ~ ~'~ ~~ a~ ~ ~N ~ o ~ ~~
° ° °z3 = < O ~
~• N
~o
~~ ~ ~
mn ~ ~ i~
mm ~~
~~ ~ ~ ~~'
~ `°
~~ ~~ ~
~ o ~ .

~,
~•f
1:3 Metfiods
Materials- and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sourcesincluding U.S. Geoiagical Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Jasper, NC 7.5 minute
quadrangle), U.S: F'tsh and Wildlife Service (FINS) National .Wetlands Inventory- (NWl) mapping
(Jasper, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle); NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM)-wetlands
mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; .formerly the- Soils Conservation
Service) soils mapping (SCS 1989), and- recent aerial photography (scale 1:200) furnished by
NCDOT.
The most.. current . FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending ,into Craven
County. (February l l , 2003 FWS .list) was addressed in thin report: In addition, NHP records
documenting the .presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations.: Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats proposed by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC; June 13, 1995 listing) were consulted
to determine the presence of Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic species.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system,. utilized by N.C. Natural
Heritage: #~rogram (NHP) (Schafale and -Weakley 19:90).- Vlihen appropriate, community
dassifi~cations inure modfieo to better Feflect field observations; Vascul$r ,plant names f~Uow
nomenclature found. in Radford.'et aL. ~19i8) with adjustments for updated .norr~~cla~ture
(Kartesz 1998). .Jurisdictional areas were. evaluated using the .three-parameter. approach
following U.S. Army.. Corps of Engineers (USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA; 1987).
Jtuisdictionaf areas were characterized according to a class'~ication scheme :established ,bY
Cowardin et al. (1979). Aquatic' and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions
were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al.
1986, Menhinick 1991, Hamel i 992,. Palmer and Braswell 189'5, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from avaijabie sources (DWG
2002x, 2002b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
__ _ _ .__ The r 'eel area-was walked and visuail su
P fl1 y r~reyed #or-significar#t-#eatures: For purposes of-this: --. _.
evaluation, the. project area has=been delineated by the NCDOT (Figure 2), Special concerns
evaluated in the field `include 1) potential. protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water
quality protection in Bachelor Creek.
1.4 Qualifications
The field work for this .investigation.. was, conducted on December 18,.2002 by EcoScience
Corporation biologists f=lizabe#h ~cl~ei'rer and. Sandy Smith. Ms. Scheirer: is a Project Scientist
with 5 years. of experience in the environmental field. She holds an M.S. in forestry from North
Carolina State University; with .minors in botany and ecology. Her research involved the
restoration of fiarmed wetlands on the North Carolina Coastal :Plain, with emphasis on -the
influence of microtopography on hydrology and plant cpmmur~ities. At Tall Timbers Research
;4

_.
~.'
--. .. ..,-r.
Station. in Tallahassee, FL, she designed. and iMp(ement~d 'a :study. of red-cockaded
woodpecker habitats in the Apalac~isola -National Forest. " Rrofessional expertise includes
wetland .and- jurisdictisanal -area delineations, .plant and wild{"rfe "ider~iFication and community
mapping,., plant community parameter analysis, protected Species surveys;-..and environriaental
document pre ration.
Mr. Smith is a Senior Scientist with 14 years of experience in the environmental field. Mr. Smith
has a bachelor's degree in biology #rom Davidson College and a master's .degree in
marine%oastal biology from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, He has conducted
field- research and .species inventories involving seabirds;~ shorebirds, colonial waterbirds,
songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians,. freshwater and estuarine fish, and benthic
invertebrates. Professional expertise includes jurisdictronal area delineations, stream and
riparian buffer determinations, ~ plant- and wildlife id~erttification and community mapping, "
protected species surveys, environmental permitting, and-environmental document. preparation.
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology
The project area boundary (Figure 2) has been delineated by the NCDOT, and encompasses
appraxirrFa#eiy 30.2 acres.~12;2 hectares).. The pfc~ject area is g®nerafly 4inear, and #ollo~rs SR
z
1~5 alisrtg. a ~resL o~.t#t~ +~rie~tai~rri fora ~f `f~,ct ( .m~a~j.
width ,of .~~~ area 5~ apprtely 400 fob-~~2L .)' l~ ~ irs "tMe ~si~a
withfn l?.5 rniie (0.,8 kilomete>•) of the project area, and the; prgect region is the aces 'included in a
7.5 minute .USCS quadrangle map with the project area a's the center. .
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Physiography and Soils
The project ai`,ea is kxated within a Jevei'; wide #toodplain galley with a:gently sbping western
valley wad and:a slighti~r stee~er__ea~em va11Qy wall. ~evn$ in tbe-project area ige~cOCn a
_ . _ ..__
high-of approximately 25 feet (':6 meters) ~latia~ (3eode?tic V i~at~tm (NOD), ;ors the
ends of .the project area .and along t#te roadvva~r, #o a low_o# approxirnatel~ 5 "feet` `(1.5 meters)
htCVD -within the stir®am channel. ,:grid u~e~ withm and near the {~rx'~eot area u~nsists of
woodlands, swamps, agricultural fiieids, atad raral tesiderttial a~ commercial lots..
The project :area is .underlain by the Lower Coastal. Plain ~Ifiir~o and Talbot System soil.
.region in the.: I coastal. Klein: ph~rsiograpt~ic provide of ~ a..'r'he upland surfscee to ,
the Gower ~oastai Plain;have less- Ioca~I relief, are der;. a~r~I`~ha~ Ta~g~r~ ane~Is "af poorly d
`very poorly ~dtained soils ~ than the Middle ;and UppQr Loastal. P#alrt. regicu~s. At the Lower
" ~:
Coastal Plain: hQUndary (thy Swiry scarp), .clay .miner e ~ f~ kaolinitip to a' ~tnixed
aka hapges
mineralogy; vwjth mare than t0 persertt expanding airy Marine secikri~rts sre

4 ,..
` ~
dominant,.resulting in fine- and coarse-loamy, siliceous soils on the Wicomico and Talbot plains-
(Daniels. et al. 1999).
Based on soil mapping for Craven County (SCS 1989), the project aGea is underlain by three
soil series:. Masontown mucky fine sandy loam and Muckalee sandy loam, frequently flooded
(Cumulic Humaquepts and. Typic Fluvaquents), Tomotley fine sandy loam (Typic-Ochraquults),
and Craven silt loam (Aquic hlapludu/ts). Within the project area, the Masontown and Muckalee
series occurs. along-the river channel, Tomotley fine sandy loam is found on slopes and river
terraces, and Craven -silt .loam is found on uplands. ,The Masontown ,and Muckalee and
Tomotley series are considered hydric soils in Craven County by the NRCS (NRCS 1997). In
total,, approximately 38 percent (14:4 acres. [5:8 hectares]) of the project area is underlain by
hydric soils.
The Masontown and. Muckalee series consists of poorly and very poorly drained, moderately to
rapidly permeable :'soils on floodplains. The soils formed in moderately coarse textured
alluvium, and slopes are nearly level (0 to 2 percent). The seasonal high water table is
approximately 1.5-feet (0.5 meter) below the soil surface or higher.. These soils are subject to
frequent flooding of long duration. Acidity ranges from alkaline to strongly acid.
The Tomotley series cpnsists of poorly dratr~ed, moderately permeable soils oe broad flats ""mod
in depressions in stream terraces. along the. `Meuse River and its larger tributari®s. This series
formed in moderately fihe textured sediments. Slopes are nearly level, from 0 to 2 percent, and
the seasonal high water table is at or near the -soil surface. Water ponds in the depressions for
.brief periods. The soils are strongly to extremely acid.
The Craven series consists of moderately well drained, nearly level soils on tow ridgesand side
slopes on uplands near- drainageways: .The...soils are slowly permeable, and formed in fine
textured sediments. Soil reactivity is strongly to extremely acid. The seasonal high .water table
is 2 to 3 feet (06 to 0:9 meter] beneath the soil surface. "
2.2 - ater esources - ---- _. __ ____.
The project area is located within sub-basin 03-04-08 of -the ftileuse River .Basin ,(DWQ 2002a)..
This area is part of I~SGS Hydrologic Unit 03020202 of the South AtlantcJGulf Region. The
structure targeted for repiacerr~ent" spans Bachelor Creek and Bachelor Creek floodplain. This.
section of Bachelor Creek has,been assigned Stream index Number 27-98 by the N.~: Diuision
of Water Quality (DWQ 2002b).
At tMe project area, Bachelor Creek is a poorly-defined, fourtk~=prder, perennial .stream- with low
#low Doer a silt substrate. During fi®ld .investigations, water. Level was .hig1~, frvFn apprroximately {8
inches (20 centimeters):;to 5 fast (i:5 rfleters) deep, and extensive areas•of the floodptain were
irwndated: The :river had-.apparently overtopped its banks', end no clea~iy defined eh~nnel'was
visible. At Bridge No. 212, Bacheku Creek is approximately 80 feet {24 meters): wide. The
6

~ ~ 1 , - ~ -
t
floodplain of .Bachelor Creek slopes gently upwards from the water surface. V1later clarity was
poor due to tannin twining, with visibility to 8 inches.(20 centimeters), and-flow veloc~'ty was low.
Classifications are assigned to waters. of the State of iVorth Carolina based on the existing or
contempiated: best usage of .sari©ps streams or segme~rtts' of streams in the- basin. A hest
Usage Clas ifiioation of G .~ N5'w'has been assigned to this reach.. of Bachelor Creek. The
designation -C denotes waters .are suitable- for aquatic .life. propagation and protection, -
agricul#ure, and secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, ,boating, and.
other uses. not involving human body .contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis.
The supplemental classification Sw denotes waters. which have low velocities and other natural
characteris#ics which are different from adjacent streams. The designation recognizes waters
- that will naturally be more acidic (have lower, pH `values) anti .have lowerlevels of dissolved
oxygen. NSW. denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
All a+vaters in the Neuse River Basin have this supplementary dassfication. In general,
management strategies for point and non-point source pollution control require no increase in
nutrients over background levels. No designated High Quality Waters 4HG1W), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply l (WS-I), or Water Supply II'(WS-11) waters occur within
1.0 mile {1.6 kilometers) of the project area (DWQ 2iJ02a). No .watershed Critical Area (CA)
occurs within 1.O mile (0.6 kilometer) ~o# the project area.
The Division of Water.- Quality (DWQ)' (prauiottshy,. known as the won of fnvironrnental
Managenaetit, Water t~ualify Section [DEiiAj) -has t`nitiated a~ whole=basin approach to water.
q~raliiy management for ..the 17 : river `basins within the state. Water gaality for tl~e proposed -
pro1ect area is .summarized in the Neuse Basinavide tiVater Quality plain (DWQ 2d02a). Based
on DWQ da#a,'Bachelor Creek is currently not given a UseSupport Rating .of its Best Usage
Clsssi#catian. Although. DWQ maintains a F1sh Tssua Analysis station approximsteiy 4.0 miles
(6.4 kilometers). downstream: an Bachelor I/reek, and an Ambient Monitoring Station- near the
mouth of Etachelor Creek near Washington Forks, the river has ndt ~ beenassigned a
bioclassfca~on based on this data. Biocrtteria are currently being develc~ed to assess
swampy streams. such as Bachelor Creek. f#owever, afl waters In the `subbasin are considered
- -aclvtsories- WQ-2EElg~} _ : _ _ _...._. -- ---- - --
--- . ---- -- imp8iced=on-~ evaluated t~asis because of f+sh` oorts~tmption .' (~ .
.Sub-basin 03-04-08 of -the Neuse River Basin .,supports three hiationai' Rollu#ant Discfiarge
`Elimina#ion :System permitted point source dischargen3. Total dischaggee is 3~~4 milaon gallons
per day (122.6 million liters per day). One `major dfschatgsr (Weyerhauser New Berms Paant)
accounts°#or a total of 32.0 million gallons per day (124,1 million liters per- day)..- This discharger
is loEafed .ort the Neuse River approxim~tQly 4.~ stream ~ns (7.71kildrneters) ~ upstream of -the.
rt~outh pt Bachelor Cr®ek: Ttvee'mirtor drsrg~rs ac~rtt #~ir,0.4 ri~n gatlb~s,per ~ejr (i:5
n~7lion liters par day). The mrrior d~sc~rth ~aub=sin ~®~~lot~ated Qn `Neusa River
upstream of the rnmuth of Bachelor Creak, for one ~disoharger approttirnsely 0.3 stream
_miie~ (0.5 ttlorneter) upstream of the_projsct area on l~chel©r Greek.
7

o
.. ~ • .-
Major non-point sources of pollution for Bachelor Creek and the lower Neuse River Basin
include nutrient: inputs frorn agricul#ural areas, confined. animal operations, and urbanized areas.
Aquatic habitat. degradation is also exacerbated by removal of rfa#ive riparian vegetation..
Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major „problems associated with non-point.; source
discharges and of#en result in atgal blooms-and .elevated levels of fecal coliforrn ~ bacteria. In
add`~ion; oxygen-consuming wastes discharged into low- or' zero-flow streams, ,`.such as
Bachelor, Creek, result in owered levels of dissolved oxygen and poor habitat for aquatic
species. No part of Bachelor Creek is listed on the state's §303(d) list.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will bs minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the- use of Best..llAanagement
Practices (B~MPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion. control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and Pollution° (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). .These measures
include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff;
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains. and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation. Tall fescue is not suitable for
erosion controls atopg stream bars.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow fo[ continuation of pre-project stream :flows in
Bachelor Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term- impacts ,resulting.
from construction are:: expected to be negligible.. In order to minimize impacts to .water
resources, NCDOT Best 11Aanagecnent Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters
will be strictly enforced during the- entire: li#e of the project. Due to the composition of Bachelor
Creek streambed, sediment curtains should be utilized to minimize potential water .quality
.degradation as a result of bridge replacement.
During. project construction, Bridge No. 21.2 will be dismantled withcaut dropping portions of the
_.._ __ _ _..,. _. stn~cturE-into Bachelor-Greek: -Therefore, rya-temporafy #111-from-bridge-demc~litts expect~cf..tQ_ __
be placed in waters of the. United States, NCDOT will coordinate. with various resource
agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge derr~olition are -
resolved.

Five distinct plant communities were identified within the project area.Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype), shrub/scrub. assemblage, Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
(Biackwater Subtype), disturbed/maintained land, and Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater
Subtype).- Plant community descriptions are based on a classification. system utilized by N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and: Weakley 1990), ,where applicable. These
communities are described below in order of their dominance within the project area.
Mesic. Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) - Mesic Mined Hardwood Forest is
found at the ends of the project area, in the upper edges of the Bachelor Creek floodplain, and
also in divides between swampy .areas. According. to Schafale and Weaktey (1990), this
community occurs on mesic upland areas protected from`. flret MQSt of the large stands of
woodlands in the western half of the project area have been .logged within the previous 10
.years. In he~se areas, the canopy layer is fragmented ;and: the subcanopy acrd shrub #ayers are
;well-~veid~; jn tf~ rnat~e wu~otflands of tku~ t ,p~aH~`~aa, the-`may later is wail-
developed aid the o#her .layers are less dominant. Ttiia pleuit nmunity is dominated by beech
(Fagus gr8ndifora), and water oak (Quercus nigre) on the lower giopes, and grades into a larger
proportion of loblolly .pine (Minus feeds) and hickory: ~8 sp.) on ridges. Tulip poplar .
(Llriodendron #ulipifera) and sweetgum (Liquidambar stifles) are also common. The
subcanopy and shrub layers contain flowering dogHrood (Comes ~sforida), American hotly (Ilex
opaca), red maple (Acer rubrum); sweetleaf (Symplocaos tlrtcroria), and giant. cane. (Artindinaris
gigantea). Vines include supplejack (Berchemia scandenS) greenbrier (5rbilax rotund~folis),
and cross :pine .(Bignonia capreolaca). Herbs are scarce under the closed canopy, but partridge
berry (]k~lital~ella repens) and cranefty orchid (T~ularia drscol©r? occur.
__ _._. _ -Shrublscrub°assemblage =This plant community-occurs in $,,etrip between-SR #'t~5 and-tfie -_ ..
railroaG! ,track approxima#ely 55 feet. (17 me#ers) to its souk, and also on the southern .edge of
fhe railroad ~ right-of=way. nn this. south edge of SR,1 ~p5, t##~ss cornmur~##y forms $ boundary-
. between disturbed/rnaintained =land an the roadway shodlt~er~ Arid the chore mature forested
plant _ cvmrrlarfities: Shrub-scrub assemblage mad ba `described as .pan extension cif the.
surrounding ptent cc~mrnuni~es, whictta .are in ate early stag@ flf succession A Iatge component..
of weedy: spies is also intct~diucyed into the comn~u~t At that. project area; .no oanQpy
layer cxieurs ut ifie st~ubfscrub a,~sern~lage, but scat>~re,~d sr~s~N ir9>du~ls `ofi A~rraer~r~ etm
..
(tllmers arneriman , lobip tne; red ~ le, and .
~ Ily p P ~ ~. ~>r~-s ace .fairy dwerse in
he :absence of a canopy cover, ahd include. grval . (BscpJr~?is tralirnifmlrg),: wale: myrtle
(Nocella; ceri~era), _gac~t cane, Mack' vaisr ,fir
( ~~ra), bWttonbws#t (Cepl~elarttltus
©c:cidenfaf~), and red efioke'berry (PMoticne 13X~ Th+a:e.€orr~tt~in~~txtes Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), . Carolina jes~rrune (~~!fas~nl~rr-: seibpsnrirr~rrs), gr~nbrer,
9.

~ ~
..~ Ail i~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ - .. ~ ~ ,- ,.
and cross vine. Herbs are also diverse, especially at the sunny ,edges bordering disturbed land,
and include dog. fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), ,frost aster (Aster pi/osus), Christmas- fem
(Polystichum acrosticMoides); bushy bluestem (Andropogvn glomeratus}, verbena (Verbena
bonariensis), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and, Indian-hemp `(Apocynum car-nabinum).
f^,oas#al Plain Botiomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype] - This plant community is
temporarily flooded, and- forms a border between Cypress-:Gum Swamp .and ,the.. adjacent
uplands. Schafale and Weakley 01990) describe .this community. as flooded, at least
occasionally, but seldom disturbed by flowing water. tt occurs at the center, of the. project area,
and in small pockets. separated from the main stream channel and .adjoining wetlands.. As with
the Mesie Mixed Hardwood Forest community,. the western sections of Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods ha~re been logged within the last 10 years. In These sections, the shrub
and subcanopy layers predominate, with. few canopy level trees present. Herbs .are present in
gaps and- at edges. The mature forest to the east has a mature; well-developed canopy with
fewer shrubs and herbs.. The canopy of this plant community includes swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxi-), water oak, laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), swee#gum, American elrn, sugar maple
(Ater barbatum), red maple, greed ash (Fraxinus pennsy/vanica}, loblolly pine, and tulip poplar.
The subcanopy and shrub layers contain American .holly, ironwood {Carpinus caroliniana), titi
(Cyrilla ra~^emiflora), sweetleaf, highbush bluebeFry (Vaccinium coryrnbosum), nannyberry
(i~bumum r9ddurrt), sweet bar (l~agriofia ,~irg~nrana), giant ,= berry (Rebus ~u~),
groundsel, and wax myrtle. Herbs include royal fem (Osmunda regalis) and bamboo grass
{©ichanthelium sceparium).
Dtsturbed/maintained lend. - Disturbed<main#ained land oocurs `along the 14-foot {4:3-meter)
wide shoulders of SR 1005; and.includes small areas of railroad mairYter~arace yard, residential
lots,,and agricull:ural fields.. These areas contain planted and volunteer grass species, such as
foxtail grass (~etaria geniculata) along .with -other:weedy. species such as plantain (P/antago
laF-ceo/ata), chickweed (Stellaria media), pussytoes {Antennaria sp.), and wild onion {Allium
canader~se).
---
Cypress-Gum ~wamp-(Blackw$te~' Su>~type}-= fi h'rs~artt community-is describedt~ Schafale--- -_ _-... _
and Weakley (1.990) as occurring in b-ackswamps, sloughs, s~ale~, and fen#ureless #loodplains
of blackwa#er rivers. They are seasonally. to serniparrhanently flooded,. with variable flow
mimes. The water tends to be-very acidic, Iqw in mineral sedlrrien~s and nutrierrts, and ~oitored
by tannins. Cypress-Gum Swamp extends through he e±enter `of the projeot area; in the channel .
and looker floodplain of Bachelor Creek. South of SR 1005 ahd~east of the main channel, an
additional pocket of the. stniarl~p area borders 'SR: 1t`I~5. This plant cgmtrtunity has an open
ttvdodfand structure, witlt mature trees irtterspersed:witfi are~>v# open wa#et. S~ul`rs,are #ew,
Arad kerbs occxtpy small islands arxi edges o~ eupc~sed soil:. T#te canopy is dominated by bald
cypress (TaxQdium disticl~m) and gum {A~ysse aquatics), #~ut :been ` aslt alsfl ~ occurs. The
shrub layer contains lfirginla ,wiltow (ltea virginioa)', red d~rcb®txy, inkberry {flax glabra)
staiggerbush _(~.yonia fucida),'and swarr~p rose (Rota palustsj. V~irres inclt~e.~ra(~e {#%l~s`sp.),
and catbrier (~rrRii~e. bor-a-nox). Thee herb layer:- is fairly diverse in open areas, including
10

t-
~~ ~
woolgrass bulrush (5cirpus cyperinus), plume .glass. (Erianthus gigantaus), cattail (Typha
latitolia), -soft rush (Juncos effusus), . royal fern, . cinnamon ~ fern (Osmunda annamornea),
tearthumb (Po/ygonum arifolium), and marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellate). The Cypress-
Gum Swarnp plant community grades into Coastal Plain Bo#tomland Hardwoods (Bfackwater
Subtype) at its upper edges, except at he western end of `the .project- area. in this area,
Cypress-Gum Swamp`directly abuts-upland Mesie Mixed Hardwood commun~ies.
3.12 Faunal Communities
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit but physical signs, of three mammal
species, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), .marsh :rabbit (Sylvifegus palustris), and
beaver (Castor canadensis) were observed in Bot#omland Hardwoods within the project area.
Other mammal species. expected to utilize swamps and lowland forested habitats in the. project
. area are southeastern shrew (5orex /ongirostris), star nosed mole (Condylura cristata), silver-
. haired bat. (Lgsionycteris noctivagans), Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Pla~us refinesqui~, co#ton
mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and mink (A~ustela vision)... Fells
and other disturbed areas might host eastern cottontail (Sy/vilagus floridanus), gray. squirrel.
(Sciurus carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis}, .red #ox (Vutpes
vu/pes), and Virginia, opossum (Dide/pfiis virgmians).
birds observed foraging in swarrxp or hardwood areas w~Fiin or.adjacent to t#~® corrid+sr are red-;
shouldered hawk (Buteo tineatus), red-bellied v~od~ecker (Me/enerpes : carolinus), .downy
woodpecker (Picoides .pubescens), pileated woodpedcer~ ('Dryvrppus plle~tus), tufted titmouse
(8aeol~ltus bicolor), Carolina chiekaclee ~Poeci/e carr~"nb~is), wft#e-breasted nuthatch (Sifts
carolinensis), 4rown-headed nuthatch (pitta pusil/a),:gbfd~srx-cr~pwned king#et (R~gulus satraps),
aa~d ruby-cro-ned kinglet (:Regulus calendula). Birds seen a~ heard In open fieir~s, disturbed
areas, shrublscrub.areas, or over open--water are great blue heron (Ard~a heradias), ~d~taiied
-hawk (Bcrteo , jamaicensisj, turkey vciture (Csfhartes eur~, Carobna wren f '~ryc~thorrls
ludoviciands)~,northern mockingbird (Nfimus pvlygrlvttos), cedar waxing j8orr-6yc(lla ~droFCrm),
northern ca~linal (Cardinelis cardinalis), dark-eyed funco (~Itaxav layemah's), wF~ite-throated
row _ Zorietricha...aopis ,::.son __ arrow - M za !#car~. gok~invl~ - .
spy' ~ ) g P E _ roelodra},-__ _ _ __
(Garduelis tristis), and corr~man crow (~onrus,;brachyrt-Fias). Other bird spacies.expeoted to
be ;found in nsrei swamp arid boitanaland hard~o~d areas~are wood d~rck (Aix barred
. ~.
owl (Strix varia), v~rirrter wren (Trog~ddytes}tre>g/ody(`es', .9~ay c~tb~rd {punretella Garr~i~ertsis),
wood thrush H oeichla -musteli~a , ;whit . ,:
(_ yl ~ e-eYed v~re+a. E X+-rso 9rriseus), Prothonotary ~tar~bler
(l~riotono#aria citrea), .northern paTUla.~ (Patina. errrerioerrs), and svvacr~ sparr~v (~±lelosp,~a
gec~rgir~na):

t
~ d N Y
woodhouse~), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), Brimley's chorus frog (Pseudacris brim/eye),
rtngneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), .rainbow snake (Farancia
erytrogramma), rough green snake- (Opheodrys aestivus), and timber rattlesnake (Crota/us
horridus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities.
Observations of aquatic plant communities observed within the project area -were limited to
duckweed (Lemna sp.) and mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana). Emergent hardwood species
.included baldcypress, green ash, and gum.
Crawfish chimneys were .observed along waterways within the project area. .Limited
investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic reptiles or amphibians. Aquatic or semi-
aquatic reptiles and amphibians' expected to occur. within vegetated wetlands and open-waters
in the project area include greater siren (Siren iacertina), eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia),
eastern musk turtle (Stemotherus odoratus), painted turtle (Chrysemys pieta), spotted turtle
(C/ernmys guttata), mud snake (Farancia abacus), redbelly water snake (Nerodia
eryi`hrogaster), black .swamp .snake (Serninairix pygaea), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
pracivovvs).
No sampling' was undertaken in Bachelor Creek to determine fishery potential. Small,
unidentified minnows-were- observed during the field survey. dish species adapted to slow,
swampy,. acid waters. in the project. region include bowfin. (~1mia calve), eastern silvery minnow
(Hybognathus regius), golden shiner (Notemigonus cryso/eucas); yellow bullhead (Amelurus
natafis), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), chain pickerel {Eso~tniger), eastern mudminnow
{Umbra pygrnaea), pirate -perch (Aphredoden.-s seyat~us}, swampfish (Chologaeter comufa),
eastern mosquitofish (Gantbusia hQ/brookvj, striped bass (Morons saxatilis), mud sunfish
{Acantharchus pomotis}; blackbanded sunfish (Enneacanthus chae#odon), bluegill {Lepomis
macrochirlis), black .crappie (Pornoxis nigromacu/afus), banded pygmy sunfish {Elassoma
_ _zonaturn}, and swamp darter (Etheostoma; fusiforme) _:
iIVFlC has: developed a Significant Aquatio Endangered- $peeies Habitat database to enhance.
ptanning, siting,. and impact analysis in areas proposed by Wf~C as being .critical due: to the..
presence of endangered or threatened aquatic species. I~lo Significant Aquatic.: Endangered
Species Habit~# `~oecurs within the project arse, or within Sub-basin 'b3-04-08, However, this
reach. of Bachelor Creek .has po#eh~~t as a spar~ming eras for anadronlous t~sh {such as
~rnecican .shed' [Afosa sapidissir~zaj artd alewife [~losa ps~tdcharengusj) "and a travel corridor
for' migratory ffs('r: ' Therefore, m water work duritrg `protect ce#ructian ~,y, npeci tee be ~vc~i~ed
,_
during.: moratorium periods (February 15 through. Jurie 15) asst~ciated -with ihsh rrngra#iah,
spawning,. ar~d nursery areas. Future coprdirration wt#h~ fesource agent~~s may resuk in
' stn~ents to these r '
equrrements.
12

,,
n ~
To minimize fishing. and non-fishing activiitiees that adversely affect marine fisheries, areas of
Essen#ial Fish Habitat. (~FH) afford limited. protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996
(16 U.S:C, 1801 et seq.). EFH has been broadly defined by congress as "those- waters and
substrate necessary. to fish for spawning, breeding, feed'mg, or growth to rnatunty." Fishing and
non-fishing related activities that can adversely affect fisheries include .ttshing gear; dredging,
:filling; agricultural and urban runoff, .and- point-source pollution- discharge, No marine,- estuarine,
or tidally influenced waters are located within the project region. Based on the iatest directive
from the .National. Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2000), the nearest designated EFH is
.associated with tidal waters of the Neuse River, approximately 12.7 river miles (20.4 river
kilometers) downstream of the project area.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Plant communities within the project area were delinea#ed to determine approximate area and
location of each within the project area. A summary- of plant community areas is presented in
Table 1.
No signfficant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result. of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roattside margins. Construction noise- and
assoaated dis#uraances will: have short-.term.: irnpac~s° o~ av~a0t~a -'and mig~ wl>e
rnoverrt perr~s.
Table 3; Plant community coverage wtthin the project area. Areas are expressed in acres,. with
hectares in parentheses. .
Pi'an# Corntn~nit~l
Mesic Mixed- Hardwood. Forest (Coastal .Plain .Subtype) 82 (3.3)
Bhrub/scram assembta9e 5.8 (~.3)
Coaster Riain Bottomiand Hardwoods (Blackwatar Subtype) 5.~ (22)
Disturbed/maintained land _ : 5.7 {2.3)
_ _.. _
_ .. .._
.. _
rest-Gt~rn awe ~_
-t?P (Blackvveter Sut~type) 2.5 (1.0)

, '
i ~
Potential .down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat wilt be avoided by bridging the swamp system
to maintain regular flow .and stream integrity. New bridge design parameters should seek to
avoid placing bents in the stream channel, 'rf possible.. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and- suspended sediments .will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction: will be minimized- by. the
'rmplementation of stringent erosion control measures.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of .Bachelor Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR
Section 328.3). The Bachelor. Creek channel and lower floodplain has been characterized by
Cowardin et al. (1979) as palustrine, forested, broad.-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
system (PF01 C). During the filed visit, an open channel .approximately 75 feet (23 meters)
could be distinguished in Bachelor Creek..
Vege#ated wetlands are defined by the ;presence : of laree primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vege#ation, and evrde~ of hydrology. at or near the surface for a portion (#~2:5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1.987)_ In addition to the channel grid lower floodplain
swamps of ,Bachelor Creek, NWI mapping describes `-palustrine, forested, broad-leaved
deciduous, `temporarily flooded (PF01A), -and palustrine, forested, deciduous, .seasonally
flooded (PF06C) areas throughout the project area. During the field Visit, evidence was noted
that the floodplain area may. be more persisteniiy flooded, including a beaver dam. upstream of
the railroad bed, cypress knees, and water marks on trees. Bachelor Creek was found to be a
poorly- defined, open :water swamp system -with numerous bald cypress trees along with
emergent- hardwoods: Therefore, the Cowardin classification may be-more- accurately to#ed as
a palustrine, forested, deciduous, sernrpermanently flooded: system (PF06F). This vegetated
___ wQtlan~ system is .generally aSSOCiated with the ..:Cypress-hum _ Ewa r-p plant .community __ _ ._
described in Section 31. The PF01 A and. PFO1 C wetlands correspond roughly. to the
boundaries of Coastal Plain 3ottomland Hardwoods. The: PF~36C wetlands occupy- an area Of
.Coastal Plain ~ottomland Hardwoods in the northeastern quadrant of the project area. The field
visit verified the nature `and general placement ~of these ~veget$ted wetlands: In addition,
palustrine scrub/shrub; broad~eaved ;decidpousJtifoad-leaved ev~rgr~een, eason~lly ffiooded
wetlands (PSS1f3C) exist .within the scrub~s#irub assemblage p~n# cxraur~ities atongs'rde the
railroad tracks. in ail; approximately 27 percent (8 ~,.a+c~es [3+4 F~ecEsres~) of the pro~st area
csists of vegetated wetlands (Figure ~) T'attle 2 fists these ~wn>- t and, the{r extari#s
within the project area: Or the whole; wetlands aVithiti the project area would be considered
riv$ri0e by t #3WQ based orlaheirlocation within the Bachelor Creek floodpfei+~:
14

~, ~ ~ ~ .
Tabie 2: Wetlands within the project- area. Areas are expressed in -acres, with hectares in
parentheses.
Cowardin Classification Area DWQ Rating
PP01 A (Coastal :Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, Bfack~rater :Subtype) 1.8 (0.7) BO

PFOi C
Coastal Plain 8ottomland Hardwoods, Blackwater Su
( b#ype) 3:0 (1:2) 60
PF06C .(Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, Blaclcwater Subtype) 1.3 (O.v~ 60 .
PF06F (Cypress-Gum Swamp, Blackwater Subtype) 0.9~ (0.4) 71
PS51J3C (scrub-shrub assemblage) ~ 0.3 (0.1) 27
Total ~ 8.3'(3.3)
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for-the .Protection- and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River.-Basin (15A NCAC 028..0233) .provides a .designation for
uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse Basin. The Neuse :basin .Rule
applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers. (measured perpendicular to the s#ream) directly adjacent
to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. Changes in land use within the buffer area are
considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes within the riparian buffer are defined as
being Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mltigatfon, or Prohibited.. `The Exempt
designation .refers to uses allowed within. the- buffer: The. A1lowaible designation refers to uses
that ~ prQr~ed- v~itttir~ thQ t~ian der :pra~ided a are r~© I afives, aid that
written -euthori~ation`from the "D i~ .obta~ed r :t© pi~oyecE de~etp~rt~eht.- ~-lT€~t+a
with Mitigation designa~on refers to uses that are allow~l, given there: "are no practical
alternatives grid appropriate mitigation plans have been apprvued: The Prohlbl#ed designation
refers to uses ha# are prohibited withcwt a variance. Exemptions to the riparian buffer rule
. include-the footprint of existing uses that are p{es~ent-and ongoing., -
The channel- of Bachelor Creep; as defined on :the Jasper, NC USES topogn~phic snapping is
the basis for buffer length and area calculations: According to .this: source, the channel.. of
Bachelor Creek within the project area is .430 feet (13fi meters) long.. Therefore,. there is
approximately 1.11-acre (t).4 hectare) of riparian buffer within the project ar®a. Ofahis area, 0:6
acre _(0.2..hec#are)_,is .,w~thia done: _1, srtd 0_?~:._aEre_ (Q 2 _ hectare) _is within Zone 2 0# the :buffer
_.
area.- .The final" determination of the existence of I+Jeuse River buffer-end the issue ofi associated
impacts-rests with DWQ.
Durira : ro ect~.~nstruction, Grid. ~ e No. 212 ~U be oisred without-
9 P J B ~pP+n9 po-~tions of tl~e
structure mto bachelor creek "Therefore, no terr~o~rary fill 'from. bridge derrtoii#on is expected to
be~placed in waters of the United, Sates:
if an off-sits dour ~rc~trss to b~ xnfeesiE~ie, a ~a~ be-s~tr~ to c:Qrrst~ct a iempor d~a#vur
bridge, d~ditlg on results ;of a geoteciiosl_ gion ~# 'fie wetland subst~ate~~s
consolidatien patert~iai. This vvouid be nece if i-ttpa-to t-q~sli~+ end rrlUrtt-qu~ty
wetlands, due -to t~s .cost&tr~tion of a temper c~usec, are t1 to be intoli~fab~te
,..
,_
and.. must be rrwntrnized. .
15

1 ~ ~ , ~
~ , :.~ y
4.2 CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern
The proposed project will occur in one (Craven) of the 20 -North Carolina coastal counties
covered by the Coastal Area .Management Act (CAMA) (N.C.G.S. 113A-11.8). CAMA authorizes
the N.C. Division of Coastal Management. (DCM) o manage development yin Areas of
Environmental .Concern in the 20 counties: Estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines, coastal
wetlands, and public trust areas are designated as AECs. Any activity involving construction,
excavation, filling, or other land disturbance within an AEC is considered development and
requires. authorization under LAMA. Because, the project area contains an ,open. water within a
CAMA county, a DCM .representative will need #o verify the presence or absence of a Public
Trust Water Area of Environmental Concern (AEC).
4.3 Permit Issues
4.3.1 Permits
- The project-area may contain Public Trust Waters AECs. tf .replacement of the bridge avoids
impacts to AECs, the DCM will review the permit application'for LAMA consistency. If an AEC
is ;proposed to be impacted, a CAMA Major Permit or General- Permit for-bridge replacement
{fi5A AICAC O7H.23Q0) maybe applicable:
' This project may be processed as a Categorical Exelualon (CE) under Federal .Highway
Administration (fHV11A) guidelines. The USACE has made available ~[Vafionvwrtle Permit (NWP)
Ne. 23 (67 FR 2020,.2082; January 15, 2002) for GEs des to ~ninimal impacts to waters of the
U:.S: expected with bridge,construction. DWQ has made ava~able a<Genera1401 Water Quality
Certification far NWP No. 23 (GC 3361). if ,temporary construction is .required that is no#
described in the CE, ;a NWP Into. 33, for temporary cons#ruction, access, .and dews#ertn$ (fi7 FR
2U20, 2084; January 15, 2002},and associated DWQ General` Water Qus[ity Certification (GC
33fifi) cnay required. in the-event that-NWP No: 23 will not Suff. ice, impacts :attributed to bridge
replacement and associated approach improvements may quat~y .under General Budge f}errnit
(GPj 031._ issued by_the V16ilrnington USAC~_Distnot.; DWQ_has -made_rava~la~e-_a ~aer~t~l_4Q1----- _ _ ._- ..._
_._ __
Water Quality Certification for GP 031 (GP 33~~). No#ifieation ~t~ the l1~AGE W~lrr~ngton district
office is required if this general permit is utilized:..' ° ,
The Neese Fri pr .Basin Ruls applies .to 50-~v~at (15.3-meter] wig: `riparian bu#fers ditectly
adjacent to surface. arvaters~o#:the Neese River €3asin:.Neese t~u(#er Certification will be needed
in addition to..a USACE permit-and t~V11Q W~a#;er Quality. Certifrcatdn:
4:x:2` M+tigatiQn
The US~-CE has adopted through- ~e Courr~ri on ~ Enviror~merftal" Qua,t ;{GEQ) a ~vt3tlatt~!
~or~~,palicy-which .embraces tFie conceit o#'~o ± lass of ~etr" ~an~;se~iuericrrtg. 7`fie
-
p+~r~se:af thrs~policy is to, rector-e and marrrtaira the. cherrucal~, ~r~t, 'and ptaY intagrfty of
Y6
'E

waters of the United States, .and specifically wetlands. Mfigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, (to wetlands),, minimizing. impacts,. rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR Section 1508.20).
Each. of the three. major .aspects (avoidance, minimization, :and compensatory mitigation) .must
be considered sequentially.
:Avoidance entails an .examination of all appropriate and practicable possibilities of wetting
impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1.990 Memorandum of Agreement
between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -and the USACE, in determining
°appropriate and practicable° measures to offset unavoidable- impacts, such measures should
be appropriate to the scope and. degree of those impacts. and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology,. and Logistics in -light of overall. project- purposes. impacts to wetlands in the
project area are expected to be temporary in nature, depending on-the ft~otprint of the final
bridge. design.. Temporary impacts due to bridge construction--may be unavoidable during a
replacement project.
Minimization includes .the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to waters of the United. States. Implementation of these..steps will be required through
project rnod~cations and permit conditions. N~nir~i~ation typi~tly f~us~s on ;decreasing the
footp>nnt of tl9e ;presed pFO~ct throh tie n ~ -c~ ~ l sus a~nct~~r
roadside shoulder widths: Len~t%ning of the brkfige to leese~t the of 'the approach.
causeway is ,another method to minimize impacts .~ bridge `prctjeds. Ail ef#orts will be made to
decrease impacts to surface waters.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally .considered p~7 anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States: have been avoided and minimized to the ut~ extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlandsp functions erul values rrasy not be:achieved in :every:
permi# action. In .accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .050~(h), [~NQ may require cxarr~p~ensafiory
mitigation for projects. with greater than or aqua[. t© 'i.0 Bete (0~ #tectare) .ofi impacts ~to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater thanror-equal to i50 lfiear feet (~ Iir;ear rn?aters);o€ total'.
_..___-
perennisi-stresnrimpacts;-_-ft~r~ermor~a;.in_aecordanc~wi#t`B'~'~F;--~(; X492-dar~raar~r~b,.....__...
2002, the USACf requires compensatory mitigation when na~essary, to ensure that, adverse
effects tb he~aquatic environment ars minimal. The:,e stud type 01' proposed~projed.irttpact,.

,~
~a
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more
than 150 linear feet (46 meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation` in accordance
with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the USAGE
and DWQ.
The requirement for riparian buffer mitigation: will depend on the amount of potential impacts
resulting from proposed bridge replacement and-the availability of practical.altematives. A final
determination regarding practical alternatives rests with DWQ.
If an on-site detour becomes .necessary; a bridge may be required for crossing project area
wetlands, depending. on results of a geotechnical investigation of the wetland substrate's
consolidation- potential. This would be necessary if impacts to high-quality arid. medium-quality
wetlands in the project area, due to the construction.. of a temporary causeway, are determined
to be intolerable -and must be minimized... The use of an on-site detour would be .further
restricted by the presence of the railroad approximately 55 feet (17 meters) to the south.
.Limited opportunities for mitigation exist within the project area. A culvert passes .under SR
.1005 approximately 1200 feet (366 meters) east of.Bridge No. 212. Additional culverts to allow
free-flow of Bachelor Creek. swamps under SR 1005- and the upstream railroad .bed =nay be
beneficiaC:
4.4 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 (FiSA) of 1973,- as
amended {16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The -term °Endangered Species" is defined as "and species
which-is in danger of extinction 'throughout all or a:significant portion of its range," and fhe term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is ikel~ to become an F-ndanger~d
species within.:the foreseeable.: #uture throughout all or a significant: portion of .ltd range" (46
U.S.G: 1532): `A federally prvtecteci species listed for Craven .County (frebruary 11, 2003 FWS
_._ _. _._.#st) is-preserrted-irr-Table 3: _ _ _..., ._ ._...
.Table 3t Federaiily Protected Speciesfised for Craven County (Rebruary 11, X003 FWS lrst),
Ct~nmon Narme ;~cl~nl~lic Name.: ` S#t,re'
American allrga#or ~fiiliga~r nus~ippiensis ~ 7( A)'
Bald eagle Hakaeefus /euocaicephaius T
Leatherback ea turtle ` = Qerm
cc~riacea E
V1~est Indian manatee ~ ~'rChera~i~rtatus E
Merl-eochad~d woodpecker PtCc~des b~rsatis
,.
Sensitrve°;jointyetch*• ~sQhyr~one vir~inica ` T
* 'ft-r.saterted date to Similanty~ of App~srance ~eser~,gtis~s ~n appear .~ tMae~r~ed ~ecies-that s~faielit
personnel woWd have stiti`stsntra! dit~ci~ty ah d~fetie#raty. the:lid acrd ~rrrjsted speoles:: Ttae n~rlcan

1 ' ~,
. ,, ,~
Alligator misslsipplensis (American alligator)
Threatened due to $Iml arity of` Appearance
Family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Date. [delisted: June 04, 1987
American alligator is listed as threatened- based on the .similarity in appearanoe to other
federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are- no other crocodilians within North Carolina.
American alligators can be found in a variety of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats
including swamp forests, marshes, large streams and canals,-and ponds and lakes.
T SJA species -are not subject to Section T consultation and a biological conclusion is not
required. ,However, this project .is not expected to affect the American alligator.
Hallaeetus leucocepha/us (Bald eagle)
Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date. Listed: March 1 t, 1.967
'1! he bald l~ is _a large ~ raptor w a ~&p~t greater #.>ttra ~ #~et .(21;3 try). aA~#t -batd
eagles are dark btawn with a vvhlte `head -and -tail, lmmat~ure :eagles are bn'~wn with whitish
mottling on the tail,:..4elly, .and wing finings. Saki .eagles typically. f®ed on fish but may also take
birds and small mammals.:.ln the Carolinas, nesting season extends #rom December through.
Iway (Potter=et al. 1980). Bald eagles ty~icady nest in t$i(, #ving, trees"m a conspicuous ktcation
near open wa#er. Eagles forage over large bodies of vaster end ulilJze a~sceht trees fru
perching (Ha#nel 1'992). Disturbance activities vaithin a priiry zone exter~irlg 750 to ,1500 feet
(229 to 458' teeters) from a nest tree- are considered. to result in unacceptable. c:oraditicns for
eagles (FVIJ~~; 1987), The FWS recommends avoiding disturbance activi#ies, including
construction and tree-cu#ting within this primarjr zEU~te. Wl#hin a s~corry zone, emending from
the primary one boundary out to a distance of 1;:0 nlfle (~ .B kilometers} -from a nest tree,
construction and landrelearrng acbvTues should be restricted to the non-nesang. ,penod... ~fie_ , _ _ _
FWS also- recommends avoiding alteration of natural shcrelir vvher$ baiti e€rgles,,~orage, and
avoiding sigr~ifJcant ~lar~d-cl~rirtg ao~ities vyithin 1 b00 feed {458 metersjo# >FCtown ro~tingsites.

. ~~ -x
Derrnochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea turtle)
Endangered
Family: Dermochelyidae
Date Listed: June 02, 1970
The. leatherback turtle is distinguished by its large size (46- to 70-inch (120- to 180-cerrtlmeter]
carapace,- 650 to 1,500 pounds. [295 to 682 kilograms]) -and ashen-of soft; leathery skin. This
species. is primarily tropical in nature, but the range. may :extend to Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland ..:(Palmer and Braswell 1995, Martof et al. 1980). -The leatherback is a powerful
swimmer, often seen far from land; however, it sometimes moves into shallow bays, estuaries,
and even river mouths. Its preferred food is jellyfish, althqugh the diet .includes other sea
animals and seaweed. The leatherback generally nests on sandy, tropical beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Bachelor. Creek, in the project area,- is anon-tidal, freshwater stream. ,Therefore, no habitat for
leatherback sea turtle exists in or near the project area. No leatherback sea turtles were
observed during-the site visit, and NHP documents no leatherback sea turtle occurrences within
5.0 mites (8.0 kilometers.) of the project area.

! ~ `.
~ ." x
Plco/des boresfls (Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches [t 8 to 22 centimeters) long) has a. black head, prominent
white cheek patches,- and ablack-and-white barred back.. Males often, have red markings
(cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al.
1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature apothem pine fgrests dominated by
loblolly,, long-leaf (Pious palustris), slash (P ellivttii), and pond (P sero~na) pines (Thompson
and Baker 1971 j. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of Going pines, .generally. older
than 70 years,-that have-been infected with-red-heart disease: Nest cavity trees tend tq occur in
clusters, which are referred fo as colonies (FW$~1985). -The woodpecker drills holes into the
bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance-that
allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas
which have been maintained by frequent. natural fires serve as ideal nesting and fgraging sites
for this woodpecker. Develgpment of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity
trees.
~iL4GtG;~L C~1sIGtt~SlGt~a~1: ~ `ffiF~4T
A few mature loblolly pine trees exist within tfie project area and adjacent areas. However, the.
. trees are widely spaced and occur in scattered k~catigns.~ rthe clustered arrangenuant of pine .
trees preferred by file ,birds fqr nesting colonies i$ snotprovided in the= project .vicinity. In
addition, der3ss shrub.. and und$rstory I~[yers occur under large areas of bottomland and tx~esic
mixed faresL The use of scattered plods for fgra~ir~ sites wouki:de~pend =on the birds crossing
large„tracts (greater #han 300 [91 meters] feet wide)of roadways,,,agricu!#ural fields, and. brushy
wgods. Therefore, the project `area contains. no suitable.habits~t for red-cx~ckaded woodpecker
nesting,roosting, of foraging. No occurrence of cgci-cockaded woodpecker is docurrrented by
the NHP within S.O miles (8.0 kilometers) . of the` Project area. No red-cockaded. woodpeckers
_ ....were obserrred drtriflg- he -sate visit.. ;- _ __ _

~ '~ ''
~_ s :s y
flowered racemes from July to October. The jointed .legume (loment) is about 2 inches (5
centimeters). tong, has 6 to 10 segments, and a 0.5 to 1.0 inch (1.3• to 2.5-centimeter) long
stalk.. Sensitive jointvetch occurs in the intertidal-zone near the upper limit of .#idal fluctuation: It
seems to- prefer sparsely-vegetated areas where annuals predominate (FV1lS 1995): Habitat for
this species in: North Carolina consists of moist to wet coastal roadside ditches and moist'fietds
that are nearly tidal (FWS 1994), esp+ecialty in full sun (Leonard 1985). Associated~prlaMs listed
for this jointvetch in North. Carolina are all fresh water species: Sensitive jontvetch is not
expected to be found in association with salt-tolerant species such as saltmarsh cordgrass or
giant cordgrass (Rouse 1994). This species seems to favor microhabitats where-there is a
reduction in competition from other plant species, and usually some form of soil disturbance
(FWS 1995).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The. project area is well upstream of any tidal influence. In addition, disturbed open areas with
little herbaceous competition. are not- found within. the project area. Most shoreline and open
areas are colonized by tearfhumb, marsh pennywort, and soft rush, as weW as -other grasses
and rushes.. Therefore., suitable- habitat for sensitive jointvetch does not exist within the project
area. The nearest NHP records for sensitive jointve#ch are approxirnatel~r a 5 rntles (13.7
I~~ers) sa~tfleast, near James City. Hernre~er, this sus has ~> tided in
`~ra~ten ~oantjr in -over ~t3-years: Igo individuals of ser~i#itre rttvet~ wef® ~se~rved during tMe
site ~risit:
federal SpeEies of Concern -The February 11; 2003 FIt1f6 fist. also includes a .category of
species designated as "Federal species of concern' (FSC). ~- species ~vi#ti this designation is
one that rsay or may not be listed in the future (formerly: C2 candidate species or pe+eies under
consideration for listing for which there is insufi#cient it~fo~ation to support lis#ic~g).. Ttie FCC
designatron provides no federal protection under the ESA for the .species listed. f$C species
listed forCrawen bounty are: presented in Table 4. -
-A~#F-#ftQS fist-no- docu~er+tafiic~n-~flr- FSG species-vvithin-~5:ff' mites -(S:O icitometersj~of the p~aject

Tabte 4: Federal Species of Concern listed for +Craven County {[r1NS list, February 11,
2~f3~j.
Potential State
Common Nam. a Scientific Name , Hafiitat Status**
Bachrr~t~'s sparrow A-m~~Ua aesti~ralis " i~o SC
Bieck rat! Later~us j~rraicensis ~ no SR
Southern hognose snake Heterodon sim~s no - SC`
Anointed sallow moth* Pyreferra carometica _
no SR
Craatan crayfish Procambarus p/u-nimanus yes W3
Carolina asphodel* Tofie/dia glabra na W 1
Carolina spleenwort Asp/enium-lteteroresiliens no E
Chapman's. sedge* Carex ~nii yes W1
Godfrey's andwort Ailinuartia gc~dhreyi no E
.Loose wa#ermilfoil MyriophyNum !exam no T
Pondspice Litsea aesfivalis no SR-T
Savannah cowbane Oxypolis temata no 111!1 .
Spring-flowering goldenrod &olidago Tema no SR-L
Venus flytrap Dionaes muscipula no SR-L
White wicky' Kalrpia ct~neet~s no SR-L
Hietc~ric record - the epeces was last observed' in~it~a c~uunty mare hen 5t) ,yeats ,ago
State ~tS&ts ~C = SCI Conce~, S€i~= ray Ftsos; T ~la~€j~trs~ut ':~arlge;
SR-t Sigr~ificentiy Rare and.of-liin~ed rangy ~enderMc;or ngautc~o hlorBrQaia}
Hitt=Watch List -rare, .but. relatively secure: M3 ~ Watch List - rer@, .but uncertain docunnentation
E = Endangered; T =threatened; (Antc~roso 2002; LeGrand and Hail 2x01).

. '~
~~:
~3

•~
.' ~ ~ •
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 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.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1.979. Classification of Wetlands. and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31.. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 1.03: pp. .
Daniels, R.B., S.W. Buol; H.J. Kleiss, and C.A, Ditzler. 1999.. Soil Systems in North Carolina.
North Carolina State University Soil. Science Department: Raleigh, North: Carolina. 118
PPS
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 PP•
Division of Water Quality (DWQ): 2002a. Neese River Basinwide Water. Quality -Plan. IUorth
Garolirta Department of~ Environment and=~a~t~ural Resot~S, Rst~igtt.
division - of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002b, Classificati©rts and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of .the Neese River. Basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fsh and Wildlife .Service (f=1NS). 1985. Red-cockaded Wflodpectcer Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department:of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Fish and Wilcllife.Service (FWS). 19'87. Habitat Management Guidelines for.the Bald Eagle in
-the Southeast Region. U:S. Departrnent of the interior, Fish and Wildlife Service..8 pp.
Fish and.Vllildli#~ $enrice (FWS): 1993. Vilest"ln~n Manatee. T'r~ct~ech~.s rrlanafr~s;[tir~naeus].
1n: Endange'red `arid Threatened Species of the Southe steFn ;United States (tae Red
Book) U.S. Department of the Interior, Fsh and Wildlife Service, Southeastern Reg+c~n,
Atlanta; :GA: 6 PP•
Fish and W~dlife Service {FWS). 1994: Sensitive. Joint-va~h Recovery Pin: Technical
~ Draft. September 1994;
Frah ar~d Wil~lif_e Service (FWS~: 19.95. Endangered and Tf~rtened" Specie's of the
Southeystem' l~nited States„ (The Red.'Bc~ok): Ser~s~we Jointvetch Sp~acies Account.
t1.S. Dg~artment of the interior, FWS l~eg~t~rr 4.
24

Kartesz, J. 1-998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular .Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and:the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Prrogr~m..
LeGrand H.E. and-S.P. Hall. 2001. Natural. Heritage Prograrn Lls# of the- RareAnimal..:Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Leonard, S. UN. 1985. Status report.. on Aeschvnornene virainica in North Carolina.
Ur-pub4ished report to the Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 6+ pp.
Martof, B.S., W:M. Palmer, J:R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison ~i1. 980. Amphrbians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The: University of North Carolina- Press, Chapel Hi(I, -NC. 264
PP.
Menhnick, E.F. 1.991. The. Freshwater Fishes of :Notch Carolina. North. Carolina Wildlife