20071906 Ver 1_Application_20071109

s "` SaAiF u
~~~~
~ ~.,.~
•@~,.~•

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
a ~~~~ .
0,l r
NQ ~ ~ ?0 ~~
07
~0 1~~~/ACl7y
DEPARTIV~NT OF TRANSPORTATION ~~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 6, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Attention: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
01906
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permits 23 and 33, Water Quality
Certification, and Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization, for the
proposed replacement of Bridge 84 on SR 1410 over Latham Creek in
Beaufort County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1410(2), State Project No.
8.2150901, TIP No. B-4021. Debit $240 from WBS 33388.1.1
Please find enclosed the permit drawings, Pre-Construction Notification firm (PCN), and
half-size plan sheets for the above referenced project. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
(PCE) was completed for this project on March 9, 2004, and distributed slhortly thereafter.
Additional copies are available upon request. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 84 orl SR 1410 over
Latham Creek in Beaufort County. The project involves replacement of the existing bridge
structure with a 120 foot bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as
the existing structure using top-down construction. Permanent impacts will consist of 0.04
acre to wetlands adjacent to Latham Creek and 6,668 ft2 of riparian buffer. Traffic will be
detoured off-site along surrounding roads during construction.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (Hydrologic Unit
03020103). A best usage classification of "C SW NSW" has been assigned to Latham Creek
[DWQ Index # 28-103-14-2]. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Latham Creek is not
designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

River. Additionally, Latham Creek is not listed on the Final 2006 303(d) list of impaired
waters due to sedimentation for the Tar-Pamilico River Basin, nor does it drain into any
Section 303(d) waters within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts: Wetlands adjacent to Latham Creek will be impacted by the proposed
project. Construction of the proposed project will result in permanent impacts of 0.04 acre
due to fill material (see permit drawings).
Temporary Impacts: This project will result in 0.02 acre of temporary fill in wetlands in the
Hand Clearing areas for the installation of erosion control measures, including some or all of
the following: Temporary Silt Fence, Special Sediment Control Fence, and/or Temporary
Rock Silt Checks.
Hand Clearing: Hand clearing of 0.08 acre in wetlands will be necessary for project
construction.
Utilit~mpacts: No impacts to jurisdictional resources will occur due to relocation of utilities
in the project area. Existing utility lines including NC Natural Gas and Sprint telephone are
in conflict with the proposed project. Wetland impacts due to the relocation of these facilities
will be avoided by using directional bore techniques. A Beaufort County water line is also in
conflict with parts of this project; however, this conflict occurs outside of jurisdictional areas.
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge is a two-span structure consisting of apre-stressed
concrete channel superstructure with an asphalt-wearing surface. The substructure is
composed of concrete caps on timber piles. Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed to prevent any temporary fill from entering Waters
of the United States.
Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin; therefore, the regulations pertaining to
the buffer rules apply. There will be a total of 6,668 ft2 of impacts to riparian buffers. This
includes 3,060 ft2 (2,850 ft2 in Zone 1 and 210 ftZ in Zone 2) due to the bridge crossing.
According to the buffer rules, bridges are allowable. In addition, 3,608 ftz (742 ft2 in Zone 1
and 2,866 ft2 in Zone 2) of impacts will occur from approach fill and mechanized clearing
activities due to road crossings. This Road Crossing activity is allowable because impacts are
less than the 150-foot/0.3 acre threshold, for which mitigation is required. Uses designated as
allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical
alternatives to the requested use pursuant to Item (8) of this rule.
Federally Protected Species
As of May 10, 2007 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has listed seven federally
protected species for Beaufort County. The bald eagle, however, was removed from the
Endangered Species List on August 8, 2007. The 6 remaining species are listed in Table 1. A
biological conclusion of "no effect" remains valid for each species due to lack of suitable
habitat.
NCDOT TIP B-4021 Page 2 of S

M
Tahle 1 _ Federally nrntected cneciec of Reanfnrt [ nunty_
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Kem 's ridle sea turtle Le idochel s kem ii E No No Effect
Red wolf Canis ru us E XN No No Effect
Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E No No Effect
Rou h-leaved loosestrife L simachia as erulae olia E No No Effect
Sensitive 'oint-vetch Aesch nomene vir inica T No No Effect
Key: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, E (XN) =Experimental (nonessential)
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from the Endangered Species Act as
of August 8, 2007. However, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act. As noted in the NRTR (2003), no suitable habitat exists within 660 ft of the project
area.
In-Stream Work Moratorium
A project commitment in the PCE included a North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
moratorium from February 15 to September 30. However, Latham Creek falls under the
jurisdiction of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). As required by NCWRC,
and as agreed to via a telephone conversation between NCDOT Biologist Chris Manley and
NCWRC Biologist Travis Wilson (February 24, 2005), NCDOT will adhere to an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. In addition, the Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented.
Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the
project study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is committed to
incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts. Minimization measures incorporated as part of the project design
included:
• Fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio
• Use of an off-site detour during construction
• Construction of a 49-foot longer bridge
• The new structure will span the creek, therefore there will be no interior bents in the
water
• Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the existing
alignment
• Best Management Practices will be utilized during demolition of the existing bridge and
construction of the new bridge
• Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage
NCDOT TIP B-4011 Page 3 of S

• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized during demolition of the
existing bridge and construction of the new bridge
Mitigation
Due to the limited amount of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands as well as impacts to riparian
buffers have not exceeded the threshold requiring compensatory mitigation, NCDOT is not
proposing mitigation for this project.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The
NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23. We are also
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for the temporary fill due to the
installation of erosion control measures. (72 CFR; 11092-11198, March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701 and 3688
will apply to this project, and are requesting written concurrence from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Therefore,
in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a), we are providing five copies of this
application to the NCDWQ for their review and approval. Authorization to debit the $240
Permit Application Fee from WBS Element 33388.1.1 is hereby given.
Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer Authorization: NCDOT requests that the NC Division of
Water Quality review this application and issue a written approval for aTar-Pamlico Riparian
Buffer Authorization.
LAMA: Due to the absence of any Areas of Environmental Concern (see attached email
dated July 23, 2003), this project will not require a CAMA permit as confirmed by North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management staff. As previously stated the project will require
a Nationwide permit, which has been determined to be consistent with the State's coastal
program.
A copy of this application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit html
NCDOT T/P 8-4021
Page 4 of S

Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact David E. Bailey at
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely
~~ .
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
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. Div. 2 Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Div. 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 L. Williams, P.E., PDEA
Mr. Stephen Lane, NCDCM
NCDOT T/P B-4071
Page S of S

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
2 0 0 7 1 9 a~
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
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gre ory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company 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 Bride 84 on SR 1410 over Latham Creek in Beaufort Countv
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4021
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Beaufort Nearest Town: Old Ford
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take US 264 to US 17
North and turn left onto SR 1410 (Voa Rd) You will come to bridge 84 after approximately
1.5 miles.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.654382 °N 77.094960 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Tranters Creek
8. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The proiect is located in a rural area in Beaufort Countv
Land around the site is mostly forested or under agricultural cultivation ~
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The exisitina structure was built in 1962 and has an overall length of 61 feet It has an asfault
weanna surface on concrete channels with timber Hiles and timber abutments The proposed
~ro~ect will replace the exisiting brid a in place with a new bridge that is 70 feet long
Standard NCDOT construction a ui ment will be used. F
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to replace a
structurally deficient bride to ensure the safety of those traveling over the bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE 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. A iurisdictional determination was issued by the USAGE for this project
on Februarv 26, 2003 under Action Id 200310362
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permit requests are anticipated for this~roject
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 maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Construction of the proposed
project will result in permanent impacts of 0 04 acre to wetlands due to fill material (see
permit drawings). This proiect will result in 0 02 acres of temporary fill in wetlands in the
Hand Cleanns areas for the installation of erosion control measures
Page 3 of 8

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 flnncl;nu
-- -- - - -- --a-
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number T e of Im act
YP P
(e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact

(indicate on map)
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Flood lain
p Stream
(acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
1 Permanent Fill 0.04
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.04
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 2.0 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, 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 w;rlrh then r~ivir~P by d'2 chn

Stream Impact - ~ ----- -- - ---- --- - •• -..w., .----- ..
Average ..., ., ..,,~
Impact .,.,.
Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Before Im act (linear feet) (acres)
N/A
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0.0 0.0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dred~ln~. floodin~_ dra;naue hnikhearle Ptr

Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody -~ --,
Type of Waterbody
Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc. (acres
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0
6. List the cumulative im act to all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the ro'ect~
Stream Im act (acres): 0.0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.04
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.0
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.04
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0.0
Page 4 of 8

7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site
layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts were
minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be
followed during construction to reduce impacts. The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts. Minimization
measures incorporated as part of the project design included fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio,
use of an off-site detour during construction, construction of a 49 foot longer bridge, the new structure
will span the creek, therefore there will be no interior bents in the water. Measures used to minimize
impacts to the buffer zone include using the existing alignment. Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passa e, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized during demolition
of the existing bride and construction of the new bridge
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
Page 5 of 8

including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Due to the limited amount of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands as well as impacts to riparian
buffers have not exceeded the threshold requiring compensatory mitigation NCDOT is not
proposing mitigation for this project.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/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 ofNon-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 ^
Page 6 of 8

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 ^
X.
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 ^
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify Tar-Pamlico )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 3,592 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
2 3,076 1.5 0
Total 6,668 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the to
of the near bank of channel
Z
2
t
d

additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1. p
;
one
ex
en
s an
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
Page 7 of 8

the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this 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).
N/A

I a ~ ~ r~
Aplilicant/~Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

IF
BEAUFORT COUNTY
L
~k / 1 ~ V 1
.Q
/y N L ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
3
1 .o
%l ~ ~ y~
I 1
`-. ~ ' Voa
14U '
l ~
1T10
'Po, 84 ~
y~ i
\~ y ~
~~
\ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~
y
y i
Jo
\ ~ ~~
'~' ~
TAR-PAMLICO BUFFER
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
Holy Church
17 ~
i "
~ ,- - \
--- \ ~ '
PROJECT/ 8-4021
17
°\
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PROJECT: 33388.1.1 (B-~021)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ~8~ ON
SR 110 OVER LATHAM CREEg
SHEET 1 OF 5 2/' 2~ ®05
r ~,
met s,,, i_, of ~„
~, NORTH CAROLINA

w J ~ ] ~
. ~' 1 stt i I ,~ {y,n
_ ;
-. , I ,._ _~--~
! ` F ,
t ~~ a i r • ~ ~ 1 ~ _ 1'S
4 '
,~ _ _ ~'
[ ~ ~ ~I ~~ .J i-I r ~ ~ _,~ ~ ~ ~ i..
,,,~ . J
~ ~ 7
_ ~l , ~
i 1 ~ [ I' .~ ~ I 't-
r ,, _
f--' I '~ ~~til f ~ 'ill ~~ ~.. _ ,~ ~' ~._~r'v Y,..,~
~. ~. _
-r~~ ~ -
II ~ xtJf~~ ! I I ,~ 1, 1 7y ~ ~ ~ i . ~~ ~e• ~ + 1
I, ~ r~ '~ e~ ,sY'4ii~~" .... / ~~ ~ ~~~ ~+- '" ~ ~~1 ~'j- .,5 , J ~..-F rte, R ~`-:
1 ~ . ~ ~ • 1 4t ~' A ,°~ if i J J ,-f 1 ~ -~y~++ h' . f r -'1 ~ ~1 ~ •I J~
! :T~i Nsf~ c~ ~s~ .~f• '. 1~~ 1`!i13~'`~-_'•~ I~f i y.~ ~7 ~ ~~-~~~~
~~* ,,;k » ~,~ ,?aft .__~ :i .~- .. +~if j ~.~ '`~`_,~~ -tµ .)
~~,;~~ y~ -1~' I Jim#I # "rq ~~ ~ ~ t~~. ~ I 1r I, 7~ f~ ~ j _ _ _yT
.,~ ,, ~~ !~r. t ~.-~; ,~ x,13 7,~ _. I.. ` - .
_ _
~.. -'
~ +- - _- ~ -
~ - 'tom ~+r _-« °rt - ~ r ~,c ~ - I ~ __~ 1 -~
!w~ ~ ~Y ~,~yj ~} t ~ lti 1- ~~1 ~y
. t'•• .e ~~ ' ~ 1 ~' ,.'° . ~_ ~ 1 __.._. ~ _. ~• ,- f !`.t"^ `_.""~.v. .rte' _ ~" .F'x... > . .
TAR - P A M L I C O BUFFER N. C. DEPT. ®F TRANSP®RTATION
~T DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
®~ ~ °~ ~ ®b ~1 BEAUFORT C®UNTY
1L PR®JECT:33388.1.1 (8-021?
1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ REPLACEMENT ®F BRIDGE ~8Q ®N
SR 110 ®VER LATHAM CREEK
SHEET ®F 7~ 16G 04
_ -...
B~UTIet Dh1Ntf1A \~.,

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE
/TYPE STATION
FROM/TO ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ftz) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ftz) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ft2)

1
Road Fill 14+72 to 15+07
16+27 to 16+55
X
742
2866
3608
Bride 15+07 to 16+27 X 2650 210 3060

TOTAL: 35x2 3o7s sssa
~ p
W /Ir)
Q
~ w
Total Length of Up and Downstream Buffer Impact = 110 ft

BEAUFORT COUNTY
,~ re emp
/L ~ ~ f ~ Holy Church
I 3 ~.
v
;N ~ ~ y , .
1414 • ~ - - - ` ` \ ~ •
14~ - -v-
~a ® /
~, ., r s Rd
y ~ i
~O• `\ ~/
~ y 17
PROJECT B-4021
I~
C'~
o\ /
~~
~~ r
N~~~ JL
~~`L~b`~ ~~~
~~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PROJECT: 33388.1.1 (B-021)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ~8~ ON
SR 110 OVER LATHAM CREEg
SHEET 1 OF 5 2 / 22 / 05
A~ ~!'~I~>1~ . .
NORTH CAROLIN4

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER I1CrtPACTS

Site
No.

1

Station
(From/To)

13+90-L- LT. +/-

Structure
Size /Type

FILL
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac)
0.016
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) an
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac)
0.036
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac)
Temp.
~V'V
impacts
c,~_
t Existing
C~i~nel
Irrinw~ects
Permanent
ft) Exjs ing
Cfiannel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
15+24-L- LT. +/-

2 15+97-L- LT. +/- FILL 0.028 0.044 `~ ~ t
16+50-L- LT. +/-
~_

TOTALS: 0.04 0.08
Permit Drawing
meet 3 of 9
r~~
~ ~'
x
~~ N
L
Note: There will be 0.02 acre of temporary fill in wetlands in the
hand clearing areas for the installation of erosion control measures

R
~. --
I
1I
II I
I I
I I
Ij
II
ll
1I
II
II
I
~ ~I O
ICI
IWI
ICI :,
I~ I
ICI
I I ~:
I j
(I
I I
I I
III ~
II
'~ QRi RJR WL ..
_i~ ~l~"41'35r81`

0
t

~

PI Sto JJ+59,i5
P/ 5tc 18f07A2
P( SM 20+25.56 I
p- 22T 068'(RTJ p. g45'03T(RTJ p- 15'21'p0A'fRTJ
D = Gr 43 54S D = t Z2 ZS.t D = 632' 53!
L =29477' L =200.08' L =23555' ~

T = !41,41'
T = 10021
T = 1/8b9' o
: ;
R =6,88813' R = 1,31OA0' R =875,00'
SE =SEE PLANS SE = SEf PLANS
:6T ~ {
1~26~AA

~~~
a8

N
r O
4
.EYERNREUSER COIPAMY

RY~SFIBIIDER -~ ~
~
~
~ ~ 1
~ ~
~ ~ BEAN GIIFT
~ ER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
q• SIgULDER
BERM GUTTER
W ~ ~,
.\ W ~, ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~
~' ~' M0005
\ ~' ~ y ~ ~ ~
I
\ ~' w~'
~
~ ~ ~ ROWS
~
y/ ~'
$
~ 9' ~ ~
~
,~ ~ ~a a~ ~ ~ ~~
a ~
,,
-f~ - -
~F. .. -~ y ROW
~- ~_ _
--_-____
F ~ ~ - ---
1 .,,..,,, ,,. ,,. ,, .....,.;e, ,.,. ~. _ t _ . -Fr -1,~. _ .. 1\~ xrv~; i n ~ Ycxr~ ~ r .--_ -
r0005
` BSER,~MS'
TO APP SLAB
JuESo
~F
i pRW i A

_ y ~k
{
I ~~
a
o~
$8
1/G

~.~-
~~~
~ „ RIOECf RD1
B-4L
MR~`~'''~ \ Rv
ROADWAY OB
BIONRM
no. ~ RRlEt wo.
NDTE: BRDOE xA5 ROOD B]ITG PIIEY,IEdD
ARU ReIG RALLS
.rR WRCaETC cno¢RS.rRE aEa 5
CDNCAETE RITR esT $UIFACE
N
,,
,,
-,
-,
,,
~ i
~ i
i ~
~ ~
-'1 ~
i ~
~
~
y
,

= ~
~,--
., ~
-
AETAN '
/ ~ ..
w .

~~ l ~
W ~ _~ ~ ~
~
~ ~Y ~Y ~ ~
~
~ \F l~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 9 ~~ ~Y 9 ~
~
~'~ ~ W
~ ~Y ~ ~
~
~
~` `ae~ % ~W W =Y
~ . -...... O it ~ - - - f ~\\ ~ w w ~ r'
\ \ ~ /
w \ .. \ \\\\\ \\ ~, ~o~,
15.7 ' \ \\ \\ ~ /
A A
O \ \ \\
~J \
R BERN S7o~*R1 REYEA11Ap~SFA C01PeNY \
\ \\
0. e IRIAAI \ ~<..
1 \
3
0 ~, ~e.~.
,IpN C. GORRAµ Jt et d ~~~+<„ \
X 8uf~er Df84Yli1g
Sheet of
~~
~ NCD®T
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
~wv v
~v~v%~
ALLOWABLE
IMPACTS ZONE I
R ~RTc°~~
II
P
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \
~~ ~ ~\
ALLOWABLE
IMPACTS ZONE 2 REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ¢&1 ON
SR 14100VER LATHAM CREE%
~
~
SHEET
OP
8/!9/OS

REVISIONS
~~
~
~ ~~
ii
S~ ~~
~
~
V
~
V
m
V
~~~

~g
T
~ !
~~
~$
aa~~ •~
_~ ~
P
~ ~\ •~~
•~
°°Y~
~~, ~
~~
O ~
m m
z
0
~o
am m m
~~ ~ ~
G7D Z ~~-+
o °r
z
~~l
Q0
~~ ~ d
N O
o ~~ ~~z
~~ ~~x
v. ;~ H~~
~~!®/
~~ 4 ~~
°°
r ~ ~ ~ y
8 ~x°
SS8
a~~
~'a O
~g3 ~
n
~~
P
~r
~~
.L ZB
~i za
~~
•z m
n

\~
~~
1_
~ _
~~ ~
/.~~~ ~ ~_
.. ~~_ _
t _
10
8
~ J
~~
~ ~,

~~ ~ ..
~~~~
~ ~~~~'OD
~ .~ 1~ ~~` ~ ~ I I R M y
~`.~ +~ .~ ~ .~ ~`~ y~~
~ ~ -.
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ H
~ ,~ ~'0~''oD~
~ 1~ •~ ~ ~ N I M 11 R
X10/ '~ R ~ '~~~
~ ~ ~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~~~ (~j ~ C}O
~~ro
~ ~ ~ i~ ~ y
. ~ _ ~ass~y ~ti~ODV~
~ .. .. '~ '~\ M R MI1 Y (~Rj 7
1~ ~ ~ ~e
E ~ ~ ~ ~ 1'
.~ -:
~ +~ ~ ~ ~
,~ 6$
~z ze V~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ a~ ~
~ ' ~ ~~
r ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ '~
i
i
~i
t ru,r-.evN -
it

/.
i
O
~~
.S /

~~
/~
/~
/~
.~
I
~ ~ ~ I~ ~
~I I ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~`
i~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i~.
~ ..~~~~ ~
~~.
~ \~\ \ '~ 1
~ 1
/ I \ ~ ~
~ ~' ~
' ~ ~ •.
~ \
~~ ~.,,~.
.,,..
. , , ~.
~. , ,
.,, .
j ~ ~
~ ~
~~ ,. \ ` .
.. ~ ~
2p
~~~
~~~
1a~~
^
~~ ~
g7
4
blll~
Z K ~
~~~
a~
4
mA ~
0

"
P
a
a
c
0
0
3
0
`n
i,
n

N
O
~~
~I
`~
V
W

Iii
U
O
U
See Sleet 1-A For Index of Stets
See suet 1-B For Convenlionol Symbols
1419 ~
1414 _
~ ~ 421
~ ~
' 142
-
~
17

141
PR 17
1001 ~
1410
' 1418
1411 l-
- ~~
1512
~ 1409
1409
1511
u19
17
,~ ,~
409
VICINITY MAP
PROP05ED DETOUR ROUTE
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.84 0
--------__YER I.ATIYAM C
--~~--
- -----
ON SR 1410
---------------- __
TYPE OF WORK GRADING PALING DRAINAGE,_GUARDRAII,._
AND STRUCTURE _
~r
I
~
~` 4
STA. 11 +70 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B~OZI
,W
f~~
u
STA. 19+06.86 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-4021
~~~~~ ®ll' 1°11 ~~~~ ~~~®~~l~l
_ _ _ _ _ BEAUFORT COUNTY
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
CLEARING ON THIS PROJEC'i SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE UMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
GRAPHIC SCALES ~ DESIGN DATA
aanrvn~n .
INCOMPLETE PLANS
uo xm wa lNq Vr ACOVtlilfOx
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m xar uec roa mnmvcnon
Utility Drawings
PLANS
PROPIIE (HOWtONTAI)
ADT 2QQ¢ _ ~_---
ADT 2424 = lei __-
DHV = ]Q %
D ¢Q%
T = _Z%•
V = ¢Q MPH
" TTST 1°~ DUAL T~
~C.CLASS = RURAL
LOCAL
... ~..vs auurvan
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4011 = 0.117 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4021 = 0.023 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT 8-4011 = 0,140 MILES
Prepored In tln Office of:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1010 lirrA Rld~a Dr., Rele(~i NC,11610
sen,rumun •~••,•,ro~a
RIGHT OF R'AY DRIB: S:ARY COVERING. P.E.
APRIL 15 1005 r~0'®"
LBTITNG pA7B: RON McGOLLUM. P.E.
APRIL 18 1006 T ~" ~'^®1°°

aYDxAUUCS sNGJarseR ~ Dn~tslox oa rffcHwAYs
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ROADWAY DESIGN Grua nsvav mlm~ `'`
SNGA'86R DBPARTMRNT OF TRANSPORTATION
P1iDBRAL ffiGBWAY ADMAVOSTRATIOa

l

a
N
a
m
xi
i
N
0

m
n°
°o I
ON ( I
no r
m 1 i pa„~.
a~ 1 i
2006 ~
SR /414 X26 ADr
352
613
211 135
~ 670 ~ 805
1322 ~ 1327
SR 1410 -L-
O
r
y ~IIJ 45 4 flar an Tar
~ -~5~24.T'E,
/~ -~_-
-~ ~1~4P'3S'~
~E--ro urlllr _
CA.11 +70,00 ~ 9EGIN TIP
1
Utility Drawings
~ti
8
N
4
r O
NO IMPACT ON WETLANDS
s ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ I,, ~ ~ ~,
0 ~" /
~~ _ ~ '~ ,yW '~ ~ '~ W ~ `~ ~1 ~ ~ W -Bl- 4 ~ 2•T9.0T Pd4C
W ~ ` ~ -L~. STA 16E07.p.14.06 LT
- 3 T+17.63 PMC = ~ ~ '~ '~ A1nSN01L0ER '~ ,y
STA ID«46.19,14,18 LT ~ ~ ID' S~odLDEA
~ ~ ~ w~ ~r BEAY CU¢TEA W ~ ~ ,. ~ , ~ ,~ ,y BEAM GUTTER
+Od.71 ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ '~ Npt C
\ ~ COIPANY
'1D~ ~ IC u E IptAg? ~' ~+Ty •1~ ~ +oe.fe
Noarx cu+a6u ruv cblp ~ '~ '` ~~a s uc+1~°: PIOT~1 ~ '~ ~• ~ 1°~ u,
oe TT • ~ ~ ~4°6sA~E~Ib~~~ °~~~B ~ ~ w ti~ a ~ ~ W ~ ~~
A ~ »
EP rMER rOw f ~' ~ w ` ~ ~ / _ ~ i
. v -- ~ - - - _ f F ~an~~,--T-~_ _ _ -
DER BES5RY•
T~A•SLABl25
B-40Z1
RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PROPOSED PAVEMENT O
A A
{• STA. N•43 •/- •L• STA. 16.51 •/-
25iTAPER rY1e ti T1R 1 g,,7~
T,y~.R rn1 a Tr16 n ~ 81
~ ipPEF
NOT TO SCALE
F 18P f1 ~ a 1 6Y I~~WINf
1 iI
• A A
~ ec a i
~
e
70
i
a
i
~ A A
v
r
s
Y
m
e
1C i ` M
~
'" PRpP. u/G 12" gTL Tpq~ SyIggION
QAS MAIN BY DIpECtIONAL BORE sTo
r +
.sl
c.coauAwaA.
,
~TM T
S
1 OB 44• IG 676 EP
~BEAu
/~
~ A LAB TO
/ •L- STA. IT+32.75
/ / NOTE BRIOOE x15 reap BEAT .1AES.NFAa 9T 7 TON Q A A116A1
/ 1ND 'R1G MILLS VY6 n {`~ 1AM6:

y I / rITX CONCRETE CXNEp$.TI(
CONCRETE MIH ASi SU61CE IS
off
d ++ /
HS /
m ~ Q
O
~
NmrKr No. u~r No.
8-4021 4
AW i1ER NO,
ADAgYAY 0611611 NYpE,AUDCt

INCOMPLE E PLANS
m NOT liSH fan /r eCOUGiRIap
PRELIMIN Y PLANS
m Nm mn To roearxucnoN
SEE SHEET 5 fOR -L- PROFILE
® BRlOGE APPROACH SLAB
O
N
~ ~
~ ~
'.
,~
'',3 ~ iii'.
- ~i
so ~ *~ ~r '~ w ~' ~ ~ ~ ~
,. ~,-
i ~ ~ ~
~ w ~
.\
~ ~ ~ W W
~ • W ~ ~
~ : ~ ~ w ,~~
H 4p E\~~s \v~ \\ ~ ~
\~ \.. ..
)~f, Ay N ~\ ~ ~

m
m
N
O
`*~
0

y
r
N
T
v
0
Q
~,~
Q~
o ~'~
r ~
0 oz
N 3~
0
roV
~~~
o ~~
o :.~
r~~~
d'
0
V
See Sheet 1-A For InOex of Sleets
See St~e1 1•B For Convenlfonal Symbols
VML-A!C SW1i~S
50 T5 5D 1
PLANS
5D 25 0 50 100
PROFILE ~HORIZONTAIy
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2008 = 857
ADT 2028 = 1379
DHV = 10 %
D = 60 %
T = 3 % •
V = 60 MPH
` TTST 1% DUAL 2%
FUNC. CLASS = RURAL
LOCAL

BEAUFORT COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.84 OVER LATHAM CREEK ON SR 1410
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
4
STA,11 +70 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4021
~e ~ --~
(~
u
STA. 19+06,86 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-1f021
PROJECT LSNGTI>I
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4021 = 0.117 MILES
LENGTH STRUCNRE TIP PRO!ECi 8-4021 = 0.023 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH T1P PROJECT 8-4021 = 0,140 MILES
Prepae0 In fh Of/k;e de
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1;00 Bira1 Rldp Dr„ 1bl~f~A NC, 77610
7016 JTAAQNItD ifN~11Cl7fWQ
IEtGET OF WAY DATBr GARY LOVERING, P.E.
APRIL 8.2005 >:
L817A'G J)ATB: RON McCOLLUM. P,E.
MARCH 18, 2ooe '~'' ""~" "

en .rya Corr waorts ee air
ra mru,
ausce
•c• 8-4021 1
mn rrxxe a,.wwaa roman
33388,1.1 BRZ-1410 PE
33388.2.1 BRZ-1410 RM1M b UTIL
33388.3.1 BRZ-1410 CONST.

~~ >
ROADWAY DESIGN
BNGINS6R
A717SION OF lIIGF7WAY5
STATE OF NOR77i CAROL>'NA
°a
r ° 111A°
U
O
U
VICINITY MAP
PROPOSED DETOUR ROUfE ~--~--i--~-

w
Note; Not to Scale
*S• U.B. = Subaurfaae Utrliry Engineering
~°Jl°.~°IPIE ~F N~~$°TI-][ C.~IEb~]LgN.~
~dVd~I~N ~1F 1H[I1B~IW.~~~
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY,•
-
SMte Lins
County Line -••••-••
-
---
Township Une - -

City Une ---
Reservation Une - ~ - -
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin
Property Carver -~
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Una -X-x-x-
Proposed Woven Wire Fence e
Proposed Chain Link fence ---~-
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence 9-
Exisling Wetland Boundary ----~^----
Propoaed Wetland Boundary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary ~^-
Exitting Endangered Plant Boundary En
BUILDINGS AND OTHEJP CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or l1G Tank Cap o
Sign
Wall °
Small Mine x
Foundotion Q
Area Ouilins O
Cemetery 0
Building ~--~
School
Church
Dam
XYDROLOGY••
Stroam or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir _~___= J
Jurisdi~ional Stream -u... _
Buffer Zona 1 -ez i -
Buffer Zone 2 -e: s-
Flow Arrow <---~-
Disappearing Stream >-------
Spring o^~~~
Wetland ~
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch ~
r ".
False Sump ~
RAILRt29DS.•
Standard Gauge -
RR Signal Mllspost
Swffch
RR Abandoned -
RR Dismantled -
RrcIIT of wAy
L5x rnµSPOwxAT~G'
0
~~ ~
a
~~
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker ~
Existing Right of Way Une -
Proposed Right of Way Une -~--
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Iron Pln and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Concrote or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Aasu - -:~--
Proposed Control of Access ~-
Existing Easement line - -E--
Proposed Temporary Consiruclion Easemenrt- [
Proposed Temporary Drainage Eaaemerrt- -~-
Proposad Permanent Drainage Easement - -PCS-
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement -rue-
ROADS AND RIIr~TED FEx9TURIs'S•
Existing Edgs of Pavement --
Existing Curb -•
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut - - - ~ - - -
Propoaed Slope Stakes Fill --- F---
Proposed Wheel Choir Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut -
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp - cF
Existing Metal Guordrail
Proposed Guardrail
Existing Cable Guidsroil "
Proposed Cable Guideroil "
Equality Symbol ~
Pavement Removal
t~EGETA77ON.•
Single Troe -
Single Shrub -
Hedge
Woods Une -
Orchard
Vineyard
,.., w.-~. r. ~.. V ...,,.
4 fl 4 fl
vlney°re
EXISTING STRUGTURES.•
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Boz Cuhert
Bridge Wing Wall, Hwd Wall and End Wall
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Dikh Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILlTIES.•
POWER:
6dsiing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
iodating Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Une Tower
Power Tronsfarmer
U~G Power Cable Hand Hale
H-Frame Pole
Recorded lbG Power Une
Designated Ll~G Power Line (S.U.E.")
WATER;
Water Manhole 0
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Water Hydrant ~
Recorded lVG Water Line •
~ow~ Designated U+*; Water Une (S.U.E.`r - - - -•- - - -
~ cowc ww ~ Above Ground Water Line 4iG wmer

~o~ Hw N:
N Satellite Dish ~
>-------< N Pedestal
^ce N Tower
----- lVG N Cable Hand Hole ~
© l "
Recorded USG N Cab
e
° Designated l6G N Cable (S.U. E.") - - - -'•- - - -
R
G Fib
i
l
d
d '• ~°
ecor
US
er Opt
c Cab
e
e -
Designated lYG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E."r -
----'~~°---
b
~•
8
.--.
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pols ~
Telephone Manhole
Telephone Booth 0
Telephone Pedestal ~
Telephone Cell Tower ~
USG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded IJ~G Telephone Cable '
Designated L1G Telephone Cable (S.U.E.")- ----'----
Recorded l~G Telephone Conduit '°
Designated llG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E."}- ---'°----
Rewrded 11~G Fiber Optics Cable "°-
Dasignated lLG Fiber Optia Cable (S.U.E."f - - - -' °°- - -
GAS:
Gaa Valve 0
Gaa Meter
Recorded IJ~G Gas Line °
Designated l4G Goa Une (S.U.E.h ----°----
Above Ground Gas Une "` `05
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhale
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout p+
U~G Sanitary Sewer Une ss
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer exG Smitary Serer
Recorded SS Forced Main Une ~u-
Deaignated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.'~ - - - - -~~- - - -
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole e
Utility Pole with Bose p
Utility Located Ob~ecf o
Utility TrofRc Signal Box
Utility Unknown U~G Une ~°-
lyG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil 0
AEG Tank; Woter, Gas, Oil
lLG Teat Hole (S.U.E.h m
Abandoned Acwrding to Utility Rxorda - AATUR
End of Information E.0.1.

11~~ ~.'
_ ~ ,~
S ~
un
.'~
P.
F
~:, . ,
N
`/
uza
i I ;14
~~q~ fl
"~' 'R:
17 ~ :,?
~a ~.
~m Q
S UR i~EY C011 tTROL SHEET 8-4021
CONTROL DATA
~
-...POINT .. OES[. Na1TH --...ER6T...--- .- -ELEVpT10N L 6TRTION OFFSET
1 GPS 84021-1 698142.8560 2565504.4660 --- ._
31.67 __..
OUT610E PROJECT LIMITS
3 BL-3 698294.6982 2565668.3737 29.88 10.46.19 14.76 LT
4 BL-4 698781.2062 2566017,6232 26.69 16.87.]1 14.06 LT
5 BL~5 699857.1970 2566568.1036 31.15 OOT6IDE PROJECT LIMITS
r- I+'~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~
,+, BENCHMARK DATA
BN1 ELEVeT10N 21.96
TnCnrMRf 5~en
IIIaVi11~11a [[ 1Y{11i" X698626 E2566188
L BTRTION 15.95 82 RIGRf
(N(Yf TB 8(r1LE) RiP SPIKE SET IN 18' HAPOVppD
] I ...•...... ~ ............................~

I~
I
I~
~
ICI LOCALIZED PROJELT
000RDDVATEB
~I N 6+asp54es6

NCDOT OP8 8TAT70N BID7!-1 I
I~ & 5686880.614
LOCALPLBD PROJECT COORDZNATEB
N 8881!9.868
B 5686604.488 \ f ~0
/ ~- 9R 1410 VOA ROAD (AEA LATHAi6
_L..
N~
PROJECT 8-4021
NCDOT BA9ELDVE sTAaroN eu•
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N A8B70I.908
E 56BBOtRB58
~ ~`~',
NCDOT BENCHd4ARE BMI'
BL6VATION- 5486'
NCDOT BASELINE STATION "BL-6'
LOCALDIED PROJBGT COORDATATEB
N 81067.187
,. E 5688688.404
~~ ~ ~\
~~
-L- PT 9TA 19+08.88
N 898896.761E 2688276630
~ITUM QESCRIPTIAN
ilE (O;N.16ED 070DI4NE R'AEY DEVEIDPED fp4 TxlS Px7,¢(.T
JS BaEO D7 THE SIaE %ME OXIm1M4rE5 EST+FIISUED !A'
M1a7T fO4 4g11aErT '84121.I-
rAx r+D 1981295 SraE PIA1E 0810 LWrJlrATES fr
gydxlMi658N7d5960 EA4G161165501MIdfx
TIE ~'ExME 0116lIED 681D f,ICTp4 DffD 0r TH15 PlpE6i
4aDUiD i0 GBIp IA 05999pRB
TFE 4G IpIIBER16810 A~WlA6 MID
I~MIZED Ig4(IOOM CN1Pq OlAMCE Fig!
'BCpI.1' TD i• S1N10Y I HIOm f9
N9' 00813 E Ip312 D0
Ml. Lf(E~W D11E4510Y5 ME LOCILIZED h0x11d0+( Dl9TMlE5
vERT ICM. 04TUY USED !5 rwD BB
THE CONTROL DATA FOR THIS PROJECT CAN BE AOUND ELECTRONICALLY BY BELEL°fDVO
PRWECT CONTROL DATA AT:
H7'f1!•\WWWaOH.DOT.RTATENC.UBPRECONBTRUCTiH10RWAYJLOGTION~PRQIECf
FD:E: b4051 L condo! 040719.OIt
81TE CAL®RATION INFORSEATION BA8 NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR TBIB PROJECT.
IF FURTHER L~'PnR94AT10N 18 NEEDED, PLEASE CONTACT TH8 LOCATION AND SURVEYS UMT.
® INDICATES GEODETIC CONTROL MONUJ4ENT8 USED OR BET POR HORIZONTAL PROJECT CONTROL
BY THE NCDOT LOCAT70N AND SURYEY9 1)1171:
PROJECT CONTROL E9TABL18BED UBINO GLOBAL P081TIONDVO BYSTEM.
NB7'WORH ESTABLfSIDi:D FROAd X08 ONLDVE PBffiTIONINO USER SERVICE (OPUS)
NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:

a
N
mn;
P/
_~
o°~
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
FINAL DESIGN
PROP. APPROX. 21~" ABPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE SFS.SA,
C1 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 197.6 LBS. PER SD. YD. IN EA~H OF TWO
LAYERS
C? PROP. APPROX. 9" ASPHALT CONCRETE BUAFACE COURSE TYPE SFS.SA,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 185 LBS. PER S0. YD. IN EA~H OF TNO
LAYERS
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE CDURSEh TYPE 8FS.5A,
C3 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER $$O. YD. PER 1 DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYEAB NOT TO EXCEED 11~t" IN DEPTH,
E1 PROP. APPROX. 4" ABPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 826.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 468 LBS. PER 80. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BABE COURSE TYPE B26.08,
E2 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER 80. YD. PE~ 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 9" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 6 " IN DEPTH.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
EXISTING PAVEMENT.
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE WEDGING DETAIL)
NOTE: PAVEMENT EDSE SLOPES ARE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
fl SURVEI'
Wedging Detail
VAR SLOPE
5EE X-SECTIONS
VAR SLOPE
sEE x-sECnoNs
3'
PROPOSED CORED-SIAB BADGE -
(STRUCTURE PAY ITEM, SEE
srRUCTURE PUNS s-1 rHRU 5-11.)
~ -L-
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1
`C -L-
5'-0" _ ~ _ 14'-0" 11'-1
8'-0"
v/GR GRADE
POINT
f~ b.~•
GRADE Tp THIS UNE J
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 2
~I
~~\~~1
-L-

11'-0"
1 3"
y
0.03
D,D3 .
TYPICAL SECTION ON STRUCTURE
3'
VAR SLOPE
SEE X-SECTIONS
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1
-lr STA. 11+70 TO -I~ STA. 14+50
-tom STA. 16+77 TO k STA.19+06,86
vAR stoPE
SEE X~ECTIONS
fH@~ N0.
2
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. Z
~ STA.14+50 TO -Ir STA. 15+07 (BEG. BRIDGEi
~ STA. 16+17 (END BRIDGE) TO ~ STA.ib+17
USE TYPICAL SECTION ON STRUCTURE
-Ir STA. 15+0T (BEG. BRIDGE) TO -L- STA.16+2T IEND BRIDGt}

P
°~
IlOACT R!ti!@IC! N0.
SXlL~ N0.
e-ao2r 5
~' ROADWAY D!!GN NMOINWG
NGNlR NONEt!

FR~1,11~1~1 RY Pi ANS-
;m pmt ws m~+rnnrner+.
BRIDGE' HYDRAULIC DATA

DESIGN DISCHARGE `990 CfS
DESJGN FkEOUENGY • 25 rRS
DESIGN MY ELEVATION = 243' fT
'BASE° DISCHARGE •1680 CfS
BASE'FREO(1ENCY • Ip0 rRS`
BASE'HIY ELEVATON = 26D'' FT
OVERTOWPlNG DISCHARGE ` 2850 CfS
D/ERTOPPING fREOI1ENLY = 5A0 YRS.
OVERTQPPIA'G EIEYATIbN- °27,9''. fT

Bu Y R/R SPIKE SET IN 18'HARDWDDD
' ESTIIIATEO NDRYAC WATER ~ ~~r, ~
-L- $TA15+95..82
: RIGHT SURFACE ELEVATION...
!ELEYATK)N = 24
515' ! DATE -0f SURVEY' - 7/22104
.
wS.EcfvATrOx
AT DATE Of SURVEY -195` FT

M 13 +80 ;00:.: PI - 15+Q p;00 P I - 1 7t~ 0.00''
'E L - 2 9,63' EL - 30!14'' E L • 19.73'
NYC - 180' VC ~ 187 VC • 180'
'K M 33J k . 170 K 316
.

rn
a
a

v

N
m

mnr
v~
ow
0
o~
00
N
i
~
r
u°
d~ 10 it 1Z 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 21

~-

P ..
N ~ .: - - - ~' PROD, EEFEREN CE N0. SN @T N0.
-
1 x -
t Q r o 1 Q , u 1 0 t Q -. t t !
t t ~ o- i Q t o t Q

0:03 0, 3

3,
1 r,-

__

! ' _ _ 0.03 .: O, ''

. __ ..

.

_

r
._
-~.

~
-

..

_

_ . ,-
pr03
0
D.
30 __ _

_ .~ .. _ ', r. s ..

.. ' ,~.
.,,

.,,
_ _ - -
:
_ _, --
_
_
;~
~

-

}

.
-
.-

-

-

.'
`~
,

,

. _
_
,-.

~Q

~ :

0
r _
_
.

,.

_

.

. ,
:
_
_
..

_

.

_

-

~
9 .
-
.
a03
.
~ ,
,

-
-
- . ....
cv r - :
xg .- :. - .. - '~
-
:
"
pia
_ ._ .
.-
_ .
_

~& -
10 1 10
o~N 1 Q 1 0 t 0 .
t
t
i
4
0
1
0
f
p
t
0
1

Subject: _UUd Bridge Yrojeccs
Date: Wed, ?~ Jul ?003 1-1:37: l0 -O~UO
From: Bill :~crington <Bill..-~rringtonLncmail.net%
Organization: NC DE~iR DClvi
Ta: "Goodwin, William" <bgoodwinLdot.state.nc.us~
CC: "Brittin~ham, \"Cathy" <C1thy.Bcittin,hamLncmail.net=
'?i eil1,
_ =finally visited all the sites in Lhe coastal counties.
The following are my comments for tae proposed bridge replacement sites:
9-3811 - No DCM jurisdiction
n-4021 - ~o DCM jurisdiction
3-4022 - have received no request or_nio riation
;~-4023 - ?u~lic Trust urea (PTA) and Public Trust Shoreline (PTS) ?seas
of Environmental Concern (AFC's) ~e_low ligrt project -Access to the
.arm road anprosimaLely 50' =rpm the bridge in the north east Quadrant
should be :maintained
3-4025 - ?TA and PTS AFC's.
along the cree!c i n tae nort.
maintained.
9-4027 - ?TA and PTS AFC's.
3-a073 - PTA and PTS AFC's.
aDDrOX1.Zmatel"J 130 Ie°_= 2rOm
be maintained.
Ye110t„j __gnt DrOjeCL - access t0 the roads
z east and north west Quadrants should be
Green __gl7t Dr'O'eCL
`_'=_11ow _-ght project - access to driveway
t:Re sOULa east corner of the bridge should
~ ?-4085 - ?TA and ?TS AFC's. Green i_7hL project
' 3-4088 - DIo DC~1 jurisdiction
3-a 151 - ~Io DC:^. jurisdiction •
-4224 - ?TA anc ?TS AEC~~. Cr=c.^_ __ync oro,~c1
?-4225 - ETC 3C:^ 'ur_s..__Li On
-225 - >1c :,C:^ ;ur_scictior_
-4223 - .Io ~C:^_ ,ur_sd_c__cn
3-4312 - `lo ~C:! -u-_sci_Lion
-442 J - :ic ~~:^. ; urisd.c=ion
~-4[11] _ ~T='_ rli ~ JT.- •_~- J /. _-
- --•• --:r.~ fir,, .--
x.=0!31-y- ^.° ~__']:°;' -!1u~ .~;7~- ~~.~ .-=~ -!RG?':-- 'rlL:.. i .._:R__dC ~C14Q? ~rl
.^~ 3d[il'= ;.._:n;~~rt: './:__~ :U8__=% _._ .1 .°r,c:..=_ ~cr!il:~ 3CSC.' =°_.'1~___ ~- --'
..:RS-i -C~- --_:._ ::i° _°7U__ ,!;1:.)_.' -~C---'~r_/jn. -_ iR~ .lr,"..r•orl~
._:~3C!,in .r:Gr._~% :1'..---:.]~'-,r... ,_- _-.--~~_:. l=..nin/• :~~r..'_,n~_ i o_^
.in _

Y
~7c'tJllr br_dQe Jr C3uS2wa~', c\J.°~dl.^.t7 t:12 31~.Jtadbl3 1tRDdCtS ~J= t:le
.~eRc'r3l D2r'llt Or .'_OP.StrllCtj.RtJ t.ze `Jr~~CIe JR 3 flew 31_.7nmenC tvOlll~:
:eQlllre file 3DF]11L.3tlOR ~Cr 3 ~,.al'1.~ iR3iQr Oer'llt 3S Well 3$ more
coordination between DOT and DCM and additional time
t0 prOCeSS file permlC 3Dp1,~.3tlOR.
Thank you nor espl3inina t.5e process Jr this nears bridge scooings. I
appreciate your ei=ort5 to distribute tale lists or projects we.'_ i:l
advance J tae comment deadline. ce__e~e ;lest near will work more
smootaly.
Hill

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4021
State Project No. 8.2150901
WBS No. 33388.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1410(2)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Beaufort County Bridge No. 84 on
SR 1410 over Latham Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge 70 feet
long and 28 feet wide. The cross section will include two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot
offsets. The west approach will be approximately 300 feet long and the east
approach will be approximately 335 feet long. The approach cross section will
include 11-foot lanes and 6-foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction (see Figure 1). The roadway will be designed with a 60 mile per
hour design speed.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
27.3 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge has a timber
substructure that can not reasonably be rehabilitated. The cross section of the
bridge does not conform with modern highway standards. Finally the structural
evaluation is 2 out of 10 which qualifies the bridge as both structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete. For these reasons Bridge No. 28 needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor budge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail

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

number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D
Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 375, 000
Right of Way $ 24,000
Total $ 399,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 700
Year 2025 - 1300
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Accidents: In a check of a recent three-year period (April 1999 -March 2002),
no accidents were recorded.
Design Speed: 60 miles per hour
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
School Buses: There are eight school bus crossings per day at this location.
According to the Transportation Director for Beaufort County, re-routing will be
manageable.
Division Office Comments: The Division concurs with the recommended
alternate.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge Demolition will likely require some fill in waters of
the U.S. resulting from a construction pad for a crane. Details of volume will be
provided as a function of the final design and permitting process.
Offsite Detour: The offsite detour would utilize US 17, SR 1409, SR 1001, and
back to SR 1410. There would be approximately 3.7 miles additional travel (see
Figure 1) resulting in 4 minutes delay for the average road user that is within the
acceptable range of delay.
Design Exception: A design exception is not anticipated for this project

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6)
(~)
(g)
(9)
0
0
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ^
Will the project require fill in waters of the United States

in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ^
Does the project involve any known underground storage

tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ^
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ^ X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act

resources? ^
X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ^
X
4

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ^
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ^
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ^ X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ^
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
5

(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ^
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ^
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ^
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation ^
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ^
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Re uired for Unfavorable Res onses in Part E
(Discussion regar mg a un avora a responses in Part E s ou a provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Response to Question (3) Will
fish. Latham Creek has been
fish stream. In coordination
Marine Fisheries, an in-water
to protect the resource. The
from February 16 to September
the project affect anadramous
identified as an anadramous
with the NC Division of
moratorium will be sufficient
moratorium will be in place
30 of any given year.
6

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
WBS No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-4021
8.2150901
33388.1.1
BRZ-1410(2)
The purpose of this project is to replace Beaufort County Bridge No. 84 on
SR 1410 over Latham Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge 70 feet
long and 28 feet wide. The cross section will include two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot
offsets. The west approach will be approximately 300 feet long and the east
approach will be approximately 335 feet long. The approach cross section will
include 11-foot lanes and 6-foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction (see Figure 1). The roadway will be designed with a 60 mile per
hour design speed.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
~ ~~~'~ ~ ~`1~~
Date Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
~_~_~~ ~
Date Project Planning Unrt Head
Pr ~ Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
it
~.
Date Proj ct Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
3-cr~~y
Date
J~fvision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Beaufort County
Bridge No. 84 on SR 1410
Over Latham Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1410(2)
State Project No. 8.2150901
W.B.S. No. 33388.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4021
Hydraulic Design Unit -Anadramous Fish
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadramous Fish Passage will be utilized in the design of this
project.
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 September 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.
Strong consideration should be given to spanning the stream entirely with one span.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
March 2004

o ,
v
M ~` R 7 1 N a~ ~ ~
2 ~A
_ --_.J
Q - - - - - 1513
-__-• •'y 1{3a - 272
- u23
- _ 9
_.~ -. -~ ;~• ~ 1621 ` I

~' --
-. _.~.'~ - - -~~
~ , OrnaY }.
1422 1.36
~'@ 98
~ li
'~ 1. 151.
--
R
E A
1.11' i tato ~ 1. l2
}-• ~~.
J ~
~ ,ml
.\ `~ ~
,
~ ~ -~
3 •...~ I116 - ~3~, tats 1.21 6 ~ laa~ ~ \
a

RC
-
~
I
N
~ 1 ~ I Isla
`- i 1.10
,. 50 i
171
t-1 P260 I ""' `"' a. ~
Q4 ~ . , 84 Z
1418. / ' `1312
/~
13C0
!-
~ w.- ~--~-- 88 ~ 1aA
Ia16 ~~ , Gati+
\ •ou saa
1311
~ ~ J 9~"

e C K - ~ `•,•~ rA.+.ecw.rp. 1410
89 i -
~ ~
,

412
90
^ ~. ~a13 (

\' I
i

'
i 1W1 ~ ~ .

~'~ 1.1
/
loos I
>,-~' ---
__ ~~

-
m .
l
't ... r-~ ..~ 4 ~-
~ J- ~ '~
1-- I
-
~
~

''~ _

-----.--
~, -' 323

J
~~
~
- <.~
'~ ~ ~
-1 1
a . -
~1s
~'-i -~-lL..- ,
~~
Studied Detour Route R 1 vEA
7 AR wtivnNCror+ 1'
1«. fl1f
~~
_
-~ ~, ~~
/~'oE NORT" p-i,'y~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~ p4•.
,h ~, TRANSPORTATION
' DIVISION OF )-IIGHWAYS
~ x
,9 ~' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
P'
'~+.F e°~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
•'~'TpF TAPNS, ~
BEALIFORT COUNTI'
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 84 ON SR 1410
OVER LATHANI CREEK
B-4021
Figure 1

4~GEi V~
MAY ~ 2G03
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ~q ~
State Historic Preservation Office ~ ~oJ a~ ~~` ~ ~
David L. S. Brook, Administrator ~ ,`
Michael F. Easley, Governor ~Cyd.:TU~VELO~~S~c'~
Division of ~ ~ es
Liabeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Direc r
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
April 29, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ~~~ ~~~~-C~< L'~ ~1 ~ ~'~=':~ ~.- -
~.
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 84 on SR 1410 over Latham Creek, B-4021,
Beaufort County, ER03-0918
Thank you for your memorandum of April 7, 2003, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.
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 Furr
www
Location
AD~IINISTR:~TION 507 N. Dlount St., Raleigh NC
RESI~ORATION 515 N. Dlount St., Raleigh NC
Sl'RVEI' & PL,~NNING 515 N. Dlount SL. Raleigh NC
.dcr.state.nc.us
Mailing .Addre~~
4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-1617
4613 Mail Servicc Center, Ralcigh NC 27699-1613
4618 Mail Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 2 76 99--16 1 8
Telephone/Fiz
[phone] • 733-8653
[phone] • 715-x801
[phone] • 715-4801

• ~'
• ~~
~~
NCDENR
_ .._ _ _ __ 1;_,,~.' ~~,;;~n,ment and !~latural Resources
. ...... ~.:~ h:-~cuir~ Fi.7er~ey

Preston P. Pare, Jr.. Di.rectcr
MEMORANDUM
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE
NCDOT
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
FROM: Mike Street,. .
DATE: July 16, 2003 ~ ~ a
' a
SUBJECT: Natural System Report ~ ~~~ ~ ~~" '~ "~ '~
Replacement of Bridge Numbers :128, 53, 219, 121, 21, 84, 39, 74, 52
Attached is the Divisions' reply for the above referenced project. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
MS/sw
.]L - i - .

t~ 1 E ti9 OR=~'~ D L-~ i
TO: ~~'illia-;~ Good~~.in- 1r.
TF[FOLtGf I: '~~iil:c qtr;:,;
n~/.
FROi\~1: Sean ~`1Ch:nna ~%i~/ `
D-ATE: tul~ i;- ~~i;_,:
SC`B.1ECT: \anu-a ~.~•st;,;; ;:_nurt. Replacement of Bridr~e'~umbers 1~8. ~3. ~'19- l?1-?]-
The ~~c~l1c,~~• in_ ~~ ,~~~;-;_::~- ~"., the'vorth Carolina Di~isior, of \-Iarine Fisheries ('~'C'D?~-1F)
on the \anuai ~~ ~t:r: . -_ - tie replacement ~f the subject hrid~le-s are offered pursuant to
G.S. 1 1 ~-1 ~ l . -
Bridac ~umhers l?~. ~~., i?1,'_1, 84, :9, 7-;4, and 52.
The'~CD'~1F conc:~~ ~ ,.:tip ::,_ .~:idin_s in these reports and aRre:s ~t~ith DOT-s in-stream
construction moratoriums ti> limit the effects on fishery resources and their plan to protect water
qualit}~ (BIviP's for erosion control- and surface waters protection) during construction. The
\'CDMF encourages r~C!T ~;~ r.; ~::'. ~: all ~~-etlands for these replacement projects.
Bride Number 219.
In the'~atural ~~•st~m ;:::~;.-~:~~ i~.~:.his b;-id~e DOT makes no mention of anadromous fish
utilizing the creei: (H~u-ci~~ i ti"~ct this brides tra~~erse. tiCDMF data (1974) indicates that Hardee
Creel: does support ri ~ :~ h~:-rit:_ -i he'~~CDMF requests that DOT impose an in-water
n-~oratorium fr~~;n Fehruu°_..ir: _ ; ~.ptember to protect adult. e~~T. and lar~•al sta~_es of these
miRraton species. 1` :i_::a `; _":;-.:'-~: \l-ildlife Resource Commission or a stream sun~e~ shows that
these areas no ion~er _;~,,t,._~:-: ~::-._~ ro;i:ous species then the NCD\1F y~-ill y~-ithdra~ral it-s request
f ~r ~ morator i u:r:
P.G. Sox 76° fr.&r~r~>~:, ~~:~, ~~_.,r. ~a;;;lina 28557-6769 TAI=phone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Oppor-,. ~~ 4Si:r^i~.;~v= =,~t,on Employer 50~o recycled." i 0°o pos?-consumer paper

c ,-

FINAL
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 84
on SR 1410 over Latham Creek
Beaufort County, North Carolina
TIP No. B-4021
(State Project No. 8.2150901)
(Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1410(2])
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 02-LO-01
*~aF civs ~ rt ~4,p
~~ ~~
4fi
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
February 2003

1 ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1 .1 Project Description ................................................................................................. 1
1 .2 Definitions ............................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 5
1 .5 Qualifications ........................................................................................................ 5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................6
2.1 Soil ......................................................................................................................6
2.2 Water Resources ......................................:.............................................................6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .................................................................................................9
3.1 Terrestrial Community ............................................................................................9
3.2 Aquatic Community .............................................................................................. 13
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................ 14
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ........................................................................................ 15
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................................................................. 15
4.2 Permits and Consultations ..................................................................................... 19
4.3 Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 20
4.4 Protected Species ................................................................................................ 22
4.5 State Protected Species ........................................................................................ 29
5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 31
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plant Communities and Land Uses Occurring Within the Project Study Area for
Bridge No. 84 (TIP B-4021) .........................................................................10
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Beaufort County, NC ............................23
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Beaufort County, NC ...................29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. General Location Map of B-4021 in Beaufort County, NC ................................ 2
Figure 2. USES Topographic Map ............................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Plant Community/Land Use/Wetland Type Map ............................................... 4
APPENDIX
Exhibit A. GPS Located "Waters of the United States" and Jurisdictional Wetlands
GPS Located Wetland Points
USACE and DWQ Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Natural Heritage Program Endangered Species List

~ ,
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
This project includes the replacement of Bridge No. 84 on State Road (SR- 1410, (Voice of
America [V. 0. A.] Road) over Latham Creek in Beaufort County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Bridge No. 84 is located approximately 7.0 miles (11.3 kilometers) north of the city of
Washington, NC. The bridge is located approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) west of
the intersection of SR 1410 and US 17.
The existing bridge was built in 1962 and has a pre-stressed concrete channel
superstructure with concrete caps on timber piles. The proposed project will replace the
existing bridge with an undetermined structure. A temporary detour using Horsepen
Swamp Road (SR 1414), Wollard Road (SR 1419) and US 17 may be feasible (Figure 2-.
1.2 Definitions
A "bubble study" for environmental input for the project was performed since no
alternatives for the replacement of the bridge have been- developed at this time. The
"bubble study" identifies a project study area around the existing structure to assist with
the development of the project alternatives. The project study area is approximately
2,900~feet (880 meters) in length and ranges in width from approximately 400 feet
1120 meters) to approximately 700 feet (213 meters). The project study area is shown in
Figure 3. The project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) on all
sides of the project study area.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this Natural Resource Technical Report is to document this evaluation of
existing natural resources in the project study area to assist with the development of
project alternatives and the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE). Specifically, the
tasks performed for this report include: 1) an assessment of natural resource features
within the project study area including vegetation, wildlife, protected. species, streams,
wetlands, and water quality; 21 an evaluation of potential environmental impacts; 3) a
preliminary assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 4) a preliminary
determination of permit needs. The environmental impact evaluation is based on potential
impacts within the mapped project study area and does not take into account any specific
limits for design, demolition, or construction.
1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTIvl1rT1T OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROTECT DEVELOPI~NT &
ENVIFtONhiF<YI'AL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BEAUFORT COLn(T'Y
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 84 oN SR 1410
OS'ER LArxA1~I CREED
8-4021
Figure 1

1 _ _.. ,~
.
. - - _ ~,
_ I _ i zJ~ j ~ ~-. t

.
_~ ~

:~:
_•
1
~._ '
C •
/ w ' / `~
'~
,
..
em ~
Cem. ~, , _ ~" ea t '~ ~ - ~
~1 ~ ~~~f .~_~~~ __
~
_
~ I
~
~ _i~, ; ~. ~t
~. ~ ' ~'~.` u ~ l~ !! 7
~
4+ i(hc Temple
~
t ~ i \ ~ ~ ~ r /
~
~ [ ?
. ~-
~ - _ .Poly Ch
-
~
; :\ R ,~ t ; ~ -..; , ~~: '`~. ~.~ ~ :: it -,1 ~
__y _ '~ ~~~•
Cem . ~, 'mac •~, ~t s` ~ , ;`, `~' \ ~ \~ ~
_ _
_-
_ ~
.~ .:
. i ~
..
fi •~
N
~
~
_
1
•~ .Ctvn ,
.
>~ awe ~ _ -.~z ~ ~ ' ~
a~~,a~ _
t,7` '
l
~~~ . - _ - \
! ~

'
,
•
~~ff
~

^
~~
l
i .- `\• (
y ~ ~'C :~ S~
~ .1 n \r` !" ~
Q .%
y 2= 1 II ` `l d ~~ ~V ` i / C it ~~ _
z ~ a gym' ~ ~r :u ~S ~ ~ ! i~ 't' ~_____ - =~

I ! \ ..`' ~ _ - _' ~ .. t ' y ii ~ _. ~•+._' ~~`~ ; ~ ,\~i~:~1 ~~~ it ~•

'.~\~
1
~
l
~
~`~''g t /r~ ..
' ~ :Bnn.J hrartk Y a,2`-'-. ~ ~ ,.~ ''" ''- '(
! \ - 1~ _ /
-
•L~ ~~_

_ •ti .Cem ~ ~ V :~ -- • 9 ~ _ .. .' ~ -' ~ -~ -.~~ ~~
!/` _ --
_
~ .4, _

1t .~
Name: OLD FORD Location: 035° 39' 15.1" N 077° 05' 43.9" W
Date: 1/10/2002 Caption: B-4021
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Figure Z

~ t
1.4 Methodology
Data used in this investigation were obtained from a number of sources. The Old Ford, NC
(19791, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map was reviewed to
determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape characteristics. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping was also assessed
to determine what potential wetland types may be encountered in the field. Recent aerial
photography (1:2400 scale) taken in 2001 was also used in the evaluation of the study
area.
An aerial photograph of the project area serves as the base for mapping plant communities
and land uses.. Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources
and then .field verified. Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system
utilized by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley
19901. When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et a/.
(1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et a/. (1979).
Water resource information for Latham Creek was derived from the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin wide Water Quality Management P/an (DWQ 1999) and the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data in the Management Plan.
The most current USFWS list (updated January 2003) of federally protected species with
ranges extending into Beaufort County was reviewed prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records (including those on the internet- documenting
reported occurrences of federal and state-listed species were consulted before commencing
the field investigation (Amoroso 2001-. Expected population distributions were determined
through observations of available habitat and review of natural history and other
documentation found in Martof et al. (19801, Webster et al. (1985), and Menhinick (1991-.
1.5 Qualifications
Field investigations associated with this bridge replacement project (B-4021) were
conducted on November 18 and 19, 2002. The H.W. Lochner Inc. environmental scientist
team for this project consisted of Ken Roeder Ph.D., Susan Smith, and Emily Fentress.
Dr. Roeder is the lead Environmental Scientist and has a B.S degree in Forestry, a
M.S. degree in Forest Genetics, and a Ph.D. in Forestry and Soils. He is a N.C. Licensed
Soil Scientist and Registered Forester, a Certified Senior Ecologist, and has more than
5

twenty years professional experience. Susan Smith is Project Biologist with a B.S. degree
in Forestry, a M.S. degree in Wildlife Management, and more than ten years of professional
experience. Emily Fentress is a Staff Biologist with a B.S. degree in Biology and one year
of professional experience.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project study area is located in the Middle and Upper Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province of the Atlantic Coastal Plain of North Carolina. The topography in the project
study area is generally characterized as gently sloping to nearly level. Elevations in the
project study area range from 20 to 45 feet 16 to 13 meters) above mean sea level (USGS
19791. The project study area consists of existing maintained rights-of-way, cut-over and
successional areas, mixed -swamp forest, and loblolly pine (Pious taeda) plantations. The
project vicinity is rural-residential. Surrounding land uses include agricultural, residential,
commercial, and forest lands.
2.1 Soil
The project study area is located within the Muckalee-Dorovan-Currituck soil association
(NRCS 1995). Soil associations contain one or more mapping units occupying a unique
natural landscape. Mapping units are named for the major soil series within the unit, but
may contain minor inclusions of other series. There are four soil mapping units identified
within the project study area. Only one of the soil series mapped in the project area is
listed as a hydric soil (SCS 19911. The mapped hydric soil is Muckalee loam (Typic
F/uvagents). The three remaining soil mapping units are non-hydric and include: Goldsboro
fine sandy loam (Aquic Pa/eudu/ts) 0 to 2 percent slopes; Craven fine sandy loam (Aquic
Hap/udu/ts) 1 to 4 percent slopes; and Craven clay loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes, eroded.
2.2 Water Resources
Stream Characteristics
Latham Creek is a perennial blue-line blackwater creek approximately 10 to 25 feet (2 to
7 meters) wide and up to 4 feet (1.2 meters) deep and flows south through the project
study area. The channel is incised south (downstream) of the bridge. The channel bottom
here is typical of coastal plain blackwater creeks consisting of fine to sandy sediments.
North (upstream) of the bridge the creek channel through the swamp forest was flooded
over its banks. The channel at this location appears consistent with the fine to sandy
sediments found south of the bridge.
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-03-06 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
(DWQ 1999) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit for the Lower Tar River Hydrologic Unit
(No. 03020103) (USGS 1974). Latham Creek is a tributary of Aggie Run which flows into
Tranters Creek and then into the Tar River. Latham Creek is identified by Stream Index
6

. Number (SIN) 28-103-14-2 by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR 20021, and is a blue-line stream recognized by USGS (19791. The Tar-
Pamlico River Basin is currently subject to vegetated riparian buffer requirements by the
state.
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. Latham Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of "C; Sw; NSW"
(DENR 2002a1. The C designation indicates freshwaters designated for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, wildlife, and agriculture
(15A NCAC 026 .0101(c)11)). Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body
contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis. Sw (Swamp waters) and NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) are supplemental classifications. Sw designates waters which
have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams (15A NCAC 02B .01011e-(2)-. NSW are waters subject to growths of microscopic
or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient inputs (15A NCAC 02B
.0101 le)1311.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High C!uality Waters (HaW-, or Water Supply
Waters (WS-I or WS-II) occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream or downstream of
the project study area. Latham Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and
Scenic River or as a National Wild and Scenic River.
Water Quality Information
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) monitors water quality through long-
term monitoring of macroinvertebrates (DEHNR 1989). There are no long-term
macroinvertebrate monitoring stations located on Latham Creek or within 5.0 miles
(8.0 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area (DWQ 19991. Another
measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the
fish communities. There are no NCIBI monitoring stations located on Latham Creek or
within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) upstream or downstream of the project study area (DWQ
2002).
Section 303(d) Waters
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. A review of the 303(d)
list for North Carolina indicates that Latham Creek in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin is not
listed as an impaired waterway (DWQ 2002-.
Permitted Dischargers
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater "point source"
7

1 [
discharges include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants,
and small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices,
residential subdivisions, and individual homes (DWQ 19991. Storm water "point source"
discharges include storm water collection systems for municipalities and storm water
discharges associated with certain industrial activities. "Point source" dischargers in North
Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to
DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA1. No permitted "point source"
dischargers are located on Latham Creek (DENR 2002b).
Sources of "non-point source" pollution within the project study area include storm water
runoff from existing roads and other impervious surfaces, and runoff from bedded pine
plantation areas and cut-over areas.
Essential Fish Habitat
In 1996 the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandated the
identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for managed species as well as measures to
conserve and enhance the habitat ndcessary for fish to carry out their life cycles. Under
this Act EFH is defined as:
"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or
growth to maturity" (16 USC 1802 (10)1.
In North Carolina, EFH includes offshore areas as well as inland water habitats used by
anadromous fish species, including Beaufort County.
Impacts to Water Resources
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is titled
Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and Removal, as well as guidelines for calculating
maximum potential fill in the stream resulting from demolition. Bridge No. 84 is composed
of timber, concrete, and steel. The bridge is 58 feet 118 meters) long with a clear deck
width of 24 feet (7 meters. The superstructure will be removed without dropping it into
"Waters of the United States." The substructure consists of timber and should be
removed without dropping any portion into "Waters of the United States." The
replacement of Bridge No. 84 can be classified as a Case 2 by the BMPs for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 19991. Case 2 bridge replacements allow no work at all
in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and
larval recruitment into nursery areas. All work potentially affecting the resource will be
carefully coordinated with the agency having jurisdiction.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
8

sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control
. schedule and the use of BMPs. The contractor will follow contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article
107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution pursuant to IVCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. These measures include the use of dikes, berms,
silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff, and elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be
revegetated with herbaceous cover after any temporary construction impacts.
It is recommended that there be no temporary fill associated with demolition and removal
of the superstructure and substructure. In-stream demolition and construction activities
should be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources and organisms.
Other impacts to water quality could include changes in water temperature and storm
water flow. Changes in water temperature result from increased exposure to sunlight due
to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased shade due to the construction of the
bridge. Changes in storm water flows could occur due to changes in the amount of
impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels if roadway or bridge surface area
increases.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Community
Existing Vegetation Patterns
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Logging, selective cutting, reforestation, and other forestry practices have also
influenced present vegetative patterns. Two natural plant communities occur within the
project study area and four additional community/land use types resulting from human
activities have been identified. These plant communities within the project study area
were mapped on an aerial photograph base and field verified (Figure 3).
The communities total approximately 24.8 acres (10.0 hectares) of the study area and do
not include any open water attributed to Latham Creek [0.4 acre (0.2 hectare)] or
impervious road surface [2.6 acres (1.1 hectares-]. Clear areas with open water in the
project study area are minimal and associated with the channel at the existing bridge right-
of-way. A summary of the coverage of each plant community within the project study
area is presented in Table 1.
9

Table 1. Plant Communities and Land Uses Occurring Within the Project Study Area for ,
Bridge No. 84 (TIP B-40211.
Plant Community Area
(acres/hectares) Percent of Project
Study Area
Cypress-Gum Swamp
(Blackwater Subtype)
1.4/0.6
g%
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
(Blackwater Subtype)
2.1 /0.8
9%
Loblolly Pine Plantations 8.2/3.3 33%
Cutover and Successional Lands g• 1 /3.7 37%
Agricultural Lands 3.2/1.3 12%
Rural Residential/ Maintained/Disturbed
Lands
0.8/0.3
3 %
Totals: 24.8/10.0 100%
Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
The Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990)
occupies approximately 1.4 acres (0.6 hectare) [6 percent) of the project study area. This
plant community type typically occurs in backswamps, sloughs, swales, and featureless
floodplains of blackwater rivers. Hydrologically this type is palustrine, seasonally to semi-
permanently flooded. They have highly variable flow regimes with floods of short duration
and periods of very low flow. Waters tend to be very acidic, low in mineral sediment and
nutrients, and colored by tannins but relatively clear. This community is located northwest
of SR 1410.
The Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) is typically dominated by tupelo (Nyssa
bif/ora) and baldcypress (Taxodium distichuml. The understory and shrub layer is usually
poorly developed. Carolina ash, (Fraxinus taro/iniana), tupelo (Nyssa bif/ora), and red
maple (Ater rubrum) are the most typical species present in the shrub layer. Shrub species
may also include swamp cyrilla (ti-ti] (Cyri//a racemif/ora-, summersweet clethra (coastal
sweet-pepperbush] (C/ethra a/nifo/ia), and fetterbush (Lyonia /ucida). The herbaceous layer
ranges from nearly absent to moderate cover. Species may include lizard's-tail (Saururus
cernuus), giant sedge (Carex gigantea-, water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium-, and
netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areo/ata). Spanish-moss (Tillandsia usneoides) and
resurrection fern (Polypodium polypodioides) are often common.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype)
The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) forest (Schafale and
Weakley 1990) occupies approximately 2.1 acres (0.8 hectare) [9 percent] of the project
study area. This plant community type is typically found on abandoned or relic natural
levee deposits, point bar ridges, and other relatively high parts of the floodplain away from
10

s the channel. This community is also found in transition areas between Cypress-Gum
Swamp and upland community types. As a result, this community type can also be found
in areas of jurisdictional wetlands or non-wetlands. Hydrologically this type is palustrine,
seasonally to intermittently flooded. This community occupies sites that have highly
variable flow regimes, with floods of short duration and periods of very low flow. Water
tends to be very acidic, low in mineral sediments and nutrients, and colored by tannins but
clear. This community is located southeast of SR 1410, downstream of Bridge No. 84.
The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) is usually dominated by
various combinations of Bottomland hardwoods and conifers, primarily laurel oak (Quercus
/aurifo/ial, overcup oak (Q. /yrata), willow oak (Q, phe/%s), water oak (Q. nigra-, red maple
(Acer rubruml, sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif/ua1, and loblolly pine (Pious taeda). The
understory layer may include red maple (Acer rubruml, swampbay (Persea pa/ustris),
American holly (//ex opaca-, and sweetbay (Magno/ia virginiana). The shrub layer is often
well developed and may be very dense, including red maple (Acer rubruml, American holly
(llex opacal, swamp cyrilla (Cyril/a racemifloral, summersweet clethra (C/ethra a/nifolia),
and Virginia sweetspire (ltea virginica). Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) may be common.
Vines are sometimes dense, and typically may include greenbrier (Smi/ax rotundifo/ia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans-, grape (Vitis rotundifolia-, and rattan-vine IBerchemia
scandensl. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) also frequently occurs.
Loblolly Pine Plantations
Loblolly pine plantations occupy approximately 8.2 acres (3.3 hectares) [33 percent] of the
project study area. This plant community type is man-created and not identified as a
natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Loblolly pine is an early
successional woody species typically becoming established on Coastal Plain sites following
fire or other disturbance. Current forestry practices on wetter sites recommend bedding to
create planting sites in order to establish seedlings and maintain acceptable levels of
survival and growth. Understory and herbaceous species becoming established in these
plantations include sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif/ua), red maple (Acer rubruml, American
holly (//ex opaca), blackberries (Rubus spp.1, greenbrier (Smi/ax spp.-, and numerous
grasses. Loblolly pine plantations found in the project study area include recently planted
stands on the north side of SR 1410 13-4 years old) and a more mature stand with a well
developed hardwood understory on the south side of SR 1410.
Cutover and Successional Lands
Cutover and Successional Lands occupy approximately 9.1 acres (3.7 hectares)
[37 percent] of the project study area. This plant community type is man-created and not
identified as a natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (19901. In the project
study area these cutover lands were previously vegetated by either Cypress-Gum Swamp
(Blackwater Subtype) forest or Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood (Blackwater Subtype)
forest. The cutover lands in the project study area also vary from "clearcut" to a "high-
grade" where the best timber was removed, leaving undersized, broken/diseased, and
11

poorly formed trees. Cutover lands in the project study area are relatively recent, as ,
undecomposed logging debris is present, and the areas have not yet been fully vegetated
by herbaceous species.
Agricultural Lands
Agricultural Lands occupy approximately 3.2 acres (1.3 hectares) [13 percent] of the
project study area. This plant community type is man-created and not identified as a
natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Identified agricultural lands in
the project study area consist of a field which was used to produce cotton during the 2002
growing season.
Rural Residential/Maintained/Disturbed Lands
Rural Residential/Maintained/Disturbed Lands cover approximately 0.8 acre (0.3 hectare)
(3 percent] of the study area. Rural Residential/Maintained/Disturbed areas include
roadways, roadsides, maintained residential yards, sewer line corridors, and areas where
other human related activities dominate the landscape. Roadsides and sewer lines are
typically maintained by mowing and/or herbicides. Species observed within the road
rights-of-way include blackberry (Rubus spp.1, trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata), white clover (Trifo/ium repens), and other various roadside grasses.
Residential areas are dominated by loblolly pine (Pious taedal, numerous ornamental plants,
and various grasses.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. No mammals
were observed in the study area at the time the field assessment was conducted in
November 2002. However, mammals expected to occur in and around the project study
area include such species as white-tail deer (Odocoi/eus virginianusl, Virginia opossum
(Dide/phis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon /otor), eastern cottontail (Sy/vi/agus f/oridanus), as
well as rodents such as beaver (Castor canadensis-, grey squirrel (Sciurus Caro/inensisl,
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus /eucopusl, and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nutta//i~.
Insectivores such as southeastern shrew (Sorex /ongirostris) and northern short-tailed
shrew (B/arina brevicauda) may also be present in the project study area.
The project area was assessed and no terrestrial reptiles were observed. Terrestrial reptiles
expected to occur in the project study area include such species as five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatusl, Carolina anole (Ano/is caro/inensis), broadhead skink (Eumeces
/aticepsl, eastern box turtle (Terrapene caro/ina), eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivorus-, copperhead (Agkistron contortrixl, black racer ICo/uber constrictor), and
rat snake (E/aphe obso/eta). No terrestrial or arboreal amphibians were observed within the
project study area. Terrestrial or arboreal amphibians expected to occur in the project
study area include such species as the pickerel frog (Rana pa/ustris), Fowler's toad
(Bufo woodhouseii), green treefrog (Hy1a cinerea), and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
12

r ,
No avian species were observed during the field assessment, but American Crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern Bluebird (Sia/ia sia/is1, American Robin (Turdus migratoriusl, and
Northern Cardinal (Carding/is carding/is) likely occur in the study area. Other common
species expected to occur in the project study area include Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura-, Btue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyg/ottosl,
Carolina Wren (Thryothorus /udovicianus-, Carolina Chickadee (Poeci/e caro/inensisl,
Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides vil/osusl, Downy
Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo /ineatusl, and Turkey
Vulture (Cathartes aura).
Most of the terrestrial wildlife species occurring in the project study area are typically
adapted to life in fragmented landscapes. Vegetated water courses (or drainage ways)
provide important wildlife corridors by connecting and allowing travel between habitat
fragments. Keeping the ,bridge replacement within the existing road corridor of the stream
crossing would minimize potential impacts to wildlife. A wider and higher opening under
the new bridge structure would also enhance wildlife movement at this stream crossing.
3.2 Aquatic Community
Aquatic Vegetation
Latham Creek provides the only aquatic habitat located within the project study area. No
distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic vegetation were observed in the
channel during the field assessment.
Aquatic Wildlife
Fish sampling was not conducted in any of the surface waters within the project study
area for this assessment. Species expected to occur in Latham Creek include eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia ho/brooks), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosusJ, warmouth (Lepomis
gu/osus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus-, redfin pickerel (Esox americanusl, and golden
shiner (Notemigonus cryso/eucasl.
Although Menhinick (1991- does not document anadromous fish species as occurring in
the project study area, past sampling of other creeks indicate that anadromous fish species
use this part of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin for spawning and as nursery areas (Personal
Communication, Shawn McKenna, NC Division of Marine Resourcesl. Anadromous species
expected to occur here include herring and shad (A/osa spp.).
Latham Creek most likely provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians
and aquatic reptiles. Due to the season of year when the field assessment occurred
(November), and the high water following precipitation events, sampling for amphibians did
not occur. No amphibians were observed in the course of the survey for other biotic
factors. Aquatic species expected to occur in the project study area include green frog
13

(Rana c/amitans), pickerel frog (Rana pa/ustrisl, brown water snake (Nerodia taxispi/ota-,
and common snapping turtle (Che/ydra serpentina-.
Although none were observed, aquatic birds expected to utilize this portion of Latham
Creek include Mallard (Anas p/atyrhynchosl, Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), and Great Blue
Heron (Ardea herodiasl.
No in-stream benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted. All streambanks in the
study area were traversed to locate freshwater mussel middens or other indicators of
benthic rnacroinvertebrates. Visual observation in November 2002 of Latham Creek and its
streambanks revealed no evidence of benthic macroinvertebrates. This may be due to the
time of year that the work was completed.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Actual impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 84 will vary based on the
alternatives that are developed. The following sections discuss the potential for impacts to
terrestrial and aquatic communities at various locations.
Terrestrial Communities
An in-place replacement of the existing structure will reduce permanent impacts to plant
communities and limit further community fragmentation. Impacts resulting from in-place
bridge replacements are generally limited to narrow strips at or adjacent to the existing
bridge structure and roadway approach segments. Potential impacts to plant communities
within the project study area would therefore be limited to areas at the bridge and
immediately adjacent to the road.
If the bridge is not replaced at the same location, greater impacts would occur to
surrounding terrestrial communities. Natural communities along the roadway which may
be impacted include Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (north side of bridge
[450 feet (137 meters-]) and Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype)
(south side of bridge [400 feet (122 meters(]). If an alternative crossing location is
developed to the south, areas of cutover and successional hardwoods and pine would be
affected. Shifting the crossing to the north of the current alignment would affect cutover
and successional hardwoods and Cypress-Gum Swamp. Palustrine forested and palustrine
scrub-shrub/emergent wetlands would also be affected. Actual impacts will be limited to
the designed right-of-way and permitted demolition and construction limits.
Wildlife expected to utilize the project study area are generally acclimated to fragmented
landscapes. Designing the new bridge on the existing alignment would limit impacts to
near current levels. Shifting the bridge location north or south would further fragment
habitat. If this location shift occurs, the existing unused roadbed and remnant bridge
structure should be removed and the site restored to match conditions of the surrounding
14

~ habitats. Additionally, if the current size opening is maintained, access for wildlife
movement will be maintained at current levels. Any design options which increase the
under-bridge opening over the current size should be considered to enhance the movement
of some wildlife. Reduction of opening size will reduce access for movement by some
species. Note that some species move freely across the road and will continue to do so.
Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to aquatic habitat would be avoided by bridging Latham Creek to
maintain normal flow and stream integrity. Support structures should be designed to avoid
wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. In addition, temporary impacts from
increased sedimentation during demolition and construction are expected to be reduced by
limiting in-stream work to an absolute minimum. Removal of the portion of the sub-
structure in the creek bottom should be avoided if possible. If a small cofferdam is used to
redirect stream flow away from where demolition and construction of the bridge abutments
occur, the stream bottom should be restored immediately following completion of
construction activities.
Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating silt
curtain. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 feet (15 meters) from this
stream channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order
to minimize the chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BDR) will follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce
impacts during all construction phases.
Aquatic wildlife including transient and resident species may be temporarily displaced
during bridge demolition and construction. Anadromous fish species have been
documented to use this part of the river basin for spawning and as a nursery area (Personal
Communication, Shawn McKenna, NC Division of Marine Resourcesl. In-water work
should be avoided from February 15 to September 30.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the CWA. Additionally, wetlands are also classified as
"Waters of the United States" and are subject to jurisdictional consideration. Wetlands
have been defined by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
15

support a preva/ence of vegetation typica/ly adapted for life in saturated soi/ f
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas " [33 CFR 328.3(bl (1986JJ.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence
of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987).
Additional salt and brackish water wetlands are defined under The Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) (15A NCAC 07A1. Under these regulations, Beaufort County is
defined as a coastal county where coastal wetlands occur. The regulations specifically
identify ten wetland species which occur in these salt and ,brackish environments. The
Latham Creek SR 1410.bridge site is part of the headwaters of this drainage and carries
freshwater. No CAMA wetlands are present within the study area for this bridge
replacement.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping (USFWS 1979) for Latham Creek identifies
wetlands adjacent to the creek within the study area. These wetlands are identified as
palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded (PFO1 A) (Cowardin
eta/. 1979). The field assessment identified three classes of NWI wetlands in the project
study area north (upstream) of Bridge No. 84 (Figure 3). No NWI wetlands were found to
occur south (downstream) of Bridge No. 84. The wetland types present north of the
bridge include palustrine, forested, deciduous, temporarily flooded (PFO6A-, palustrine,
scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded (PSS1A), and palustrine,
emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded (PEM 1 A) (Cowardin et a/. 1979-. The PSS 1 A
and PEM1A wetlands grade into each other and have therefore been designated as
PSS1 A/PEM 1 A wetlands (Figure 3-. The PFO6A wetlands (Cowardin et a/. 1979) are
comprised of the Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) forest community type
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) discussed previously, while the PSS1 A/PEM 1 A wetlands
occupy two cutover areas north of SR 1410.
The H.W. Lochner team delineated the extent of jurisdictional wetland boundaries based on
current USACE methodology (DOA 1987), and the wetland/non-wetland boundaries were
subsequently located with TrimbleTM' Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Exhibit A). A
map of delineated wetland areas, a list of GPS point coordinates, and the Wetland Field
Data Forms are provided in the Appendix.
The wetland areas comprise approximately 2.7 acres (1.1 hectares) of the project study
area. The PFO6A wetlands total 1.3 acres (0.5 hectarel, and the PSS 1 A/PEM 1 A wetlands
total 1.4 acres (0.6 hectarel. The DWQ Wetland Rating Form was completed (Appendix)
with a Wetland Score of 75.
16

Jurisdictional Streams
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classifies Latham Creek as a blue-line, blackwater,
perennial stream (USGS 19791. Palustrine systems are identified as those non-tidal
wetlands that are dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or
lichens, and all such tidal wetlands where the ocean-derived salinities are below 0.5 parts
per thousand (ppt) (Cowardin et a/. 1979). This category of non-tidal wetlands also
includes wetlands that: a) lack such vegetation; bl occupy less than 20 acres (8 hectares)
in area; and c) lack a wave formed or bedrock boundary. These wetlands can also occupy
a basin where the deepest part is less than 6 feet (2 meters) at low water, and where the
ocean-derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt-.
Cowardin Classification
Latham Creek is a perennial stream (USGS 1979) within this palustrine system. The creek
is generally slow flowing over a substrate consisting of sand and gravel. The channel
ranges from approximately 10 to 25 feet (2 to 7 meters) in width. Perennial systems in
the coastal plain generally have slow flowing water, but may draw down for part of the
year, and are generally associated with well-developed swamps and floodplains which may
flood temporarily, intermittently, seasonally, semi-permanently, or permanently. The
waters of Latham Creek are classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
temporarily flooded (PFO6A1, the same as the associated jurisdictional wetlands discussed
previously in this section (Cowardin et a/. 19791.
Other than at the existing bridge site, no signs of human activity channelizing this creek
channel was obvious; however, the site was assessed during a time (November 2002) of
high seasonal precipitation and water flow. Latham Creek lacks a well-developed
floodplain south of the bridge where the channel is more incised. There has been some
channelization of the creek channel at the road right-of-way to remove obstructions and
sediment deposits.
Natural Stream Channel Classification
The Natural Stream Channel Classification System uses several definitive criteria for
classification: 1) number of channels associated with a stream; 2) slope; 3) width-to-depth
ratio; 4) entrenchment ratio; 5) sinuosity; and 6) bed material (Rosgen 1996-. This
classification system uses the first five criteria to assign one of eight channel types to a
stream segment. The eight types are designated A, B, C, D, Da, E, F, and G. Use of the
Natural Stream Channel Classification System fora Level 1 classification requires the
identification of several features in the field including bankfull width and depth (the stage
at which the controlling channel forming flow occurs), slope, sinuosity, and valley
morphology.
At the time of the assessment (November 2002-, the water in the creek was seasonally
high. As a result, some of the classification criteria were estimated in order to determine
the Rosgen Stream Type. Methodology allows estimates of Stream Type to be made from
17

calculations from USGS mapping and field observations and measurements when they are
possible to obtain. Estimates of Stream Type were therefore made from measurements
taken on USGS mapping of the bridge crossing site. Where possible, the stream channel
was traversed to identify any significant changes in channel type both upstream and
downstream of the bridge. Estimates of bankfull channel width and depth were made at
selected locations to verify channel type.
Preliminary observations within the project study area indicate that at the Latham Creek
bridge crossing site, a "C" type stream segment occurs upstream (north), and a "F" type
stream segment occurs immediately south (downstream) of the bridge (Rosgen 1996-.
Both stream types have a gently sloped, relatively wide and shallow entrenched channel
with moderate to high sinuosity. "C" type stream segments are characterized by active
well-developed floodplains and a meandering channel. The difference is that the "F" type
stream segments are characterized by a lack of a developed floodplain, a meandering
channel, and terraces consisting of abandoned floodplains (Rosgen 1996). This difference
is reflected, even in high water, with the presence of a flooded Cypress-Gum Swamp
forest immediately north of the creek, and an unflooded Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood forest located to the south at a slightly higher elevation.
Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Estimated wetland area is based upon identification of the wetland/non-wetland boundaries
by field delineation described above and aerial photography interpretation; however, the
total wetland acreage is based upon the GPS mapping results and the approximately
defined project study limits shown in Figure 3. Temporary and permanent impacts to
wetlands and surface waters may occur along the north side of the bridge and road where
PFO6A and PSS1 A/PEM 1 A wetlands are located. Impacts to PFO6A wetlands extend
approximately 400 feet (120 meters), and PSS 1 A/PEM 1 A wetlands extend approximately
500 feet 1150 meters.
Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from temporary demolition and
construction activities associated with staging areas and/or temporary detours. These
temporary impact areas should be restored to their original condition after the project has
been completed. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the final construction
limits and/or the final right-of-way of the new structure and approaches.
No temporary crossing of Latham Creek during demolition and construction appears
necessary. During the short construction period, a detour of traffic along Horsepen
Swamp Road (SR 1414), Wollard Road (SR 1419), and US 17 may be feasible. An
assessment of these routes may be necessary, however, to ensure that they can handle
the additional traffic volumes.
Since most expected impacts to "Waters of the United States" and Jurisdictional Wetlands
will occur near the bridge and approaches, potential impacts will be dependent on the final
18

bridge design, the established demolition and construction limits, the effectiveness of the
erosidn and sediment control plan, and the skill and compliance of the contractor.
4.2 Permits and Consultations
The design and construction of the proposed project will determine if any impacts to
surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands wilt occur. If impacts occur, permits and
certifications will be required from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the
water quality of public water resources. Surface water systems and wetlands receive
similar protection and consideration from the regulatory agencies. These permits are
authorized under the CWA and are under separate state laws regarding significant water
resources.
Section 404 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will
be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of
the United States." Potential impacts to "Waters of the United States" may be avoided if
the wetlands are bridged, no disturbance to the wetlands occur during construction
activities, and bridge demolition does not result in material falling into the wetland.
It is anticipated that this proposed project will qualify as a CE under National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. CEs can be
prepared for categorical projects with no significant impact to the human and natural
environment. If permits are required under the CWA, it is expected that the project will
qualify for a Nationwide or General Permit.
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] is issued by the USACE for
projects having minor impacts. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not apply, minor
impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to
qualify under a Regional General Bridge Permit designated for NCDOT bridges
(Permit No. 031) issued by the Wilmington USACE District (USACE-WD 1998).
Notification to the Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is to be
utilized. NWP No. 33 may be required if temporary construction including cofferdams,
access and dewatering are required for this project. The USACE will determine final permit
requirements.
Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ prior
to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires
that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States." Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
19

construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 Certification from the DWQ is >
a prerequisite for the issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
Potential impacts to open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of-way width and
their extent will be determined during the design phase of this project. Impacts to open
water areas of Latham Creek are not expected and could be minimized with the use of
channel-spanning structures. During bridge removal procedures, BMPs will be utilized,
including erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also recommended to
minimize the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
Riparian Buffers
North Carolina Rules are in place for the protection and maintenance of Vegetated Riparian
Buffers in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0260). These rules require
wooded buffers of 50 feet (15.3 meters) along all blue-line stream channels in this river
basin. In order to impact these buffers there must be a demonstrated "no practical
alternative", and an Authorization Certificate pursuant to 15A NCAC 26 .0259 must be
obtained for a proposed use that is designated as allowable with mitigation. It is also
possible within the rules to obtain a variance (15A NCAC 2B .0259) or to pay into a state
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. Latham Creek is a blue-line stream under these rules
(Figure 21.
Section 9
Bridge construction or replacement over navigable waters may require United States Coast
Guard Service (USCGS) authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-115. Specifically, federal
rule 33 CFR 1 15.70 gives
"advanced approva/ to the location and plans of bridges to be constructed
across reaches of waterways navigab/e in law, but not actually navigated
other than by logs, log rafts, rowboats, canoes and small motorboats. In
such cases the clearances provided for high water stages will be considered
adequate to meet reasonable needs of navigation. "
The open water area of Bridge No. 84 over Latham Creek is small in size and would be
given advanced approval by the USCGS.
4.3 Mitigation
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a1 avoid; b)
minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the
environment (40 CFR 1508.20 Ia-e-]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in
accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) step-down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.-, mitigation policy
mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA-, Executive
20

Order 1 1990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644-
` 7663) (19S 1-.
Section 4041b1(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 1 1990 stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands.
Practicable alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation
can be discussed.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policy stresses that all practicable measures
should be taken to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands which will be affected by federally
funded highway construction. A sequencing (step-down) procedure is recommended in the
event that avoidance is impossible. Mitigation employed outside of the highway right-of-
way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.
Avoidance
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas are present within the project study area.
Potential wetland and stream impacts are discussed in Section 4.1. Actual impacts to
surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas will be addressed when alternatives are
developed. It may not be possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas. Impacts can
be avoided to specific wetlands and streams with the use of environmentally sensitive
design.
Impacts to the jurisdictional surface waters can be avoided by bridging the stream channel,
avoiding construction activities in the stream channels, and avoiding deposition into the
stream channel during bridge demolition and construction. If the alignment needs to
change, impacts to wetlands can be avoided and minimized by shifting the road and bridge
location downstream to the south.
Minimization
Impacts to the stream can be minimized by designing support structures to avoid wetland
or open water habitats whenever possible. The jurisdictional delineation within the project
study area will be utilized to further minimize wetland and stream impacts when designing
the proposed alignment within the project study area. Minimization of jurisdictional
impacts can be achieved by the replacement of a bridge in-place and utilizing as much of
the existing bridge corridor as possible. This should result in a minimal amount of new
impact depending on the final design of the new bridge. Utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas
within wetlands.
Compensatory Mitigation
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas are not known at this time.
Impacts associated with the project could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with
native species and removal of any temporary fill material within the floodplain upon project
completion. If impacts are greater than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare) compensatory mitigation
21

may be required, and if impacts are greater than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) compensatory
mitigation is mandatory.
North Carolina Riparian Buffers
Unavoidable impacts to stream buffers require mitigation on the basis of 3:1 or 1.5:1
depending on the zone in the buffer that the impact occurred. Mitigation may consist of
payment of a compensatory mitigation fee into the state Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund,
donation of real property, or restoration or enhancement of anon-forested riparian buffer.
Potential Mitigation Opportunities
One area that might be available for on-site mitigation is at the edge of the Cypress-Gum
Swamp forest in the area southeast of the bridge. This area is newly cut-over. This area
might serve as borrow or staging areas for the bridge demolition and construction and then
need to be restored. The elevation in this area is just above that of the adjacent swamp
forest. Once the elevation is reduced, organic matter could be added and tupelo (Nyssa
bif/ora) and baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) planted. Two wetland areas northeast of
the bridge might be enhanced by the planting of hydrophytic tree species. This planting,
however, would result in a change from early successional to later successional community
types, decreasing the biotic diversity.
In the project study area, Latham Creek does not have adequate wooded riparian buffers of
the required minimum size. It does not appear that on-site opportunities for riparian buffer
mitigation exist within the study area.
4.4 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or Officially
Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.-. The following federally protected species are
listed for Beaufort County (USFWS list dated January 2003) (Table 2). Of these species,
none has been reported by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (Appendix) to
occur or have occurred in the area of the Old Ford, NC, 7.5-minute USGS Quad Sheet.
Red wolf (Canis rufus) was identified as an additional protected species which may have
habitat in the project area.
Red Wolf (Canis rufus)
Red wolf once roamed from Pennsylvania to central Texas (USFWS 2001 d1. Like its
relative the gray wolf (Canis lupus), red wolf was extirpated from its former range by
predator control programs. This species derives its name from the reddish color of the
head, ears, and legs. The exact identity of red wolf has been a matter of conjecture for
years. While some consider it a separate species, others consider it a subspecies of the
gray wolf, or even across-breed of the coyote (Canis /atrans) and gray wolf. Red wolf, as
a primary predator, occupies a relatively large home range. They travel in family packs
headed by the alpha male and female, who are the breeding pair of the pack.
22

In 1977, attempts were made to capture the remaining individuals for a captive breeding
and release program. By 1980, red wolf was extinct in the wild. Individuals from the
captive breeding program have been reintroduced into the Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge in Dare County. This population has now ranged into the surrounding five county
area (personal communication, David Rabon, USFWS), including Beaufort County.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
The Endangered Species Act permits the reintroduction of endangered animals as
"nonessential experimental" populations. Such populations, considered nonessential
to the survival of the species, are managed with fewer restrictions than populations
listed as endangered. Red wolf is listed as an experimental population for Beaufort
County. EXN populations may not be subject to Section 7 consultation and a
biological conclusion for this species may not be required. However, this project
will have No Effect on red wolf.
Analysis Details -
Methodology: analysis of the possible presence of and impacts to red wolf was
conducted as an evaluation of existing information and analysis by the primary
investigators for the apparent habitat requirements and presence of red wolf in
North Carolina.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Beaufort County. NC_
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological
Conclusion
Red Wolf Canis rufus EXN No Effect
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E No Effect
Bald Eagle Ha/iaeetus /eucocepha/us T No Effect
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borea/is E Unresolved
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidoche/ys kempii E No Effect
Sensitive Joint-vetch Aeschynomene virginica T No Effect
Rough-leaf Loosestrife
r C.J. Lysimachia asperu/ifo/ia E No Effect
~••~~••a~•~~, ~~~~~o«,~~w ~~~.- ~~.uuuucuvn rn me county or an tnoangered "'nonessential experimental"
population that can be managed with fewer restrictions than populations that are endangered. Such
populations are considered nonessential to the survival of the species.
23

West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus)
The West Indian manatee is a native of the warm waters of sub-tropical south Florida
(USFWS 2001 g). They prefer shallow saltwater bays, slow-moving rivers, canals,
estuaries, and coastal waters. Manatee spend most of their time feeding, resting, or
traveling. They are completely herbivorous marine mammals, feeding on turtle grass
(Thalassic testudinum-, manatee grass (Syringodium filliformel, various species of marine
algae, and water hyacinths (Eichhornia crassipes). They can consume up to 10% of their
body weight daily in vegetation. Manatee are asub-tropical, air breathing species that can
grow to over 13 feet (3.5 meters) in length and weigh up to 3,500 pounds (1,500
kilograms). West Indian manatee have very little fat and are susceptible to cold.
Manatee are also migratory animals adapted to both saltwater and freshwater habitats. In
coastal areas of the USA, West Indian manatee congregate in Florida in winter. During the
summer season, when waters are warmer, manatee may be found as far west as Alabama
and as far north as Virginia and the Carolinas. Very rarely are they found further north.
Several years ago (" 10 years ago), a manatee was reported in the lower Neuse River near
New Bern, NC, for a few days in August.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No suitable habitat for the West Indian manatee exists within the project study area.
Latham Creek is a fresh water creek of limited depth and flow, and geographically
will drain waters of cooler temperatures and lower salinity than preferred by
manatee. This project will have No Effect on West Indian manatee.
Ana/ysis Detai/s -
Methodology: analysis of the possible presence of and impacts to West Indian
manatee was conducted as an evaluation of existing information and analysis by the
primary investigator of the habitat requirements and occurrence of West Indian
manatee in North Carolina.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder whose credentials
are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
Bald Eagle (Ha/iaeetus /eucocepha/us)
The Bald Eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet (2 meters) (USFWS
2001 a). Adult eagles are dark brown with white head and tail. Immature eagles are
brown with whitish mottling on their tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald Eagle typically feed
on fish but may also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season
extends from December through May (Potter "et al. 1980). Birds are thought to mate for
life and return to the same nesting site each year.
Bald Eagle usually nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water, and forage
over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching. They usually roost
within 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) of open water. Preventing disturbance activities within a
24

r
primary zone extending 750 to 1,500 feet (229 to 457 meters) outward from a nest tree
` is considered critical for maintaining acceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 2001 a-.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommends avoiding any disturbance activities,
including construction and tree-cutting, within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone
extending from the primary zone boundary out a distance of up to 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers), construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-
nesting period (June through November). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also
recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where Bald Eagle forage, and avoiding
significant land-clearing activities within the 1,500 feet (457 meters) primary zone of
roosting sites.
Bald Eagle is currently listed as threatened, but has been proposed for delisting due to the
resurgence of the species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect.
No suitable habitat for the Bald Eagle exists within the project study area, and no
large bodies of water are mapped to occur within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the
project site. This distance is greater than the maximum requirements noted in the
literature for roosting and nesting locations from fishing and hunting waters. This
project will have No Effect on Bald Eagle.
Analysis Detai/s -
Methodology: analysis of the possible presence of and impacts to Bald Eagle was
conducted as an evaluation of existing information and analysis by the primary
investigator of the habitat requirements, site conditions, and occurrence of Bald
Eagle in North Carolina.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
This small, non-migratory woodpecker measures 7 to 8.5 inches (17.8 to
21.6 centimeters) long, has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-
white barred back (USFWS 2001 c). Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the
eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et a/. 1980). Primary nest
sites for Red-cockaded Woodpecker include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age
with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or
pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989-. Primary habitat
consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pious
taeda), long-leaf (P. pa/ustris-, slash IP. a//iottii~, pond (P. serotina), or other southern pine
species.
Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pine trees, generally older than
60 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Excavation of a cavity usually
25

initiates through an old dead branch opening in the bole of the tree. An aggregate of
cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20+ cavity trees on 3.0 to 60 acres
(1.2 to 24 hectares). The average size of a cluster is about 10 acres (4.0 hectaresl. The
typical cluster is occupied by a related group of individuals called a clan. The woodpecker
drills holes into the bark around the excavated cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
The typical territory for a clan will range from 60 to 600 acres (24 to 240 hectares) in size.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker prefers mature, open, pine forests and will not generally range
greater than about 130 feet (40 meters) over cleared ground or hardwood stands. The
clan will only exploit those pine stands for food that are contiguous with their nesting
habitat. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by
frequent natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
No large scale field surveys were conducted for Red-cockaded Woodpecker outside of the
designated project study area. A review of available aerial mapping indicates that only a
small area of potentially contiguous nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat may be present
within a 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) area required for aged-cockaded Woodpecker survey.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
Potentially suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
may occur within or be contiguous to the project study area. A pine dominated
stand of possible sufficient age is located southeast of the crossing of SR 1410
over Latham Creek (Bridge No. 84). This pine stand, however, contains a dense
understory, undesirable for Red-cockaded Woodpecker occupation or use.
Additionally, no occurrence of Red-cockaded Woodpecker is reported by the Natural
Heritage Program to be within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) of the project study area
INHP records review November 20021. A field survey following appropriate
protocols identified by Henry (1989- for Red-cockaded Woodpecker is
recommended.
Ana/ysis Detai/s -
Methodology: identification of potential habitat for Red-cockaded Woodpecker was
conducted as an assessment of available information and analysis by the primary
investigator on the habitat requirements of Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Specifically,
available records at the NHP were reviewed to assess the possible presence of Red-
cockaded Woodpecker in the project vicinity. Aerial photos were also assessed for
the identification of potential habitat. The study area was field verified to determine
its suitability as preferred habitat.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
26

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidoche/ys kempii1
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is a marine reptile frequenting the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico coasts off the United States and Mexico (USFWS 2001 b). They range from Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland south to Bermuda and west through the Gulf of Mexico. Nesting
adults concentrate in the Gulf of Mexico. Active nesting is reported in Tamaulipas, Mexico
and occasionally on Padre Island, Texas.
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the marine turtles and may weigh 80 to
100 pounds (36 to 45 kilograms) when mature. They typically inhabit red mangrove
(Rhizophora mang/e) subtropical shorelines or shallow coastal and estuarine waters. They
feed primarily on spider crabs and other hard-shelled sea animals (shrimp, snails, sea stars),
and occasionally marine plants. They spend almost their entire life at sea, except when
females will land in large numbers on beaches with elevated dune areas backed by swamps
to dig nests and lay a clutch of eggs. Females may nest up to three times in a season (in
10 to 28 day intervals). Each clutch averages 110 eggs and incubation takes from 45 to
70 days. Upon hatching the young will burrow up out of the nest and scramble to the
surf.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle exists within
the project study area. This project will have No Effect on Kemp's ridley sea turtle.
Ana/ysis Detai/s -
Methodology: analysis of the possible presence of and impacts to Kemp's ridley sea
turtle was conducted as an evaluation of existing information and analysis by the
primary investigator of the habitat requirements and occurrence of Kemp's ridley
sea turtle in North Carolina.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica)
Sensitive joint-vetch is an annual plant native to the eastern United States (USFWS 2001 f).
Plants typically reach 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) in height in a single growing season,
although heights up to 7.5 feet (2.4 meters) have been reported. Plants flower from July
through September and occasionally as late as October. Germination occurs from late May
to early June. Seedlings grow quickly. Non native A. indica and A. rudis are often
confused with A. virginica as these two species expand their known historical ranges.
Sensitive joint-vetch grows in the intertidal zone where plants are flooded twice daily. The
species seems to prefer the marsh edge at an elevation near the upper limit of tidal
fluctuation. It is usually found in areas where plant diversity is high (50 species per acre)
and annual species predominate. Bare to sparsely vegetated substrates appear to be a
habitat feature of critical importance to this plant. As an annual, it requires such
27

t ~
microhabitats for establishment and growth. Such areas may include accreting point bars ,
that have not yet been colonized by perennial species, low swales within extensive
marshes, or areas where muskrats have eaten most of the vegetation. In North Carolina,
sensitive joint-vetch appears to be a species that remains at a particular site for a relatively
short period of time, and maintains itself by colonizing new, recently disturbed habitats
where it may compete successfully among other early-successional species. It is
frequently found in the estuarine meander zone of tidal rivers where sediments transported
from upriver settle out and extensive marshes are formed. The substrate may be sandy,
muddy, gravelly, or peaty.
Sensitive joint-vetch has been reported by NHP to have occurred in Beaufort County, North
Carolina within the last 20 years.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No recent occurrences of sensitive joint-vetch have been documented by the NHP
to occur within the project study area. The project study area does not contain any
habitat considered suitable for sensitive joint-vetch. Sensitive joint-vetch was not
found to occur in the project study area, and no preferred .habitat was identified.
This project will have No Effect on sensitive joint-vetch.
Analysis Detai/s -
Methodology: analysis of the possible presence of and impacts to sensitive joint-
vetch was conducted as an evaluation of existing information and analysis by the
primary investigator of the habitat requirements and occurrence of sensitive joint-
vetch in North Carolina.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
Rough-leaf Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperu/aefo/ia)
Rough-leaf loosestrife is a rare species endemic to the ecotones of edges between longleaf
pine (Pious pa/ustris) uplands and pond pine (P, serotinal pocosins in the Carolinas (USFWS
2001 e1. It typically occurs on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic
soils overlaying sand. The grass-shrub ecotone, where rough-leaf loosestrife is found, is
fire maintained, as are the adjacent plant communities (longleaf pine - scrub oak,
savanna, flatwoods, and pocosin-. This species is often located at the edge of disturbance
areas, such as power line cuts, including wetland areas. Although generally associated
with an open canopy or light breaks, records indicate that the species can also be located
in shady areas. It typically flowers during May or June and fruits from August to October.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of rough-leaf loosestrife have been documented within
3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) of the project study area (NHP records review November
2002). The project study area does not contain any habitat considered suitable for
28

rough-leaf loosestrife. While the season to assess for this species in the field was
not optimum, no rough-leaf loosestrife plants were observed during field surveys for
other natural resources. This project will have No Effect on rough-leaf loosestrife.
Ana/ysis Detai/s -
Methodology: analysis of the possible presence of and impacts to rough-leaf
loosestrife was conducted as an evaluation of existing information and analysis by
the primary investigator of the habitat requirements and occurrence of rough-leaf
loosestrife in North Carolina.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
Federal Species of Concern
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protected species list also includes a category
of species designated as "Federal Species of Concern" (FSC1. The FSC designation
provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. However, these
species are listed since they may attain federally protected status in the future. Federal
Species of Concern listed for Beaufort County include four species (Table 3). Of these
FSC, only Henslow's Sparrow is reported by NHP (records review November 2002) on the
Old Ford, NC, 7.5-minute USGS Quad Sheet where this bridge replacement project is
located. The NHP records indicate that the reported occurrence is current (within the past
20 years) (Appendix-. The reported location for this species is approximately 2.0 miles
(3.2 kilometers) northwest of the bridge replacement project.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern IFSCI Listed for Beaufort Cn~~nty Nr
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Potential
Habitat
Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii T Yes
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus hens/owii SR Yes
Carolina Gopher Frog Rana capito capito T No
Venus Flytrap
T TL-..a- -J Dionaea muscipu/a SR_L, SC No
• •••--•-•••-~. ~• ~•~•••••~~...., ..o.c, VL.- JF/Gl.lO1 ~.u~wcni, _~- range or species is nmitetl to North Carolina
and adjacent states.
4.5 State Protected Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina status
of Endangered IE), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.-. A review of the NHP
records indicates that no state listed species have been documented within 3.0 miles
14.8 kilometers) of the project study area. The field assessment for this project was
undertaken in late November 2002. This project will not affect any known occurrences as
29

S
reported by NHP of state listed species. However, no state listed reptiles, amphibians, or
vascular plants are readily identifiable at the season of the year this field assessment was
conducted.
30

•
t
5.0 REFERENCES
~ ,.
Amoroso, J.L., S. P. Hall, and J. T. Finnegan. 2001. 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. 90 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. 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. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOAI. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. N.C. Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. httg://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsand
waterbodies/03-03-06.pdf on 20 November 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES
Permits. http://h2o.enr.state.nc us/NPDES/NPDESweb html on 2 December 2002.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). 1989. Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1988.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ-. 2002. Fish Community Database.
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc us/NCIBI htm
Division of Water Quality (DWQ-. 1999. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC. July 1 ggg
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/tarpam wq management plan htm
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and
Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the .Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1995. Soil Survey of Beaufort County,
North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture. 132 pp + maps.
31

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water ,
Quality (DWQ). 2002. North Carolina Water Quality and Impaired Waters List
(2002 Integrated 3051b) and 303(d) Report).
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/PDFs/NCv2k2 integratedreport odf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT-. 1999. Best Management
Practices For Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1 182 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa Springs,
CO. 365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (USAGE-WD). 1998. General Permit
Number 198200031.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS-. 1991. Hydric Soils of
the United States. June 1991
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWSI. 2001 a. Bald Eagle (Ha/iaeetus /eucocepha/us).
htto://soecies.fws.gov/bio eagl html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWSI. 2001 b. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidoche/ys
kempii), Life history and Recovery Activities. http://www.turtles.org/ridlevd htm
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWSI. 2001 c. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis. http://rcwrecoverv.fws.gov/rcw htm
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWSI. 2001 d. Red Wolf, (Canis rufusl.
http://species.fws.gov/bioarwol html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001e. Rough-leaf Loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperu/aefo/ia) in North Carolina. http://nc-es.fws gov/plant/rllooses html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 200.1 f. Sensitive Joint-vetch (Virginia Joint-vetch)
(Aeschynomene virginica) in North Carolina. httg://nc-
es.fws.gov/plant/sensjointy html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWSI. 2001 g. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus
manatus). httg://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa0c html
32

t
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWSI. 1979. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Old
Ford, North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic
quadrangle.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina: Beaufort
County. January 2003. Asheville, NC.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1979. Old Ford, North Carolina 7.5-minute series
topographic quadrangle.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGSI. 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
33

APPENDIX
Exhibit A. GPS Located "Waters of the United States" and Jurisdictional Wetlands
GPS Located Wetland Points
USACE and DWQ Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Natural Heritage Program Endangered Species List

B-4021 GPS Located Wetland Points
POINT NAME LONGITUDE (°, ', ") LATITUDE (°
'
" )
,
,
b-4021 a1 77 05 40.035894711 35 39 17.432994685
tr4021 a2 77 05 39.747839216 35 39 17.955052894
b-4021 a3 77 05 39.129968069 35 39 18.434500803
b-4021 a4 77 05 38.789155047 35 39 18.770000240
b-4021 a5 77 05 38.310631809 35 39 19.284557870
b-4021 a6 77 05 38.109794248 35 39 19.613754193
b-4021 a7 77 05 37.842808786 35 39 19.795994838
b-4021 a8 77 05 37.554314984 35 39 19.790641255
b-4021 a9 77 05 37.355933891 35 39 20.193540110
b-4021 a 10 77 05 37.272403129 35 39 20.538809671
b-4021 a 11 77 05 36.903572168 35 39 21.156535839
b-4021 a12 77 OS 37.267343635 35 39 21.387150612
b-4021 a 13 77 05 37.911771974 35 39 20.560740373
b-4021 a 14 77 05 38.318222705 35 39 19.994433268
b-4021 a 15 77 05 38.912219592 35 39 19.487099831
b-4021 a 16 77 05 39.147193315 35 39 18.884067741
b-4021 a17 77 05 39.976036896 35 39 18.557702464
b-4021 a 18 77 05 40.384599589 35 39 19.132044498
b-4021 a19 77 05 40.568027673 35 39 19.593814527
b-4021 b1 77 05 44.062367997 35 39 16.505465054
b-4021 b2 77 05 44.072998285 35 39 16.013627873
b-4021 b3 77 05 42.462027514 35 39 15.985006614
b-4021 b4 77 05 41.966214860 35 39 16.178222885
b-4021 b5 77 05 41.474888957 35 39 16.642873571
b-4021 b6 77 05 40.685032588 35 39 17.099233199
b-4021 d1 77 05 36.492351954 35 39 21.191273520
b-4021 d2 77 05 36.894446645 35 39 20.428863601
b-4021 d3 77 05 37.325151809 35 39 19.762297597
b-4021 d4 77 05 37.122980550 35 39 19.643641757
b-4021 d5 77 05 35.567117057 35 39 20.415197692
b-4021 d6 77 05 34.282006125 35 39 20.907102109
b-4021 d7 77 05 33.701465013 35 39 21.130008501
b-4021 d8 77 05 33.721992262 35 39 21.606303926
b-4021 d9 77 05 33.781269670 35 39 21.898882304
b-4021 d10 77 05 34.141613881 35 39 22.241778039
b-4021 d11 77 05 34.146310164 35 39 22
570818573
b-4021 ne bank 25 ft to nw bank 77 05 42.086525441 .
35 39 18.178298595
b-4021 ne bank 50 ft to nw bank 77 05 40.221906206 35 39 17.514824498
b-4021 nw bank 60 ft to ne bank 77 05 40.717043001 35 39 17.057735444
b-4021 sw bank 60 ft to se bank 77 05 39.384116130 35 39 16.025933227
b-4021 sw bank 25 ft to se bank 77 05 38.910371234 35 39 15.423765805
b-4021 sw bank 40 ft to se bank 77 05 40.209488529 35 39 16
836437853
b-4021 se bank 40 ft to sw bank 77 05 39.888215981 .
35 39 17
132094823
b-4021 se bank 40 ft to sw bank 77 05 38.805315393 .
35 39 16
286232519
b-4021 se bank 25 ft to sw bank 77 05 38.528544820 .
35 39 15.425082354

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
7957 COE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL)
PROJECT: 8-4021 DATE: 19 November 2002
APPLICANT: NCDOT COUNTY: Beaufort
INVESTIGATOR: E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Old Ford, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? No Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical
Situation)? 2 year old cutover Yes Transect ID:
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: B-4021A
if needed, ex lain on reverse
vGr_Grnr~n~i
Dominant Plant
S cies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
S ecies
Stratum
Indicator
1, Liriodendron tulipifera $ FAC g.
2, Acer rubrum $ FACW- g
3, Vitis spp. V 10.
4. 11.
5. 12.
6. 13.
~~ 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 100
Remarks: 2 year old cutover; little vegetation
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: 0 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other (Explain)
1 ~
Remarks:

•,-
SOILS t~_.,.~,. ,..

Map Unit Name: Muckalee loam
Series and Phase) v r
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy
(Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents Field Observations
Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description:
De th (Inches Horizon Matrix Color
p ) Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture/Concretions
14 B 10YR 2/1 None None Fine sandy loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point within a No
Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
•
~ 9i37 coE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL
PROJECT: 8-4021 DATE: 19 November 2002
APPLICANT: NCDOT COUNTY: Beaufort
INVESTIGATOR: E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Old Ford, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Transect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: 8-4021 B
if needed, ex lain on reverse
VFC~FTOTI[1N
Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator
1, Taxodium distzchum C OBL $. Vitis spp. V
2. Liquidambar styraci}lua C U FAC+ 9.
3. Liriodendron tulipifera C FAC 10.
4, Acer rubnam C U FACW- 11.
5. Ligustrum sinense $ FAC 12.
g, Lonicera japonica ~/ FAC- 13.
7. Toxicodendron radicans V FACU 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 71 ,~o
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: 4-6 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands '~,
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
X Other (Explain) Cypress knees,
buttressing
Remarks:

w
SOILS
Q_ Ines ~

-Map Unit Name: Muckalee loam
(Series and Phase) u~~
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy
Typic Fluvaquents Field Observations
Yes
(Subgroup): Confirmed Mapped Type?
Profrle Description:
De th (Inches Horizon Matrix Color
p ) Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture/Concretions
0-4 A 10YR 2/1 None None Clay loam
4+ B 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/6

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surtace Layer in Sandy
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point within a
Wetland? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:

.. .. ~ w
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th Version)
Project Name: 8-4021 Wetland Site Number: Wetland 6-4021 B
County: Beaufort Wetland Area (acres): 0.84
Nearest Road: SR 1410 (Voa Roadl Wetland Width (feet): 465
Evaluation Team: E.Fentress. K. Roeder Date: 19 November 02
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Adjacent Land Use:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 80
agriculture, urban/suburban 10
impervious surface 10 %
Dominant Veoetation
Soil Series: Muckalee (1) Taxodium distichum
predominantly organic (humus, muck, peat) (2) Liouidambar styraciflua
X predominantly mineral (non-sandy) (3) Acer rubrum
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
465' total riparian wetland width
Wetland Tvoe (select onel*
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
X Swamp Forest
Pocosin
Freshwater Marsh
Ephemeral Wetland
Bog forest
Seep
Floodino and Wetness
X semi to permanently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded/inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surtace
water
no evidence of flooding or surtace
water
Headwater Forest
Wet Flat
Pine Savannah
Estuarine fringe forest
Carolina Bay
Bog/fen
Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
Water Storage 5 X 4.00 = 20
Bank/Shoreline Stability 3 X 4.00 = 12
Pollution Removal 5 * X 5.00 = 25
Wildlife Habitat 2 X 2.00 = 4
Aquatic Life Value 3 X 4.00 = 12
Recreation/ Education 2 X 1.00 = 2

Wetland Score = 75
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within % mile upstream, upslope, or
radius

1V ~:1) W lJ stream ~aass><ncanon r orm
..
Project IVac.1e: Br+d9c RaplcacC...,,~j-.y' River Basin: Inr - (~ia..,tico County: gca~F-,.-{-
DW~ Project Number: 13 - 4o2t Nearest Named Stream: Ln+L,n,., Creek Latitude: 35° 39' IB"
Date: 19 Nov. 2002
USGS QUAD: Old Fo,-d Longitude: ~7` 5'42"
Evaluator: E ~e..tcss k. v~a«
Signature:
Locate on/D erections:
*PLEASE NOTE: Ijevaluator and landowner agree that rhejeature is a roan-made ditch, then use ojthis jorne is nor necessary. Also,
ijin the best projessiona/judgement ojthe evaluator, thejeature Is a.enan-evade ditch and not a neodifed natural strewn}--this rating
system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number PerLineJ
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 0 I 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) [s A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 IQQ 2 3
*NOTE• /f Bed c4. Bank Caused By Ditchinr And WITHOUT Sinu itv Then Score=O*)
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
O.n Topo Map And/Or In Fieldl Present? Yeses _ _ No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:~_
II. HvdroloQV Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge .Present? 0 I 2 (~
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)

I) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel?
0
5
1 ~ u-uu
15
2) Is There A Grade Control Potnt In Channel? t0 g
I
1 5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee WaV? _ 0 5 1
l~
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hvdrolo:'y Absent 1.5
Weak
Moderate
Strone
I) Is This Years (Or Last s) Leaflttter _
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed?
SAV
Mostly OBL Mostly FACW

* Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
( NOTE: /jTota! Absence Of A!! Plants /n Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skiv This Steo UNLESS SAV Present*1.
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: I
7'~7'f~L p01N7'.S' (Primary + Secondary)=,26.5 (IjGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermlttent~
PRIMARY BIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:~_
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
t Kn wn ? * OT it h /n i ted /n #9 A ove k' This [e nd #S B ! w•
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growin Season ?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcutl~ Yes I S No-0
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ro

~~ ~.
~,
INTERMITTENT CHANI~IEL ~`-- °;.._
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID '8-4021 APPLICANT NAMEp NCDO i DATE __~9 Na/. 2002,
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) 6rtdac_ i-to(acex„P..d-
WATERBODY/RIVERBASIN ~.ath~,,,, Leek COUNTY/CITY.. _Buxu~orf ~oun+v
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS SUnnu COOT
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
~ Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertbrates

Amphibians Present/Breeding
r
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)

Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
~
~ Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riftle/Pool Structure

Stable Streambanks
/
Channel Substrate
/ (i.e. vel, cobble, rock, coarse sand
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
/
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat SWcture

Flow In Channel
~
/ WeUands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thru Se t.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thtu Sept.)
/
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drill Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
/
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /QN
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ~/ N Approx. Drainage Area:
/ / / / / / / ! / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Determination:
Perennial Channel (S~p) ~ Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intetmittent Channel (prod) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of importanUunimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present

~earcn icesulcs
a~.,.
Search Criteria: Beaufort, Listed
Search Results: 17 records found.
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name
Page 1 of 1
State Federal State Global County
Status Status Rank Rank Status
Mammal Canis rufus Red Wolf SR EXN
Mammal Corynorhinus Rafinesque's Big-eared

rafinesquii
Bat T FS
Mammal Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee E E
Bird Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow SR FSC
Bird Haliaeetus Bald Eagle T T
leucocephalus
Bird Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker E E
Reptile Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake SC -
Reptile Lepidochelys kempii Atlantic Ridley E E
Reptile Malaclemys terrapin Carolina Diamondback

centrata
Terrapin SC -

Reptile Nerodia sipedon
williamengelsi
Carolina Water Snake
SC -
Reptile Sistruzus miliarius Pigmy Rattlesnake SC -
Amphibian Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog SC -
Amphibian Rana capito Carolina Gopher Fzoq T FSC
Vascular
Plant Aeschynomene vizginica Sensitive Jointvetch E T
Vascular Plant Dionaea muscipula Venus Flytrap SC-L' FSC

vascular Lysimachia

Plant
asperulifolia Rough-leaf Loosestrife E E
Vascular Plant Platanthera nivea Snowy Orchid T -
SI G1 Obscure - Beaufort - MAP -
HABITAT
S3 G3G4 Historic - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S1N G2 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S2B,S1N G9 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S3B,S3N G4 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S2 G3 Current - Beaufort - MAP -
HABITAT
S3 G9 Obscure - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
SAB,SZN G1 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S3 G4T9 Obscure - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S3 GST3 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S3 GS Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S3 G3 Historic - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S2 G3 Historic - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S1 G2 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S3 G3 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S3 G3 Current - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
S1 GS Historic - Beaufort - MAP
- HABITAT
NC NHP database updated: January, 2003. Search performed on Thursday, February 6, 2003 at 7:21:20
Eastern Standard Time.
Total number of searches since 01/01/03: 399
Explanation of Codes
Do NOT bookmark this search results page, instead bookmark: www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/elements2.fm 2/6/2003

Search Results
Page 1 of
Search Criteria: =Old Ford
Quads: 1
Ma'or Grou Scientific Name (Habitat State Federal State Global
] P Common Name Quad
link) Status Status Rank Rank Status
__
Bird Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow SR FSC S2B,S1N G4 Current -OLD E'ORD
NC NHP database updated: January 2003. Search performed on Thursday, February 6, 2003 at 9:27:48
Eastern Standard Time.
Total number of searches since O 1 /01 /03:249
Explanation of Codes
Do NOT bookmark this search results page, instead bookmark: www.ncsparks.net/nhp/quad.html
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/quadstat.fm 2/6/2003

~, .

fi.
~ aoAtx c
~~' ,yo'
~` s
N 1
O Z
9 ~
f l
l`f'Y) DF TA-NSQOpt
.~ * b-4021 dll
~~
,~ ~" ~ ~ ~ -4021 d10
~ ~ ~*
~ ~
~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~-4021 d9
~ ~+ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 4021 d8
~ ~ ~ 'p-
~ ~ ~
b-4021 alt ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ '" ~
~ ~ ~
* -40,1 dl ,~ ~ _ d•~
~ +~ -40 all * ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ,x ~ ~ * ~' ~ '~ ~ ~ b-4021 d6
~r/ ~+ ~ ~
b-4021 al '"* b 0 a10 ~ *~ ~
~ ~ -402~d2 ~
~ ~ ~ b-4021
~~ 4 lag ~
b-4021 al -~ ~~+
~ ~
~" -4QQ
~ ~~~
-4021 al9 b-4021 al / ~ ~b-40 6 -4021
~ ~ b-40 a8
BRIDGE NUMBER 84 * ~~ ~ ~ _qo a5 b-4 a7
~ -4021 alb
~~ ~ b-4021 al ~
* b-4021aJ * ~
,~ ~ ~ b-40 a4
~~
~ ~
.>t ~ .x ~ ~
~ * * '~ ,~ ~" ~ ~b-4 I a3
~~ ~ * ~ ~
~~ ~ ~
b-4021 ne bank 25ft to nw bank ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' -4 a2
~ ~ ~
.~ ~ '" ~ '~~ - ne b k 50ft to nw bank
~' ~ '~ 4021 al
~ ~
b-4021 nw ban 6(rFt to ate bank _4 b6 4021 se bank 40ft to sw bank
~ * ~
~ ~ ~
* ~
~ ~ ~
b-4021 b ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~~ ,~ ~ ~~b-40 5 \
~ ~ ~ ~ \ \b-4021 se bank 40ft to sw bank
*~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~' b-4 I b4
b-4021 b - - b-4021 \
1
b-4021sw bank fit to a bank
L O G H N E A b-4021 sw ban 60ft se bank \ ~-4021 se bank 25ft to sw bank
x.w. LocxxER, Ixc. b-4021 sw bank 25ft to se bank
2510 PLAZA PLACE, SUITE 7D2
RALEIGH, NC 27!72
0 50' 100'
IXHIBIT A