20060277 Ver 1_Complete File_20060404

W AT QG
.? y
o ?
D Michael F. Easley, Governor
n ,, William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
V North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
APR 1 D Alan W. Klimck, P.E. Director
0 .2nnn Division of Watcr Quality
WATER
?ST??oq RB
April 4, 2006
Beaufort County
DWQ Project No. 20060277
APPROVAL of 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION and TAR PAMLICO BUFFER RULES with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Mr. C.E. Lassiter, Jr., P.E.
NCDOT, Division 2
PO Box 1587
Greenville, NC 27835
Dear Mr. Lassiter:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, for the following impacts:
Wetlands Fill Buffer Zone 1 Buffer Zone 2 Streams
Site Number acres (square ft (square ft linear ft
Beaufort 136 0 3025 1837 6' (bridge bents)
Net Total for Buffer 4862 (0.112 acres)
Impacts
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received February 10, 2006 for the purpose of
replacing Bridge 136 over Beech Stump Canal on SR 1626 in Beaufort County. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that these impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3494. This certification corresponds
to the Nationwide Permit 3 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules
(15A NCAC 2B .0259). In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with
your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (this
supercedes Condition 13 of General Certification 3494 issued on December 31, 2004).
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below). Should your
project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given
a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or total impacts to streams or buffers (now or in the
future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7).
For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of Completion Form"
to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The responsible party shall
complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon completion of
the project.
2.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
3.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface waters is
prohibited.
N. C. Division of Water Quality
FAX [phone]
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C. 27889
Telephone [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAifinnative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
No ,iCarolina
,Aurally
18.) All protected riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored to the
preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project construction. A
post-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to the DWQ no later than 60 days
after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
19.) The post-construction removal of any temporary bridge structures will need to return the project site to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. The revegetation of the impacted areas with appropriate native species is
required.
20.) If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict adherence to the
Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
21.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the construction site at all times. In addition, the Water
Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division Engineer and the on-
site project manager.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within
60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447.
This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any
questions, please contact Garcy Ward at [phone].
Sincerel ,
for r. Alan W. Klimek, P.E
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Mr. William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer, NCDOT
Wanda Gooden, CAMA, 1367 US 17 S. Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Mr. Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Wetlands/401 Unit
Central Files
File Copy
WQC #3494
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 3 (MAINTENANCE),
4 (FISH AND WILDLIFE HARVESTING DEVICES AND ACTIVITIES),
5 (SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENT DEVICES), 6 (SURVEY ACTIVITIES),
7 (OUTFALL STRUCTURES), 19 (25 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL), 20 (OIL SPILL CLEANUP), 22
(REMOVAL OF VESSELS), 25 (STRUCTURAL DISCHARGE),
30( MOIST SOIL MANAGEMENT FOR WILDLIFE), 32 (COMPLETED ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS) 36 (BOAT RAMPS fIN NONWETLAND SITESI), REGIONAL PERMIT 197800056
(PIERS DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES) AND REGIONAL PERMIT 197800125 (BOAT RAMPS)
AND RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULES (BUFFER RULES)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15 NCAC 213 .0200 for the
discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas which are waters of the United States as
described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, 22, 25, 30, 32, and 36) of the
Corps of Engineers regulations and Regional Permits 197800056 and 19780125 and for the
Riparian Area Protection Rules (Buffer Rules) in 15A NCAC 26 .0200. This Certification replaces
Water Quality Certification Number 3376 issued on March 18, 2002. This WQC is rescinded
when the Corps of Engineers re-authorizes any of these Nationwide or Regional Permits or when
deemed appropriate by the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. These activities do not require written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality as
long as they comply with all conditions of this General Certification. If any condition in this
Certification cannot be met, application to and written concurrence from DWQ are
required. Also, Condition No. 8 is applicable to all streams in basins with riparian area
protection rules;
2. If the activity is associated with or in response to a Notice of Violation or an enforcement
action initiated by DWQ or the Division of Land Resources, this General Certification
requires application to and prior written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality;
3. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual" whichever is
more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR
Regional or Central Offices) shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management
Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard;
4. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be removed
and the natural grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources
has released the project;
5. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
WQC #3494
14. Projects with any impacts to streams, wetlands, and/or waters that have received a Notice
of Violation from the Division of Land Resources and/or the Division of Water Quality are
required to submit a complete application and receive written concurrence to use this
Certification regardless of the proposed impact amount to streams, wetlands, and waters.
15. When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the most recent
version of the Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in the
401 Certification has been completed;
16. Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Practices:
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices:
a. Erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the
most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual.
The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste
pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with
the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of
the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. Reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
e. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control
measures and stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
17. No Impacts Beyond those in Application
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-construction Notification. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of
sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
18. No Sediment and Erosion Control Measures in Wetlands
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the
maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in
wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored
within six months of the date that the Division of Land Resources or locally delegated
program has released the project.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill project shall
result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a formal
application for Individual Certification for any project in this category of activity if it is determined
that the project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water quality including state or
wAT ?9QG
O 'C
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
County:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401 [Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to
send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
1, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Date:
Partial Final
1, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Date
Registration No.
NO re
Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX 919-733a93I Internet; http-//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

?n

2006
c ?? U Brida'e: Beaufort #136 JAN 17
Eg 1 0 2006 b r
All P?{tittttents have been completed including the Programmatic Categorical ExclusionFor`m?
?pF.MW
Re,-,ulatory Authorization Options for this Activity
Federal: Section 404(F)(1)(b) Exempt Activities-Maintenance of Transportation Structures.
State: Activities Deemed to Comply with Water Quality Standards.
Local: None
Federal: USACE Nationwide General Permit 3 - Maintenance
State: General Water Quality Certification "'3376
Local: None
Project Description
Replace existing 57'3" long by 23.8' (clear roadway) wide concrete deck bridge with timber piles iyith a
21" concrete cored slab bridge that is proposed to be 95.0' long by 30' (clear roadway) wide and supported
by reinforced concrete on steel piles. Age of the bridge and safety inspection reports dictate the need for
replacement of this bridge. There will be no impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands during bridge
construction and guardrail installation. The longer bridge will result in approximately 1.722 square feet of
excavated roadway fill beneath the new structure. This project does involve Section 10 (Rivers and
Harbors Act) navigable waters. This project does not require the completion of a formal PCN but
notification to the Corps is being provided to be included in their database. This conveyance is sholwri on
the Pantego USGS Quad Map and Sheet Number 9 of the Soil Survey of Beaufort County. The chaanel is
60 feet wide from bank top to bank top and drains a woodland/agricultural area. No federally protected
species or historic resources are immediately adjacent to this location.
In order to ensure compliance with best management practices, all attached General and Regional
Conditions associated with Nationwide Permit 3 and Water Quality Certification (3376 must be followed.
Keep demolition and construction debris out of the stream. Riprap will not be placed below the
plane of ordinary high water for stabilization. Excavation should be confined to the right of wa-s
and limited to the minimum amount required to excavate in high ground for the construction of the
new bridge. All excavated material should be removed from the site, placed on existing spoil piles, or
disposed of in farm fields.
All Erosion and Sedimentation measures and Maintenance Best Management Practices should be
implemented. I am forwarding a copy to Mr. Andy Blankenship in Roadside Envirorunental for his perusal
in ER.S inspections. The project supervisor should always have this permit package, including the attached
General and Regional Conditions associated with the Nationwide Permit 3 and Water Quality Certification
"'3376 on site during the bridge replacement. The project supervisor should notifV me immediately if any
questions or concerns should arise before and during construction.
Jay B. Johnson
Division 2 Environmental Officer
[phone]

Sw2Adell i t !
I i
^ +l ?? `?? -?,irT Bishops Cross
Wilkinsot,
SOUTHERN
era '__r_-lam ' Sii ?_:..-'? } • \
10 ,
14 :Z
PROJECT
12-
LOCATION
t . / 1
PROJECT NO. B-4024
TOPO MAP DATE 07-12-05
ROAD SR 1626
(ROAD NAME SR 1626 OVER
BEECH STUMP CANAL
i COUNTY BEAUFORi
- j 576 .ate
? l4 Yv ' ?
BEAUFORT COUNTY SOILS MAP
%
d
:!I pt
w E PROJECT
Mo
R#1621 O/? R! g1 aP - Y
- f - - \ti
Ro- __ - To Ds:`? ? y_
Ro -
z3l
+ . ?o Ds
d40 Rd P??.
c _ Pt` -
f
-
l+ _
}
To L
0 175 350 700 1,050 1,400
Meters

' f

`.emu ?• .t '•, , -y
W E - - PROJECT
S t x J i
Wilkinson ff,
.500

0 175 350 700 1,050 1,400
- - Meters

i

SRS 2 a
eil
1
Lc
PANTEGO USGS QUAD MAP
? STA7[ n
4f ? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 9, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: o n L. Williams
Projec anntng Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1626, Beaufort County, Replacement of Bridge No. 136 over
canal, State Project 8.2150701,
F. A. Project BRZ (1), B-4024
A scoping meeting for the Subject Bridge was held at Century Center's Roadway
Design Conference Room on July 9, 2002.
1116 ItAIL)WILI cv lc wctc III u«?1luuii??.
Michael Summers Program Development Betsy Cox Structure Design
Bill Goodwin PDEA Albert Outlaw Structure Design
David Bailey Right of Way Nasir Siddiqui Traffic Congestion
Jesse W. Gilstrap Traffic Control/Signals Ben Brown Hydraulics Unit
Bryan Edwards Rail Division Art McMillan Roadway Design
Ron McCollum Roadway Design John Williams PDEA
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule Document Feb. 2003
Right of Way: Nov 2003 6 0 2 7 ?
Construction: Nov 2004
Bridge No. 77No. 77 was built in 1969. It is 57 feet long, 24.1-foot wide, and is 12 feet over
the canal bed. It is posted 17 tons for SV and 20 tons for TTST's. The sufficiency rating
is 54.9. Bridge Maintenance did temporary work to improve the condition of the bridge
recently. The bridge however has a timber substructure and is still eligible for
replacement. There are 6 years estimated remaining useful life in the structure.
Traffic Information SR 1626 (Wilkinson Station Road) is a Rural Local Route with no
posted speed limit. Current ADT: 400 VPD, Projected 2025 ADT: 600 VPD, 2% Duals,
I % TTST). 10 school bus crossings per day
Accidents No accidents were recorded in a check of a recent three year period.
Possible Offsite Detour would utilize SR 1621 (Swamp Road), SR 1625 (Swindell
Road), back to SR 1626 (Wilkinson Station Road). There would be 4.7 miles additional
travel. Using a rate of $0.35 per mile, 400 vehicles per day and a construction time of 1
year the road user cost is $240,000.
SCOPING COMMENTS
The Wildlife Resource Commission has offered written comments indicating no
particular concerns at this location. Standard sedimentation and erosion control applies.
The Division of Water Quality has offered written comments indicating standard
requests for this project such as preference for a bridge, no in water work if possible, etc.
The Division of Coastal Management has offered written comments indicating
that this project will likely have minimal impacts.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has offered written
comments indicating no need for an archaeological survey. They did however request
architectural survey on the church and the house near to the bridge.
The County of Beaufort in a letter has written that an offsite detour may require
alternate routes and a temporary mutual aid response between various EMS but that this
is a workable situation during the period of construction.
The Natural Resources Technical Report indicates that there are no unresolved
T&E species issues and therefore no Section 7 issues to address. There are no wetlands
in the project vicinity.
NCDOT Rail Division has stated an interest in following the progress of the
project due to the presence of a railroad in an area possibly impacted by the project. The
rail involves two trains a day on Carolina Coastal Railway (CLNA). Since the offsite
detour involves another rail crossing on SR 1625, the Rail Division has expressed that
maintenance of traffic onsite would be preferable. However, they further clarified that
since the other crossing was signalized, an offsite detour is not unacceptable. There are
currently 2 trains a day traveling at 25 mph.
Division 2 has offered written comments indicating that the bridge could be
replaced on existing location utilizing an offsite detour.
The Location Surveys Unit sent written comments indicating the presence of an
underground telephone and fiber optic telephone line on the southeast side of the bridge
that goes aerial at the site. There are underground water and cable television lines but no
evidence of them crossing the canal. There is a storm sewer outlet at the southwest end
of the bridge. Location Surveys estimates the overall impact to utilities to be light.
During the scoping meeting, a concern was raised about why the existing
alignment formed a sharp dogleg around the southeast quadrant of the bridge. The
concern was that there may be a feature such as a graveyard. Personnel from Location
Surveys checked and determined that there is nothing of concern in that quadrant. It is
supposed that the road was following property boundaries.
The Geotechnical Unit has screened the project and is aware of no geo-
environmental problems in the vicinity.
The Hydraulics Unit recommended an 80-foot long bridge at approximately the
same location and elevation. They further indicated that if a temporary structure was
needed, it should be a 70-foot long bridge.
Cross Section of New Bridge According to March 2000 Bridge Policy
A Collector Route with 400 vehicles per day for a bridge less than 100 feet in length
should have a minimum of 28 feet clear deck width including a 22-foot travelway and 3-
foot offsets.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
In consideration of all factors listed above and after discussion with Art McMillan of
Roadway Design, NCDOT will study one alternate. The existing bridge will be replaced
with a new bridge on approximately the same location. There may be minor
modifications to the approaches as determined necessary during design.
NEXT STEPS
Preliminary Design and Construction Estimate: Art McMillan of Roadway Design
has indicated that he will provide preliminary design and cost estimate information by
September 15, 2002.
R/W Estimate: PDEA will pursue a R/W estimate as soon as the preliminary designs
from Roadway are available.
Historic Architectural Survey: PDEA will pursue an evaluation of Architectural
Resources.
C
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT dik
WWI
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 136 ON SR 1626
OVER CANAL
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-4024
State Project No. 8.2150701
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Issued: February 2002
roo IT" ov
,off
w'?"?

Table of ConInts
1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... .................................................................. 1
1.2 PURPOSE .............................................................................................. .................................................................. 1
1.3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. .................................................................. 1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ................................................
1.5 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................ ..................................................................2
..................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... ..................................................................2
2.1 SOILS .................................................................................................... ..................................................................3
' 2.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................ ..................................................................3
2.2.1 Surface Water Characteristics ......................................................... .................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ................................................................
2.2.3 Water Quality .................................................................................. .................................................................. 3
.................................................................. 4
2.2.4 Ecological Impacts .......................................................................... ..................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...........................................................................
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................. ..................................................................5
.................................................................. 5
3.1.1 Mesic Pine Flatwoods ..................................................................... .................................................................. S
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed ......................................................................
3.1.3 Maintained Yard .............................................................................. ..................................................................6
.................................................................. 6
3.1.4 Maintained Road ............................................................................. .................................................................. 6
3.1. 5 Successional ....................................................................................
3.1.6 Agriculture ....................................................................................... .................................................................. 6
..................................................................7
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ..................................................................... .................................................................. 7
3.3 HABITAT SUMMARY ............................................................................ .................................................................. 7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................ ..................................................................8
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ....................................................... ..................................................................8
' 4.1.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters ..........................................................
4.1.2 Permits ............................................................................................. .................................................................. 8
..................................................................9
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition ........................................................................... ................................................................ 10
4.1.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................... ................................................................10
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................ .......................................................................10
4.1.4.2 Minimization ..................................................................................... .......................................................................11
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ................................................................. ...................................................................... 11
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES.__..... ............................................. ................................................................ 1 1
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................ ................................................................ 12
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ..................... ................................................................ 17
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................
6.0 APPENDICES ................................................................19
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Habitat Within Project Area
6.2 WETLAND DATA FORMS AND RATING WORKSHEETS
I LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. HABITAT WITHIN PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................7
' TABLE 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY .........................................................12
TABLE 3. FEDERALLY SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY ........................................................18
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page ii

I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in southwestern Beaufort County
r (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 136 on State Road 1626 over Pantego
Creek. The project length is approximately 1,080.00 ft (329.18 m).
1.2 Purpose
' The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural resources
that may be impacted by the proposed action. Recommendations are made for measures that will
minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of
the recommended project area. If the project area and criteria change, additional field
investigations may need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
' Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: Pantego (1951) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
map, Pantego (1986) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map, Natural
r Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil maps, and NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area
(1":1,200"). Water resource information was obtained from Department of Environment and Natural
Resources publications (DENR, 1999). Federal and State protected species information was gathered
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of concern and the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
1

1

LandMark Design Group environmental scientists Wendee Smith and Brett Feulner conducted field
surveys along the proposed alignment on July 10, 2001. James Sherri, Environmental Project Manager,
subsequently performed an additional site visit during the week of August 27, 2001 for quality
assurance purposes. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active and
capture, visual observations, and identification of characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks,
and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed utilizing the criteria prescribed in
the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-306.00 Page 1

' 1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Wendee B. Smith, Environmental Scientist
' LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist,
N.C. Department of Transportation/Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, May 1999 to August 1999
Forestry Technician, N.C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
1 2) Investigator: Brett M. Feulner, Environmental Scientist
LandMark Design Group Inc., June 2001 to Present
Education: B.S. Forest Management:
North Carolina State University, 2001
Experience: Research Assistant, North Carolina State University Forest Nutrition Co-op,
Raleigh, June 2000-October 2000
District Forester, Resource Management Service Inc., New Bern, January 1999
to December 1999
3) Investigator: James F. Shern, Senior Environmental Scientist
LandMark Design Group Inc., November 1996 to Present
Education B.S. Forestry
North Carolina State University, 1992
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Protect Area denotes the area
bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area within a 0.50 mi (0.81
km) radius of the project area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute
USGS quadrangle map with the project area occupying the central position.
r 2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below. Soils and availability of
water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The topography in this section
of Beaufort County is characterized as low and generally level. Project elevation is approximately
10.00 ft (3.05 m) above mean sea level (msl).
r
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 2

2.1 Soils
I

Two soil phases occur within the project area: Muckalee loam and Tomotley fine sandy. Soil
information was obtained from the Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina, 1995 published by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• Muckalee loam, frequently flooded, (hydric) with 0.00 to 1.00 percent slopes, is a nearly level,
poorly drained soil on flood plains along small streams that flow into the Pamlico River.
Permeability is moderate and the shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is at a
depth of 1.00 to 1.50 ft (0.15 to 0.46 m) during winter and early spring. This soil is frequently
flooded for brief periods. Flooding and wetlands are the main limitations for agriculture, urban, and
recreational activities.
• Tomotley fine sandy loam, (hydric) with 0.00 to 1.00 percent slopes, is a nearly level, poorly
drained soil on broad flats and in shallow depressions on stream and marine terraces in the eastern
part of the county. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high
water table is within a depth of 1 ft (0.30 m) during winter and early spring. Wetness is the major
limitation for urban, agricultural, and urban activities.
2.2 Water Resources

This section contains information concerning those water resources within the project area. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water
systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to surface water
resources and minimization methods are also discussed.
2.2.1 Surface Water Characteristics
Pantego Creek is the only surface water resource within the project area. The section of the creek in the
project area is located in sub-basin 03-03-07 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The average baseflow
width is approximately 22.50 ft (6.86 m). Average depth is approximately 4.50 ft (1.37 m). Pantego
Creek's substrate is composed of sand and flow was moderate upon site inspection. Water clarity was
fair.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
All streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the N.C. Division of Water Quality. The
classification of Pantego Creek in the project area is C Sw NSW (NCDWQ Tar-Pamlico River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, 1999). Class C water denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. The Sw
supplemental water classification SW denotes swamp waters that have a naturally occurring low pH,
low dissolved oxygen, low velocities, and characteristics different from most water bodies. These
waters are normally found in the coastal plain and are naturally discolored giving rise to the nickname
of blackwater streams. NSW is a supplimental surface water classification intended for waters needing
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 3

additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
' predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
i Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
There is no BMAN station located on Pantego Creek within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have life cycle stages that can last from six months to one year.
Therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill may be overcome until the next generation. Different taxa
of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, therefore, long-term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant
organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity, and the biomass are
reflections of long-term water quality conditions.
' In North Carolina, point source dischargers are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Permits are required for all dischargers. There are no point
source discharges on Pantego Creek within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) upstream of the project area.
2.2.4 Ecological Impacts
' Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost
always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge
' replacement at a new location usually results in greater impacts. Usually, project construction does not
disturb the entire project area; therefore, actual impacts will be less than reported in Table 1.
' Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from demolition, construction, and/or erosion, resulting
from vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
' removal,
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
' water flow from construction,
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 4

I
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading from the stormwater runoff of areas disturbed during construction,
and/or
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, demolition, construction, and
' toxic spills.
' Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. The
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include,
t but are not limited to, minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface
water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to prevent water resource contamination by
toxic substances during the demolition and construction phases must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between flora and fauna within these
ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
' reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and
' fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each plant and animal
species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980), and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
' Seven distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project area (Figure 2): Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, maintained/disturbed, maintained yard, maintained road, successional, and agriculture.
Community boundaries within the study area are well defined as shown in Figure 2. Faunal species
likely to occur within the project area will exploit all community types for shelter, foraging
opportunities, and/or as wildlife corridors.
' 3.1.1 Mesic Pine Flatwoods
The Mesic Pine Flatwoods is located in the southeast section of the project area. The tree species in
this area are: loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), cherry (Prunus serotina), and water oak (Quercus nigra).
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 5
r
This community's sapling layer is comprised of cherry, sweet-gum, southern magnolia (Magnolia
' grandiflora), and red mulberry (Morus rubra). The Mesic Pine Flatwoods shrub layer is composed of
privet, elm (Ulmus sp.), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). The following herbs are present in the
community: Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), kudzu (Pueria lobata), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Wildlife species associated with this community type include eastern box turtle* (Terrapene carolina),
' Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox* (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
' Avian species associated with this community type include: bobwhite* (Colinus virginianus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and tufted titmouse (Bacolophus bicolor).
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community includes road shoulder on the eastern side of State Road 1626
within the project area. The community is composed of goldenrod, trumpet creeper (Campsis
' radicans), ash (Fraxinus sp.), privet (Ligustrum sinense), bottlebrush grass (Hystrix patula), and fescue
(Festuca sp.). Faunal species associated with the maintained/disturbed community includes least shrew
(Crypotis parva), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), white footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
3.1.3 Maintained Yard
' The maintained yard is the area along the western bound of the project area. This community is
' composed of regularly maintained grass. Wildlife species frequenting the maintained yard are similar
to the species inhabiting the Mesic Pine Flatwoods community.
t 3.1.4 Maintained Road
The maintained road is the community bounded by the agricultural field to the north and the
' successional community to the south. This community is comprised of various grass species. The
faunal species utilizing the maintained road will be largely those inhabiting the successional and Mesic
Pine Flatwoods communities.
1 3.1.5 Successional
' The area along the northern and southwestern banks of Pantego Creek and the area between the
maintained road and the agricultural field are successional communities. These areas are comprised of
goldenrod, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), pokeweed
' (Phytolocca americana), kudzu, foxtail grass (Alopecurus sp.), sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), blackberry (Rubus argutus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and panic grass (Panicum sp.). Faunal species utilizing the successional will be largely
' those inhabiting the Mesic Pine Flatwoods.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #. B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 6

I

3.1.6 Agriculture
An agricultural field is located east of State Road 1624. This community is primarily utilized for corn
cultivation. Wildlife species frequenting the agricultural field will be largely those inhabiting the
surrounding communities.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Pantego Creek, is present in the proposed project area. Physical
characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
aquatic communities.
Fauna associated with the aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Fish species likely to occur in Pantego Creek include pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), and yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis). Invertebrates that would be
present include various species of caddisfly (Trichoptera), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), crayfish
(Decapoda), dragonfly* (Odonata), and damselfly (Odonata).
3.3 Habitat Summary
Construction of the subject project may have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. Table 1 quantifies the habitat communities within the project area.
Table 1. Habitat within Proiect Area.
Community Surface Water Wetland Upland Total
Mesic Pine Flatwoods - - 1.11 ac (0.45 ha) 1.11 ac (0.45 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed - - 0.36 ac (0.15 ha) 0.36 ac (0.15 ha)
Maintained Yard - - 0.52 ac (0.21 ha) 0.52 ac (0.21 ha)
Maintained Road - - 0.03 ac (0.01 ha) 0.03 ac (0.01 ha)
Successional - - 0.24 ac (0.10 ha) 0.24 ac (0.10 ha)
Community
Agriculture - - 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) 0.08 ac (0.03 ha)
Pantego Creek 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) - - 0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
Total 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) - 2.34 ac (0.95 ha) 2.47 ac (1.00 ha)
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 136 and its associated improvements will reduce
habitat for some faunal species. However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that
impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 7

wildlife by the creation of early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
' activities may repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream channelization,
' scouring, siltation, sedimentation, and erosion from project related work will affect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these
construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
' Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and scouring of
the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which in excessive amounts
may clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-
feeders), fish, and amphibian species. Benthic organisms may also be covered by excessive amounts of
sediment. Some of organisms may be slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils,
toxic compounds, and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These
processes increase turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside clearing also leads to more direct
sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact some species. Based on
the potential for increased sedimentation, it is recommended that silt curtains be used during
construction.
' 4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues:
"Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
' 4.1 Waters of the United States
' Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined
in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404
' of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach was used. Hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: 8-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 8

I
and certain specific hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a
' wetland. Wetlands are not present within the project area.
Pantego Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
' 1344). Pantego Creek covers 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) and 153.00 l.f. (46.63 l.m.) of the project area.
Discussion of the biological, physical, and water quality aspects of all surface waters in the project area
are presented in previous sections of this report.
1
4.1.2 Permits
' Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge
' of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
The subject project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). CAMA is administered by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM). The NCDCM is the lead permitting agency for projects located within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC) in which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to
property, public health and natural environment. A CAMA permit from the NCDCM is required if the
project meets all of the following conditions:
1. Located in one of the twenty counties covered by CAMA;
2. Located in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
3. Considered to be "development" under CAMA; and,
4. Not qualify for an exemption as identified by CAMA or the CRC.
A determination is needed from the NCDCM whether the project necessitates a CAMA permit. If a
CAMA permit is required, a CAMA Major Development permit will be required.
If a CAMA Major Development permit is required, the permit application will also serve as an
' application for other state permits and for permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as
required by Section 10 the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is likely
that the USACE would authorize the project under a Section 404 General Permit 291. The state
' permits include;
1. Authorization to excavate and/or fill;
2. Authorization into lands covered by water; and,
3. Authorization under 401 Water Quality Certification.
' If the project is determined not to require a CAMA Major Development Permit, then bridge
replacement would require authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a)
(23)) for all impacts to "Waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit
' authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or part by
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 9

another federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to
' the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
' • the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment, and
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
' A Nationwide Permit 33 may be required if the construction plans require a temporary structure that is
not covered in the NEPA document.
' This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny a water
' quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
"Waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401
' Certification from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Projects located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin are subject to the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules,
administered by the DWQ. These rules address loss of stream channel buffers for field verified streams
appearing on the USGS Topographic Quad and/or the NRCS Soil Survey. Bridge construction is
allowable provided that there are "no practical alternatives." However, a written authorization is
required from the DWQ. A request to the DWQ for the authorization should be included in the cover
letter of the permit application package.
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition
' Bridge demolition information will be provided in the NEPA Document.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
' policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "Waters of the
United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
' Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 10

F?J

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree
of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "Waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "Waters of
the United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control
BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization
of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation may be required for unavoidable adverse impacts
that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States." Such
actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever
practicable. Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23,
however final mitigation requirements rest with the COE. Impact thresholds for mitigation are as
follows:
• 0.10 to 1.00 ac (0.04 to 0.40 ha) of wetland impacts may require mitigation;
• 1.00 ac (0.40 ha) or more of wetlands impacts will require mitigation;
• 150.00 linear ft (45.72 m) or more of stream impacts will require mitigation.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species

Some populations of flora and fauna have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 11

4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 22, 2001, the FWS lists 7
federally protected species for Beaufort County (Table 2). A brief description of the characteristics and
habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts
follows.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Beaufort County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened
Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle Endangered
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Endangered
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Canis rufus Red wolf Experimental
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loosestrife Endangered
Aeschynomene vir_ginicaSensitive jointvetch _Threatened
"Endangered"-A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or significan t portion of its range."
"Threatened"--A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
"Experimental-A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental nonessential
endangered species are treated as threatened on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species
proposed for listing on private land.
' Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting population in
' the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South
Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body plumage is
dark-brown to chocolate- brown in color. Immature eagles lack the white head plumage; the body
plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color with blotchy white on the underside of the wings,
belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar. Adults range in length
from 27.17 to 37.01 in (69.00 to 94.00 cm) and have a wingspan ranging from 70.08 to 90.16 in
(178.00 to 229.00 cm).
There are several factors that affect an eagle's selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are found in close
proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in
an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to
abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests are approximately 9.84 ft (3.00 m) across.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 12

The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source
' for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
' The mature forest near large bodies of water were not present in the project area. The size of Pantego
Creek is not large enough to support a bald eagle. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
' database was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and no record of existing bald eagle occurrences were found
within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to the bald eagle will result from project
' construction.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: December 2, 1970
' Adult Kemp's ridley's sea turtles inhabit the Gulf of Mexico, with immature turtles ranging the east
coast as far north as Massachusetts. This turtle is an infrequent visitor to the North Carolina coast and
usually does not nest here. However, recently there have been recordings of nesting in the state. The
' primary nesting area for these turtles is a single beach in Mexico.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles that visit North Carolina's coast. It measures
' 22.83 to 29.53 in (580.00 to 750.00 mm) in length and weighs from 79.37-110.23 lbs (36.00-50.00 kg).
These turtles have a triangular shaped head and a hooked beak with large crushing surfaces. It has a
heart-shaped carapace that is nearly as wide as it is long with the first of five coastal plates touching the
' nuchal plates. Adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles have white or yellow plastrons with a gray and olive
green carapace. The head and flippers are gray. Hatchlings are all black.
' A majority of this sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 14.90 mi (24.00 km) stretch of beach between Barra
del Tordo and Ostioal in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Here the turtles come on shore in mass to
' lay their eggs during the day. This can occur as many as three times during the April to June breeding
season. Kemp's ridley sea turtles prefer beach sections that are backed up by extensive swamps or large
bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean connections and a well defined elevated dune area.
S Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in association with red mangrove
trees. Kemp's ridley sea turtles feed on crabs, shrimp, snails, sea urchins, sea stars, medusae, fish, and
' marine plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The marine habitat critical to the Kemp's ridley sea turtle was not present in the project area. Sound or
oceans are the preferred marine community for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and no record of existing Kemp's
ridley sea turtles were found within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to the
Kemp's ridley sea turtles will result from project construction.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP 4: B-4024 February 2002
1 The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 13

Trichechus manaeus (West Indian manatee) Endangered
' Animal Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: March 1967, June 2, 1970
t The manatee's historic range included the Gulf Coast as far west as Texas and the Atlantic Coast as far
north as New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia. Winter populations are now limited to the southern half
' of the Florida peninsula. In summer they have been sighted as far north as North Carolina and west as
far as the Florida panhandle. Although manatees found in North Carolina are considered to be
migratory, there is evidence of overwmtermg by manatees in warm-water discharges from power
plants.
The manatee is a large, gray or brown, barrel shaped, aquatic mammal. Adults average 10.00 to 13.00
' ft (3.05 to 4.00 m) long and weigh around 1,100.00 lbs (500.00 kg). The hind limbs are absent and the
forelimbs have been modified into flippers. The tail is flattened horizontally. The wrinkled body is
nearly hairless except for stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle. In clear water most of a manatees body is
' visible, however in murky waters (like North Carolina) only a small part of the head and nose are
visible.
' Manatees are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt water bays, and as far off shore as
4.00 mi (6.44 km). They are found in freshwater and marine habitats with a depth of 5.00 ft (1.52 m) or
more. In the winter, between October and April, Florida manatees concentrate in areas with warm
' water. During other times of the year habitats with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and
in proximity to freshwater. It is believed that manatees require a source of freshwater to drink.

1i

Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may
occasionally feed on fish. They spend 5 to 8 hours a day feeding and consume up to 11.00 percent of
their body weight.
The main threats to the manatees existence are from the destruction of habitat and injury by boat/barge
collisions and flood control structures.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The required habitat for the West Indian manatee is not present. The water depth that is critical for the
West Indian manatee is not present in Pantego Creek. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and no record of existing West Indian manatee were found
within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to the West Indian manatee will result
from project construction.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 14

Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
' Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: September 13, 1970
' The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred form New Jersey to southern Florida and west to
eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The
' RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal
plain. The few populations found in the Piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of
' former populations.
The adult RCW has a plumage that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides
' of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast
and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek
patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
' The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris),
for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50.00 percent pine, lack a thick
' understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds
nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least
30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500.00 ac (200.00 ha). This acreage must be
' contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with the
fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12.00 to 100.00 ft (3.66 to
30.48 m) above the ground and average 30.00 to 50.00 ft (9.10 to 15.70 m) high. The nesting trees can
1 be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The incrustation of sap is
believed to be used as a defense by the RCW against possible predators. A colony of woodpeckers
usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in
' April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number from
three to five eggs. All members of the colony share the raising of the young. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
' Habitat that is critical to the red-cockaded woodpecker is not present. The mature, open pine stands
that the RCW needs are not present in the project area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and there were no records of existing populations of red-
cockaded woodpecker were found within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to
the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project construction.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP 4: B-4024 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 15

Canis rufus (red wolf) Experimental
' Animal Family: Canidae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The red wolf previously ranged throughout the southeastern United States including the South Atlantic
coast, and as far west as Oklahoma and Texas. The red wolf became extinct throughout much of its
' range due to loss of habitat, trapping and shooting, and the expansion of the coyotes range. Currently
efforts are being made to reestablish the red wolf into its former range. In North Carolina the red wolf
has been reintroduced into the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in Dare County and there is a
planned reintroduction of the red wolf into Haywood and Swain counties in the extreme western part of
the state.

11,

The red wolf is a medium-sized 55.00 to 67.00 in (1.40 to 1.70 m) in length and weigh 45.00 to 90.00
lb (20.00 to 41.00 kg) canid smaller than the gray wolf and larger and hardier than the coyote. The red
wolf can be identified by its more elongated head and shorter coarser pelage than the gray wolf. It has a
coloration similar to that of the coyote, but with a darker element.
Habitat requirements for the red wolf are not specific, but it does need heavy vegetation to provide
adequate shelter and denning materials.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The heavy vegetation and denning materials required by the red wolf for shelter and denning are not
present. The project area lacks sufficient forested area suitable for the red wolf. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and there were no records of
existing populations of red wolf were found within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. Thus, no
impacts to the red wolf will result from project construction.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
t Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: mid-May to June

This perennial herb has slender stems that grow to a height of 1.00 to 2.00 ft (0.30 to 0.61 m) from a
rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals beneath the showy yellow flowers and
usually occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in terminal racemes of five petal flowers and occur
from mid-May to June. Fruits are present from July through October.
This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins
(areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to
occur on deep peat in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly
drained depressions of unknown origins). The grass-shrub ecotones it occurs in are fire maintained. It
is rarely associated with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 16

I

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The ecotones between longleaf pine upland and pond pine pocosins, Carolina bays, and grass-shrub
ecotones maintained by fire required by the rough-leaved loosestrife are not present within the project
area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and
revealed no records of existing populations of the rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of
the project area. Thus, no impacts to the rough-leaved loosestrife will result from project construction.
Aeschynomene virginica (Sensitive joint-vetch) Threatened
Plant Family: Fabaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late July - August
This plant historically had a range along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina north to Pennsylvania
and Delaware.
This annual legume can obtain a height of 3.28 to 6.56 ft (1.00 to 2.00 m) in a single growing season.
It has single stems that may branch near the top. The leaves are 0.79 to 4.72 in (2.00 to 12.00 cm) long,
even-pinnate, with entire, gland- dotted leaflets. The flowers are irregular, legume-like, and 0.39 in
(1.00 cm) across. The yellow, red streaked flowers grow in racemes. Fruits are produced from late
July to early October and are loment with 6 to 10 segments. Fruits turn dark brown when they are ripe.
The sensitive joint-vetch is found in riverbanks, swamps, and freshwater tidal marshes, close enough to
the ocean to be influenced by tidal fluctuations and far enough upstream to live in fresh or only slightly
brackish water. Soil disturbance is important in getting seeds planted and away from birds and insects.
Some observations suggest that seedlings may only germinate in disturbed soils and/or plant material
that has been deposited on the bank. Soil disturbance increases the reproductive success of sensitive
joint-vetch by covering and protecting exposed seeds from washout and predation. Full sun and bare
substrates are thought to significantly enhance germination.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The maintained disturbed community is a suitable habitat for the sensitive joint-vetch. However, no
species of vetch were found in the project area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
was reviewed on June 12, 2001 and revealed no records of existing populations of the sensitive joint-
vetch within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. The project will have no effect on sensitive joint-
vetch.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and
' are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally listed or proposed as
Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and therefore
should be included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is
' under consideration for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 17

I
addition, organisms, which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
I the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
There are 5 Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Beaufort County. A survey for these
species was not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the
' NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats, on June 12, 2001, revealed no federal species of
concern within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area.
' Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Beaufort County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
1 Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC* No
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow SR No
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC* No
' Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC No
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C* No
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under regulations
adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as
1 Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
' "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally
more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.

LJ
L

t
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 18

Ci

r

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Basinwide Information Management System, [Online]. Available:
http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Repons/repons.html [2001, June 28].
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Lists of Active Permits, [Online]. Available: http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/pei-mits.xls
[2001, June 28]
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEHNR. 1993. Classification and Water Quality Standards for North CarolinaRiver Basins.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
NCDEHNR. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Division of
Environmental Management.
NCDEM. March 2000 Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Biological Conservation Database.
Palmer, Willliam M. and Alvin L. Braswell, 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrate of the United States, 3`d. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 19

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
' Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
1 Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
r USDA. 1995. Soil Survey Beaufort County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
' US Fish and Wildlife Service List of Threatened and Endangered Species in Beaufort County, [Online].
Available: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/entylist/beaufort.html [2001, June 28]
' Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
1

L

North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-4024 February 2002
' The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-311.00 Page 20

N IIiUHN; 1
'BEAUFORT COUNTY
Canal _tI
. _.._.._.._.._..........................
i
Canal
..........
J. _ .. _.. _.. _.. _.. _ .. .
1
I _.._.._.._.._..?_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. _.._.._.._.-_. .-.._.._.._.._.._.._ i
1626 5
Momi Star
E+ Ch.
j 1627
w
Swindell
1
25,/
1626\ B-,..4024 /
1634, ? `~ r
-.._.._. U .._.._
1 Wilkinson rs
i OPT 1624 1621
_.._.-l_.._.._.._.._.._.._..i.. _.. _. ` r
1623
\ v \'1
? O
i
i
r' 1616 i
24 i
_ 1_ , Antioch:.Ch. 161